Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Old Georgetown Loop office area. The applicant provided responses to all of the approval criteria. I'm happy to read them out if you wish. During the adoption of the Sweetgrass Basket Stand Special Consideration Area to the Mount Pleasant Overlay Zoning District, the old Georgetown Loop office area was identified as an area to be solely for office and professional uses designed to have little impact to adjacent residential uses. Residents of the area identified the allowed land uses of the residential office and general office zoning districts in which the proposed use is not allowed to be best suited for this area.

There we go.

The proposed consumer goods rental center use is a higher intensity use permitted only in the more intensive zoning districts, and it was not identified as an allowed use for the area during the adoption process in 2007. Therefore, staff recommends disapproval of the proposed amendments to allow the consumer goods rental center use. We received no public input ahead of this meeting, and all notifications were sent as required.

Thank you. We appreciate staff's comprehensive report. Are there any questions for staff from commission members? Mr. Morris?

So this overlay was adopted by Town Mount Pleasant as well, right? It's like a joint effort between the county and the town? Yes. So if this were to be adopted, how would that affect their overlay?

They would likely need to amend to allow this use as well if we wanted it to remain consistent. But as it would stand, it would just be ours would allow this new use and theirs would not.

OK. Thank you.

Any other questions? Just one quick one. Consumer Goods Rental Center, is that allowed anywhere else in the overlay under some of the other zoning categories?

I am not sure. It is allowed in some more general residential office or general office designations that are outside of the overlay district, but I did not look at that. I apologize.

Thank you. 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'll start with the applicant if they are here. Is the applicant present?

OK. Got Maybel Coakley.

Would you like to speak?

Good evening. My name is Maybel Foreman Coakley. And the reason for me attending this meeting today.

Ms. Coakley, could we get your address as well?

My address is 2722 Highway 17 North. Thank you. Mount Pleasant, South Carolina.

Thank you.

From the letter that I received from the county, I am really, I disapprove of making this addition and these building what you are planning on building because of the fact that we own a sweet grass basket on Highway 17 And right now for us, the traffic is a lot of traffic. A lot of our customers are not able to stop because we got so much traffic. And the more building that you put on 17, it's really worse for us. Right now, it's hard for us to get out our driveway on 17. And that's my main concern. I was weaving sweetgrass basket for over 70 years. And it is really, this is a gift that God has given us. This is a God-given gift. And we really would like more special, I mean, give us more consideration there. I'm just praying that God will touch your heart and your mind and think about us on 17, not to do all these buildings.

Joanne Cokeson.

Good afternoon. My name is Joanne Cokeson. I live at 2626 London Lane, Mount Pleasant. As far as this, we really don't know what is it that they plan to put in this area. And right now, we really don't need anything else in the area because we're overcrowded, as Maybelle already said. We can't even get out of our own driveways to get to where we go because the traffic and the congestion is horrible in our area. We really don't need anything else put in the area, not only to interrupt the lives for the basket makers, but every community member that lives in the area. So first of all, we would like to know what is it that they're planning to put there. But in the meantime, my response is nay, we don't need anything else in the area. Thank you.

Louis Jefferson.

Yes, Lewis Jefferson, I reside at 1128 McKnight Road, Seven Mile Settlement Community in Mount Pleasant. And I'm here to represent the voice and wishes of the community organization CAGE. community action group for encouragement and we work with the town and the county several years ago setting up things that allow within the loop and the zoning area. Those things are already in place and we're not comfortable with setting a new precedent by approving such a project as this, whatever it might be. I conclude with Joanne that No one has contacted, I can't find anyone in our community that was contacted about the possibility of this business. I looked at the map. I cannot find exactly where it is. Typically the county marks the TMS property by signage. We haven't been able to find any signage on Georgetown Highway or on 17 itself. So it's kind of like, something flying under the radar, and we just hope that you all will stand up and not allow this. It's not a matter of approving or disapproving it. It's just not allowed, so why are we even here discussing the matter? Thank you for your consideration.

Fondie Brown? Is there a Fondie Brown? Yep. Did you want to speak? No? Okay. Anthony Gray? No? Okay. Someone with the last name of, I think, Brown? Lorraine? Larry Brown? Larry Brown? No? You're good? Okay. Let's see. Ermin Smalls?

Okay.

And then George Freeman is the last person who signed in to speak.

Good evening. George Freeman, president of the CAGE organization, 1450 Bowman Road, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. I don't have much to say. Mr. Jefferson has already spoke about the fact that he served on the HIGHWAY 17 CORRIDOR TASK FORCE AND WE SPENT MONTHS WORKING ON THIS AND WE HOPE THAT EVERYBODY ON THIS BOARD REALIZE THAT YOUR STAFF HAS MADE THE RIGHT RECOMMENDATION TO DISAPPROVE THIS BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WILL IMPACT THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY IN A DEVASTATING MANNER. WE KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF PRESSURE TO MAKE CHANGES IN MOUNT PLEASANT BUT WE HOPE THAT THE PLANNING BOARD AND that you follow the staff's recommendation, that the county follows your recommendation if you do follow the staff's to disapprove this because if you open this can of worms, we'll be in big trouble in Mount Pleasant and be trying to eliminate as much problem as we can in our community. Thank you.

Thank you. This case is now closed to public comment. Is there a motion and a second from the Commission?

I'd like to put forth the motion, Mr. Chair. I'd like to put forth the motion that we adhere to staff's recommendation for approval to amend the ordinance or to change it.

Staff recommended disapproval, from my understanding.

So staff recommended disapproval.

Correct. So that would be what I'm putting forth a motion to.

I second. That's disapproval. That's correct. The staff recommendation. That's correct. Okay.

So we have a motion and a second to accept the staff's recommendation of disapproval. Is there any discussion from the commission members or questions for staff?

Mr. Jones? I support the staff, I think. any justification for approving this application. I think it's simple.

Mr. McConnell?

I'm good.

Okay. All right. If there's no further discussion, it's time for the vote. Please call the roll.

On the motion to disapprove, Commissioner Davis? Aye. Commissioner Lesane?

Aye.

Commissioner Jones?

Aye.

Commissioner Kent?

Aye.

Commissioner McConnell?

Aye.

Commissioner Morris?

Aye.

Vice-Chair Pilatos?

Aye.

Commissioner Cox? Aye. The motion passes 8-0.

County Council will hear this request at their public hearing on September 8, 2026 at 6.30 p.m. in Council Chambers and again at their September 17, 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 case SB DV 0 1 2 6 0 3 3 4 4 a subdivision plot application taking one existing lot in creating a total of two lots at TMS 5 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 8 1 2 3 5 long point road, also known as blue Boone hall plantation and gardens, a property listed in the national register of historic places. I believe Chris Cohen will be presenting.

Yes, thank you. Good afternoon. So we have SBDV 03344 for the minor subdivision of one existing lot, creating a total of two lots for the parcel number 580 ending in 058 at 1235 Long Point Road. Here we have the future land use map. So you can see it's resource management designated in green. We have the current zoning, resource management. Again, the representation of the current zoning, showing the parcel. And the aerial view. The historic property. And the FEMA flood zone. Site photos looking at Long Point Road and Oak Street. And Long Point Road to the left and to the right. Here we have the plat, so you'll notice over on the left hand, the middle to left hand side is where it says new lot area, taking 1.53 acres out of the entire parcel. So over to the left hand side, that is taking the one existing parcel and subdividing it into two lots. SC State Law Section 629-340, Functions, Powers, and Duties of Local Planning Commissions, B and C, regulations for the subdivision or development of land and appropriate revisions thereof, and to oversee the administration of the regulations that may be adopted as provided in this chapter. An official map and appropriate revision on it showing the exact location of existing or proposed public streets, highways and utility rights-of-way and public building sites together with regulations to control the erection of buildings or other structures or changes in land use within the rights-of-way building sites or open spaces within its political jurisdiction or a specified portion of it as set forth in this chapter. The purpose in order to encourage the preservation of the historic character of historic properties and historic districts preliminary and minor subdivision plat applications as defined in the Charleston County zoning and land development regulations ordinance for historic properties and districts and properties located within 300 feet of the historic properties and districts must be evaluated by the commission prior to final determination by the Charleston County Planning Commission. Commission evaluation, they shall evaluate each subdivision plat application subject to section 21-6 subdivision plat application reports for compliance with the cultural resources element of the comprehensive plan. The commission shall provide a report on the application to the planning commission that addresses whether and how the application is or is not consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the cultural resources element of the comprehensive plan. A majority of the HPC members present and voting shall be required. The commission shall not defer a subdivision plat application. Notice newspaper posted community interests, neighbor and parties and interest notice of the commission meeting shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of section 21-8 notices of this ordinance. HPC cannot approve, deny or defer subdivision applications. Charleston County Comprehensive Plan 3.4.3 Cultural Resource Element Goal. And here we have the element strategies and time frames showing CR1 through CR5, CR5 through CR10, CR11 through CR15. The Historic Preservation Commission report. All six commission members present stated they found the proposed subdivision to be consistent with the cultural resources element of the comprehensive plan for the following reasons. The subdivision simply divides one existing parcel into two lots while retaining the existing resource management zoning on the property. The plaque complies with all requirements of the zoning and land development regulations ordinance, including the RM district standards. RM policies allow very low density residential and continued economic use of private land, so long as development does not threaten the underlying resource base. The proposed minor subdivision does not appear to authorize any specific use, or intensity that would directly impact Boone Hall's historical structures or documented cultural resources. And cultural resource element strategies cited were one, four, seven, eight, nine, 11, and 12. The element goal, Historic Preservation Commission report application is consistent. Cultural, historic, and archeological resources, unique settlement patterns of traditionally low country communities, such as historically African American communities and family settlements, and traditional activities such as sweetgrass basket making should be preserved and protected from potential negative impacts of growth and development. And again, cited CR 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12. ZLDR Section 8.3.2 Planning Commission Review. Determine whether or not the proposed subdivision is consistent with all requirements of this ordinance and the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Recommendation. The RM or Resource Management Zoning District implements the resource management policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The resource management future land use designation states, resource management areas generally encompass undeveloped lands with a rural area that are used principally for timber production, wildlife habitat, recreational and commercial fishing, and limited agriculture. These areas encompass significant acreage of fresh, brackish, and saltwater tidal marshes, as well as important habitat for non-game and endangered species. Designation of resource management areas recognizes the importance of a coordinated effort to protect and conserve natural resources while allowing for the continued economic use of private property and public lands. The type and intensity of development in resource management areas should support the needs of timber production, wildlife habitat management, recreation, agriculture, and areas of environmental sensitivity. Developed uses should not constitute a threat to the resource base through either physical encroachment or indirect impacts. Development should also be compatible with land management requirements essential to maintenance of the resource base. Accordingly, residential development should be limited to very low density with a maximum density of one dwelling unit per 25 acres. Clustering and other techniques may be used to ensure compatibility with best management practices, Appropriate public services and facilities that are consistent with the goals and strategies of this plan and that do not threaten the natural resources this category is intended to protect should be permitted to ensure sufficient provision of services. The application complies with all requirements of the Charleston County Zoning and Land Development Regulations Ordinance, including those of the Resource Management Zoning District. Because the application is consistent with both the comprehensive plan and the ZLDR, staff recommends approval. Public input for July 15th of 2026, Historic Preservation Commission meeting. Prior to the meeting, six comments in opposition were received. The applicant spoke in support at the meeting and none spoke in opposition at the meeting. No public comments were received in support or in opposition prior to this meeting. And it looks like it's, there we go.

All right, thank you. We appreciate the reports that came from the Historic Preservation Commission and staff, as well as the HPC report that found the subdivision compatible with the comprehensive plan. Are there any questions for staff from commission members?

Yes.

Could you go over for us again the ownership structure of Boone Hall? Any subdivision of that sort of property just makes me nervous.

Sure. So, I mean, the ownership, I mean, Boone Hall, I believe that it's held through an LLC, and that would just need to – they can speak over – Because I don't have all of the owners listed out and how they own it right in front of me. I don't have that in the presentation. So the applicant could speak to that, certainly. They'd be able to tell you that in more detail.

And is there a conservation easement on the entire property?

There is, yes.

Okay. And I know this is a little bitty corner for a family member's home, but 500 acres, one house per 25 acres would be still a lot of houses there should it be subdivided in future, but could not be subdivided further?

It could be subdivided to meet the density and whatever the conservation easement allows, but it couldn't go beyond that. And the applicant is here, and they can answer questions about the conservation easement.

Wonderful. Thank you. You're welcome.

Any other questions? Okay. We will now hear public comments. Each speaker will be limited to two minutes. Please state your name and address before giving your comments. We will begin with the applicant if they are here.

David Miller?

Good afternoon. Thank you, Chris. My name is David Miller. I live in Murrells Inlet, South Carolina. I'm an attorney. I represent Boone Hall. The reason an out-of-town lawyer does is because of family relationships with the McRae family that we've had for a long time. I've got with me today Ms. Elizabeth McRae Peterson. And the McRae family, as many of you may know, own Boone Hall. It is presently in a conservation easement. In looking at that and setting it up, we took two parcels that could possibly be subdivided out in the future if the owner were living. So Elizabeth's brother, Willie, could carve his house out if need be, and Elizabeth could carve her house out if need be, but that upon their passing, these would be life estate deeds, and it would revert back into the entity that owns and controls Boone Hall. What we're doing right now is putting Boone Hall in its entirety in perpetuity into a public benefit foundation. It's a wonderful thing the McCray family is doing. The IRS regulations don't allow you to retain a personal benefit and also meet the 501c3 designation. So if Elizabeth kept living in her house and it was in the nonprofit, that would be a violation. So they had the foresight to set this up. And what we're asking to set out is her house. So it's one and a half acres out of 700. And we will hopefully set her house out of the property that is put into the foundation. The property is currently owned by an LLC. If you want me to answer any questions, I'll be happy to. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant?

Thank you very much. That answers my question.

Okay, thank you all.

Thank you. Any other speakers?

Jim Westerhold?

Hi, Jim Westerhold, 1235 Long Point Road. And just to clarify, I think Mr. Miller covered it, but yes, conservation easement is still very much intact, which some limits and restrictions are no paved roads forever. no more than five houses on the 738 acres forever. And so I just wanted to clarify that and just add to David's compliments of the McRae's and also explain this is something very worthwhile the McRae's have done back in 2019. And so this is part of the process to go about allowing Ms. Elizabeth McRae Peterson to live there and serve on the board of the foundation. Thank you. Thank you.

This case is now closed to public comment. Is there a motion and a second from the commission?

Motion to approve. Second.

So we have a motion and a second to approve the subdivision. Is there any discussion from commission members or any questions of staff?

I would just like to say thank you to the McCrays. It's a wonderful thing indeed that they have done. And I, for one, appreciate it very much. And I wish we had more families like yours. Thank you.

If there's no further discussion, it's time for a vote. Please call the roll.

On the motion to approve, Commissioner Davis?

Aye.

Commissioner Lesane?

Aye.

Commissioner Jones?

Aye.

Commissioner Kent?

Aye.

Commissioner McConnell?

Aye.

Commissioner Morris?

Aye.

Vice Chair Palatos?

Aye.

Commissioner Cox? Aye. The motion passes 8-0.

Thank you. This is the final decision of the Planning Commission. If any person with a substantial interest in a decision of the Planning Commission chooses to appeal this decision, they may do so to the Circuit Court of Charleston County. Such appeal shall be filed within 30 calendar days after today's date. The next item on the agenda is case SBDVAA062600007, an appeal of a subdivision-related administrative decision regarding the approval of the preliminary... Major subdivision plat application SBDV072402874, Leland Park subdivision, TMS number 6140000004. Pursuant to Article 3.14, Appeals of Subdivision-Related Administrative Decisions of the Charleston County Zoning and Land Development Regulations Ordinance, an appeal shall be sustained only if the Planning Commission finds that the administrative official erred. At least two-thirds of the members present and voting shall be required to reverse any order, requirement, decision, or determination of any administrative officer or agency. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be accompanied by specific written findings of fact and conclusions of law clearly stating the reason for the decision. I'll ask Tamara Avery to pull up the presentation. And then the order of the hearing on this case will be as follows. First, staff will give an overview of the appeal. Then each appellant will be given five minutes to speak. Following that, we will ask for public comments, having each speaker limited to two minutes. Lastly, staff will make a presentation regarding the appeal. Following staff's presentation, I will request a motion and a second. The motion must be accompanied by specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. Discussion can occur after the motion is made and seconded, and then we will vote. I'll ask staff to now introduce the case.

Good afternoon. So this is an overview of appeal SBDVAA062600007. The appeal of the subdivision application SBDV072402874 which is a proposed subdivision at property located at 2535 Jack Leland Drive, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. TMS number 614-00-00-004 into eight lots. The property owner is Leland Park, LLC. The property size is approximately 8.127 acres. It is zoned low-density residential, R4, and subdivision staff approved the preliminary plot application SBDV 07-24-02874 on May 15, 2026. This is a future land use of the property. This is the current zoning map of the property. This is an aerial view of the property. And this is the approved subdivision plot. Appellants Margaret and John Cagle, Leslie and David Brady, Hugh and Beverly Murphy, Sherry and Clay Boswell, and Allison O'Connor and Ray Hobbs. The application dated June 29, 2026 seeks to appeal the administrative decision of Joel Evans, Zoning and Planning Director, citing administrative errors in review of the subdivision application pursuant to Charleston County ZLDR Ordinance Article 314. The appellants cite the following errors as a basis of the administrative error in the approval of SBDV 02874. denial of due process, expired federal wetlands permit, invalid stormwater permit, preliminary site plan, ingress-egress, grading and drainage plan, demolition and tree protection plan, utility profiles, water and sewer availability, critical line setbacks, right-of-way ownership, denial of access to existing houses, and availability of alternative ingress-egress to the site. Appeals of Subdivision-Related Administrative Decisions. Per the Charleston County and Land Development Regulations Ordinance, Chapter 3, Development Review Procedures, Article 314, Appeals of a Subdivision-Related Administrative Decision, Section 314.8, Approval Criteria Findings of Facts States, an appeal shall be sustained only if the Planning Commission finds that the administrative official erred The decision of the Planning Commission shall be accompanied by specific written findings of facts and conclusions of law, clearly stating the reason for the decision. Those written findings shall be delivered to parties of interest by certified mail and permanently filed with the Zoning and Planning Department. And this is the section, so we had six individual applications and it was later revised for all six to be on one subdivision appeal, so that's why we have the six different ones and then they all consolidated. Okay, and now we're ready for the presentation from the appellants.

We'll now hear from the appellants. Will the appellants for case SBDVAA062600007, Margaret and John Cagle, Leslie and David Brady, Hugh and Beverly Murphy, Sherry and Clay Boswell, Allison O'Connor and Ray Hobbs, please come up to present their case. As the appellants, you may present individually for five minutes each or collectively for up to 30 minutes.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Ray Hobbs. I'm one of the six appellants. We had one of our speakers today arrive after the list was brought inside. Would it be possible to add Mr. AJ Leon, gentleman right back here, to our speaker list for the public content section? Yeah, that's fine. Okay, thank you very much. We appreciate that. Again, my name is Ray Hobbs. I live at 2505 Charter Oaks Drive. My parcel number for my home is 614-05-00266. I also own a one-acre parcel immediately adjacent to the development that is being planned. That parcel is 614-00-00-006. Get all the zeros in. I would like to be a little bit informal today. I do have a presentation that I'm going to ask Clay Boswell, one of our fellow apparelants, to bring up and share with you. I have nine copies of the documents that I am referencing. Clay, Clay, Nikki, thank you so much.

Our primary question today is, why are we here?

And first of all, I would like to say that we are not here to bash anybody. Ms. Avery and I have communicated extensively over the last number of years, and she's been most helpful. And I really don't think it's fair for us to have to find a way to prove she did something wrong. I firmly believe in what I'm going to share with you is that the information provided to Ms. Avery and to Mr. Wanamaker in public works was inaccurate. I'm not going to say it was intentionally done, but I'm going to say that... Miss Avery was diligent in her efforts to find and obtain a copy of the deed of record that shows that Carson Holmes actually owns the Jack Leland Road right of way. I'm speaking to item number 11 on our appeal for the ownership of the Jack Leland Road right of way. It is true that this right of way is in the town of Mount Pleasant. And there are plans currently in front of the town of Mount Pleasant. But for today's meeting, there are a number of pieces of this puzzle that come together in this roadway. I would like to start out with an explanation. This is a story that goes back 20-something years. If you look at page one in your book, I put an index in here that references all the different pages throughout. This is essentially a chain of title. And it starts with the 008 parcel, which is owned by Stratton Place Partnership. They are represented today by Mr. William Porsche, their managing general partner. who will be able to speak later on. What I would like to do is take you through this process as quickly as I can so I don't use up my other appellant's time. The 008 parcel has been part of Charleston County for a couple hundred years. And over the years, it's evolved, and certain pieces of it have been cut up and sold off and developed, Charleston National Country Club. The development I live in, Charter Oaks Drive. And if you look at page 1B, which is this one, this is the original direction that the Jack Leland Road took. from the old Georgetown Highway all the way back to the family home on Porsche Creek. It was a little over two miles. All that remains today is 526 feet of Jack Leland Road, and it is the piece that we're speaking to today. And page two is a copy of book J, page 100, which was done in 1954. And it dedicated these properties to members of the Porsche family, family siblings of Mr. Philip Porsche. I own the highlighted area C. OK? The 50-foot roadway at this time is shown here. It didn't have the name Jack Leland Road at that point. Mr. Jack Leland was the first person that had a lot. He was a friend of Mr. Porche's, and he lived in the 007 parcel, which is Miss O'Connor's home at this point. Over the course of the 90s, Mr. Scott Beach and his wife, Joy, began to accumulate the properties that were owned on J-100 by members of the family. And by the year 2000, they had accomplished that. They owned parcel 002 up to 005. So if I could just move over a little bit, all of that is in page seven. You can actually see the documents that show the parcels that he has. When I went to buy my property, I spoke to Mr. Veach, and he told me, he said, all I'm going to do is build my house out here. Well, that changed. Things change. We understand that. He decided to put together a group to develop a development plan. This is on page nine.

This is a preliminary site plan drawing done by Seaman Whitesides as a request for Mr. Veach.

I show you that because right after that, on page 10, is a quitclaim deed. This quitclaim deed is the one that's at the basis of all that we're talking about today. And my purpose in sharing all this, everything I'm saying and sharing with you today is in your notebook. Every document, legal, document that's recorded in charleston county is in here my point in my conversation with you today is basically leland park llc does not own the jack leland road right of way they do it has never been conveyed we have correspondence from mr beach's attorney you'll find it on page 11 the underlying sentence, unfortunately, Jack Leland Drive was not properly depicted in the Plath references in both deeds. A statement from the attorney representing Mr. Beach admitting to the fact that the Jack Leland Road did not exist in the deeds. Over the past year, since 2005, well, in 2010, I skipped over myself. Mr. Veach formed Tidal Creek Properties. Tidal Creek Properties took the deed to the properties and gave the Veach family stock. Am I at 30 minutes already? We got 30 minutes. I'm sorry. My bad. I don't do this every day. So Mr. Veach decided that he was going to have a development and took the stock in lieu of the deed. They hired a gentleman by the name of Billy Attaway with Attaboy Investments. He came in, he helped them put together this plan that you see there on page nine. And then he went to It's actually, I lost my page on the index there. We are up to page 2010. When they went to get a survey to do this flat, they had entered into an agreement with the ownership of parcel 271 for an ingress, egress access from the Charter Oaks Drive into through 271 to the 004 parcel. There was one problem. The 50-foot right of way of the Jack Leland Road was between the two. They went to the Stratton Place Partnership and asked them, we'd like to abandon the right of way around our property so that we can connect to the 271 parcel.

I said, okay, sure.

They did a quick claim deed.

Oh, I'm sorry. They did a quick claim deed, and it's referenced throughout conversations, all of the documents. All of the deed documents of all the properties out here all reference the original property of 008. And in this case, what they were trying to do was to take the roadway that existed around their parcel, the 004 parcel, abandon that, and then it connected the 271 to the 004 parcel. Made sense. And the quick claim deed gave them access. The quick claim deed said, specifically, ingress, egress, access only. just like me, just like Ms. O'Connor, just like Stratton Place who has the 621 parcel. We have access only to our parcels from this right-of-way. Our point today is the documents that you see in front of you all show clearly, legally, factually documented that the right-of-way presented by Crescent Homes, I don't know if they're here today or not, but in the documents that they shared with Ms. Avery and others, Department of Environmental Sciences and others, to gain this access road, which makes no sense. They're going to destroy... The backyards, we're going to have a road 30 feet behind our house, but I'm talking about the legality of this parcel. Ms. Avery started asking questions about the deed being presented, and she asked for an affidavit of ownership. This affidavit is in your book, and it was provided for the 004 parcel. She continued to ask on many occasions, and I quote from April 16th, 2025, page 23 in your book, provide documentation that Levi Grantham owns Jack Leland Drive. The deed provided does not specify the road. She got a copy of a quitclaim deed that was done with the previous owner eight years after the transaction of sale took place. It references the same information that was on the quick claim deed that was done in 2005. Book EE, page 410. This is, and I'm happy to share this, this is Book EE, page 410. And it clearly shows the roadway around the parcel to be abandoned it shows the roadway in front of our parcels to remain specifically legally recorded Members of the Commission, I am grateful for your time. I appreciate your consideration. I hope you will use the information that I've shared with you to cast a vote today to sustain our appeal and stop this nonsense with this road being built by someone who doesn't even own it. It's a bad situation. We hope that you will see our way. I'll defer to our next. Thank you.

Hi. Go ahead. My name is Margaret Cagle. My husband John and I live at 2509 Charter Oaks Drive in Charleston National. Our property line adjoins the Jack Leland Road right away. I want to speak today to just two things this approval does to our home. Ray kind of touched on it. We're going to have an unprecedented roadway configuration at our rear property line and the needless destruction up to 42 trees. It has nothing to do with building a single home in this area. We bought our house knowing that we would have a public street in front of us like every home on Charter Oaks. What we didn't count on was a second roadway along our rear property line, roughly the same distance between our house as in front of it. To our knowledge, no residential property in the town of Mount Pleasant has ever been approved with a roadway on both the front and rear boundary in this way. This same concern was raised and recognized. as a potential issue by a committee member at a prior hearing on this project. A home bordered by vehicle traffic, headlights, noise, and construction on two sides at once is not hypothetical planning exercise for us. It is fundamental unaddressed change to the character of the neighborhood we bought into. And no one has ever explained to us why this should be considered acceptable when it's apparently nowhere else in Mount Pleasant. That same roadway is tied to a second unresolved Problem in this approval, the demolition and tree protection plan, C-110, authorizes removal, reduction, or retention of 42 trees in the maritime forest in the section of Homesite 8, south of the OCRM critical line that is not reachable by any vehicle or construction equipment. These 42 trees have no relationship whatsoever to construct in any of the eight proposed home sites, and SCDES has confirmed no application for any OCRM critical line encouragement has ever been filed for that area. For our family, these trees are not an abstraction on a plan. They're part of the buffer that stands between our home and this project. And then, you know, on top of gaining a road on both sides, not going to be the same place we bought into. No one from the developer of the county, the Corps of Engineers has ever, SEDES has ever contacted us about either of these before the plat was approved on May of 2026. We learned what this project would actually do to our home only because our neighbors and I did the research ourselves. Zoning and planning exists to protect existing property owners from exactly this kind of unreasonable harm and a site plan that surrounds an existing home with roadway on two sides By clearing 42 trees that serve no development purpose is precisely the kind of harm we should catch before it happens not after We're asking the Commission to do two things. First, require the developer and county staff to specifically evaluate and document the front and rear roadway configuration created by the site plan and determine whether it was consistent with the excess neighborhood character standards this county applies to residential subdivisions elsewhere in Mount Pleasant. Second, restrict any and all clearing, grading, or tree removal activity in the out parcel of home site number eight south of the critical line until the developer submits a separate justified plan explaining why 42 trees with no development purpose need to come down. We respectfully ask that the commission correct this before it becomes permanent. Thank you for your time and for hearing all six of our households today.

Good afternoon. My name is Hugh Murphy, and my wife and I live at 2548 Charter Oaks Drive in the Charter National Community, directly adjacent to Leland Park Subdivision. I'm one of the six folks that are under this docket ending in 007 here to speak specifically about tree preservation, construction disturbance limits, and the setback and buffer protections along Jack Leland Road, the out portion out parcel portion of the site and all new proposed property lines. Previously, there was extensive information given about the out parcel that has no design or at this point, but the destruction of 42 trees and that's been clearly defined and discussed. and I will not talk about it again. Secondly, there is an OCR land critical setback and a 15-foot setback within home site number eight previously discussed, but these same protections are left off the plans where Jack Leland Road borders 614-00-00-621, the adjacent marsh property boundary that runs behind the homes that face Charter Oaks Drive. If that boundary is not held to the same standard, there's nothing to stop additional clearing, additional to the right-of-way line or to any property line, but it should be shown. The county's own subdivision Rue comments show that a tree survey of all grand trees within 40 foot of every access easement, property line, drainage easement, and right-of-way tied to ZLDR Chapter 8.5. And to our knowledge, the survey was not submitted on this particular part of the property where the access road is shown. So therein lies, there's not been a survey of the trees that are adjacent to the access that has previously been discussed, which is right in the back of the property owners that face Charter Oaks Drive. Without a current survey along this side, no one can verify the standard that has been met. We want to make sure that the current plat, and we noted on the current plat, does not reflect such things as a limit of construction or permanent existing buffers that should remain on this particular property. The developer needs to submit Grand Tree Survey along Jacqueline Road and all property boundaries to be verified with the county. With this in mind, these trees are adjacent in these buffers are decorative and provide separation from us to an adjacent parcel that may or may not be developed. And we respectfully ask the commission provide or request this information before it's too late.

Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Leslie Brady. My husband Dave and I live at 2521 Charter Oaks Drive. My husband's unable to be here due to a medical procedure. Our home backs up directly to the proposed Leland Park subdivision, and the approved site plan includes an open stormwater ditch immediately adjacent to our rear property line. Outfall number three runs directly adjacent to our home site and five others. The ditch is to transfer stormwater runoff from lot number one via this proposed ditch to wetland A. The site plan calls for a roadway to eliminate wetland A and increase elevation from five feet mean sea level to seven and a half feet. To my knowledge, no stormwater flow analysis addressing the effect on our adjacent home was ever submitted. And to our knowledge, none was ever requested by the county. Raising that grade by two and a half feet changes where our water has nowhere left to go. I just took pictures of the standing water on the parcel next to our home that is a result of some gravel that was dumped in that area years ago during site work. Under the cover of darkness I must add it's hard to accept that the stormwater plan approved for this roadway along with the drainage outfall It depends on was built on a Corps of Engineers wetlands permit that had already expired Whether engineering assumptions went into that stormwater design were never re verified under a valid federal permit in Charleston County Public Works confirmed it was not even aware the permit had expired and excuse me when a developer of elevates a roadway by two and a half feet that is not a minor adjustment it is a fundamental change to the hydrology that our homes have relied upon since they were constructed flooding affects the value of our homes the safety of our foundations and the ability to use outdoor space we ask we are asking This commission to rescind the approval to correct all deficiencies and emissions and require a new stormwater analysis Lastly this commission must require the developer to demonstrate with data Please where our stormwater will go and what protections will be initiated should such an analysis reflect a negative impact This is not an abstract planning question It is the stormwater that already sits today before a single truck has moved any dirt. We respectfully ask the commission to hold this approval to the same standard any of us would be held to if we raised our own backyard two and a half feet against our neighbor's fence line.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Sherry Boswell. I live at 2540 Charter Oaks Drive with my husband. We moved into our home in April 2026, so we're like the new kids on the block. When we moved here, we saw a beautiful wooded and wetland area across the street. We never expected that it could become the source of such serious concern for our neighborhood. Although not my current occupation, I was a lawyer for more than 25 years, much of that time as a real estate attorney. From that perspective, the proposed development raises issues that are not minor technicalities. Questions involving wetland and stormwater permits, lawful ingress and egress, drainage, and the protection of adjoining property owners go to the heart of why land use and property laws exist in the first place. There also appears to be an unresolved question concerning ownership of the actual easement needed for access by the developer, as Ray spoke to earlier. These laws are intended to protect homeowners from consequences such as inadequate access, flooding, and avoidable harm to surrounding property. My neighbors and I are not discussing a hypothetical property law exam question. We are living with the potential real-world consequence of those decisions. Before this approval is allowed to stand, these issues should be fully resolved and supported by clear documentation in the record. homeowners should not be asked to bear the risk that a project may lack lawful access create drainage or flooding concerns or proceed without all required permits and approvals in place i respectfully ask this commission to grant this appeal and reverse the prior approval unless and until the developer has demonstrated through reliable documentation that clear rights concerning any necessary access easement and full compliance with all applicable permits, approvals and requirements. Thank you for your careful consideration.

Good afternoon. I'm the last person to talk today, so I guess I'd really like to say on behalf of all of us, thanks for letting us bend your ear for this long of a period of time. My name is Allison O'Connor. I own and reside at 1391 Stratton Place, parcel 614, ending in 007, in the Charleston National Community. I want to begin by naming the road at the center of this appeal for exactly what it is.

It's my driveway.

Not a right-of-way on an engineer's drawing. Not an access easement buried in a plat book. It is the only way I get to and from my home every single day. And under the plane in front of you, it's about to become a construction site. My property, along with two neighboring parcels, 621 and 006, have no access to the public road except through the Jack Leland Road right-of-way. This is not my opinion. It's recorded in the Platte Book J, page 100, and it satisfies every element South Carolina law requires for an easement of necessity under Title 27 of the South Carolina Code of Laws. Unity of ownership when the parcels were created, necessity at the time that they were severed, continuing necessity today, no alternative access available. three parcels, including mine, will be landlocked during construction. The approved site plan allows the developer to conduct demolition and construction directly on my driveway for months, possibly years, with no requirement that my access be maintained throughout that period. I am a school teacher at East Cooper Christian Preschool. I leave my home every weekday morning on a fixed schedule. When this exact concern was raised with the county staff, the response was, blocking my driveway would simply cost the developer a $500 per day fine. Respectfully, $500 day fine does not get me to my classroom. It does not replace lost income if I cannot leave my home. It is not a stand-in for a right which South Carolina law already guarantees me 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I and we are not asking the Commission to stop this subdivision. We are simply asking you to enforce what the law already requires. Continuous, unencumbered access to my home during construction from the first day of demolition to the last day of construction. In nearly three years of review on this application, nobody has ever contacted me directly about a plan that cuts off access to my home. I would like to paint a picture for everybody today. Imagine your home, your safe haven, your dispute from the outside world. Now, imagine someone is going to demolish your driveway. They're going to remove and reconfigure the only access you have to enter and leave your home, to be able to go to work, the grocery, the doctor, the only access that your children have to be able to go to school. They won't ask your permission or even check to see how this demolition will adversely affect your life for an undisclosed amount of time. If you've imagined all this and it sounds unsettling or dangerous or even remotely unreasonable, then I ask you to take what we're saying into consideration. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Before we open the floor to public comment, are there any questions from the Commission for the Appellants?

We'll do a staff presentation.

Yeah, we'll have a staff presentation shortly, and that'll be the opportunity. So we'll now hear from the public. Each speaker will be limited to two minutes. Please state your name and address before giving your comments.

Mr. Boswell? Yeah. All right. Tracy Poche? Okay.

Hi, everyone. My name is Tracy Porsche. I reside at 1497 Stratton Place, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, 29466. And my property parcel is the 621, which is actually marshland parcel, and it borders the 004 parcel. I just want to underscore some comments that had happened before regarding the demolition and tree protection plan. CCPC has approved tree removal and disturbance within an out parcel beyond the OCRM critical line. If you look on your maps, this area is an out parcel, which is located within lot eight on the currently approved plan. And you will see that it's an abnormally sized lot in comparison with the other seven. So I just want to make these few points just to make sure we are being heard. The out parcel in question is protected wetlands, and it is pristine maritime forest. The out parcel lies beyond the OCRM critical line. Where are the required OCRM, DHEC or agency permits to allow disturbance and tree cutting in this area? The out parcel is only accessible on foot. It's inaccessible to vehicular traffic, such as tree cutting equipment. The out parcel is outside of the proposed 4.5 acre development zone of the eight homes. The storm water permit supports this. Thank you for your time. I hope I've made some good points. Please consider all this and please hear our appeal for this subdivision. It's been ongoing for far too long and we would like to get this resolved. Thank you again, everybody. I appreciate it. Larry Hobbs.

Thank you. Sorry. My name is Larry Hobbs. I live at 1491. Most of everything I want to talk about has been covered, but I just want to say everything we have asked today, there is an alternate. There is a partial property that... will not affect anything you've heard here, and it comes in a different way. I really don't know. I really don't know why this hasn't been looked into or investigated. Lot 271, it's not big enough to build a house. It's on the front side of the property 004. It enters off of Charter Oaks Road, and it is available. I'd like for the commission to think about, okay, the plan that they presented, does have some side effects to everyone here, but there is an alternate for them to still to get into this development.

Will Dechamp.

Good afternoon. My name is Will Deschamps. I'm an attorney here at town at the Parker Poe Law Firm, which is for the address 850 Morrison Drive, Suite 400. I represent the developer, Leland Park, LLC. And with me today is Mr. Eric Bakey, far right, who's with the developer. Also, I have with me Rhett Reidenbach and Wes Monney from Revere Engineering, who is the civil engineering director. firm of record for this, and also Ms. Sydney Redman, who's an ecologist, with the ecological consultant firm, Passarella & Associates. And so I recognize this is not a court hearing. I want to be respectful of your time, and for that reason, I do not plan to go point by point. We have read staff's presentation and believe it made a reason and correct presentation of why this The preliminary plat approval was appropriately approved, but I did want to make myself and my team who was here available. We want to make sure the Planning Commission is comfortable with everything that's been presented. This team has worked tirelessly for a long time. A pre-application meeting was submitted to the county back in April of 2024. This formal application was submitted in July of 2024. Went through five rounds of comment with Mr. Evans, Ms. Avery, and their team, county staff, and put together a plan that we're proud of. This group is happy to be here today, stand behind their plan, answer any questions if need be. But we agree with county staff that in the appeal materials, and I see that I'm giving close, so if I get the bell rung, if I could just beg your indulgence for just a minute to wrap up, that no provision of the ZLDR was identified that has been violated. We agree with that. This plan was rigorously worked on for years to make sure it complies with county . Just one, if I may speak, just one final point on the, remind you that the standard here is whether Mr. Evans, Ms. Avery, and county staff erred. On the point of the ownership question that was raised earlier, proof of ownership was submitted to county staff. That was vetted, that was approved. It sounds like if there is somebody who has a rival. Thank you. If I may just make a point. Thank you. Would you like me to conclude? Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you very much.

Eric Beeky.

Hi, I'm Eric Bakey. I'm with Grantham Homes, representing the developer of Lakeland Park LLC. We're at 572 Savannah Highway in Charleston. Just to Will's point, we're here to answer any of the questions. I took a look at the detailed breakdown and point-by-point presentation that Tamara put together, and I agree with with everything she's presented that you'll see. Just the one point that the ownership of the road that We presented everything that we had as far as ownership and presented to the county and this is the first I've heard of anything from 2005 which is This is this is new. I've not seen anything up before so we're happy to present anything historically If it comes down to it But we believe we've got ownership of that road and have done our due diligence to provide very thorough engineering and design to get through the process I

Um, Sydney Redmond.

Good afternoon. My name is Sydney Redmond. I'm with Passerell and Associates as a senior ecologist and professional wetland scientist. I've been part of the project for several years now, starting back in 2022, where we helped coordinate and approve jurisdictional determination on the main parcel and move forward with the nationwide permitting of I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE NATIONWIDE PERMIT PROGRAM IS ON A ROTATING FIVE-YEAR RENEWAL SCHEDULE. THIS PROJECT RECEIVED VERY SIMILAR PERMITS IN 2021 AS IT DOES IN THE 2027 SET OF NATIONWIDE PERMITS AS IT HAS IN THE 2021 SET OF NATIONWIDE PERMITS. WE'VE ALSO BEEN IN TALKS WITH THE ARMY CORE OF ENGINEERS ON THE CURRENT 2026 SET OF NATIONWIDE PERMITS AND THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE WE ARE IN THE PROJECT. PROCESS STILL COVERED UNDER A ONE-YEAR GRACE PERIOD UNDER THE 2021 PERMITS, BUT STILL QUALIFYING FOR THE 2026 PERMITS IF NEED BE. SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THERE, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE.

THANK YOU.

Hey, good afternoon. My name is Wes Mooney. I'm representing the developer. I'm the civil engineer with Revere Group, a North Charleston-based civil engineering firm. I just want, you know, staff's going to go through point by point, so I won't spend more time on that. But just wanted to note that we have, you know, as has previously been mentioned, we've gone through multiple rounds of reviews with county staff and, you know, receive comments each time, work with them to address the comments in both the zoning department and the stormwater department, taking into account some FEMA regulations, county's stormwater regulations, come up with a grading and drainage design that has a series of swales and pipes that allows the stormwater to maintain its existing drainage pattern towards the marsh. So we're here for any questions. Did also, you know, staff will mention this as well, but I think there's a little bit of misunderstanding on the trees in the maritime forest. We're not clearing anything in the critical area. We're not cutting down 42 trees. We're only cutting down 12 trees as shown on the approved construction plans. So just wanted to reiterate that. Thank you.

Heidi Bass.

um excuse me hi i'm heidi bass i live at 1427 stratton place um just down the just a couple hundred feet away from jack leland road um my comments i support the appeal for this neighborhood and that road specifically because what you can't see from the aerial view and architectural drawings is what I see daily, walking my dogs, riding with my kids, running, currently coming out of Stratton Place, the sidewalk is on the right, marsh on this side, marsh on this side, Jack Leland is here, marsh on this side, marsh on this side, my sidewalk ends here. I've yet to see anybody show me how I'm supposed to get across To the other side of the street, when you put in this new neighborhood in this entrance, it's already covered here. There's no clear view coming out of it. Thankfully, we only have this one family to worry about currently. Just a few hundred feet in front of that is already a four-way stop where traffic is congested. I live this daily. It's a mistake to put this entrance where it is. Not only that, this proposed neighborhood, although it's only nine or eight houses, multiply that by construction vehicles, delivery people, guests, people coming in and out of their neighborhood, they cannot access a primary road. They have to go through my neighborhood or Charleston National. That's an aggressive amount of traffic to plop in the middle of two existing heavily trafficked neighborhoods already. Thank you.

Jay Leoni? Yes.

I'm a developer. I'm AJ Leone on the 271 parcel. I own the entity that put in Charter Oaks Drive, the 271 parcel at Charter Oaks Drive. I'm an owner in the entity that owns that, and we developed Charter Oaks Drive 27 years ago. If only there was a place to get some access or a way to get some access. You've heard all these fine folks who live on this drive.

There only was a way to get access into that parcel.

And if maybe the person who owned the parcel at the end of the drive was willing to sell that parcel to the developers, we don't have to tear down now 14 trees or 12 trees. When we put the road in at Charter Oaks Drive in 1998, we spent $995,000 to put in a gravel road parallel behind it. I don't even know what that's going to cost in these days. You don't have to do it. What I would suggest this board does is everyone knows it's going to be developed. It's a piece of land. In fact, when we developed this parcel, Mount Pleasant Water Works made us put in the sewer taps going across most of these folks' homes in between so that there would be access to Mount Pleasant water and sewer back there. We had to do that. Everyone knows it's going in. Give these folks a little more time, please. Give them a little more time. And by the way, I'm standing in front of you saying we're willing to sell that parcel. And they haven't contacted us in over two years. Thank you.

Thank you. The case is now closed to public comment. Yeah, apologies.

Good afternoon. Filippo Ravalico. I'm with the South Carolina Environmental Law Project, 510 Live Oak Drive, Mount Pleasant. This is a project with a long history. We've heard a little bit of it. And it's not the kind of project that deserves any leniency or flexibility in applying the ZLDR and the requirements. And both in their presentation and in their appeal, the appellants made a lot of points about problems that are with this. With the last few comments, we start hearing reference to the staff replies. I went through the staff replies, and I think there's two that are worth pointing to your attention. Error number nine in the appeal regarding water and sewer. staff replies is a confession leland park llc never complied with the relevant uh requirement in the zldr because the annexation that is in the document you're looking at was more than 10 years ago and it was the llc which is the applicant for this plot did not own the land they they They purchased the land in November of 2016. Those annexation are before. This is in the documents you're looking at. The other error that I think you should pay much attention, it was mentioned before, is number two, the expired wetlands permit or the permit from the Corps. Now, this is not the first time this commission has to witness some playing fast and loose with permit deadline and expirations. This time there's no governor's order that's going to help you or going to change the express meaning of ZLDR 842D10. A permit is required. A permit is required. That's the letter of the ZLDR. An expired permit is no permit at all. In their defense to a next point, staff says the quiet part out loud. An extension will be required before the final plat. An extension, you get it if you have a permit in place. You cannot extend something that has already expired. It's going to be a new permit, which proves that there's no permit at the moment of the application, at the approval of this subdivision preliminary plat. Keep in mind the purpose and the intent of the ZLDR, of the comprehensive planning, and all of that you heard tonight, and please listen to this voice. Thank you.

This case is now closed to public comment. We'll now hear a presentation by subdivision staff being appealed. Tamara.

Let me get that presentation back up.

Yeah, that's, now that's, oh.

OK. So my name's Tamara Avery. I am the staff member that has reviewed this project and approved it. Background on the application. The initial application was submitted July 16, 2024. We did several rounds of comments in August of 24, April of 25. September of 25, January of 26, April of 26. And then all the staff comments were finally answered as of May 15, 2026. And then we received the appellant's subdivision appeal application on June 11, 2026. So a summary of the appeal. Margaret and John Cagle, Leslie and David Brady, Hugh and Beverly Murphy, Sherry and Clay Boswell, Allison O'Connor and Ray Hobbs, per their application, is appealing the approved preliminary plat, SBDV 02874, based on various reasons cited in detail in the presentation. The appellants do not directly cite any section of the ZLDR in the appeal application. However, we tried to CITE WHAT WE THINK THEY WERE REFERENCING. AND THE APPEALANTS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED SIX SEPARATE Appeals, which were later combined, the combined appeal states, our intent is to share information which we believe will provide Charleston County Zoning and Planning Department and the developer with opportunities to eliminate all negative impacts caused by certain components of this plan towards achieving a future approval. The appellant's reasoning for appeal are stated in the following slides. So there are 13. I'll go through each one individually. The first one is that they state denial of due process, adjacent property owners were never given notice or an opportunity to be heard. The application was administered per the Charleston County ZLDR ordinance requirements. No public notice is required for the subdivision process. That is section ZLDR reference article 8.4.3. which states, upon receipt of a complete application for preliminary plat, approval and zoning planning director shall have 30 calendar days to review the proposed preliminary plat and compile a staff report on the proposed plat. Again, that's our comments that are initially sent. We have 30 business days to review it every time a resubmittal is given. Major subdivisions are reviewed by the Zoning and Planning Director and approved when in compliance with the requirements of this chapter. Within the 30-day calendar review period, the Zoning and Planning Director has the option to forward the major preliminary subdivision plat application along with his report and any recommendations to the Planning Commission for its review and approval in order to determine whether or not the proposed subdivision is in compliance with all the requirements of the ordinance and the goals and objectives. And C, the zoning and planning director shall advise the planning commission at a regularly scheduled planning commission meeting of all preliminary PLATs approved. And again, as long as staff comments are met, we approve this at staff level based on the ordinance. So there is no public notice process for subdivision applications. However, we do post all applications and all recorded PLATs on our website at the end of every month based on what you receive in your planning commission director's report. So item number two, expired federal wetlands permit anchors the entire site plan. Staff administered the ordinance as required per ZLDR 84210, an Army Corps of Engineers determination was provided as part of the preliminary plot process. So during the preliminary process, obviously our ordinance states that wetlands cannot count towards density, so we need the Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional determination to determine how many lots can be created, what cannot be developed, and such. If they are developing, you have wetlands fill permits. So the developer did comply with Section 8.4.2.10 because they did provide us with a wetlands determination. I believe the issue has been raised about the wetlands permit, that is separate from the requirements for preliminary plat approval. Item number three, invalid stormwater permit. Staff response, stormwater permit STRM 07-24-05-145 is valid. The developer is required to apply for an extension for the Army Corps of Engineers and provide the extension documentation prior to approval of final plat. Again, the developer spoke and... They do have a permit. There is a 12-month grace period. They are within that 12 months, and they are applying for any additional information needed. So they have met the requirements of the ordinance. And our stormwater department has not rescinded their permits. Appellate item number four, page 101 preliminary site plan, absence of plans for ingress, egress access to subdivision. Staff response, the preliminary plot shows ingress and egress from Stratton Place through Jack Leyland Drive to TMS number 614 ending in 004. The developer has also provided an encroachment permit from the town of Mount Pleasant. The encroachment permit states, Levi Grantham, LLC intends to construct a single family residential subdivision Consisting of eight lots on a roughly 8.1 acre parcel with a total disturbed area of roughly 4.5 acres, land disturbing activity associated with the project includes a widening and improvements of the existing privately owned and maintained Jack Leland Drive, a water main extension and sewer main extension, water quality measures, and associated site grading. This encroachment application is for improvements to the connection from Jack Leland Drive to Stratton Place. So this is the preliminary plat. The parcel that is in Charleston County jurisdiction is the section of the eight lots. Jack Leland Drive is in the town of Mount Pleasant jurisdiction. Every time there's an adjacent jurisdiction, we require at the time of preliminary plat an encroachment permit from that jurisdiction because they are the ones that review the land disturbance and encroachment into their right of way. We did receive that encroachment permit from the town of Mount Pleasant. And part of that encroachment permit was a 25-page document that included all of the construction drawings for improvement to Jack Leland Drive. Charleston County subdivision staff did not review Jack Leland Drive construction permits because it is not in the Charleston County unincorporated jurisdiction. Therefore, if there were any variances or special exceptions or anything like that that would all have to go through the town of Mount Pleasant not Charleston County therefore if the town of Mount Pleasant provides the encroachment permit that is our due diligence to state they have reviewed the plans and they have approved the the project and that is the grading and drainage plan that was provided Item number five, grading and drainage plan C151 and roadway profile C152. The approved construction drawings are separate from the approved preliminary plat. Charleston County Public Works Department has reviewed the construction drawings and they are in compliance with the Charleston County Stormwater Manual. Again, Charleston County stormwater reviews it in parallel with Charleston County subdivision staff. They review it for the stormwater manual. We review it for compliance with the ZLDR. They issue a MS4 approval permit and that is how. those plans are reviewed, the construction drawings are not directly linked to the preliminary plat. The preliminary plat meets the ZLDR requirements. Once they get a land disturbance permit, that is when they have to have all their permits in place from Charleston County Stormwater and additional jurisdictional agencies. Item number six, demolition of tree protection plan approved site plan C-110, 42 trees approved with no development purpose. Staff response, demolition of tree protection plan C-110 only shows 12 trees to be removed. The other trees noted on the plans are noted for the species and tree grade. The Charleston County arborist has been to the site several times for review plans per proposed tree impacts. So this is the planning question. There are only 12 trees that have X's. All of the trees in the Hammock Island, those are just shown as their grade and like you grade a tree A to F and the species. So those are not proposed to be removed. And also no lot development is proposed on the Hammock Island. They're proposing what's considered lot eight to develop at the right of way so um that's just incorrect item number seven grading and drainage plan approved site plan c151 stormwater design carries dozens of unresolved deficiencies So this is provided from our stormwater department. And we also have representatives if the commission has questions for them later. But the rock, check dams, and silt fence were sized appropriately for the site-specific soils in accordance with Charleston County Stormwater Manual. And it says that they all pass. And again, I want to reiterate that any development on Jack Leland Drive is under the jurisdiction of the town of Mount Pleasant. Anything on TMS number 614-004, that is under the jurisdiction of Charleston County, and that is what we approved. Item number eight, grading and drainage plan approved site plan C-151. No stormwater analysis was performed for existing adjacent homes. We did have staff as a courtesy review the plans, our stormwater staff as a courtesy review the plans. Again, that is under the jurisdiction of the town of Mount Pleasant. And our staff notes a 15-inch reinforced concrete pipe, also known as outfall number three, is sized to drain the approximate 0.6 acre upstream area during the 25-year storm, 24-hour storm event in accordance with the Charleston County Stormwater Manual. So even though this section is not in the Charleston County jurisdiction, our staff reviewed it as a courtesy and it does comply with the Charleston County Stormwater Manual. And then item number 8.2, utility profile pages C211, utility coordination with Dominion Energy has never been completed. Staff response, coordination with Dominion Energy is not a requirement of the ordinance. Water and sewer availability along with SCDES is. and that is section 8.4.2e accompanying data 1-2 states the preliminary plat shall be accompanied by a statement as to the availability and the specific indication of the disturbance to the location of the nearest public water supply and public sanitary sewer and the preliminary plat shall be accompanied by a statement indicating what provisions are to be made for water and sewers disposal For example, if you have wells or septic systems, we require septic permits at the time of the preliminary plat. If it's public water, public sewer, we require letters of availability from the entities stating that it is available and that is also shown on the plat. And then Department of Environmental Services, that is what used to be considered DHEC OCRM. They do the OCRM critical line. The Army Corps of Engineers, they would do the freshwater wetlands permitting So item number nine water and sewer page C 251 required annexation into the town of Mount Pleasant was never initiated. This is incorrect The annexation was requested twice and it was subsequently denied and this is the information we received from the town of Mount Pleasant and So the first one was submitted and ultimately withdrawn. And then the second one was submitted and they were denied annexation. And Mount Pleasant Water Works has a policy that if you have applied for annexation and you are denied, then they will provide sewer access. to your project. But you either have to apply for annexation and if you're contiguous be annexed or you have to sign an affidavit stating that if you were ever to become contiguous that you would apply for annexation at that time. So the developer was in compliance and they do receive water and sewer from Mount Pleasant Water Works. Item number 10, inconsistent presentation of relevant information. Critical line setbacks were selectively omitted. Staff response, the preliminary plat shows stamped approval from the South Carolina Department of Environmental Services, dated 5-1-2023. Any area outside the jurisdictional lines of Charleston County are the responsibility of the town of Mount Pleasant. So this is a copy of the preliminary plat and I have highlighted where the Department of Environmental Services has signed off on the critical line evaluation. It was done in 2023. Critical line evaluations are good for five years. So it is still in the compliance period. Item number 11, developer's failure to provide proof of ownership, unresolved right-of-way ownership, flagged three times, never corrected, and the developer has never proven control. So this did come up in our comments. Our staff response is the developer provided a deed with comment response from August 7, 2024, deed book, 1244 page 679 recorded on may 14 2024 at the charleston county register of deeds and i've highlighted the legal description which also references the 50-foot jack leland drive right-of-way So, again, Jack Leland Drive is in the Town of Mount Pleasant jurisdiction. This was brought to their attention. At one point, they had rescinded their encroachment permit based on determination of ownership of Jack Leland Drive. The developer provided this deed, and they reinstated their encroachment permit, and they also provided it to us. So, therefore, the Town of Mount Pleasant accepted it, and... reinstated their encroachment permit, and it provided documentation in a deed of the 50-foot-wide right-of-way, so we therefore accepted it as compliance and removed that staff comment. Item number 12, denial of ingress-egress access rights for existing property owners. Three parcels will be landlocked. Staff response, the preliminary plat shows access from Jack Leland Drive to Stratton Place. No plans show any parcel being landlocked. Every plan that has been submitted shows an improvement to Jack Leland Drive. It does not show removing access for the adjacent parcels that use Jack Leland Drive for access. So those lots will not be landlocked based on what has been provided to Charleston County staff. And item number 13, availability of alternative ingress-egress to parcel 614-004. A less damaging alternative access route has been offered and ignored. So staff response, the developer has shown legal access to their property. Any further discussion on alternative access would be a civil matter between property owners. So they have provided the documentation to show that they have legal access from Jack Leland Drive. We as county staff cannot require them to purchase adjacent property for an alternative access. And I've also spoken with the town of Mount Pleasant. That section is in a plan development. And if the developer were to purchase that as an alternative access, then the plan development through the town of Mount Pleasant would have to be amended to allow that. Again, it's a civil matter. They've shown legal access, and it was approved by staff. So staff response, ZLDR 1111, ordinance compliance requirements. No activity regulated by this ordinance shall be undertaken except in full compliance with the express provisions of the ordinance. No activity that is the subject of any permit or approval issued pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance shall be undertaken except in full compliance with the subject permit or approval including any attached conditions. And C, the commencement or continuation of any activity regulated by this ordinance that is not in compliance with the express provisions of this ordinance or that is not in compliance with the express provisions of any permit or approval, including any attached conditions, shall be a violation of this ordinance and subject to enforcement under the terms of this chapter in South Carolina law. As noted in this presentation, staff administered review of SBDV 07-24-02874 within full compliance of the ordinance. Based on the information presented, the administrative official did not err. Staff recommends the following findings of facts and conclusions of law. Proposed findings of facts. One, Leland Park LLC is the owner of the 8.127 acre parcel of property located at 2535 Jack Leland Drive, Mount Pleasant, in the unincorporated area of Charleston County, and identified as Charleston County TMS number 18. 614-00-00-004. The subject property is zoned low density residential, R4. The applicant, Levi Grantham, LLC, on behalf of the owner, Leland Park, LLC, submitted subdivision application SBDV 07-24-02874, proposing to subdivide the subject property into eight lots. and four the applicants proposed subdivision plat prepared by parker land surveying dated june 3rd 2024 was submitted on july 16 2024 and subsequently revised and resubmitted on march 19 2025 september 8 2025 december 19 2025 april 3rd 2026 and May 15th 2026 the proposed plat depicts the subject property as new lot a one containing eight point thirteen acres and Proposed finding of facts continued. County staff reviewed the preliminary subdivision plat application, SPDV02874, for compliance with all applicable ZLDR requirements, including Appendix A with the Charleston County Stormwater Manual, and provided comments to the applicant. Upon subsequent submittal of revisions, staff provided reviews and comments back to the applicant until the unresolved comments were satisfied. On May 15, 2026, county staff determined the preliminary subdivision plat application to be in full compliance with the ZLDR, having all corrections and comments satisfied and providing all required documentation to complete the application requirements. Subdivision staff approved the preliminary subdivision plat application on May 15, 2026. From June 10, 2026 through June 15, 2026, The appellants filed six separate applications of appeal for the subdivision-related decision, which were later combined into one application, appealing staff decision approving the preliminary subdivision plot application. and staff's proposed conclusion of law. One, South Carolina Code 629.340 grants the local planning commission power and duty to prepare and recommend to the governing authority, Charleston County Council, the regulations for the subdivision and development of land and all revisions thereof. South Carolina Code 629-1150 provides that the land development regulations adopted by the governing authority, Charleston County Council, must include specific procedures for the submission and approval or disapproval of the planning commission or designated staff. Three, Charleston County ZLDR Section 8.4.3, Zoning and Planning Director Review and Report, provides authority to the zoning and planning director to review and approve all subdivision applications. ZLDR table 3.1.6 notices described all notification requirements pertaining to any development review application administered by the zoning and planning director and indicates that there are no public notification requirements for any subdivision applications. Five, all required information on the plat permits and other supplemental data and documentation required for the preliminary subdivision plat application be considered complete and approvable. was provided and as required in ZLDR section 8.42 preliminary plat application. And conclusion of law continuing, ZLDR Section 8.1.4, Charleston County Road Construction Standards requires compliance of subdivision plat with the standards of Appendix A, Roads and Drainage Standards, Section A16, coordination with other review agencies, dictates requirements of approvals for other agencies, including copies of approved encroachment permits, as applicable the town of mount pleasant has jurisdiction over jack leland drive and issued an encroachment permit on july 28 2025 providing access and road improvements from stratton place to the subject property in jack leland drive seven Construction drawings are required for review and compliance with the Charleston County Stormwater Manual as part of the subdivision review process, which county designated staff has determined to be in compliance with the manual upon approval of the preliminary subdivision plat application. Eight, ZLDR Section 8.8, tree preservation requires review and compliance with standards pertaining to the protection and preservation of trees pending subdivision approval. The county arborist inspected the site and found the preliminary subdivision application to be in compliance with the ZLDR. And nine, the preliminary subdivision plat submitted to subdivision application SBDV-02874 does meet all of the requirements of the ZLDR, and therefore the planning director did not err in approving the application. And I'm available for questions.

Thank you. We appreciate the presentation. Are there any questions of staff from the commission? Mr. Morris.

Quick question in regards to number nine. Is a request for annexation part of, like is that a requirement by the ZLDR in order to have preliminary approval? Or why was that brought up?

No, no. That's brought up because Mount Pleasant Water Works has, I don't know if it's an agreement or an ordinance with the town of Mount Pleasant, that if they are, like if there's an unincorporated Charleston County parcel, and it is adjacent to the town of Mount Pleasant, then that applicant is required to apply for annexation to the town before Mount Pleasant Water Works will provide sewer. So because this is kind of a donut hole and it's completely surrounded by the town of Mount Pleasant, they were required to apply for annexation and they were ultimately denied.

Gotcha. Thank you.

Mr. Jones.

That was a very difficult one.

I must say that the presentations or the comments from the owners of the property sort of gets you and listening to staff when it's torn here. But it seems to me that part of the problem is not in our jurisdiction but that of Mount Pleasant. I don't know if it's proper to make any comment. Do you have any issues or would you have any issues with what Mount Pleasant has done or not doing as presented by the folk that own the properties nearby?

So the town of Mount Pleasant provided the encroachment permit, which means that's their approval, and that is our requirement of the ZLDR.

Okay. A lot of the issue seems to be around the construction and demolition. So you're neutral in that?

Yes.

Okay. Okay.

Ms. Cox. I had a question. Maybe this is just a clarification. There was conversation about the wetlands permit having been expired, but you have a wetlands determination from the Corps or DES that does that?

Yeah, so there are two separate items.

That's what I'm asking, essentially.

Yeah, so a wetlands determination is required for a preliminary plot. That is obviously for staff to know what is considered jurisdictional freshwater wetlands so that we don't incorporate that acreage into the density. And also, if there's any infill of freshwater wetlands, that we get an infill permit from the Army Corps at the time of land disturbance permit. So the applicant met the requirements of the ordinance because they did provide the wetlands determination from the Army Corps of Engineers. The rebuttal from the appellant is about the permit expiring, and that is, it hasn't expired. There is a 12-month grace period, and the developer was under contract within that 12 months, so they are still in compliance. And if they need to ask for an extension or whatever the Army Corps, they are still within that timeframe allowable to do so. Okay.

Thank you.

There's no further questions. Is there a motion and a second from the commission? I'll ask that when making the motion, please state which specific findings of fact and conclusions of law inform your reasoning.

I'll move to deny the appeal.

Second.

based on the findings of facts. And the conclusion of the law is presented by staff.

OK. Second that motion.

Thank you. OK, so we have a motion to deny the appeal. Well, I ask if you'll elaborate on which findings of fact and conclusions.

Sure, I'd be happy to. You know, the question in front of us is whether or not we've met the conditions of the subdivision regulations of the Charleston County. And I think that the information provided by staff was very thorough. Great job on your presentation.

Thank you.

And I understand the concerns of the community and eggs and the adjacent neighbors I understand I understand that but there are procedures in place to manage and handle those other concerns the tree protection the stormwater runoff, all the other concerns that they have. The question about the additional ingress and egress, I think that that would be a better solution, but that's not what's in front of us really to judge here. What we are here to judge is whether or not the subdivision plat that was presented and approved by this staff met the criteria of the ZLDR, and my feeling and my belief is that we have met the criteria as laid out before us. That's not to say that there are always challenges when we have these donut holes and you have to have multiple jurisdictions trying to coordinate and align their policies, procedures, and ordinances. And I think we could likely do a better job with that down the future. But in this case, the findings of fact, I believe, show that we have met the letter of the requirements. All right.

Thank you. So we have a motion and a second for denial of the appeal. Is there any discussion from the commission members? Mr. Jones.

I just want to say that I think Adam expressed it well. I certainly feel for the owners of the property, and they obviously have some concerns, but a lot of it cannot be addressed by us or have to be addressed by other means. But that's not to say that the points that you made didn't have validity or credibility. I'm going to vote for the motion that made by Adam, but I feel uneasy that there's things that should be resolved and I guess I'll have to leave it at that.

Any other discussion? Okay. If there's no further discussion, it's time for the vote. I'll ask staff to call the roll and we'll point out that at least two thirds of the members present voting shall be required.

On the motion to deny the appeal by and upholding the administrative decision of staff, Commissioner Davis?

Aye.

Commissioner Lesane?

Aye.

Commissioner Jones? Aye. Commissioner Kent?

Aye.

Commissioner McConnell?

Aye.

Commissioner Morris?

Aye.

Vice Chair Pilatos?

Aye.

The motion passes 8-0 to deny the appeal.

Planning Commission is a decision-making body regarding subdivision-related appeals of administration.

Mr. Vice Chair, for the record, I believe we are missing a vote from one commission member. And if we could correct that for the record, please.

My apologies, Commissioner Cox. Eight to zero now.

Thank you. My apologies. Planning Commission is a decision-making body regarding subdivision-related appeals of administrative decisions. Any person with a substantial interest in this decision of the Planning Commission or any officer, board, or bureau of the county may appeal the final decision of the Planning Commission to the Circuit Court of Charleston County. Appellant shall file with the court clerk a written petition plainly and fully setting forth how such decision is contrary to law. Such appeal shall be filed within 30 calendar days after the decision of the planning commission is mailed. The last item on the agenda is the chair's remarks. There are none. So if there is no further business... This meeting of the Charleston County Planning Commission stands adjourned. The Planning Commission will hold its next regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, September 14th, 2026, beginning at 2 p.m. in council chambers.