Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Today's meeting was noticed in compliance with the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act. This commission acts in review and recommending capacity for comprehensive plan amendments, text amendments to the Charleston County Zoning and Land Development Regulations Ordinance Rezonings and Plan Developments. The Commission has decision-making authority on road name change requests, public project reviews, appeals of administrative decisions on final plats and subdivision matters, as well as other matters pursuant to Chapter 29, Title VI, Section 6-29-340 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina as amended. If you wish to speak today, you should have filled out the form in front of the doors. Okay, so we did that. All right. So I have with us members of the commission are to my right, Pete Pelotas, Vice Chair, Luke Morris, Gary Lesane, and Adam McConnell. To my left, we have Warwick Jones, Logan Davis, and Susan Cox. Also seated to my right is Commission Attorney Mark Bell, and seated to my left, Andrea White, Interim Director of Zoning and Planning. Would you please introduce the staff?

We have Nikki Grimble, our interim deputy director, Marshae Miller, who will be presenting today, Chris Cohn, who will present the subdivision report, and Stephanie Ando.

In order to get a good recording of the meeting for the minutes, please speak loudly and clearly into your microphones and don't talk over one another. The first item on the agenda is approval of the Planning Commission meetings from April 13, 2026. Is there a motion and a second?

Move to approve. Second.

Okay. Call the roll, please.

Commissioner Davis.

Abstain. I was not present.

Commissioner Lesane.

Aye.

Chair Floyd. Aye. Commissioner Jones.

Aye.

Commissioner McConnell.

Aye.

Commissioner Morris.

Aye.

Vice Chair Pilatos.

Aye.

Commissioner Cox. Aye. The ayes have it.

The next item on the agenda is the Major Subdivision Preliminary PLAT Report. Say that fast. Chris Cone is going to present.

Do you want me to enlarge this or is that full screen? I don't even see it. Sorry. Just so everybody can see it. Thank you.

All right. So subdivision preliminary report application for SBDV03422, TMS number 2870000-305, 3914 Savannah Highway in the West Ashley-Johns Island area in the St. Andrews District. Zoning is R4 with highland acreage of 3.56 acres. So the property is located off Savannah Highway near the Red Top area. The subdivision will consist of 14 lots and several HOA areas. The parcel has wetlands, DES critical line, and several grand trees. The property is zoned R4, which allows for four dwelling units per acre. Some lots will meet waterfront standards, and the lots will be serviced by public water and sewer. The access to the property is a 50-foot private right-of-way.

Is that it?

That's it.

Okay. Well, thank you. Any questions from the Commission?

Susan? Just as an additional help for those of us with poor memories. Sorry. In having a larger map, you know, like you guys do for other things with a circle around the area in question would be lovely.

Sure, I'll put that in as a comment for future.

Thank you. Anything else? As a reminder, the Planning Commission workshop featuring a presentation and discussion regarding potential amendments to the Charleston County Zoning and Land Development Regulations Ordinance will begin immediately following the conclusion of today's Planning Commission meeting. There's no further business before the commission today, so this meeting stands adjourned, and we will hold our next meeting on July 13, 2026, at 2 p.m. here in council chambers.

Okay.

Welcome to the June 8th, 2026 Charleston County Planning Commission workshop. The workshop has been noticed in compliance with the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act. The first item on the agenda is a presentation and discussion regarding potential amendments to the zoning and land development regulations ordinance.

Marcia, would you please? Good afternoon. So today we're just going to be doing a review and discussion of some proposed or potential ZLDR amendments. We'll be discussing resource extractions, non-jurisdictional wetlands, and septic inspection requirements. Here is an overview of some of the amendments that we will be discussing today. I do want to particularly, so just a little background on resource extractions. So they are allowed by special exception in some of the zoning districts within the county. And we do have a two and a half mile radius that applies that if there is already an operation within a two and a half mile radius, another operation cannot be permitted within that area. We have here on the size as point one that we are looking to apply that two and a half mile radius, of course, within unincorporated Charleston County, but also for adjacent municipalities and adjacent counties as well. The adjacent counties would be a new, would be an addition to what we already currently allow. The First Amendment here, we're going to discuss the signage requirements. So here we would like to update the existing signage requirements to address the prohibition of engine brake compression retarders, which are commonly known as jake brakes. We have received several noise complaints related to jake braking, particularly near mining operations. So current regulations require a sign at the hall road entrance that lists a contact name and phone number for the operation. Here we are recommending a sign with two display faces to ensure visibility from both directions that will still include the contact name and phone number, but also a clear statement that prohibits the use of the Jake breaks. We do have some proposed language here in red. I just want to state again that this is just potential language and it is not the final language. So the next amendment we're looking at, so currently in the ordinance we don't include any operational periods for resource extraction activities, but we're proposing to establish a maximum five-year operational period with reclamation activities to be able to continue to up to two years beyond that five-year maximum to conclude any of the mining activities. The Board of Zoning Appeals would be able to approve a one-time, two-year extension beyond the initial maximum five years. However, if that extension is granted, it would not extend the overall timeframe. So the reclamation activity would still need to be completed within that allowed two years, which would give them a total of seven years. So here we have, we have encountered situations where operations have obtained approvals from DES for expansions, but they did not return to the county to secure the required permits for those expansions. So we would like to, Clarify that whenever a DES permit for resource extraction is issued, modified, or amended, a corresponding county zoning permit is also required. Failure to obtain the required zoning permit will constitute a violation of the ordinance, and the planning director may issue a five-year denial on any resource extraction permit applications associated with the subject parcel. And then here, we currently, the ordinance does allow special exemptions for residential uses, bonafide agricultural uses, and also recreational uses. We are proposing to remove recreational uses from eligibility for this exemption, and they would have to just go straight to the BZA for an approval. But we would also like to clarify the conditions under which residential and bona fide agricultural uses qualify. So for an exemption to apply, the residential or the bona fide agricultural use must already be established on the lot before a site plan review application referencing the amendment is submitted. A use would be considered exempt if either the residential use already has an existing or newly issued zoning permit and a certificate of occupancy. And then for the bona fide agricultural use, they have an existing permit or a new zoning permit issued for bona fide agricultural use that meets the definition in Chapter 12 of the ordinance. Now, this is going to be regarding notifications. Currently, for resource extractions that are applying for the exemptions, that qualify for the exemptions, we don't have any notification requirements. Here we're proposing to add notification requirements for all resource extraction use applications. So once the resource extraction site plan review application is approved or approved with conditions, a notification would be sent to all surrounding property owners within 500 feet. In addition, we would send notifications to interested parties, also post a sign on the parcel, and then publish a newspaper ad. And so here we have a few discussion points, but at this point we're going to open it up. for the Commission if you have any feedback for us regarding those resource extraction amendments.

Just generally, what prompted the revisions to these sections?

We've been hearing a lot of questions and complaints from the public, especially for the ones that are allowed the exemption from special exception because there is no notification procedure for those types of mines. So folks don't know that they're happening until they see the trucks coming onto the properties to start digging.

And those are smaller.

Those are the ones that you can do. Each year you can do two acres for up to a maximum of five acres, but they have to be in the end for bona fide ag, recreation, or residential use. So, and regarding the notifications, you know, these are all the types of things we can do. We were sort of thinking we might do like we did with the short-term rentals recently, where we would send a notification by email to the interested parties, would be our notification method. But that's, you know, we wanted to get some direction from that on, from Planning Commission.

Sorry, can I just ask, who are the interested parties as it's defined in there?

Yes, we have 2,000 or 3,000 interested parties. Yeah, they're by area. Yeah, and anyone can go online and sign up at any time for any list they want to be on.

Well, just a simple question. 2.5 mile radius for an adjacent county. So that's 2.5 miles going into the other county, right?

It's from the mine property. If someone comes in for a site plan, puts in a site plan review application for a property to mine it, from that property, two and a half miles around it, sometimes that will go into another county. Okay, I get you. So the question is, do we want to count the mines that are in the other counties, or should we only count those within Charleston County?

My answer is yes, you should. But anyhow, my second question, if I may. I understand what a farming use could be for irrigation or whatever, but what is a residential use?

Like single family residences, if someone comes in to get a zoning permit.

Okay, but we're talking about the excavation. What is the residential use of the, I mean, you're using it for filling in other properties. Is that what you mean?

Well, sometimes people want to dig for a pond and they want to haul the dirt off site because they don't want it on site. They can't use it on site.

So they want a pond?

They want a pond, yeah. Okay, okay.

Thank you. Yep. Just to comment on the duration and the max, it looks like it's seven-year cap. I guess my concern there is if a mine is open and being productive, just whether it makes sense to shut it down and have another one created down the road if it's, you know, as long as somebody's not sitting on it just to prevent somebody else from operating it. That's it.

And that's maybe something we could allow maybe as part of their request. Since they have to go to special exception to BZA anyways, maybe if they want to go longer than that and they know they want to go longer than that, they could request that the BZA approve that.

That was my same question as well. I appreciate that, Pete. So, bye.

Adam.

want to make sure we're defining resource extraction. Is it only mining, essentially? Is it forestry? Is it other natural resources?

It's mining and taking the dirt off site.

Yeah. And I think I remember when we first started this a few years back. Have we got any feedback from the industry at all about the impacts of the original ordinance on their operations?

Not from the industry. And we have only a handful of folks who are waiting to mine a property, and they can't because the two and a half mile radius hasn't opened up. But I wouldn't say that we've had any weigh-in from the industry.

I was just curious. Thank you.

I just want to say given abuses that we have seen up in the on dollar area. I'm happy to see that there are provisions to make sure that it is a bona fide ag or residential use prior to commencement of of the digging because there these are needed clarifications to the exception. I remember when Mr. Boykin Councilman Boykin who proposed this, his thought was, if you have agricultural land and you would like to dig a pond for your cows, you should be able to do that without jumping through a lot of hoops. Unfortunately, we have had people who have taken advantage of that with no ag use, no residential use, no recreational use. and just come in and start to dig. So I'm happy to see these. Personally, I don't think two and a half miles is enough. And when you say posted notice, I assume that's a sign on the property?

Yes, that is a sign on the property.

The other thing, this is a whole lot to, I know I'd emailed earlier, this is too much for me to absorb in one, thank you, Marsha, but one very quick reading. So I trust that should this go further down the road, we will get written copies of this.

Yeah, we just wanted to get some feedback from you, which we've, this is great, this is very helpful, so that we can draft the amendments and bring them to you in the future.

I'm not sure I can even give you appropriate feedback without having seen this first. It's just a lot.

We can do a workshop next month as well and talk about it some more after you've had some more time to sort of look at it and digest it and think about it.

Living next to one of these, it's clearly a topic that I think needs to be addressed because it is, I don't think that the county or the state charge enough taxes for the damage that these guys do to the roads alone, much less everything else. So thank you for addressing this issue, particularly with respect to the exception.

Is the recreational use, is that anything other than a pond?

Yeah, recreational can be a lot of different things, like indoor-outdoor recreation, shooting ranges, all that kind of stuff falls under that category. So that is one thing we were thinking about, taking out recreation and just letting those, no matter what size they are, go special exception as one of our amendments. Okay. Lori?

I would endorse everything that Susan said. I would just add something from my own experience. God, open-cut mining, the regulations that companies have to go through for filling back the holes that they dig in the ground, I mean, it's held up projects for years, and I think of some of the laws that are applied not in the US and Australia and other places. You know, what we have is... how shall I say, tame compared to some of the restrictions that are placed in mining companies. So anyhow, I just think that we need to tighten it up. And again, I need to look at it more. I don't have anything meaningful more to say.

One of the issues that we've had with the King track line, which has expanded to you know, 6070 acres and on. Is with the dewatering. Apparently there's no restrictions from the heck. I'll call them that forever, but DS on the dewatering because it de waters into a canal that flows directly into. the Intracoastal Waterway, which connects to Bulls Bay, which is a pretty sensitive and important ecological system. And the problem with that, of course, is they're supposed to submit a monthly report to the Bureau of Water, but as we found out when they applied for this permit to expand this mine, that often they don't. The Bureau of Water does nothing. And, you know, again, it's the foxguard in the henhouse. It's the developer themselves who are submitting these. And, you know, we were not successful in getting a stay on this one through the administrative law review process. But it is a sensitive ecological area, and I think there should be something in there that acknowledges that. If there's something that the county could do in addition to have stricter standards than DES, given where we live, I think it would be important.

Could we add that to the wetlands?

I guess I'm just a little murky on the special exception portion of it. So I understand, like, basically it's for, I guess, taking any material off the property, right? And so that's why it's a special exception, like, as a part of construction?

If you're... When you're doing it as part of a construction project, not digging a mine, but dirt coming off site as part of a construction, that's one thing. But this is when you're mining dirt to take off the property and sell for construction, that type of thing. The sale of it, that triggers the... Well, the thing that triggers it is you're digging the hole and taking the dirt off site. If you were digging the hole and keeping the dirt on site, then we wouldn't require you to go special exception. But when you're doing it as part of a residential subdivision project, that's something completely different. Yeah.

Thanks. On that note, I've seen this in the past where people are trying to do agriculture or other similar uses, and they run into an issue where they can mine the dirt, but they have to leave it on their property. and i just wonder about that because i mean we don't want to get into the business of selling people buying property saying it's one thing and selling the dirt but at the same time i i almost feel like it would be better if somebody is meeting that bona fide agriculture or some of these other exemptions they mine the dirt and then they do get paid For the dirt to be removed, and the reason why is it would offset the cost of removal of it. And so right now you would have a restriction of you gotta essentially pay somebody to remove that dirt from your site. Rather than if they were paying, you would just offset. They can take the dirt off site. I mean, what was the? Is it to avoid? Kind of a workaround. Is that why you have always not allowed the sale of dirt for those uses?

They can. If the mining operation is going to be in two-acre or less segments, up to five acres total, and each of those segments is only a year in length, they fall under the exemption to allow them to do it if they're bona fide ag, meaning they're getting the preferential ag exemption. Then they can do it, and they don't have to get the special exception approval. If they are outside of those parameters and they still want to do it, they can. They just have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals and get an approval from the board. So they can do it.

They can sell the dirt?

Yeah, it does. The issue is the dirt coming off the site.

Oh, okay. I think I had somebody that had a misunderstanding of that in the past. Okay. Okay.

Yeah.

That was one other point on this. I'm sorry.

It's okay.

The posting of phone number and name of an operator, is that standard practice in other jurisdictions?

I don't know the answer to that, but we have been requiring that for quite some time. That's always been in our ordinance. That's something the board typically puts on there. That way, there's someone that can be contacted if there are issues, dirt coming off the site, if they're not watering it properly, that type of thing.

OK.

Anybody else have any questions, comments? OK. Is there anybody from the public who wishes to speak on this issue? Come on up. Give us your name and where you live. And did you sign up out front?

My name is Stephanie Robinson.

Address is 5137 Celtic Drive, North Charleston. I'm here on behalf of the Coastal Conservation League, and I just want to voice support for all of the proposed changes, given some of the issues that we've had in the past in McClellanville and On Da and some other areas that the clarifications, I think, are really helpful. so that we can better know what's happening in the Lowcountry. And I think the notices are really important so that immediate neighbors know what's going on before it starts. Thank you.

Thank you.

Is this Kenti? I'm sorry. I'm saying your name completely wrong. Oh, for the next, okay.

Mr. Zlogar, did you want to talk about this one?

Okay. All right, so the next couple of topics are just going to be high-level overview. We just want to bring it to your attention of some changes that are happening and then get a little bit of feedback. But first, we're going to talk about federal wetland jurisdiction changes after the Sackett versus the EPA 2023 case. So in 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision regarding SACET versus EPA significantly narrowed the scope for which wetlands and waters the federal government can regulate under the Clean Water Act. So basically, under this decision, A wetland is only regulated by the Clean Water Act if it has a continuous surface connection to a navigable water. So I just want to give you a little background. There was a couple who purchased a parcel and they were beginning to build their home. and the EPA issued a compliance order stating that they had federally protected wetlands on the site. The couple disagreed, and they took it to the federal courts, and then the federal courts determined that the wetlands that they had on their site would be considered now non-jurisdictional by their decision, which states that the current wetlands have to have has to be connected to traditionally navigable waters and there cannot be a distinction between them. So with this decision, many wetlands in South Carolina would no longer fall under federal protection. So what we are doing is we have looked at a couple of other jurisdictions and we've also spoken with the Coastal Zone Management Consistency And I just want to go over how the coastal zone management consistency, just a quick overview how they review these non, what would be now considered non-jurisdictional wetlands, and then talk a little bit about some of these other jurisdictions. So the CZC, reviews and provides certifications for projects to ensure they align with state and federal laws to protect coastal resources. As of now, the CDC is reviewing non-jurisdictional wetlands, but only if an application is triggered by federal funding, federal activities, federal permits, or a state permit that's within the eight coastal counties. Otherwise, if it does not trigger a need for any permits under these conditions, it would not fall under their review. The town of Bluffton and Allendale both passed wetland protection ordinances in 2025. The town of Mount Pleasant recently passed one in April of this year. and Georgetown County is currently in the approval process. I believe they have one final reading left before their ordinance is approved. A lot of these ordinances from the different jurisdictions are adding buffer requirements for the wetlands, but in the future when we come back, we would bring forth details of each of the ordinances from those jurisdictions. And if you guys have any questions, if I didn't cover it. And then this slide here just kind of gives a brief, short overview of what non-jurisdictional wetlands are.

Thank you. As you've stated, Marsha, we have had first reading, second reading. We've had a bunch of readings of a wetlands ordinance that does, in great part, include substantial buffers and doesn't allow disturbance within those buffers. And looking at Georgetown's, I think they said that about 48% of their county is wetlands. And we have just spent how many bazillions of dollars in Charleston for a water plan to keep the city from going under, yet we continue to allow filling of wetlands, disturbance of wetlands. And, you know, a single acre can absorb, what is it, one and a half million gallons of water over a short period of time. It just seems counterintuitive that we would allow fill and build and all of these activities that destroy our wetlands and then have to spend a whole lot of money on things to keep the place from flooding. We have a lot of really special places here in South Carolina and to not protect those to me seems exceedingly short-sighted and I hope that the county will indeed take significant steps to do way more to protect our wetlands because they're important for flooding reasons if you're just thinking about housing alone, but in addition to ecosystems. Just, I think that we would, if we allow people to pay the entire place over, I think we will regret it in future. Thank you.

Anybody else? Or should I move?

I remember reading about the Sackett case when they were like the decision hadn't been made yet. I can't remember the specifics. I was just like trying to Google really fast. But there was, if I remember correctly, something very similar to like it was almost like a ditch on their property or something like not something that people would. commonly think of as wetlands. So I think that whenever we do look at this, there may be some nuance in that regard. I just remember reading the article and being like, oh, dang, that does seem very heavy-handed, I guess. But yeah, so without really understanding what the other municipalities are looking at, I can't really weigh in beyond that. But I do think there's a bit of nuance to it as well.

Yeah. Oh, go ahead.

Just to address that, there are very, you know, I'm not a scientist. There are very specific criteria that you can look at that will determine whether or not something is a wetland, not just do they connect to another waterway. And so I think that that is important. In our ordinance, it's addressed by, I mean, you have to have it mapped and you have to have it looked at to see. So I think that that's probably not going to include a lot of our drainage dishes in the area. But, again, they're very specific criteria for determining what's a wetland.

Does the Almondaw ordinance use the same criteria as the Army Corps?

We do. Yes, I'm looking at Kinsey. We have largely adopted Skelp's suggested municipal or suggested ordinance because it was very thorough and very well put together, and it does describe. Yes, is the short answer. Did you say that? What was it? Skelp? The South Carolina Environmental Law Project.

SCILP. SCILP, yes, sorry.

So some of our next steps involve coordinating with other departments to determine where, if any, changes may best fit within the existing regulations. We're going to go through and we're going to review the other jurisdictions' ordinances across South Carolina and bring those back to you as well. And then the last step would be to draft any amendments to present before you for review in the future. Great. And then the last topic that we were going to discuss today is going to be septic inspection requirements. So we recently had some staff go to what was called a septic think tank. And it was basically an event. It was a one-day event that highlighted local level septic management strategies across South Carolina. And it was estimated that 40% of households in South Carolina are on septic systems. And the South Carolina Department of Environmental Services regulate septic systems, but they don't really have requirements for maintenance of the septic systems. So these are a couple of jurisdictions, which is the city of Folly Beach and then Greenville County that do have some septic requirement ordinances. A good majority of Folly Beach is on septic, except for their commercial corridor. And they do require a SEDS permit for any new construction, major renovations, or changes in occupancy. Mandatory baseline inspections are required for any property sales. So when there's an exchange of ownership, they do require those inspections. And then if a system fails, The SCDES evaluation must be completed within five days, and repairs should be initiated within five days of the evaluation. And then for Greenville County, their septic requirements apply to their unzoned areas of the county, which is their rural areas. And for subdivisions of 10 or more, lots... require one and a half minimum lot size per acre for septic systems. And then there's a minimum 50 foot repairing buffer as well. And then here we are proposing Charleston County to require baseline inspections for all additions, mobile home placements on existing septic systems and renovations that add additional bedrooms to have baseline inspections. And also any discussions at this time.

When you say baseline inspections, that means just for any new construction?

What we are proposing? So if someone's getting a zoning permit for new construction or whether it be like a mobile home placement moving from one lot to the next, we will require it for a zoning permit as part of that application requirement. Wow.

I'm afraid I know way more about septic than I ever thought I would. But just as, you know, informational for folks who haven't lived with this, there is no, there are no regulations with respect to septic. There's nothing that's in place to require any sort of inspection, periodic inspection. The DES has no idea how many there are and where they are because they do not keep records.

Are there records for the ones that they've already permitted?

No. I think they may keep them for a few years, but no. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of them in the state, and they have no idea where they are. particularly people who are moving here from other places or people who have never lived with the septic system they don't know it's you have to do stuff to it you have to inspect it periodically you have to have it empty the tank uh emptied periodically and they don't know until there's a you know caca in their yard that they notice and say oh gee this is a problem um I don't know who needs to do this, but somebody needs to get a better handle on this situation. There are major lawsuits outstanding in Bridges at Seven Lakes and UG and some other places where there has been failure of systems within a very short period of time of construction being completed. We've had similar situations in Allendale. Those are with the newfangled engineered systems that are coming online and that is the reason that some of these Developments have been able to to go in because they no longer require enough land for a regular traditional septic type anaerobic septic tank and a drain field and often replacement in case that drain field fails It is a better product and if you will, with the engineered systems if they work. Often they are not properly sited. They're not maintained. Most of the manufacturers for those don't require, because they can't, but nobody else does either, an annual maintenance. in order to keep them working effectively. It's usually not included in any HOA requirements and even if it is, who's monitoring, who's checking up on it? It's a big issue. As more and more of our rural areas are developed, Traditional septic tanks have their own issues, but the engineered ones have lots. And it's just something that someone needs to address. There needs to be better record keeping. There needs to be better information to the public as to the requirements of if you have a septic system, what you need to do. We also, in Ondar, are increasing our lot sizes. Well, we have a moratorium on housing period right now. And it is in large part because everything is on septic. And we've had one neighborhood where there have been failures within the first year of seven of 15 homes within the first year or two of occupation. And it's an issue. It's a big issue. And if we don't want caca in all of our waterways, we need to do something about it.

You've got a minimum of 1.5 acres. In an earlier discussion we had, I was told that there was quite a difference between the soil types in South Carolina, and obviously some is more porous than others. I'm just wondering why... Shouldn't the soil be tested for porosity, which I think counts in septic tanks? Because it might, speaking to Susan's comment, maybe you need more than 1.5 acres for an efficient system. I don't know. I'm not an expert. I might add that when I lived, perish the thought, living in New Jersey, we had a septic tank. And I have to say, we lived in the house for about 10 years, and we had no problem. When it was inspected, it was, of course, when we were selling the house. And, of course, it was right at the end of its life. Yay. Clearly, we need more inspections, and I go along with what you say. But I do think that we need a little more flexibility as to the minimum size lot, and some tests should be required. And I think they're required in other jurisdictions. I'm not sure.

Well, there's a PERC test, or there used to be a PERC test here. Yes, yes. But it's like, I think... I know where I live, some lots passed, and I don't know how because there's water sitting in them, except now we're in a drought. But, I mean, a lot of times there's water sitting in them all year, and they passed.

Another thing that is negligent in South Carolina laws, DHEC only requires a six-inch vertical distance separation from the drain field and the water table. We're the only state that I've seen, and I've looked at it all up and down the East Coast, that has that little. I think the next is 12 inches, which is still, in many instances, woefully insufficient, particularly when you have a fairly high water table, as we do in many areas. And most of the states, even Georgia... has 24 to 36 inches. So I hate to be behind Georgia, I have to tell y'all. But it's just, it is an area that, to my mind, the state has been very neglectful in addressing. And whatever we can do at the county level, even if it's just educating people as to what they need to do, it would be extremely beneficial.

I completely agree with you. You know, I would say that the engineered systems are a lot better. You know, they've made a lot of improvements. And typically before you go put in a septic tank, you know, you're required to send your geotech studies, your soil sample studies and things of that sort, you know, to get your permit to site exactly where it's going to go to ensure that you've got enough leach field and things of that sort. But I think that it's really less about the tank and truly more about the maintenance of the tank, just like it would be about the maintenance of your own traditional system under your house or trailer or whatever the case is with your pipes. You know, they go bad, too. You know, and we could have problems on the ground as well. So I think the question would be more of a legal question. in that are we able to mandate maintenance on homeowners after they purchased it? My understanding has been that we cannot. What we have done on a business side is we have implemented within the HOA documents a certain number of years built in where there are you know, mandated guaranteed maintenance that's being provided to the systems, you know, when people are buying the houses, you know, maybe that's, that's probably a really good thing to, to implement and to, you know, ask other people to do as well. It's through the HOA. So, you know, it's just kind of set up in there because it's one of the situations where you can't necessarily depend on the homeowner to actually get it done.

I was just surprised what was said, that it's permitted to put the system there 12 inches above the water table. The water table is something that can...

Sorry?

Six inches. That's incredible. I mean, the water table moves, depending on rainfall and what other things. My gosh, that's crazy.

Just to Gary's point, I think it's a wonderful first step, and I'm glad you guys are doing that. The issue, of course, you have with an HOA. As a former realtor, I know for a fact that the vast majority of clients never read the covenants and restrictions, so they have no idea. what they're buying or the requirements. They're more interested in, can I park my boat in the yard? But it would be wonderful. The only issue with that, of course, is then who enforces that at the HOA? How does that happen? And again, annual maintenance contracts are great, but it's difficult to, how do you require people to keep them up?

On that note, I wonder the same thing about any other property. If you had some enforcement mechanism and you were trying to require maintenance, which I don't know about that, but if you did, what is the remedy there? If somebody doesn't maintain it, then the county foots the bill and tries to go collect the money for that at some point when the property sells?

If your home is insured, the insurance company will make you do maintenance. I know from personal experience.

Yeah, I think about it maybe in the context of demolition. You have properties that have to get demolished. The county or city or whomever goes in, demolishes it, and they lean the property until it's transferred and they collect their money at that point. But I feel like that would be difficult. The county would foot the bill in collection, and that would probably be very slim. Yeah.

Well, I'm sure the reason this has not been done is because it is difficult. But just because something is hard doesn't mean it isn't something we all look to do.

As long as it's working, it's like out of sight, out of mind.

Exactly. And yeah, sorry, I don't know that raising our lot sizes to a, you know, one and a half acre lot size would be the right answer. You know, let's just say even in Johns Island, having a R4 zone property that has water but does not have sewer, You know, you go in and you buy that and then essentially, you know, you're getting less than one house to the acre now as opposed to what may wash out to be two and a half to three, you know, post-development really makes it completely unsustainable or if it's going to happen. I mean, the costs are just exorbitant and they're going to get passed down to the homeowner as well.

In Ondal where it's legal lots of record are obviously grandfathered, but sorry.

Well, the zoning's also not R4 right there either.

Yes, it is. I mean, the previous council in Ondal had very permissive zoning. I think the minimum lot size when Council changed was 12-5.

Anybody else? Just to let you know what staff was sort of thinking about with this was that we wouldn't require maintenance. We weren't thinking about going the minimum lot size for all the reasons that you guys have discussed. We were thinking more along the lines, if someone came in to get a zoning permit, on a property that has a septic and they wanted to reuse the septic and they needed a zoning permit to replace a mobile home, do an addition, do a different kind of construction, reuse the property in some way, we would require them to then go get a baseline inspection. And if it passed, fine, here's your permit, you know, as long as you meet all the other requirements. But if it doesn't pass, then withhold that zoning until they brought it up to standard was sort of the process we were thinking of.

Who sets the standard?

That's a good question. We'd have to work that out. Yeah. I think Adam has a question.

This is more of a legal question as well. Sorry, Mark. Could we require, at the point of sale, to record a deed, can we tie other requirements, inspection requirements, to the recording of that deed? I don't know. I'm not a lawyer, so that's why I'm asking you.

We would have to look into that, but trying to force someone to do something with their own system is going to be a very high bar that the county is probably not going to be able to meet. But we can look into things.

Are there other examples where we've done that, tried that? Are there other places where there's required inspections before you can close or record a deed on a property?

We typically, to my knowledge, haven't really gotten into deeds, but what we have mostly done is what Andrew's already mentioned, where if you are trying to get a new permit or use your property, you are required to make sure your property is at whatever today's code is for whatever type of thing, whether it's a building code, whether it's the county's new standard or something. If you are trying to redevelop or initiate a new use in your property, then you need to meet the current standards. Then the challenge becomes once we say, hey, you know, you have something existing out there and it's yours, trying to go back and force someone to do something on there with their own stuff is a challenge for the county to be getting into.

So you have to wait until it encroaches on your neighbor's property before you can actually do anything about it? Is that what you're saying?

My... my response to that would be i don't know if at the point of transaction sale i don't know if that would be the right point because what if you have somebody buying a property that they're going to demo a property put in a new system build a new house on that lot then they're you know, going in and they have somebody paying for inspection, getting it to code or up to par or whatever, when the point is they're going to pull it out and put a new system in. So I think at the permit stage would maybe be more.

I was just thinking, where do we have a touch point at the county? Because there's not many. And in residential areas, there's not changes of uses, probably not rezonings, and probably very few renovations that are going to go above 50% of the value of the property that require all the systems to come up to speed. So at what point, that's essentially still a non-standard that will not be met. to some extent. I'm just trying to figure out where there are other opportunities where we do have a touch point in the course of the history of a 50-year building, for instance.

Okay. Anything else?

That's it?

Okay. Nobody else has any questions, comments? Okay. All right.

So, Kenzie? I got it right this time. Sorry about that.

Good afternoon. My name is Kenzie Poole. I'm with the South Carolina Environmental Law Project. My address is 1423 Fairfield Avenue, Charleston. I'm a staff attorney with the ordinance that has been referred to. We shorthand SCALP, but it's South Carolina Environmental Law project. We have worked in several jurisdictions at this point, Ondaw being the most recent. We're working with Georgetown County. We've worked with Bluffton. My colleague Susie Carlson is also here with the Southern Environmental Law Center, and they've helped us with Bluffton and also worked in Mount Pleasant. So we've learned a lot through this process, and I didn't prepare formal comments because I wasn't sure exactly what the discussion would be on this today, but I did have a few comments I wanted to make. So the first comment that I'd like to make is on the jurisdictional versus non-jurisdictional point for wetlands. What that terminology means, jurisdictional, is what's going to be covered by a federal permitting program through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which means that they'll go through a wetlands delineation process and they'll look at soil typology, hydrology, and whether or not there is what is typical of wetland vegetation. So types of plants that like hydric wet soils to determine whether or not it's a wetland. Because of the decision and result of SAC-IT, there are wetlands that were formally protected at the federal level that are no longer going to be required to go through that federal permitting process through the Corps. What that means in practice is that we see that our freshwater isolated wetlands as well as our ephemeral streams are losing protections and they're not going to be covered by a permitting process, which means that they would be subject to fill without any kind of oversight or review. Here in South Carolina, we also don't have a state permitting program. We do have the coastal zone consistency certification process, which is tied to the coastal management program for the eight coastal counties. What that often looks like in practice is that DES discourages the fill of wetlands that are larger than an acre in size. But the language of that policy is rather permissive, so it doesn't necessarily prohibit DES from being able to still allow for that wetland fill. It's a little bit of a check on our coastal communities, but it doesn't necessarily prevent it or prohibit it entirely. especially for those that are under an acre, which oftentimes we see things come in for like 0.83 or 0.99 conveniently. So that's the difference between jurisdictional and jurisdictional. And CZC isn't quite covering it, but because we don't have that state permitting program, it offers the opportunity for local jurisdictions to really step in and tailor some regulations to that local constituency. So you guys have the ability to offer additional protections. And there's an incentive both for the beauty that we have here in South Carolina. I think it and feel it every day when I'm out and about driving across the multiple bridges that we have. And enjoying the marshes and I love it But there's also a cost incentive for you all to protect your wetlands because they provide that natural free flood infrastructure So when we fill the wetlands what we see is that flooding worsens oftentimes that's felt by our private homeowners and constituents here in Charleston County so that cost is still being put on to someone and And those can be and often are private property owners. So what we've seen in terms of the National Flood Insurance Program, which is through FEMA, is that those claims have gone up and up and up as more and more fill has happened for wetlands. So we're exacerbating already prone areas that experience a lot of flooding to even more flooding. So here in just Charleston County since 2015, the National Flood Insurance Program has spent over $115 million in insurance claims to combat flooding. So it's very high. There is an incentive, though, if there are more stringent floodplain management standards at the local level, then that locality can achieve a better community rating score, which can lower the premiums placed on that insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program. So your constituents the private homeowners here in Charleston County can see that cost go down through the community rating system. And who doesn't like to see that? So there's a lot of benefits to protecting them. And because we've been going through this process with other jurisdictions, I just wanted to offer that we're here as a resource. If you all have more questions as you're going through an amendment process, I'm really encouraged to see that you guys are having this conversation and considering amendments. We're here if we can be of help at all. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Johns Logar.

Thank you.

The Johns Logar 5520 at Frisco Lane on behalf of the Johns Island Task Force. I sent you two letters from the task force, one on the wetlands and one on the septic systems. With regards to the wetlands,

What she said?

OK. So I'll address the septic systems. A couple of things. Minimum lot side, it was a question about the R4. I know in Johns Island, all the R4 is within the urban growth boundary, within the sewer service boundary. So they already have access to sewer. So it shouldn't be an issue with regards to septic. So it may be a moot point on that particular one. You know, one of the things that you were talking, there was a lot of discussion about, well, six inches. We think it's six inches. We think they come out here and do this. We think they do that. I'd recommend that for the next workshop, you all have somebody from DES and somebody from the Charleston County, you know, permitting department come and tell you exactly what it is. Because I know when we built our house 10 years ago, somebody from DES came out and they found a piece of land of, and they gave the builder a piece of paper with a sketch on it and said, put it here. And as far as I know, that was the last we ever saw of anybody relative to our septic system. But that's just my experience. I think it'd be great for you guys to know what the actual experience is and how they actually do it. So I recommend that you have somebody come by, both DES and both the county come by and tell you how it really works. You know, there's a lot of things you were talking about, how the touch points when you do it. And I agree with Mr. McConnell that when you sell it as a touch point, there's also the issue of, you know, if they're going to demo it. I think that's a nuance you can address, but it really is the key touch point in addition to when you're building it, when you're selling it. I would love the fact that, you know, DES recommends you inspect the septic system once every year or two. require you to do it, they recommend it. So the fact that they're not being inspected, it'd be great if you all said every two years, but I think that's unreasonable. And I think the biggest issue there is if some folks that can't afford it suddenly have to have a $20,000 or $30,000 septic system replaced, that's unreasonable without a large fund in place, which I don't think is going to happen. So I think trying to use those touch points as much as you can. The other touch point, though, is we're talking about residential here. But there's also businesses on septic systems, including short-term rentals. And those you certainly could say every year or two years you need to have yours inspected. Not unlike a grease trap. You already have requirements that grease traps must be inspected. So this is no more different than that, I believe. not being a lawyer. So I think there are a lot of things that you can look at here relative to a holistic view of all these issues. But at the end of the day, something has to happen, whether it's with regards to non-jurisdictional wetlands or the issues with septic. And let me just tell this story. We had a neighbor since passed, an older woman, that her septic system didn't work properly. So she basically just had the washing machine go out into the yard. It was gray water, so that was good it was gray water. But there's no way she could afford to spend the $20,000 or $30,000 to do that. So kind of that's the reality I'm trying to explain to you, that there's what we might think about in terms of what's on a piece of paper, but the reality is there's issues out there and that we need to address them. Thank you very much.

Stephanie Robinson, did you want to say anything else?

I'll just add that the Coastal Conservation League also strongly supports the model ordinance that the SCELP has developed. Please consider that as a good template.

Thanks.

Anything else? All right. Anybody got any questions or comments? Adam.

Quick comment. I know that Megan Clark, who's the interim director of planning at the Cog, now that Captain Bosch has retired, is passionate about this and does a lot of work in other rural areas in Dorchester and Berkeley County. She might be a good person to touch base with on this. She thinks a lot about it. When she was in Maryland, I think she helped with the ordinance statewide on

Or is that septic? Or what ones are low?

Oh, it's on the septic issue. It's like one of those things. Okay.

I'm not sure about septic.

We should all be.

Yes. Okay.

All right. If there's no further business, this workshop stands adjourned. As a reminder, the Planning Commission will hold its next regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, July 13th at 2 p.m. in Council Chambers.

Adjourned.

Adjourned.