Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. have Johanna Fister or her uh her assistant uh give that report to us. I will open the public hearing on that particular topic right now and please uh lead with your presentation. Good afternoon everyone. I'm Kathleen Lichfield. I'm the 911 communications manager here at Town of Hilton Head Island Fire Rescue and I am here to ask you all to approve a new street name. That street name is going to be Redfish Point. This is on behalf of Matt Amlung of 325 Squire Pope Road. This is to name the access easement that will be offering direct access to two homes that are going to be built on that parcel. Um, in the future there may be few further development on some of the surrounding parcels such as 321 and 323 square Pope Road. The zoning in this area is water oriented mixed use which could allow for up to 16 dwelling units per acre. So, we need to plan for possible future development in this area and we recommend that you approve the application based on the criteria in the packet. This was chosen uh the name was chosen because the red fish is a species native to South Carolina coastal waters and it also reflected the applicant's enjoyment of fishing which he mentioned in his narrative. this um highlighted part of the parcel here 325. This is the affected parcel and

some some of the other parcels that we are concerned about future development is going to be this 323 that's about an acre right there and 321 that's about 4/10 of an acre and this access easement will be running right along this line here as you can see from this aerial photo if that makes sense. This is the site plan. There's going to be two dwelling units plus a garage right now that are going to be located on that parcel. Once again, this parcel could be up to 16 dwelling units per acre, and this particular parcel is about an acre. So, as described in the staff report, the stream names have been vetted and met the criteria set out in the land management ordinance. Does do any of you have any questions for me right now? Any questions on the staff renaming proposal? Commissioner H. So when you name if it's approved and you rename this Red Fish Point, is that when it goes from an access easement to a street? Um so this is going to be an access easement. We are naming the access easement. Correct. We um Joha Fister uh deputy chief um it is an access easement and so like at some point it may become something else if um the development makes it become something else but right now it's an access easement and it it it does not make sense for it to have a Squire Pope address. We don't have any additional Squire Pope addresses. it is so far off of Squire Pope that like finding it and knowing that there's two more houses back there does not um make sense for a fire rescue response. Um so and like I said we don't have addresses in that

area to continue to give more to it and should they want to put any additional homes on 323 um there are no more addresses either. So So we name streets as well as access easements. Correct. Just so that we can find them. Yes. Okay. Other questions? Okay. Do we have a motion? I'll make a motion that we naming as Okay. Motion made by Commissioner Lobos, seconded by Commissioner Dwa. Any discussion on the motion? Okay. All in favor, please raise your right hand. It's unanimous. And we move to the next item. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Uh the next item would be a public hearing uh to consider an ordinance to amend title 16 of the municipal code of the town of Hilton Head Island, the land management ordinant to amend the current regulations for tree protection to include the sections you see listed on your agenda. And we will have uh a report from Missy Luick, the director of planning. I will open the public hearing on that particular topic at this point. And Missy, thank welcome. Thank you. Uh Missy Luick, director of planning. Uh happy to be before the planning commission today. Uh we have three text amendments to the land management ordinance to discuss. And the first one, as the chair mentioned, is um a proposal that is for our um tree regulations. Um, as you are well aware, the amendment uh process that we're under is uh a priority within the town's strategic action plan within the growth management strategy. And the amendment project is broken into two parts. Both the full code overhaul and the priority amendments. The priority amendments are

uh pressing community development issues that are uh we have identified the best short-term solution to those to address prior to the full code overhaul. Um, as you are also aware, we had a workshop with town council last fall to discuss all of these priority amendments prior to them being finalized. And, uh, for the tree protection provisions, we discussed the following. Um, that we would increase requirements for live oak and laurel oakes for tree preservation by reducing the size at which they're protected. We would update the mitigation requirements by increasing the plantback size requirements. we would update the the list of native plants and remove the exception of specimen trees on single family lots which would result in uh reduction of unnecessary removal of specimen trees. So largely um based on that direction from council the amendments before you are doing just that. Um these regulations will strengthen our tree protection during development and ensure that new projects align with our community's environmental values. Um again it does strengthen those tree protections um for both uh specimen and significant trees and promotes the use of native vegetation. Additionally that um tree protections for single family lots is extended to um the entire community. Um there have been for many years tree protection standards within the planned unit developments for single family um but not outside of the planned development communities. The key updates um again are outlined here in in detail and then also later in the staff report in a detailed table. um the the live oak and laurel oak trees. Um so that threshold for preservation of

those trees is reduced. It's reduced for 5 in for live oak and laurel oak specimen trees. Um in addition um significant live oak and laurel oak trees are also uh reduced. Uh so for single trunk live oaks and laurel oaks it's reduced by four inches and it's reduced by seven inches for multi-trunk uh live oak significant trees. Um additionally uh the mitigation provisions require larger replacement trees so that plantback are larger um plantings. Um, and there's four categories of plantback. And the minimum installation for these categories, it's 2 in for categories one and two. Um, and then 1 in for categories three and four. Um, that's a slight variation from what we heard from council. Um, so it's 1 in instead of 2 in for those cone bearing evergreens, palms, and ornamentals. Um, we expanded the native plant list. Um, and that list of approved native plants is updated to reflect current ecological priorities in bio biodiversity. And again, we talked about that specimen tree protections are extended to include all single family lots, which should reduce unnecessary removal of significant trees. Um the table is redundant of what I just talked about but you can see in the table that um reduction in size at which both specimen and significant trees just for the live oaks and laurel oaks. It's not the full list of of protected tree classes. So it prioritized those oak trees um and reduces the size at which they're protected both for the specimen category and the significant category. Again, you can see that um the size changes here for the plantback for the mitigation requirements of those four

categories. Um and then um you can see where that single family exemption component is proposed to be struck within the code. Um with all amendments, we look at uh nonconformities as well as the text amendment review standards. In this case, um this amendment would not provide would not create any new non-conformities. Um again, text amendments are required to meet uh certain standards as as provided by in the land management ordinance. Um items A through F are those criteria and in the staff report, it identifies how this proposed amendment meets the required criteria. The the text amendment as proposed supports the comprehensive plan goals concerning natural resource preservation and tree protection. It's required due to continuing concerns with tree cutting and the loss of specimen and significant trees. It addresses a demonstrated and vocalized community need to strengthen tree protection, promote ecological health, and maintain the aesthetic and environmental character of the area. It's consistent with the intent of the ordinance in the town's efforts to preserve tree cover and habitat. It results in a more attractive and sustainable development, ensuring logical and orderly development patterns and it minimizes the impact of development on the natural environment by protecting trees and strengthening mitigation for the removal of trees. That concludes my presentation. Um, this is a public hearing before you today and the planning commission is a recommending body to council. Are there any questions? Any commissioner questions of Missy before I open a public comment? Commissioner Loa, don't forget to activate your mic. Hi, Missy. I I have a question about kind of implementation of this, especially as it relates to the single family residents. So, I'm going to give kind of two examples and I just it'll be obvious, I think, what I'm

asking. So, first example is a homeowner in a community that has a PA and an ARB and they have one of these oak trees and they decide it's healthy, but they want to remove it because it's they think it's too big or too messy or whatever. The second is the exact same only the tree has been deemed to be not good by a arborist or a tree company and it and they think it needs to come down. In both cases, based on this, um, how does the homeowner andor the ARB determine whether the tree can be cut down? Um, right now, and I can, um, it requires an arburous report. Um, and if if Trey or or Michelle or Sheay could point to the section where it says that, I will pull it up on the screen. um in order for that tree to be removed. And so as is it as long as there is a an arborist tree company report that says that it is deemed necessary to remove it because of the health of the tree and it's okay for the the resident or the ARB to proceed and approve that. That's correct. in the community and the um the avenue uh if if they don't have that is to seek a variance from the board of zoning appeals. Okay, that answers it. I don't think you need to dig further. I think Okay, I understand. Commissioner Whey, thank you. So do these new standards sync up with the PUDS right now or is there any disconnect at all? No, it it brings um so the the the plan development areas have uh because of the single family exemption um have been regulated more

strictly than the areas that are outside. Um and so all of them have uh uh preservation standards in place and they do require arous reports right now for removal of uh specimen trees and significant trees. Yes. Um and one follow-up question. If a homeowner or a landowner decides a tree is hazardous and removes it without that arborous report, what is the town's um response to something like that? And thank you. So we investigate first and then um if it is a violation there the current code has provisions for um how that is handled both in uh if there is a citation issued but there is mitigation required. Other questions of the commission to Missy. Okay. Uh Hannah did we have anybody sign up to speak on this particular topic today? Not this topic. No. Okay. Is there anybody in the uh audience who would like to speak with us on this particular topic? Okay, seeing none, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the DY for discussion by the commissioners. Uh what's your pleasure commissioners? Do we commissioner hens? Move to approve as presented. Vice Chair Campbell seconds. Any discussion? We've been moved and seconded to approve. as presented. All in favor, please raise your right hand. We have a unanimous decision there. So, we will be u moving we will be making that recommendation to town council. Next, we move on to um uh the next priority amendment which has to do with um sign standards and so we will open the public hearing on that particular topic and ask Missy to continue. Well, thank you. Um, so the next text amendment that is before you is an amendment to our signed standards.

Um, and staff is recommending approval of this proposed amendment. Again, this is all part of the priority amendments uh process that is part of the town strategic action plan. Um the the town council workshop's direction on signs was that our current sign standards and sign regulations are not contentneutral as required uh by a read versus town of Gilbert Supreme Court decision and to amend our sign code to be compliant with that Supreme Court decision. Um so to summarize what that means is that it it this amendment proposes updates to the sign regulations to ensure compliance with that uh federal case law by adopting a contentneutral uh sign code. And of course this is in response to that 2015 decision. And um there are quite a bit of uh changes that are proposed here. Um and I think um there will be there will be a lot more changes to the sign code in the full code overhaul. Um and we aimed uh the extent of the proposed amendment to just bring it into compliance with this particular Supreme Court case. Um the regulations based on content of signs has to be avoided um as content rules are subject to scrutiny requiring um a compelling governmental interest and uh narrowly tailored measures. Um and so what um these updates align with those legal standards and create fairer, more defensible sign regulations that preserve to the maximum extent possible current town regulations regarding size, height, location, design, and permitting of signs. Um the amendments also have some minor clarifications and housekeeping changes to streamline the process to make sign regulations easier to navigate. Um and again like I mentioned there will be further adjustments to sign regulations in the

full code. So I described again that this amendment streamlines and clarifies our uh sign regulations uh and they're they're organized in um both the issue that we're addressing and then how the proposed amendment uh fits in with that. I wanted to point out that based on the length of the amendment in the sign code, the table that is in the staff report are only the most noteworthy sections of uh the the particular amendment. Uh but you can look to the actual text amendment for all of the changes that are proposed to the signed text. Um there's a section that deals with substitution of non-commercial messages. Um it's proposed that the prior language is struck and replaced with new language. The purpose of a substitution clause is to assure that if sign code allows sign containing commercial copy, it shall also allow non-commercial sign to the same extent and it should apply to every possible dimension of the sign including location, duration, posting, size or area materials, design requirements um or requirement for a permit etc. So, the new language I will not read uh verbatim, but um you can see that within the staff report. There are some changes to flags um excuse me, flags and interior site signs and temporary yard signs are the majority or bulk of the changes. Um there's uh full strike to uh how the prior language regulated flags. Um and then uh there are two main buckets of how flags are regulated in the proposed text amendment. So subsection A refers to flags on town owned, lease managed or operated property or flags on public property. Um and that is that

um we may display the United States flag, South Carolina flag or a town flag on any and all town owned, lease managed or operated property. Um and that um other displays of flags on property that is owned east leased or managed or operated by the town are not permitted. And then all other flags um shall comply with the following. No more than two flags are allowed per parcel. Flags shall not be placed within a street easement or right ofway. Um flags cannot be placed on public property unless posted by the public entity owning the parcel. size of a flag shall not exceed 24 square feet. There are some provisions of how that size could be waved as as stated. And then um these terms are to be applied to flags generally and shall not be interpreted to supersede or conflict with any applicable state or federal laws or regulations related to the US flag or South Carolina flag. And again, this is because you can't read a flag. the former language um here referred to non-governmental flags. We can't read a flag to determine if it's a non-governmental flag or any other flag. Um interior site signs. Uh the current ordinance includes several sign types that are found internal to sites and parking lots like menu boards, parking signs, shopping cart, return signs, and those signs are now grouped together as all interior site signs. They're proposed to be exempt from permitting and subject to uh several requirements. And there also is a refined definition in the definition section. Um so it identifies here that these signs are interiorly internally oriented on commercial multif family property. They don't require permits. Um and then there's criteria that are

identified here. And then here's the new definition for an interior sign. It's a permanent inter internally oriented sign on a non-residential parcel that is not readily visible and legible beyond the boundaries of the parcel on which it's located and is intended for viewing from the interior of the subject parcel. Temporary yard signs. Um there are several changes here because temporary yard signs are both fall into the non-permitted category and the permitted category. So if you're looking at the full text amendment, you will see it located in two sections. Um, so temporary yard signs that total nine square feet or less during election seasons are proposed to be exempt from permitting based on legal review and case law. In no case can the town regulate what message is displayed on these signs during that specific time frame, even if it was not related to that election or referendum. So the the regulations then here for that particular time frame allow up to nine square feet of temporary yard signs um within that uh election window. 90 days are allowed without permits and they still have to comply to these requirements. So there the number of signs is not limited on the parcel. Of course it can't exceed 9 square feet. Um, and during that time frame, the the the material of the sign is relaxed. The the signs can be made from lightweight materials such as corrugated plastic, cardboard, wood, or similar materials and can be affixed to the ground with metal wire frames, wood stakes, or plastic stakes. They cannot be located in an easement or a right of way um and cannot be posted on public property unless it was posted by the public entity that owns the parcel. And there also are some standards for

temporary signs. Um, and these are for permitted temporary signs. Um, and so it standardizes all temporary signs that are currently regulated by their content. So temporary signs in the the existing sign code include things like real estate signs, construction signs, and the list goes on and on. Um many of those are now grouped into a category called temporary yard signs because again you can't read the sign to know how to regulate the sign. So um there are general requirements for the durability of the sign, illumination standard, shape, number, size, and time frame. Um temporary signs are not exempt from permitting. So they do require a sign permit. Um one temporary yard sign is permitted per parcel. There are some other circumstances where additional temporary yard signs are permitted and those are are listed here in this summary area during permitted construction projects when the building or property is listed for sale and there's additional criteria in that time frame before and after an election or referendum. And it further specifies that um within that time frame, 90 days before or 7 days after an election or referendum, um a permit is only required if the total size of signs exceeds 9 square feet. Again, we talked about in that non-permitted signs. If it was less than 9 square feet, no permits required. Um but if it exceeds 9 square feet, there are additional criteria. Um and that criteria is listed here. Um so again this one exception here for that that window in and around the election season um if a sign a temporary sign exceeds 9 square ft the total size of signs shall not exceed 9 square ft and let's see

subsection two the total size of all signs uh during this time frame shall not exceed 32 square ft. So permit for temporary signs within that window is needed for uh temporary signs over 9 square ft and cannot exceed 32 square ft. And then the number of temporary signs on a parcel is not limited. Um and then it has that same uh relief from the material requirements. Um and then and and and the same uh regulations for temporary yard signs in the unpermitted uh also appear here. Um it should be noted again that um although those additional sign provisions may relate to the signs will be used for but the town still cannot regulate what is on the additional signs during these circumstances or time frames. The amendment also has um changes to driveway access point signs and those are similar to interior sight signs. These are oriented toward traffic control at driveways or intersections, and driveway access point signs do require a permit. There's a maximum size requirement of four square feet, a maximum of two driveway access signs per access point, and the maximum height of a driveway access point sign is 3 feet. Interior site signs, again, they mentioned that they're similar to the driveway access point signs. um those have they require permits as well. They have the same maximum size requirement and the same height requirement as well. So um the approval of this amendment will not create non-conformities. There are several sign types that are grouped into interior site classifications, but the same dimensional requirements will apply. Um additionally, temporary yard signs cannot benefit from non-conforming rights. Um, as again with all text amendments, there are requirements for

the review standards that are considered when uh the planning commission and town council are reviewing uh amendments to the land management ordinance. They are listed here. Staff has found that this proposed text amendment meets those review criteria as it supports the comprehensive plan by minimizing the impact of signs and ensuring high quality signage. It's required due to a US Supreme Court decision. It addresses a community need to hold signage to high standards for aesthetics and reduce the visual clutter caused by unregulated signage. And it's consistent with the zoning districts in this ordinance by ensuring high quality and visually unobtrusive signage. It will result in a more attractive street corridors and properties and will have no impact on the natural environment. Um again before you the planning commission is a recommending body to council. Um, and you have uh three options when considering this particular text amendment item. Do you have any questions? Any questions of Missy on this presentation? This proposal. Commissioner Whe Missy when um a commercial largely commercial lot might have a monument sign, you know, with multiple um individual commercial signs. How do they fall within these regs? Does the monument have to have each individual sign a certain size or does a monument uh get permitted as a single allowance? How does that work? Um I'm going to have technical questions related to the administration of the sign. Um if if Trey Laauo could could come and assist with answering some of those questions. But in in large part, yes, um monument signs are have limitations to their area, the aesthetic qualities of them, the materials. Um and uh but I will defer to So those are covered under a different text amendment or would you reass your question? I'm sorry.

Absolutely. Okay. What I was asking was uh when you have largely a commercial setting, when you have a monument sign with like multiple signs on it, how are they affected by this? Are they covered by a different text amendment or wreck? So, with the monument signs, those are still in the in the code. Not much has changed on those. Basically, what the what this is doing is we're getting back in line to make sure that we're being uh content neutral on that. So, as far as size, location, things like that, the standard that we're used to, we're still able to administer that. It's just content because of some case law, we can't dictate what goes on someone's sign. Okay. Thank you. when I think um what she might be referring to are sign systems and there's no changes that are proposed to sign system text and that is an integrative sign system that's required for all plan unit developments, commercial developments, office complexes and shopping centers. And for reference, it is on page 67 of 116 of this packet or page 24 of 32. Um and there are no changes to that text within this text amendment. She also well a sign system would would be their facade sign incidental signs um monument sign as you call it. There's actually freestanding signs is the section of the code which is on page 57 of 116 or 14 of 32. Those are those signs that they fall in. So the signs you're referring to are you typically there's a bit a larger anchor tenant that's got there or the name of the the development circle center for for example and there's tenant panels on there. Each tenant

panel is treated differently so they're um permitted individually. So as far as effect to them again they would still have to meet whatever the monument sign was. the same material would have to be used for each tenant panel, same colors, you know, it's just the the content that would be regulated on those. And again, there were no changes proposed to freestanding signs. Um, this this amendment does not affect those how we regulate those signs. Commissioner Loba. Okay. I have a very specific question and I and I want to let the audience know that I own a sign company. So I want to be fully transparent that that's why this question is very specific for the content neutral. I'm assuming that includes text. I'm assuming that includes any related graphics. I'm assuming that includes any descriptive words. And what I'd like and if I'm wrong about that, just say so. But I'd like to also know if it includes colors. And specifically, the reason I asked that question is because one of the challenges we have as a sign company is that companies have spent a lot of money on branding and branding their logo. And companies have specific colors for their logos. and in the past that they haven't always been able to use those specific colors in their logo which has caused great pain on some of these folks. So my question is does content neutral include text, graphics, descriptive words and colors and I know that's a hard question to answer. Colors, no it does not. So we'll still be able to regulate the colors. Um, we try to be more lenient as far as we understand that there are

brands out there that try to represent. However, if you do read portions of our text in the code and in the design guide, it does state that you may be required to change your color to meet island character and we'll still maintain that that island character. Um, in the back on page is 30. Oops, we got definitions. Sorry. So in our on 28 of 32 or 71 of 116, there are still sections that do relate to let's see some of the prohibitions in the code. I think we took out everything. I want to say we left, let me see. So, no, we took out everything that would have made. So, so previously in this section, where is it at? Oh, no, we left that in there. So, number 13, signs that exhibit statements, words, or pictures of an an obscene or pornographic nature. So, we would we would definitely regulate that, but otherwise text, logo, all of that, whatever message somebody's trying to convey, we would we could not regulate that content as we have in the past. And I'm only going to add just as a comment that I would suggest that the overall sign colors obviously should be regulated and things for the overall sign, the background, the the the borders, and all of those types of things. But I I I would tread lightly on the colors, the branded colors of company logos because that is content too. So that's just my recommendation. Okay. Thank you. Other uh questions, Commissioner Hens. So the reason for this priority

amendment request today is is just so that uh we change our our ordinance to reflect the new law. Is that the only reason why we're here? That's correct. To be compliant with content neutrality in our sign regulations. Um I will reiterate again as we dove into our existing sign code. It could use a lot of attention. So um this this is just to correct become compliant. That is that is what this is. Um there's no question that the sign code needs extra attention. Other questions of Missy? Okay. Okay. Then Hannah, did we have anybody sign up on the town portal to speak with us on this topic? Not on this topic. Okay. Uh let me see if there's anyone in the audience who would like to speak with us on this particular topic. Uh seeing nobody, we will close the public hearing and uh move back to us here to we have three choices. Recommend approval to town council, recommend denial, or recommend approval with conditions. Commissioner Hs. uh recommend approval as presented to town council. Okay. Is there a second? Commissioner Lobos seconds. Any discussion? All in favor? Then raise your right hand. Okay. We have another unanimous. Thank you. We next move on to a land management ordinance amendment that deals with setback standards and rules of measurement. Uh I will open the public hearing on that particular topic and invite Missy to go for round three here. All right. Okay. Um let's go three for three. Um right now this amendment is uh it's an amendment for regulations on how we measure height uh setback encroachments for both residential and non-residential development. Uh staff is recommending approval of this text amendment. Again, all part of our growth

management strategy as a priority of town council within their strategic action plan. And in that September workshop uh with council, we discussed um amendments related to height and setback encroachments. Um and we talked about them as potentially back at at that time as two separate amendments. They are combined as one amendment today. Um we talked about the residential mass and scale. Um and these these particular topics at that September workshop that changes needed to apply to existing subdivisions where possible and current building heights are too high. There needs to be more light air and separation between units. Need to increase setbacks and establish minimum lot sizes. That will be addressed in the full code update. Non-residentidential was similar that building heights are too high. Needs to be more air light and separation between units. Increase setbacks. establish minimum lot sizes and uh there should be a relationship between height and proximity of the street and boundaries. Um lower closer to the street and boundaries of the property for example was what was discussed. Um mass and scale has been a topic of discussion and concern for both residential and non-residential on the island for some time. um we see new buildings or new structures that are often larger and out of character or out of scale with the surrounding existing development and this amendment uh is proposed to modify how height is measured and reduce allowable setback encroachments. Uh current regulations require that building heights be measured relative to flood zone elevations which increases the allowable height of the building uh from ground level. So if you're measuring from zero and it's not on the ground then effectively yes that mass or that height of that structure appears to be greater than the height limit of the district.

Um the changes that are proposed um will provide a more accurate representation of the building scale relative to the surrounding landscape by adjusting how we measure height. Um and the current regulations also allow encroachments into our allowable setback areas. And this amendment will provide more separation between buildings. Um and both of these changes will reduce the overall mass and scale of development in both residential and non-residential building types. So there are changes both to sepek angle height and encroachments that are detailed in the memo and then also further summarized in uh the amendment table that's in uh the the staff report. Um I'll go through these in detail because I want to make sure that it's understood what these changes are as it relates to setback angle, how height is measured and um the changes to the encroachment table. Um so one of the primary changes is to change the elevation above above the ground at which how we measure that setback angle. So uh basically at a certain height um at 20 ft now um there's an angle that uh and and the angle changes based on uh based on your zoning or your uh what usees was is adjacent. Um, but it's a percent. Uh, an angle is a percentage. And so, um, it requires basically that a building be stepped back, um, at a certain height. Um, and there is a graphic here that illustrates, um, what our current code allows, um, and and what, uh, the proposed amendment allows. Um so currently our current ordinance um we require a setback angle to begin at uh 20 feet over an elevation of 13 uh above mean sea level or pre-development grade whichever is higher. Um and that's for residential structures. And for

non-residential structures instead of 13 we measure from 11 ft uh above mean sea level or predevelopment grade. And so the lower at the point at which that angle begins, which is the red line here, the more restricted it is if measured from the higher point, which is the blue line. So um this is an example of a structure that has predevelopment grade that's less than 13 feet. So this is a residential example. Um again, it's not to scale. Um but uh here in the blue line where we would measure from 13 ft to get to where that that 20 foot um marker is and then the setback angle um takes place here. If we were to measure from pre-development grade which is what is proposed um we would start measuring from grade and then we would get to that 20 foot and then that same step back angle would apply. So you can see um how that might change what that bill structure looks like because um the portion here um would not be able to be built with this particular amendment. So again that blue line shows the existing LMO allowance um and the red line shows the more restricted horizontal building envelope that does limit the mass and scale of new buildings. So allowable encroachments um and and I'll go to that section in the code amendment as well, but there are a limited number of setback and height encroachments that are allowable within our setback encroachment table. Um while the closest point of the building is subject to the minimum setback lines um from the property line and or the setback angle, certain architectural elements can extend into the setback um within with some limitations. So, if a sidewall of a house is built up to the setback line, a bay window may extend up to two feet into a setback if it's not more than 9 ft wide. That's what the current code allows. We also have

several allowable encroachments such as open balconies, uncovered decks, porches that are proposed to be struck from that uh allowable encroachments table to reduce allowable encroachments. Items like eaves, bay windows and awnings are proposed to be retained in the table with a reduced extent and other architectural elements and appertances are proposed to be removed so they may no longer encroach into the maximum height or setback angle or setback. Um there's also a footnote you'll note in the table. Um a further restriction is included to prevent all allowable encroachments from being closer than 5t from a property line. So that means that no encroachment can be within the property line and five feet. Um so there are there is a likelihood of creating nonconformities uh for those architectural elements. Um this figure here shows how an eve may extend into a setback area still by 2 feet um while an unenclosed porch um can no longer extend into a minimum setback area. And the current code, um, an unenceded porch can extend up to five feet into a setback. And so the the current amendment, um, does not allow that. So, we're we also have a change that's proposed that changes um how height is measured. It doesn't change building heights. It just changes how we measure height. um is proposed to be measured from pre-development grade in all cases rather than the higher elevation of predevelopment grade or 13 feet or 11 feet above mean scene level um depending on whether that's 13's residential and 11 is non-residential. Um, so this means that if the building site is lower than 11 or 13, depending on the building type, the measurement from pre-development grade, the red line on the next page, um, will be greater

than measuring from 13 ft or 11 ft above mean sea level. Um, so here is the difference on this particular example. Right now, we're measuring, this is a residential example, um, from that 13 elevation as zero. and you get to your maximum building height and from pre-development grade the line should have been shorter that you would get to a building height of right here. So we also pulled an an actual submitted plan to to show um what this could look like both from the setback angle and from how you measure building height. And um the blue line is the existing land management ordinance requirements. Um again this example 13 uh above mean seen level that line is right here. Predevelopment grade is down here. So the blue line we're getting up to this point right here before we start with that setback angle. Um here we would get to about this point where you can see a little bit of the top part of the roof structure um is within that setback angle plane. Um, and this shows here, this is that difference in height as well. So, the staff report includes some maps that show both residential and non-residential properties that could most likely be affected by the proposed change. Um, this figure shows, um, let's see if I can get it all in one page. Um this figure shows the residential properties that are 13 feet above mean sea level and um so there are 18,015 residential properties. Um there are 11,394 of those that are below 13 mean sea level. Um, and so we don't know what

the height of all of those structures are or the built um, structures in these areas, but we do know that there's a possibility that that they could be affected by this particular change in um, in how height is measured. We have a similar map for non-residential properties. The total number of non-residential properties that are above 11 feet mean sea level is 895. And so 380 of those are below 11 ft mean seen level and they're red on this particular map. And then there's a table that outlines uh uh what I have just discussed again the change to um how height is measured um in both the overlays changing that graphic for how setback angle is measured here to show that it's measured from grade um and here's how that same thing in the setback uh table um adjacent use setback requirements again that change where we're just going to measure from pre-development grade and not 11 or 13. Those similar tables are also there. So there's a new table or graphic that's created. And then this is where um the allowable setback encroachment table changes uh can be observed. And um so there currently are allowable encroachments for all of the items that are in the first column and then the extent of those encroachment allowances are identified in in the next column on the right. Um you can see what is proposed to be struck um open balconies, firescapes or exterior stairways. There is one category that is proposed to be added um as a result of a conversation with our building official that there in some cases are required means of egress

in which we need to have an allowable setback encroachment for up to 42 in into a setback. And that does not mean that somebody wants to add a a rear um exit and uh stairway off of a master bedroom, for example. that's not a required means of egress. Um there are some structures that have um a certain number or quantity of required means of egress. Many mobile homes require a both a front and a rear required means of egress and we want to make sure that our code allows for those um circumstances. You'll notice that there's um a footnote and that refers to that footnote that I mentioned where there are no allowable encroachments within 5t of any property line. And then the extent of some of the allowable encroachments is being lessened. So it's being lessened for chimneys and fireplaces. Instead of three feet, it's 2 feet. Roof eaves and overhangs. Awnings are being reduced from 3 feet to 2 feet and 5t to 2 feet uh respectively. And again, bay windows are being reduced the extent from two three feet to two feet. Again, another um several other items of current encroachments are proposed to be struck altogether. Uncovered porches, stoop, decks, patios, terraces, light fixtures, spires, koopalas, domes, skylights, solar collection devices, small wind energy systems, amateur radios, other architectural features. And then again, here's where you can see the verbiage for that footnote that was added that that limits any allowable encroachment no closer than five feet from any setback. Here you can see uh how the calculation of height or definition of height is being adjusted and um and

again it's it's striking all of this language um and just leaving in that it is measured from pre-development grade here and so all of these other components are being struck. So these changes to both building height and allowable setback encroachments may result in the creation of non-conforming structures. Um those are structures that do not comply with uh the current dimensional standards that would be in proposed in this this new text amendment. Those structures are allowed or permitted to exist and to be maintained. Um they are impacted if they were to be expanded, relocated, altered or damaged. Um so again um those structures if they were to become non-conforming with this new code would become legal non-conforming structures. The code has several ways in which we handle the standards for nonconformities. Um and and nonconformities are common among uh many zoning codes across uh across the country. Um so anytime you we do make changes there's a likelihood that uh legal non-conformities would be created. So we have a chapter 167 within our code which is how um our current code handles nonconformities. And um I wanted to highlight that um this particular paragraph here um the town does recognize the continued existence of non-conformities and it's generally inconsistent with the purpose and extent of the ordinance. It also recognized this ordinance needs to provide flexibility to encourage redevelopment of non-conforming development if it lessens the degree of nonconformity and if redevelopment is consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan and the district in which the development is located. Um there also are um provisions for the regulation of non-conforming uses,

structures, signs, site features and specific and specifies those circumstances uh and conditions under which non-conformities are allowed and continue to redevelop. Um there are a number of ways that legal non-conforming structures um can be handled. Um, and so there there are cases where it's it can be handled through our disaster recovery chapter. Um, and and there are there are statements of of how that could be handled. Um, has to still meet title 15 of the municipal code, which refers to our building code requirements. Um if a dwelling is legally established non-conforming structure um then the building restoration or repair can shall comply with the development standards of the current code um to the extent deemed reasonably practical by the official. For other structures um the degree of damage is considered in two different scenarios um and those are those are outlined here. Um, a building permit can be issued to restore, rebuild, or repair a legal non-conforming structure within 18 months of damage of not more than 50% of its appraised fair market value immediately prior to the damage. And then the legal non-conforming structure damaged or destroyed to the extent of 50% or more um prior to the damage shall not be repaired except in accordance with the requirements of this ordinance. In the case of redevelopment, we have a substitution of nonconformities for redevelopment section that does allow for more flexibility um with nonconformities and the substitution for nonconformities requires that um that redevelopment meets these uh criteria here. Um it cannot include new development that increases the amount of encroachment into a required buffer or setback. cannot increase the impervious cover on the site over the maximum

allowed would not result in a density in excess of what's allowed under the ordinance will lessen the extent of existing non-conforming site features to the great ex extent possible and will not have an adverse effect on health, safety or welfare um and also will lessen the extent of non-conformities for any existing non-conforming structure. So site features and structure in items four and six. Um the footprint of any existing non-conforming site feature or structure can be maintained or expanded as long as the applicant receives approval meeting the criteria above and does not um and and none of the following of these cases are involved. So that it's a non-conforming sign, expansion or enlargement um associated with a non-conforming use um or replacement of a non-conforming site feature with a non-conforming structure um and or the demolition or modification of an existing non-conforming structure with the intent to rebuild or mo or remodel in accordance with an approved zoning map amendment or the redevelopment overlay district section. So, I know that was a lot, but as you're well aware, there are review standards and staff reviewed this amendment and um has evaluated it and uh it meets the text amendment review criteria. It supports the comprehensive plan by ensuring that new and redeveloped housing maintains and enhances the character of the island. It's required due to concerns with the scale of buildings and impacts on adjacent properties and residents. It addresses a demonstrated community need to control the overall mass, scale, and height of new buildings. It ensures that development meets the intent of the town zoning districts, results in a logical and orderly development at the proper scale and are compatible with nearby buildings and structures, and reduces the overall impact of townwide development, minimizing adverse effects on the environment and natural resources. Again, the planning commission has three options when reviewing this text amendment. Are there any questions that you may have? Any

questions of Missy on this particular item? Commissioner. Hi Missy. Um, so specifically for residential nonconforming, legally non-conforming buildings in a disaster, I'm trying to simplify it and tell me if what I'm saying is correct. If the officials deem that less than 50% of the value or structure of the building remains, then they have to rebuild to the new setbacks. If more remains than 50% they can go back to their non-conforming status. Is that correct? Is that a correct interpretation? Did you say that? Like I can't I can't tell if you stated that um in the inverse or not. Okay. For for disaster specifically for for loss of property for a nonconforming legally nonconforming residential development, a home on the water. Yeah. I if 50% of the property, whoever deems it, is lost, then they have to rebuild to this statute and set back. Correct. I believe that's correct. Um, Mr. Col Train, is that is that true? But we also have though a disaster recovery Yes. ordinance that addresses that. And honestly sitting here off the top of my head I I can't answer your question. But in in the case of a declared natural disaster such as you described, there's another ordinance that also comes into play with regard to that. We can we can provide additional information back to the planning commission on that particular topic. um and certainly can include that in uh more detail in the staff memo should this move on past the planning commission today. Other questions of Missy? Uh, Commissioner Why? Missy in the

um development and science standards section where the original text exists 165-102. I just want to make sure I understand the scope of this. It states unless expressly exempted or modified in this subse subsection or for those three districts calligy, stony and light industrial these setback requirements will apply. So does that mean stony and light industrial have different section that applied to setbacks than everyone else? Of course I see the overlay districts are spiked out as well. What page are you on? Excuse me. Um I think it's on I have it at the bottom is page three of 11 in this in the actual exhibit A mass and scale amendments attachment two. Go to page three. More pages. Oh yeah. No, that's it. If you go scroll to the top of that page. Okay. First sentence under C. Uhhuh. Okay. want to make sure that we understand what's covered by this setback. So the way I read it again is that Calgney, Stony and Industrial Light districts will not have these setback requirements applied to them. That's part a of the question. And if that is true, is there another section, which I couldn't find when I was kind of mosying through the LMO, that applied to them separately? So, I guess they have their own setbacks that are not covered by these changes. Um, I'm aware for sure that the Clicky

Resort District does have some um district specific regulations. um if if Trey or Sheay could look at that particular section and verify if that and Stony and the Light Industrial District has that. This is not proposed to be changed though. This is existing text within the code. It's not subject to any changes that are part of this proposed text amendment. Um and this is only for the adjacent street setback component here. Um and uh but on the um well the the regular setback table um is is not uh part of this amendment set because there are no uh strikeouts that are proposed there. Um but I can assure you that structures do have um setbacks from adjacent uses um in these districts as well. Um, but if you'd allow us to look up those particular sections, uh, if you can just point me to what the section is, I can always do that at some other time. I have to take everybody's everybody's time with that. Sure. Um, the other question I had was um, we had a discussion earlier, one of the commissioners brought up, are we creating a street or an easement? We put a name in. So these these setbacks are focused on adjacent street setback requirements. So if you have a back lot that is technically on a street, do these setbacks apply to the development of that back lot that's just on an easement address? Yes. Um and you can see now that gee, I thought I turned that off. I'm sorry. So there there are three classifications for um adjacent street setbacks from a major arterial, a minor arterial and other streets. And then um there's it's either measured from the

street right ofway or easement line to the closest portion of a structure. Um and so it it would apply if that particular easement is considered an other street in this other street category. Yes. But for like the example we had earlier where we just named there is a setback from an easement. An easement would be considered an other street. Okay. And and typically for single family use then um there would be a 20 foot setback from that. Thank you. East. Other questions of Missy from the commission? Commissioner Hens. Yeah, this is kind of a a philosophical question. I I understand nonconforming. I get it. you you changed the ordinance and so things are now not necessarily conforming. But what I understand is is with allowable setbacks um with with required setbacks, why are there why would you have allowable setback encroachments? Why are there why are there so many allowed encroachments? If you would think that if there's a setback, there's a setback. I don't understand why there's seems like there's a lot of allowable encroachments and and why would that be? Um yeah, there are there are various codes that um some of them have allowable setback encroachments. Um, in some cases, um, it's intentional. Maybe communities want to see more front porches, for example, and then they have, uh, a more gracious allowance for a front setback encroachment specific to a porch. It may be that that's important for that community's character um, for, you know,

home types within a certain district. Um, and and sometimes, you know, some of our setbacks, if you look at them, they're 20 feet, they're 30 feet. Um in some cases setbacks from our major arterials were 50 feet. Um so your building your your your sidewall of your building can encroach but these allowable encroachment features can um or it's proposed that many of these features are going to be struck or the extent of them is being reduced to um make sure that we have better separation among our built environment and the adjacent development or adjacent property. Um but it is it is fairly common to have allowable encroachments uh in a code. Um I think what we were lacking and where some of these encroachments have been um I think the um the scale of them has been tested a little bit is where we have very minimal setbacks. So, if you're in a residential neighborhood and your setback is five feet, um that means that that structure is only 5t away from the property line and we allow we could allow an open balcony come straight to the property line because it can extend 5 feet. And so, um, I think where these allowable encroachments are more exacerbated are where we have, um, lower setbacks, um, that have been approved as such. Um, so there are a number of, um, areas that do have minimal setbacks. Um and uh and I think that's uh mainly what this will address, but it also will address um that your developable area is more or less defined by the the allowable setbacks.

Other questions of Missy? Uh Mr. Colrin? Yes. In response to the commissioner's question about damage in a disaster, Miss Miller allowed me to use her laptop. So under chapter nine of the land management ordinance, there is a disaster recovery process that has an emergency permitting process in it. And structures, residential structures that are damaged or destroyed can be built back the way they were. Even if it's non-conforming. Yes. Good. That great. In in that circumstance where there's been a natural disaster and as a result the structures damaged, destroyed. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Hannah, did we have any uh anybody request to speak to us on this topic? Yes, we have two. Mr. Chindress, is Mr. Chindress with us? Mr. Braden. Mr. Braden, good afternoon. Please remember that you'll uh your comments need to be limited to three minutes. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. I I sent comments so you can read mostly what I want wanted to say. So, I'm in the Bradley Beach area. Uh and uh I think the reason that FAR was previously rejected those the uh the FAR regulations, no offense to Missy, but uh or Mrs. Luick, uh and the reason that Sean Cullen had to apologize to the council, was because it was islandwide and it failed to consider what would happen to very small lots like on Bradley Beach Road where lots are only 60 by 80 ft. They're very very small and uh it's about 85 to 90% built out already. And that would have meant that the few remaining lots would only be allowed to build practically a tiny house. And so it it didn't go anywhere. And I think this is pretty much a very similar thing. They're just trying to limit the mass and scale obviously, but it it doesn't show what what it would do to specific small lots like Bradley

Beach Road or Bradley Circle where it's RM8. And it's very important that we know exactly what can be built. I mean, if you can't build a house as as big as your neighbor or only half as big, it really matters. And uh so I think uh it should uh be carefully looked at before it goes up to council this time. Thank you very much, Mr. Braden. Thank you. Was there anybody else Hannah? Okay, let me ask of those remaining in the audience. Anyone else like to speak with us on that particular topic? Uh seeing none, we will I'm sorry. Yes, sir. Uh is there somebody? Yes, ma'am. Please come forward. if you could give us your name for the record and and uh know that you're limited to three minutes, please. Linda Harrington, Indigo Run. My question is, and I'm not familiar because I haven't gone through the whole code. The lots that are appropriate for this, what is their minimum lot size? Anybody? You don't have a set minimum lot size. Is that possible? This is not a question answer. Excuse me. You need to address the question. Well, I'm looking at the attorney because he would probably have the answer, but that's my question because five feet setback is very small. So I am just picturing in my mind say Stony they sell that property you're going to have bing bing bing bing bing all the way up 278 that isn't a good look to welcome people to the island so the far was really a good solution so again when someone figures out what a

minimal buildable lot is here on the island that would be real helpful thank you thank you ma'am Anybody else? Okay, we'll close the public hearing on that and bring it back to commission for discussion. We have three options to recommend approval, to recommend denial, or to recommend approval with conditions. Is anybody willing to move one of those? Commissioner Tubis, I move to recommend approval. Have a motion to recommend approvals supported by Commissioner Loba. Questions? comments by the commission. All in favor of that motion, please raise your right hand. Looks like we're unanimous again. Okay. Thank you. Uh we're move we have moved the public comment to non-aggenda items uh to after staff reports number uh 10. So that will hold on for a minute. I have a couple of things. There's nothing under commission business, but under chairman's report, I have a couple things to talk about. Uh first of all, uh June 30th is the end of our fiscal year and so things start all over again as you know, which means uh for those of you who still have continuing education requirements, uh you have until June 30 to do it. So if you've heard from me in the last several days on that topic, uh you know who you are. If you haven't heard from me, you're golden. Uh but uh let's be sure that we're all in compliance by June 30th with that. Secondly, the last u agenda item on our June meeting will be election of officers for the new uh coming year. And I'd like to announce that um it's it's my preference to not be a candidate to continue in this role for that reason. And it's not because I don't enjoy the job. It's because I feel like someone else needs to have that opportunity. So, we will participate as we have in the past couple of years in what's called the open nominations process or sometimes called nominations from the floor. Uh so any commissioner can nominate any other commissioner. Uh our rules of procedure state that uh only people who have had one year or more of experience on the commission are

eligible to run which means nobody who's coming on the commission July 1st would qualify. We have vice chair Campbell who's retiring next month after two full after two terms uh on the commission. Um and so we want to be sure to thank him next month too. But but everybody else would be eligible to be nominated or to nominate somebody else. So I will send all the of this to you in an email, but the responsibilities of those two sections are outlined um in the rules of procedure and sections 2A and 2B. And there's additional information about the role of the chair in article 9. So I would recommend that to all of you. Um lastly, um this will be Missy Luick's last meeting with us. She's still on town staff until the day before our next planning commission. But I wanted to publicly uh thank uh Missy for uh helping those of us who are not trained professional planners uh understand the issues that are before us and and help us and be patient with us as we try to grasp an understanding of those things. We wish you the very best in all your future endeavors. Miss, thank you so much. Okay, now we are ready for uh the staff report. Trey, are you going to be doing that for today? This would be uh uh on the the uh issue of the reverse osmosis water treatment plant uh proposed by the South Island Public Service District. We will have a report this report by uh Trey Laauo and then I will open it up to public comment uh and we'll go from there. Okay, Trey. All right. Good afternoon, commissioners. Bear with me for a second. I don't have everything pulled up yet. While he's finding his place, let me announce if you hadn't seen the memo that came from Trey with the agenda packet, uh, this information is being provided to the commission for information only. We will be taking no action or making any recommendations out of today's. We'll still want to hear anybody's comment on

it, but we have we will not be taking any action on what we hear on this particular project today. We ready, Trey? I am almost just going to get everything pulled up for us and then All right. So, as you know, we are continuously looking for ways to improve. Uh, one is bringing all the ma major development plans and major subdivisions uh to the planning commission. Hopefully, that will be codified soon. Um today we have one for you DPR 001029 2024 and that's located at 131 Dunigan's Alley and it is a development project that proposes a reverse osmosis water treatment plant that will include the structures infrastructures required to pump and refine water driveways parking and uh storm water facilities for the site. All right, we'll start out with the site plan. Or actually, I'm going to go I wanted to start out with the location. Are you Are you all familiar with this site location? It's right down the road to my right. Uh here we are at Town Hall and 131 is right off of Dunigan's Alley down here to your right. All right, so here's our site

plan and what is being proposed. Where's my Oh boy. Are you able to see that up there? All right. So, in the middle here, we have the reverse osmosis facility. This is where the main part of the plant will be housed. um to the exterior and towards Dunigan's alley. You have a flush tank down here, some sand separators, heat exchangers, cooling facilities, and high service pump station. All which are required to run a reverse osmosis plant and refine the water the way we need it. This water will serve South Island Public Service District. So, anybody that lives on the south end of the island, this water will be for them. All right. All this driveway infrastructure here is just to service the plant. It's not it's not a public rideway or anything like that. I I believe from what I understand uh four to five folks per day may visit the site to run it. Um this is our landscaping plan that we will have as they finish the facility. They are required to plant some back. As you probably noticed as you drive up and down Johnny's Alley, uh you used to could not see back there, but in order to get some of this construction done, they've had to take out some of the native vegetation that was there. And we've had a have a pretty uh robust planning schedule back and what already exists there as well. This is just what they're planting back right here if you're interested to know what kind of vegetation or trees they'll put back. Uh and these are a couple of elevations of the plant itself. Again, their narrative states exactly what I told you. This is this project consist of a reverse osmosis treatment water treatment plant used to revine and produce water. And that is all I have

and I will open it up to questions from you all. Let's first take questions from the commission. Any questions of Trey and his presentation? Commissioner H. So Trey, this is what's being built there now. This isn't proposed. This is this is in process. So this project was done in two phases. The first phase was a major DP or a minor DPR I'm sorry phase which uh consisted of a um Cretaceous well and a back here in this corner back here is a a reclaimed water tank that provides water for the Wexford golf course. So that was phase one that's in process. That's what you see right now is the well that's being drilled that will service this facility once it's built and phase two is that building and everything else that correct you just saw. Okay. Other commissioner questions. Commissioner Willy, I know nothing about this technology. Can you just sort of describe um visually are these all enclosed all these um reverse osmosis tanks and there's a clear well and a flush tank. Are these all in like closed structures or So we've got the engineer and South Island PSD here with us today. They're probably better to answer that. I can answer that everything inside of this building structure here is enclosed. Um, from what we've read in the narrative and some studies that have gone along with it, some of these other facilities will have uh structures or some sort of uh enclosure over them. So, but I will let them speak to that if you would like them to answer maybe you could better answer that or or John which whichever. All the structures are enclosed except for the cooling facilities which is on the front on the

side of Dunigans. Sir, could you identify yourself for the record, please? Say that again. Could you identify yourself for the record? I'm John Peak with Thank you, Miss Commissioner. Why? Does that answer your question? Other questions? Uh, anybody here? Okay, I think we're good. Let's uh find out was do we have any signups from the portal, Hannah, on this particular topic? We do. We have six people that would like to speak. This is a reminder that even when chair asks if people would like to speak, we do need a form filled out. There is apparently a particular order in which they would like to speak. So, whoever is speaking first, if you'll stand up. Good afternoon. My name is Benjamin Shelton. I go by Ben. Um I'm an attorney with Shelton Law Firm and I represent Hilton Had Island Motorccoach Resort. I'm also speaking as a property owner within the um Wex on a personal level um in the village of Wexford. Um first of all, thank you all for your service. Um that doesn't get said enough. This is a Tuesday afternoon and I know you all have businesses or other things you can do. So I have a business myself. Thank you. Um, first of all, on behalf of HN Island Motor Coach Resort, um, this is an industrial water treatment plant. Um, and it's being built in an area surrounded by property which is designated for use as primary which is being used for primary and vacation residential use. Okay. Um, as you heard Mr. Lau state, the initial approval of this was a minor development. However, um there's litigation going on on this. No bones about that. Um it has resulted in extreme noise disturbances, quality of life disturbances, health disturbances, and also um there's also

generators that are constantly run or often run um in different stages that also put out fumes that are health concerns. Um while you know that Wexford is a residential community, um so is Hilton Head Island Motorccoach Resort. Um all owners within these there's 401 property owners in that community um are free residential use. They deserve to be able to enjoy their residential property as much as any other property owner and Hilton Head Island citizens. Please review the studies carefully that have been presented. We presented also a study, an acoustic study of our own um that shows that as built, our study shows that this cooling center and the generators particularly um would exceed Hilton Head Island noise audiences. I understand you're not passing any recommendation. I don't really necessarily agree with that, but I'm just stating that that's the course that has been set for this. Um but this is the only forum that if anyone's here for Hild Island Motor Coach Resort, will you please stand? Thank you. Please be seated. This is the only forum that these folks have been provided um where they each had public they had individual notice of. So that's why it's so important for them to be here understanding that this commission does not necessarily have a vote in the matter at this stage. We pray that if you ever do have a vote in the matter that you would consider these residents and citizens, many of them vote here, pay property tax. All of them pay property taxes here. Many of them vote here on Hilad Island. are placed into consideration. Now, on a personal level, I just like to state that I own um suite E6 of the village of Wexford. It's 1000 William Hilton Parkway. You can almost throw you can hit a golf ball there almost if you're a good golfer. Um and yeah, I can hear boring within my office that actually hums my walls. At times I'm wondering, is there is is is my HVAC system acting up? Is there something going on? Um we don't know

exactly how long that's going to be going on. may be temporary. I certainly hope it is. Um, but the long-term consequences of there's a generator is going to be operating there for some time. Um, the generator fumes, the diesel fumes come into the back of my office. You can smell it into the back door of my office from time to time. That's the concern I have with this development. This this now Hilton Head needs water. We understand that. We need to come up with creative ways. But at the very least, if this plan ever comes to fruition, which it appears it is, that we pray that the town would require the developers of this, which is the public service district, to have close proximity barriers, not just some of these enclosures are not going to enclose the acoustic treatments enough. close proximity barriers around all of the acoustic features of this property so that all adjacent property owners are not impacted. Thank you so much. I probably outran my time, but I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Uh I understand there are five other people would like to speak with us. Whoever's next, please. Once again, we need your name for the record, sir. Thank you. Um my name is Owen Bryant. I am a resident of Hilton Head Island Motor Coach Resort and I live at 133 Arrow Road uh site 281. I'm here to represent the 41 taxpaying members of our resort who want to continue to enjoy a level of peace and quiet within our nature preserve. We're asking the town government to not allow Sipsit to build a plant without adequate protection from noise and security lighting spillover onto the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Uh your own design review board has replied to the application that a sound absorbing wall should be installed. The South Island Public

Service District has produced a sound model that is inadequate as justification uh that a well is not needed. We're offering proof today that this is not the truth. Please review and understand the modeling that we're providing. Your citizens, constituents, and taxpayers are dependent on you. Appreciate it. Thank you, sir. Appreciate your comments. Whoever is next, please. Hello, my name is Jeannie Kangas and I live at 133 Arrow Road, lot 285. I'm here today to comment on the proposed phase 2 design for the re reverse osmosis plant. I live adjacent to the project as do many of the people behind me today. We've had to suffer through phase one construction and drilling for almost three years. It's been miserable. The noise and vibration has affected our health and our properties. The noise became so bad that we spent $35,000 to do our own independent sound study. The results of that study from our engineers arpeggio revealed that the town and SIPid study from Wave Engineering was inaccurate and unreliable. I'm here today to request that you review in detail both sound studies that are being submitted to you for phase two. We believe the results of our study indicate an absolute need for sound mitigation walls around all the equipment and buildings and should be made part of phase 2 design and permit requirements. We completely understand the need for clean water for everyone, residents, visitors, guests, and businesses alike. We all expect fresh water to magically come out of the faucet every time we turn a knob or a handle. It has to come from somewhere. We understand that. We're here today to ask that you treat us with the same respect and consideration going forward as you would expect for your homes, your families, your neighbors, and your

neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate your comments. Yes, sir. Good afternoon. My name is Bud Grindle. I also live at 133 Arrow Road, site 282. I'm here to add information to the planning board's meeting. This project, the Sipsid project that we're all talking about, contains a history of broken promises. The town agreed with the South Island Public Service District to allow construction based on a faulty study from Wave of Engineering. We were promised that we would not be disturbed. We were 24 hours a day, seven days a week for months. That was painful. We were told that the town would keep us updated on the construction progress. We were not. This project is stretched on for 2 and 1/2 years now. When is it going to end? We have asked the code enforcement office to site the other noisy neighbors that we have such as the car wash, such as the new bar, tavern, whatever it is. They have not stopped the noise. How will they stop it? After this plant is built, they're not going to you're not going to shut it down. You can find them all you want, but it's not going to help. So we need the noise mitigated before the plant is built. Carefully review the study we are submitting. It clearly shows the information from wave engineering and sipsid is inaccurate. They have done a poor job predicting what the sound is going to be.

Our study proves that and provides a remedy that will bring this project into compliance with the town noise co codes. That's the least you should expect. This plan is surrounded by residents. Protect our peace and quiet. We want to come here. We want to enjoy the island, but we don't want to sit next to an industrial plant rattling our windows all the time. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Was there two more people I think to hear from any Mr. Dixon? Good afternoon. Good afternoon. My name is Sean Dixon, 133 Arrow Road, lot one 233. I hadn't done this since college. Me and my wife have experienced extreme nauseous from the generator that is being run every day that it does run. The drilling is noise. Whether it being causing the vibrations in the ground, I don't know. But I believe personally that it is the diesel generator that is rumbling the ground 24/7 when it's in operation. I personally last week was working because I work in the resort on RVs. I was working on Owen's coach. He's the closest one to the drill right now. I almost threw up and I'm standing on bare

ground. The sound did not make me want to throw up. I'm used to sound. I used to work on old cars grinding and beating and hammering. It's the vibration in the ground. Now, y'all say, "Well, he's crazy." Well, let me ask you a question. Have you ever been around a boombox car sitting at a red light and it vibrating your car and you can't wait to get away from it? Well, that's what it is. 247 every time a diesel engine is pouring out horsepower. Now, we all have motor homes. We're all used to diesel engines. We drive them. We go places. They don't make us sick. What makes us sick is the vibration and is a health issue. It's not just a livable issue. It is a health issue. It is a called a low frequency vibration. There are health studies done on it that affects your heart, that affects your eyes. When we leave the resort, it takes us three days to not feel like we are dizzy or nauseous. So when we travel, 3 days later, we feel better. When we come back, 3 days later, we're sick. That means a lot to me and my family. I ask you to don't know what we can do to stop it, but I do know there's ramifications that can be done with the generator that will not cause the vibrations that we feel in our resort. Thank you'all. Thank you, sir. Any any other speakers? Okay. Well, we will close the

public. Mr. Chairman. Yes. I'm sorry. Okay. Didn't see you. I was waiting I was waiting for the six speaker. My name is Walter Nester and I'm an attorney with the Burr Foreman Law Firm and we represent the South Island Public Service District and appreciate your role, Mr. Chairman, what you've identified in the commissioners. Uh as Mr. Shelton said, there is active litigation between the uh the Motors Resort and the public service district. And we have we also have experts and we also have studies in engineering and we're just going to leave it to the litigation. There's we don't feel that there's anything more to be said but we do appreciate uh your your role here today. Thank you sir. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. We will close the public hearing and we're getting close to adjournment. Is there anything else that needs to come before the commission today? Uh seeing none, we will stand adjourned.