Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, we'll call the uh December 2025 uh meeting of the Mount Pleasant Planning Commission to order. Um I think we've got two persons that are not with us tonight. Adam called and has an excused absence and we'll hopefully see Emily at some point soon. Um first I'll call for approval of the agenda. Is there a motion? Second. Okay. All those in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? Great. Motion approve. Motion is approved. Um and also any amendments or uh proposed edits to the October and special November meeting minutes. If not, we'll ask for a motion to approve those. Um let's do those collectively. Both the October and the November meeting minutes. I'll move to approve both. Second. Second from Mr. Smite. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Great. Mr. Stone, we look to you for a planning commission recommendations update.

Good afternoon, planning commission. Thank you, Mr. Chair. [clears throat] We have four uh agenda items that uh were forwarded to town council. first reading on the annexation, initial annexation um that was approved and we had first reading on rural residential density modification that was approved with one unit per three acres and final reading on the RC2 property off of Chandler Road. uh that was approved for RC2. And then final reading on the building area ratio and accessory dwelling unit standards. That was deferred last night at council and it was deferred for a public input opportunity at the Mount Pleasant Holiday Market. Uh on December 13th, you'll notice that Michelle will have a table

and we'll be uh discussing and um whoever is interested is welcome to come out and discuss their um concerns, give feedback on this ordinance. So great. Thank you. Any questions about those for Mr. Stone? Okay. Okay. And I'm just confirming that all the correspondence was forwarded to us in the time parameters that uh um are allowed. Yes, sir.

Okay. Great. Okay. Now is the time for general public comment. So um by way of orientation for those of you who may not be uh familiar with our meetings, there will be opportunities for several public hearings tonight specific to those uh proposals. But now would be an opportunity for anyone to bring anything to the planning commission of your uh of your choice. I think we have one person and if you would uh ma'am in this time and for others too when we have our public hearings if you would state your name and address for the record that's helpful for our meeting minutes.

Good evening everyone. My name is Cassandra Davis and my address is 1148 Hero Road, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 29466. Today I would like to make a public comment in reference to address number 1490 Boston Road, TMS number 5770093. This property is located in the Hamlet Beach community and we are a historic district through Charleston County. One of the reasons why I would like to see this uh request for annexation denied is because most of the homeowners and land owners who are trying to develop their land is um being told by the Mount Pleasant Waterworks that in order for them to receive the benefits of water and sewer that they must annex into the community into the town of Mount Pleasant once their property touches is Mount Pleasant. After doing careful research through the South Carolina legislation, I realized that um they said that municipalities use state annexation statute like South Carolina code 5-3-150 for the 75% method to create ordinance requiring annexation as a condition for utility and extension especially for continguous property. ities with recent laws like the Private Landowner Protection Act 5-3-1520 restricting lunar unilateral mandatory conditions unless part of an approved

plan or contract. Local ordinance like Mount Pleasants 51-9092 are key but must align with state law balancing growth with the property rights making it a local policy decision within the state framework not an absolute state mandate for all situations. Um, the reason I read that is because we are requesting that the town of Mount Pleasant and Mount Pleasant Waterworks work together to come up with a plan that does not make it mandatory for land owners who are located in the Charleston County region just because they're touching a Mount Pleasant property to be forcefully annexed into the town of Mount Pleasant. Most of the homeowners and land owners who will in the future built in our community would like the protection and all of the benefits that come with being in the Charleston County region. So today I would like for it to be denied and given the the resident property owner the opportunity to still get water and sewer without the annexation.

Okay. Thanks, Miss Davis. We're limited to two and a half uh minutes. So, thank you. Okay. Again, this is the general public comment period. There will be other opportunities for comments during the public hearings for other proposals, but if anyone would like to add comments, you're welcome to do so.

Good day. My name is Myra Snipe Richardson. My address is 275055 Earl Johnson Lane, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. I'm the current president of the Hamlin Beach Community Association. Um, as we talked about the Galaguchi communities, especially the ones that have already become historic district in the Mount Pleasant area, force annexation into the town of Mount Pleasant for sewer, is causing a major hurdle or or devastation to these communities. We work very hard to get into historic district to protect for protection. So with post sanexation for water and sewer, well not for sew water, for sewer is causing an issue. The 10mi community when you're dealing with Chandler Road and um upzoning, we realize there's a lot of issue that's going on and we're asking that you put something in place for our communities that we have already established with Charleston County to protect our areas. Often we hear we can't do anything right now because we don't have the areas. There's a lot that you already have annexed out of our communities. So when it's stated that we can't do anything right now because we don't have everything in place, it's just like saying we can't put a fire station or fire department together until a wildfire happens. And right now it's a wildfire that's going on in the Galaguchi settlement communities with force sanization and overbuilding, clear cutting, destroying the communities. All communities are established where we have a lot of green space and when they annex into your area, they're asking to come in and basically clear cut these properties. So, we're asking for the protection that we have in Charleston County to some way M Pleasant can fill in the same spot that we already have in Charleston County. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else for the general public comment period? Okay, seeing none, we'll close the general public comment period and move into our agenda. Item 7A, a public hearing for 3305 North Highway 17.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a I'm just going to jump straight into the intent of this request. Uh this was uh built in this is the Pinnacle Bank building uh on the corner of Highway 17 and South Morgan's Point. It was built in the county in 2007 and then annexed into the town in April 2007. And it never received a formal zone request accompanied with that annexation. So it was automatically designated as R1.

It's remained that way for 18 years. Um it's it's a lowmaintenance commercial property. They've never usually when they come to us, hey, we need to re-roof the building or have some kind of code violation, we'll we'll be in touch with them, but they've nothing has ever come up on this property. Um and they are now requesting AB1 zoning, which is compliant with the comprehensive plan and would make the current use compliant. So that's all that staff has. Um, glad to answer any questions you might have. Any question for Mr. Stone at this time? No questions.

Okay. Um, this is a public hearing. So, is there anyone here to speak to this particular matter?

Yes, sir. And again, as a reminder, if you would state your name and address for the record. Yes, sir. Good evening. Bruce Williams at 2700 Pacers Fairy Road, Atlanta, Georgia. Uh we bought the property in October of this year and during the due diligence period realized that this was a situation need to be rectified. Uh so we talked with your staff and we applied to get it into the zoning category should be. We have agreed for the easement for the Kenny Mile uh for that project which goes on part of the property. So, we're proud to be in Mount Pleasant and hope you'll see fit to zone it the way it should be zoned. Thank you.

Great. Thanks for making the trip, sir. Is there anyone else on this particular topic? Okay. If not, uh we will close the public hearing. Um any conversation, debate about this? It seems straightforward to me. I'll move to approve. I mean doesn't it doesn't preclude conversation but sure second motion's been made and seconded. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Great. Okay. Next item is 7B 1490 Boston Grill Road. Thanks Mr. Chair.

This is 1490 Boston Grill Road. It is a 93 acre parcel that is currently vacant. It is in the county zoned S3 which is synonymous with RCC zoning. As mentioned, it is in the Hamlin Beach historic district designation. It does have u access to water and sewer via Boston Grill Road. Current request is to annex and zone CC. As far as planning commission's perview, um we are just looking at the zoning only, but that is the current request that is before you. Glad to answer any questions. Any questions for Peter at this at this point?

No. Okay. Um, this is a public hearing. If there's anyone here in front of the public who'd like to speak on this matter, please do so. Hi everyone. My name is Jordan. I am I am the

Could you My name is TW. I just bought this property in September 2025. I love this community and I have a children who looking for a school around like more elementary school. So I would love to build a house here because I love this community. So I don't know what is like restriction or something like that. I don't know much about it but I would love to have a house here live in here in my blessings do in business and then have my child rising here like this. Okay, great. Thank you.

My name is Cassandra Davis. 1148 Hero Road, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 29466. First, I want to say that um we're excited that you purchased the property in Hamlin and we welcome you. I have spine issues, so I apologize I couldn't turn all the way around. Um, and but I want to bring back to the uh chambers's uh attention that Mount Pleasant Waterworks had a discussion with the Snouten community um with a very very old contract that they were trying to work on. And what happened out of that conversation was that anyone who currently had a home already built, they would be able to not be forced into annexation where they become a part of the town of Mount Pleasant, but any new builds, we would have to do it. So, for example, my sister, she's building a home right behind my dad. My dad is currently not required to annex in, but my sister had to sign a contract that she's going to annex into the town of Mount Pleasant. Then the property next door I'm going to have to annex into the town of Mount Pleasant once my home get up. So, it's a ripple effect and it will constantly tear down the community from Charleston County. And um I just want to encourage the current land owner to just take a look at some of the benefits that you can get in the Charleston County area that you would not get in the town of Mount Pleasant. And it's nothing to take away from the greatness of the town of Mount Pleasant. But the CC to me um [clears throat] it protects the the the zoning, but there are other things that the um land owner would be able to do

and the forest annexation using water and sewer as a method to get them into the town of Mount Pleasant. I would like for it to be revisited. Thank you.

Thanks, Mr. D. Thank you. Myris Richardson, 2755 Earl Johnson Lane, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. Again, we would like to welcome you and thank you for coming into the beautiful historic district of Hamlin Beach. Um, Telson County has an ordinance in place number 2078 adopted in 2019 that prohibits utilities from forcing annexation into the city for sewer service aiming to let residents connect without joining a municipality. But it's also mandates connecting to the sewer if available for failing separate tanks. Forcing annexation for the water for sewer is an issue for our communities. Once you annex into the town pleasant, our area is a Galagichi community, moderate to lowinccome area. We allow from the county expect mobile homes, modular homes. Mount Pleasant does not allow mobile homes in our community. So if you're annexing out of the Galaguchi communities, please work with Charleston County and the residents of Mount Pleasant for us to be able to afford to bring our children, our grandparents back into that area with homes that they can afford to build or bring onto the property. In 1989, after Hurricane Hugo, monies were funded from the infrastructure. Hamlin received water and sewer from that infrastructure money which allowed Hamlin Plantation to be built. Now you're using the money and the community that afforded you to get infrastructure for Hamlin Plantation to force the Hamlin Beach community to annex into

Mount Pleasant. We truly think that's unfair. And if we're at this point, please set up committee. You had a committee in place before the settlement commission. They had recommendations. Please follow the recommendations from the settlement community. Set up a task force again to discuss what we would like to see in our community. It's one thing for businesses or or the municipality to get together to decide what they think they want, but then they're making decisions for our communities without us being at the table. So, please again consider not forcation. considering county's policy 2078 and protect the Hamlin Beach community and all of the Gala Beach communities in the Mount Pleasant area. Thank you.

Any anyone else to speak on this topic? If not, we'll close the public uh hearing portion of the uh of this particular agenda item. Okay. Discussion. Miss Ireland. I'm sorry. Did you want the applicant to move? Yeah, I'm sorry. My head went stood up before, but um the applicant would you care to speak to this issue? You spoke just a few moments ago, but are there other other things that we should know about your proposal? Uh I'm not sure about what what actually talking about because I am Vietnamese. I came to US seven years ago. Uh-huh.

I not quite familiar with the process and next process to I just like to build a house and to build a house they need a water and sure that's it. I don't know whether it's county or malf. I don't care about it. Yeah. But I I believe living in in this area really good for my children. So I I try to do it in good business raising my child build a house. Yeah. Yeah. Got it. Thank you so much. and we understand there's a lot of complexity here, so we appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Thanks, Lynette.

Okay. Um, so just to make it clear for people who don't know, the planning commission does not decide annexation. It only decides reasonzonings. But of course, these things are always discussed together because they kind of go together. But council, uh, town council will be the one to decide the annexation. Um, but Mr. Stone, just to make sure that we're all clear, if they deny annexation, if town council denies annexation, the property still is entitled to have water and sewer. Is that not right? That is correct.

That is okay. So, there's not a problem to get water and sewer. You don't have to annex. You're requesting it and then if it's denied, you still get it. You can't No, you can't come back up. [laughter] Sorry. Um, so that's one thing. Um we're having this happen in a lot of um settlement community areas where the county does provide additional protections for things like um additional types of housing that we don't allow in the town right now or there may be different lot sizes or or setbacks things like that or numbers of um you know things that can be on the property. Um, I think at the last council meeting, which was last night, one of the council members reiterated a request to have planning staff work very closely and as quickly as possible with the county to um, co, you know, to sort of coordinate these historic overlays or these zoning overlays to make sure that the town can implement the same types of protections for settlement communities, for the same boundaries of properties as are in the in the county. Uh, and I hope that will be done and I'm making the same request from the planning commission to do that. Um, but I I think I would be a no to reszone this only because I'm trying to send the message that I don't think we should be annexing properties until we have those historic protections in place.

Yes, it's a zoning, not a resoning. So, but I don't I mean if if the town were to act and deny or grant annexation, I believe CC is the automatic designation anyway.

So, I would probably not vote to do anything on this property because I really want to see I don't want to see a chipping away of the settlement community properties. This has happened so much and we've been talking about this for so long and we're so close now because the county is so close to getting for instance the 10mi you know community um with this a zoning district overlay that has historic protections. So I very much want to send the message that we want the same protections. We don't want to you know do discount anything. We don't want to deny anything that you currently have, but we still want you to become a part of the town and not just be in the county properties. So, I'm I'm hoping that we can put this off um and not vote um on this and we can allow this to sort of go forward and be part of the town when we're ready for it, when the town has the proper protections.

Um Mr. Stone. Pam's given us a little bit of an update from uh county council from her vantage point. Do you have more to add or on on your perspective on what county council did last night and its implications for us if any or the framework? Sure. That that'll be uh a slide is dedicated to that um toward the end of the Right. [clears throat] I saw that on the agenda but now we're faced with it. Exactly. So yeah. So that was specifically geared toward the 10-mi community in that overlay, but this was adopted in January of this year, the Hamlin Beach Historic District, and it does provide

code sections that are design related, not not just and that's something that we currently do not have categories for. We we uh have provisions for subdivision uh building permits, but they take it to the next level with this historic district getting into the design and the actual look of these structures. So, those are the additional protections I think that are being alluded to. Okay.

I have a I have a question um for the planning staff. As I understand it, I was on the historic commission for like five years, and one of the things the historic commission can do is recommend other historic districts to be created. And I never heard anything about any of these other communities in the town. It seems like it seems like the town would need to coordinate and set up the same historic district and work to honor the same you know design related items that they do in the old village. Um has has there been any coordination on this?

There has so and that's actually the reason that uh old village historic district is is called that rather than the historic district. It's it's creating a this is specifically for the old village and creates an opportunity for us to create more historic districts elsewhere within the town. But yes, I mean we are definitely in coordination with the county and this has been a three-year process for them to develop this. We may be borrowing from that and and and trying to implement our own form of historic district within these these areas.

Yeah. because I mean I think that would alleviate a lot of the concerns of you know you have protection and then you get annexed and now maybe you don't. So certainly Mr. D. So I I have a question. I'm just trying to simplify something in my own mind here. So I've listened to the public comment and then I listened to the applicant and I'm trying to I I I guess I really don't understand what the public comments have to do with 7B. I mean can can you explain it to me? you know, there's been a lot of talk about zoning and this and that and so forth, but specifically since we're dealing with 7B, how do the public comments um you know, address that? That I can understand.

Thank you, Mr. Davis. That's a good question. And I'm going to go from this from a legal perspective because I don't want to interfere with any discussion this commission is having, but the sole issue in front of this commission tonight is a zoning question as to whether this property should be zoned C uh CC and not the town's annexation policy. Um it is perfectly fine for this commission to put that on a future agenda and discuss that. My legal concern is that we are off the agenda with this discussion and it's completely irrelevant and and while this council or this commission can make any recommendation it wishes, that's my concern and I think you asked a relevant question.

Yeah, thanks for orienting us on that, David. And and I think the the comments and input from members of the community is valuable. Um we just have to remind ourselves what we've been asked to do here as a planning commission on this particular topic, on this agenda item, right? and we've been we've been there before on many occasions and but it's a it's a great uh reminder. So, thanks thank you for that. Um independent of whether we agree, disagree, or want to modify some of the other uh factors that um drive some of these decisions, what we've been asked to do is um either approve or deny the zoning request. As narrow as that. Yeah.

Yeah. Mr. Mr. Chairman, I was just going to add to that and I understand uh what Pam, you know, the overall intent uh associated with your thoughts and and I agree. I hope that there are discussions down the road. I just we got an owner that I don't want to put him through uh you know for and nor is his application anywhere related to you know lobbying for that effort. So um you know I'm inclined. I mean, it's a very uh odd shaped piece of property, flag lot. Uh there's not a lot that is able to be done with it except with a home on the back of it. So, I really don't have any concern reservations and it seems like it's consistent with the uh other town zonings in that area. So, that's just where I fall on it.

Okay. Thank you. So, so, so I understand again. So, basically, the applicant wants to build a house in this property. That's that that that's the bottom line. That's it. And right now And right now this property is not in Mount Pleasant. It's in it's in the county. That's correct. And but he needs he needs water and sewer in order to build a house. And so and he could build it whether he's in the county or in the town. Okay. So So what? Okay. Well, that's right. It would have to Oh, so if he built it without being a nonpleasant or without having a denial by town council of the annexation, he got denied annexation.

But does he need does he need to be I don't understand. Does he need to be annexed if he if he get water and sewer anyway? What's he he is contiguous to Mount Pleasant property, right? So if he wants uh water and sewer, he's got to annex into the town. That's the way the rules are are associated currently. But if he's not annexed, does he still get water in sewer? If he's denied annexation, [clears throat] he annexation for annexation. He just have it approved or denied. But again, what we've been asked to do is zone. Yeah.

Yeah. So the the request before you and the action be taken is if you would recommend to committee and council uh CC zoning for this property. I move to approve. I second it. I [clears throat] motion's been made and seconded to approve the You're you're you're ahead right now. You're ahead. Motion's been made and seconded to approve the uh the request.

And I would just note that the zoning right now in the county, which is where this property is located, is exactly the same effect. It is the same thing, right, as what we would zone if we were to zone it, right? Okay. We'll take a vote then. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? No.

Okay. Motion carries. Okay. Uh topic 7 C. Uh this too is a public hearing for 1651 highway 41. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a similar request off of Highway 41. It's 1.24 acres currently in the county zoned S3. This is within the Phillips Community Historic District designation. water and sewer is available and the property serving this one dwelling unit that is currently on the site is on water and sewer currently. So current request is to zone CC and that is the request before you glad to answer any questions you might have.

Any questions for Mr. Stone at this point? Um just I guess hold once again if this this property Mr. Stone apologize. Go ahead. That's okay. So this property if if it does not come in to the town's zoning, it is zoned the same effect in the county. Is that right? What is it zoned in the county right now? S3. S3, which is the same as this as CC would be here.

Correct. Okay. I apologize. There is an error on the agenda. Yeah, Mr. Davis just RC2. Correct. Um the public hearing ads I know for a fact and the application both state CC. So um David I apologize. Um what would be the correct action to take this? I mean do we wait till next month?

Right. Right. I I agree, David. So, do we need to take an action then or do we just uh move to defer? Move to defer. Okay. Okay. Got it. Okay. So, we'll just we'll just elect to strike that, Mr. Yes, sir.

Okay. All right. Um then we'll move on to uh agenda item 7D. Again, another public hearing for 1602 Rifle Range Road. [snorts] Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a request to annex and zone R3. This is in the county as R4 and it's surrounded uh by R3 zoning. That's Laurel Lake subdivision that was created in 1996. It's across the street from the Mount Pleasant Waterworks facility. current request is for R3 zoning and part of that request was R3 is adjacent and it was um requested but I guess it it is most synonymous with what they currently have in the county. The R4 in the county

looks like our version of R3. So that was the reason for the request. However, there is a distinction to be made here. Laurel Lake subdivision is an insulated development. This is a property that fronts and is addressed off of rifle range.

And you can see that maybe the thought process was that it would aggregate into Laurel Lake subdivision, but based on the layout of these property lines, it's dimensionally pretty challenging to accomplish with any kind of access off of that culde-sac. So, so we'll look at the future land use and the comprehensive plan to kind of direct us. This has a designation of conventional neighborhood which the compatible zoning designations would be RR, R1 and R2. So, that is the current uh setup and staff um is glad to ask any answer any questions you might have.

Questions for Peter? is the applicant present to present on this I have a question. So what what's the Okay, seeing none. Yes, sir. Um I'm still getting familiar with all the different zoning designations, what are the major differences between like R3? What what are the major differences between R3 and R2 like that you suggest in this?

Really, it comes down to lot size. R1 would be 10,000 square feet, minimum lot size. R2 is 8,000 square feet minimum lot size. You go to R3, it goes down to 6,000 square feet minimum to create a lot within that zoning designation. Um, this lot is 15,000 square feet. If that gives you any kind of indication of what the intent would be here. So, R3, it could be subdivided. Good.

Okay. Okay. This is a public hearing. If there's anyone to speak on this particular proposal, now would be the time to do that. Okay, we'll close the public hearing a discussion on the proposal. I mean, I I want to be true to the comprehensive plan. Um, and that's that's not compatible with R3 for this property. That's basically it. Okay. Other thoughts, comments?

Yeah. I mean, I I wouldn't think it'd be appropriate if this was R3 and the property were subdivided. Wouldn't fit in with what's around it. All right. Any counter arguments or thoughts, concerns? If not, we've got two two persons who um sounds like would propose to deny. Do you want to make I'll move to deny. Okay. Is there a second? I'll second that. Okay. Motion's made and seconded to to deny the proposal to zone this at R3. All those in fa All those in favor of denial say I. I. I. I. Any opposed?

Motion carries. Motion carries to deny. Item 7E. Again, this is another public hearing um for 1306 Drive.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um and planning commission. Good evening. I want to introduce myself. I'm Chris Lubbert with the planning department. I'll be presenting the next couple of agenda items for you tonight. And so this first agenda item is a request at 1306 Irkman Drive to reszone from currently AB1 to R2. And you can see here where it's located. It's that triangular shaped lot there at the corner of Irkman and King Street. And they're showing the current zoning at AB1. Across the street you have the R2. And then also you have that little enclave there um north of the down the road there. That's R2 as well. the future land use is neighborhood scale commercial and then basically I want to give a little quick summary of how this came to be. So going back in time this house was built originally in 1967. We didn't have a zoning ordinance at that time or zoning code that was implemented in 79. And so this house existed there uh before we had zoning. Um, and basically it came to us that they they came with a addition they wanted to add on to their house. Um, and we we told them it's a non-conforming land use, which this new ordinance and non-conforming land use does not allow them to expand their footprint of their house or add any intensity of the residential use. And so that's why this is here before you today. They would need to reszone the property to residential uses to allow them to do an addition. And that is all I have. I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you.

Questions? It's an odd shaped parcel, too, which maybe adds a little bit to the complexity, I would think. So, yeah. Yes, sir. Okay. Questions? Yeah. Is the applicant here? Would love to hear from you? Yes. Yes, ma'am. You would state your name and address for the record.

Hi, everyone. I'm Kelly Sartin. I'm here to speak for myself and my dad, John Riyles, that lives at 1306 Herman Drive. It's um like they said before, it's always been residential. So, it was a big surprise to us when I already got a mortgage and everything to add on to the house for them to say, "Nope. Um that's not going to happen." My dad's been in that house since 1967 and raised me in that house. And um as they're getting older, they're both disabled. It's been I'm an only child, a single mom. I just wanted to add a thousand square feet um to the house so I could help take care of them and they can help take care of me. So they're they need my help. Um I live across the street right now renting and I would love to just be considered to let them,

you know, stay in their house. Great. So that's all. Thank you. Okay. Again, this is a public hearing. So if there's anyone from the public who would like to uh address this topic, now would be the time. Hello commissioners. My name is Elise Campaign. I live at 1314 Wayne Street, right around the corner from this property, and I want to offer strong support for allowing it to continue in residential um purpose. Not only does that make sense for the reasons that you just heard from the applicant, but um the intensity of the use of the um space across the street will benefit from having um this remain in a residential capacity. So, strongly support this suggestion. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, we'll close the public hearing. Uh, comments or questions, debate, discussion?

I mean, I'll just mention I mean, normally I don't approve of having um property that's commercial reszone to residential because we want to retain the commercial property zonings that we have here. But this is a unique situation. Um so you know I'm inclined to do differently this time and that's why I mean I think the fact that this has been a residence for so many years and it has support. That's the correspondence we received. It's got support from the neighbors and it's just a small wedge. It does not affect the other commercial properties all around. So you know I see it as very reasonable request. Yeah, I agree with Miss Miss Ireland and I'd like to see a motion to approve.

I would approve. Okay, Mr. SM approve. Okay, motion's been made. I'll second and second from Miss Ireland. Any uh further discussion? If not, we'll call for only concern is that we've previously denied I'm sorry, Ken. My only concern is we've previously denied zoning in this area because of the future of land use. I'm just putting that on the record that we have in the past. Yeah, I think Miss Arland touched on that at least. Yeah, and I think Mr. Stone could elaborate a little bit because I think it was a different sort of situation when we were denying that other request.

Certainly. Um the request I believe it was on the corner of Simmons and Rose. Uh that was definitely a situation where it was clearly um indicated that it was commercial and is viably commercial and that just generates a diverse tax base. This there is question about whether it would be viable as a commercial site just based on the parking storm water and sizing sizing of it. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thanks for that clarification. Appreciate you bringing that up. We we're trying to be logically consistent and I know with what we

I just want to clarify one thing. So like as the town grows and develops, this could potentially be a viable commercial lot because of the planning in place, if someone came back in like 10 years or 15 years and wanted it switched to commercial, would that be like an automatic or would that be? It would it so it being where it is in the future land use that we currently have it would I don't know it would be automatic but it would certainly help if it needed to switch back to commercial at that time that maybe they they would like to sell it could be aggregated into a a neighboring commercial parcel

but as as the current property lines are currently drawn it would be very difficult be stretch Yeah, I mean I I think I my inclination is to like let the current user decide what's most viable now in these gray zones because there I mean we see so many commercial properties like empty or turning over very quickly. Like I don't know that commercial is like in super demand right now in this corridor. So I I'd be in support of leaving it residential for now. Yeah. I mean, okay. I think we take a vote. What about this one? That's okay.

Motion was made and seconded. I think um take a vote. All those in favor of the uh zoning change um please signify by saying I I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. We'll move to item 7F. Uh public hearing for 1437 and 1439 Benning Road. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, this was withdrawn by the applicant. Yeah, that F was withdrawn. Okay. Miss. All right. We'll go to 17G. Correct.

Yeah. Okay. 11:34 Gregory Ferry Road. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And so this one also, it was a little late, but they have also requested to withdraw uh this afternoon due to the ride ofway acquisition for Highway 41. They would likely come back with reduced acreage to annex and request zoning uh which will make it a substantial new request. So they would not need to wait for the one-year progression. Okay.

Um that's it. You need to go through it. I think if um you could either grant their um request for deferral, which would function as a denial or withdrawal, or uh just deny uh either way. Um that would be David, does that make a difference? Yeah. Yeah. And the former being uh granting the request for um withdrawal. I move to grant the request to withdraw. Yeah, I'll second that. Any

concern or discussion? Okay. All those in favor of granting the withdrawal say I. I. I. Any opposed? Okay. So, um I guess we move to 7H. Is that still good? Yeah. Okay. This is a public hearing for land development regulation text amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Kevin Mitchell, our uh town engineer, will be presenting this this next amendment after your presentation. Good evening. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the planning commission. Uh

Kevin, can you just adjust your microphone, please? Thank you. Got it. Speak.

Uh good evening, everyone. Uh we've got a uh a presentation. Uh we'll try to be brief and concise with this, but um what we have is a uh kind of an unofficial public hearing here. Um it's for the uh implementation of a wetland isolated wetland ordinance for the town of Mount Pleasant, which is something fairly new. Uh it's going to be kind of new for no most municipalities. Um, [clears throat] but u before I get into it, just as a matter of information, we did receive uh one letter um December 9th from the Southern Environmental Law Center, which we will pass that along. It was received late, so we were unable to send that out to you before the meeting. So, we will give that to you um following the meeting here. So, [clears throat]

was it in support or was it opposed or was it What's the gist? or can you

uh the gist of it was uh they kind of took exceptions to the exceptions that we had um and they did say that our ordinance was uh overly broad and insufficient. So anyway, so I would take that would be a negative. [laughter] Uh but you will receive this uh following the meeting. So you'll you'll have that as information on these uh So, just a little background here. We've been working on this for a little while now. Uh, this kind of was kicked off by the flood resiliency committee. The mayor headed that. Uh, he wanted the town staff to look into developing an isolated wetland ordinance. Um, and uh, and tonight, well, it has gone through the green commission uh, for that. uh a number of times uh has gone back through which we'll touch on that a little bit and then um and then it went through the flood reserency committee presentation the 3rd of December and now it's come before you on the on the 10th here tonight we're kind of an unofficial public hearing uh because it is in land development regulations it's not in the zoning code regulations what's being proposed so public hearing will be at town council uh if and when we get a solid recommendation for an ordinance to move forward. Uh from here, uh it'll be updated to the flood resiliency committee as well as the planning committee and then hopefully on the town council sometime in the new year. Okay. So, there'll be plenty of times for commentary and input and things like that. And I imagine uh it might circle back and come to you uh as well. It all depends on what the flood resilience and planning committee would like to do with the ordinance. Okay. Um, [clears throat] a little bit of background.

This uh this uh the wetlands itself is historically been something for the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Environmental Services. uh that's their expertise and um and what kind of brought this about was the regulations that that did change that redefined the uh definitions of waters of the US and that resulted from the 2023 US Supreme Court ruling Sacket verse EPA where there was a small isolated wetland EPA uh did not want them to fill it but Sacket wanted them to fill it so a lawsuit ensued and it went all the way to the US Supreme Court and as a result the change of the US uh waters of the US definition was changed. So anything that is overland flowing into uh a larger water body is considered an isolated is considered a jurisdictional wetland. If it is not uh connected hydraulically then it is an isolated weapon. So I am not an expert in this field by the way. So uh I am learning as we go here. Uh so what I think what the mayor and council wanted us to do is just kind of get that gap that is now have been created with that regulation and and from a local level try to protect some of the unprotected isolated areas or what you would be calling kind of a perennial pool area which is similar to what's pictured here just as an example.

[clears throat]

So, we took this before the green commission. Uh, we did have a kind of a boiler plate to work off of. Bluffton, uh, city of Bluffton was moving forward with with their regulations, so we were familiar with the format setup, um, things of that nature. So, we were kind of working off that. And, uh, during that green commission meeting, it was, um, some options about, uh, how to kind of move this forward. Option two was the chosen option is to create a subworking group made of two uh two of the green commission members uh someone from the army corps of engineers and then someone from the private sector uh wetlands industry that was part of this working group. So we met uh kicked around some ideas came up with basically some very high level what the purpose driven uh uh conditions of this ordinance would really be just nailing it down to the bare bones of this ordinance is to be created just to protect non-jurisdictional wetlands which is important because the wetlands that are jurisdictional are already being protected by the court. So this is just to very clearly protect those isolated wetlands. Second set procedures and protection preservations of course and then also try not to be in conflict with people's private property rights or be in uh uh disagreement with any prior agreements. You know we don't want to get this sidetracked in legal lawsuit issues. So we want to make sure and be very sensitive to people's private property rights which that's what we are discussing is private property rights. Um [clears throat] so during the the green commission situation um taking it back and forth and working with the working group and stuff it we looked at the green space

preservation ordinance that we currently have in place in the land development regulations and we felt like that might be a very good fit to incorporate the protection of wetlands within that chapter. The chapter is 1554. uh it does kick in when there's five acres and greater being developed. So, anything below that would not really pertain to the green space. But this being new, we we felt like um this would be a very good fit if we did incorporate uh the ordinance within this particular area and within this land development chapter. So, we moved forward with that uh as a kind of a mockup uh mockup ordinance uh just to see how it was presented, how it worked, and uh see try to get some feedback. Um what our approach was was to capture smaller subdivision requests. We're dealing with small isolated wetlands for the most part. what would likely be in more the most impactful to those uh isolated wetlands are the subdivision requests that uh we felt like were more threatening to those type of general areas. We did want to take advantage of some opportunities to double count some of the green space uh with the environmentally sensitive areas. So, you know, we didn't really want to approach this in very heavy ha heavy-handed manner. Um, we also uh wanted to incorporate and engage a wetlands professional in doing this. As I said, I'm not a professional wetlands person and we don't have anybody on staff. So, we would be relying on wetland professionals to make decisions along the way with this. And also in uh approaching it as a subdivision uh angle, we that does give

us an opportunity to begin building an inventory of where these uh areas exist because they would be identified on a plat of record. It would be recorded in a matter of public record. So it all made sense. So uh we also felt like you know another aspect is to um allow for it to retain some storm water runoff retention. So it kind of double counts a little bit towards that. So it does kind of balance the two uh ability to develop property as well as trying to protect the integrity of the wetlands and approach this in a public private partnership uh and recognizing that you know protecting features not accounted for uh for the consideration of subdivision design because right now if it's not shown or if it's not identified you don't really have uh the ability to plan for it when you're planning a layout of a subdivision. Uh the the strike through there that is actually an old striketh through. Um the front edge buffer is still going to be part of the green space preservation. So this is an old slot. Uh now getting in a little bit more of the ordinance itself. Uh this is the outline. Uh the mission statement u which you should have copies of it um that was included with this presentation. So we won't get into line by line of everything. The findings itself is generally the where statements once it gets into the legal arena and they start creating a format for an ordinance to be moving through. Uh that's where the the whereas uh stuff the justification for the ordinance. Now once we get into the specific requirements, this is where we start nailing down to what this really does apply to. Uh, as mentioned, we're looking solely at subdivision request. If you have one lot

and you want to subdivide it and make two lots, then you would have to move forward through a this would be applicable to that. And also retain the green space uh preservation standards. Um, if you had more than five acres that you were developing, then that would be applicable. So, we didn't really want to change what was currently in place at that time. Uh and then we got into the the Smittle requirements. We will not get too far into the weeds on that. Mave uh will take you through that here. The buffer was discussed at some length. We did propose a smaller buffer through the discussions with the green commission. They recommended that that be increased a little bit. We'll discuss that in a second. Uh again, the green preservation that is a condition of lot sizes and the percentage of open space. No change there. Street frontage was uh discussed about being removed, but it was also left in there. The exceptions we'll expand on a little bit too. That was a lot of discussion at the uh flood resiliency committee about that. Um and then the procedure itself, no change plan. These sort of conditions will come before this board here for their review and approval like a normal subdivision. So it will be part of the subdivision request. So [clears throat] that's very high level touching a little bit on uh some of these uh internal items of the ordinance itself. Um so uh you know for the sake of time you can read it yourself but there's some strikethroughs. The black strikethroughs are existing language. The red is the proposed uh what we are proposing is a new title green space wetlands and environmental protection plan. We are uh proposing to uh take the environmental guidelines and then put them in another subsection and

just kind of break those two up because the environmental guidelines that's really for non-residential stuff. So it just kind of made sense to to section that out uh with doing that. [clears throat] Um we will move through this kind of quickly but please if there's anything you would like to discuss feel free to interrupt. Uh the findings uh we want to prioritize wetlands uh and again not do double duty when there are federally protected wetlands. Um we do want to recognize that those are irreversible losses once uh those type areas do get uh impacted. Um and um and there's, you know, plenty of justification for moving through uh and having this as an ordinance because we are protecting the quality of life for our residents.

Um Mr. Mitchell, I think you've answered the questions that I had originally through your commentary, but the one question that you've not touched on yet is um defining these wetlands as green space. Um, I think I understand the logic, but but if you would, would you elaborate on that? Sure. Yeah. We're not defining them as green space. We're saying that if you're five and five acres and greater, that there's a there's a 20 or 30% area of that five acres that is preserved for green space. Those isolated wetlands could be part of that. Count it as that. And [clears throat] I didn't articulate that very well, but that that's what I mean. Yes,

sir. Um I don't know. I just seems to be excluded from Yeah. Yeah. But but but if if the green commission is green commission is in support of this, is that what I'm hearing? Uh on a 4 to1 vote. Okay. They they voted this uh Okay. to move forward. Yeah. But again, y'all's feedback and commentary will be incorporated and updated to the flood resilience committee as well as the planning committee. So, if the planning commission would like to recommend some changes, you know, they will be brought up at at the committee level. So, okay.

I mean, I have a thought adjacent to that, like if you aren't including them in that requirement, like how would the town know if someone destroys one of these wetlands before they even come in for a subdivision? Like, if they know it's going to be a problem, they're going to want to get rid of. So, if you say that you can count it in that percentage, then they won't be as like scared of like, oh, I got to bury this thing before I come in for a subdivision. I think I'd have a hard time pulling that off in our community. I understand the logic, but I just don't think that anyone could move enough dirt around without without somebody knowing about it to accomplish that. I don't know.

It's Yeah, it's I mean, we always people doing things in the middle of the night, but that applies to a lot of things, [clears throat] but Right. That's true. We would be relying on other people to report that sort of activity, right? And then we would investigate that activity. I feel like green space, although it's not defined this way, is sort of something that assumes a certain amount of usability, you know, like parky kind of, you know, green space. Wetlands really isn't. You can walk on it. Yeah. Like you can walk on it. You could throw a dog, you know, ball or something. Sure.

Um, so that's why I'm concerned about, you know, sort of subsuming one into the other because I think it sort of gives a lot of uh to somebody that is not they could use this area that's unusable and say, well, you know, this is green space now. You know, we've got houses on the rest of it or whatever. As long as you got a detention bond, that's green space. Yeah, green space, right? Yeah. Well, uh, you know, the green space is u intended to preserve the existing vegetation and character of the area within here. And I'm trying to pinpoint it, but there's a minimum 4,000 square feet of active space that is to be used for that sort of active type of uh,

right, use already incorporated into the existing green space ordinance, which we're not changing. I think your buffer was pretty small that you had settled on and I think that kind of allows you to develop like maybe a trail that is adjacent to it. I mean I don't know if I mean Ion has that area where you can like walk through it and it's the rrookery or something like I don't know if you could even do that now but you know it's pretty nice feature of the neighborhood.

Sure. Yeah. Um, the one gray area though is like it seems like there's this big gap between like I'm going to subdivide one lot or five acres. Like what happens in between? Well, the wetlands would pertain to everything um above that above the of the one lot into two or one lot into a 100. You would still have the same wetlands condition applied. The green space standards would apply after five acres. Okay. Okay. Starts to Yeah. It overruns. Gotcha. I

mean, is it maybe as kind of a compromise. What about, you know, 50% of the wetlands could be counted towards the green space or something like that? Maybe something that's not all, you know, A equals B, but something that's less than that. I'd like them to consider that. And that's sort of a a little bit of a yeah compromise. U shall we continue? Yes, please. But we will summarize and and report all this out for consideration. [clears throat] Where was I? The findings specific requirements.

Oh, that is Mave Mave Gambert, our environmental manager, will take you through the some requirements very quickly.

Good evening. So, this goes into the um specific requirements. A wetland and full environmental assessment are required when one or more additional lots are proposed. And as we've just kind of gone over under our green space and preservation plan, some of these requirements already apply to subdivisions 5 acres and greater. So this is not taking away any of that. It's actually adding to it. And now we're including those smaller pieces of land that also include wetlands and environmentally significant areas. Um, if you go down to two, the plan submitt requirements, applicants are now required to hire an environmental professional who is trained in identifying wetlands, seasonal, perennial pools, evidence of active habitats, soil types, and hydrarology. This allows staff to better assess the environmental value of the sites and work with the applicant to preserve these areas. Um,

I have a question related to that. Like you you said the town doesn't have anyone with this expertise. So how are you going to negotiate you know with someone who has the expertise because like obviously a developer is going to want their person that they hired to shrink it whereas we want it to be like real. uh we will take that professional uh opinion and that's what we will go.

So that's how it's planned and it's being proposed and it's like an arborist about a tree the person that wants to take the tree down or the developer or the owner they hire their own professional and we evaluate what their proposal is and we'll rely on that professional expertise. But I think with the trees, I don't know if now, but in the past, the town has had an arborist on staff. I I just feel like if you don't have an expert, like you're going to need like an on call contract with like a couple other experts. So, you know, just to have that in your arsenal of, you know, information.

Uh I'm I'm tracking the same direction you are. it it right now. Uh I think this will grow and will build and will be a program of similar things and we may have somebody that is a weapon professional in the future if we run across the need to have somebody. Um, our objective right now is to get a solid, workable,

reliable ordinance in place uh, quickly and and then if it if the opportunity or if the need arises in the future, if we do have some concern that things are not being properly done, then yes, we will explore expanding this and then moving in that direction. Kevin, one way to handle that might be to just put in there that the town in its discretion can engage um you know its own environmental professional to assess and that gives you the leeway without having to come back and revise the ordinance to do that. That's a that's a very good point.

All right. Um so going down to D, we have a list of reference standards for determination which includes the federal manual for identifying and delineating jurisdictional wetlands and this is currently used by the Army Corps of Engineers and additional materials from EPA and South Carolina Department of Environmental Services. All right. And E, we have included biodiversity evaluation to assist in habitat protection. And it's important to ensure that there are several plants and animals on site. Um, and this adds to the overall health of the ecosystem. Three, we have our buffer. Um, this was the result of I think this is the older I updated this, but I don't think it made it in here in time. Um, it should be the buffer area shall be a width averaging 10 ft with no more than 20 ft and no less than 5t measured perpendicular from the outside boundary of the environmental protection area. So this is what we we originally went to green commission with no buffer. They suggested a buffer. We came back with what you see on the screen. They suggested a larger buffer. So that is where we get the average width of 10, no more than 20, no less than five. Um, number four, this is keeping our previous standards for green space. We have rearranged some things to help with the flow. So we've moved the street frontage area preservation and we have created a standard planting in the absence of existing vegetation and that will be in C4E. who who ends up ultimately determining

that buffer since it's variable. Um there are several municipalities that vary in buffer. Um you we the intention of the buffer was some having something was better than having nothing. But with the smaller lots we didn't want to create too extreme of a hardship on the property owner where building wasn't feasible anymore. So the town used their discretion where will that come to like it was the town in conversation with green commission to come with those numbers. Y

Mr. Barber um what what we were envisioning is these smaller areas these these little pockets. So we, you know, um, and and trying to address what we foresee Mount Pleasant dealing with in the future, and that is 1 acre, 2 acre, 3 acre lots as things become annexed, the uninorporated areas start becoming more into. Those are the areas that will likely have those isolated levels. So, uh, just in light of our anticipation of smaller lots, smaller areas, we wanted to, we felt like it would be better if we just aimed kind of low on the buffer and have a buffer. U, but that was the reasoning behind it. There was nothing magical about it. uh other municipalities I think have 50 and 75 feet and I I think in their mind they were thinking much larger tracks of land and much bigger areas where Mount Pleasant is you know those type areas are done

yeah thank you [laughter] but there we won't be seeing them as much as we have in the past so we were trying to tailor this to what would fit better with somebody that has one or two or three acre This is a property that one. No, I mean I agree with having the range. I'm just like what are the mechanics of you guys dictating that on a given project? Like it like is it a commission that deals with it or you guys internally or?

Well, it uh subdivision will come before you uh the planning commission. they will have the applicant will have a uh proposal for these buffers u and it does provide flexibility being an average 10 foot where a minimum and a maximum is applied. So they can move the buffer around shorter on one side and bigger on the other side depending on the configuration. So we wanted to provide some flexibility. U but again this is a working document. Uh we are open to you know discussions recommendations will all be brought before the flood resiliency committee.

I mean I'm just wondering if that uh green commission I don't know if they would be the ones that have like a better feel for what that should be or I don't know from the commission. [laughter] I'm just saying like I'm not sure if this is laying out whose responsibility is what on this type of item. U we're leaving up to the applicant to conf uh provide the layout of the subdivision and incorporate the buffer measures that um that allow him the flexibility for the design he would like he was he's proposing. Okay.

So I don't know I don't know if I'm helping. Let me just ask a question that may go to this. So let's say we get a subdivision proposal and it shows a buffer of five feet all around the wetlands. Could we say we want the buffer to be more like 10 feet? I mean, do we do they have to average it at 10 so that in other words, is there flexibility of us to approve something um based on what they're proposing or do they say we've met the minimum so you know you have no right to ask for more? Yeah, I think um you can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but they would need to average a width of 10 with flexibility of having 20 in some areas, having five in others.

So, they have to work 10 average. They can sort of configure it whichever way they think fits best. Correct. Very similar approach as our critical line. Okay, got it. Short on one end, big on the other end. So, you can maybe develop a little bit on the other side. I can visualize that, but they're responsible for hitting the average. They can't go lower than that. Okay, got it. But I I guess I just come back to like I think it's going to what makes sense is going to vary on every plan. Yeah. And that provides some flexibility.

The correlation in my mind is like the old or the historic district commission has like power over setbacks which normally you there's no flexibility on except there. And like literally the commission looks at the project and decides whether or not it makes sense. So like I I feel like without having like some mechanics written in here, this commission isn't going to have much power to really give input on it. If it literally meets the average, but we don't think it makes sense. It sounds like we won't be able to have our, you know, thoughts considered in the no

in the plan. I don't think we get to that level of detail to you know I think the ordinance would would dictate and it it is up to the applicant. I think I wouldn't I'm not sure I would feel comfortable saying what makes sense or what doesn't as far as a well that's why I was wondering if the green commission needs to have more say in that. I don't know. I mean that might be a jurisdictional question is you know how what do they have the right to to do in terms of overseeing subdivisions you know I don't think they do that no I mean I think the point is that they're they're establishing policy yeah parameters

and parameters and then the planning commission is responsible for working within those as we're making these decisions on right setbacks and you know all the other factors

or variables. Yeah. Okay. Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry we've we've interrupted you on I appreciate the conversation. Um I think we covered this slide and Okay, so we were on number four, green space areas of preservation. So now we're in subdivisions that are greater than 5 acres. So we currently already have green space preservation for this. We've just moved some things around and adjusted it a bit. So this is the percent of green space required for subdivision or 5 acres or greater. The lot sizes are either greater than 10,000 ft² or less than 10,000 square ft. So the only thing we've adjusted here is that they can now include those areas of preservation to count towards their green space requirement. And that would be non-jurisdictional wetlands and areas deemed to be of environmental significance. And then E, this is where we created um that standard planting plan in absence of vegetation. It's a little bit easier to check for um than previously was. So in the absence of vegetation, the applicant shall plant three native understory and one native class one or class 2 canopy tree for each 100 square feet of cleared area. F. These are the same exceptions. So within the green space, um it should be located in an HOA parcel that is publicly accessible. Um it shall remain essentially undisturbed except for clearing of an 8ft wide corridor for the installation of low impact physical improvements such as a pedestrian trail or a 4,000 square foot recreational field.

This is where we have relocated the 25- ft natural and undisturbed buffer when there is an entry road that is 60 ft or greater. And all of the below remain the same. We they've just changed in um lettering numbering because of our relocating. And then we move into the exceptions which Kevin is going to take over. Okay, let's get into the nitty-gritty exceptions. What uh what what the ordinance is proposed to be applied for and uh applicable to and what is not. And again, this is a working document. Okay. So um the some of the obvious things that would not be subjected to the ordinance are boundary surveys, plats of record, adjusting side lot lines um between neighbor and agreements of neighbors such like that. That would be except uh part of the exceptions. Subdivisions in residential uh neighborhoods and planned communities with no prior traces of wetlands found during a wetlands evaluation. There's no uh suspected areas of environmental concern contained within the boundaries. C. There are no there are no wetlands uh within the parcel within five from the parcel within 500 feet of the boundary as shown on the uh NRCS or the US Fish and Wildlife wetland inventory map. Uh so if it's outside the 500 ft and there's no detection of of of wetlands on the the property, uh then you would be exempt. um but if it's within 500. So there is some a database that is uh not specifically accurate but there is a database that we can actually use that

um that will uh will help us uh investigate property that could potentially have we and de uh deed was under some discussion uh the flood resilience u committee. Uh this is really just single family homes impact activities uh home additions, private pool sheds, uh private drainage improvements, individual lot grading efforts, tree removals, things of that nature. So it was just kind of capturing what uh a homeowner would want to do on their property. So we're proposing that be exempt uh from the regulations. the flood resiliency committee, they did have concerns about exempting those type of activities uh and felt like that uh needed some more discussion uh and it was told to them we were bringing it to the planning commission for more discussion. Of course, we will circle back uh to the flood resiliency committee with that one. But um the intent there, if I can elaborate a little bit, is uh subdivisions come in a more manageable uh a manageable pace to the town of Mount Pleasant. Building permits for additions, decks, sheds, pools. We have over 900 plus per year. We average consistently throughout, you know, recent history. So we go through 20 to 30 every week and we also review those and we review those that we have commented on in the previous month. So it starts snowballing and then that just kind of adds and adds and and the likelihood of of um you know impacts to wetlands of an existing home is uh not as high as let's say a subdivision that is uh being proposed

uh in the unincorporated areas that it has been undeveloped for many many years. So, we felt like residential home sites would be a good one to put in the exemption list, but like I I agree with the thought process, but I think there's that gray area of people that have larger lots that there's probably a higher chance that they have, you know, if you have a two acre or threeacre lot, there's a higher chance that you have something on it. So, I don't know if it would make sense to try to pick a size where like if you're this size or less then and you're doing home improvement stuff, you're exempt,

but like if you have like a one or one and a half, you at certain size, I would think it would make sense to just kind of keep an eye on it. Excellent point. I do have another slide, okay, that will kind of deal a little bit into that and give some options and some pros and cons of what how we can't actually kind of go through that a little bit, but yep, very good point.

There's not many two to three acre residential lots in Mount Pleasant that does not want to subdivide the property though. So, but there are and there are, you know, outliers and exceptions and things like that. So, yes, very good point. Uh um and worth a little bit more discussion. So, um the last one is E. Uh we, you know, we'll elaborate a little bit more on the uh overriding public interest as in parks, uh major infrastructure, things like that. Um the flood resilience committee members would like for us to kind of tighten that up just a little bit to uh town uh uh related projects such as parks, things of that nature. So, we will uh be tweaking that as well. So, and lastly, and I'll get back to the exceptions here on the next slide, but uh this would actually come back before you all uh for review being the planning commission and the uh regulatory body saying yes and no to these sort of layouts and requests and subdivision requests where these wetlands are and where you know the the lots need to be and and things of that nature. So I think this is the appropriate body to be looking at those type of land development standards. So it's consistent. [clears throat] So what I u so one more slide. So some of the target uh focus points u u we wanted to trigger this by the creation of one lot. We wanted to uh engage a technical professional to evaluate wings. We also wanted to discuss the buffer widths and things like that uh with the green commission and um and determine you know the distance from an established wetland area. So those were discussed uh and put before the green commission in this way and um and of course they voted 41 to

move this along to the to the next point. Um now this is my slide that we we can discuss. This is a an added slide as a result of the the flood resiliency committee uh recommendation how to address the single family development impacts. Um there are three options. Um there may be a fourth one or fifth one. Uh but the first option which is uh which is similar to other municipalities that are moving forward is have the owner provide an affidavit saying that there are no known wetlands on their property uh to the best of their knowledge and that is in other regulations. Uh the second one is staff field verified uh and uh look at these sites um at the building permit level. Uh we look at them for trees uh drainage um so it wouldn't be that much of an add-on but we are sending someone that is not trained to determine wetlands or not wetlands whether you can develop here or develop there stuff like that. So that is a a touchy matter that um we would have to address internally. Uh and uh and if we did suspect it then we would mandate that the owner would engage a professional to determine uh yes or no. So, and then the third one, of course, is uh establish a minimum soil disturbance that triggers a wetland professional. And that might be something that could address what you were talking about is, let's say, uh more than 2,000 square feet of disturbance related to your building permit, then you would actually be mandated to engage a welding professional to determine whether or not they're you are impactful. Um or there could be a combination of these three. So I wanted to leave this uh here for you guys to discuss and provide some guidance so we can kind of take this

back to the flood resiliency committee. I think that's the last slide. Yes, that is it. Sorry for the long presentation, but so um any questions for Kevin while we have them right now? I' I've got a few questions.

Okay, of course. Uh, hey, a great presentation Kevin and Mave. Um, just a couple things just curiosity as we formulate the parameters. So, any subdivision request is what I'm understanding would uh be beholden to this. Correct. Anyone that brings it in, it would be part of the criteria. If it's two lots, one lot into two or or whatever, they would have to seek a professional. Correct.

That's what staff is recommending. That's it. Yes sir. Um what uh could those parcels theoretically Kevin be landlocked uh pieces or they would have to so if you've got an isolated wetland let's just say on a 4 acre site um would it could it or is the intent of it that it's got to be combined uh with and it's got to be owned what's the ownership factor I guess uh for those wetlands would that be part of the an HO way.

Well, uh, the way it's proposed now, it could be incorporated in the lot itself, but it would actually be on a recorded plat identifying that as a protected area with a buffer around it. It would not be a standalone like HOA parcel. Um, that's how it's proposed. Okay. I had a question related to that because on over five acres I think you say it like has to be owned by an HOA. Yeah. But is every subdivision over five acres setting up an HOA?

No, I mean theoretically it could be off of existing road frontage I guess. Yeah, it could be a very long linear parcel of land that actually they would because they would then the storm water regulations would kick in and you would have to have a retention pond because you're adding impervious surface and then that would create the need for a uh shared parcel owned by an HOA making that an HOA area. So there would be there would need to be some type of HOA created um that would then um be responsible for making sure that the the wetlands is incorporated into their open space area. And Kevin, just to go along with that, so is there and and I know you guys in the commission have done a lot of uh due diligence with this, I guess, long-term or or we asking for any kind of uh covenant or anything and placed on top of it or is it just a shown as a protected area? um

this isolated part

right now it would be shown as protected area on a recorded plat uh during a subdivision uh the creation of a new lot and any new owners would be buying a piece of property that actually has that disclosed to them at the time of their of their purchase and uh short answer no we don't have a separate document other than the ordinance that would be created in the land development regulations and that would be referenced on the flap. Um, I don't know if there really needs to be like a deed restriction to go along with that or anything like that, but there will be knowledgeable uh I mean uh information on the plat uh and I think it would be enforceable that way if someone bought the property and filled it in.

Okay. Um Okay, those are my questions. Hey, um appreciate a lot of work looks like. Thanks, Kevin. Has there been an inventory of of these uh wetlands around? Not in the town of Mount Pleasant. Now, you know, I reference the National Wetland Inventory, right? But that is that's countrywide. Uh and and early on when we were presenting it to the flood resilency committee, we we showed them a comparison

with the rifle range road park where it did have a nice large track of wetlands and how that was overlaid on top of it. There was a representation of a wetland area on top of it in proximity, but the actual boots on the ground delineation uh was was not that close, but it was there. Like, like if I was using that database and someone came before the town to develop that property out, that would be a good useful tool to say, you do have wetlands on there. There's an indication of wetlands on there. We are using this. So, you have to take it to the next level to get that delineated. Okay.

I mean, I'm I like a combination of these. I'm not quite sure exactly whether it should be all three or all three completely, but one question I have about an O owner affidavit is [snorts] if it's if it's not true, what recourse does the town have? I'm sure there are other owner affidavit that come in with applications. What happens when they're they misrepresent something? Um, well, I mean, that's a great question, Miss Ireland. uh you know that's this is also that particular statement is also on the exceptions of other municipalities that are moving forward with that.

Um there's always going to be that question when it comes to u you know someone misrepresenting themselves or someone that uh may not be uh knowledgeable in recognizing wetlands. Um, we would just have to figure this out as this goes. Yeah. You [snorts] know, so we're not going to be able to create a perfect ordinance. I guarantee you. Don't we have an do we have an owner's aid affidavit when there's a building permit requested? Yes, ma'am. When they subdivide, there's an owner. An owner's affidavit. So, I mean, it would be the same kind of thing, I would think. What recourse does the town

Sure. have if that is the the ramifications of that if a permit has not been issued we could withhold a permit based on that. Okay. If a permit is issued and there is there is damage it can be ticketed fined um for any of the ordinances um it would be difficult to bring a civil action but it could be caused for that as well. So, okay. Uh, but someone could be denied a permit for build a building permit if something is found to not be Yes, ma'am. That's right. It's like anyone that submits anything to the town if that information is determined to be false. Okay. We can deny applications with old permits.

I just want to make sure there's teeth to it, you know, because somebody can sign anything. You're right, though. Three years down the line, it's going to be very difficult to enforce. Is there like legally if you lie on one of these owner affidavit and get denied a permit, can you come back in the next day and try to get a permit again and like is there like a waiting period like a punishment period or like the penalty box? I'm just saying like if the penalty is big to lie, people are going to not lie, you know?

Unfortunately. Unfortunately, once once it's brought in conformity, we don't have a choice in the matter. That's why I like a combination and not just the owner's affidavit. I knew y'all would like the combination. [laughter] I was hoping the one and two honestly u the third one does provide another level of complexity u with that. Um, but you know, starting out, uh, I think, you know, there's some good options here to address the the concerns of the mayor committee.

I think if you like broadcast this to the town, [clears throat] neighbors will, you know, you neighbors who care about this stuff will be be your ally. Oh, yeah. Yeah. But if nobody knows about it, they're not going to care what their neighbors do. Yeah. We we've advertised in the this is kind of an unofficial public hearing. So, we did advertise in the paper. We put it on the social media, didn't we? Didn't we? We can uh we can we'll we can do that as well. I mean, I think as to the staff field verification, as if someone's going out to check other things as well, which they do,

as long as you have that if it's reasonably suspected, I mean, you know, then I think it's not putting too much burden on the person and, you know, it's it's not going to be a break, you know, make or break, but if they see something that looks like it's got water on it and, you know, they might, that's a reasonable suspicion, then that does trigger something. I think that's a reasonable trigger. I think if you do some like minimal education with the staff that will be going out doing the other surveys, they don't have to necessarily be an expert, but as long as they get like, you know, a few lunch and learns or something, they'll know what to like look out for.

Wetlands are uh they can be dry, you know? I mean, they can be dry. uh there's a soil type, there's a vegetation, and there's also u little creatures and stuff that do live within that that are not as obvious if you're just looking around somebody's backyard. So there there will need to be some some training. I'm not sure to the extent and and the demand and stuff like that. That's that'll we'll have to answer that question once we kind of get rolling, I think. any additional questions or input for for staff. If not, this is listed as a public hearing.

Great. So, yes, we'll have to open that up to anyone who I just I did want to say that the exception for things like pools and things. I do have a problem with, you know, people just not having to deal with any wetlands protection because they want to put in a pool or I just feel that's way beyond what people should be able to do with their property given accessory functions are like not a right. It's just not a right. Like I think building a home, you know, is I understand, but some of those other things that are in the exceptions and I haven't parsed through every one of them, but as a just as a first blush, I feel like that is too much of an exception. Yeah, I agree with you.

Oh, okay. So, you're you're in concurrence with how the committee is wants us to address this. So, to narrow the exception so that we're imposing more on the single homeowner. Yeah. But you do understand staff is our position on this matter. So we we're bringing something before you that was administratively manageable. Yeah. And uh we will we will do our very best to figure out how if the if it moves forward in that direction. Um

how to manage this from a workload. understanding that my preference would be you know so I understand the the practical dilemma but I get it I get it this morning okay again this is a public hearing so if there's someone here to speak on this topic uh please do so

good evening uh my name is Susie Carlson and I am an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center and a resident of Mount Pleasant. My address is 423 King Street. Uh Mount Pleasant 294. Could you just speak up a little bit more? Sorry.

Um my address is 423 King Street, Mount Pleasant 29464. Um I want to begin by sincerely thanking the town for its hard work on this wetlands ordinance. We were the ones who submitted those late comments. So, I am up here to clarify that we strongly support this ordinance and the goal of those comments was merely to echo the sentiments that Miss Ireland just brought up that we think that those exceptions are too broad. Um, as was pointed out earlier, recent changes at the federal level have left significant gaps in wetland protection. Local governments can play a crucial role in filling this gap. Policies like the proposed wetlands ordinance help to ensure that ecologically critical wetland areas within our town retain necessary safeguards to protect their important functions. Protecting wetlands is not just an environmental issue, but also a public safety and economic issue. As South Carolina faces more intense storms and sea level rise, the natural flood protection that wetlands provide is more important than ever. A single acre of wetland can store up to one and a half million gallons of flood water. Nationwide, coastal wetlands provide more than 23 billion dollars in storm protection services each year. These natural systems save communities money, reduce property damage, and protect lives. Wetlands also support our town's vital tourism and fishing industries by supporting recreational activities like fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing. Protecting wetlands therefore means that protecting that we are protecting the character and economy of our town. For these reasons, I want to reiterate support for the town of Mount Pleasant and for your thoughtful, careful deliberation on this proposed ordinance. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks. Hello again, Elise Campaign, 1314 Wayne Street, Mount Pleasant. Um, speaking as a resident and as the board chair for Charleston Waterkeeper, I am so proud of our town for tackling tackling this at the committee level, the commission level, the staff level. This is the place for us to really shine in terms of leadership. Um and um I really applaud the thoughtful discussion even here tonight on just the first cut at looking at a really complex uh issue. I just wanted to make one small comment on an exception related to um property where no wetlands have been prior found previously found. And I know we need to have a standard by which to measure the wetlands, but that really kind of flies in the face of our intent of planning for future conditions and moving with what we're seeing already with sea level rise and marsh migration. So would encourage some just consideration about how to make sure that that is a forwardlooking um delineation as the science improves to um keep changing with it. And just thinking in my my own um recent memory, you know, a number of properties along Hadril, off of Rifle Range, off of Vincent, you know, you can see the change in the wetland conditions. And so I think it's just an element to to look into further as you're putting the finishing touches on this. So thank you.

Thank you. Thanks. Anyone else? If not, we'll close the public hearing. Okay. So, Mr. Mitchell, I mean, you've heard the input. Um, I don't know we're necessarily taking a vote, but you've got some advice and some recommendations. I think I think so. And this is being recorded, so I'll go back and jot down some notes and uh it'll go before the uh next flood resiliency committee as well as the planning committee. Right, Peter? This will go the planning and the flood. So, uh so yes, there will be opportunity there and I will report back some of the commentary there. We'll try to take it move it forward. Good.

So, thank you very much. I really appreciate it. Okay. Thank you. Um, so members of the commission, we've been at this for an hour and 45 minutes. Do we want to take a 10-minute break or do we want to keep moving forward? Okay. Everybody good? All right. We'll keep we'll keep moving forward. Item uh seven. Well, I think uh I was uh drawn. We're on 7J um sketch plan for Spring Hope Drive. Hello again.

Yes. So before you tonight is the sketch plan for Spring Hope Drive. They are proposing to subdivide a 1.44 acre lot off Spring Hope Drive into six single family residential lots. And this is zoned R4. They are applying with a land development regulations waiver for subdividing off a private access easement. And the approval uh the action to be taken tonight is approval approval with conditions or denial. So this is an aerial image of Spring Hope Drive on the lot um off of Six Mile Road. This is just a bird's eye image in order to see it a little bit better within the neighborhood. zoned R4 and the future land use is traditional residential neighborhood. So this is the site plan for you tonight. Um creating six lots accessing the back four lots off of a 40ft private road. Around the perimeter of a lot is a 10-ft type A buffer. Storm water is to be detained in the back on a um HOA lot that is approximately 61 acres. And then we go into the tree plan. So they are proposing to remove four protected trees. Three of those being historic. The three historic are pine trees. One in good condition, one in poor and one in fair. the one protected tree in good condition. It's a live oak that is proposed to be removed. Um there is encroachment into those two uh historic trees in the back. They have provided a tree protection plan to help with the health of those trees throughout the building process.

So this is zoned R4. Um lot dimensional requirements are 40 foot width with a 50ft depth and minimum square feet of 4,000. Each lot is approximately 0.1 acres. One protected tree and three historic trees are proposed for removal and they're applying with an LDR waiver to subdivide off a private ingress egress. They are currently meeting the 160 inch DBH per acre requirement. 58.5 in are required to be mitigated through either planting or paying through the tree mitigation bank. And this is to be done prior to final plot approval. The subdivider or developer shall be responsible for providing positive drainage for each lot individually as part of the project developed in accordance with 155.051. 051 water and wastewater extensions are required to serve the lots and impact fees due before subdivision plot approval for the new lots. The lot width does not allow for 50ft public rightway with two lots mandated to have a minimum width of 40 ft. The applicant is applying with an LDR waiver to allow for the 40ft private ride ofway to meet the minimum lot widths. All staff comments on the stormwater NOI are to be addressed during preliminary plat review. So these are the applicants LDR waiver responses and staff comments to those responses. So I won't read over everyone, but I'll just um touch on the staff comments. So for um A1, the hardship is the inability to create two adjacent lots with accessibility to the rear portion for other subdivisions. This is a geometric constraint that doesn't justify as a topographical nor is an effort to avoid wetlands crit uh

critical areas or trees. A2. A typical six lot subdivision would be required to install a standard 50-foot right away with a standard road for dedication. And A3 and A4 private roads are not inspected by our field engineers and they are not privy to testy or testing and materials used. They have limited authority to fail, reject work, or require additional provisions for unsuitable materials. It is not uncommon for future homeowners to assume these roads are publicly owned and be unaware of future maintenance obligations until they come due. So, I'm not sure if the applicant is here tonight. I believe they are. Um, they can answer any questions and I can answer any questions on the slides as well. So, I'll go back to the site plan for reference. Thank you. The applicant here Danny Cruz, 1966 Twickeningham Place, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. I am uh the civil engineer for this project. Um I own and operate CA engineering out of Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. Uh, I will say the staff did a pretty good job explaining this project. So, I'm um I don't really have anything extra to add. I'm just here for the board's discussion. If you guys have any question, I'll be more than happy to answer it.

Thank you. Discussion or questions for anyone. I just had one question for staff. Um, and maybe I should know this and don't on the trees. Uh, would that not have to go before BCA? Uh, or is that something that planning commission has jurisdiction to approve during subdivision requests? It would be under, uh, planning commission's jurisdiction. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Anyone else? Um, I'll mention my concerns are that the um the conditions or the responses for the LDR waiver are really not adequate in my opinion. Um, I'm very concerned about private rights of way for all the reasons that were mentioned. Um, also just because of a geographic constraint because something is zoned R4 doesn't mean you automatically have the right to build that many, you know. So, um, and it's very clear in our ordinance that all four conditions to get a waiver of the LDRs have to be present and I don't think that condition those conditions have been met.

Yeah, I tend to agree with Miss Island. I think there's several concerns here and for all the reasons that she's articulated, I I'm I'm not enthused about this project either. I agree.

Okay. You want to make a motion? Yeah, I I make a motion that we deny the application. Is there a second from Miss Mansour? Okay. We'll take a vote then. All those in favor of denial of this sketch plan, um please signify by saying I. I. I. any in favor? Okay. Uh item 7K, sketch plan for Zero Hail Road.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you know, uh, with the vested rights being good for two years and after that, annual extensions for, uh, are requested and that's per state code and unless there is a change in the ordinance that affects the um, development standards, it is permitted to move forward. So that is what this uh, sketch plan that was approved previously. um is now requesting.

Okay. Questions for Mr. Stone. I guess I'm not entirely sure what the you know what the issue is here. This is so they have a uh vested right in order to undertake this development plan. Mhm. Uh the state law requires initial two-year period of vesting and in order to gain one annual extension up to five more years total of seven uh they have to return to the vesting body that originally approved it. So planning commission approved this uh back in 2022 I believe

and it is now returning back. Um, and state law, the way it's worded, it says that the the commission or whatever body is this is being requested of must approve this unless there is something that prohibits it and staff's reviewed and there's nothing we can find that would prohibit this approval. So, they're seeking an extension. So, we're just kicking the We're just kicking it down the road for a while basically. Yeah. So, I move giving them more latitude to start your project. Yeah. I'll move to approve the extension for one year. Is there a second? Second. Second from Mr. Smi. All those in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? Great. Thank you, sir. And um L 7L, another sketch plan for vested rights extension at 1370 Rifle Range Road. That is correct. And the same request for this property. Okay. Yeah, I don't think anything's changed. It sounds like we're mostly bound anyway. So, I'll move to approve the extension for one year. Second. Okay. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Good. And we'll finish with item 7 M, which is a presentation on engineering on Okay. Density standards.

Yeah. This is the most I've ever talked in front of you guys from one night. I can tell you. Um, [clears throat] so this is this is the continuation of what we uh talked about and y'all provided some very good direction for us to go back and uh and make some proposals uh for you that we'll go through very quickly tonight. Uh won't take up too much time. Uh but if you do recall, we went through some examples of subdivisions. Um, and um, there was, you know, a list we provided. Um, and I apologize. I should have had that uh queued up as a as a little bit of a refresher, but this was one of the slides um that we went through um how the gross area is basically calculated and then what went into the gross area because uh that's where the kind of the the uh exceptions and and it gets in very detailed. What what was decided upon was um and what was recommended is in our uh 156 ordinance or density requirements. There's an exception there for less than one acres that the density standards do not apply for subdivisions. Okay. So, it kind of goes back to what I was talking about earlier about what, you know, Mount Pleasant is going to be facing in the foreseeable future and and we have been seeing those a little more frequently is those smaller subdivision requests that uh that are less than one acre. And because they're less than one acre, um you can actually get higher density with that because of this exception. Um uh here's the here's the ordinance here. It's 156. So it's in the zoning

code. Um and highlighted here is equal to or greater than one acre in size as it pertains to the subdiv uh density standards. Very simply the uh what we have proposed is in red uh struck through black. Um, so we're just basically striking through that exception of equal to or greater than and just making it is applicable to all parcels of land regardless of partial size. So nothing real complicated there. We're doing that. Next um [clears throat] is the the other uh direction we received was to address the uh ingress egress uh being used for the subdivisions themselves. In our land development regulations 155 under blocks and lots, it's uh um lots shall be accessible by improved public streets except with with these exceptions. Um [clears throat] and also flag lots shall not be permitted. Uh those two items uh require the applicant if they were to move forward with ingress egress easement for subdivisions or if not would require them to submit a waiver request for y'all's review. [clears throat] So what this is a little bit it's not as straightforward as the density item we've just looked at. So I've given you options. I've kind of teased this out again for for the discussion of the planning commission uh to provide uh some possibilities of drafting an ordinance to move forward. Um one possibility is to prohibit the easement area from being included within the minimum lot size to meet the zoning requirements. And I do have an example

on the next slide, but I've added pros and cons to each. the probing uh by doing that it ensures that the visibility and the the the character uh is what was intended by the for the zoning. Okay. So you don't have one lot taken up by a driveway that now appears and looks to be out of character with the zoning requirements as a smaller lot. Uh the cons or uh what would be the difficult thing that would be proposed by this is now it would actually require larger lots to meet that requirement too. Uh because now you would not be able to count that ingress egress air area that is being serviced by another lot for your minimum lot requirements. Okay. So that's one option that we could u move forward. The second option is allow flag lots require the access be a part of the lot which essentially does generally the same thing because the pole of the flag lot would not be included in the minimum lot size of the lot that it's crossing. It also would clean up the ownership issue because now you actually own the property that you're putting a driveway on accessing the uh property in the back. [clears throat] The cons would be it requires more area to be uh the minimum lot size for the not lot not being used as the lot that is u the one in the front. Um but it but the last area for the lot being used means that the pole would actually be included in the flag area as meeting the minimum lot size. So you would actually have to have a larger you would not have to need to have a larger lot in the back to meet the minimum requirements because now you can

include that in uh again something to consider here. Uh and then third um change the building setback measurement from the property line which is currently there now to where the easement boundary is. And that is consistent with Charleston County the way they have it right now makes a lot of sense. Right now, uh, the building setback line is measured from kind of the other side of the easement. If I can show you just as an example, the easement, ingress, egress, easement, the red hatched area, you know, the setbacks, as you see, it goes all the way to the boundary of the easement. Um that last one would be okay now you have to set your building set back. If that's 25 feet then it has to be 25 ft from the drop. So that does make a lot of sense. Uh and Charleston again Charleston County does have does have that in place. However uh you if you didn't do the one and two then you would still be able to include that minimum lot size. So, um, looking for some direction, happy to entertain other ideas or other suggestions or either we can put an a draft ordinance together for you guys to take a look at next month.

So, if we want to preclude flag lots, what does number two do? I'm not sure. It seems like it's completely contrary to the thing that says flag locks are prohibited. So, I'm just saying we're going to start allowing it again. Yeah. What was the reason to not allow them when they meet that change? Well, uh, you know, this dates back, and I'm going to give a stab at this,

okay? you know, along the the marsh area, you get lots that are pie shaped or kind of open up as you move farther back, you know, naturally because of the curvature of the shoreline and all that. Uh, I think uh that was actually put in place to help prevent someone from putting a lot or in their backyard that uh that would be a flag lot. And I'm going off memory from the old senior planner we used to have that explained it to me years and years ago because I asked him the same question, but uh it was it was to protect the integrity of the larger lots that were on the perimeter or the shoreline area. But there could be other explanations for this. Um, you know, another one would be just to have a harmonious subdivision development pattern and not it being parcled up with ingress egress easements and little driveways here and there, which Yeah. And I'll just add that from a practical standpoint, access to those lots becomes a real hassle and imposition for the neighbors. I live I don't know my lot line is 20 feet from a flag lot and they've been doing construction for uh three years and it's imposed the project is imposed on everyone who surrounds it. And it's not just not just inconvenient. We're talking about, you know, waking up at 7 o'clock in the morning and having heavy equipment and a drive that you use to get in and out of of your, you know, property. So, and you know, it's just

Are you saying a flag or because a flag they own the driveway, you wouldn't own it. No, I get it. But they but but but because they've consumed everything on their lot and their access is limited to something that's narrow, they have to take they have to ask for permission and sort of lean on their neighbors to provide them with access for the cranes and the tree trucks and the the building products trucks and the concrete truck and the you know, you just go down this list and it's it's it's bad. It's bad. And it's not just once, you know, on on on an occasion. I mean, it's been persistent for a few years, and I I've observed similar in other parts of the neighborhood. And it's just

Would it have been any different if that was an easement, though? Like, the thing I don't understand is what the difference between a flag lots with an ement that serves as the pole of one flag. The thing I don't like about them is that it it just encourages people to just add more houses, to subdivide lots that are landlocked by streets and just shove another house right in back of one that's a street facing lot. It just doubles up the densities as it you know each one

it's a slippery slope and each one that happens suddenly you've got double the density in a neighborhood. What if someone breaks the lot up but provides an easement? It's the same thing. That's Yeah. From a functionality standpoint, it is the same thing. Like you you allow it. You just have to get an easement. Yeah. Basically, it from a functional behavioral type perspective of when you're s there's no really no difference. Um generally in the old Mount Pleasant area, we're just we're trying to reduce this from happening because it's happening a lot. We've seen it a lot. Um, this is that's why for many years, pardon me. I think item one though many years.

Many years. Item one then is going to make it so less of them can be split if that's what you want. Um, I mean I like number one as well, but but I also like proof bidding. Yeah, I'm kind of a favor of item or option three, too. I mean, I think I like one and three. Yeah. I don't really get two and I don't really want to, but one and three I like. Yeah, I I agree with both of you. Yeah. One and three is to to is to prevent density.

Yeah. Increases creates density. Also harder for first responders to get to Exactly. It just it really it doubles the densities. Yeah. I agree [clears throat] with one and three. you know, anything we can do in my opinion to decrease density for the town is a good idea. Okay. The only thing I'm just wondering about is like does the person that lives on the street that has access

if it's an easement next to them through their lot, like why should they have to maintain a piece of their property for someone else's benefit? Like that's the kind of weird thing about it. Well, often when you do an easement agreement, you know, you you divvy that up or you have, you know, certain maintenance requirements by the other party or that's kind of a private thing. But I mean it but I think our concern is not having every narrow longd with limited street space end up with two houses instead of one.

Right. That's exactly right. Is there a way that you could like I I just I guess I struggle with like the easement versus the flag pole like have it be part of the back lot but excluded from like the requirements. So it minimizes the amount of times you can do it but puts the onus of maintaining that strip on the person who's using it. Yeah. and sets the setback, you know, in a way that we want. Like I don't know.

One and three does that and two does that too. If you if you look at So if you combine one and two, I mean one and three, you've essentially done number two, right? For most, you know, Yeah. Yeah,

for the purposes of trying to accomplish the uh the subdivision and making sure that it does meet the spirit of the zoning that it's in. Otherwise, what hasn't been happening is that these lots are being created with a 20 foot easement on it and they're meeting the minimum lot requirements for the zoning included in including the easement on their property. Yeah, that doesn't make sense. That's why I'm saying the like have the pole being part of a lot makes more sense, right? You know, from

Yeah, the front lot would actually have to meet the minimum lot dimensional requirements if the pole was part of the back lot, too. Essentially, we're doing the same thing. The front lot gets to be a little bigger, which is the one everyone sees. Should be bigger, I think. But I think we're forgetting that this also would apply to side by side subdivision. I can't would also apply to side by side subdivisions. I think we're getting caught in the weeds of flag lots. Yeah, I think Michelle like if it's a lot and it's lengthwise, right, this is going to affect, right? It's a rectangular lot and you're subdividing it.

You would have access to a public road in that scenario. If it's a long rectangular lot is the road then you would have the access and you wouldn't even need the easing. I mean I mean we've denied flag we have denied flag lots at multiple meetings here. Yes. You know I mean I think to me the the flag lot is a debt issue. It's not even from my point of view it's not even worth talking about anymore because I don't think it ought to happen. But the other issue is like the person in front who has the easement on paper their lot looks larger. So like theoretically they're paying like taxes on a larger lot than they really have functional use of.

But if you're if you own a lot and you're giving an easement then you want the you know there's something for it. I mean otherwise you don't have to give an easement. But I think what happens is one person owns both of them and they're setting it up amongst themselves because they're, you know, but then if you're going to sell one of them, I mean, in other words, it's kind of a buyer beware, right? You're buying the condition that you're that is existing. But for the new owner, a developer, I mean, in Old Mount Pleasant, they're any lot that they can subdivide, they're going to subdivide. They don't intend on owning either of That's what we're trying to prevent or limit as much as we possible.

I'm saying I think like the condition where like one person is subdividing their lot and then going to have a neighbor is probably occurring less than like a developer buying it and trying to maximize their ROI. So like they're setting up the agreement for the easement amongst themselves. Yeah. It's not amongst two neighbors. Right. So that's why I think like the flag law has some validity because someone is legally responsible.

Two wrongs don't make a right. I mean in other words, I think when we have a situation where someone's proposing a subdivision and they're going to need to put an easement, we have to look at that individually and there will be things we are disagree with, but that doesn't mean that we should then allow flag lots because we might allow some easements on lot on subdivisions. In other words, just because one might not might have some burdens doesn't mean we should just allow both. I guess what I'm saying is the negative that you see with the flag lot I think can be accommodated by an adjustment in what's counted in a lot area and setbacks.

I I don't I'm not convinced of that. I mean, I'd have to think about that. I'm not We need to see an exhibit. Yeah. Yeah, I think this could be a multitude of cases, but yeah, I think flag lots in general are just problematic. Bad idea. I agree. One of I think one and three for now address the good our experience with seeing a lot of these proposals probably addresses the good majority of our concerns. I would think I do like those. I don't know if we need to vote on something. Well, I I I will bring I will bring a draft back. Okay.

Could you like with item one, you could rewrite that as the pole of the flag doesn't count or what? You know, like I feel like you could do the same thing either way. Like you could get the same outcome whether the pole is owned or it's an easement, right? Well, I think it gets to an ownership thing and and whether and again everybody's got a uh an opinion. I think the consensus is that that flag pole is just problematic. And I could see where that could be stackable in multiple scenarios and just uh be a problem. And and again, Kevin, this is for uh just the ability to apply ask for a waiver request, right? I mean, this is I mean, all of this

I mean, none of this is uh typical uh subdivision standard, correct? Uh this this would be an LDR change that would create the standard, and if you didn't meet the standard, then you'd have to request a waiver to meet the standard. Okay? So this would provide the planning commission with more leverage to get what is intended whatever the planning commission would like to intend for this to do. It would provide more leverage for them to ensure that those things are met. Yeah. Okay.

Like we had the one flag lot that's on the cans that's near the fire station that came before us last year and they wanted to subdivide the flag lot. So this would have given us more teeth. I forgot said you can't subdivide the flag, right? Okay. I think mostly you heard one and three said. Yeah. And I like the Yeah.

the 155.047 C. I mean three about flag lots shall not be permitted. But I do have a question about C the lots. The first part there. Um it says lots shall be accessible by improved public streets except is provided below and the two things that are exceptions. One is postage stamp lots. Can can we delete those? Because I don't think we like those, do we? Why would we accept that? Um wouldn't they want to go get a waiver for you know the LDRs if they needed? Uh, Miss Ireland, this comes back to that postage stamp lot is uh was created during the recession.

Okay. I know that for a fact. Uh and um I I feel like some people have taken advantage of no well have used the poster stamp lot to be able to subdivide because they wanted to sell and they the banks were not lending because they needed fe simple lots and therefore they had to do but the ones that exist that happened during the recession would be non-conforming properties. So they still exist and have the right to exist and to, you know, recreate their property if there's an act of God or something. Right. Right. Yeah. I just wouldn't want to have more of them and

I'd love to reduce a lot of the ordinances honestly. So, but it it does it you know there are Yeah. It would create a nonconformity situation. There aren't very many of them. I don't think. Right. I don't think there are. Yeah. I mean, my suggestion is just it this sounds like we're encouraging more postage stamp lots by making them an exception to having to have public access. And I don't really want these lots as a I understand why they were allowed in that limited time frame, you know, or why that became an issue. But um um

so this is current conditions and so I think what you're asking is to add to and strike that out

is to is to say that um one of the things that lots require is improve is accessibility by improved public streets. And I'm saying that postage stamp lots don't need public access if they have the if this is an exception here and I sort of don't want to encourage more of those. So that's I'm trying to figure out a way to not have those. So, by taking that out, I thought maybe that would be a way to um you know, if you wanted a postage stamp lot, you would go and apply for a waiver to the LDRs, right? Because you would say, "I'm not meeting C1, and here's why, and this is why I want a waiver." But this would give you no reason to have to get a waiver because you're already accepted.

This is an existing ordinance. So, if you met the exception, then you would not need a waiver. Exactly. Right. So that's right. So by taking that out, yes, you would have have to have a waiver to have a postage stamp lot unless you have one existing already which is a non-conforming. Well, you know, then you have to meet the other lot dimensional requirements to you know to create a lot with Okay. So I guess what I'm asking is why keep this here? Yeah. What's the what's the benefit of having this here? uh if we have another recession. I mean, I don't really understand what the

there was a reason and a purpose and I did not delve into this when we were going through the density stuff last time, so I'm not really Yeah, I'm just making suggestion that, right? No, I Yeah, we ought to take another look at that. Yeah, it could be something that I really do think we should. I'll be happy to bring this back for you next month and yeah, we could take a look a little bit dive a little bit deeper into the post stamp stuff.

And then the second one, sorry, I hate to prolong this meeting, but the second one is the another exception of having accessibility to a public street is subdivision of a residential lot containing more than one dwelling unit. So that means if you have a one lot that already has two houses on it, let's say, then you can subdivide those without needing public access. That's correct. But wouldn't that create a flag lot or an easement system?

It would. It would. But there's some conditions that I did not provide in this slide that um that make those situations unique. I think you have to allow that because you can't force someone to like tear down a house. Well, I mean, if you there's there's not a right to subdivide. You have to get approval to subdivide. Exactly. Exactly. It's not a it's not a right. Um, I'm just wondering if if having this exception undoes some of what we just discussed before about the the, you know, flag lot sort of issue.

Just trying to tighten these things up reading that. I would think I mean there's so many obviously conditions out there but I I would think if somebody came before this body and they wanted to subdivide and they had two structures on one property they would have to meet all of the conditions and then it would before us to you know approve but I think that the easement or a waiver from the LDR would yeah you know an option that's why I kind of want them to to ask for the waiver so that they do meet conditions that warrant giving them that as opposed to just saying it's by right, you know, they met the criteria. I guess that's why

sorry to add more things, but it just seems that that's trying to read all these things and how they work against one another and it just seems to me that these are things that probably don't really belong there anymore. Yeah, the LDR regulations are very old. Yeah, since we're since we're improving some. [clears throat] Just giving you a couple more things to work on there. Kevin, what's the immediate need though? [laughter] Can we You can go on and on with the LDR regulations. Uh yeah. Do you all want to go through that again? No. No,

you were not around when the zoning. I figured since we're on this particular provision and one of them does seem to indicate flag lots, you know, the one that's you're subdividing with two homes, but anyway, I mean, I'm only one person, so I defer to the rest of the commissioners here for whether they want you to continue to pursue that, but I don't want to hold up the rest of it. I just just like we did last time where we said we really would like you to come back with something prohibiting flag lots. Um, and you know, and eliminating the over one acre thing. Yeah, that's just something else to put on the list, the to-do list.

Do you want me to hold off on the density and the Okay, so move let's move forward some draft ordinance and then also with this put the other on the to-do list and something else to discuss when we have a shorter agenda. Okay. [laughter] Yep. Okay. I agree. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. Just thinking too much sometimes. One and three. One and three. One. Thank you. Um Mr. Stone, I guess other business you're going to share possibly a little more regarding the uh county council in 10 miles.

Yes, sir. Um so, as you know, um last last two agent items here. Make these quick. Um last night, um Charleston County Council approved the 10mi community overlay district and it did apply the one unit per 3acre standard to its rural neighborhood areas and it also did a couple other things. Um and it's it's pretty specific. It u one of those instances it removed the maximum square footage for accessory dwelling units. So where ours and theirs was 850, um there's I mean it could be as large as a another principal structure and it just allows more housing options

and um kind of addressing that missing middle housing. There are um tailored commercial uses. Their uh their body that approves well sorry their body that reviews subdivisions also has that DRB capacity and per state law planning commission has been designated as the vesting body with subdivisions. They cannot approve subdivisions but they recommend to planning commission these subdivision requests and often come along with design standards and uh architectural and um and even paint color. So that is that is what um they have reviewed and been working on and they uh approved it last night and based on our November special meeting just an update on on where this is at was requested. So that is that is uh what's going on with 10 mile.

Thank you.

Yeah. And finally, we have the uh 2025 development agreement report. Uh every year we just kind of give a quick overview of the active development agreements that we have within the town. As we know, Carolina Park is currently still active. They have met all of their transportation improvement standards and Carolina Park is uh still in effect until September of 2028. The Liberty Hill Farms uh has received final plat for all phases. Uh they have dedicated open space. Uh their trail system is complete and all infrastructure and services have been constructed to meet town standards. And there's now a dedicated u two-year maintenance bond that goes along with that. So, it's it's not something we've taken over and if something goes wrong, we're responsible. They're still responsible for maintaining those for the next two years as we do warranty inspections. And that is set to expire in 2028. And finally, as you know, in October of last year, the Patriots annex development agreement did expire, but they have a pilot agreement that was uh codified under a separate ordinance. It was a resolution 19102. So, the payment in L of taxes agreement for any improvements they make on the site, that will be captured under that agreement and does not go away with this development agreement. So, just wanted to let you know about that. Any questions? I'd be glad to answer. questions?

No, I don't think so. All right. Okay. Thank you. We'll adjourn. Thank you'all. Appreciate it. Thank you.