Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Allegiance 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 plan amendments, text amendments to the Charleston County zoning and land development regulations ordinance, resonings, and plan developments. The commission has decision-making authority on road name changes, change request, um public pro public project reviews, appeals of administrative decisions on final plats and subdivision matters, as well as other matters pursuant to chapter 29, title 6, section 6-29-340 of the code of laws of South Carolina as amended. If you wish to speak at today's meeting, you should have filled out your name at the sign-in sheets at the door. Okay. I'm Cindy Floyd. I'm chair. To my right is Pete Pelotus, Luke Morris, Gary Lasain, and Adam McConnell. To my left is David Kent, Warwick Jones, Logan Davis, and Susan Cox. Also seated to my right is the commission attorney, Mark Bell, and seated to my left, Andrea Melich White, interim director of zoning and planning. Would you please introduce the staff?

Sure. We have Nikki Grimble, the interim deputy director, Mare Miller, who will be presenting today, Win Carile, who will also present, and Tamara Avery, who will also present. Um, as well as Stephanie Ando. And in the audience, we've got Carrie Vash who works with our site plan review division and Eric Davis who is the director of our green belt pro or green belt program and housing. Okay. In order to get a good recording of the meeting for the minutes, please speak loudly and clearly into your microphones and please do not talk over one another. The first item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from the November 10th, 2025 meeting. Is there a motion and a second? Second. I'd like to propose an amendment,

okay, to it if I could. Um, under the workshop minutes for presentation on missing middle housing. Um, on the second paragraph, I wanted to change that to Commissioner Morris stated that he stated he believes exclusionary zoning practices in car dependent infrastructure in addition to poor architectural design of 1960s through 1980s missing middle housing are mainly to blame, etc. and I've emailed that to staff um so they have that writing. So you're you're moving that that be amended in the minutes of the workshop minutes. Is there a second? Sure.

Okay. We're good. Okay. Okay. We'll move for approval of the minutes as amended. Okay. Uh Commissioner Davis I. Commissioner Lasain. I, Chair Floyd, I, Commissioner Jones. Hi, Commissioner Kent. Hi, Commissioner McConnell. Comm Commissioner Morris. I vice chair Palato. Hi. Commissioner Cox. Hi.

The eyes have it. or that was funny. Um the next agenda item is case

SBD VA-10-25-0000006 an appeal of a subdivision related administrative decision regarding regarding subdivision plat application number SBDV-04-25-03- 0365 for 2762 Burden Creek Road, parcel identification number 317-0000-00-38. Pursuant to article 3.14, appeals of subdivision related administrative decisions of the Charleston County zoning and land development regulations ordinance and appeals shall be sustained only if the planning commission finds that the administrative official ered. The decision of the planning commission shall be accompanied by specific written findings of fact and conclusions of law clearly stating the reason for the decision. At least twothirds of the members of the present and voting shall be required to reverse any order, requirement, decision or determination of any administrative officer or agency. The order of the hearing in this case will be as follows. First, staff will give an overview of the appeal application. Then the applicant will be given five minutes to speak. Following that, we will ask for public comments with each speaker limited to two minutes. Lastly, we will make a presentation. Lastly, staff will make a presentation regarding the applications. Following staff's presentation, I will request a motion and a second. And who's going to put this? Okay. Discussion can occur after the motion is made and seconded and then we will vote. Staff will now introduce the case. Tamara.

Okay. Maybe not.

You can just go back to that one. Hi, good afternoon. Uh, my name is Tamara Avery. I'm with the subdivision staff of planning and zoning. So the appeal is for SBDV number 0425-03065 which was a proposed subdivision located at 2762 Burden Creek Road John's Island TMS number 317-0000-00-38. It was one existing lot um subdivided into two lots. The current property owner is Robert R. It is 082 of an acre and the zoning is R4. Um staff has not approved SBDV03065 since it does not meet the ZLDR regulations for waterfront standards per ZLDR 4.24.1. So this is the future land use map of the property. This is the current zoning of the property which is R4. This is the aerial view of the property. And this was the proposed plat submitted by the applicant to subdivide the property. So, Grantham Homes on um behalf of Robert R is appealing the administrative deci decision pursuant to uh ZLDR article 3.14. Grandanthm Homes is appealing um citing an error in staff's um review of the ZLDR waterfront development standards. Grantham Homes for their application is

appealing the subdivision plat decision based on ZLDR section 4.22 and ZLDR section 4.10. However, staff believes the applicant meant to state ZLDR section 4.24.1. That is the waterfront development standards and minimum lot width per ZLDR section 4.12.2 for R4 um density, intensity and dimensional standards. And this is the applicant's application to staff for the appeal.

Thank you.

My name is uh Charles Jason Ray. I live at 130 Riverlanding Drive, Daniel Island. Um first I wanted to say um I look forward to reading the minutes from your nay and all the laughter afterwards. Um so yeah um thank you Tamara. It's nice to meet you in person finally. Um so I printed um this applica the u the agenda today and understand and read through it all. Um thank you all for taking the time to prepare for this and also the staff for preparing for this as well. Um so we understand just want to make it clear we understand everything about the middle process. we understand what's required of a final plat of final plat um approval. Um but there are two items that we felt um we would like to talk about further. One, I don't think we somehow we didn't get a very clear definition of how the waterfront standard and our four standards apply to our subdivision request. Um but most importantly, we felt as though the suggestion to u to stack the lots um if you guys are familiar with this um essentially stacking one lot behind the lot or one in front of the lot. Um we felt we had a better solution um that still was in the sort of fell under the the guidelines of stacking. Um and and basically we created a you know a waterfront lot. Uh we took into consideration the the landscape of the lot, the trees, the fact that there's a dock in place um and created a sort of a stackable scenario with one true waterfront lot and then one R4 lot. And I think we've accomplished that with with their st with those by following those standards. But most importantly, um, we feel like we looked at all the lots around the neighborhood. Um, and we felt as though what the proposed solution to the to

from from the county staff was to stack did not fit with the existing neighborhood or any of the lots or any of the houses. Um, so I think we came we came up with a with a fair solution. Um, one more thing I might add, the stacking of of the of the lots would then create sort of a um is a private privacy issue. You know, you have the back of a of a home looking in I'm sorry, the front of the back lot home looking into the back of the the the lot behind in front of it. So, um, I think, you know, all things being said, understanding the, you know, the zoning ordinances and understanding what we've been back and forth with, um, you know, we we we felt like these two items we really needed to address a before we paid any any of the fees and before we we finished the rest of the submitt. So, I guess I'm asking today if you could consider that for our appeal. um knowing that we still will we will um you know pay our our impact fees and and finish this this u this plat you know with all the standard comments um that we recognize. So um thank you for your time and here for any questions.

Ma'am does anybody have any questions? Just one quick question because I believe that this process is how was the planning director's decision incorrect if it was or what the appellence. So you mentioned that alternative options that were proposed or you know explained as a possibility

um just don't fit with the existing neighborhood. But why in your opinion was the planning director's uh original decision incorrect? Ju just just honestly what you just stated. Um and I know I've been through a lot of sorry I keep hitting that. I've been through quite a few um planning commission council meetings in my career and I know one of the big things that stands out in everybody's decision is is whether it's a reasonzoning or um or you know maybe a variance or what have you is does what you're proposing fit the surrounding neighborhood. And I I from my experience and from what our team looks at, we felt like we had a better solution.

But there's nowhere in the ZLDR that you could point to and say, "Well, this is why I'm right." Honestly, no. I I just think that um it proposes a a better solution. Um ultimately for the homeowner who's going to live there and their living and experience there. So, okay. Thank you. Uh, this question would also be with with staff. Would it be more appropriate for him to be asking for a variance for the minimum lot width size to accomplish what it is that he's trying to accomplish understanding that he does not meet the actual requirements? You can't ask um for variances for that type of thing. Got it.

You can't ask for variances for for minimum lot width and other subdivision standards. Is that is that just he has to meet them? Yeah. for the code you're not allowed to uh Okay. Okay. Got it.

Is I guess it's my understanding. Staff, please correct me if I'm wrong. My review of this is is I think what they're saying is it's not just a waterfront lot that they're taking. They have the waterfront and nonwaterfront lot. And so the different requirements, one's 50 and one's 90. And that I believe is what they're raising as the air here. Um, does staff take the lot as a whole and apply the waterfront standards to the original lot before subdivision?

So, the way it works, um, in the case of the the waterfront standards is anything within 500 ft has to comply with those standards. We do allow you if you put a full buildable lot between a back lot and the critical line then that back lot can be considered nonwaterfront and meet nonwaterfront standards. The one that is back one full lot but there this is just a strip of another lot. Okay. Yeah. Um, so you're essentially saying that staff did not air in their read of the ZLDR. You just don't like it.

Um, I will say this, it wasn't clear to us as why we didn't completely meet or did not meet the waterfront standards. And we thought the solution that we we came up with, I mean, whether it met the the zoning ordinance or not, um, we felt it was appropriate to file an appeal, um, or variance. However, you know, I don't think we were technically appealing a certain code. I guess I'm asking this commission to to consider the fact that this is a more realistic. Um, I guess maybe a variance would be more appropriate, but I guess you can't you can't request a variance for that. Um I'm really asking you know to consider all things you know outside of maybe the ordinance and maybe ask for appeal you know according to that um w with you know being realistic as to what it's going to be when when those folks are living or how it's going to be when the folks are living there and the fact that again I think the uh alternative was not conducive to the the overall surroundings of the neighborhood and overall lots and living situations

but the ZLDR you cannot you are not pointing to any particular particular honestly term of that that no ma'am I can't I can't wish I have aired honestly anybody else okay now we'll hear from the public we've got four speakers the first is Gary Worth

you have two minutes

hello my name is Gary Worth I represent the Burton Creek Homeowners Association we adamly deny this request. These guys should be lucky that the county gave them a $2 million era on the other lots they built on that don't meet county standards. They were allowed to put two houses side by side on lots because the county made a mistake. So they get a $2 million windfall from a county mistake and they got the nerve to come up here and want to do it again. No. And they're not good stewards. They tear up our yards. They don't have anybody on the job. Their subcontractors come on our private property. Their delivery trucks tear up our yards. We have to put out trash cans. The people at the end have a guy in a golf cart that has to stand guard. It's terrible. They count they they go against county uh codes. They built a fence right along Burden Creek in the rightway. I think they just throw it on the wall and see if it's going to stick. They put as they put uh rip wrap all the way to the road where you got to have a 10-ft concrete and if no one caught it, they'd be sailing off. So, they got a $2 million windfall because of a county mistake. They got four houses built on lots that only can allow one house. So, I say let's not make another mistake and cut them loose. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Um Jason Ray, did you want to speak again? Two minutes or No, ma'am. Okay. Thank you though. Sure. Um Jim Morrison, you signed up but you did not check to speak. Did you want to speak?

I can. Uh my name is uh Jim Morsey with Grandanthm Homes. I live at uh 112 Kovi Court. I'm just speaking uh toward you know Jason's uh point there. The the recommended um subdivide that was provided to us that adhered to the standard um from the council. It it was kind of I want to say it was almost bizarre. The orientation of the lots and the homes were directly perpendicular with the neighbors. Um I wish we had the ability to bring up that recommended plat. um how they staggered those lots, but it was completely divisive from the streetscape. It just didn't make sense. So, every lot has the house facing the road, and the recommendation for just a normal two lot subdivide was to stagger the homes perpendicular, one behind the other, uh which doesn't really make any sense if you're on site. The streetscape was totally bizarre. Whereas the recommended subdivide that we proposed um from my understanding technically it meets all of the requirements and adheres to the current streetscape. We thought it would be a pretty good solution. So that's where we wanted the clarific you know clarification um as to why the proposed subdivide and ours that both meet the criteria why one was picked over the other that's that's so you know counterintuitive to the streetscape. So that's all I have. Thank you.

And John Logar is our last speaker. Good afternoon. John Zlogar, 5528 Brisco Lane, representing the John's Island Task Force. Um had some stuff written, but I think Miss Cox's questions answered it all. Um there's nothing that it's violating. Um it, you know, they think it might be better, but it, you know, staff has recommended that uh it not be um approved. And you know, the public, you the public and county council rely upon staff's um uh assessments all the time. So, we recommend that you deny this um um motion. Thank you.

I have Okay, we'll now see the case is closed to public comment. We will now hear a review from the staff. Tamara We can just stay here. Okay. Okay, so background on this project. Once it was applied for, April 28th of 2025, subdivision staff received an application for SVDV03065 for review. May 2nd, staff comments were sent to the surveyor. Uh July 7th, a revision was submitted back to staff for the review from the applicant. July 7th, staff comments number two were sent to the surveyor. August 26, 2025, a revision was submitted by the surveyor for review. September 17th, staff comments number three were sent to the surveyor. and October 10th of 2025, applicant filed subdivision appeal for application um in SBDVA-10-25-0000 6. So staff summary, Mr. Jason Ray with Granthm Homes on behalf of Robert R. Per his application is appealing the denied subdivision plat application SBDV04-25-03065

based on ZLDR section 8.05.02.05 which states final plat referencing comments A, B, and C per the subdivision appeal application. The applicant states in his appeal application, quote, "We believe the minor subdivision plat submitted meets the zoning ordinance for waterfront standards and R4 due to the fact that the plat shows two conforming lots, one waterfront lot and one nonwaterfront lot meeting R4 lots. The county's suggestion to stack the lots would not conform with the surrounding neighborhood. stacking would create an undesirable living situation due to the placement of each home which would create very little privacy for the homeowners. Also, there's an existing dock that they would have access to for waterfront lots. So, the top section that is the staff comments A, B, and C, which were per the subdivision appeal application. And then staff response. Um, a the parcel is located on a South Carolina Department of Environmental Services critical line and must meet waterfront standards per the ZLDR section 4.12.3 density, intensity, and dimensional standards. So that would be your far right column of the chart. Um, the first column that is nonwaterfront standards and then the waterfront standards are on the far right. So staff response to comments from 917205. Per ZLDR section 4.12.3 the minimum required lot width average of this parcel would need to be 200 ft to create two lots. The minimum lot width would need to be a minimum of 90 feet per the lot. Um and that 90 feet has to be the continuous depth of the lot. So from the OTR critical line the continuous depth

of the lot. The existing lot is 160 feet in width. So as of today, the existing lot is only 160 feet. They would need 200 feet in width to subdivide two waterfront lots. Um so it does not meet the minimum lot width average or lot width to create two lots meeting our four waterfront development standards because they would need a minimum of 180 feet in width to just meet the minimum lot width for each proposed lot. So, they don't meet the minimum lot width average and they don't meet the minimum lot width. ZLDR section 4.24.1 provides a criteria for minimum lot width and lot width average. There is an exception for staff to reduce it up to 10% um reduction for the minimum lot width average. However, the plat would need to be 180 ft for the reduction and it's only 160 ft in width. So, even though an applicant can't go to the BZA and request a variance, there is this exception in the ZLDR to do a 10% reduction on the minimum lot width and they still do not meet it because it's only 160 ft wide. And so that's the section of the ordinance 4.24 waterfront development standards that states the 10% lot reduction. And comment C refers to scheduling a meeting and discussing the outstanding comments still remaining from the third review. And we did that because the second resubmitt they presented showed just the OTR critical line cut out from both lots and that to be an HOA open space which that still doesn't meet the ordinance standards. you can't have an HOA open space and then do two nonwaterfront lots directly adjacent to OCRM critical line. So this was their third proposal where they are having the

ORM critical line um encompassed into lot 5A which um they're stating that lot 5B um should meet nonwaterfront standards and lot A meets waterfront standards. That is not how staff interprets the ordinance because the whole entire lot is within 225 ft of the OTR and critical line. And so that would go back to what we previously stated. It's either you have a buildable lot in between the two or they both need to meet waterfront standards. And this is the section of the ordinance that gives definitions and waterfront property within 500 feet of any river, tidal, wetland or waterway, including saltwater marshes, property abudding, freshwater wetlands shall not be considered waterfront property. So again, anything that's considered saltwater that can be delineated by the um SCDEES, that is considered waterfront property. Anything that would be jurisdictional wetlands, that's under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. So that would go under separate, but this would be waterfront standards and staff response per ZLDR 11.1 ordinance compliance required. No activity regulated by this ordinance shall be undertaken except in full compliance with the express provisions of this ordinance. No activity that is the subject of any permit or approval issues pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance shall be undertaken except in full compliance with the subject permit or approval including any attached conditions and the commencement or continuation of any activity regulated for this ordinance that is not in the compliance with the express provision of this ordinance or that is not in compliance with the express provisions of any permit or approval including any attached conditions shall be a violation of this ordinance and subject to enforcement

under the terms of chapter South Carolina state law. So therefore, as noted in our presentation, staff administered the review of SPDV04-25-0365 within full compliance of the ordinance and based on the information presented, the administrative official did not error. Staff recommends the following findings of facts and conclusions of law. Findings of facts. Robert Bolt is the owner of the 0082 acre parcel located at 2765 Burden Creek Road, John's Island. It's an unincorporated area of Charleston County, identified as tax map number 317-00-00-38. The subject property is zoned low density R4 and is located within 500 feet of a tidal wetland or waterway. Appellent Granthm Homes on behalf of the property owner submitted subdivision application SBDV042503065 proposing the subdivision of the property into two lots and the appellants proposed subdivision plat prepared by Parker Land surveying dated January 28th 2025 and revised August 26 2025 proposed plat depicts the subject property as previous lot five being subdivided into new lot 5A and new lot 5B. The proposed plat also depicts the SCDEES critical area and critical line at the rear of the subject property. The property plat shows that the subject property is 160 ft wide. That new lot 5A is 90 ft wide along the frontage of Burden Creek Road and 160 ft wide along the rear property line abudding the marsh. and new lot B is 70 feet in width. Zoning staff determined that the

proposed plat does not meet the ZLDR minimum lot width and minimum lot width average requirements of R4 waterfront development standards. And on October 10th, 2025, the appellant filed the application of appeal for a subdivision related administrative decision appealing staff's decision to the proposed plat could not be approved. And our conclusion of law is SC code section 629340 and 6291 11150 grant plat review authority to the planning commission or designated staff. The ZLDR defines waterfront property as property within 500 ft of any river, tidal, wetland, or waterway including saltwater marshes. Property abudding freshwater wetlands shall not be considered waterfront property. Again, that goes back to OTRM and Army Corps of Engineers distinction. The subject property meets the ZLDR definition of waterfront property based on its rear property line abuing and containing saltwater marsh and the subject property is less than 500 ft in depth. The waterfront development standards of ZLDR section 4123 R4 density intensity and dimensional standards apply to the subject property because the subject property is waterfront property that is zoned R4. The waterfront development standards of SE ZLDR section 4123 um require a minimum lot width of 90 ft and a minimum lot width average of 100 ft. and the minimum lot width requirement as applied to waterfront property are further explained in ZLDR section 424.1 minimum lot width located ZLDR section article 4.24 24 waterfront development standards which provides in relevant part the minimum lot width is measured and maintained from the front property line through the entire depth of the parcel to the OTR critical line.

All lots within the subdivision must meet the minimum lot width average and the proposed plat does not comply with the waterfront development standards per ZLDR section 412.3. New lot 5B is only 70 feet in width, 20 feet less than the required minimum lot width of 90 feet. Additionally, new lot 5B does not meet the required minimum lot width average of 100 ft. And the proposed plat submitted in subdivision application SBDV 03065 does not meet the requirements of ZLDR section 424.1 or ZLDR section 4.12.3 and therefore it was not an error of the administrative official to decide that the proposed plat could not be approved.

Okay, we appreciate the staff's presentation. Um is there a motion in a second? And we can have discussion after there's a motion in a second. Move that we accept staff recommendation. Okay. And there's a second. Okay. All right. Any questions, comments, Adam? There seems to be a suggestion that they could have stacked the lots and subdivided in a different orientation. Would that be like a I'm thinking is that like a flag lot? Are you thinking that is that how is it that they could subdivide in that I don't I don't I didn't see an image of that but how could they subdivide that way and this one would not apply.

Right. Essentially um some applicants you could do a flag lot or a lot of people do ingress egress easement along the property line to access the back of the so it would be the waterfront lot non-waterfront lot with a 20 foot ingress egress easement to access those criteria it it would meet the criteria of the ordinance. Yes. Anybody else? Do we call for a vote? Commissioner Davis. So, I based on the applicant saying that the staff did not air. Commissioner Leain.

I uh Chair Floyd I. Commissioner Jones. Hi. Commissioner Kent. Hi. Commissioner McConnell. Hi. Commissioner Morris. Hi. Vice Chair Palados. Hi. Commissioner Cox. Hi. Uh the motion to approve or sorry uh accept staff recommendation passes. Okay.

The planning commission is a decision-making body regarding subdivision relating appeals of administrative decisions. Any person with substantial interest in the decision of the planning commission or any officer, board, or bureau of the county may appeal the final decision of the planning commission to the circuit court of Charleston County. Appellant shall file with the clerk of court a written petition plainly and fully setting forth how such decision is contrary to law. Each appeal shall be fi filed within 30 calendar days after the decision of the planning commission is mailed. Okay. The next item on the agenda is SBDV-06-25-03116, a subdivision plat application taking one existing lot and creating a total of two lots at tax map number 57700 041 2718 Hamlin Beach Road, a property within the Hamlin Beach Community Historic district.

Miss Avery, would you continue with the presentation? Yeah. Is there any public comment? There's no public comment. Just verify.

Oh, there is. Okay. Okay. Yes. So, this uh property is in the Hamlin Beach Historic District and the proposal of subdividing TMS number 577-0000-00-41. Um, and it's taking one existing lot and subdividing it into two lots. So, this application was presented to planning commission on November 10th, and the applicant requested deferral of the subdivision application to continue working with the Hamlin Beach community. And this is a map of the future land use of the property. The property is zoned S3. And this is a current zoning map of the property along with an aerial view. And this map shows the um 10 mile um sorry the 10mi historic district and buffers or that should say Hamlin Beach. Sorry that is a typo. Yeah. So, this is in the Hamlin Beach um historic district. A FEMA map and site photos looking to the left and the right and across and directly to the parcel. And this is the proposed subdivision of the property. You can see it's um taking that ingress egress easement and then essentially um two lots adjacent to each other. So per state law section 629-340 that gives the review and approval of any subdivision plat to the planning commission and that's the section of the law

and then per Charleston County historic preservation ordinance section 6 or 21-6 subdivision plat application report. So that is any property within a historic district or within 300 feet of a historic district um would go to the planning commission to determine whether it was consistent or inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. And with that um evaluation per consistency of the comprehensive plan they look at section 3.4.3 4.3 the cultural resource element goal and then they also look at strategies for the cultural resource elements per the comprehensive plan and it's CR1 through why does it keep doing that I believe CR15. So for this particular uh presentation, all nine members present president of the historic preservation commission stated that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the cultural resource resource elements of the comprehensive plan citing consistencies with elements CR1 through CR7 and CR9. The element goal, cultural, historic, and archaeological resources, unique settlement patterns, and traditional low country communities and traditional activities should be preserved and protected from potential negative impacts and growth and development. ZLDR section 8.3.2 to determine whether or not the proposed subdivision is consistent with all requirements of the ordinance and the goals and objectives

of the comprehensive plan. Therefore, staff took this application to HPC to provide the uh comprehensive report whether it was consistent or inconsistent. and staff recommendation. Um the S3 special management residential zoning district implements the urban suburb and cultural community protection policies of the comprehensive plan and the application complies with all requirements of Charleston County zoning land development regulations ordinance including those of S3 zoning district. because the application is consistent with both the comprehensive plan and the ZLDR staff recommended approval. We appreciate the reports from the historic preservation commission and the staff. Are there any questions for the staff from commission members?

Um I noticed that the ingress egress easements are not included in the setback. Is that a ZLDR requirement or is that just a um preference of the owner? No, it is. So, the ZLDR requires that if you have an ingress egress easement, the uh front setback is taken from the the end of the easement, not the property line. Okay. So, if you have a 20 foot easement, your setback would start at that 20 foot ingress egress easement.

Gotcha. And then um is there any issue with so basically there are ingress egress easements coming into the ingress egress easement for this back new subdivided property. Are there could you theoretically just ingress egress easement your way through however many properties that you want? No. The ordinance allows for up to four lots to access off of the ingress egress easement. And then once there's four lots and you want to create that fifth lot, then you have to do a 50 foot wide rideway meeting secondary county road standards.

Okay. And then um I know these are just ingress egress easements. Are they can they be doubled up on using them for utility easement purposes as well or how essentially like I know that they're the owner is going to do their due diligence and all that but it's creating kind of an awkward scenario in terms of uh ingress egress as well as utility services and um smaller buildable lot sizes. Um, I guess utility services can be handled through that same easement or not necessarily. Okay. Yep, they could. Okay, cool. Thank you. That's all I have.

Anybody else? Okay, we will now hear public comments. Each speaker will be limited to two minutes. Please state your name and address before giving your comments. Okay. Myra Richardson. either one. We have this. Yeah. So, Garrett Bean. Yes. Yes.

Clue. Thank you. Um Garrett Bean, I'm one of the owners of uh 2718 Hamlin Beach. Appreciate it. Uh last time we were here, we asked for a deferral. Uh we've had some productive conversations uh with the community. Um, you know, as we discussed, this um is one one acre parcel. Uh, we're interested in getting it subdivided into two parcels. Um, it had originally two buildings on it. Those have been demolished for this process. Um, but as I said, we've had some good, productive conversations with the community. It's our intention at this time to sell the property to the Low Country Land Trust. Uh, we were able to kind of uh get some deal terms settled here. uh Friday and Saturday of this week. So, just a couple days ago. Um we've been going back and forth for I think it's been at least 30 days, maybe a little bit longer. Um trying to get that done. My understanding is they're going to make this part of the park. They own the adjacent lot. Um it is a 60-day due diligence period uh to do that. We have every intention of selling it as long as they're, you know, ready to buy it. Uh but they do have a 60-day due diligence. So, you know, anything can happen in a sales transaction. So, we would still like to move forward with requesting uh the subdivision just in case for some reason the sale does not go through. But again, it's our intention uh to sell the property at this time and as long as they're as long as they close in 60 days, we're we're happy to sell the property. So, I'm happy to answer any questions. I know that's kind of maybe a little different than normal. So, Anybody have any questions for the speaker?

Who is the potential purchaser? The Low Country the Low Country Land Trust. So, they've they've purchased an adjacent lot that they intend to make a park with the uh Hamilton Beach community. Uh this would fit right with what they're looking to do. It's got the pond. We're on the other side of the pond. And uh again, we finally, you know, were able to come to an agreement. Um, as I said, it's a 60-day close. Um, as long as it closes, we're we're in agreement to sell it. So, anybody else? Speaker,

Myra Richardson. Good day. My name is Mar Richson. I'm the president of the Hamlin Beach Community Association. Um my address is 2755 Earl Johnson on Pleasant, South Carolina. We did meet with the developers on November 7th. Um along with the adjacent land owners and the representative from Low Country Land Trust. Um, one of the concerns with the community had was that the utility and easement to that property. Um, the two adjacent land owners did not have a consent to give give their consent for utility and easement. It was an ingress and egress only to the property. And during that meeting, because it's so close to the Kley Chapel Park, we were talking about trying to be have that property as a part of the community for the general public to use. It would be great for a gazebo, community garden, flower garden, everything is cleared off. So, we do appreciate the opportunity to have that as a part of the public park. Um, in March we had young people from the University of Richmond to come out and clean that park area and just the wildlife in the area with the Canada geese flying over that property. It was such a beautiful experience. So, we're praying that this deal does go through and that we will be able to preserve that part as as include that as a part of the park. Um, the pawn area be visible on all sides if this property does come under Low Country Land Trust. Um the pond is formerly known as Mr. Ike's pond. Um the gentleman that previously owned the property, Mr. Ike was a wonderful man in the community and in his obituary it says, "The just man

walketh in his integrity. His children are blessed after him." Proverbs 27. And that's what we're hoping to walk in. The integrity of Mr. Ike to preserve, protect what he established to help protect the Hamlin Beach community. Thank you for your time. I thank the developers. I thank Mr. Sam Sewell from Low Country Land Trust for working so hard to protect and preserve this area as a green space for not just the Hamlin Beach community, but for the general public. Thank you again. Thank you. The case is now closed to public comment. Is there a motion and a second from the commission? So moved.

Second. Okay. Call for the vote. Commissioner Davis, I. Commissioner Leain, I. Chair Floyd, I. Commissioner Jones, I. Commissioner Kent, I. Commissioner McConnell, I. Commissioner Morris, I. Vice Chair Palados, I. Commissioner Cox, I. The eyes have it.

This is the final decision of the planning commission. If any person with a substantial interest in a decision of the planning commission chooses to appeal this decision, they may do so to the circuit court of Charleston County, such appeal shall be filed within 30 calendar days after today's date. The next item on the agenda are proposed amendments to the zoning and land development regulations ordinance and when Carlile will present that for us.

Thank you. Um, so in September, council directed staff to explore admitting the Zeldar to add infrastructure as a consideration for requests of higher density intensity than allowed by existing zoning. So this slide reflects the commission directive to address concerns of the uh realtors association and uh John's Island task force. We met with representatives from SEAR and the homebuilders association and made changes to the proposed letters of coordination requirements. We also made suggested changes from John's Island task force. So the proposed amendments would implement the council directive in two ways. The application process and the approval process. The application process, comp plan amendment, zoning map amendment, and plan development applications would require letters of coordination from the applicable entities related to impacts on the transportation system, storm water, and water sewer. Letters of coordination would also be required from CCSD, emergency service providers, and Carta. And in addition, reflecting our meeting with SeaR and the homebuilders allows the zoning and planning director to wave the requirements for the letters of coordination from CCSD emergency service providers and Carta if the applicant can demonstrate efforts to obtain the letters. So for the approval process, an infrastructure criterion will be added for comp plan amendments and zoning map amendments that request higher density and intensity and all plan developments. For plan developments, there is already a similar criterion in place. Uh the proposed amendment would change the wording to match this language.

There's also a proposed amendment uh to require letter of intent for reszoning applications to explain the reasoning request and how it meets the approval criteria. Also, there are proposed amendments to require traffic impact studies for all plan development applications and a PD approval criterion for compatibility with the neighborhood. This compatibility criterion already exists for resonings. We are requesting it be added for PDS also since PDS are rec reszoning requests too. And finally, the Zeldar currently has a violation provision for short-term rental properties that have a permit. This amendment adds one for STR properties operating without a permit. And this shows the actions at the November planning commission meeting. and the public input and speaker info from the November meeting for today's meeting. 14 comments in support of the infrastructure amendments were provided and one comment in support of the short-term rental amendments and the proposed amendments were noticed as required.

We appreciate the staff's report. Are there any questions for staff from the commission members? Yes. Um, what would constitute demonstration of effort? I don't know if that's something that should be discussed here, but it's just either question. I was just uh either emails or phone calls, you know, where they can show, hey, we've reached out to the staff at these various agencies. Um, where they can basically prove that to us. Um, and you know, if they're if they've made multiple efforts and are not getting anything in return,

so it's essentially staff's discretion. But if they reach out once and then the next day they don't have a response, you're not going to say that establishes effort. Correct. Yeah. We want them to make a reasonable effort to try to get these letters of coordination. Okay. Um, another question which may be a stupid one and I might know the answer to this but it talks about um all of these efforts to demonstrate the impact. Let's say it goes from a D intersection to an F intersection. What happens then? I mean that's obviously or an A intersection to an F intersection.

Um they've they've shown the impacts. What what happens next? So we would, you know, take that information and send it along with the resoning application um and then include that in a summary form under that criterion um for the resoning request. Okay. Thank you. So it just be one factor that you would take into consideration. Gary, hey, how's it going?

Good. Uh just for some clarification for me under uh section 4258A plan development application the uh approval criteria it states to include criteria addressing compatibility with the surrounding area. I'm clear on the infrastructure, but can you just kind of tell me a little bit about the compatibility with the surrounding area? Because essentially, if you're doing a PD, you're kind of creating your your own, you know, section of what it is and what it's going to be that truthfully may be independent of the other neighborhoods that are within that area, especially if you're doing a PD in a in a 40acre track. So that 40 acre track is going to be compatible with what?

Right. So, you know, just a very broad example, I guess, would just be if you were on John's Island in a rurally zoned area and you were proposing a PD that had a highly intense mixeduse project or like commercial very heavy commercial um project, you know, that doesn't fit in with that area. you know, the neighborhood. There's not a compatibility there. Isn't the point of a PD to create your own zoning? Yes, but um obviously then it would not be compatible with the adjoining zoning right there in the area. Well, I just think I think there are degrees. Um

so, um this is already uh criterion that particular one that's being moved into the plan development. It's already a criterion for our regular resoning requests. We're moving it into the plan development section because it does come up a lot when plan developments are going through the process because they are a form of reasonzoning as well. Um but you you know staff would make their determination on the compatibility and the applicant would also have the chance to make their argument about how something may be compatible um with with the surrounding area. So, if someone's going in to do a PD on a 40 acre track, they would want to make sure that it's compatible with the AGR zoning that may be surrounding it. Let's just say if it's in John's Island,

they would want to keep aspects of it compatible and not do something that is completely out of character with with what's around it. and and staff would say that whether that was a a criteria or not for it. Would that be in design aspects that dictate the criteria or would it be in lot sizes that dictate the criteria? It could be in any of those things in any element of the plan development. It just depends on what the applicant is asking to do and and we do, you know, tell them that they should meet with the community. They should look at the community. We already have a requirement to show what that plan development looks like on an aerial so people can see how it does or doesn't fit in with the existing community. That's already a requirement. Okay. For those types of reasonings. Great. Thank you.

Ybody else. All right. We'll now hear public comments. Each speaker will be limited to two minutes.

Okay. We've got two speakers. Michael Ramsey is the first. Madame Chairwoman, Planning Commission, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today and also we very much appreciate the uh staff working with us like I say trying to uh work on these amendments. Um below are the comments on behalf of the Charleston Trident Association of Realtors. A seat looks at land policies through the lens of protecting private property owner rights and ensuring as a region creating a capacity to grow and maintain and pro and improve the region's quality of life. The uh a couple points that we would like to make today is number one state level concurrency efforts are taking shape. Work is currently underway to draft a compromise on concurrency at the general assembly level. Active negotiations are underway between the South Carolina Homebuilders Association and the General Assembly. We anticipate some progress at a statewide concurrency bill this session. As such, Charleston County would be prudent to deter such defer such action to ensure any local concurrency legislation does not conflict with state law. Advancing a local framework now risk inconsistency and potential rework once statewide standards are adopted. If a state law is not passed this session, then Charleston County could certainly resume its work in the summer. Second, we have incorporate letters. Please incor consider incorporating the letters of coordination into the public hearing process. If Charleston County seeks, input from outside agencies,

letter of coordination should be incorporated into the existing public hearing processes. A functional mechanism already exists for these entities to provide comments through public hearing participation. To improve transparency and efficiency, the county should transmit all resoning applications involving more intense uses directly to regular agencies, allowing them to submit comments or letters within the established hearing schedule. This method creates clear deadlines and ensures that a lack of response does not delay the applicant's process. Thank you.

Thank you. And I have a couple more, but my time is up. Is Is that all included in this? Yes, ma'am. Please read through those and if you have any questions or concern, please reach out. We are more than willing to continue to uh be helpful as far as working through this process. Thank you. John Logar.

Good afternoon again. John Zogar, the 528 Frisco Lane, representing John's Island Task Force. Wow. Did you get the same impression? For the last month, I just worked with staff, came up with with a what we thought was a good compromise, which you see before you, and now they say they don't like it. Um, so all I can say is I hope you um um approve what staff has recommended. We agree with the minor changes that uh the special interest groups have said they liked, at least until today. Um and let it go forward to county council and see what they have to say about it. So again, I hope you approve what you have in front of you. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Okay, the case is now uh closed to the public. Is there a motion and second from the commission move to approve the second? Okay. And these include the short-term rental amendments and the infrastructure. Is that correct? Keep going. Okay. Yeah. Okay.

I guess one question. And I guess what how difficult would it be for staff to send out to the agencies to um to respond during the public comment period. We can certainly send them a notification as one of our interested parties. Our concern would be we'd probably have a less likelihood of hearing back from them than if they have an applicant calling them directly asking for information. But we could certainly do that in addition. In addition Yeah. I I will say that does seem ownorous though uh and potentially like for the staff. Yeah.

Um and I mean a part of me feels like this this attempt at concurrency. I get it. Um but it it's almost like I don't know. We could we could if we had a better idea of how we wanted to grow. It's almost like you wouldn't necessarily need to put that onus on the private developer.

Um cuz I understand like Gary had mentioned before how difficult that is for a property owner to get all these letters of concurrency and because I see that too. Um and sometimes those letters like some some agencies won't say no and it doesn't necessarily mean that they can actually handle it. They just say yeah sure I can. And it's a checkbox. M

um so I don't I I kind of agree with John what he said like send it to council and let them hash out those details but I think a more robust way of looking at infrastructure management may be a better way of moving forward. Um but these are you know fairly minor all said. So, Susan,

um I I agree that they're fairly minor um and um since there has not been any larger plan on um development and we hear from so many people that it is um running a muck that um I don't it does not appear to me to be an undue chore to ask people to to come forward with these letters of recommendation. And I I have seen that our staff seems to be very reasonable about most things. And um I I would trust them to make a determination as to what constitutes effort and uh what constitutes an acceptable um development and then they come to us and then you know if need be goes to council under certain circumstances. I I I don't think we should wait for the state. It we've all seen how that can go. And um again, we hear from everyone that comes or not everyone but mo many of the people who come here that um that traffic is a huge problem. Schools are a problem. You know, all of it is a problem. and um asking a developer to simply inform the public as to what this impact is going to be. I don't think it's a extraordinary thing to ask personally

and I can personally speak to the difficulty in getting a response from some of these agencies, you know, from things that I've tried to do. So if I think you know if you can show you did a couple of emails or several emails and phone calls. You can't make them sit down and respond to you. Just my two cents. Anybody else? Okay. Just um I'm sure you respond quickly where

the city of North Charleston. Well, we require a number of these things in our process typically, but we don't always it's usually at the project level, not at the resoning level typically. And so it'd be like on once the project development project came in and we're going to do 220 units apartment units on this property at that point we would have some correspondence with CCSD or others at that point because you know what the scale of the development is if it's just a resoning from R1 to R2 you don't know what the potential end use is and so how can you get an accurate um verification letter coordination letter with these entities if you don't know the scale of the development to come. So, I think that that's a challenge. I'm not sure how we're going to thread that needle, but it should be addressed.

So, yeah, you're right. With the regular resoning, you're not going to know exactly what the the project is going to be. So, um the way we wrote the amendments was that the planning director would use the most intense use and density that's allowed and that would be what they'd have to ask for. Of course, when you get to site plan review or subdivision, if you got the resoning, whatever your next steps are, you'd still have to have the letter of coordination for that specific project. Um just like you're saying, Adam. So, and and so are you going to provide templates to the applicants in order for them to reach out to these agencies because they may not know what the maximum density, highest use is on those parcels necessary. We would probably tell them what our determination of that is so that they knew the language to use when they reach out. Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you. I mean, when you when you kind of put it like that that an applicant could they have to basically propose the most intense use for that reasoning kind of worries me that maybe within zoning categories those intensity of uses may not be aligned and could cause like it could cause us to have to really look at what each zoning category use can or uses are. Um because some could be pretty unaligned like the need for uh certain things for like a retail store versus an apartment complex are very different. Um and that could cause an applicant to essentially not be able to reszone just for that reason.

Um that that seems like yeah getting the letter. Yeah. Um it seems kind of like maybe putting us into an unknown that could cause some problems down the road. So I don't maybe uses are a little more aligned than that though.

We had written the amendments that way just because we know that even if someone comes to you saying I just want to do a retail store but I want CC for it. They could if they got the resoning they could it could be anything. You know there are no there's no ability unless they're doing a plan development to to make sure it's only that one thing. So that was the best way sort of the worst case scenario. If we did this resoning what could it be? But in in this case, we're utilizing the the need for the letters of coordination for water etc. to be based on the most intensive use. Correct. So the opposite side of it could be that, you know, the applicant is going to uh CWS for a a water letter, you know, based on needing a certain number of taps that are just really not realistic to what his end use will be. And due to that, he may not get that coordination letter.

And that seems slightly unjust to the applicant as well. has are you aware of any situation just to remind where that's No, because we're not doing that now. Okay. Well, actually, no, but I'm Well, I'm on the St. John's water board and if we have water availability, we pretty much have to say I you know, the water's there, so yeah, you can you can use it. So, unless we're like really I don't know what CPW is doing it, but or whatever they call it now, right? I don't but the water but typ typically, you know, I don't see that. That's a I don't see that as a problem for us right here and now. Maybe in the future,

right? which yeah, I guess it could be a problem in the future, but I mean, typically right now, if I'm going to CWS and I'm asking for a uh letter of coordination, water availability, water availability letter, I'm giving them an idea of what my needs may be,

you know, but in this case, if I'm telling them that it's going to be based on the actual highest capacity usage, they may say that we don't have that. Or it could even be for sewer, you know, as well, you know, I mean, sewer would be a lot easier. You think about places like Ravvenel, etc., you know, where they've got, you know, not that many sewer taps that they're wanting to do away with. They may say, "No, sorry. We can't help you."

And I think in those cases, the letter would come back saying that. Um, and then it would be up to the applicant to address in the resoning process that, hey, maybe I'm not planning on doing something that intense. I'm planning on doing this other thing. Um, and then it would be up to planning commission to make a recommendation based on all that information and county council to make the decision, but still knowing that in the end the applicant could do that very high intensity use. Um, so would the applicant then have a need to go back and get another letter of coordination? And and where I'm going on this would just be kind of over amount. Yeah, it's just time again only if they okay

if they got denied on the first go round based on the higher usage and then they came back to staff and we're explaining to staff now that hey really I'm not going to do this based on this usage will staff then say okay well get me another you know letter of coordination stating something otherwise and all I'm doing the conversation here is based on time. Oh yeah. Because at the end of the day, the time really affects everything. So we wind up putting a lot of emphasis on things and then the backend winds up being what things cost. I think but we're adding to time which winds up being money and it goes to the end user.

Sure. Sure. I think in that instance it would be up to planning commissioner council to send the applicant back. back if the applicant came back with another application for the same or more, you know, intense district, staff would still have them go get the same letter of coordination for the most intense use because that's what our ordinance would say if if it was adopted as worded right now. Um, so but if planning commissioner council directed them to go back and and get a different letter that then that's when that would occur.

Some things in the future You can't put a figure on you may have a scale but you can't define precisely a judgment is often made. It's a value judgment you know it's plus or minus I don't know I think we could spend a lot of time trying to define it but I mean this is going to the decision is going to come back to the planning director. I'm happy to leave it to the planning director to inform us as to what the potential problems might be and for us then to make a decision in the light of presented to us. I just don't think that you can spend all of this time precisely defining what you want. I just don't think it's possible. Okay.

Go ahead, Adam. Could you explain how North Charleston does it? I was You said it's a little different, but you get this

based upon the project typically by the project. So, if you're coming in with a new apartment development or something of that idea, at that point you get letter of coordination to make sure you have water, sewer capacity, you know, you'd have your traffic impact analysis done at that point for that project, not for the thousand units that could be based on the highest density, but on the 200 that are actually going to be built. And so like I think that having to get letters of coordination under those circumstances, right, would be um it would intensify the reaction that people would have to those developments. So we look at the what's actually happening on the ground, what's being proposed at the project level, not at the resoning level.

And we do too. When you come in for site plan review or subdivision right now, you have to come in with those same letters of coordination for exactly what it is you want to do. Um, so that has to happen down the road, but you have to have the zoning to be able to do that. So this is only for people who are trying to intensify zoning. You have to do these at a different level, a different stage of the process. But we have that very same requirement that more accurate down the road.

It will be. It's just when you come in for a reasonzoning, you you might have an idea in mind, you know, as the applicant, but staff and and planning commission and council, if it's approved in the end, they could do anything allowed in that zoning district. So that's why we have to go with sort of the most intense use that they could do and that's what they have to base their letter of coordination on. So that, you know, if that applicant then sells the property on down the line to someone who does the most intense use, the decision would have been made based on that. But if they got that resoning when they come in for site plan review or for subdivision, they would be getting a letter of coordination from for whatever it is that they're applying for. If it's a 200 unit multif family or just a retail store, whatever it is that's allowed in that district that all that process remains the same.

I'm just confused on why we're doing it in advance when we don't even know what the use is going to be. So, we were directed by council to um come up with a criterion for infrastructure um for for resonings. Um and that that's why that's why it's being applied at the resoning stage. Yeah, precisely because you don't know what they're going to do and they could do so you have to kind of assume that they were they will be do the max.

Well, but they but we'll know better. I mean, they may have the zoning, but they can't do the project until they get better coordination down the road. Correct. Unless I'm missing something. Yes, they can't do the project, but we were directed by council so that it's known during the resoning process what what could be the impacts on our infrastructure of what's allowed in the zoning district if someone is asking to upzone the property? Andrea, would it would it be feasible in the letter of coordination to allow the developer to ask for maybe a minimum as well as up to the maximum. So at least they can establish, you know, if they have an idea of mind of what they want to do with that zoning that may not be

that could take care of the max, maybe at least let them set a floor and maybe the agency can agree, you know, that they can service the floor but maybe not the ceiling. Sure. Yes. Yes. Of course. So, am I hearing right that if this passes, if this were pass council, that a developer who wants to reszone would have to get a letter of coordination for the reszoning if it was an upzone and a letter of coordination once they actually do the project. That's correct.

Yes, yes, they would. They'd have to have the letter for the reasonzoning because that letter, you know, is going to be based on the most intense use. And of course, they could give us a range. Um, we would want to see what that most intense use would do. they if they got through that process again only for upzonings. If they get through that process um and it's reszoned um you know if they come right into site plan review or subdivision then they could use probably use the letters that they have if they were okay or they could get revised letters of coordination. But sometimes those reasonings sit for 10 20 years and then getting the letter coordination that says yes and then they ask again because they have to ask again and then it says no

which is fine but either way it seems like the first one's redundant. But we've had people come in here and say they want to reszone but they don't really have anything in mind. Right.

So what do you do with those people? Well, the way that I look at it is, well, one, if it's an the comprehensive plan as a future land use recommendation, then it provides them with a little bit more um, you know, backing to that. But the other part is like we're under no obligation to say yes. They didn't buy it knowing that they were going to get the yes to the upzoning. So, they bought it with the c the current, you know, zoning category that they have. And so, that's on them. they'd have to provide a good explanation for it. We're not required to say yes to the zoning, the upzoning. So to me, it just seems like another letter. Like I say, this is like where I have projects where certain requirements get more like the red tape gets a bit more and a bit more and a bit more and then I see I'm just like sending out these letters. they might be getting filed away somewhere, but I could bet in five years they're probably not going to be there with whatever, you know, authority having jurisdiction it was. So, it seems like a redundancy. Um, I don't really see any benefit to it unless someone else does because you're going to they're going to have to ask for the project specifically down the road anyways.

But if you've already got water for the most intense use and you're not going to do the most intense use, then you've already got the letter, right? Unless it kills your upzoning and then didn't really matter anyway.

Or if like Luke mentions there's a a span of time that lapses where other projects come in. I'm thinking on the periphery of the county, the Ravenels out near Lincolnville where there's limited water line sizes, sewer line sizes that maybe today they can provide for that project. You get that reszoning, nothing happens with it, and then it moves forward to get developed years down the road where you've had other projects come in, receive those approvals, use up that capacity, and it no longer applies. Then in that situation, what what good is the letter done on the front end?

Right? And to what Andrea said earlier in terms of, well, maybe you can reuse that letter. Well, then we should probably say there's a time limit just to what Pete was saying with uh like you can't use a letter from 10 years ago. That's an easy one. But even a year, a lot can happen.

Sure. Yeah. And and just you so we were directed by council to to figure out an infrastructure criterion. So we need a way to know if the infrastructure is okay or not. And we are not those experts because we don't work for those entities. So the only way we could think of, the best way we could think of was to have those entities tell us if based on, you know, the highest and best use in this zoning district, is there the ability to support it um through infrastructure? And so that's how we came to the letters of coordination. And there are time limits to your point, Commissioner Morris, um on on those letters. So you would have to go right into site plan review or to have those apply. If you waited a year, five years, whatever it was, you you'd probably have to get updated letters of coordination. But that's sort of how we got to the idea of the of the letters of coordination was to help inform you know staff's recommendation then ultimately so that planning commission and council had all the information in order to make the recommendation and decision. So, because I feel like probably a better way to approach the infrastructure issue in its entirety would be to work with those agencies because like you said, we can't really dictate that. But if we tell them, hey, look, we're looking for more intense usage here. And of course, we kind of do that with the comprehensive plan. Um, and that might be a more realistic way of doing it. It just seems like we're kind of putting red tape to try to see like to try to address what the problem is, but it's doesn't really have much in the way of teeth. Um, and so just as a question, the current motion on the floor is for approval for all of these, right? Mhm.

Um I can't remember who made the motion, but if it if they would be interested in amending it to take this letter coordination off for the upzoning because to me it seems redundant. But so if that comes out then I think staff would have to request you sending it back to staff because then we have nothing to base our our um our thoughts on the infrastructure criterion piece. Right. That's why we included letters of coordinating because that was supposed to inform that piece and if we don't have that we don't have a base our I get I get it or direction. Yeah.

And if I may I mean that was the reason that you put the statement in there about if they've made an effort and again I have found staff to be informed and reasonable in these decisions that they make. So, um I I'm I'm not a developer, but uh it just doesn't seem like that's an undue thing to ask when again if they have made good faith efforts over some reasonable period of time, which you guys know what that would be. Um again, and council I think was right to to want to address this as a problem because it is a problem. And um it seems like you have addressed through this additional language that you put in this time the delay aspect that is one of Gary's concerns and Luke's concerns.

Just my thought. I I would tend to agree with uh my fellow commissioner here that uh you know maybe if we could just clean the language up more where it talks about the the letters of coordination. Okay. Is this the only area that So you want us to carve out that and send it back to staff or would that that's not going to work right? Yeah. If the whole thing gets sent back to us to work on the language, we would like some more direction on what sorts of changes you would like to see. That would be helpful. Okay.

I just think it's just redundant. I mean, clearly if down the road whenever you here's your project, here's what I'm going to do with it. Here's my letter of coordination. Whereas in the beginning, the letter of coordination means nothing. It could be five years, could be six years, could be 10 years before the property is developed. So there's a lot of effort into something that may or may not be relevant. But you've asked Warick, sorry,

this is going on and on. I think we're turning circles here. Okay. So we ask for a letter. We get a letter back and it says yes, we've got the capacity to handle it for our anticipation of growth over the next five years. Beyond that, we can't say. We don't know. So why can we not get in these letters? We don't have to have it black and white. There can be an opinion. That's all you're that's all you can ask for. You can't ask for a quantification because you can't do that. I mean, yes, you can make an estimate, but you know, you could well be wrong by some magnitude. So I think it's an indication and I think it's part of the knowledge we need and again I think you can leave it to the planning staff to bring it back to us and say hey at the moment there isn't the infrastructure there but you know at this stage but there will be a necessity sometime in the future to increase the infrastructure that's all that they can do

and I think the saying that you've made a reasonable effort takes care of your concerns because you don't I mean you don't really have to have it you just made a reasonable effort to get it. Yeah, I mean the the reasonable effort aspect that's definitely a good caveat caveat in there, but you know, more concerning to me is the aspect of going into the resoning utilizing a a bar of the most intense use in that zoning category, which is pretty broad to, you know, uh give a thumbs up or a thumbs down as to whether or not they can get get that zoning passed if they can't get the letter of coordination based on the most intensive use. That to me just seems like it it puts at peril someone's property rights.

But that's what you're doing whenever you look at an upzoning. You can't just say you can't just go by what the person's asking and say, "Okay, I want to build the store here, right?" And then you do the zoning. Or even better, I'm gonna build affordable housing. How many times have we heard that? We're going to build affordable housing and so we're going to do all this and this and this. Well, you give them the you give them the upzoning and the next thing you know they're building skyscrapers or something or you know something that's not even close to affordable housing because you give them the upone then they can do whatever they want to up to the most intensive use. So all we're saying is if we give you this up zone, this is your limit. And I don't, you know, I I agree that it's, you know, it's ownorous, but it's ownorous whether you're going to get it or not. But within within the zoning category, uh would one not have to come in for new cos or operational changes if they choose to change their usage? if they went from, let's say, a retail usage underneath the zoning to multif family.

Yes. But I think what um Chair Floyd is saying is they come in and they tell you one thing, they get the reasoning and then they actually come in to site plan review for something different than what they told you. We and because they've sold the property or their plans have changed or whatever it is because we can't have no way to hold them to the use that they are telling us at the time of resoning. Correct. But there are two sides of that same coin as well where it could be the opposite as well.

So that's that's that's the balance that I'm trying to look for. You know, that we're we're playing the devil's advocate, but we're not also giving the benefit of the doubt that it could be the opposite way as well. But but in a case if somebody were granted an upzone and the infrastructure could not handle it, they would not be able to move forward with the actual development of the project.

If they didn't have if they got the reszoning and if they came in for site plan review or subdivision and they could not meet the ordinance requirements for that infrastructure. Yes. But I don't know how often that actually occurs. I was just saying like like I said if St. John's if we've got the water capacity we pretty much have to give it we have to approve that and this is just one of several criteria you know for a reasonzoning. So it's one factor and it's just intended to inform planning commission and council that this is what could happen um in this zoning district if the resoning is granted. That that's the intent of it. there are other criteria included um you know for for a reasonzoning or a plan development request.

I mean we had comments that discussed a high low you know that type of a language. Was that language in there? Um we just sorry ours says you have to give us the you know the planning director determines the the highest use. Um, it doesn't say that someone can't say, "Yeah, I'll get you that letter that says what the highest use could could do, but I'm also going to tell you what it is that I want to do, and I'll get that information." I mean, we could write that into the ordinance. I don't think there's anything in there right now that would preclude somebody from including that as information in the letter.

Are we done? Has anybody else got anything to say? Is this Oh, sorry. Is this inclusive of storm water? Yes, storm water would be one of the letters of coordination. Yeah, I see this being the biggest problem with them out of every I think they do a really good job, but I think they would because they're actually responsive. I think it would be a big issue with them. Um, depending on density within that upzoning. I don't know. I just I find that maybe we could get feedback from them. We did work with them on this language public works include including storm water. Okay. To work on the wording for this. Um

Susan before we did an upzone for something that's a lot more dense. We know that there are approved uses within each of those that so whoever owns that property has the opportunity to do any of those things. If there's not sufficient water, wouldn't we want to know if there's if there's if it's an impossibility somehow to do a storm water plan that didn't flood the neighbors? Wouldn't we want to know? I think that there's a huge difference, especially with storm water in one project versus another in the same zoning. I mean, there I mean there could be drastic differences.

No question. But again, the the zoning goes with the land and we have no way of requiring someone who gets an upzone of doing what they've proposed. We we have no way of putting that as a condition on it. They they can do anything that's in that chart of approved uses.

I So I agree. I I just think that what they're saying is that it's redundant because you would still have to go get if, for example, it was a I don't know 12 unit development and they were want to tear it down and build mixed use with residential and grocery store and all that, they would still have to go back and get new storm water approval. Well, that that's what I'm where the redundancy is to me.

And new water taps as well, you know, they would definitely have to go back. So, although it's underneath general commercial zoning or something and someone says, "Hey, I want to upzone to a general commercial use." and they're coming in and they're just going to put in a a sixplex, you know, and they've got the water for that sixplex and they operate that sixplex for the next 15 or 20 years and they sell it. Yes, they do have the right to maybe put 24 units on it, but it doesn't mean that they can get, you know, the storm water that's necessary on that piece of property for 24 units. And it doesn't also mean that they can get the water taps in in in a case that those taps aren't available. But that person that wants to do six units, they surely can. And my only thought on this is, you know, affording them that opportunity without having to look into the crystal ball based on someone selling or not selling in 24 years.

I don't think that's what we're doing, but potentially it is.

I don't think so. is what we're essentially because like to Logan's point with the storm water from an engineering perspective there's a thousand ways to deal with it and then even beyond like because the general idea is that the storm water can't leave the property it's theoretical but like of course we could also and in my opinion sometimes a better way of dealing with it would be essentially a collective storm water drainage system like you have in a city like Char like downtown Charleston so there's a thousand ways to skin that cat so that a you know upzoning point of time, you're not going to know that. But it almost seems like this portion of the letter of coordination is more for public discourse because the requirement for letters of coordination at the time of the project are not going to be part of that. Is that kind of where we're going with this then? Well, um you know for us it's for that we were directed to you know do this have it as a criterion

and in or the you know in order to understand what was going on and the impacts of a potential development trying to get the information from the agencies who are um in charge of approving that the transportation authorities, the storm water authorities, the uh school district, those just letting us know how this could impact or maybe not impact. and just for information so that we could then bring it forward as one of the, you know, three or four other criteria that are involved in reviewing a resoning and we could present that information to planning commission and on to council. Um, just to give an idea of of what's going on with with the infrastructure. You seem to me you'd have a better chance at getting your upzoning if you had the most intense use. And you're saying that the it could be covered whereas if you don't have that,

yeah, it it I think the concern again comes on the outer edges of the county where those that infrastructure is limited and some projects may work and yeah, but once you do the zoning then they can go ahead with it even if they don't. So you should know if they're not going to work at that particular point in time. Yeah. Or force somebody into a PD if they try to, you know, if they need a more narrow use.

You're going to see a lot of that. You're going to see a lot more PDs um going forward. I think if my biggest concern is about the transportation element of actually I think here the requirement that the SEU and DOT right indicate potential impacts on transportation including levels of service, plan road projects, intersection improvements and so forth. None of those things are real in this capacity. And so a coordination letter from the DOT is meaningless without a real project, I think. And so we can't tell you the level of service of a project that doesn't doesn't exist or what the roads going in and out of that development would be from those property owners. And so that's I don't know how you would I don't know how you Yes, you they could tell you whether it would affect if you had like an upper limit.

Yeah. And but typically a a development would provide some resources to uh mitigate some of the impacts of that. Right. That's that's something that can happen. But that's in a real project. I think if you go out to the public and and you say there's going to be a thousand there can be up to a thousand units on this property and people are going like oh but the oh but the traffic and then the thing gets you get 600 letters from John and his friends on John's Island and then and then and then the thing doesn't get passed but it was it it just seems like it can be used in a way that would uh exasperate the fears within the community rather than actually targeting what the challenges are in our zoning code. And I think that people are going to work around that by going through the plan development process, which council members love that because everyone has to go kiss their ring to get it passed. But I don't think that that's the most effective way to run a zoning uh, you know, administration is to have a thousand PDDs throughout the county.

But at least if we do the PD, then that's controlled. Whereas with the zoning, you can't really control what goes in there. Just an upzone, right? And I think that the intention is that bring on the PDS. See, and I would be like, let's get everything done by right because by right means less time. It means things become more affordable. It means we get what we need to develop quicker. And so I think that there's an argument for both sides there for sure. So it's a balance. Yeah. Okay. So where are we? Can we compromise on this and have the letters at least allow for a minimum and a maximum? I don't know if that would work for the rest of the commission, but

Dr. Gary, he's the one that's thinks he thinks we're gonna run out of water. I mean, I' I'd be okay with the minimum maximum on the letters. Okay. Do do we think that that's reasonable? Like, do y'all see agencies that are coordinating sit down and do that? What do you mean? They're going to come up with a maximum and minimum. That makes sense. No, I think that I think the applicant would do the maximum and the minimum, wouldn't it? Yeah.

I mean, it would just basically be an applicant, you know, when the applicant's putting in for a letter saying, "Hey, you know, I'm looking at doing such and such." So, it would actually kind of put the applicant in a position of having an idea of why, you know, they're wanting to reszone this property, you know, so having an idea of what their what their future land use under that zoning may be. and then they could just kind of go into it in a way of saying, "Hey, you know, this would be my minimum and this would be my maximum."

I I think that would still void this whole. I don't know why this would be necessary because if the idea was we got to go after the most intense use so that we know if there's an upzoning and the highest use was developed, then that's what we're looking at. But then now we're gonna set a floor and a ceiling on it. That that's contradictory.

Well, I guess the floor would be the floor could be for an applicant that, you know, let's say wants to do a sixplex or something smaller and then that would not prohibit him from, you know, moving forward with the resoning. If that's something that staff can take into consideration, saying, "Hey, okay, great. we've got an idea of what it is that you're wanting to do and you're proposing to do and it's it's not 220 units. So, you know, that may allow that individual to take advantage of an upzone, you know, to do a smaller type uh development.

This is sort of getting unrealistic. Okay, so we have a minimum and a maximum. So, we've got a fire department The comeback is yes we have the facilities to handle x number of units but if it's a 100x units no we can't handle it but they could handle it if they had 10 years or whatever to provide the infrastructure so I mean I think I don't know they agree you shouldn't be setting the limits I mean yes it's set by the zoning but to to have a commitment from some of these agencies for a plus or a minus. I don't think he's relevant.

Yeah. Again, there is a check and balance. I mean, so really when the project goes forward in their site plan, that's your balance. If there's not adequate services, that's when you should be denied, right? Well, but if if we don't have that information and council goes ahead and grants the up zone and they come back later, but they can't move the project forward without letters of site plan, right? So, that's the that's the check. That's the check that we're we already have. Now, we're just moving it up with the not sure what we're going to do scenario. I think that's the that's the hole in the argument. do is if

but we could do you know up here and I think that's what council wants to know but right but but again that that goes back to assuming that if um one of the agencies can meet the up here today and the zoning's granted that doesn't mean that it's going to move straight from zoning to development may have this long period where it no longer applies and we've gone ahead head and maybe granted that upzoning that now no longer can be accommodated. Okay, Luke,

this will be my last one. Uh I'm just going to show my hand and like I'm I'm going to vote against the motion just because I think that there's a better way. The motion to approve all of the the motion to approve. Well, right now the motion is for approval of all of them. Commissioner, then the motion on the floor is to move uh is to approve all the amendments that have been presented.

Right. So, and because of this letter coordination thing, I I just I don't I understand the sentiment and I know obviously we have infrastructure wos and I I touched on them on some of my presentation in last month's meeting. I think that there's a better way to skin this cat. Um, and so that's essentially where my head is, cuz this just seems like a a a redundant addition to the process in an attempt to fix a real issue. So, okay.

Is is it is it possible that council is ignorant of the fact that there is a check at the development process and that that wasn't effectively communicated to them at the time they made this request? Is it is it possible that they may not have actually understood that we're already doing a lot of the things that they're asking us to check on and that we we that they're being kind of redundant themselves and is there an opportunity for us to communicate that to them to see if this may not even be necessary at all?

I think what they want is this information um as as one of the criteria that they know it when they're making their decision on an upzoning. Um and realize too that we don't have a ton of upzonings. I think we had one or two less in the last year upzonings. Is that what we counted? So, it's not like you see an upzoning every meeting. It's not like every plan development is an upzoning. Um, but it was a recent one that remember the one on can road that was the one where this all sort of came out of because they wanted to know, you know, how the how the traffic would be infected affected and storm water and all the other public services at the time of deciding whether or not to allow for the zoning that was being requested. have I guess question for staff. Have there been some annexations in other municipalities like uh from the county into Lincolnville because of Charleston Waters inability to provide water and they can get it from Lincolnville. I I think these are the margins that I'm thinking of and I I believe I've heard of some similar issues out in the Ravenel area where they have capacity but it's limited. Um and so they can accommodate some reasonable growth but not super intense.

And so my concern of all this is when you know asking for that maximum getting that no and possibly forcing into PDs or annexations or things like that just because they can't get coordination at the highest level. Yeah, I'm not aware of any but we also you know aren't consulted when annexations are occurring. we are, you know, notified after the fact. So,

last last one, I promise. Um, I agree. I'm going to vote no, but I think it would be better to push it to a subcommittee and have uh some of the members work with staff to come up with a better solution. The staff well with with members of the commission have a subcommittee. Okay. Is that a motion? No, I'm just saying I'm going vote no. So, we can do that if you'd like. I can make a motion that we should we have the motion on the original we should vote on the original motion and then Yes. Okay. Why don't we Why don't we go ahead and vote on the original motion and then see what we need to do after that? An amendment.

Yeah. Well, propose an amendment before we vote or if he wants to amend them from the floor, he can. I think what he wants to do is vote on this one, have everybody vote it down, and then move to go have a make a second motion. Is that That's the way I'm reading it.

Okay. All right. Well, is that the cleanest way to do it or is the cleanest way to do an amendment? It depends on what he's trying to do, but then the motion on the floor is just to approve. So just Yeah. Okay. Well, let's go ahead and vote on this motion, please. And then we can figure out what we can we separate the short-term rental ones and do those first. Oh, okay. Sure. Or I don't know how best to do that, Mark. The short-term rental ones are included.

So, commission members, uh, the motion on the floor is to approve on all the amendments that have been uh proposed today. Um and and it sounds like there is consens consensus on most of them. I would advise you to someone to propose an amendment stating what you actually do want to approve and move forward to council and deal with things that you are not in consensus on separately.

Okay. So is are we in cons we're not in consensus on anything other than the letters of coordination? I think it's just the short. So the my understanding Andrea is that infrastructure approval criteria those are all kind of meaningless without being in consensus on the letters of coordination. So if we can amend the motion to break out the short-term rental violation portion vote on that separately from the infrastructural approval criteria.

Yep. But somebody are you making that motion? I will make the motion or I will request the motion maker to amend the motion to just be for approval of short-term rentals and then we can make a motion on the bill accept that friendly amendment.

Okay. Does the original seconder have to second? Yes. We are voting on the short-term rentals. What about the guts of the thing? What that comes next? Okay. commission. My my understanding is we we are trying there are two ZLDR amendments. There's the short-term rentals and the infrastructure amendments. My understanding is that the the consensus is to to vote to approve the short-term rental amendments at this time or to vote only. Okay. And it's my understanding that Miss Cox has stated that her new motion is to approve the short-term rental amendments. And so we're asking is there a second on that so we can vote? I'll second that. Okay. The motion on the floor is to approve the short-term rental ZLDR amendments

or not. I guess a second bet. Please call, please. Commissioner Davis, I Commissioner Leain. Hi, Chair Floyd. Hi, Commissioner Jones. Hi. Commissioner Kent, I. Commissioner McConnell, I. Commissioner Morris, I. Okay. Vice Chair Palados, I. Commissioner Cox, okay. A motion to approve the SDR amendments pass 9 to zero. Okay. Now, do we need a motion on the rest of it to I make a motion that we send the infrastructure criteria back to a subcommittee um appointed by the chair to look at it. Recommendation to the commission

and work with staff. Yeah, absolutely. Will you repeat that motion again? uh basically sending the infrastructure criteria back to um a subcommittee of the members of the commission and staff. I'd second that. Okay. Any discussion? Please say no. Okay. My only comment would be since Luke has suggestions on a better way to do it, he should be part of the second. I was afraid Harry seems so confused. Third, I think he should be on that committee, too. Okay. All right, Commissioner. Wait, wait, wait.

What time is it? Okay. Okay. All right. We ready to vote? Yeah. So, we talked to him about um including in the motion that the chair would appoint the members to the subcommittee. Wasn't that didn't count say that? Did you say to appoint the members? Yes. Okay. Chair. Okay. Okay. Now call for the vote. Commissioner Davis I. Commissioner Leain I. Chair Floyd I. Commissioner Jones. No. Commissioner Kent. I. Commissioner McConnell. I. Commissioner Morris. I. Vice Chair Palados.

I. The motion to send the infrastructure criteria back to a subcommittee uh which includes staff and is appointed by the chair passes 8 to one. Okay. Okay. All right. County council will hear this request at their of the for the u they don't hear the one sending it back to you, do they?

No. Okay. Um, county council will hear the request for um the short-term rental um prop changes um at a hearing on a public hearing on January 13, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. in council chambers and again at their January 22nd, 2026 planning and public works committee meeting at 5:00 pm. The request must then undergo three readings for approval at council's discretion. Okay. The next item on the agenda is a discussion and vote on the missing middle housing subcommittee. All right. Um we have I would suggest that we have a subcommittee to talk about to work on the missing middle and I would have um Luke Morris as the chair and Gary Lasain as a chair uh as a committee member along with Logan Davis and Susan Cox. Is there a motion?

Move to approve. Okay. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Is there any discussion? Somebody burning to be on. Commissioner Davis. I. Commissioner Lasain. I. Chair Floyd. I. Commissioner Jones. Hi. Commissioner Kent. Hi. Commissioner McConnell. Hi. Commissioner Morris. Hi. Vice Chair Palato, I. Commissioner Cox, hi. The eyes have it. Okay. Um, next item on the agenda is a discussion and vote on the monthly subdivision report.

Yes. So remember last month when we had talked a little bit about maybe um including some sort of um item on your agendas for you to um have a conceptual plan workshop on preliminary plats and we had talked about maybe doing the subdivision report instead. Tamara um put together a sample um which was in your packets um and she's got up on the screen. Do you want to go through it Tamara?

Sure. These are actually two projects that we actually have in process. So the idea would be is that I would present this to you all at your monthly meetings for any new preliminary plat applications and it would just state what the proposed project is, the district, the zoning, the highland acreage, and a summary of what they're proposing to do. And then we would not post the properties um but we would send this information to the interested parties lists every month if there are preliminary plats. And so I would have this and then I would also have essentially the plat that they're proposing um to present along with it for y'all to see it.

Are you going to just say for information only this is not to be voted on at the commission meeting? Yes. Yeah. Okay.

Is there a motion and a second from the commission? I'll put forth the motion to approve and proceed in that manner. Okay. Is there a second? Okay. Any discussion? Call for the vote. Commissioner Davis I.

Commissioner Leane. I Chair Floyd. I Commissioner Kent. Hi, Commissioner McConnell.

Okay. Talk into your microphone. Commissioner Jones. Okay. Vice Chair Palato. I. Uh, Commissioner Morris. I. Commissioner Cox, the eyes have it. Okay. So, I guess that doesn't go to county council. It does not. Okay. Okay. Is there any There's um there's no further business. This meeting is adjourned. Next meeting will be on January the 12th, 2026, beginning at 2 p.m. in council chambers.

All righty. Really?