Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

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, reszonings, and plan developments. The commission has decision-making authority on road name change requests, public project reviews, appeals of administrative decisions on final plats and subdivision matters, as well as other matters pursuant to chapter 29, title 6, section 6-29-340 of the code of laws of South Carolina as amended. If you wish to speak today, you should have signed in before you came in. Um, and so let me introduce uh myself. I am Cindy Floyd. I am chair. To my right, we have Pete Pilates, Luke Morris, Gary Lasain, and Adam McConnell. To my left, we have David Kent, Warick Zone, and Susan Cox. Warick Jones, excuse me. To my right, Commissioner Attorney Mark Bell, and to my left, Joel Evans, director of zoning and planning. And Joel, would you please introduce your staff?

Sure. Uh, Andrea Melisu, the deputy director. Uh Mare Miller, she'll be presenting today. Uh Wen Carlile, he will be presenting today. Chris Conn with our subdivision uh part of the planning department, he will be presenting today as well. Uh Stephanie Ando, Monica Eustace, I saw Carrie Vashe in the back there, and Tamara Avery who's in charge of subdivision. That's it.

All right. 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 July 14th, 2025 meeting. Is there a motion and a second? Second. Okay. Please call the role. I have I was not here. Okay. So, I wasn't either. Okay. Neither was Susan's. on your attendees. Is it on there? Okay, we need to check that out. So, we will make those changes. Okay. Bring it back the next. Okay.

All right. Commissioner, we need to have a vote or do you have to bring that for the approval with subject to the changes? Second. Okay. All right. Call the role, please. Commissioner Lasain, I. Chair Floyd. Um, I wasn't here. Are you abstaining? Commissioner Jones. Hi, Commissioner Kent. Commissioner McConnell. Hi, Commissioner Morris. Hi, Vice Chair Palato. Hi, Commissioner Cox. The eyes have it. Correct.

Oh, okay. Tiny attendees. Yes. All right. So, we're good. We're good. Y apologies. Apologies. Yeah.

Accepted. Okay. All right. The next item on the agenda is ACP- 06-25-0000125 and ZLDR 06-25-0000134 a request to amend map number 31 3.1.7.8 A John's Island Maybank Highway Corridor Overlay zoning district and map three da three period 1 period 7 period B John's Island Maybank Highway corridor Overlay zoning district infrastructure and connectivity map of the comprehensive plan and map 5.3 John's Island Maybank Highway corridor overlay zoning district and map 5.3.8 A John's Island Maybank Highway corridor overlay zoning district infrastructure and connectivity map of the ZLDR to change the zoning designation of TMS number 313-0000-00-179 from the limited commercial designation to mixeduse designation. Staff presentation, please.

Okay. Good afternoon, Chair Floyd and commissioners. Um so this slide describes the uh administrative um deferral and just gives the reasoning why we're uh looking at this again today. Um, as Chair Floyd said, this is uh this request is comp plan amendment 625125 and Zeldar amendment 625134 to change the designation of tax map number 31300179 from limited commercial to mixed use designation within the John's Island Maybank Highway corridor overlay district. So for the zoning history in the 90s, the subject property had a lowdensity residential zoning uh which continued in the 2000s after it was made part of the Maybank Highway corridor overlay zoning district. In March of 2021, the John's Island Maybank Highway corridor Overlay zoning district was adopted and the property was designated limited commercial within it. So limited commercial uh is intended for lower intensity commercial and residential uses than the mixed usage designation and for limited commercial to serve as a transition to the mixeduse node. So mixed use uh allows for higher density commercial and residential uses. It looks to accommodate different types of uses to facilitate alternative modes of transportation and have residential units above non-residential space. And so if the request is approved, all uses allowed in the mixeduse designation but not limited commercial would become

available. This includes multif family dwellings, hotel, motel, parking garage, gasoline service station, etc. Approval would also see density changes from the current six units per acre to 8 units per acre with a um if there was a 50-ft ride ofway dedication, approval would raise density from 12 units per acre to 19. Uh and the last bullet here uh states again the reason for the case uh appearing at this meeting with the administrative deferral. Here's the location of the property and the county as a whole. And the future uh land use designation for the property is overlay um is the overlay zoning district maps as they currently exist. And this is the current comp plan map of the overlay district and showing where the subject property is within it. And this is the proposed amendment to the overlay uh district map in the comp plan reflecting the subject property changing from limited commercial to mixed use. And this is the current comp plan infrastructure and connectivity map. And this is the proposed comp plan infrastructure and connect connectivity map reflecting the subject property changing from limited commercial to mixed use. So for the current zoning, uh the subject parcel has frontage along King Slash Road contains a single family residence. Uh the adjacent seven parcels to the west contain single family re residences and mobile homes uh and a

vacant lot and are zoned uh in the overlay district with a limited commercial designation. Uh the two parcels to the north contain a single family residence and a tree services company um and are zoned with the mixeduse designation in the overlay district. The parcel to the east contains a single family residence and is zoned in the overlay district with a limited commercial designation. And the parcels across came slash road uh to the south contain homes and are zoned R4 low density residential. So this is the current overlay zoning district map in the zoning ordinance the Zeldar and this is the pro uh proposed amendment to the Zeldar uh overlay district map reflecting the subject property changing from limited commercial to mixed use. And this is the current overlay zoning district infrastructure and connectivity map in the Zelda. And this is the proposed amendment to that uh overlay district infrastructure and connectivity map in the Zeldar reflecting the change from limited commercial to mixed use. The subject properties in flood zone X. Here's an aerial view to the north and to the south. These are photos of the subject property and photos of adjacent properties. This is a comparison of land uses between the current and proposed designations. Um the ones in bold on the right show um

uses allowed in mixed use but not allowed in limited commercial. So for the approval criteria, um these are the criteria for comp plan amendments which may be approved if council determines the proposed amendment is consistent with the overall purpose and intent of the comp plan and that one of the listed criteria here is met. And this is the applicant's response to criterion C. And this is the staff recommendation which is approval since criteria C and D may have been met. Uh the comp plan overarching theme six emphasizes for growth to occur within the urban growth boundary where infrastructure and services are already in place. Also, the comp plan recognizes the need for mixeduse development in a variety of housing types that are affordable and located near existing infrastructure. And since um they may have been met, we recommend approval. Um this is the criteria for zoning amendment uh zoning text amendments and which may be approved a council determines the following criteria are met. This is the applicant's response to criterion A and their response to criterion B and lastly their response to criterion C. And the staff recommendation is if the comp plan amendment is approved, staff recommends approval of the Zelda text amendment.

And this is the uh planning commission recommendation from the July meeting. And this shows the public input for both the July meeting and this meeting today. and the meeting was noticed as required. And that concludes the presentation. I have a question about the um the public input. Um so for the last meeting it was 193 um comments and so this 129 for this meeting is that in addition to the 193 in addition correct. Okay.

Any further questions? Yeah, I do have a question. Uh, as it pertains to the current zoning, a commercial guest house is allowed. What's the size density for that commercial guest house? Well, that it's a a short-term rental permit type, which allows for um short-term rentals 365 days a year. So, it's more um

any number of units. Well, the each um parcel can apply for a short-term rental permit. Um a commercial guest house, you know, would just need to meet the zoning requirements. Um but if if the if they applied for the parcel um and that use was approved, it would apply for you know the entire parcel um and however many units they asked for specifically in the permit application. So, would it still be based on a six per acre uh or would it be more so like there we've got another zoning whereby I think a commercial guest house might be stated as 10,000 square feet uh a unit that's not larger than 10,000 square feet something to that aspect.

Sorry. Sorry. So, um all of our short-term rental types have to be constructed as single family residences. So you could only construct the number of units that would be allowed by density. And then once you get that coed, you could come in for your um permit to do the commercial guest house, which is only allowed in our non-residential districts. Got it. So then it'd be like slightly over 12 thereabouts. We're two plus two plus acres. If it was depending on what the the density was, you'd still have to meet that density requirement. And then you'd also have to meet the parking requirement as well for the short-term rental use. Okay. Thanks. Mhm. Any other questions, Luke?

Um, yeah, you actually answered one of mine because I saw the commercial guest house as well. Um, so just want to make it clear, clarify it. Uh, multifamily is the only zoning category that, uh, residential can be attached to anything that is non-residential. Yeah, I believe um, let me get back to Here we go. Yeah. So the multif family like you said it's allowed to be above um commercial. Okay. Um exactly. So that like that use that multif family use.

And then uh my last question is um there are city of Charleston plats nearby but none of them are appear to be adjacent. So annexing is not really an option at this point anyway. Correct. Not at this point. Yeah. [Music] Anyone else? Do we have a motion? Move for approval. What? Second. Okay. Want to do the speakers? Why not? We had quite a few people sign up. Yeah, that was tricky. We'll start with uh Philip Simmons.

Are you the applicant? I am. Okay. And you asked for five minutes. Yeah. I don't know if I need all five, but I Okay, good. But I appreciate it. Just let you know you got five. Okay, that's it.

My name is Philip Simmons and I live at 3670 Old Charleston Highway on John's Island. My family's been a part of the John's Island community for almost 90 years and we still live there today. So when we when we ensure any changes are we want to ensure that any changes are positive to the island. We own the small 2.39 parcel of acre at 2856 Canes Road. We are here today to request zoning change from limited commercial to mixed use. My family has no immediate plans for development. We would likely develop the land ourself or lease it so we have better control over what goes in. Mix mixed use only brings many benefits including job creation, economic growth, increase county tax revenue and reduce suburban sprawl. It also provides a flexible flexibility to create something special, a blend of units, small small businesses to serve the neighborhood and a much needed housing for the hospital staff that's coming at Trident. Um, with a new Trident Hospital coming soon right down the street, housing will be crucial. If we don't provide housing nearby, employees will have to drive from James Allen, Somerville, or other places to get to and from work. So that that would add to the traffic and congestion. So what we're saying is we we can be build some retail with some residential above to maybe house some of

these new medical employees that are be coming in would actually alleviate some traffic concerns. So and we just think that's a winning solution. Our family has been here like I said for almost 90 years. We're a very small company or a little small business. We're not a giant developer coming in. So, we're concerned about the community also and we would really appreciate approval on this. That's not five minutes, but that's it. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions for the applicant?

Okay. Thank you. Um Pam Skinner and when um we'll go to the two-minut timer now and make sure it work because I don't think it counted down. That one was counting down. Yeah. Hi, my name is Pam Skinner and I'm um 1437 Fairview Plantation Road.

Could you get closer to the mic, please? on 1437 Fair View Plantation Road on Wadmala Island and I'm here representing the John's Island Task Force today as um their third or fourth string uh speaker because the other two were unable to attend. And so what we wanted to clear up or bring to your attention today are two misconceptions that we feel have been uh raised by the committee and a commission in a prior meeting. And the first con misconception we feel is that if a parcel is within the urban growth boundary and is on high ground that it should automatically be allowed to be upzoned. This concept does not appear anywhere in the comp plan or zeldar. Indeed, if this were council's intent, then we wouldn't be here today. Instead, council has asked you to judge this case based on individual merits. And the individual merits of this case are that the upzoning on a dirt road and nearby the most congestive inter intersections of the island does not justify upzoning. And the second misconception that we would like to bring up is that the proposed comp plan change meets one comp plan change meets one or more of the criteria in section 3.2.6 of the Zeldar. This is not the case. Criteria states C states events, trends, or facts after adoption of the comp plan have changed. The county council's original findings made upon the plan adoption. And we stress the word after. The developer has said this criteria is met, and I quote, "A significant portion and the adjacent property have already transitions to mixeduse zoning, but there have been no changes to mixeduse zoning in the overlay district since the adoption of the comp plan. So, this criteria has not been met. Criteria D states that events, trends, or facts after adoption of the

comp plan have changed the character or condition of an area, making the proposed amendment necessary. And we're emphasizing the word after and necessary. Again, staff stated this criteria may. They said may have been met. Staff cites the growth on John's Island for their reasoning. But this growth is not new. This has been an ongoing phenomenon on John's Island for decades. Indeed, that is why the John's Island Overlay District was put in place and incorporated into the comp plan. Besides, spot reszoning is an overlay district is never a necessity. Thus, this criteria has not been met. Respectfully, we ask that you recommend denying the requested changes and thank you for your time.

Thank you. Uh Dan Enfinger.

Hi, my name is Dan Enfinger and I live at 2857 Maybank Highway, John's Island. My property abuts the Simmons property on Cane Slash Road. A number of questions came up in an earlier meeting on this resoning request and I'd like to address some of those. One member of this committee asked, "Why didn't you join the city of Charleston?" The answer is that the Simmons families are been not come years having multiple generations of their family living on the properties, all of which are in Charleston County. What do I mean by this? Vineyards have been on John's Island for decades and almost without exception opposed the city of Charleston being on the island. Only one major exception to this comes to mind and he is a former county council member must be excused. He's a politician. Another concern was the adjacent properties and any plans for that. All the adjacent properties from this property to River Road on the left side of Cane Slash Road have been acquired by two developers along with all properties on the left of River Road to All Seasons Nursery. These properties have a tacit approval from the city of Charleston for the equivalent zoning to the multi-use requested by the Simmons family. How do I know this? Both the Simmons and I have been approached by these developers trying to purchase our properties. They are working with a realtor whose father develops public grocery store anchored shopping centers, the most recent at Summer's Corner on Highway 61. So, this may be the future of the corner of River Road and Cane Slash Road. I've discussed privately the opposition from the John's Island Council and the Coastal Conservation League with both groups. Opposing all applications is not a productive strategy. The groups need to look closely at the applicants and discuss the merit of each in terms of long-term benefits to the community. Someone mentioned that the John

residents of John's Island had voted to reject solutions for traffic issues. That is not correct. Thank you. Your two minutes are up. Thank you,

Steve Party. Hi, my name is Steve Perie. I'm at 1824 Crab Orchard Road. So, I grew up on Long Island back in 70s. I was a teenager back when they were building the Shoreum nuclear power plant. So, one of the things that was interesting about that whole situation is they built the plant and then afterwards realized there was absolutely no way that they could safely evacuate Long Island through those few uh egresses that they had off the island in the event of a nuclear um situation. Chernobyl had just happened, three Mile Island, etc. I've only been on John's Island for four years now. We love John's Island. A there's so much character that we love about it. There have been so many projects that have been approved and are building uh in the process of being built uh etc. that are just adding more and more and more um congestion. Some of it has been really good. the boutique hotel that was approved and which is eventually going to go in which has multi-use housing um and um uh um short-term rental. I think that will be good. The challenge is is that we're not going to have a nuclear power plant on John's Island, but we are going to have hurricanes and we are going to have situations where there's going to need to be mass evacuations. the LOS for that area of those roads in that area is already at a um an F uh I think they call an F asterisk, which means that it's the congestion is so bad and projected to be so bad up to um 2045 that we're already at a point where it's

going to be impossible for people to the current population there to be able to safely evacuate and move about the island. So, I I do hope that um and I appreciate the situation that the owners are in. I do hope they you guys respect the people that are there and the quality of life that we do enjoy on John's Island. Okay. Thank you. Um sir, are are you in favor of it or are you against it? Well, thank you very much for for asking that. I am against the approval of it. Okay. Thank you. Uh, Tamar Ortiz.

Hello, my name is Tam Ortiz and I've been living on the island all my life.

Could you tell us your address, please? uh 1852 Bluebird Road. And this is going to directly affect my neighborhood or my road that because right now it's a one-lane dirt road and we have I have a grandchild that has to go to the corner on Cane Slash and Bluebird to catch the bus. There's been so much traffic coming through there now he's almost got hit four or five times just by people just cutting short going into to the dirt road. I've had two or three close encounters myself trying to go out of the road just to try to take kids to where they needed to be and stuff. And we've got kids on that road and we've got animals and people just don't care. They just keep speeding down that road and you can say something to them and they just ignore you. They think they own the road and that whatever they claim is it. We had problems with drainage. It took an act of Congress to try to get them to just clean the drainage ditch because I'm sorry, but the Simmonses, I was told, were fighting against just putting a drainage ditch in there to get rid of some of the water that's been packed up from all the building where they're filling all the wetlands in. And we just don't want that kind of stuff to where we have more traffic and more danger for the kids and the animals. And that's all I got to say about it. I'm totally against it.

Thank you. Uh Matt um Panco. Yes. Yes. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I oppose this request simply based on the traffic. I live on 440 Bluegill Lane. At certain times in the morning and from about 2:30 on to 6:30 or so, the traffic is unbearable and it is just ridiculous to try to get out uh onto River or onto May Bank. Thank you, Al. Uh okay. Yeah. Thanks. If you could say it for me so I could know how what it is, that would be great.

Good afternoon. My name is Al Jazzitz, former New Yorker. hide your hide your children in silverware. Uh we've been down here better part about a year and a half now and I really really loved it. But I have to admit traffic on May Bank and River Road and Cane Slash Road is ridiculous. If you plan on putting this building up, I've been a I found like Pinelands Road I could actually get on actually people actually yield to you so you can make a right-hand turn without you know nailing you. Um like I said, basically I'm a New York Pock. Um, man, a few words. Most most of them are four letters long, but I'll try to keep it clean. Um, I mean, I love it. I love it. But trying trying to get down Cane Slash Road between business traffic, people going to work, and school traffic, it's ridiculous. I think if you add any more stuff there, it's just it just does not make any sense at all. It's It's going to It's getting brutal. It's getting worse and worse. I mean, I love I love this place. I've been coming down here for the better part of 5 years. My granddaughters lived down here for seven years. Great place, great people. If they only get people to learn how to use turn signals and the yield right away once in a while and not speed, it'd be so much better. But that that's that's beyond beyond beyond. It's just entirely too much building. You're eventually going to it's like putting 10 pounds of manure in a 2lb bag. It's really getting nuts. It's getting crazy. Is it necessary to add these all all these buildings? I mean, you're going to put in apartment buildings. That means you wind up like two cars for every for every uh every patron there. and it's it's just going to get progressively worse and worse. Okay, thanks for bearing with me. Have a good afternoon.

Thank you, Susan Kershaw.

Good afternoon. Um, I'd like you to um recommend disapproval of this. Could you tell us your name and address, please?

I'm sorry. Susan Kershaw. I live at 3605 Berry Hill Road on John's Island. I believe this upzoning would not be consistent with the comprehensive plan. So meeting any of the further criteria is irrelevant um at that point. And since zoning stays with the property, there is no guarantee that additional housing is going to be be built. Um it could end up just making things totally worse. Um couple things were brought up last time. Uh, Commissioner Leain, uh, we voted against the 526 extension because it was controversial and questionable whether it would solve any of the traffic issues, yet it used up most of the money that might be available um, for the foreseeable future to solve those issues. And Mr. McConnell, I agree with your thinking that Charleston needs to um more aggressively more aggressively approved denser housing on our high ground. But um we can't do that in an irresponsible way. And right now, if we allowed the byright growth currently for John's Island, traffic is going to be um dangerous. And so any upzoning I think is irresponsible at this time. Please uh deny this and perhaps allow sometime in the future when it might actually um make more sense.

Thank you,

Donna Snider. Hello, my name is Donna Snyder. I live at 1878 Pineland Drive. I live on the corner of Pineland and Canes Slash. We have three neighborhoods, two apartment complexes. Traffic is horrific. We are just approved for 16 houses across the street. I oppose this. We need no more businesses. We need no more houses. The hospital can find somewhere in those neighborhoods to live. It's is horrific. We need nothing else. Our land is being stolen from this by this by the city. So we have nowhere. Getting in and out of our neighborhood is horrible. Horrible. Thank you. That's all I have to say.

Daryl Snider. Oh y'all. I live at 1878 Pineland Drive. John, same as your wife. And biggest thing is I don't on a comprehensive plan or anything for this place. It says it's going to have a walkable way of going in and out or anything there for people to go down. Right now, it's like my sister said, it's a one lane road, dirt road at that. and the width of the property and stuff will not permit for walkways, a road, you say a 50 foot zone for traffic to go down through. I don't see how that's going to happen and you have 19 was in there for possible per acre units. Now, if you do that in all the housing as far as the parking, two per household, there's no room for anything on there. Now, if it's come up that it was four and it could be put in there, that's a different story. But right now, it would not situate or go through there with all the traffic. I've been almost run over to too too many times on that dirt road and on Cane Slash, Pineman Drive, everywhere through there. I can't get out of my driveway. It's dangerous. And they say it'll alleviate and not bring any traffic. Prove it right today. All right. So for that there if they can prove that they can do it in a sensible manner that's different but it ain't as it stands. Thank you. Uh Gary Warf.

My name is Gary Worth. I live at 2493 Summerland Drive. I got 20 acres off of River Road. I've been in Charleston all my life. I've been on John's Island for about 40 years. Um I I don't think that that there's this is a no-brainer. I don't even know why we have people here that have to to stop the uh the development on John's Island. I mean, come on. We need a break. Probably the majority y'all up there probably don't even live on John's Island. I think the young lady in the middle does. Um, I may be wrong, Miss Floyd, but this is a no-brainer. Between the city of Charleston and Charleston County, the island's gone. I mean, I'm not a tree hugger. I don't love trees, but we got one damn tree that won't let us get off the island. And yet, it got down 40 of them, you know, on the other side of the island. I was I had a developer come to me and offer me millions of dollars, and I went under contract, and they were going to build 200 houses on my property. And lo and behold, here comes Elliot sami. He said, "Oh, hell no. The airport shut that down. I got shot out the water." It's just crazy. You need to stop the development, please. The traffic is terrible. I think the man on the end already said he approved it. So, we're already in under in water now. When's the last time any of y'all have been to John's Island? Can we see a show of hands or is that a question out of out of line here? Has anybody been down Maybank Road? I live on John's Island there every day.

I know. I know. But you got to come out there and see what the problem is between the city of Charleston, the tree on Maybank Highway.

I I disagree with Mr. Phillips. I don't know him. We don't need any more houses. We don't need any more apartments. We don't need anything. What we need is roads. So, please for once deny this request and maybe the ones to come. Brad Tagert. Brad Tagert, 1633 Jesse Elizabeth Road, John's Island. It is no secret that John's Island infrastructure can't handle the development we already have today. We definitely can't handle the development that is currently approved by Wright. It hadn't even occurred to me what things might look like if we start approving things that currently aren't allowed, like putting an apartment complex on what's basically a country road where the zoning isn't allowed currently. So we are in an infrastructure hole and the only way you can get out of a hole is to put away the shovel and quit digging. And to approve something like this is like bringing in a backhoe to dig the hole faster. What I find very scary about this application is that the developers are watching. They see these people swinging for the fences asking for something that isn't currently allowed. To approve a stretch application like this sends a very bad message as to what the county government is willing to entertain in terms of overdevelopment. So I ask you to please turn this down. I hear so many times, oh we can't do anything about it because it's, you know, the zoning says they can do it. Well, the zoning here says that they can't do it as it stands. So I think we

need to keep it that way. So please deny. Thank you. Ellen Silver.

Good afternoon. My name is Ellen Silver. I live at 2066 Uti Street in the Oakfield development. And before I forget, I would like to invite any single one of you who do not live on John's Island to please come spend the night at my house and try and get to work on time with schools opening and everything going on, getting your butt down cane slash road and getting to work on time. Open invitation. Call me anytime. Um, I am here not just for myself, but for a whole list of Oakfield uh residents who work and can't get here at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. And I'd like to read a quote for one of them and then I'm happy to give you the name uh all the names. Some of them have the addresses, some of them don't. Um, one of them said developing land on Bluebird Road would compromise the area's natural integrity, increase traffic and congestion on Canes Slash, and turn it into a bottleneck during peak commuter hours. This would not only disup disrupt the local environment, but also create significant delays as traffic would lightly back up to the traffic circle, exacerbating the problem. I absolutely oppose this uh development. And if you'd like to, I have two pages. I have 40 names here that are standing behind me.

Are you part of a like an HOA or a community organization? These are just people. Okay. Neighbors who do not want this to happen because they are trying to get to work and trying to get their their kids to school on time. Many of my neighbors leave their house at 6:00 a.m. to get their kids to school on time so that they they can get down Cane Slash and River Road. Come visit me. Open invitation. Thank you. And the last one, uh, Tori Sanders.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the commission. My name is Tori Sanders. I serve as the communities and transportation project manager at the Coastal Conservation League at 131 Spring Street. The increase in density requested by the applicant is significant in an area where infrastructure is still struggling to catch up. The current zoning already allows for plenty of density and flexibility of use that would be compatible with the surrounding area. Granting this resoning could also set a precedent um that nearby limited commercial parcels could also request um an upzoning to mixuse. We recognize that this parcel exists within the urban growth boundary, but even so, not every parcel needs to be mixed use, especially on John's Island. This will further impact the rural character that John's Islanders are desperately trying to hold on to. The limited commercial parcels were zoned as such for a reason. The applicant has stated there is no development plan for this for years to come, but we have no way to guarantee that. Once this resoning is permitted, there is nothing that requires them to wait to construct their mixeduse development until the surrounding uh public infrastructure has become sufficient enough to accommodate it. The surrounding parcels are single family uh residences and a low impact tree business. A mixeduse development located here does not seem compatible. Neither Bluebird Road nor Can Road can accommodate this type of density and adding additional pressures on the intersection of Maybank Highway and River Road feels irresponsible. Lastly, this area experiences a ponding effect during average pre precipitation events, even with Bluebird Road in its current state as a dirt road. Increasing the impervious coverage in this area will undoubtedly exacerbate that issue. While FEMA maps may designate this area as low risk for flooding, they are not intended to be prescriptive to development. This is a perfect example of how FEMA maps often do not capture the actual conditions of the site, which should be concerning to the commission when such a substantial increase in the potential development footprint is requested. Thank you so much for your time um and consideration of our concerns. We respectfully ask that this resoning

request be denied. Thank you. Thank you. That's it. We ask for a motion or Yeah. motion and second and discussion. Do we have a motion? Move for approval. I'll second that discussion.

As before, I will oppose this. I've heard the public it's overwhelming in opposing this application. um I go along the uh infrastructure doesn't carry it and secondly the comp plan has just been recently completed with a lot of public input and it shouldn't be disregarded and I suppose one other thing I guess after the comments of one commissioner last time comment I would like to make is that uh in the formulation of the comp plan we're required to take notice of what the community says the community. That's the residents of the community. We don't have to regard the future people that might be living in here, living at John's Island. That's not part of the community. We should listen to the residents, not who do you find, how do you find what the future people might be in that area. It's the residents, the community that we look to. And frankly, I've never seen such an overwhelming response to an issue from the community to this issue. So, as before, I heartly will will uh uh recommend that this not be approved.

Pete, um when could I ask you to pull up map 5.3.8, A the um Maybank Highway corridor overlay zoning district infrastructure and connectivity map.

Sure. Hold on one second. Maybe not. should be further down. Yeah, one of one of those. That's great. Um, so when I look at this map, I see that the way it was designed, there are several there's three nodes uh for mixed use. They all have egress, direct egress on onto either Maine, Maybank or River Road. Um it it seems like there's ample opportunities to have these kind of mixeduse developments where there is the proper igress in supporting infrastructure. When I look at the location of this parcel, um I just feel like it has the appropriate zoning. Um concern is if we allow this to become mixed use then why not just have the whole overlay as mixed use. Um I I don't think the infrastructure probably supports uh even this future zoning as is with the um six units per acre on the um limited commercial and the eight on the mixed use. But it's where we are. I don't think we need to get even more aggressive with it. Anyone else?

Go Adam.

Uh to say that a planning commission should not be taking into account future residents is absurd. It's our job. We are planning for the future is a future land use map which we're evaluating here. the future. We have in the position we are now because we have not done a good job of planning. We have failed the people. We have failed the community because we have not done our job. The politicians have not done their job. The infrastructure people have not done their job. We've failed across the board to provide adequate facilities, adequate housing, adequate transportation, access to education, all of it. Right? We're failing and it's not going to stop. 270,000 people are moving here in the next 20 years. That's equivalent to the amount of people have moved here in the last 20 years. And it's an equivalent of the entire population of North Charleston and South Charleston combined today. Complete doubling of that population. Where are you going to put them? You're going to put 75% of them in Berkeley and Dorchester County. They're going to drive through Charleston County. That's a challenge. We have to face that. We do not have the opportunity, the funding to provide the infrastructure for that. So we need to be smarter about how we plan for the future in this planning commission so that we can put people where they work and put jobs where people live close to their schools in building communities. That's should be the vision here. We are cities are not frozen in time. They evolve. We have to have find smart ways to to to guide that process on this board. I know that there it's contentious. I know that people are having challenges. I feel it myself. Um and I'm absolutely sympathetic to some of the people who are feeling the pressure from that growth and it's still going to come and we can't doing nothing

is not an option. So to say that this process only needs to look at what's for today is absurd. This should be looking forward to the future so that my children, my children's children, and their children have opportunities to live, work, and play in our community. Thank you, Luke. [Music]

Um, so I agree with you. Uh, we do need more housing. Um, these PE like everyone moving here, uh, we're growing and that's a great thing. It's much better than not growing. Uh, but to me, the issue, well, I'll break it apart. So, the first issue is whether or not the comprehensive plan is essentially outdated. Um and I would say that it's not um just based on the approval criteria. Uh so essentially um saying that events or trends have changed since we adopted a couple of years ago the most recent comprehensive plan change. Um I don't agree with that. Um, and like Pete said, these are nodes, three distinct nodes of higher intensity use with the idea being that within these nodes, hopefully we can have the density that supports uh, essentially what I call a good density, people being able to walk or use other modes of transportation that don't aren't just cars because one of the biggest factors that we've heard today is traffic. Um, I'm on John's Island very regularly and uh I feel bad for my family and friends that live on John's Island uh having to commute to and from the island uh to get to work and other places that they like to go. Um, so the idea being that you can have more things closer to you, more at your fingertips, so that you don't have to keep relying 100% on vehicle traffic to enjoy your day-to-day life. Um, but that being said, if the question is whether or not the comprehensive plan is outdated, I would have to say that it's not. Um, but moving on to a a more enjoyable topic of zoning, I think that based on our last meeting that the applicant uh one of the drivers for this change uh is the ability to have connected residential. And ever since then, I've been kind of obsessing over in the ZLDR that it seems like residential use is

the only thing in the ZLDR that it uh requires attachment or detachment. I'm not sure there's any other use that is like that. You can take other commercial uses and attach them. Uh and being an architect that that attachment from a life safety perspective uh generally of fire separation is addressed. So the ZLDR in my opinion is a bit anti antiquated in still addressing that. Um and so it would be great to change the ZLDR so that residential attachments could be made to commercial units so that we could reduce those densities densities so that people aren't 100% reliant on cars. Um, and if that's the only thing or only reason, main reason that the applicant would like to upzone, I don't see that as a compelling argument, especially considering that we're talking about the density increase from six units per acre to 8 units per acre. Um, additionally, some of the entitlements under mixed use, uh, specifically hotels and motel are a bit concerning to me because they tend to be 100% car reliant, and it's going to directly, uh, negatively impact um, the environment from a good density versus bad density perspective. Um, so for that reason, I'm still going to vote no on this one.

Anyone else? Just

one more. I just want to clarify also when I speak of concentrating higher density development on high ground that's in proximity to major transportation corridor. So I'm not saying obviously go down and find every piece of high ground all over John's Island and develop it. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if you have high ground that is along a a transportation corridor, those are areas while I will continually support upzoning because those are the ones even if the infrastructure is inadequate now the opportunity to expand that infrastructure in the future is there and we need to be focused on there so that we're not cutting down swast of the remainder of John's Island and so right that's that's I just want to clarify that it's the caveat is that it's close and in proximity to existing roadways major roadways thank Rick,

I will still stick with what I said. People that uh are opposing this plan are not necessarily opposed to growth. As somebody said, if the structure was there, infrastructure was there, they would be more sympathetic to growth. It ain't there. Maybe the system is broken. A lot of this is beyond our control. It lies with the state. And I still say that you would be exacerbating the problem by uh allowing this application to go through. Yes, infrastructure needs to catch up before we start doing more approvals. But at this stage, please know I'm total sympathy with the community and pressed by my my recommendation to disprove this application.

That's it. Okay. um vote without what he's saying. Oh, I say sorry. I won't. All right, let's have the vote on the motion to approve and um yeah, let's repeat what the motion was so everyone know. The motion was to approve. Okay. Motion to approve staff recommendation which is to approve. Yep. Okay. Uh Commissioner Leain. Hi. Chair Floyd. No Commissioner Jones. No. Commissioner Kent. No. Commissioner McConnell. I Commissioner Morris. No.

Vice Chair Palados. Nay. Uh, Commissioner Cox. Strong. Nay. Uh, the motion has failed. Okay. Do we need 62? We need to change it around. Um I don't think we don't need to reverse it on this. You don't need to reverse it. I refer one right now. What is the recommendation to council? Okay. All right. Um the motion failed. Uh does someone want to make a motion that might be in the affirmative?

I would make a motion that uh we disapprove this application. Call the RO again, please. Is there a second? Yes, Pete. Second. Pete. Okay. Commissioner Leain. Nay. Chair Floyd. I. Commissioner Jones. I. Commissioner Kent. I. Commissioner McConnell. Commissioner Morris. Hi. Vice Chair Palato. I Commissioner Cox I the eyes have it

62.

I have to read about when it goes. Okay. Um is there discussion? County Council will hear this request at their public hearing on August 26th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. here in council chambers and again at their September 11th, 2025 planning and public works committee meeting at 5:00 p.m. The request must then undergo three readings for approval at council's discretion. The next item on the agenda is JRE Z-06-25-0000163, a request to reszone TMS number 310-06-0000-18 and 132 from the neighborhood commercial um zoning district to community commercial zoning district.

Good afternoon. So, as stated, this request is to reszone the parcels 310 060018 and 132 from the neighborhood commercial to the community commercial zoning district. In 1994, both subject properties were zoned neighborhood commercial and have maintained that zoning since the adoption of the ZLDR in 2001. There were two past requests to reszone the subject properties from neighborhood commercial zoning to commercial zoning. Um, county council denied both requests. Here is the location of this subject property when looking at the county as a whole. The future land use designation of this subject parcel is urban suburban mixeduse. Now, both subject parcels are currently zone neighborhood commercial and are vacant. Parcels to the west contain a single family residence and are zoned urban residential within unincorporated Charleston County. Adjacent parcel to the south is zoned general business within the city of Charleston and contains a gas station convenience store and across Edetoan Avenue to the north are two properties. One contains a church and a zone SR4 within the city of Charleston. The other parcel has SFR has a single family residence in zone low density residential R4 within unincorporated Charleston County. Now across Savage Road to the east is zone community commercial is developed with the CarMax Auto Sales dealership within unincorporated Charleston County. The subject properties are located in flood zone AE and X. And here's an aerial view to the north and to the south. These are photos of the subject properties. And these are photos of the intersection of Edetoan Avenue at Savage Road and adjacent parcel to the west. These photos are of the parcels across Edetoan Avenue.

This slide shows the comparison of all land uses in the current neighborhood commercial zoning district and the proposed community commercial zoning. Uses with the C are allowed with conditions. Uses with the S require special exception approval by the BZA and the uses in bold are only allowed in the zoning district it is listed under. Now because these subject properties are primarily surrounded by residential zoning and uses um with the surrounding commercial parcels to the south and east having frontage along Savannah Highway with no adjacent residential uses. The development also along Edean Avenue remains residential. And then additionally, the requested CC doning zoning district will allow for more intense uses such as truck stops, vehicle sales, vehicle storage, um wholesales by right and then conditionally like self-service storage and outdoor recreation and entertainment uses which are not allowed in the current NC zoning. Criterion A and criterion B have not been met. Criteria C and D are not applicable. and staff finds that none of the criteria has been met. Therefore, staff recommends disapproval. Now, prior to the July 14th planning commission meeting, um one comment was received in support and no comments in opposition were received. And then prior to today's planning commission meeting, two comments in support were received, including a letter of support submitted by the applicant. No comments in opposition were received. Um this request was um requested for deferral at the July 14th meeting by the applicant and then this meeting was noticed as required.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that report. Any comm any questions for staff from the commissioners? Okay.

We had two speakers. Uh, Cassidy Clemens, the applicant. Thank you, commissioners. My name is Cassidy Clemens, 1626 Cole Boulevard, Lakewood, Colorado. I'm here today to talk about the proposal of the expansion lot. This will serve as vehicle staging to alleviate some general sight constraints on the existing CarMax site and to reduce stress on the operations team uh as they're feeling a little constraint on the existing site. Uh no retail operations will be on this site. Uh the current store estimates that they're moving approximately 60 cars a day. Uh so this site expansion will be for that final quality control check. An overview of the site uh it is what we call a whiplot work in progress. So this is for retail service and cars awaiting shipment. Uh no heavy service operations happen at our CarMax retail facilities. We typically outsource that to uh different facilities. So as I said this will be a vehicle staging area on the site. There will also be a guard house for security purposes. Uh the storm water detention area will be on the north side and the landscaping buffers to the dissimilar uses will be proposed as well. How we got here? Uh we worked with and collaborated with adjacent property owners through the neighborhood meeting um and then worked with them outside of that neighborhood meeting to alleviate any concerns that they did express. Uh we heard some operational concerns. So we uh addressed that by connecting the community members with our operations manager on site. They now have the contact information to call the store directly for the operations manager. Um, and since this morning when we spoke with the operation manager, all concerns had been alleviated and we find that uh we've we fixed those issues that they had concerns with. So, I'm going to turn this over to the next speaker. Sorry to call that out. Uh, Jacob's going to work with the applicant team.

Yeah. And he signed up so he on the signin sheet. Okay. Well, that's what I have for you all. Thank you. Thanks. Uh, Jacob Allen question. Yeah, I I do have a question. Um, this would be more of a question for Steph. Could something like this actually be handled through BCA uh just based on a restricted use for that lot for parking for staging where the zoning would not have to be changed? Uh, no. The way our ordinance is is written, um, there are certain things that are allowed by special exception and certain things that are allowed by right. So, special exception for vehicle storage is not an option for the current zoning. Got it.

Right. Thank you. Yep. Now, Jacob Allen. Okay. Sorry about that.

Good afternoon. Uh my name is Jacob Allen and uh I'm with uh Mayor Nexon here in Charleston. Uh we represent the applicant in this project. Um sorry, let me get my papers put in order here. kind of falling off. Um so we um first of all I just want to thank plan commission for the time today. Um and thanks staff for working with us this far in this project. Um Mayor Nexon has prepared a letter that was uh submitted uh to the planning commission and uh included in your packet today. Hopefully you all have had a chance to review that. Um but if not, I just wanted to hit some of the highlights of that letter. Uh so we respectfully disagree with the findings in the staff report that the the proposed reason zoning is inconsistent with the um urban suburban mixed use land uh future land use designation in the comp plan. Um we don't believe that the surrounding residential um creates any conflict um with the the goals of the comp plan. Specifically, the comp plan provides that the um the mixed use categories intended to accommodate a variety of land uses uh including both residential and non-residential and specifically encourages the mix of uses uh within this category. The requested reszoning would increase the flexibility of commercial uses um allowed within uh or on the site. Therefore um advancing the mixeduse goal of the category. Uh also the comp plan does not create any requirement that the commercial uses um have frontage main along a major arterial road. Um, and

then finally, thanks. If I I'm happy to answer any questions that y'all may have. Any questions, Pete? Um, when you refer to this as a staging area, this is where the cars are dropped off or either picked up transport. I'll defer to Cassidy for operational questions. So, cars will still be dropped off on the site to the east and they'll follow the truck route uh to the north side of the eastern property. So they'll just drive over from the lot, the car carriers will not enter this site. Okay. Thank you.

Say that again. So the car carriers that bring those massive trucks, they will continue taking Savage Road to the eastern lot, the existing CarMax, and they'll go on the northern Do you have a site the site by chance? Wish I had a big map for you to highlight it, but they'll take access. I'm familiar with the area, so Okay, perfect. So they'll go on the existing site and be dropped off on the existing site. Okay. So no heavy traffic down Edawan. Correct. The traffic will continue to take uh Savage Road to the existing site. Okay. So this will goes into Savage Road. And if the intersection of this lot is on the corner of Etawan and Savage,

correct? So the carriers will continue to take Savage straight into the existing site. They will not go to Etean onto the the proposed expansion lot. The expansion lot really just is for um operational staff to utilize. Retail will not be going to that site. Customers will not be going to the expansion. What do you mean by operational staff? The operational staff will be on that subject site to ready the cars for uh the sales lot. So just doing minor things to get the cars ready to be moved over to the sales lot. Excuse me. Okay. For pres presentation. Okay. Do you want to add to that, Bradley? Anything mechanical?

No mechanical work will be done on the site. So any heavy machinery, any heavy changes that alterations that need to be done to cars, CarMax does not do on their retail uh sites, we will have a contract or send that to another uh more heavy machinery operative car repair store. Any uh repairs that are done on CarMax sites will be like oil changes and simple cosmetic things. Okay, Luke, are there any specific hours of operation for when they would be bringing cars from the main site to this site and vice versa? Because Savage is pretty well traveled and the intersections I see being created are a bit convoluted. So,

yeah, absolutely. Things like that would I would imagine be determined at the time of the uh site review application because that's when we would submit that transportation impact analysis and we would understand when the transportation impact analysis when the there were heavy increases in traffic on Savage Road and so hours of operation are typically determined once we receive that transportation analysis which comes at the next step. Adam, did you have something? I'm good. Thank you. Good. Anybody else? Okay, that's it. We have a motion.

I do have a question for staff actually real quick. I just thought thinking about um I know I just stated that I would be supporting uh upzoning when it's appropriate. The thing that freaks me out or when someone says truck stops or other major automotive related industries, that to me sometimes can be a very strong red flag, especially in communities. And I'm just wondering if there's any ever been any thought within the community commercial designation to allow the highway uses to become somewhat um of a special exception or sort of conditional use. Have we ever evaluated that historically or has it been pushed back?

I try to understand what you said um Adam. So if if this was zoned community commercial to having a category instead of having that heavy truck use allowed by right having it a special exception. Yeah. I mean I guess my my fear like I'm overall like I'm fine with this. It doesn't bother me. I'm not twisted up about it. But if they were to buy the BP station in front of it or whatever it is and all of a sudden they put a massive truck stop there, right? All of a sudden that becomes a a bigger encroachment into a highway oriented use into a community. That is for me my uh my purpose for supporting upzoning is mostly housing oriented. Right.

Right. And and for amenities. Yeah. So that's all. I just didn't know if we had that provision or if we ever evaluated it. No, we haven't uh had that provision. I haven't staff has not evaluated that as a special exception um for those higher intensive use. But that does bring the point uh to I know the applicant states what exactly what it's going to be used for but do realize that in these uh what we call straight resonings from one category to another anything in that category would be allowed by right with site plan review approval right just Susan

that is what concerns me once it is re once it is upzoned it is upzoned and I worry a great deal about the precedent being set. If we continue to say yes to these upzonings, how do we then say no? Um and you know, I agree. You know, we're at housing. We're at affordable housing. You know, that would be a very different thing in my view, but um just another piece of concrete. It doesn't seem like it adds anything to the community and to upzone for that um I would say no. Could I address one thing um that Commissioner McConnell? Sure.

Um so you mentioned uh about the BP parcel on the corner um acquiring that lot. So that that lot's actually in the city of Charleston. So there wouldn't be much concern about acquiring that lot in order to to develop one propert that the subject property here would have to be annexed into the city. So just wanted to clarify that. Where where are the uh cars currently staged at? What are you currently using as your staging area?

Sorry for the back and forth. I'll just stay up here. Um they're currently being staged on the Eastern lot, the existing CarMax site. It's just feeling quite constrained with how many cars are being brought in and moved out every day. Like I said, operations estimates 60 cars being sold a day. CarMax. Hi, my name is Bradley Escobar. I'm sorry, but you didn't sign up. Okay. Do you want to sign or can you just to the commission? Do you all want to hear from him? I would. Sure. Okay.

So, Bradley Escobar, 12800 Tahoe Creek Parkway, Richmond, Virginia. from the home office and currently the cars the whip area we have on the existing site it's currently under size for the volume of cars we're you know moving today we're parking those vehicles that CarMax owns actually in the customer employee lot so they're outside of the secured area and taking up those spaces that normally our customers and employees would park in and I visited the store today and again it's it's completely congested it's uh very space constraint and acquiring this parcel would alleviate a lot of those problems and help make uh help increase efficiency on site. Um, but I'm here to answer any other questions you may have just in case.

You know, I'm I'm just going to go ahead and put it out here. It's I I hear you guys and and understand the need for it. I think what we're actually facing here is the need to have a up zone that does not allow us to have restrictions. Uh and and that's that's the hard bridge to cross on this one. Okay. Do we have a motion? Yeah, I do have a motion. Yeah. Go ahead. Accept the staff recommendations and deny the application. Okay, I'll second that. Any other discussion?

It's really quickly. Um, so I agree with everything that's been said and I struggle with this. Um, and honestly, I don't think that, uh, you know, commercial use should radiate from a node. Uh so it's not I don't have really any issue for a commercial use extending down Savage. Um but it's almost like what's been echoed here if there was some way that under the CC zoning we took a better look at how that what kind of uses can go into that specifically car oriented uses. So that's all I had to say.

Okay. So we're ready for the vote. Call the roll please. Motion is to disapprove first staff recommendation. Um, Commissioner Leain, I. Chair Floyd, I. Commissioner Jones, I. Commissioner Kent, I. Commissioner McConnell, [Laughter] Commissioner Morris, I, Vice Chair Palados, I, Commissioner Cox,

the eyes have it. Excuse me.

Okay. County Council will hear this request at their public hearing September 16th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. in council chambers and again at their September 25 and 2025 planning and public works committee meeting at 5:00 p.m. The request must then undergo three readings for approval at council's discretion. Okay. So, where are we? Right here, number 11. Right. And then that that's the one.

Yeah. Um Mark um for the next case I think Mar will start off by uh letting us know about some correspondence that we've had with the applicant and we can let the planning commission decide from there. U so Maria I'll go ahead and let you describe this.

So the applicant has submitted a letter requesting to defer and I'm going to read it into the record. It says, um, "Dear Charleston County Planning Commission, I would like to defer my application at this time in order to separate the two parcels. Unfortunately, I am ill and cannot attend today's meeting. Thank you for your understanding. Sincerely, William German." uh when he says that he would like to separate the application, he has two parcels that are under one um case resoning case number and he wants to separate them into two separate cases and that's his request and if if you are to approve that it would come back at the October planning commission meeting.

So he's essentially asking for a deferral. Yes. Okay. And our normal process would at this point in the process, we usually uh we like to have the um the applicant or the applicant's representative be here in person. He couldn't he's ill and he couldn't get his representative here. So he did the next best thing. He wrote a letter. So that's where we are. So you need a motion. Yes, that would be great. Move to defer. Second call B. Did we also want to include the splitting of the Yes, it's Yeah, the the splitting of the case in the mo and in the vote. Yeah.

Yeah. He will split the cases when it comes forward back. It'll be two separate cases. Yeah. Uh, Commissioner Lusain, I. Chair Floyd, I. Commissioner Jones. Hi. Commissioner Kent. Hi. Commissioner McConnell. Hi, Commissioner Morris. I, Vice Chair Pados, I. Commissioner Cox, I have it. Okay. This does not get count. Right. Right. Right. Okay.

And um I'm apolog Richards and Timmy Spanos. Yeah. So, yeah, this was deferred. I'm sorry that you could didn't I know you came to speak but you you'll have an opportunity in October. Um October exc. Sorry it's it's October the next meeting is it? Yeah. It's for October. Okay. Good. Yeah. Yes. Thank you. October. Yes. Yes. That's up to the commission if Well, since you're here, go ahead.

There were two people. Well, there was one person in front of you if you don't mind. Um, Myra Snipes. I like to go in order unless the applicant is here. If if I'm going to let one person speak, I'm going to let them all speak.

Good day. My name is Mars Knight Richardson. I live at 2755 Earl Johnson Lane, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. I was here to oppose the approval of this reszoning of this property or these two parcels. It's in the front of the Hamlin Beach community from Hamlin Road to Boston Grow Road where there's significant flooding already on these parcels, especially at the intersection of Boston Grow Road and Rifle Range Road. This area, Mr. German, um has three has a parcel that's already been approved as a RC zoning back in 2004. Again, staff approval. And if you were able to see the pictures, he's already using the two parcels that he was requesting to be reszoned as commercial property. One is a storage vehicle area with a bob wired fence enclosure. He owns several lots in the Hamlin Beach community and we were concerned that if you allow this upzoning for this property, then he would request other reszoning of other properties and how would that affect our community? not only our community, the existing communities around the Hamlin Beach area, as in Hamlin Plantation, and anybody that's taking that route down Raffle Range Road. Raffle Range Road is a quiet, peaceful, well, not peaceful because it's a hightraic area. People are trying to avoid Highway 17. Highway 17 used to be nothing but houses. Now it's nothing but commercial property. So that's why we're asking that you avoid resoning this property because it does not fit the area character and it would cause significant traffic issues for all of us commuting down Raffle Range Road trying to get home. It would affect the quality of our life. So we are asking you not to approve the zoning.

Thank you. And now Timmy Yeah.

Spanos. Yeah. Hi, my name is Timmy Spanos and I live at um 1606 Aztec Lane in Mount Pleasant, right off of Rifle Range Road. Um I I come here as a resident off of Rifle Range, but I also represent two other um clients of mine. I'm a real estate agent here in Charleston and they live off of Rifle Range and Hamlin there. and they purchase actually within the past year because of the ruralness and in the town of Mount Pleasant and plan on you they have two acres one of my clients and they plan on it a single family homestead and they love the fact that the historic preservation is there um and as a resident of off of rifle range I don't believe it needs to be another commercial I understand it's possibly another gas station it doesn't necessarily need to be that um keeping the ruralness um I think especially with the historic preservation is needed. Um, I have a child with special needs and I like to be able to know that the the roads that we're on are safer and not congested. Um, it's right down from laying middle school in an elementary school. We don't need another commercial gas station on a side road like rifle range. Um, I think it's important to keep the historic community there and myself and many other individuals that were behind me oppose the commercialization and reszoning of that piece of property.

Thank you. We want to know a lot of people wrote in will those Yes. too.

Well, would they get forwarded to the planning commission when the case if we had gotten to the presentation, it would have been presented. Yes. The next item on the agenda is Z-6-25-0000164, a request to reszone tax map number 179-0000-00-113 from the Agricultural Preservation AG10 zoning district to Agricultural Residential AGR. are more. All right.

So, this parcel is located off Highway 165 and as stated, it is to reszone from the AG10 zoning district to the AGR zoning district. Now, prior to 2001, the subject properties parent parcel was zoned AG and it was reszoned to AG10 zoning district with the adoption of the ZLDR in 2001. And then in January of 2022, um the 64.32 acre parent parcel was subdivided to create a 20.57 acre parcel um TMS17900000000112. And then in July of 2022, the subject property was subdivided out of parcel ending in 112. And then prior to this request, no other zoning map amendment requests have been submitted for the subject property. This is a copy of the current recorded plat and the plat st the current recorded plat that created the subject parcel. It includes a note that states the density has been met for TMS1790000112 and no further subdivisions is allowed after this plat is recorded. Here is the location of the subject property when looking at the county as a whole. The future land use designation of the subject parcel is agricultural preservation and the adj adjacent parcel to the west is zoned AG10. Parcel to the north is zone resource management. And then the parcels to the east across Highway 165 and those immediately to the south are located in the AGR zoning districts as they were less than 30 acres in size as of April 21st of 1999 and designated as settlement areas with the adoption of the 2001 ZLDR. The surrounding properties are undeveloped or contain single family homes. The subject property is located in flood zone X

and here is an aerial view to the north. and to the south. These are photos of the subject property and adjacent property to the west. And these are photos of parcels across Highway 165. This slide shows a comparison of the allowed land uses in the current AG10 zoning district and the proposed AGR zoning district. Um, uses with the C allow with conditions. Uses with the S require special exception approval by the BZA and those uses that are in bold are allowed only in the zoning district it's listed under. The request to reszone to the AGR zoning district is inconsistent with the comprehensive plans recommended agricultural preservation future land use designation which is implemented by the AG10 zoning district. And the proposed AGR zoning district permits permits a higher residential density, one dwelling unit per five acres to one dwelling unit per acre than the agricultural preservation future land use designation, which would be one dwelling unit to 10 acres. In addition, this request does not meet criterion one of the comprehensive plan section 3.1.7A um and or ZLDR section 4.9.5 um which states parcel size of 30 acres or less um on parcels existing prior to April 21st 1999 um to be included as a settlement area. Therefore, criterion A has not been met. And then additionally, the parcels directly adjacent to the parcel um to the north and also to the west are in the RM and AG10 zoning districts. And while those uses allowed in the requested AGR zoning district are similar to those in RM and AG10, the density and dimensional standards are very different. Therefore, this criterion has not been met. Um criteria C and D are not applicable and none of the criteria has been met. Therefore,

staff recommends disapproval. No public comments have been received for this request and this meeting was noticed as required. That's it. We had uh two people sign up to speak and one of them's ready to go. Amy Chico.

Hi. Uh thank you everyone for your time today. I'm Amy Chico with HLA 29 Linebach Drive Charleston. Um today we're representing Richard Bell, the property owner, and he is a home builder, local home builder, um that is looking to subdivide this property to build one house. Um it's the property is only three acres. Um the all the property across the street uh of Highway 65 is zoned AG the AGR, which is the but the zoning that he's looking to zone to. Um they're all single family homes. And so he's currently in the process of building one house on the property that he's trying to get his CEO out in order to move into it himself and he would like to build in the front portion of the property uh in the AGR you're allowed I think 30,000 square foot lot um and he has room to do a little little bit larger but he would like to just uh subdivide it in order to build one other house um and kind of looking into support or to speak upon support looking at like the Charleston County's housing for the future um and kind of the information that is laid out in there and you know Charleston County is in need of 20,000 to 36,000 new dwelling units over the coming decade. Um the raising house costs are due to inflationary conditions were also due to a shortage of supply and then looking further down into the goals and recommendations for the housing for the future. One of the recommendations of goal two was to reduce the barriers needed to provide housing supply. And so in this resoning of simple resoning of in order to create one lot, not a multif family subdivision, not mixed use, just one lot in order to build one home. Um that will be a for sale product. Um that's what our clients looking to do. Uh the buffer, there's a 75 foot buffer that's required along 165 that will be retained. Um so when you're, you know,

won't change the landscape while you're driving down 175. and uh property owner who will speak here in a minute. Um he did reach out to the surrounding uh neighbors. I don't think he was able to get in touch with everyone, but there's a few of them that were in support. And there's any questions? Any questions for this speaker?

Thank you. Uh Richard Bell. All right. I'm Richard Bell. I want to thank you guys for the opportunity to come here today and uh request this reszoning. Um I currently live in Aenddale on 21 Riverdale Drive. Uh future address is going to be 7467 Highway 165 in the back of that piece of property. Um we're here to request your consideration on this resoning. I believe it's a reasonable request. Uh I spoke with my neighbor on the that owns the John Cordre. Some of you may have heard that last name before, but he owns the property in the uh dark kind of drab green color up there right along my property. And um he was in favor complimentary of the home that I built there and commented that it fits the style of the area and it was in favor of me building another residence. Wish me good luck today. Uh, I do not believe that the reszoning or proposed addition of a single family home in this area there should be any issue with that. It fits the area that we're going to be in. We're going to be in off of the road with just one single family home with its own driveway. Uh, as we all know and as Amy mentioned, we need more single family housing here in Charleston. And I believe this zoning change would be a small step to forward towards filling that need and providing a rural homestead for a family to live in in a very nice quaint uh area. So thank you guys for your time today. Appreciate it.

Got a question. That's it. Um where is your house located? Are you 112? Uh so 113 in the back. Um, so if you were facing it from 165, back right corner. So there's already a house on the lot. Correct. So there's already and and that lot is what size? Three acres. It's already got a house on it. Right. I built one right in the in the back of it. And then what we're asking is if we can take and peel off an acre at the front and

build another hole there. homes on an overall of three three acres. Correct. Correct. Okay. Any other questions? No questions. Okay. Well, um do you want to explain to them about how oh density the reason why there's no more divisions?

Yeah. Um so the parent tract uh which is AG10 the current zoning uh allowed a certain number of lots uh per acre uh one one density unit per uh every 10 acres. So this property has already gone through that exercise if you will. They've used up all the density and previous subdivisions from the time that AG10 was assigned to this property and all the other properties in Charleston County. So the only way to get any more subdivisions would be to reszone this this residual of AG10

from previous subdivisions.

Right. So I think Joel and I are the only people that are around that were back at the when the um comprehensive plan was first put in. So that was my question at the beginning. So we've got these larger tracks and they can be they can be subdivided. So if it's 100 acres, you could get 10 lots. So what we're actually trying to encourage back then was people for getting smaller lots, you know, they take up nine of them and then leave like one big lot. So this sounds like one of the lots that's left, but it's we promised everybody then that there would be no more subdivisions. And in fact, we've had some people come back and say, I remember there was one over on John's Island that said, you know, all the other you know, all the other divisions were made and he had a large lot and he wanted to subdivide it, but the original track had already been subdivided as many times as it could be under the original plan and that's what we have here. So, while everything else may make sense, just the overall, you know, the subdivisions have been made and there's no further subdivisions to be made with this property

based on the current zoning. Based on the current zoning and from the parent tract of the parent track from the parent tract of when the subdivisions started on this parent track. So you change the zoning and then you can get one more lot out of it. Well, if the county council approves it, of course. Yes. Yes. But yeah, that

that sort of negates the whole idea of the original, you know, the parent trap. The parent trap that parent tract could only be subdivided so many times. So you're adding another subdivision. And that's not, in my opinion, that's not fair to the other people who bought property that was subdivided out of this track. In effect, you're tearing up a contract or you're tearing up an agreement. Very much. Yeah.

Yeah. Just make a statement. Um I come back to my concern about precedent. Um this is well outside the urban growth boundary. And the idea of the urban growth boundary was of course to prevent sprawl. And while this doesn't necessarily constitute sprawl, it's the beginning of it. And um I I think going back on your word to the other land owners who had larger tracks is not a good precedent to set. And I think once it's upzoned, it's upzoned. Uh and I just I think it's a slippery slope. I would say no. All right.

I think before we can do any further discussion, our attorney has informed me that we need to have a motion and a second on the Do we have need a motion? motion to take to to clarify. Now, if you guys have a direct question for staff, you are allowed to ask your question. If you're just expressing your thoughts on the application, we need a motion and a second before we can discuss that. We can make a motion. Do we accept staff recommendation and deny? Is there a second? Okay, we got a motion and a second. Now, David has David has

I guess my my heartburn really is that you've got a track that's three acres and you're just going to be putting another house on it. That is not high density by any means. I mean, it just seems rational that you have that. I don't understand why that would not be work because it's an additional subdivision of the parent track. But density wise, Pete,

so maybe it's a staff or a mark question, but when I look at the recorded plot, it has the note that says this density has been met and no further subdivision is allowed after this plot is recorded. It I mean, does that preclude us from making this change or is it just a suggestion? It's worded that it says it's not allowed and it's recorded that way. I

Right. And that's that's to clarify just as what we've been discussing that the density from the parent track from the time that that zoning has been in place since 992000 time frame. Um we keep a record we keep a tracking of all the subdivisions that occur on all the parent tracks in the county. Once that's used up, that note will be put on the la the last parcel that's created so that it's clear that it's it's been used up and the the remedy is a reszoning which is goes back to the comp plan and what the staff will recommend and what county council has the authority to do.

So, it's different from a subdivision. It would have to it would have to be reszoned. Correct. Right. Right. For the for another subdivision to occur, it would have to be reszoned. Is that right? Um Luke,

so and I'm not saying the applicant would do this, but this is a 3acre property. uh and they're requesting to go to AGR which would allow them to have three separate parcels by reszoning. Could they go through and get this approval have that 1 acre subdivision or how it's going to be subdivided? It sounds like essentially what would be 1 acre and in the future that would essentially make it easier to carve out a second well what would be a third parcel um out of this one.

Yeah. So if if it is a full 3 acres of highland uh then if it's gets reszoned to AGR that allows one dwelling unit per acre. So it would allow up to three dwelling units. And this process by saying that we're just going to subdivide it once could make it sound a little more

easy for us to swallow but then come back later to add a second propert. Well, similar to what we talked about the last case, the zoning is the zoning. So, no matter what, again, the last case or this one, no matter what is discussed from the applicant, once it's reszoned, everything that's allowed by right under that zoning district is allowed as long as they meet the development requirements. And so, that's one of my concerns. And then the second question I had was are ADUs allowed in the AG or what this is currently zoned AG10. Yes, it is. Yes.

And so the applicant could if he just wanted to add a another residential unit detach could under the current zoning if that was his true intent. Yes, that is you could have an accessory dwelling unit. I believe would be limited to,500 square feet and you would have to have one and a half times the minimum lot size which this does have uh because the minimum lot size is um I think in in AG10 is 40 is one acre. So one and a half acres. The only caveat being that he wouldn't be able to sell that ADU, right? That's correct. Yeah. Well, yes, that's correct. Wouldn't be able to sell it on its own parcel. Correct.

Gotcha. And I understand that we're talking about really small densities here, but there's a lot of property out here. Uh, and this would contribute to sprawl if they all did it. Um, and so that's why I'd be inclined to, um, deny the approval of this. They want to follow the staff's recommendation is what you're saying. Anybody else? to vote. Yeah. Call the roll, please. The motion was to disapprove. Uh, Commissioner Lain,

based on uh staff's recommendation, uh, I would vote. Yay. Chair Floyd, I. Commissioner Jones, yay. Opposing, right? Yeah. So, that's Uh yes means you do not want the subdivision. Yes. Voting your motion. The motion is to disapprove. Yes. Okay. Correct. Am I right? No, that's true. Yeah. But the way that's the way Warm said it is Oh, I beg your pardon. Yeah. Reprimanded trying to keep it. Commissioner Kent.

No. Commissioner McConnell. Commissioner Morris I Vice Chair Palados I Commissioner Cox I'm voting to disapprove so I say I right and the eyes have it get complicated she g total um what was it 62 62 Okay. Thank you.

County Council will hear this request at their public hearing on September 16th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. in council chambers and again at their September 25th, 2025 planning and public works committee meeting at 5:00 p.m. The request must then undergo three readings for approval at council at council's discretion. The next item on the agenda is z-6-25-0000165. [Music] A request to reszone TMS number 259-0000-00-123 from agricultural residential residential AGR zoning district to the rural agricultural zoning district AG8.

Mr. And so this is a request to reszone parcel um 259123 from the AGR zoning district to the AG8 zoning district. For the zoning history prior to 2001, uh the subject property was zoned agricultural general AG. uh because the property was less than 30 acres in size on April 21st, 1999, the property was placed in the AGR zoning district. Upon adoption of the 2001 Zeldar in 2025, the applicant contacted staff wanting to establish a landscaping business on the property. Uh the landscaping and horicultural use is allowed in AG8 zoning district with the conditions shown on the slide here. Here's the location of the subject property and the county as a whole. The future land use designation of the subject parcel is agricultural residential. The subject property has frontage along river and is vacant. Uh to the west, east, and south, adjacent properties are zoned AGR and AG8 and are developed with single family residences or are vacant. Uh properties across River Road to the north are zoned AGR and AG8 and contain single family residences or are vacant. For flood zones, the subject property um is located in the AE10 zone and shaded X. And here's the aerial view to the north and to the south.

These are um photos of the subject property and the adjacent parcel 034 and photos of the adjacent uh parcels 121 and across river road 087. So this slide shows the comparison of allowed land uses in the current AGR uh zoning district which allows for one dwelling unit per acre and the proposed AG8 uh rural agricultural zoning district which allows one dwelling unit per eight acres. 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. The applicant's proposed landscaping and horicultural use is an allowed use with conditions in the requested rural agricultural AG8 zoning district. Um if the resoning map amendment is approved, all uses allowed within rural agricultural AG8 um will be allowed. So this includes the landscaping and horicultural services, outdoor recreation and entertainment, outdoor shooting range, communication towers, etc. would be allowed. So the current and requested zoning districts allow for primarily 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 uh requested AG8 zoning district would result in a reduction in density. Therefore, this criteria is met and the staff response for this criteria covers previously mentioned information such as the use differences, dimensional

standards differences and density reduction. This criteria is met. Approval criteria C and D are not applicable. Two of the approval criteria having been met. Um staff recommends approval on that basis and no public input was received for this request and the meeting was noticed as required. Thank you. Okay.

Oh, sorry. Um Laura. Oh, I'll do the applicant. Daniel Bryman and then after Daniel, Laura Barryman. I'm Daniel Barryman, 967 Cotttingham Drive in Mount Pleasants where I live. I've uh have a landscape company for over uh 11 years now on River Road, but uh the property that I'm on does not convey for our landscape. And so it was brought to my attention and so trying to uh find a piece of property. Uh zoning people have been great with helping us when I have questions of will this convey and so this property looks good. uh the um that we service Kiwa downtown Charleston is a lot of our communities that we service and so it puts us in a great location for meeting both areas and uh so yeah, we're looking hopefully for the approval of uh this piece of property for us so we can continue business. Thank you.

Thank you. and Laura. Um, sorry. Yeah. Did you have a question? I I do. It would also be a question with for staff as well. So, essentially feels like a down zone, right? Correct. There's one caveat that stands out to me that I'd like some clarification on. Under the AG8 zoning, there would be a conditional allowance for outdoor recreation and entertainment. Can you please clarify a little on that entertainment aspect?

Taking into consideration that the adjoining properties next to it are AGR, which does not allow for that entertainment aspect. Yeah. Let me um pull up the Zeldar Yeah. Hey, Andrea Maria, can you pull that? Yeah. From the definition. So,

they still have to get a event permits and stuff. So, they could get event permits. So, my question would be how would that affect the neighboring residential homes that do not have that right? So you can under the current zoning someone could ask for a special events permit as well under the AGR. Yes. Yes. You're allowed up to I didn't I didn't see outdoor recreation entertainment there. So it's different. Outdoor recreation entertainment has a specific definition. Uh special events are allowed in nearly all of our zoning districts up to six per year. Each one is on a casebyase specific permit basis. So this is different from just a regular, right? So did you find the definition, Andrew?

I'm getting there. Okay. All right. Yeah. So got and we we'll we'll when Andrew gets there, we'll read the definition so you can see the different types or it might be in chapter six as listed as

Okay. It's subject to conditions um vegetated land use buffer of not less than 50 feet from any property in an agricultural residential or office zoning district except where such property line absuts a street in which case a front setback established for the zoning district shall apply. Um and if it is established in connection with an outdoor shooting range, it shall have a setback of not less than 100 ft from any property. You're going too fast for me to keep up with you. Basically, it's got a 50 foot um setback unless it is um buffer unless it's an outdoor shooting range and then it's got a 100 foot buffer. Is there a minimum lot size for it?

Well, it would just be the um AG8 lot size. Okay. So, could is that like outdoor concerts? It just No, that's special events. Hang on one second. like would be fourwheelers or right I mean bird watching fourwheelers. Does chapter 12 have a definition? I'm trying to pull it up. My It's just my computer is being slow. Okay. I've got the u the definition here if you want me to read.

Yes. If you can read it when that be great. Yeah. Uh so recreation and entertainment outdoor use uh particip participatory and spectator oriented recreation and entertainment uses conducted in open partially enclosed or screen facilities excluding any sexually oriented businesses. This includes but is not limited to amusement parks, fairgrounds, race or go-kart tracks and sports arenas. Okay.

Which by default some of those have to have quite a large acreage to meet parking and everything else. Right. So would like a wedding venue fall in that category. Um no that would be a special events. Yeah. It's a different use. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Can I ask a question? Um given that this outdoor venue um option becomes available with this downzoning um but it is with conditions what sort of conditions could one that's what Andrew that's right okay

yeah that was the 50 foot minimum buffer um and then on top of that whatever development requirements are required in our ordinance like other landscaping, uh, parking requirements, um, those types of things. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Laura, did you want to Yeah, sorry. I'm Laura Barryman. I live at 967 Cotttingham Drive in Mount Pleasant. I just wanted to add that this is a 31-year old landscaping business. It's not an entertainment business. Um, and that most of the many of the properties around are also a 8. They're not just a R. Okay. Thank you. I'd like a motion to approve. Second. Second that. Okay. Any further discussion?

Looks like you can call the role. Commissioner Lasain. Yay. Chair Floyd. Hi. Commissioner Jones. Hi. Commissioner Kent. Hi. Commissioner McConnell. Yes. Commissioner Morris. Hi. Vice Chair Palados. I. Commissioner Cox. Hi. The eyes have it.

County Council will hear this request at their public hearing on September 16th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. in council chambers. and again at their September 25th, 2025 planning and public works committee meeting at 5:00 p.m. The request must then undergo three readings for approval at council's discretion. Thank you.

All right. The next item on the agenda is SBDV-3-24-02743, a subdivision plat application taking one existing lot and creating a total of two lots at TMS number 614-09-0000-95 1325 Libro Lebanon Road

Leben Leben Leaving red a property within 300 ft of the 10mi historic diff district. All right. Uh good afternoon. My name is Chris Con. I'm a planner one with subdivision. So we have uh SBDV application 02743 uh for planning commission date uh subject property TMS number 6149 0095. The proposal it to take one existing lot and create two lots. Nobody nobody's here to speak. Right.

There we go. A little technical user error I guess. Um future land use. Uh here we can see this uh future land use for the property urban suburban cultural community protection and then we have the current zoning uh it is zoned uh MHS lowdensity manufactured home. Uh the current zoning shown uh here you can see uh the parcel is inside in that hatching for MHS. An aerial view uh showing the parcel. Then we have have the uh 10mi historic district in the pink and the buffer the 300 foot buffer uh in this uh blue uh the FEMA flood zone map showing it AE12. And then here we have uh site photos uh for Zacoma Drive looking at the property and directly across uh Zacoma Drive looking to the left and to the right. Lebanon Road uh looking at the property and directly across and then to the left and to the right for Lebanon. Uh the restrictive covenants uh was received from property owners stating there were no restrictions on the property. Uh received a list of TMS numbers and addresses in 2020 from the HOA president of Copa subdivision that cannot be subdivided due to the covenants. This parcel is not included in the list of the TMS numbers or addresses and is not bound by the covenants as it is not within the HOA. Here we have the uh final plat showing the subdivision and SC state law section 6-29-340

functions powers and duties of local planning commissions. Uh B, 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. Section C, 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 polit uh political jurisdictions or a specified portion of it as set forth in this chapter. Charleston County Historic Preservation Ordinance Section 21-6A Subdivision Plat Application Reports. Uh the purpose uh to encourage the preservation of the historic character of historic properties and historic districts. Preliminary minor subdivisions plat applications as defined in the Charleston County zoning and land development regulations ordinance for historic properties districts and properties located within 300 feet of the historic properties districts must be evaluated by the commission prior to final determination by Charleston County Planning Commission. Uh, the commission evaluation evaluates each subdivision plat application subject to section 21-6 subdivision plat application reports for compliance with the cultural resource element of the comprehensive plan. The commission shall provide a report on the application to the planning commission that addresses whether and how the application is or is not consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the cultural resource element of the comprehensive plan. A majority of the HBC members present in voting are required. The commission shall not defer a subdivision plat application. Uh HBC can't approve, deny or defer subdivision applications and notice in newspaper posted with community interest.

Charleston County comprehensive plan 3.4.3 cultural resources element goals. Um here we have the criteria uh CR1 through five shown here. CR5 through CR10, CR11 through CR15 and Historic Preservation Commission report. Seven out of the eight members present of the Historic Preservation Commission stated the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the cultural resource element of the comprehensive plan, citing inconsistencies with the element goal statement and strategies CR1, CR3, CR7, and CR9. The element goal uh cultural, historic, and archaeological resources, unique settlement patterns of traditional low country 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 continue to promote historic preservation and enhance the county's historic preservation ordinance. CR3 continue to work with communities along the Golagichi corridor to preserve the unique settlement patterns and community character including historic property district designations, community plans and overlay zoning districts. CR7 continue to protect rural historic landscapes by ensuring developments is in character with inherent rural attributes. CR9 continue to coordinate with residents, adjacent jurisdictions, outside agencies, nonprofit organizations, and others with expertise in historic preservation to implement planning, zoning, and other techniques to protect historic communities and neighborhoods in other areas of cultural significance. Staff recommendation. The application

complies with all requirements of the Charleston County zoning and land development regulations ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends approval. Public input. As of July 16th for Historic Preservation Commission meeting, zero people spoke in support of the request. Zero people spoke in opposition of the application at the meeting. Eight comments in opposition, one petition in opposition with 69 signatures and one general comment. As of today for the planning commission meeting, uh no comments in support or opposition were received as of August 7th. Uh, and notifications for application 02743, 281 notification letters were sent to individuals on the historic preservation in East Cooper area interested parties list as well as property owners within 300 ft of the subject parcel on June 27th of 2025. Additionally, this was noticed in the post and courier on June 27th, 2025 and signs were posted on June 26, 2025. That's it. Probably ask for the speaker.

Probably ask for the speaker. Sure. Yeah. Uh Cassie Hess.

All right. Good afternoon. Um my name is Cassie Hess. I live at 1327 Leeben Road, unincorporated Charleston County. And I'm a direct neighbor to the lot um here today being discussed. and I serve on the board of the Cophave View HOA. I'm here today to ask you to deny this proposal for subdivision. Um just a few weeks ago, as we just covered, the Historic Preservation Commission voted 7 to1 that this plan is inconsistent with the character and goals of the 10M community. That's a powerful statement. and from the body that is tasked with protecting this historic area. If the planning commission sets aside their finding, the 300 ft protective barrier or buffer around the 10mi historic districts becomes meaningless and our preservation policies risk losing credibility. As an HOA board member, my duty is to protect the rural low density character that our covenants and restrictions were intended to preserve and I could clarify in that. However, developers like this applicant Grandanthm Homes have found loopholes in both the covenants and restrictions county zoning and they have the money to bring to the table to maximize density regardless of neighborhood impact. We are in the process of discussing and seeking zoning changes for Copa View from mobile home subdivision to something that offers real protection, but we need your help and to prevent damaging precedents in the meantime. As a direct neighbor, I know firsthand that this law is low-lying and it already floods during ordinary rains like today. After tree removal, which I do believe was done without the required following the pro required process for protective barriers, the risk of flooding neighbors like myself has only increased. If the subdivision moves forward, I ask you please at a minimum require strict storm water controls so flood waters are not pushed onto neighboring homes. Today you

have the opportunity to demonstrate that our buffers and historic protections are real and they're not just symbolic and that history and community voices matter. I do urge you again to deny this application and set a positive precedent for balance, growth, and resilience. And I did send in a letter, but I was sick and it was past the deadline, so I'm here today. Um just just a quick question. Um, is does the neighborhood have a problem with the style of home or being subdivided? The small

it's the density lot is 39 mile or 39 acres and if the overlay from 10 mile which is S3 applies requires 1acre lots. Okay. No, it's S3 requires a 12,500 square foot lot, not one acre. Right. Okay. Yeah. Just want to make Still don't think it would meet. I am very much learning all of these things very quickly. So, it's basically the density is your the neighborhood's concerned.

It's density, but it's also I've spent a lot of time in 10 mile community and been watching what's been happening there. You guys are probably well aware and and this is an opportunity to show that the 300 foot buffer means something, right? This is there's only a few lots that will apply in the 10mi around Leeben Road in Periwinkle and the rest are on the other side on Beehive and Theodore. What's a I'm confused about what's a 300 foot buffer.

So the 300 foot buffer is from the boundary of the historic district itself. So 10 mile is a historic district. It has a boundary to it. The 300 ft buffer is from the boundary outward to the adjacent parcels. So across the street, right? It crosses it can cross the street. Right. Right. Okay. But you're outside the buffer. She's it's in the buffer. It's in the buffer but outside of the district. Okay. There's a 300 foot buffer that surrounds the district. Correct. They're in the buffer. They're in this par parcel is in the buffer, not in the district. I'm

still confused. Okay. So, if you can you go do we have a map? Go ahead and show it. Do you see Do you see the map here that um Chris has up in the pink is the actual historic district. Okay. And the shaded areas that are sort of curve linear and they don't follow a an actual boundary. That's 300 ft outside of the actual district. So the district has everything that gets developed in the district goes to historic preservation commission including houses um in the buffer. It's just the subdivision and site planner

and site planner and commercial right not the actual house right. So a house that gets built anywhere in that buffer would not go to the historic preservation commission. The way the ordinance is written only the act of the subdivision then residential. Okay. Yes. It looks like that the if you right above the pink the historic district those lot sizes are basically the same as what it's going to be subdivided. Correct.

So I guess the question is how is it not I'm not I'm just questioning on how the character is changing at least from the um historic preservation committee. It it didn't really define what how it was changed. They just say it was changing and yet you have houses that are right there that back up to it. And also the lot right below it is about the same size as if the one on the corner right was subdivided. Right. Right. If I may. Okay. So, this we're getting I think we I'm Mark might get on us. We're having a lot of discussion without a first and a second. Okay. So, um it might be good to do that. Can we have a motion?

We finish with the Well, yeah. We Well, okay. Thank you. Thank you. I'll put forth a motion. like to put forth a motion to uh approve the second planning commission's recommendation. Okay, we've got a second. Okay. So, what is the planning commission's recommendation? Approve to say yes. To say yes. And you approve. You're approve. St. So, staff's recommendation is to approve it because it meets all the requirements in the zoning ordinance. Right. Right. I just want to make sure when you say planning commission's recommend, you're not talking about historic preservation commission recommendation. Okay. Well, that's what I meant.

Okay. I think that um Mr. Lasain, are are you wanting to approve the subdivision, not necessarily approve the Historic Preservation Commission's recommendation for for the record? No. There is no recommendation from the historic preservation. They have simply provided you guys a report on consistency versus inconsistency. I believe staff made a recommendation to approve and without speaking out of turn I believe that is what commissioner is referring to. That is correct. My recommendation would be for approval based on staff's recommendation for approval. Thank you. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you legal department as well. Thank you everyone. Okay. All right. So where were we? Okay. So, this lot is the same size as or the the subdivided lot will be the same size as some of the surrounding lot. So, you can see it better on this on the slide that wind has up right now. What's um bordered in red, the corner lot of leaving and what? Tacoma. What is that? Zacoma. Zacoma. Sorry.

Yeah. um Leven and Zacoma. That's the subject parcel that's being subdivided. If you look at the parcels was it was brought up at the upper part of the slide, the smaller lots, those lots are roughly the same size as the proposed subdivided if after it was subdivided. And also the lot right below it that's touching it is narrow as which would be close to the same size as if that corner lot was subdivided. Okay, that's what was brought up I think as a comparison.

That's not uninccorporated Mount Pleasant though that Wando Forest which is Mount Pleasant and annexed into Mount Pleasant. So um it was done before the historic preservation commission had established 10M as a historic district. So the timing of things, right? Well, we're just we're just not we're just identifying what exists regardless of when it was done, right? Yes.

Yeah. So I I can appreciate the uh historic preservation committee's um you know efforts. At the same time, there is an underlying zoning that allows um for uses and it seems like this subdivision would fit within that zoning. So, I I would encourage um you know, these these historical communities if they wish to have additional protections that maybe don't fit with the current zoning to continue to pursue overlay districts um to better define what they're looking for because it's it's difficult to reconcile um you know, protection based on uh the language and the cultural resources elements of the comp plan with the rights that are inherent with a a piece zoning of a current property. They're not asking for a zoning change. They, you know, want to subdivide within the current use.

Okay. And and the other thing to um realize is that we are the deciding body for this. This does not go to county council. So what we do is final that makes any difference to any of you. Okay. Um, any further discussion? Well, when the 10mi overlay district is done, is that would that affect any would that affect this? No, it would not. Okay. No, I think that and the the speaker said it uh if they want something different than what the zoning ordinance allows from a subdivi subdividing or any other use inside the area of the 300t or elsewhere out in in the copy um development. the the way to do that is through the zoning ordinance like like what we've done with 10M with reszoning to S3 from R4.

Okay.

Can I just make just make a comment? I I agree with historic preservation that this bears no relation to the historic character of the area, but I would also say that the historic character of the area is given what's already been done to 10 mile um and all around it, it almost doesn't exist anymore except for in some very small pockets. And I agree with um Joel that if they would like something different, they need to come forward and ask for it, right? Um, and it's within the urban growth boundary. And Luke, I'm always thinking about where should we build and where shouldn't we build given the fact that there's been so much built around here. I don't like it. But I would be inclined to say yes for this one

despite the fact I don't like it. Luke.

Um, yeah. I mean, echoing everything here, uh, obviously they're entitled to subdivide this in my opinion, um, since it meets the current zoning. And I think always think about myself. If I were the property owner, I purchased this property, I had this entitlement, and then something that seems arbitrary, uh, keeps me from doing that, even though the zoning code would say that I am entitled to that, it would bother me. Um but my my question um for staff or I don't know if there's been anything in this cuz um it it's been said that like what what is like besides the cultural resource elements that seem very vague. Is there anything a little more substantial specifically in terms of like what makes uh these lot layouts historic? Uh so it talks about I believe cadastral uh unique patterns in the way that these lots are platted and I personally don't see that they've been subdivided over time. Everything's been subdivided over time. uh has there been kind of like a character assessment or there talks about a character assessment in terms of what specifically makes these plats unique that I'm just not seeing or is has there not been a character assessment and we really are like hanging our hat on the cultural resource elements? Well, as far as the district itself goes, there the the um well, first of all, let me back up for in September, you will be seeing the overlay zoning district for the 10mi historic district uh after years of working with going out in the community and and getting feedback. Um the first step of that was to reszone a portion of the 10 mile

district from R4 to S3. And that was done at the request of county council uh because it was becoming more and more apparent that the R4 minimum lot sizes was not acceptable to the community uh as far as preserving their their historic nature. And that S3 zoning district is actually the zoning district that was identified 25 years ago as the zoning district that belonged. It was created for the settlement communities in Charleston County. So nearly all of the settlement communities in the county are zoned S3. At the time 10M was at their request was zoned R4. They've now seen that that's not what they wanted. It was it's zoned S3. The the overlay zoning district is the next phase or step. Uh it was relatively simple to to change the R4s to the S3s because those zoning districts exist in the county. The overlay zoning district is a customized zoning and it has taken that S3 and a couple of other things and tweaked them a little bit and including uh lot coverage and um you'll see all this in September uh lot coverage and pvious area and building coverage u and al and other things as well uses after uh the 10 mile community is also working on an aid character analysis which will be helpful on the architectural styles of the actual homes.

So that will be very helpful to the historic preservation commission when they review and approve uh any of the homes vertical construction that's done um on the properties. But the overlay zoning district is addressing things uh as I said like building coverage and massing and couple other uses as well. You'll see it all in September. Oh boy. Yeah. Okay. Um, how I'm looking at the current zoning. It says lowdensity manufactured home subdivision district. How does that differ from the S3 that they are wanting to

the S3? Uh, they're uh the overlay district is pretty much following the S3 minimum lot sizes. Uh, like I said, they they there are a couple of tweaks to that. They'll have a a lot um a building um depth to width ratio so that there's not a lot of long skinny long skinny houses on narrow lots. Um the 12,500 foot minimum lot size in S3 is completely different than this MHS uh minimum lot size which is 5,000. Yeah, 5,000. Yeah, I think so.

6,000. Yeah. But even once that is done, this is in the buffer, so it wouldn't apply to this area. Correct. That's correct. So if if the areas that surround historic districts want something different, it's than what the current zoning allows, then um that zoning needs to change as well. Yeah. Any further discussion? Do we have a motion? Yes, we do. Yeah. Could someone could we um reiterate the motion?

Uh yes. I put forth a motion for approval based on uh staff's recommendation for approval for the subdivision. Okay. All right. Want to call the role, please? Commissioner Leain. I. Chair Floyd. I. Commissioner Jones. Hi. Commissioner Kent. Hi. Commissioner McConnell. Hi. Commissioner Morris. I. Vice Chair Palados. I. Commissioner Cox. I. The eyes have it. Okay.

This is the final decision of the planning commission. If any person with a substantial interest in a decision of the planning commission chooses to appeal this decision, they may do so to the circuit court of Charleston County. Such appeal shall be filed within 30 calendar days after today's date. Okay. That's it. If there is no further business, this meeting of Charleston County Planning Commission stands adjourned. The planning commission will hold its next regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, September 8th, beginning at 2 p.m. in council chamber.