Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

2025 Charleston County Planning Commission meeting. Please stand and join us for the pledge of allegiance.

I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Today's meeting was noticed in compliance with the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act. This commission acts in review and recommending capacity for comprehensive planned amendments, text amendments to the Charleston County zoning and land development regulations ordinance, resonings, and plan developments. The commission has decision-making authority on road name change requests, public project reviews, appeals of administrative decision on final plats and subdivision matters, as well as other matters pursuant to chapter 29, title 6, section 6-29-340 of the code of laws of South Carolina as amended. If you wish to speak at today's meeting, you should have filled out the sign-in sheet by the front door. Um, I'm Cindy Floyd. I'm chair. To my right is Pete Pelotus, Luke Morris, Gary Lasain, and Adam McConnell. To my left, commission members David Kent, Warick Jones, Logan Davis, and Susan Cox. To my right, commission attorney Mark Bell, and to my left, Joel Evans, director of zoning and planning. Joel, please feel free to introduce your staff.

Sure. Uh, Andrea Meliscuite, the deputy director for planning and zoning. Mare Miller, Chris Conn uh with subdivision, Tamara Avery with subdivision as well. Uh when Carlile and he will be presenting as well as um Mar today, Stephanie Ando will be taking uh minutes and votes and Carrie Vash is also here with our site plan review division. In order to get a good recording of the meeting for the minutes, please speak loudly and clearly into your microphones and please do not talk over one another. The first item on the agenda is approval of the minutes from the September 8th, 2025 meeting. Is there a motion and a second?

Move to approve. Second. Okay. Please call the role. Commissioner Davis, I. Commissioner Leain, I. Chair Floyd, I. Commissioner Jones. Hi. Commissioner Kent. Hi. Commissioner McConnell. Hi. Commissioner Morris. I. Vice Chair Palados. Hi. Commissioner Cox.

The eyes have it. The next item on the agenda is JRE Z-9-25-0000167, a request to reszone tax map number 213 00-00-90 [Music] from agricultural residential AGR zoning to the rural agricultural AG8 zoning district. Mr. Carile.

Okay. Good afternoon. Um, this is a request to reszone uh the parcel on River Road and um one moment here. I got to restart my presentation. It's giving me some uh technical difficulties. Marsh, can you

I've got it. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. Um so this is a request to reszone. Well, it's still not working. Sorry. Hold on.

We're having some audiovisisual difficulties here. This is the one that's sticking on even when I open. So, let me reopen. This is the presentation slideshow. There it goes. Okay. Thanks, And sorry about the uh technical issues there. Um so this is the request to resone this property on uh River Road um on John's Island. So in the '9s the subject property was zoned AG agricultural general. Uh the subject parcel was identified as a settlement area and placed in the AGR zoning districts. uh upon adoption of the Zelda in 2001. And prior to this request, no other zoning map amendment requests have been submitted for the subject property. And here's the location of the property when looking at the county as a whole. The future lane use designation of the subject property is agricultural preservation. For the current zoning, the subject property has frontage along River Road and is developed with the St. John's Fire District Station number five. The adjacent parcel that surrounds the parcel to the east, I'm sorry, to the

west, north, and east is zoned AG8. Parcels across uh River Road are zoned AGR and then surrounding properties contain manufactured housing units or single family homes. for the flood zone. It's the property is located in flood zones AE11 and shaded X. Here's an aerial view of the property to the north. These are photos of the subject property and adjacent property to the west. And these are photos of parcels across River Road. So this slide shows the comparison of allowed land uses in the current AGR uh zoning district and the proposed AG8 zoning district. Uses with a C are allowed with conditions and uses with an S require special exception approval by BZA. Uh the uses in bold are only allowed in the zoning district it is listed under. For the approval criteria, the current and requested zoning districts allow primarily for agricultural uses and single family residences. In the requested AG8 zoning district, the dimensional standards would remain the same with the exception of the minimum lot areas and minimum widths. and the requested AG8 zoning district would permit a reduction in density. Uh therefore, this criterion is met. The staff response for this criterion covers previously mentioned information such as use differences, dimensional standards, uh differences, and density reduction. Uh this criterion is met

and criteria C and D are not applicable. So the staff recommendation, the approval criteria having been met, uh staff recommends approval. No public input was received for this request and the meeting was noticed as required.

Okay, we will now hear public comments. Each speaker will be limited to two minutes and please state your name and address before giving your comments. Spencer Wetmore.

Good afternoon, Chair Floyd, members of the commission, esteemed Charleston County staff. My name is Spencer Wetmore. I serve uh in one of my hats as general counsel for the St. John's Fire District. Uh I am pleased to report that we are in the process of upgrading station five which is the station on River Road. Uh this zoning reszoning request is actually a downzoning request in order to make our parcel consistent with a parcel that we wish to purchase and combine lots with next door. Uh so this is actually a downzoning request from AGR to AG8. Uh my understanding is that in light of the lack of public comments, we hope that our outreach to the public has been successful, uh we are happy to answer any questions that the commission may have.

Does anybody have any questions for Miss Whitmore? Just out of curiosity, what are your plans for the um additional parcel? So, we are when we're redoing the the station um it hasn't been upgraded to the point that would trigger storm water requirements in quite some time. So, the new the existing parcel, sorry, uh this the parcel that we'd be reszoning would actually be being used for storm water. The fire station would be moved on to and renovated on the new parcel that we're hoping to obtain. Uh so, largely the increase in lot size is required by storm water. Anybody else?

No. No. Okay. Case is now closed for public comment. Is there a motion and a second from the commission? Second. Anybody have any questions, comments? Okay. No further discussion. It's time for the vote. Please call the role. Commissioner Davis. I. Commissioner Leain. I. Chair Floyd. I. Commissioner Jones. Hi. Commissioner Kent. I. Commissioner McConnell. I. Commissioner Morris. I. Vice Chair Palato. I. Commissioner Cox. I. The motion passes 9 to zero.

County council will hear hear this request at their public hearing on November 13, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. in council chambers and again at their November 20th PL 2025 planning and public works committee meeting at 5:00 pm. The request must then undergo three readings for approval at council's discretion. The next item on the agenda is z-9-25-0000168 [Music] and z-9-25-0000170. A request to reszone tax map number 28600 023 and 037 from low density residential R4 zoning districts to urban residential UR zoning district.

Got your Okay, got your presentation up and running, Mr. Carile? Yeah, we're trying to get it there.

One moment. Okay. And so these parcels are on Beast Fairy Road in the corner of uh Beast Fairy and Bear Swamp. Um and they're requesting to be reszoned from R4 to UR. So for the zoning history, prior to 1999, the subject parcels were zoned AG and then zone RSL with the adoption of the Zeldar in 2001 and RSL was renamed R4 in 2006. In March of 2025, an applicant applied to reszone the parcels from R4 to PD 192 looking to develop 147 condos. Uh both staff and planning recom uh planning commission recommended disapproval of this request and the applicant withdrew the request prior to the public hearing. Here's the property location within the county as a whole. The future land use designation for the subject properties is urban suburban cultural community protection. The subject properties are currently developed with a horse farm on parcel 23 and a single family residence on parcel 37. Uh parcel 11 is uh zoned R4 and is currently developed with a church as is the property to the north. Uh to the west is a pump station on a parcel that's zoned R4. And the parcel across Beast Ferry Road is zoned CD uh CC and is developed with apartments. And the parcel to the east is zoned part of the Hunt Club PD and is developed with a commercial center.

The subject properties are located in flood zone shaded X and AE7 on the west boundary and AE9 toward the east side of the property. Here's an arrow view to the north and to the south. These are photos of the subject properties and these are photos of adjacent adjacent properties. This slide shows the comparison of allowed land uses between the current R4 zoning, which allows four dwelling units per acre, and the proposed UR zoning, which allows 16 units per acre. Uses with a C are allowed with conditions, and uses with an S require special exception approval by the BCA. The uses in bold are only allowed in the zoning district it is listed under. So this chart shows a comparison of the density, intensity, and dimensional standards between the current R4 zoning and the proposed UR zoning. The biggest differences are the density, lot width, and building height. So for the approval criteria, the comprehensive plan designates the subject parcels for the urban suburban cultural community protection future land use category which calls for low density single family development, limit limited commercial activity and some agricultural uses. The category also lists a maximum density of four units per acre. The requested UR zoning uh allows density of 16 dwelling units per acre and higher intensity residential uses than recommended by the comp comprehensive plan. Uh therefore this criterion is not met for criterion B. As previously mentioned, the proposed UR zoning district allows higher density, higher intensity uses such as multif family and

less restrictive dimensional standards than the current R4 standards that apply to the subject properties in adjacent properties on the same side of Beast Fairy and Bear Swamp Road. Uh therefore, this criterion is not met. Criteria C and D are not applicable. Because one or more of the approval criteria are not met, staff recommends disapproval. For public input, we received 58 comments in opposition, 34 comments in support, and two general comments. The case was notice as required. Thank you for that comprehensive report. Well, now are there any questions from this for the staff from commission members?

Luke, um what are the conditions for town home triplex uh quadlex and duplex? I noticed that they were conditional uses.

Yeah. So, um the let me pull up the lease table. Hold on one sec. So for um the uh town homes uh single family attached, it requires getting the uh currently getting special exception approval, but then if it was reszoned to UR um I believe it's Joel, do you have the condition The conditions for attached single family are the number that can be in one block all together. I think it's no maximum number of eight. It's kind of the way that they're laid out is basically what it is.

Yeah. Yeah. Anybody else? Okay. We'll now hear from public comments. Each speaker will be limited to two minutes. Please state your name and address before giving your comments. So, we do the applicants first. Do the applicants. We'll do the applicants first. That's normally what we do. Um Tony Barry.

Good afternoon, Tony Barry, 272 West Coleman Boulevard, Mount Pleasant. Um thank you for your time this afternoon. Um we are primarily land development company that's based out of Mount Pleasant. For the last 25 years, pretty much all we've done is land development. Uh about three years ago, we got an opportunity to develop a piece of property in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina that was part of a a mixeduse project we had developed and it actually was Mount Pleasant's first forale attainable housing community. Um, it went extremely well and we began to learn, you know, one of the reasons why attainable housing is so difficult is there's not any one thing that leads to being able to basically develop new homes at 20, 30 or 40% below where the current market is. Um, our perspective from a land development gives us the ability to really start from, as they say, trees to keys and understanding that, you know, when you develop property and build homes, there are probably a hundred decisions that are made during that process, most of those decisions have to do with cost. And so, we had an opportunity to develop a piece of property that the the town gave us the density that was needed to to to make the numbers work, if you will. Um, and so we've been able to kind of grow our our attainable housing platform under a builder called Prosperity Builders. We've built about 150 homes in the Charleston area in the last 5 years. Our average price point is around $360,000. We've um sold um over 50 homes to teachers, nurses, firefighters, policemen, and and so we kind of understand, I think, how the challenge of what needs to be done to to achieve bringing new construction to to the to the missing middle. We were presented

this opportunity and what we actually presented to the county was a specific plan that was for less units, took into account some of the the issues that the community was against in the previous, but we've chosen to go through a straight reszoning because the PD process is a lot more lengthy and a lot more expensive, frankly. And so what we've proposed is a community that would only be 10 units to the acre, three story, two and three story town homes for sale. and we have offered the willingness to put everything in writing and actually commit to a deed restriction that would be um applied to the property at third reading, which is exactly I think the mechanics of how if you went through a reszoning, how you make sure the property is developed specifically as proposed. So there's some other folks that are part of of our team or involved in in this opportunity that are going to speak, but in the you know the the short time I have this is this is not an easy thing to do and this is a very unique opportunity that I believe we can bring a hundred new forale homes of which we're willing to commit 15 of them will be deed restricted for 75 years to this missing middle that earns no more than 120% of the area median income.

Thank you. Uh, Will Jenson.

Good afternoon. Will Jeninson, 250 River Oak Drive. I've had the opportunity uh in my capacity as broker in charge of Carolina 1 New Homes to represent Prosperity Builders over those past four years that Tony just mentioned. And we were able to so far help 150 families or individuals find home ownership which in our area is more challenging as the days go by. We've been focused on the first time attainable workforce which is so vital to our region. And I'll summarize the four groups of buyers that we've been able to have the most impact with. One, our educators, a critical part of those who teach us. Our medical field, those who care for us. Our first responders, those who protect us. And our service workers, those who are in retail, hospitality, grocery stores, everyday services that we depend on their service. we've been able to attract those and having those in key locations to serve the areas of where they work. So helping not only those employees and municipalities but also their life and not having to drive sometimes hour one way just to get to work. And with the average price points of our region continuing to rise, this is such a great opportunity to have more homes for these residents of our region. And also most of these we attract a lot of young families and the fact that there's a new elementary school planned as part of Long Savannah, that is another great attribute to have that school and the need for teachers at those schools as well. Thank you very much for your

support. Dominic Jones.

Good afternoon. Dominic Jones, 682 Johnny Dah Boulevard. Uh work for Thompson Hutton, the engineer of record for this project. Um just want to kind of go over some of the uh key technical aspects of the project as far as storm water and traffic. understanding that this is it. This project will fall within a special protection area and understanding that we will have to follow the Charleston County um special protection area policy number two which is to um peak discharge rates restricted for the two and a 10 um year storm event as well as volume restrictions on this project site. Um and then as well as the traffic um concern, we were able to pull the NBR study that was done in June of 2024 that um studied actually was 184 multif family units. And if you look through this study, um I won't go through all of the information, but the study shows that with the 184 units, the level of service wouldn't change on the the study intersections on Beast Fairy Road. Um again, we're proposing 100 at this point in time. Um there is also a um stamp set of plans for the Bear Swamp U intersection um that's approved and I believe will begin sometime this year or first quarter of next um for a right turn lane into Bear Swamp Road and a left um as well as a dedicated right and a dedicated left southbound lane on Bear Swamp Road. So, um, just want to say thank you for your support.

Diane Milikin. Good afternoon, commission members. My name is Diane Milligan. I live at 1134 Edbury Lane in Charleston. This is the second time in just a few months that developers are trying to resone the 10acre Landmark Storybook Farm. This time into 16 foot wide micro town homes. And also they'll have additional HOA fees included in the cost of the sale. Why the outcry from the community? Just as the public pleaded in one to save the West Ashley Cobberg cow from the new owner's demolition, the icon which de decades warned hurricanes were coming and guided visitors to navigate before GPS. The public is now pleading that the county find another purpose for beautiful storybook farm. Can you buy it? Can you preserve it? Can you find another public use for it? Its potential should be explored by more sympathetic owners. Storybook Farm has a unique history with West Ashley and it's part of our community identity. The surrounding life as we have known it is almost gone. The beauty of the edge of Charleston County is evaporating. Those who are fortunate to live here remember when Bees Ferry was two lanes and there were no billboard advertising along the treeine road. Now, the tree denuted area around the new red and white Chick-fil-A sign reveals just a portion of the overdevelopment and our loss. This is the second time the developers for Storybook Farm are approaching you to upzone our four area. Please deny the request. Please help us find a better purpose for this historic site. Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Joseph Techenberg. Good afternoon. Uh Joseph Techberg, 1607 Carter Avenue. Um I am here representing the property owners, the Story family. They've owned this land for over 50 years and they bought it from Georgia Pacific as this was industrial timberland uh before they uh owned and operated a horse training and riding business. Um they were recently retired and engaged our firm um two years ago um to facilitate a sale of the property. Um as has been mentioned before um this came before you this year and it was denied uh because it was too dense, too tall, not enough affordable housing and they had a the past applicant had a road going through the wetlands. So after that process, we regrouped. Um the the family did and uh we wanted to be very selective who we contracted with. Um we we knew Mr. Barry and got connected with him. Um I would say he's one of the more prolific builders of affordable attainable housing in our area. And um you know, credit to the property owners for taking a a bit of a haircut and going under contract with Mr. very to to kind of uh respond to those uh criticisms that we heard the last time. Um so we feel this plan um addresses those issues. Um in terms of our community outreach to date, um I I submitted this to the county on Saturday, so I doubt it was included, but I have a letter from the Light of Christ Ministries, which is the little church on the corner, um in support of this project, and it was signed by 37 of their congregants. So, I have nine copies. I'd be happy to leave this with you for the record. Um, we had a public meeting at the Beast Fairy Library and we've had multiple meetings with the Red

Top Community Association. So, we've we've done our best to get this in front of as many people as possible and we urge you to support this uh to bring more attainable housing to the community. Thank you. Thank you,

Melody Dover. Hello and thanks for seeing me today. My name is Melody Dover, um, Dr. Melody Dover, and I am a resident of the Red Top community with the Red Top Improvement Association. And it is true that we've met with this team several different times, but nothing has changed. When I said nothing has changed, the community is still not in agreement for us to be changed from a residential R4 to a urban residential. And the reason being is everything the infrastructure from our last March when they were trying to bring this before us um to change to the zoning at that time. Nothing has changed since then. The infrastructure still remains the same. We still have traffic problem. I just heard that from the SD SC DOT study that it doesn't warrant um a light or anything, but we can't even get out a 17 on the four-way highway safely. And now Bey Bear Swamp is being impacted. We're already having problems with um flooding. Nothing has been done to to make that better. So, I don't see where reszoning is going to help us at all. I'm not against development, but we are, I must say, with the long Savannah, 2,000 houses coming in off of Bees Fairy Road. Right down the street within another mile away, we have another 19 homes coming in. Within that same radius, we have another 11 homes coming in. And then we're talking about another hundred

with no infrastructure buildup. What about the citizens? I I I appeal to I like teachers. I like firemen. I like all of them. They're great. But what about the people who already live there? Thank you,

Sam Spence. Hello commissioners. I'm Sam Spence from the Preservation Society of Charleston. Um we're here to urge you to support staff's recommendation today uh and disapprove this zoning request. We'll remind you as staff did a second ago that you all recommended 7 to zero unanimously against approval of a last of the last zoning request which was more dense and had more details and more requirements than this one does. Uh, Beast Fairy does have uh, potential for highdensity suburban development and it it certainly tries to support it and the county has used the future land use map to designate some portions of it for that. But it intentionally designates these properties uh, even considering future use and future changes for this lower density uh, type of development. And I don't have to tell you that entitlements are powerful and they are valuable. And this is not a slight against Mr. Harry or the Techbergs or the Stories. But if something were to happen and this property had to change hands before or after it is sold, there's nothing requiring the current owner to keep to their promise for the configuration or unless it's deed restricted as Mr. Barry said uh for affordable units. And I think you're here today just to weigh whether uh 15 the promise but not requirement of 15 affordable units for a reasoning request uh is is reasonable with uh also weighing the future land use staff's recommendation your consistency with the last resoning request um and uh so for those reasons I would ask you to support staff's recommendation or and vote to disapprove this request. Thank you. John Techberg,

Madam Chair, commission members, uh John Techberg, nine Fenwick Drive. I'm on the Tony Barry team because uh I introduced him to my son Joseph when he told me the prior application had failed. One of the reasons was there wasn't enough affordable housing included. And I said, "If you want the guy who has figured out from a private point of view how to create some affordable housing, it's Tony Barry." And hence they got under contract. Um I don't need to tell you I don't think about the need for some affordable and attainable housing in our community, the whole tri county area. The city recognizes it. The county recogniz it in their housing for our future plan which includes goals and recommendations. many of which are met by this um proposed development. So, um I got to acknowledge that a lot of citizens don't want anything else built. Um but I got to tell you, um I I would respectfully review the the staff's recommendations because I'll just put it this way. Bees Fairy Road ain't your mama's bees fairy road. When those comprehensive plan recommendations were made, that was over 20 years ago. Since then, the county and the city jointly decided that Bees Ferry would become a major arterial pathway. And the development is not agricultural and like commercial and single family residential. You start at Savannah Highway and work your way down. You got Parker Sea Sea store. You got you do have the church which we have their support. You have dense apartments. You got a Circle K. You got a um a shopping center right next to this property. Further down. You do have some town homes. And you have some property that

city owns that I specifically um had the city buy for more affordable housing. It's needed. The bottom line support the county housing plan. There is a change of conditions. I thank you for your support. And uh one more Jeremy Koba.

Good afternoon. I'm Jeremy Kuba. I live at 137 Leven Court in Shadow Moss. Um I was brought here to Charleston by the United States Air Force in 96. So I consider myself a native uh because I was forced here. But um I remember getting the first briefing and it said we have 54,000 people here and I thought, "Oh man, this is great." I came from a small town in Tennessee and um so I wasn't really excited about building and all that jazz. But I remember when Bees Fury Road was considered the country and but I'm also not um I'd say I uh I'd have to talk about my son for for for being up here. My son wants to be a pastor and I've had family members move away because they can't afford it. Um, pastors are not really talked about in those people that uh that these houses could could go to. Um, and he's going to CSU right now to to hopefully one day be a pastor. So, we've been talking about how much money you can make as a pastor and it's pretty dim. Um, and I'd love for him to have the opportunity one day to gobble up one of these houses and and live here in Charleston where other family members have had to move away because it's extremely expensive here. The word has gotten out. There's nothing we can do about it. Everybody loves Charleston and in uh in America. We've seen just more than you can handle. I get it. There's terrible traffic. There's this going wrong. There's flooding. I get all that. And I get all the concerns here as well, but what are we going to do for our kids, right? I have a I have a great home that I've lived in for 20 years. If I was to go sell that home right now, I can't find that home elsewhere because it's I have to spend 800,000 to a million when I bought it at 200,000 20 years ago. So now I'm worried about my

son and my daughter, her as well. They want to stay in Charleston, but they don't really have the jobs that are going to provide for that. So, I'm really excited about affordable homes possibly coming to be. Thank you. Thank you. That's it. Okay. Um, questions, comments? Do we need a motion first? Do we need a motion first? For comments, yes. For comments, yes. Just questions for staff. No. Okay. Any questions for the staff or

I would just like the first gentleman who spoke, I'm afraid I don't remember your name, but um could you um talk about the deed restrictions that you mentioned?

Absolutely. We we submitted in a PDF of of a packet that basically said with site plan elevations that we're requesting to build a hundred town homes. There would be three different floor plans. All of them would be for sale. They would be two and threetory. Twothirds of them would have a primary on the main. And we would put all of that. We put it in writing already, but we would we would have our attorney Haynesworth Singler Boyd work with the county attorney and we would prepare a deed restriction that memorialized everything we're committing to and that would be recorded if county council chose to approve the resoning at third reading. And so at that time, if something happened to us and we weren't able to buy the property or move forward, you get the same effect that you would get through a PD is that we would have very specific um requirements that we have to meet that's approved. And if something happens to us and we don't do it, the property owner is bound by that. So they would have to find somebody else to do it. If they couldn't find anybody else to do it, then they have to come back before you to get it reszoned if the propertyy's not developed that way.

What would the income um numbers be for the restriction?

So that we were proposing to build a 100 new town homes of which 85 would be market rate and 15 would be attainable. We would limit the income on those 15 to those that earn no more than 120% of the area median income. we will likely have some 80s and some hundreds within within that those 15 that we would be building. Um, you know, with an attainable buyer, it's at the end of the day, it's all about down payment and monthly payment. And, you know, most of our buyers are needing to have a monthly payment in the 17 18 maybe $2,000 a month range. And and our platform is not just about the price of the home. It's also the financing and and and having down payment assistance. Um it truly is a is a holistic approach, but it would be the buyers would be on the 15, they would could not earn any more than 120% of the air median income. that 75-year deed restriction that would follow the property would state that when when you get ready to resell your home, there's a limit to what your selling price could be and you would have to sell somebody that earns no more than 100 or whatever income you are at at that time. And we uh contract with Origin SC, which is one of the oldest nonprofits in the state of South Carolina. That's who does all of the income verifications for us and that's who does all of the resale calculations after we've sold the last home. Turn the community over to a new HOA board. They're a third party nonprofit that enforces and manages that attainability covenant for the next 75 years.

And where is your project that you mentioned in Mount Pleasant?

So, Gregory Ferry Landing was the first one we built. We have a second one in Mount Pleasant called Towns Park. That's kind of quadrant from Costco. That's 100 new town homes. We have a community off of Ashley River Road, um, Bermuda Point Towns. It's actually a public private partnership with the Charleston Redevelopment Corporation in the city. And then we built 72 market rate town homes on Clemets Ferry Road, but they're priced in the 340s to 370s. They have moved up, but um those are not even income restricted, but still our buyers have been dismissing middle that there's just virtually no new construction, you know, south of 17A for under $500,000.

Someone earlier mentioned that that when you just said you were going to turn it over to an HOA, does your $2,000 a month include any HOA fees?

No, ma'am. It does not. The HOA fees are usually around 250 to 275, but the majority of those HOA fees goes toward insurance and goes toward landscape maintenance. So, people that would still be paying $17, $800 a month in a payment are still going to have insurance that they have to pay on top of it. I've got a question. This question would be for your team as well, uh, Mr. Barry. Out of the 10 acres, are you guys proposing that to use the totality of that acreage in specific the area around the church? I noticed the way that that lot's laid out, you've got the church that kind of sits in a little pocket,

right? So, we are not So, out of the out of the 10 acres, one we've committed to not connect to Bear Swamp Road. There is a wetland that is right behind Light of Christ fronting Bear Swamp. We have we are committing to not impact that wetland whatsoever. Um I think our storm water and understanding what the storm water requirements are going to be I think we're setting aside about 20% 15% call it 15% of the property will be in detention ponds. So,

and then we've met with the church and we have committed to work with the church on improving the parking area that they have, assisting them on a curb cut to be bare swamp and deeding them the property where their parking lot is if we're successful and able to move forward. So, this proposed project would not have vehicle traffic coming on and off of Bear Swamp Road. Correct. Okay. Correct. Thank you,

Mr. Pelotus. Uh I guess question for staff. Um so the max density under UR is 16 units per acre. Um I guess the first question is with this being a 10.86 acre parcel. Uh and seeing that multif family dwellings are not conditional. They're proposing a 100 units. But am I incorrect or correct in thinking that it could be upwards ofundred and 60 units would be technically allowed. Can I get and second question um with what they're proposing for the deed restrictions, is there any way to tie the zoning approval to that? I think we've asked before and I know that answer but wanted to put it out there.

Uh the first question, yes. uh they would start out with a possibility of a number of units of of 16 units per acre of highland. So if there are 100 acres of highland not um including freshwater wetland or OCRM jurisdiction land um then that you would start with the possibility of 160 units if you could fit them with all the other infrastructure that's required roads and drainage and that kind of thing. Um so the hundred would be less than than that. Um the other question about uh deed restriction. Um I I don't think that the planning commission can condition uh their uh approval of a uh reasonzoning um with a deed restriction. Um beyond that, I'm going to leave that up to the county attorney and county council of of how they want to try to deal with it if it gets to county council level. But uh I know that this body uh should not be approving um a deed restriction as a condition. Right.

Anybody else have any questions, comments, Luke? Nothing. I'm waiting to hear from you. Okay. All right. Do we have a motion in a second? Approve staff recommendation. Second. Can I speak? No. Wait. Staff recommendation. Yep. Oh, that was denial. I retract my second.

I'd like to just talk about affordable housing. I don't deny the need for affordable housing in Charleston City and the county, but I'm not sure that it should be an issue here. I mean I don't see anywhere here that uh if 10% is affordable housing we should approve but okay not 10% 20%. 20% why not 30%. It's not there. I mean we are approving the zoning and the number of units whether it's affordable or not I think is beyond what we should be deciding. That is my opinion and I'd like to have that affirmed. Thank you. Right. Call the roll, please.

On the move to disapprove per staff recommendation. Commissioner Davis. Nay. Commissioner Lasain, can you clarify this this motion to me? Move for disapproval. No, I which is the the staff recommended disapproval. So, if you vote yes, then you're voting to disapprove it. And I'm still a bit confused on that one. Think of it as a double negative. Yeah. Yeah. So then um I guess my vote would be a nay in that aspect because I think it should be approved. Chair Floyd um I

Commissioner Jones I Commissioner Kent nay. Commissioner McConnell. Commissioner Morris. Hi. Vice Chair Palatoes. Hi. Commissioner Cox. Hi. The eyes have it. The motion to disapprove passes.

Five to five to four.

County Council will hear this request at their public hearing on November 13th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. in council chambers. and again at their November 20th, 2025 planning and public works committee meeting at 5:00 pm. The request must then undergo three readings for approval at county's discretion. The next item on the agenda agenda is SBDV-3-25-03042, a subdivision plat application taking one existing lot and creating a total of two lots at tax map number um 583-0000-00-284, [Music] 2943 Canyon Lane, a property within the the Phillips Community Historic District. Straight. All right. Good afternoon. Uh my name is Chris Con, planner with uh subdivision. So we have SPDB03042 for TMS 583 ending in 284. Proposal to take one existing lot and create two lots. There we go. It's just a little finicky. Okay. So here we have the future land use map uh showing the uh urban suburban cultural community protection. Our current zoning S3 special management district. The current zoning overlay here showing the S3 for the subject property. The aerial view. The Phillips Community Historic District designation. the FEMA flood zone. And then here we have the site photos looking at the property on Canyon Lane and directly across uh looking to the left and to the right on Canyon Lane. And then uh the

alternate uh on Highway 41 looking at the property and then looking directly across and then to the left and to the right. Here we have the uh approved plat. Then according to South Carolina state law section 6-29-340 functions, powers and duties of local planning commissions uh 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. see an official map and appropriate revision on it showing the exact location of existing or proposed public street, highway, 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 minor subdivision plat applications as defined in the Charleston County zoning and land development regulations ordinance for historic properties districts and properties located within 300 ft of the historic properties districts must be evaluated by the commission prior to final determination by the Charleston County Planning Commission. Commission evaluation. The commission 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 of the planning commission that addresses whether and how the application is or is not consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the cultural resource element of the comprehensive plan. A majority of the HBC members present in voting required the commission shall not defer a subdivision plat application and applicable notices were posted. Uh

newspaper community interest 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. Uh Charleston County comprehensive plan 3.4.3 cultural resource element goal. And then we here we have the uh criteria CR1 through CR5, CR5 through CR10 and CR11 through CR15. All seven members present of the Historic Preservation Commission stated the proposed subdivision is consistent with the cultural resources element of the comprehensive plan citing consistencies with the element goal statement and strategy CR1 through CR15. The element goal, cultural, historic, and archaeological resources, unique settlement patterns of traditional lowcountry communities such as historically African-American communities and family settlements and traditional activities such as sweetg grass basket making should be preserved and protected from potential negative impacts of growth and development. CR1 through CR15 cited ZLDR section 8.3.2 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 S3 special management residential zoning district implements the urban suburban cultural community protection policies of the comprehensive plan. The urban suburban future land use designation states the communities in this designation are located in the urban suburban area and are characterized by lowdensity single family residential development, limited commercial activity, and some agricultural uses. Many of the roads are paved with connections to county or state maintained roads. However, Earth & Roads still exist. Many of these communities were recognized in the 2016 Charleston County Historic Resources Survey update as eligible or potentially

eligible for the National Register of Historic Places due to their unique development patterns and significance to postreonstruction era and civil rights history. Future development should be compatible with the existing land uses and development patterns and the residential density should be a maximum of four dwellings per acre. The application complies with all requirements of the Charleston County zoning and land development regulations ordinance, including those of the S3 zoning district. Because the application is consistent with both the comprehensive plan and ZLDR, staff recommends approval. Public input. Uh September 17th HPC meeting. Uh the owner of the property spoke in support of the request and zero people spoke in opposition of the application at the meeting. Uh October 13th planning commission meeting. No comments received as of October 10th. Notifications were sent out. Uh 287 notification letters were sent to individuals on the historic preservation in East Cooper area interested party list as well as property owners within 300 ft of the subject parcel on August 29th. Additionally, the request was noticed in the post and courier on August 29th and signs were posted on August 28th. All right. Okay, thank you for that report. Um, did anybody

Nope. We don't have any um public comment. Oh, hold on a second. Someone did. Excuse me. Oh, they didn't sign up to speak though. Lawrence Snipe, you didn't want to speak, right? Okay. Just want to make sure. All right. You're good. All right. Um any any questions for staff? Yes. What what's the acreage of the parcel? So the uh total acreage is 0.99 acres uh with lot B1 and I can bring it up uh show you the plat. I can read it on the plat.

Yeah, I understand. Uh so the total acreage was 0.99 acres. Uh lot B1 is 0.41 41 acres and lot B2 is 0.58 acres. Anything else? Got a motion in a second. Like to put forth a motion for approval based on staff recommendation. Second. [Music] Commissioner Davis I. Commissioner Leain I. Chair Floyd. Hi. Commissioner Jones. I ask you. Commissioner Kent. Hi. Commissioner McConnell. Hi. Commissioner Morris. Hi.

Vice Chair Palados. Hi. Commissioner Cox. Hi. The eyes have it.

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 appeals shall be filed within 30 calendar days after today's date. The next item on the agenda is another subdivision 06-25-03141. [Music] A subdivision plat application taking one existing lot and creating a total of two lots at tax map number 583-0000-00-41. [Music] This is also in Canyon Lane. Yes. Yes. Is

that right? That's another Canyon Lane one. Yes. Okay. Uh, okay. That's 2948 Canyon Lane, a property within the Phillips Community Community Historic District. And so, Mr. Conn or No, Tamara Avery. Okay. It says on here it says Chris Con.

Sure. Okay. Hi, I'm Tamara Avery with the subdivision staff. Um, I'll be presenting SBDV case 03141. So, the property is also located off of Canyon Lane. Uh, this is the future land use map reserved for cultural community protection. The current zoning of the property is S3 and there is a zoning map of the property. There's an aerial view of the property, the historic preservation overlay, and the FEMA flood zone shaded X. These are views of the property. And again down Canyon Lane, this is a um copy of the subdivision plat showing the parcel to be subdivided into two lots generally running along the public drainage easement that you see to the bottom left of the parcel. So per South Carolina state law section 629340 function powers and duties of planning commission um regulation of subdivision and development of land and appropriate revisions thereof and to oversee the administration and regulations that may adopted as provided by this chapter. Um the Charleston County Historic Preservation Ordinance section 21-6A subdivision plat application process. This allows for plats to go before the HPC to determine whether it's consistent

or inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and their evaluation that is sent to planning commission and a copy of the cultural resource element goal and all of the cultural resource element strategies. So, the Historic Preservation Commission did review this application and they um stated that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the cultural resource elements of the comprehensive plan citing consistencies with the element goal and strategies 1 through 15. And for planning commission review ZLDR section 8.3.2 determine whether or not the proposed subdivision is consistent with all requirements of this ordinance and the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. So staff recommendation is approval um based on the ZLDR and the S3 special management residential zoning district implementation of the urban suburban cultural community protection policies of the comprehensive plan and public input. The um owner of the property spoke in support of the request at the HPC meeting. zero spoken opposition and no comments were received for o for this meeting of October 10th, 2025 and notifications were sent out per um requirements. 287 letters sent to the historic district east Cooper area and interested parties list posted in the post and courier and signs were posted on the property um August 28th, 2025.

Thank you for that report. Commissioners have any questions for staff? No speakers. No speakers. That's for the other thing. No questions. No speakers. Okay. Have a motion in a second. Move to approve. Second. Call the roll, please. Commissioner Davis, can I ask a question? Sure.

Real quick. Um, has the applicant talked to the county about what is left that's buildable on this new lot given this pretty drastic drainage easement that's left on this tiny first parcel that's going to be cut out. Well, we would not be approving recommending approval or approving the plaque u if it didn't have a buildable area. So all that's required is basically 1,600 square feet or roughly 40 by 40 buildable area to make a a lot viable for building. Um and it meets the minimum lot size. So okay,

those are the two those are the two main requirements that are needed to determine whether the the lot's buildable. I I just didn't know if staff had talked with applicant about the impact of that drainage easement on Then I I understand that there's enough there for the county, but do they understand how restricted that will be? Well, the they actually dedicated it to the county. The property owner did the drainage easement. Yeah. Okay. So, the the new lot 10A1 that could not be subdivided further.

Um the only potential subdivision would be on the residual of lot 10 A2. and and part of the subdivision process is for the storm water department to review the applications so storm water is aware of it. Sorry, that wasn't my question. Um, it's fine. I got my answer. Thanks. Anybody else? Call the RO. Commissioner Davis, I. Commissioner Leane, I. Chair Floyd, I. Commissioner Jones, hi. Commissioner Kent, I Commissioner McConnell, Commissioner Morris, I. Vice Chair Palados,

I. Commissioner Cox, the eyes have it. Okay. This is the final decision of the planning commission. If any person with 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. Next item on the agenda are proposed amendments to the zoning and land development regulations ordinance. Okay. All right. Mar.

All right. So, we have some proposed amendments to the DLDDR and these amendments are intended to implement the comprehensive plan, reduce BZA case load, and provide clarifications to assist with administering the ordinance. The first few amendments are going to be covering dimensional standards. And so, this amendment would provide administrative relief. this first amendment here to section 4.2.3D and E. Um it would provide administrative relief from front setback requirements on narrow rights of way and ingress egress easements. The setback may be reduced to a minimum of 15 ft for lots that abut narrow rightways or if an ingress egress easement is 50 ft or less in width. But if a front setback is 50 ft or greater for a lot, that front setback for the secondary street may be reduced to 25 ft. Um, at this point at the we're going to ask if you all have any questions after each amendment. So, do you commissioners have any questions?

Can you give me an example of when this would come up? Yes. Joe, can you give an example? Thank you. You know, I have a staff for a reason.

No, I'm just teasing. Um yeah, this is actually something that um comes up um fairly often. Uh I'll say um where um someone is has an ingress egress easement because but especially in the well in all zoning districts, but we see it a lot in the rural areas as well. um where they can't create either create that lot even though they have enough area of the lot to create a buildable area, but they can't subdivide off of it uh off of that ingress egress easement because of the by the time they put the setback on that ingress egress easement, they're either running into the existing structure that's there that's already built there or um or that setback is um is bu is getting into the buildable area to a point where it's it makes it difficult. So, this is something that's needed that we see a lot. A lot of them go to the board of zoning appeals uh when it happens. Uh so, we just wanted to be able to do this administratively wherever it made sense.

So, this just allows staff to have the flexibility. Yes. Being able to deal with it. Yep. Yep. Yes, I just want to say uh that I have no idea whether it should be 15 ft or 20 ft and uh I will go along with the staff recommendation but I've just got to say that I do not have the experience and I suspect for a lot of the other issues that are going to be before us in the next hour or so. uh and I think in most cases, probably all cases, I will go along with the staff recommendation, but it's a confession to ignorance and I can think you can do anything about that.

It's they're all these are these are all very technical issues and if you I understand from the planning commission if it's something that you don't deal with daytoday and maybe something hard to grasp, but um but it is a issue. It is a problem in the county and um again as Mare started with the presentation our board of zoning appeals they are inundated with a minimum of 10 to 11 cases a month. They start their meetings at 4:00 and sometimes they don't get out until 10:00. Uh so wherever there is are ways administratively for us to look at this and and and do these um these reductions where it makes sense. Uh we want to do that. Um it helps both the applicants as well as the staff and the board of zoning appeals case load. And it's this is just for reasonable development by the way. We're not trying to we're not trying to create something here that's going to um you know cause a whole lot of extra development in my opinion.

So would you say they've approved most of these things that come before them? I I think the BCA has a track record of um on a case-byase basis of approving more than they've disapproved. Yes. Thank you. Just out of curiosity, would this be an issue? Particularly the ingress egress like with the flag shaped lot that we just saw, that kind of thing.

Yes, it could. Um, well, the flag lots are they're different than an ingress egress easement. An easement uh looks can look like a flag lot, but it's the property boundary does not go all the way to the road and the flag pole, the flag pole at the narrow part. um in an egret ingress egress easement that flag pole uh belongs to uh the the property owner that's on the road to begin with and that they're just providing an easement beside their house to get to the lot that they're creating behind their house. Gotcha. Do you see the difference? Yes. Thank you.

And we don't have a lot of the other one of um the rightaways. We really don't have a whole lot of rideaways that are less than 50 feet anymore. There occasionally we do come across them, but um but the majority of the rideways in the county are 50 ft whether or not they're a county road or not or state road or not. Yeah, that's thanks to me, you know. Yes. Well, and storm water and I mean public works is um they're they're real um 50 ft's needed when you do the 20 foot travel way and then have the proper drainage on either side of the road, right?

And that's the key is that proper drainage on either side of the road in Charleston County. Otherwise, your roads flood. Sometimes they do anyway. Sometimes they do anyway, right? But without that, they really will. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, the next making a motion on these individually. Yeah. So, we're going to move through all these and then vote. I hope so. Yeah. Well, okay. Works for me. That's fine.

So, the next um amendment covers setbacks on double frontage lots. Here we are allowing front setbacks to be administratively reduced on one of the street side lot lines in the R4 and UR zoning districts to allow property owners greater flexibility in developing on their properties. Does anyone have any questions? The next amendment is going to be for limit for parcels that are within the limited commercial district of the John's Island Maybank Highway corridor overlay zoning district. Here we are clarifying that the R4 minimum lot size is required for single family detached residential development. Um this is currently how staff administers the ordinance.

It does. We don't have one actually right now. There isn't one. So, we've we've been doing our best to apply what makes sense. We want to codify this and clarify it. Now, what would that number be?

5,000 square ft. Yeah. The next set of amendments have to do with accessory dwelling units, accessory uses, and structures. So this first amendment will apply to accessory dwelling units on parcels within which contain or ab but an OCRM critical line. So currently ADUs are allowed to be placed in front of a principal dwelling unit and this amendment is going to clarify that a variance is not required to place that ADU in front of the principal dwelling unit. as well. We are the current ordinance outlines minimum setback requirements for placement of an ADU to the side and to the rear of the principal dwelling unit. Here we're are proposing to add setback requirements for ADU placed in front of a principal dwelling unit as well as um simplify requirements for administration of the ordinance and public understanding of the ordinance. Does anyone have any? Uh this doesn't mean you could we're not going over the critical line.

No. Okay. No. Um and where where the where we see this a lot in the OCRM areas is that as you know if you're fortunate enough to have a waterfront property and you build your house uh you're you always build your house as close to the water as you can or you used to. You used to, right? Um we have setbacks for it and we have pretty good in the uh rural areas their setbacks are pretty hefty. Uh but u but once you do that there's not a place to put an accessory dwelling unit. Now if you're not waterfront you have a tendency to put the house up toward the road. But I just wanted to make sure we weren't suggesting that the critical ladder was automatically breached.

When we say in front of we mean between the street and the house. Yes. Yeah. Yes. All right. Here we're adding a graphic illustration to demonstrate how an accessory structure can be connected to a principal structure in accordance with the ordinance requirements. Thank you. Graphics are good. AI did that. Oh, okay. Thank you, AI. We We asked it to do it. Oh, really? Yeah. So, you can thank us and it did it right. I did it right. Good job. We We've been We've Wow. Okay.

All right. So, this ordinance is clarifying that ADUs are allowed to meet the maximum building how he height in the zoning district for which it is located and we are also amending the AU definition um in chapter 12 accordingly. Any questions? Can it can it be as it stands right now? Can it be taller than the principal? Yes.

Yes. This is the problem we're running into is that a lot of the principal units are one-story brick ranches and the height uh it's been this way for 30 years as far as I know, maybe longer. The height uh maximum is 35 ft. And um a lot of times people want to build their ADU above a garage and that automatically puts it above the um the one-story brick ranch. So um and that and sometimes in that case the brick ranch becomes the ADU and the ADU becomes the principal when it's bigger than what is there. We've run into that before. So

this helps us clarify all that. just takes all that anxiety of administering that part of the ordinance away by just saying, "Hey, ADU or principal, it can be the maximum height." So, you just pick one, right? Pick one, right? Yeah. Yeah. That's the way we've been doing it.

All right. So, for this amendment, we've had some concerns that have been raised about the placement of dumpsters in a districts in a proximity to adjacent properties. So this amendment is proposing to add regulations for dumpsters as an agricultural accessory use and permitting them under the following conditions. They have to be screened from view of the adjacent residential dwelling and the street. Um they have to be placed a minimum of 200 ft from adjacent residential dwellings and they must comply with the setback requirements of the applicable zoning district. Any questions? setback requirements for there's a set of setback requirements for the dumpsters for for each zoning district.

Yeah. And this is only apply to agricultural um zoning district. We have a lot of folks in the in the rural areas that will use the really small dumpster as their trash recepticle. Um and it's being used more and more. Uh we've had several complaints over the past couple of years of people putting that dumpster right on their property boundary 20 ft from their neighbors port front porch. Right. So we're trying to fix that. Yeah. Is that 200 ft is that is that attainable?

Yes. Because what we're talking about is 200 feet from the actual residential dwelling. of um of the adjacent parcel. So we have aerials and where we can measure that and when someone comes in to get a permit for it and by the time you add up the setback and then the center of the lot um I think it's attainable. Is it I mean is it a zigzag or is it just like one horizontal or vertical line? One straight line. One straight line. Yeah. But it can be diagonal. Yes. Can Yes. Yes. It's in the A area too. say bigger lots. So these these lots would be a minimum of 30,000 square feet to begin with. Yeah.

Right. So this amendment will permit accessory dwelling units on commercial and industrial zone parcels where residential uses have been legally established. ADUs have been prohibited on commercial and industrial zone properties in the past even when those properties were developed for residential purposes. That was it in the ordinance. Is that okay?

So if it's residential, you can have an accessory and it doesn't matter what the underlying zoning is essentially. Right. In some cases, you can have caretakers residences in some of our uses, but in general, no ADUs if it's commercially used. So here we have um in the residential and residential office zoning districts, accessory structures must be located wholly to the rear of principal structures. And this amendment is proposing that accessory structures be situated behind the front facade of a principal structure. Carports and garages will continue to be allowed in the front and then accessory dwelling units including those within garage structures are allowed to be placed in front of the principal structure. Okay. Now, this amendment here clarifies that detached accessory dwelling units are required to have separate electric meters uh which ensures consistency with the building code requirements which does prohibit the sharing of electric meters between detached dwelling units.

Now here we are proposing to add a new section which will allow agurism as an accessory agricultural use. Um, agurism is a way for farmers in a rural area to diversify their income and draw visitors um through farm related education and recreation programs. This amendment includes adding a definition for agurism to the ZLDR allowing agurism as an accessory use in the AG15, AG10 and AG8 zoning districts and allowing it by special exception approval in the AGR zoning district. And here are requirements for establishing agriurism as a use. The property must serve as a bonafide agricultural use. Um agurism use must be subordinate to and be directly tied to the agricultural use of the property and the agurism operator must also be the farm operator. You have to have a minimum lot area of 5 acres and they would have to complete limited site plan review procedures of this ordinance. And the applicant must provide documentation of current certified SC grown or product membership. And if a parcel is 5 to 10 acres, they can have a maximum of 75 attendees. And if it's more than 10 acres, 150 attendees.

Any questions? What's the rationale on setting caps on the attendees? Like I'm thinking about Boone Hall for example. That's aggro tourism and they have hundreds of people at their events.

Yeah. Um Boone Hall went uh to at the time in our ordinance it allowed through special exception um process of um of having multiple special events. Mhm. Um and u the BCA was able to um to dictate how many people could be at those events as part of that BZA process. So this is just administratively to help small this aggra tours help smaller farmers not the big event places like Boonh Hall. I think if you wanted to do another Boonh Hall type thing do we still have the special exception procedure? Yes. Yeah.

So that's still available for like what Boon Hall did. This is to help a lot of the other small smaller than Boon Hall but still not small farms to participate in this um agurism thing that's going on pretty much countrywide. One of the ways that farmers can make money these days. It's so hard to make money actually and Oh yes. So prior to this meeting um this morning we did receive a petition um in support of the aggra tourism amendment here. It had 848 signatures. Okay. And in support. In support. Yes. Wow.

Yeah. Yeah. Well actually I was going to pause right here. Mare is this the last slide for the aggra tourism? Yes. Okay. Yeah. If you don't mind council members I'll pause. Um, planning commissioners a pause here uh for a minute. Um, we did get one person to speak up for the Zelda amendments and it is Christina English and it is particularly on this topic. So, Christina, you've been sitting so patiently and uh and I was like I cannot end this meeting and not and forget to let her speak. So, I'll let her. Um, and we met staff met with Christina and her husband and and discussed Well, he's like my brother, not my husband. Family relation. Yes. Sorry. Um, uh, anyway, sorry. It's okay.

I'm going to stop talking. We love Arkansas. Yeah, we're not. Good afternoon. I'll let you all I'm not going to say anything else.

Good afternoon. I'm Christine English, 2559 Highway 174 on Edestto Island. My name is Christine English. I'm here today on behalfs of Kings Farm Market um and for farmers across Charleston County. Our family has farmed on Edestto for five generations. We grow vegetables, raise grass-fed cattle, and provide our community with fresh, local, and food straight from the fields. In addition to our farm, we operate a farmers market um which provide locally owned produce and products directly from our farms to our Edestto community. Recently, we introduced a tractor pulled uh food trailer to share simple meals and samples made um that we grow directly from our farm. Um to us, this was naturally just an extension or an accessory to our farm, but were informed when we came for permitting and received our DHCK approval that it wasn't considered an accessory use. Um this is um we were advised that we may need to have excuse me may need to reszone commercially which obviously this is something against what all of us Edestto residents and farmers want to do. Um our goal is to protect small family farmers like ourselves and under Charleston County's own zoning definition and accessory use is one that's customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the property. Our food trailer clearly meets that definition. It is incidental as a small part of our overall functioning farm and subordinate serving only what we enhance and grow and provide on our farm. We believe that this is an opportunity here for us to reduce unnecessary cost and streamline the process for farmers who simply are working to serve our community. We are asking for the freedom to farm fully to use the property for reasonable farm rellated activities and sustain both our operation and the community we serve. We utilized the 50 days of the special events permits um that Joel approved and we were able to gather 848 signatures in favor from neighbors, residents, local

leaders who agree our community stands with our farmers. So today I respectfully ask the council to stand with us to support the policies that allow legitimate farmers to operate on agricultural accessory uses on agricultural land. Simply this will change and protect our landscape. Support our agurism and help us keep family farming alive in Charleston County. Thank you for your time and for supporting local farmers and the families behind them. Thank you. This could be a record. Yep. That's it for speakers there. Thank you, Christine. Number of petitions for Oh, yeah. 800 something. Yeah. Y

we got short-term rentals.

Yep. So our next section pertains to short-term rentals. So here we are proposing to require a site plan drawn to engineer scale that shows existing and proposed conditions including parking for all STRP application submitts. Currently site plans are only required at the discretion of the zoning and planning director. This amendment will make it required for all STRP application submitts. Then we are proposing to remove the requirement for the affidavit for um short-term rentals STP zoning permits annual renewals to be notorized. However, signed affidavit by the applicant will still be required as part of the annual permit renewal process. And then the last section is of removing the regulations regarding amortization of nonconforming short-term rental properties since that immortization period concluded on July 24th of 2023. And then our next section is going to cover landscaping screening and buffers. So, this amendment is to clarify that the type-c buffer is required along Hungry Neck Boulevard. And this um will make it consistent with the Mount Pleasant Overlay zoning district. And here we um are looking to permit the reduction. So, this is for um permitting the reduction of land use buffers to a minimum of 10 ft when um utilizing inverted islands. Um, a six-foot fence or wall may be required um at the discretion of the planning director and we are looking to add a definition of inverted islands to the ZLDR as well.

Can I ask a question about that? Um, so you're cutting down trees that soak up water to put in an inverted island. I don't why why would you do that? In a lot of instances, um, there is no vegetation that exists in the commercial. These, by the way, these buffers only apply in non-residential development.

Yeah. Sorry, that should we should have clarified that at the beginning. So, all that section 9 is for non-residential development. Yeah. Yep. really quick before we move on from that. Um those basically that buffer would be 10 ft and nothing else can be in that. Correct. Yes. And then but that sixoot fence and I if you don't mind going back one slide um additionally six foot fence or wall. Okay. And then that fence would be on the pro on the property line or property side of the buffer. Property line.

Okay. Mare, this isn't the one that we removed. Okay. All right. Sorry. Thank you.

All right. So, now we are going to go over amendments to signage and lighting requirements. So, the first one is to clarify that rope lighting should be shielded to ensure that the rope itself is not visible um and that the light is directed reflected down onto the ground and not out onto the streets or neighboring properties. And then we're also clarifying that the hanging of objects from signs is prohibited and that u flutter flag signs are also prohibited and we're adding a definition for flutter flag signs. Any questions? All right. So now flutterflies are prohibited from anywhere.

Prohibited all together. Okay. What is a flutterfly? You've seen them. Yeah, they're the things that things that flop around. Yes. Yes. That and or there's like one pole and it looks like a sail sort of and it it flutters back and forth. That's a problem. Yeah. Well, I mean it's a it's an unpermitted sign. So a temporary for Yeah. Yeah. Like grand opening or something you could Well, we have a grand opening section of the ordinance that allows certain things like that. Yes, but we actually do. So, a lot of these folks will try to use them as their standard everyday advertisement to get around the sign ordinance. Yeah.

Oh, okay. Yeah. Questioning sometimes restaurants and cafes out. So, you're basically there. This comes from our site plan review staff. Um, yeah, they they just want to see them shielded. Make sure they're they're facing downward. I mean, I know what you're saying. I understand that. Yeah. If you Well, I guess essentially you have to like feel like a like a balance like a balance, right? Yeah. Yeah. So, you know, or have something so that the bulb isn't That's up to the planning commission on this one. I'm going to leave it up to you.

It would essentially just be like a light. Mhm. What is there be visible from the street and how would you enforce that? Well, that's what we're talking about from the street. So, if you put a balance on it, then it'll only be visible from when you're sitting under it, right? So, I do want to bone to pick with that one. We figured that there would be some fun.

I I've had projects where site lighting becomes an issue because of the uh shielding requirements essentially behind them. And a lot of that problem is the height at which that lighting is. And it's like, well, you have to the light source has to be visible in some way in order for the light to make it to the ground. And I understand that a lot of this is driven by this attempt to avoid light pollution from one property to to another. Um, obviously with rope lighting, I don't think that that's quite as possible. Um, but maybe I would have a different opinion if I live next door to one. So, yeah. Um well, Luke, if you don't mind me asking, have in the city of Charleston, have you run into um Okay.

No. Um it was only with a county project that I had the issue. Now, I I guess I'll take that back. I won't say that it was an issue. Um like the city of North Charleston has very similar requirements as well. Um in terms of shielding light sources, but I've never run into it obviously with rope lighting. I don't know of anywhere around here that may have that. I could be wrong. Adam, do you know if the North Charleston requires this type of lighting to have some sort of dark, right? Right.

I mean, this type of lighting is used specific mostly used specifically in proximity to outdoor seating, right, areas. So, this just a residential application or no? No. This is just commercial application. Just commercial. Yes. Section. So, clearly there's been a problem because you're bringing this up or you anticipate a problem. Why Why are we changing this? Just curious.

Do you know if we've received direct complaints on it? I think the issue is our ordinance says that site lighting has to be shielded like Luke is saying and when you have these rope lightings they're not shielded. So the the idea was to try to you codify that even if it is rope lighting it still has to be shielded because it is lighting so that we don't have

to be consistent with the rest of the work where where we where the shielding regularly is like the parking lot polemounted lights where there's a cut off along the perimeter of the property where you shield it so that it's gets you have no more than half of a foot candle spilling out onto the adjacent property That's where that light pollution. But when a light is high up on a pole, that that's where it can really the light pollution can really become a problem. And can we somehow differentiate between that candle unit? I mean, if I'm thinking of the right, you know, these rope lighting, they're not very powerful. They're not very power.

I tell you what, why don't we do this? Let's do some more research on this. I I feel very comfortable. I'm pulling this one if you don't mind from the group and let us do some more research on it. I know that in the urban areas it's a it can be a um aesthetically a benefit, you know, adds to the ambiance.

It adds to the ambiance, right? And I don't want to get into the business of of like shielding every single light source there is. And then we're trying to we're trying to um um prevent the blinding um and the light pollution along the periphery of the rural areas. So let us look look into this more. Um maybe it gets shielded in the rural areas and it's not shielded in the urban areas. I don't know. Or maybe it's a wattage thing. Maybe it's a a foot candle thing cuz like in my mind I think like I'll extrapolate this further like at what point then do you start to regulate light coming out of windows? right? You know, it can get really convoluted very quickly. So,

let me tell you, um, in the business world, as you all know, um, they will figure out a way to draw attention to the business, whether it's neon lights or, and I'm not I'm not blaming them. I'm not blaming the businesses for it. I'm just saying that that is if it if if there's no regulation, then you have a whole different you don't have the same Charleston that we have here. We have a big the big city problem. So, but these seem to be like an accent lighting, not a primary light source. Yeah. Let let us work on some parameters for it that make sense. Uh because I'm personally I think that some of this should be allowed just for the reasons we spoke.

May I say though that I would encourage you to differentiate for sure between the rural and the urban. I mean, we would love we know I know about your problem. We would love to pursue dark sky. We probably won't be able to with all the development that's been approved in so far, but um anything we can do to reduce the light pollution would Yeah, I get it. Yeah. Okay. So, that that Yeah, that one we will take off. We're deferring that section that Yeah. Y

All right. So, the next set of amendments will cover a variety of different subjects. So the first one we have are regul um amendments to chapter 3 regulations. Um here we are looking to limit power poles to 60 amps in residential zoning districts where no dwellings exist or are proposed. And then we are also looking to update the ordinance to reflect that the zoning and planning director no longer assigns or changes physical addresses. This is now a function of the GIS department and consolidated 911 center. Any questions? All right. For the next one, this is um this will be amendments to chapter 4 regulations. So here we are requiring that conceptual PD development plan um presentation workshops apply to all PD zoning requests regardless of total acreage or number of units. And then we are also um correcting on table 4.8.3 8.3 um a note referencing conservation subdivisions for alternative development standards. If you remember um a few months ago we brought before you amendments to remove the conservation subdivision per the approval of the comp plan. Okay. Okay. And here we are this is going to be to article 5.11. This is the Dupont WAU area overlay zoning district. So, we're clarifying that the permitted uses and the parcels that are in the neighborhood commercial zoning designation of the overlay will correspond with the general office um uses of the zone the uses of the general office zoning designation um as described in the use table in that chapter. And then we are also clarifying that single family detached dwelling units that are in the job center district of the DWOP overlay, they are

to comply, the setbacks will comply with the urban residential zoning district and

what was that? Is that don't It's a production bakery. You can also buy inside. [Laughter]

It's like right right up walk across from Burges. Is it the counties or the city there? Is this the one that had the issue with the parking in the right of way? Maybe. I can't remember. Can't place it. Yeah. Yes. I think it's formerly Ghost Bakery or something. Yes. That's the one that had the issue with the parking in the right of way. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I think it's more of a parking issue. Yeah. Yeah. I like that much.

All right. So, this next amendment is going to prohibit all uses except for manufactured housing units on individual lots and single family detached dwelling units from using county non-standard roads for access. Can you explain that?

Sure. Oh, yeah. I I'll try. Um and maybe Tamara can even um step it a little bit. um our non-standard county roads um they're named that because they're um they're not built to a county standard. So um if you're going to have something other than a manufactured housing unit or a single family detached dwelling unit on those and those non-standard county roads, they're limited to how many houses you can have on them before that road has to be um brought up to standard. 10. That's right. It's 10. And um so we don't want uh during that interim time before it is brought up to a standard that's safe and drains properly, we don't want commercial businesses to act use those roads or uh anything else. Um even though they're allowed up to 10 lots, we don't want one or two or more of those lots to be uh commercial businesses or anything other than uh basically a residential home. um for because of the wear and tear we'll put on that road before it gets improved to a county standard.

What I'm thinking of course is in all there's a lot of donor holes that are county land that are you know developed in ways that we don't because of the impervious surface and that's my concern with this. It's just I I hate to acquire more impervious surface in that watershed if it's not necessary. Well, you can have a county it's possible to have a county standard road that is gravel or not paved. Okay. Um there is a requirement though, however, that the road has to have the same surface type as what it's meeting.

So if it if the county is going to be improving a road there, at least where it meets uh the um the the main road that you you pull off of to get to it will have to be paved because most of the other roads are paved. Okay. So, if it exited on to 17, it would have to be paved. Yes. Yes.

In these types of situations, it would be up to the county to decide if they want to take it up to a standard road. There's a process that they go through and they've been working on this for a decade or more. U and first of all they they identified all of these non-standard county roads. These roads the problem with them is that um they're a lot of them they're not clearly owned uh by the county, but the county has h had a history of maintaining them for those residents. So, um, our way of trying to bring those road roads into the fold of safety, uh, is to allow this maximum of 10 lots off of them, uh, when someone wants to subdivide and then, um, and then to bring that up to a standard after that. So, the process is that they will go to each one of those property owners because the main thing about the road um of course is the surface type to some degree, but there's not a 50-foot rideway.

Uh so, they have to go to all the property owners that front on that non-standard county road and um compel them one way or another to give up their land to till they get to the 50 feet and then they will bring that into the county system officially and improve that road. Yeah, you're quite aware of that, I think. Yes, I am. We We have a little history on that one. Yeah.

Well, I just remember you like a long time ago when I was on county council. That was a thing. It's like, you know, so they were bringing all these roads. developers would develop and they'd put in these crappy little, you know, 30, 40 foot wide roads with no drainage to go into the county and then the county would have to go buy the easements to get the drainage. So, Yep. Yep. Those days are those days are over. Yeah.

All right. So, this next amendment is to remove the requirement for internal sidewalks in industrial parks. um they will still be required around the exterior of industrial parks and we are adding a definition for industrial parks as well. And here this will pertain to the loss of legal um non-conformity status um for damage or destruction. Here we're um proposing to increase the threshold from for loss of non-conforming status due to damage or destruction from 12 months to 36 months. give you time to fight insurance very much.

And once once it's like damaged or let's say a hurricane completely destroys it, you can't build it back of what it was because it was not conforming. Correct. Correct.

For one reason or another, it could be that it it didn't doesn't meet the setbacks or didn't at the time. So the the key term here is legal non-conforming. So, we want to be sure that even though it's it could be old, it could be newer if it's a natural disaster, but a lot of them tend to be older, um that we want to make sure that they were legal to begin with and that someone just didn't build a house, you know, on without any permits. So, if it's legal, they got a permit, but if for some reason or another over the years, it doesn't meet the current zoning, then they can now build it. uh they they now have if this passes three years instead of one year which is much more realistic in today's world uh because um if something burns down if there's a especially if there's a natural disaster just to get through the process of insurance companies and family members and you know everything else that goes along with something like this then um it gives them the opportunity to build it back. Okay. Yeah. Madam Chair,

so just as a matter of interest, so we're going to 36 months. What is it in the city of Charleston and some other jurisdictions? I think that theirs was 36 months used in one of our zoning districts initially in order by following their lead. Yeah, I think you're right. Yes. Yeah, it it wasn't that random or arbitrary. It was based on uh what we had been seeing in other jurisdictions. Um there's there were a couple other things we changed recently to 36 from 12. It was what it was other than this. It was this but it was in some of our overlay district. Oh, that's right. It was okay. Thank you. Yeah.

I'm just curious. What did y'all do before this? People would apply for extensions. No, I mean we would tell them that they have to put it in a different place if it's a setback issue or not as tall or something. Yeah. Okay. All right. Anything else? Or they would ask for a variance possibly. Yeah.

All right. And our last amendment is to add a definition for approvable state to the ZLDR. And this is Kent left before we were able to bring this forward. If you remember, Kent, this was one of Kent Prow's things. So, we'll get him to come and present it to council. All right. So, then prior to today's meeting, we can receive one comment which was in opposition to um the ped the uh pedestrian ways within the industrial park. Um and then we didn't receive any comments for any of well we did receive the petition that we discussed earlier for the um agra tourism but we haven't received any other comments for the remaining um amendments and then this was notified as required. So this So this is this is just the text of the other stuff that we go through.

Yeah. Yeah. All right. So um anybody else have any discussion questions for staff? Okay. So we need a motion to approve the whole package except for that section on site lighting. I'll put forth motion. Yep. Perfect. Second. Okay. All right. Call the role. Commissioner Davis, I. Commissioner Lusain, I. Chair Floyd, I. Commissioner Jones, I. Commissioner Kent, I. Commissioner McConnell, I. Commissioner Morris, I. Vice Chair Palato, I. Commissioner Cox, I.

The eyes have it. Okay. There is no further business. So, this meeting of the Charleston County, I was going to mention one thing real quick. Okay, go ahead. Um, it says chairs of marks, not Oh, it's chairs of parks. Sorry. Well, um I don't have any. You don't have go ahead.

Okay. Um so, uh next month's agenda, I think you'll see an item called um discussion of workshops for major subdivisions. And um what we'll do is we'll just put together a short presentation. staff is going to be proposing uh the the idea of um major subdivisions uh coming to the planning commission as a workshop item. Uh we would still retain uh as the ordinance says and as the planning commission and county council uh gave the staff the authority to approve uh subdivisions administratively on behalf of the planning commission and that has worked uh really well uh I think over the years uh but um in talking with staff and the public um we want to entertain this idea of um bringing these major subdivisions to planning commission before the preliminary plat is approved just as a workshop item so that uh the community and the public is aware of um subdivisions and again we're talking just major subdivisions um in their community. Uh we've been fielding a lot of uh calls uh after a subdivision has started construction uh with from people wondering not necessarily that they're totally against it but just why didn't I know about this? Uh so out of a a process of transparency uh we want to try float this idea. We won't have a necessarily have a draft ordinance for you to look at but just maybe have a discussion item on on the idea of it. Yeah, that's all.

Can I ask you a question about that? Yes. So, would planning commission have a a say into whether or not the major subdivision is approved by staff? No, it would just be to hear. Yes, it would just be it would just be for information purposes. Okay. Yeah. But but it's already something that's available by right to the developers.

Okay. This is just for information. Public information out there. Yep. Exactly. And there might be good there might be good constructive things to come out of it that the developer can u discuss with the community as you know tweaks that he can make to it to make it on voluntarily most more than likely because if it meets the ordinance we're going to we're going to be approving it from a staff point of view. Right. Does it slow down the process? It will uh slightly slow down the process. Yeah. Well, let me let's put it let's let's hold on a second before we say that. Um not not necessarily because we're not going to we're going to be taking the our idea Well, now we're getting into what next month's discussion, but it Yeah. Um the idea is that this will be part of the review process. So this will be going to u the planning commission as a workshop before the preliminary plat is even approved.

So how will this affect vesting or willing? No, it won't affect vesting at all. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Tamara,

we already pre-licent a lot of them provide a conceptual plan to us. So I guess my thought would be is that this would come before they even submit an application. That way their process doesn't get slowed down. It would be before they actually submit. And that that timing part would be a crucial point to the developers that are on the other side of it because if they figure, hey, you know what, this is going to take me another month or another two months, well, that cost is now going to get pushed on to the end user being the homeowner because it's it already takes forever to get anything done.

Well, you're not talking about a really elaborate presentation either, are you?

No. as and I Tamar made a very good point. 90% of these major subdivisions, they present a drawing to staff in a conceptual manner exactly what would be presented in our minds in a workshop just to introduce the introduce the project saying, "Hey, we know we have this zoning. Uh we we we we know what the minimum lot size is. We know roughly, you know, where the roads are going to go and how much drainage we'll need. This is the layout that we're looking at. not it's not for scrutiny of you know anything that gets presented either to us or if this workshop thing works out um it's not um we're not going to take anything that doesn't meet the ordinance of overall density and lot sizes so again it's just for information purposes

I'm a big fan of transparency building yeah that's the idea behind it so would they be required to do the workshop Mhm. That Yeah. Yeah. Would there be a notification requirement as well? Yeah. Yes. And we would we would pro more than likely do that. Additional fees in order to process that. Well, you've already gotten ahead of me. All right. I don't know about that. I um we could these are all good things for keep all this in mind next month. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean, you always have to if you're going to do a notification, you always have to.

Yeah, we'll figure out how to We'll figure out how it's good that we talked about now. We've got some things to to ponder over the next month. Yeah. Anything else? Anybody? Okay. No further business. I hear some mumbling down here. Okay. No further business. The meeting is adjourned. And our next meeting is [Music] November 10th Batmobile. For the what? Batmobile wide. Oh, we got to be able to have that. There can't be an ordinance against that. Yeah. Call Batman. Yes. Think about that. Well, somebody say it's light pollution. Yes. That's just Luke, right?

Yeah. Good to see you, man. Good to see you. Well, what do you think? Pleasure seeing you. Take care. Well disorders always.