Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, we'll call the July meeting of the planning commission to order. 5 o'clock Eastern Daylight Time. I don't think we'll need a roll call. I think we have actually uh everybody in attendance tonight. So, thanks for making making the time. Um, approval of the agenda. We'll call for motion to approve the agenda or possibly any uh any change. I move to approve. Second. Okay. Motion made and seconded. All those in favor say I. Any opposed? Agenda is approved and the same for the minutes of the June meeting of the planning commission. Any edits or changes to be made there? If not, we'll call for a motion to approve that as well. Okay. Motion made by Mr. Davis. Second. Second also by Mr. All those in favor say I. Any opposed? Great. So, Mr. Stone will move to planning commission recommendations. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good evening, uh, planning commission. We have seven items that were reported on to full counsel. We have the first reading of the watermark plan development PD amendment. It was for the Bowman Road car rental office use. That was a tie vote at council. No action was taken and that will be back at the August council meeting for first reading again. First reading for 724 1724 Leanon Lane that was uh approved at first reading to be annexed and zoned AB. First reading for the reszoning of a 66 acre parcel on Highway 17 that was approved to first reading for AB zoning to remain within the Sweet Grass Basket Overlay District.

And then we have first reading for annexation and CC zoning of 2965 North Highway 17 and first reading approval for the ordinance for the 5-year update to the comprehensive plan that was approved at first reading. These last two are final readings. That was an annexation um and a CC zoning for a 0.96 acre tract off of Boston Road and that was approved. And as we also have the final reading uh for annexation and CC zoning on the five parcels off of Highway 17 that was deferred. So if you have any questions uh that's all I have at this time. Glad to answer anything you have. Great. Any questions for Mr. Stone on these uh on this topic? Okay. Thank you, sir. And again confirming that we received all correspondence within the policy. Yes, sir. Um, all correspondence has been received and I would like to bring to your attention that next to your name plate is correspondence from the Municipal Association of South Carolina. They're just reminding you of your continuing education requirements that is required by the state. Um, we'll be sending out um more information on eligible courses that you could be taking. If if you're um new, then you will be required to take your six-hour um orientation. If if it's your second, third um year, then you're going to be doing your three-hour uh continuing education. So, uh we'll continue to work together to kind of get those um completed. And if again, if if y'all find anything that you would like to do jointly as a commission, we we can try to accommodate that. Great. Thanks for that off. appreciate your your reminders and also sharing some of the curriculum options as well. Um, okay. So, now is the time

for general public comment. We've got kind of a a light group here uh this evening, but since we don't have public hearings on the agenda, this will be the time for anyone to speak on any topic uh in general or or some of the other topics that we have um tonight on um uh building heights as well as uh you know demolitions and others. Anyone from the public? Okay, we will close the uh general public comment period. Uh okay, 7A, street name approval for towns at Carolina Park. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this is a street name approval request from the towns at Carolina Park for uh street names of Abundance Lane and Bountiful Bend. This is the master plan um that was approved a couple years ago. Um they are requesting now street names um to comply with uh 911 dispatch and the county county has signed off on these names. It's kind of a formality for commission to to approve those. Okay, great. We take a motion to move to approve. I'll second. Okay. All those in favor say I. I'm sorry. Who made the motion? I did. Motion. Thank you. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion passes. Okay. 7B um staff presentation and discussion regarding the heights of detached accessory structures. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Planning Commission. Um speaking of webinars, and uh Mr. Bennett, you shared it, but there's one a great one tomorrow. Unfortunately, it wasn't before tonight, but um through the Maryland Association, and it's actually about ADUs and how other municipalities have um have dealt with those. So, I don't have that as ideas for you tonight, but we do have some additional information based on

last month's discussion, what came out of that. So, I kind of wanted to start with some numbers and Miss Mans, you had some great um suggestions. So, we tried to come back with some numbers and also some comparisons and as to what some other uh cities similar to ours are doing. And so, I want to start with um some numbers as far as accessory structures. So from 2023 to current through the entire town uh we had 371 total detached accessory structures um three 38 ADUs and so 333 other and those those consisted of detached garages uh pavilions without a lot of outdoor kitchens pool cabanas pool houses workshops we had green houses and I included pergolas too. The only thing I excluded from that list as I went through the spreadsheet was, you know, like uh a stand for pool equipment. I I excluded smaller things, but anything larger that really kind of qualified as a structure, I included in that. And then when you narrow it down to the old village historic district and the neighborhood preservation over Did you have a question, Mr. Okay, I'm sorry. when you narrow it down to um to that area, you had 131 total accessory with 22 of those ADUs. And so the 109 were the other um those same types of structures. So that's kind of the numbers for the past two and a half years. Um again, you know, we talked about our requirements for detached accessory structure. So I wanted to reiterate those and then I was going to compare um Savannah, Georgia and Wilmington, North Carolina. So for the town we have we've consolidated ADUs and and detached accessory structures and we call them major residential accessory structures. Again you know it's that six foot side and

rear um setback height 25 ft and then we have there we go and maximum 850 square foot for the um conditioned space. Um, some other provisions that we have in the town is that you can only have you can have more than one detached accessory structure as long as you comply with all of your other development standards, but you can only have one ADU per lot. Um, maximum size 850. Um, that along with all other structures are subject to the building coverage and the impervious surface. And then when you have an ADU, either the e the owner has one or the other has to be owner occupied. That is our requirement with the town that and it's that has been in place since 2010. If you have an ADU, the owner has to live in one or the other. And then last, the occupancy of an ADU is limited to no more than three persons. Um so Wilmington, North Carolina, a couple of these were interesting. Um I'll start with the maximum height. Um 35 ft uh maximum building. Now, this will come into play when we get to our next discussion, but Wilmington for their just a lot for their principal structure, they have a maximum building footprint and it's um 50%. So, 50% of the total lot area. Again, that kind of comes into play in our next discussion. Um your side and rear lot for a detached accessory is five feet as opposed to our six feet. And then you have um the provision that the the accessory structure shall not exceed the height of the principal structure. And you're going to see that um as a theme. A lot of municipalities have that in their ordinance when it comes to detached accessory structures. Um total combined I have this a little bit larger on the next one. So I'll I'll hold off on that. The maximum number of accessory structures in buildings in Wilmington, you only get two. One can be an ADU, the other can be just a garage

or what have you. Um, swimming pools do not count towards that number. The gross total square footage of all accessory buildings cannot exceed 100% of the gross floor area. So those two detached accessory structures together can't exceed the gross floor area of your primary structure. And then last, um, this kind of surprised me, but ADUs, um, the ADU itself cannot exceed 50% of the gross floor area and then or 1,200 square feet. So they're they have they allow a larger size if it if it meets that 50% than we do. Recall ours is 850 square feet. Um, Savannah, Georgia, their table wasn't very clear, so I just pulled it out in the text. Maximum building coverage is 40%. So all accessory structures are subject to that. within all the residential zoning districts, the floor area of an accessory structure shall not exceed 40% of the floor area of the principal building. So just like Wilmington who said 50%, they have 40%. We've never had anything like that. So I thought that was kind of interesting and something to point out is that that there is that max the,200 square feet or in this one I I forget. I guess I didn't put it in here, the maximum size, but in no Oh, here it is. Not to exceed 700 square feet, but in no case can it exceed that percent that 40% of the principal building. So, that's an extra provision that that we've never had in our ordinance that that both of these municipalities do have. The building footprint of the ADU shall be a maximum of 40%, like I said, can't exceed 700. So, it's a little bit smaller than ours. Uh, can contain no more than one bedroom. uh cannot exceed 25 ft in height or the height of the principal structure, whichever is less. And then any portion of an ADU over 15 feet has to meet a 15t rear setback. I thought that was interesting. They didn't have a side

setback, but they had uh an increased rear setback. So, those are just uh that's a snapshot of what some of these other municipalities have with regards to, you know, their their standards for their um detached accessory structure. So, this is going to be a little bit repetitive of what we did last time, but I I tried to put it in a table to show what it would look like. And I I think I understood we we traded some emails and and uh and what came out of the last meeting, but I think what overall what what would like you would like to see is lower the detached accessory structures, particularly in the old village and the neighborhood preservation overlay district. Um, I think you'd like to go back to 20 feet with a half story maximum. Uh, site all detached accessory structures to the side or the rear. And then for those structures perhaps that are allowed to go over um over the 20 feet, if you were to keep that 20 feet or the 25 ft, then you would increase the side setback. So the taller you go, the bigger the setback you have. Um, so what I've tried to do is kind of capture that in a table and I I wanted to get your feedback on whether I heard this right and and and if not, you know, to to get that right. But you can see I've I've broken it out into the three areas and I I've got the old village, I've got the neighborhood preservation overlay district, and real quick I want to remind you what that is. So So the old village of course is clearly defined through here. The neighborhood preservation district, the way it's defined in our current code is Old Mount Pleasant, uh, The Groves, uh, Cooper Estates, Bay View Acres, and Shimwood. I do want to clarify, and this will be important for the next discussion, that our impervious surface coverage overlay district, which is the 40% maximum

impervious service, that only applies to the Old Village and Old Mount Pleasant. that does not apply to these other neighborhoods. So, I want to clarify that and make sure you understand that. So, can I ask the question? Yes, ma'am. Do you know what the um percentages in those other neighborhoods? They don't have it. Oh, they don't. and and Kevin can talk about that and I think he may have mentioned it last time, but the the impervious surface coverage overlay district was created based on a study that was done in 2016 2017 by Thomas and Hutton and it was a very detailed drainage study that looked at that whole area and defined those boundaries and so it's specific to that area because of that drainage study. The rest of the town does not have an impervious surface maximum coverage. It only has a building coverage. Okay. So that would be building that would be building footprint but not counting pools or patios if it depends. It depends. And I'm gonna That's why it's so confusing about what's an impervious surface versus a building. Yeah. That's a good question. Uh because we we wrestled with what is impervious and we specifically said pool in the definition of imperous surface. Right. Pull but we excluded timber decking because of the ability for water to get to the underlying soil. We excluded the eve around the buildings because again there's soil exposed underneath. So the purpose of the definition was to define the area that so that water can actually infiltrate into the ground versus uh where it can't infiltrate into the ground, not necessarily

what's what's on the site. So we try to make that distinction. Okay. But yes, so just to make sure I'm clear. So in outside of the old village or old Mount Pleasant, there's a building a structure building structure limitation, you know, size limit, but pools are not included in that because that's an impervious surface and they don't have an impervious surface uh limit. Okay? And that gets into building versus structure, structure versus building. So, a building is a structure, but a structure isn't always a building, right? It's right. So, um, based on the last conversation and the last meeting, I I think what I heard was kind of this direction. So, old village historic district, um, ADUs, the old code was 20 feet. Um, the new code is 25 feet, but in no case can be taller than the principal buildings. Actually, that applied to both ADUs and nonadus. And what I heard as a proposed change is to go back to the 20 ft and to go back to cannot exceed one and a half stories um and must be sided to the side or rear of the property. And then what I heard was also to make that very same application outside of the old village and extending into the neighborhood preservation overlay district. So that would apply to Old Mount Pleasant, uh, Shimwood, Bay View, all of those neighborhoods in that in that geographic boundary. Again, um, it used to be that those the ADUs have always been 25 ft, but ironically, while you could go up to 20 feet in the old village for for a garage, you couldn't do that outside of the old village. You could only go to 15. And then there was this provision that would allow you to go up to 18 feet. Um, again, it's currently 25. What

I've what I'm hearing is that that area would also lower back down to 20 feet, one and a half stories. And then both of those um, and I think it was a provision before, and it may still be in there, but it in the old village, but it has to be sided to the to the side or the rear of the property. It can't be in front of the of the principal building. So, that's part of the guidelines, but not part of the ordinance. Right. Okay. Okay. And then the rest of town, um, ADUs, uh, would stay 25 feet with a required 10-ft side and rear setback. And a detached accessory structure other than an ADU would drop down to 20 feet. So, that's kind of what I put together. And you could see it over there in red. Um, I again, this is me trying to to to put together what I thought I heard, but I wanted to put that in there for discussion and get your feedback and and see where you wanted to go with that. So, happy to answer questions. So, we had spoken about possibly increasing the side setback from six feet. Mhm. Um so this I guess this assumes that if we go back down to the 20 ft which we had already we had um recommended in the first place that we wouldn't change the setback and I'm I'm just worried about what a 20 foot height building looks like six feet away from a property line. Yeah. So I'm not sure if those two things need to still be looked at. Yeah, I agree with that. Uh I um one possibility would be to I think the the term we often use is wedding cake um the side setback so that you know you you could be x height if you're six feet or 10 feet or whatever we decide that um distance is but you could be you could have higher um structure say double the

distance from that that side step setback. whatever those proportions are, but you get the point. So that way, again, what I keep asking myself or trying to remind myself, what concern are we trying to address here? And I think the primary concern is just the the increased height and scale of homes in really throughout the town, but but certainly we're seeing so much of that in Old Mount Pleasant and and increasingly the old village, too. and some of which are actually imposing on their neighbors and it's changing the character of the of the of the neighborhoods or the the streetscape. And so, um, in keeping with that, you know, what what sort of characterized these neighborhoods, um, to begin with, and it's, you know, more modestsiz homes on, um, on their their lots and and also, um, you know, where the garage or some structure, some accessory structure is not at the front elevation of the property, you know, and so, um, that that that was more traditional design, um, for probably a couple hundred years or more, if there was an accessory structure, whether it was a shed or modestized garage or whatever it was, invariably or pretty close to invariably, um they were they were located to the rear. And in the recent past, in order to take it greatest advantage of um whatever the the lot size uh available might be, you're starting to see more of those accessory structures and garages uh right up front to the the street. And my my my concern there too individually is that sometimes that creates um parking issues um because you know we've got in old Mount Pleasant we really don't have curbed streets where there's easy parking. So what do people do? they they park in the rightway which you know it it clutters things visually

but it's also dangerous you know because a lot of those rights away might not even accommodate you know the width of a of a vehicle or you know it's difficult to get out you know when somebody's going by on their bike or their car or whatever the case may be. So, I I've I've observed that and I think in that's in part because more and more people are um consuming, you know, whatever um square footage they they have on on their lot. Thank you, Michelle, for for doing that research. Yeah. Um that was really helpful. I do like the um percentage um yeah like the 40 like um I guess it was um Savannah that had the 40% not to exceed 40% of the floor area of the principal's building. I think that would be a good addition to our code. Okay. I think it also we could put a provision there or not to exceed 850 ft which is what our current provision is is the 850. I think that will help with whatever setback we decide too. I think the setback controlling the size of of that ADU or that accessory structure. Yeah. I think what I'm hearing from some community members, you know, on next door, this is a really big topic right now and it kind of flows into a few other issues, right? is we've had the grading issue where a lot of people are raising the grade of where the foundation is going to sit on and so then the water then runs off to the side to the front and the back and is going into their neighbors property. So I do think while it doesn't necessarily pertain to this ABU conversation, it is pertaining to the issues that I think our community members are seeing across the board. And then um the other thing is the mass of the home. I think Mr. Bennett, you brought this up last time

is that even if you are within this 40% lot coverage, people are just building really big masses and so it's making the size of the lot feel smaller and their neighbors feeling intruded upon. From my standpoint, I don't think necessarily changing anything from 20 to 15 feet. I think we might get a lot of push back from the community. I think at at fif at a one and a half times you're going to have to have dormard ceilings and not really be able to use that second floor. And most of the time um you know that first floor area people are storing bikes, their golf carts, kayaks, boats. I mean we live in a community by the shore. There's a lot of accessories that go along with the lifestyle in this community and it doesn't really make it a usable space for the second floor. So, I think we would end up getting a lot of push back from the community um by not 15 but not by going down to um by going down by going down to just the one and a half stories because at one and a half stories you really have to have dorm ceilings which gives you a very small square footprint. But I think taking away some of the other rules from the other communities about not having more than one bedroom is really smart. Maybe you add in not having more than one bathroom as well. Um I think there's a lot of properties that have done it really well where actually they have a smaller ranch in the front and the ADU is taller in the back. But right now, I think what the community is seeing is the Indian village where it's smaller lots and they're putting really big accessory structures that feel off for scale and then are concerned about the drainage issues as well in that particular area because there's I', you know, it's pretty much been on my mind every day since we last met. I've been driving around a lot and looking at

clients homes and seeing how it's done well in a lot of our areas and then there's a lot of new construction where it's not being done well. And so I think the other thing to raise is do we need a a DRB for the old billet? Yeah. Sorry for old Mount Pleasant. Yeah. For old Mount Pleasant. Do we need to do we need to do that to make sure that, you know, we're keeping the character, we're keeping in line with the reason a lot of people bought and love this neighborhood and have want to continue to see it go down that path because we have storm water issues. We have, you know, invasion of of privacy and changing people's lots that they bought. There's a lot of issues going on here, I think, beyond just the accessory structures. And I think accessory structures and ADUs is also, you know, a lot of people are using those workarounds. So maybe that's something we look at as well is redefining those terms. Made Yes sir. Yeah. Sorry. How do STRs um come into this? Do we have a figure of how many ADUs are uh surprisingly not a low percentage. I think it's like maybe 10 or 15% of our STRs are used as an ADU. Um that's less than anticipated actually. Yeah. Yeah. So that was we were kind of surprised about that too. But um it's fairly low percentage and you're not allowed to have an STR in the old village so that helps a little bit. Um of course you see them in in in Old Mount Pleasant and and some of those other areas, but um but yeah, it's kind of a small percentage. Miss Sanford raised an interesting point that I've wanted to ask about and I'm glad that she mentioned it. And I don't know whether it's a question for you Michelle or for Kevin but tell us a little bit about Phil and what the requirements limitations how is that managed from an engineering

standpoint Kevin? Well Phil Phil is um it could be your savior or it could be you're a killer. It all depends on how it's applied, how it's put on the ground and how your storm water is managed. Mhm. Um, you know, we've seen both successfully or one successfully use it correctly because it's needed to keep from creating problems and solving existing problems and then we've seen it misused to where they're displacing the water onto the adjacent property. So, uh, the height of fill, the height of fill doesn't exactly concern me when it comes to calculating and managing runoff. The height of fill is a concern because of the appearance and visual potential visual impact. I mean, if you've got one brick ranch that doesn't have any fill on a lot, and then you've got another house that is built up their lot, there's going to be an appearance there that is going to be alarming to anybody that's walking by and looking at it says, "Oh my god, you know, there's a there's a lot of fill on this lot." But that the water coming off the roof lands on the sides potentially and it's supposed to go into some side swells. Those side swells take it to the back or take it to the front. The fill's not impacting anybody when that's done properly. Now, when it's not done properly, you get uh where infrastructure is not available and you get somebody that fills a lot and now the surrounding storm water was historically going to this lot. Now, it doesn't have a place to go anymore because this person has filled

that particular lot. So it gets displaced off to the other neighbors or prevented from going to the low area again. So [Music] it's u like I said it can be a savior or it can be a killer you know when it comes to impacts to adjacent property but it's necessary because we don't want to create more problems. If you don't have positive flow from your lot, you're going to create another problem that you've allowed to happen or you prevented a resident or somebody building it to protect their property. So then the town becomes liable. Yeah, I think I understand those concepts. I'm kind of curious in terms of a more of a logistical or practical standpoint, how does the town monitor the degree to which the fill is actually being um uh implemented uh properly? Yeah. Um Michelle mentioned the the 2017 Thompson Hut report which basically said there isn't a single pipe in the old village that has enough capacity for the current existing flow back in 2017. So as a result of that um we created that 40% imperous surface regulation that prompted the discussions on limiting impervious surface and also with the 40% we also created an old builder uh guide for storm water management and basically uh we are we have been requiring u folks that expand on the impervious surface that's on their property to account and manage it on site like a commercial site like you would have this either underground detention or above ground detention for the extra imperous surface that's added to the property. Now the existing imperous surface we do not hold back and manage because that is a pre-existing condition and that's unlike

commercial. Now, we could go back and and and look at that and make that even more strenuous, but the problem with onsite detention in a single family residence, we've got probably a hundred of them in the old village right now is sustaining those things for the long term. You know, there if it's a hole in the backyard, it's usually going to get filled in because somebody wants to put a pool, shed, whatever. Or if it's underground detention, it's forgotten about. So, you know, uh it sounds great and it looks great on paper, but you know, 10 years down the road, yeah, it might get filled in. It, you know, it might disappear. Something might happen to it. So, um I would I would advise against having or encouraging larger on-site individual residential detentions for that reason just because of the maintenance and upkeep and the long-term sustainability of it. the idea is great, but you know, having the ability to there when you really need it in the long term, that's that's concerning. I I'll say having been the recipient of being the last one in uh when I built my home, I my lot was getting drained onto uh by the golf course and then when I filled it just five, six inches, I had to work with them. Luckily, they shared in the cost, but it's just it's literally a project by project situation. You've got to be neighborly, openly communicate, say, "Hey, this is going to create the situation. What are you comfortable with? What are we comfortable with?" I don't necessarily think the town can police that aspect of it. I think it's got to be a a one by one situation. Um, I think that's where something like a DRB would come into play. There's a house that they're doing right now on the corner of Fairmont and I believe it's Adloo and it was just a you know they knocked the existing house down and

where they're going to core the foundation they are building up the um grading just under that portion and it's going to for sure unless I have not seen any sort of drainage system go in around it but it for sure is going to create an issue for their neighbors and then for Fairmont because they're right on the corner of Fairmont and at Lou but the people. It seems the people behind them and to the left of them are now going to have some water issues they weren't anticipating. Right. The good the good news is there's not a tremendous amount of topography in low country and and there we have drainable soil which is in most cases pretty good. Um Kevin can probably speak to that a little bit. But uh yeah, so I' I'd probably caution us against against getting too much into the drainage aspect of it. probably a note about it somewhere on the approved plans but not so much a policing of it more so than the heights we're primarily discussing here. Well, quite often when you think of planning, you think of being proactive rather than reactive. I believe here we are being reactive in certain sense of the word. Was this an issue when we did the zoning code rewrite? Because from my understanding with Mr. Bennett's input, none of this was brought up. This wasn't truly a problem until as of late. We talking about the Phil? Yes, the Phil. Um, I'm assuming that I'm assuming that it wasn't an issue if it was not brought up and addressed as we recommended the zoning code be rewrite. I don't think it was brought up. There there has been ordinances that have been adopted to address fill with subdivisions. Okay. Recently there has been it's the only thing I could really think of right now. But the new zoning code doesn't really address it. But the land development regulations have not been updated.

Then that answers that question. But that that too does not address fill. This is more from a storm water perspective. That's how it addresses, okay, the conditions of where you're running your runoff and how you're managing it. And we also changed procedure uh to uh Garrett um Kevin remember it's probably been three years ago to incorporate um addressing storm water management earlier in the decision- making process than was the case previously. Yeah. So I think that's that was a step in the right direction too because what was happening is we were we would look at yeah we we would approve a design before we were addressing some of the more critical issues and in our community a critical issue is drainage. Yeah. So we we did make that that again procedural change. I don't know what the right that was. Yeah. That's great point I told Scott that just having a procedural change and incorporating that review early on it it it allow it it it's forced the builder to start thinking about what he's going to do with his storm water after you know um whereas before it was like he was going up framing and and trying to finish as fast as he can and then the storm water is an afterthought right so procedural changes were made with the old village builder Scott as well so yes thanks for bringing it up Everybody loves the rendering, right? So, they were bring essentially bringing us renderings. Oh, this this home looks lovely. Of course, it Well, where's the water going? Right. Yeah. Well, and if I recall when I first couple years ago when I first got on the commission, we did have one in the Indian village that they had to change the entrance to their lot, right? They changed the lot lines to enter it so they could build a swale because it was not anticipated. And then they created a drainage problem and so they changed the entrance to their lot to a different street. I can't

remember what streets it was on. It was a corner lot. But um something I was thinking about your comments. I think something to keep in mind is um the historic district preservation commission is a it's an architectural board just like DRB. DRB doesn't look at drainage. these guys do. Um, so even you know these commercial projects, a single family residential project, the old village, the drainage, none of HDPC does not have perview over over the drainage part of it. It gets reviewed by our technical engineering staff. So um, it's just something to keep in mind that if you if you extend some sort of architectural review when you're talking about size, mass, and scale, the The engineering is already getting reviewed without that. That would be an architectural review specifically. Sorry, specifically just for the drainage, but not for setbacks, heights, mass, that sort of thing. Well, no, they would look at that, but they wouldn't look at the drainage, right? So if there was so if there were those provisions in place, they would certainly look at that, but the drainage plans would get reviewed by the engineering staff before it went to that board of commission. Okay, that's typically how it works. And they also part of the regulations is a certified professional engineer. It's a stamp and sign and design those plans. So, but engineers don't usually do drainage plans. It's a it's a separate engineer. Uh it's a storm water engineer. Yeah. Yes. Yes, ma'am. They provide the calculations in the pre and post condition. Is everyone required to have a a storm water in the old engineer? In the old village in the old village overlay in the old mount in old mount from Coleman Bener. Yes. Yes. Every residence is required to have a drainage plan.

Okay. Before they get a permit issue. Got it. Even though they don't go to outside of the old village, they don't go to the old village historic district commission. They get a drainage review already. Okay. So, it sounds like the drainage scenario has been covered. Yeah. And this kind of gets we're we're combining our discussions and it does spill over. Yeah. And something I wanted to address to Mr. Lacy, your point. I think if you're talking about the heights and the size, mass, and scale. We weren't hearing this when we were going through the code update. And you know what we were hearing was uh the push was in the old village. We had some very outspoken citizens who uh wanted to do a twostory and so they were advocating to go up in height and that's how we ended up with the 25 ft in the old village. So it kind of you know it did it just it usually takes longer for these this these things to go back and forth. This one only took a couple months. We have to remember too that rewrite has been it's been going on a long a long process and Way back when we did recommend 20 feet. We didn't recommend 25. It got changed after us. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So to wrap this up and move on to the next discussion, I think what I heard was even with the 20 ft in the in these two sections there should be it should meet the 10-ft setback of the primary structure. Is that what I'm hearing? Yes. Yeah, I would like and I also wanted to mention and some of this is a response to Miss Samper's comment which I I don't disagree with necessarily for the neighborhood preservation overlay district. The reason for the 20 feet, I just wanted to reemphasize. Um that was a compromise decision for um a legacy

Old Village Historic District Commission um um that that recommended that because that was more in keeping with the architect architectural norms of that historic community as opposed to a newer more recently developed neighborhood. Right. And so I I my my view is that we should maintain or recommend that the old village historic district go back to the 20. Um but I'm I'm one vote. Mr. Chairman, if I could too and I just before we got off of that, I and just to piggy back on Miss Sanford's comment earlier, the 20 feet I think makes some sense and I think you know we've heard a lot of discussion on that. I do think that the one and a half story added clause in there though really, you know, kind of takes out a whole floor of that. And so my thought would be that, you know, I think it is prudent maybe for the 20 ft, but I think it I don't know that it's it's overlimiting it to say the one and a half stories uh too. It's just my thought. I I want to comment on this. Um, long time ago I used to to build these types of structures. Like I probably built 200 of them. You cannot build and have HVAC and have plumbing and have electric if it's 20 feet. Yeah. And park a car underneath. It's just not going to happen. You cannot structurally, you know, uh, the floor system, you know, can't be but it's got to be a certain height. your walls. And now people are going to be building these things and they're going to skirt the the rule of, oh, you can't have a home on a slab anymore, right? You got to build a home on a crawl space, right? Now, people are going to be living in this first floor and never putting a car in there. I don't these people are just going to move from here to there. Granted, it might be a little shorter. I just feel

like architecturally there's a way to control the the height, scale, and mass of these ADUs to make them complimentary and secondary, which is what everybody's going for here. It's very difficult to build at 20 feet. Um, you're going to have a flat roof. You're going to have a lot of flat roofs. you're you're going to you don't you don't want a flat roof that will get it's you know you can do um you know these compressed stormers these fly rafters and things of that nature to to to create the the look that you're going for I I think my I'm trying to figure out what we're trying to solve here. Are we trying to prevent people from living in these things or are we trying to prevent the height, scale, and mass of it relative to the home? Because that needs to be handled through an architectural review process, not a the town says it can only be 20 feet because they will not be able to live up there or you can't live up there past the age of eight. Yeah. Because of the height. And I can comment on the old village uh decision making. was basically you could you could have enough space to park your car underneath and then if you wanted your teenage son to live, you know, two or three years above the garage, there would be enough space to do that. That was the logic at the time. All of the HVAC units are going to be um their split systems, right? So, you you can't put the furnace, the handler up in the attic space anymore. It's going to be now hung off the side of the building somehow. And there are unintended consequences to what we're doing here. So, I'm just saying be cautious. Good advice. Um I've just I lived it. Um just think about it. Yeah. Thank you. I think there's other provisions that we can put in that we take reference from what Savannah and North Carolina has done about, you know, the square footage, the amount of bedrooms, the setbacks, the mass, so that we can still allow homeowners to have freedom without, you know, I think it's what Adam said is that we're trying to control the massing scale, the

character of the neighborhoods, the encroachment from your neighbors, not, you know, who can live there because I think that's up to people's discretion. They use it as a home office. Are you saying not not the height to 20 ft then? You're saying keep it at 25? I'm not sure. Okay. I'm just trying. Yeah. My opinion is to keep it at 25 and we put some other restrictions in that will help kind of build out the other concerns such as the setbacks and and the What do you think about this is an interesting provision Savannah has. So any portion of an ADU so you could go to 25t height but if you go over 15 you got to scoot it back. Now they say 15 ft. We would probably go 10 ft because that's where your house is set. Um so maybe something to that effect. I don't I feel good about a 10 that I I agree with that. Yeah, I agree with Emily. Um but I also want to address the side setback too. I don't know how to I don't know what what measurement is right now. What's the rear? No, our our side and rear set back is six feet. Um, so yeah, I mean, um, and this is just the main house has to be tent. The main house does. Yeah. Yeah. I would suggest keeping within the main side and rear view that the main structure or no less than seven and a half, which is what you see sometimes, but 10 sounds. Okay. So, does that mean we Where do we stay at 25 ft? Do we stay at it in the neighborhood preservation overlay district? Do we stay at it in the old village? Do we stay at it in both? My recommendation is to split the two again one. So this is 20, this is 25, right? And any portion of of it over uh 15. I would recommend um we do the 18 feet

because we probably have a lot of detached accessory structures out there that are 18. we were they were allowed to go up to 18. So maybe to be consistent with that, any portion of your ADU or detach accessory structure that's over 18 feet, you got to move it 10 feet off the the side and rear property line, maybe something like that. Okay. And and I um is there a need for making a distinction between an AD accessory structure? I do think there is because everybody is finding a loophole to this. So take that back to 20. From my perspective, it doesn't make sense to only allow 20 permits on this per year because the way people are getting around it is to apply for uh a detached accessory structure and then putting in a range after they pass permit. Yeah. So, and the good thing is we did make that definition more difficult as far as what defines a kitchen. Um but yeah, that's a that's a great point. So, okay. So, what I'm hearing is old village, whether it's an ADU or a detached accessory structure, we go back down to the 20. We go back down to what it was historically. Uh the rest of town, if it's an ADU, it stays at 25 ft. But if but any portion of it over 18 feet in height, has to meet a 10-ft setback, the same as the house. Uh and then any detached accessory structure outside of the old village other than an uh yeah other than an ADU all other detached uh are maxed out at 20 ft height. What about the um detach accessory structure in the neighborhood overlay the old old mountain? Um I I think it was 20. Yeah, it would be 20 the same as the rest of town. So, so outside of the old

village and the rest of town, if you have a nonadu detached accessory structure, your max height is 20 ft. I think you want to increase to Adam's point, it should be 25 with waiting what's up and what can go up there in old Mount Pleasant. That's only if there's a very robust um design review process, right? It doesn't work if nobody's looking at the drawings. Yeah. Somebody's got to be policing the drawings, right? But if we're putting in the provision of the 850 square feet, that's bigger, right? But then we add in that it can't exceed I think you wanted 40% of the principal building, the ADU. Okay. I think ADU or detach accessory structure because I think I think what's happening is people are using their detach accessory structures as ADUs and so we're not closing the loop on that with this. Okay. So no single detached accessory structure can exceed 40% of the principal building or 850 square feet or 8 whichever's less. Yeah. Whichever's less. Right. But I do think whether it's an ADU or a detached accessory structure, those should allow should be able to have the same height at 25 outside of the old village. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Outside of the old village. Yes. Got it. In old Mount Pleasant and the rest of town with the provision of the 10 feet set back for any portion over 18 feet or 18t height. Okay. And that that applies. But so I'm looking at the chart. This is very confusing. So anything over 18 ft has to be the 10 foot set back whether it's an ADU or or a detached accessory, not split up this way. Right. I think that addresses the Yeah.

the scale and the encroachment on the neighbors that our community is expressing concerns over. Okay. We've also a number of times touched on some sort of DRB function. So, are we Well, let me um get to the next Are are we ready to move um to the next discussion? Okay. Um because that kind of ties into the to the next discussion. So, again, I wanted to come back with some numbers and I I think I had these before, but I I just kind of consolidated. So from 2023 to current in the old village and neighborhood preservation overlay district, so that expanded area, there was a total of 83 full demolitions, uh 140 major additions and then 63 new builds and rebuilds. Um the topic came up I Mr. Tinky brought it up in a in a council meeting and Mr. Bennett I think you brought it up too and it was this idea of um the 50-year criteria. So, right now in the Old Village Historic District, um when you're talking about demolitions, you you can't really prevent a demolition unless it's designated as historic, and that's designated as historic through a survey, and it's governed through the the Historic District Preservation Commission. Outside of that, so in Old Mount Pleasant, I we wanted to look at the numbers because it came up. So, in Old Mount Pleasant, um the 50-year criteria, about half the homes there meet the 50-year criteria, and that's 1975. That was changed a couple years ago. So, keep in mind that those homes, while they're eligible to be designated as historic, it does not mean they are historic, it doesn't mean they've been designated as such. And there's not even been a a survey or anything. We just

looked at the tax data and found that half the homes in Old Mount Pleasant and we did exclude Shimwood Baby, we we excluded those three or four neighborhoods and we just did Old Mount Pleasant outside of Old Village and that's the number we came up with. So, I wanted to share that because it came up a couple times that 50-year criteria. Um, and by the way, for those who aren't familiar, the 50-year criteria, it it seems arbitrary, and I guess to some degree it is. Um, but it's the it's the criterion that's been adopted by the Department of the Interior to to um determine uh communities or neighborhoods that may be eligible to be defined as historic. So, correct. You know, that there's at least logical consistency in adopting their their standard, right? And we changed that a few years ago to mirror that standard so that there was consistency. Um we talked last time about what governs the buildable area, you know, height, building coverage, trees setbacks, impervious surface. So we kind of covered all that and then we talked about the options. And um so since we know about that 50-year criteria um for demolitions again, you really can't prevent a demolition unless it's designated as historic. But I but I want to offer up that now that you know we have an idea and it's easy to track which structures are meet that 50-year criteria. um perhaps you um provide offer an incentive to maintain that instead of demoing it and building a new bigger structure. Um other than that, I I don't know what else you could do to prohibit a demolition other than you do a survey of all of Old Mount Pleasant. Um and then you figure out what's historic and then it has to get designated. So, there's a long process.

Mr. Bennett knows it way better than I do, but I know we added about 30 properties to to be in the old village to be designated as historic. We did that back in 21 and it took a good year and it was it was a very I it was not an enjoyable process, but it so there is a process for doing that. Um, but perhaps there's something that can be done to offer an incentive for somebody to not demo their property if it's eligible and meets that 50-year. And then also Kevin had talked at the last one about what we kind of see as a pattern in Old Mount Pleasant is somebody's going to be more likely to demo if they can tear down a ranch and create two lots out of one. So maybe we look at our um our subdivision regulations. Maybe those get strengthened. Maybe we look at he he talked about density. Um looking at those sorts of options. And then for the new build rebuild, what I heard um and what I left in here is reducing the impervious surface coverage from 40 to 35% where that overlay exists and then perhaps expanding the bar which is the building area ratio. um beyond the old village. And again, the building area ratio basically uh through a formula creates a maximum uh footprint of your primary structure. Um and that's already done in the old village. It's not done outside of the old village. So, I wanted to throw those back out to you and and get your feedback on those. As far as far as the um the bar beyond the old village, I think you know where you drew the line that's kind of south of Coleman into Old Mount Pleasant, I think it should apply to that whole thing. That's where drainage problems exist. That's where a drainage

plan is required even by Old Mount Pleasant. So that whole Yeah, that blue area and exclude I would agree with that. Okay. Well, and and um I agree with that too. But I just want to I want to try to understand your logic about excluding the other legacy neighborhood other legacy communities neighborhoods because my even though we've seen this um what's a ramp up over the last gosh it feels like maybe 12 months or so um in the Indian village we all call it if we've lived here a while um we're about to see the same thing in those other three neighborhoods too. In fact, I think it's already happening to some degree in Bay View Acres. I don't I don't know the other neighbors quite as well. The Groves. Yeah. Yeah. When I drive through the Groves and I'm not there very much, but I mean, the Groves have generally a little bigger lots. Um, they do. So, that's one reason. And the other reason I was just thinking of Blue is that I mean, if we're going to extend it, I think we ought to require drainage plans for all that area. You know, I'm trying to sort of keep it keep it logically consistent. Um because the impervious surface has most to do with drainage and and you know absorption I think. Uh Michelle and Kevin, do we get as many complaints or concerns expressed about drainage in the non-Indian Village uh legacy neighborhoods? One point of clarification, the drainage plans are required for every development in Mount Pleasant. The storm water retention is required for the old village overlay district. Okay. So the procedure we were talking about uh with the building permit if I were developing Carolina Park or Park West, they would have to provide a where you taking your water and how are you managing your water plan uniform that's uniform. So that is want to make sure that we're the second one the storm water the storm water that's a storm water

runoff is the second one. The one that's required for the old village that's not required for the rest of the town is what is when it's covered service coverage and it's also the detention. Detention detention. See when you when you uh in the old village and like any commercial site you do a pre and post comparison. So your pre-development and your post-development. The expansion of impervious surface you have to detain that expansion on your property in the old village. That's the reason for the detention. Anywhere else in the town of Mount Pleasant, you just need a drainage plan to make sure that you're managing it, thinking through where you're going to be sloping and grading your property to the proper front back areas. Okay? And then you'll get approval. You don't have to detain it on your property. And we don't really want to be dealing with detention because of the problem you were saying that over the long haul it doesn't necessarily get maintained and it can't really be enforced or monitored. that that's the reality of the individual residential lot detention. I thought somehow we were doing drainage plans and permits for residences residents only in the old Mount Pleasant area and the old trees and drainage for the entire town of Mount Pleasant. Um thanks for making sure I clarify that because that is a distinction that okay a lot of people don't realize. Thanks. Okay. I think to um Mr. Lacy's point about we've been kind of reactive is how can we be proactive and what can we do for these legacy neighborhoods outside of old Mount Pleasant to protect kind of the you know overbuilding that we're seeing in Indian Indian Village. Yeah. What kind of rules could we put in place for those legacy neighborhoods that would I mean I'm not opposed to increasing the building area ratio over this entire area all of the I guess legacy you know for lack of a better term that

decreasing yeah can somebody clarify for me the 40% rule is different than the building mass is that correct um so you have in in this area right here. You have an maximum 40% impervious surface coverage in this area and throughout town you have a building coverage. Um those are two different things. So typically the building coverage your standard zoning districts are one it's 35% building coverage. In this area alone though, you have the 40% impervious along with your along with the 35%. Sure. Yeah. And so does that 35% extend to these legacy neighborhoods? The 35% building coverage is townwide. Town wide. Okay. That's what I wanted. For instance, in the grows, you only have a 35% building coverage and then separate from that, you could put a pool in. Even if that under if that were in the old Mount Pleasant, it could exceed the 40% of impervious surface. It doesn't apply. The impervious surface requirement doesn't apply. So, I'm trying to make the distinction between something in the groves or like the pink section here. Um, you're only talking about 35% building coverage. And if they meet that 35%, they can put other impervious surfaces down in their property that could exceed 40% of the total, it could go to 50%. If they don't exceed if they meet all their development standards and they don't don't exceed their building coverage. That's correct. So that's the big and I think somebody asked do we have a lot of complaints about drainage in these areas. That's what I was going to do. Kevin, do you Yeah. Do you have any data? I mean like we've had obviously

significant events and stuff. Do y'all get calls from public works get calls in these other neighborhoods? Um you know yes the answer is yes. the actual, you know, we've had this large drainage project that was completed that resolved a lot of the Fox Pond area. You know, that was a major issue before. So, that's kind of gone away. Um, you know, I mean, we've got the, you know, the normal the normal places that we are we familiar with and we know about already. Um, but we don't necessarily get phone calls every time it rains because it's kind of the condition that they're accustomed to there. So, It's not necessarily they pick the phone up every time that you know the street floods. We know about all these locations. Um but um but it's you know it's it's constant. I mean it's it's it's there. It's existing. There's you know pockets. There's lack of infrastructure. Um you know Tom's Nut giving credit. They did a really good job in 2017 analyzing what basins do have outlets, what don't have what they don't have outlets, the the pipe sizes, how inefficient they are, and and the mayor and town council has really been very proactive in trying to secure grants and getting funding and a lot of funding is is coming into that old village for drainage. So, and I would just offer up and I I think um you know Kevin's correlated obviously in the old village, you know, pipe size capacity has been problems uh for years down there and then obviously the larger homes, but I think town's done a great job, you know, with the new implementation. I don't know that that I've seen or heard as much in these other areas though of like major drainage problems. So, you know, everybody and I think town staff does a great job when they bring a new development plan in. They've got to control and and what was there currently

may not have been controlling uh runoff uh primarily, but I think uh they've done a great job of enforcing standards whether it's gutter systems, uh French drains, uh whatever it is to to control. So, um I I don't know that I'm as concerned in some of these areas and based on what I'm hearing, but I I do know obviously the old village uh you know, I think the standards we got now, I think the 40% and what they've done and I know we broached this topic last time um and there's no real historical data yet to show that, you know, maybe everything has, you know, made dramatic strides, but um but I think it's it seems consist consistent with what Michelle pulled for us. Wilmington's doing, Savannah's doing the 40% and Kevin even mentioned that last uh month in his report. That's a a pretty aggressive national standard. So, I think we're doing a good job there. I agree. So, does that sound like 35 and 40% for all the the community or for all the neighborhoods or what would you recommend? I think I think the 40% impervious in that old village and and anything uh the pre-develop versus post which is what they mandate I think is absolutely needed. I think over time whenever uh some of these massive drainage projects are able to be funded uh it's going to dramatically help uh the situation down in some of these areas. But um but I think what we're doing now in Old Village, I think is in my opinion, I think it's a a adequate measure and it's good. And and I'll speak to that too a little bit. I I appreciate what the town is doing and not and take this with a as a compliment, not overreaching because we do have neighbors um that aren't in the town that as an example, if you have a

driveway that's 1500 square feet that's been there for 50 years and you replace that driveway because it's over 625 square feet, you've now got to go and retain water on your property with um advanced drainage system products. We're not doing that and I think that's great. I feel like that creates more problems to Kevin's point. Um, so I appreciate what the town's doing and and really responsibly thinking about what's going on here. I agree and I think the 40% makes sense because a lot of the lots that we're talking about in Indian Village are like a quarter acre. So if you reduce to 35% it's it's going to limit people's flexibility of what they can do with their home and I don't think we really have the right to encroach on that too much. Okay. So um leave imperous surface 40% but expand the BA explore expanding the bar into hold on where my map go expand bar to this area. Yep. Okay. Okay. Anything else? um the DRB issue. Uh Michelle, thoughts on that? I mean, do do we um as a commission even have the latitude to recommend um or propose that uh some sort of DRB mechanism um be established for those other for the legacy neighborhoods beyond the historic district. I mean, the old Old Village Historic District is kind of unique in that they have the federal designation. These others don't, right?

And so, that's one, you know, factor that that drove to the preservation group, right? Um, but I don't I don't know about the parameters for the other neighborhoods. It's it's it's tough. We at some point last year there was a push um by the commission to extend do a survey and it extended out I think to Simmons. It extended like two streets over. So it was a real small extension and um the some folks living in that area just outside of the old village were not happy and they came and spoke and so it it it kind of went away. Mhm. Um so imagine extending and doing a survey. You know I it's that would be the process though. We would need to you know secure funding do a survey and I know right now our last survey just in the old village is 20 2010 and that needs to be updated as well at some point. Um so because we know things have changed in the old village. Um but but but that would be if if we determined that um these communities were met some designation for historic. Is there some mechanism for requiring a DRB or recommending a DRB for neighborhoods that aren't historic and have historically not had a DRB? Could we go to the I'm making this up from a practical standpoint to illustrate. Um could we require DRB for Cooper Estates? I think practically the DRB members um probably would get inundated if they had to review every house, you know, that was going on in Old Mount Pleasant, which would mean then creating a new DRB board for residential properties. And I think that would

be difficult to do. It's up to council, but that would be a difficult thing to get people to do. I completely agree. So, I think practically speaking, Yeah. 15. Yeah. They don't want They don't Yeah. They don't want 75 items. Yeah. Yeah. I get that. New board and getting the volunteers that are And you think about each neighborhood. Yeah. And you think about the criteria something something constructed in 1975 architecturally is significant in a very different way right than something you know in the old. So you would not only need either the same or expanded board or a different board. It would be totally different criteria because you know so not to say it's it's not doable. It's not possible. Um but just making it happen. Gosh I don't Yeah. It's all what we carry in our heads as to what defines historic. So, I'm agreeing with you 100%, Michelle. I've got friends are in the preservation community and you know, some of them are all about mid-century modern and as far as I'm concerned, right? You can knock every one of them down. It's an embarrassment, but but you know, technically, yeah, it's it's historic and they're they're working as hard as they can to preserve the old uh my parents, I don't know, Howard Johnson's and you know, whatever when we were a little boy, when I was a little boy. Anyway, green and harvest cold. Yeah. Well, I think this is a start. Um can I can I just revisit one thing if you don't mind? My going back go back to we um going back to the height versus the setback. Okay. So, I'm just and I'm I'm no expert, so I don't I really defer to everybody else, but um if you have an 18 foot high structure and you can be six feet from the sideline, right, or the rear, but let's just say the sideline side

and you've got another structure that's on the other side, a smaller structure that's six feet from its sideline. How? And you maybe have a sixoot fence that's, you know, separating the two. It feels to me like that's still going to feel like a very high structure. I really do feel like we need to get it a 10- foot setback and not have the seat until it meets the 18 ft and then goes back. I I just feel it's too high and too overwhelming in these small lots. Bear bear in mind though with I'm not saying you're wrong, but if the roof is flat, that's correct. But when you have a pitched roof one way or the other, it's it's not 18 at the sidewall. It's probably somewhere it's probably likely 12 to 14. Yeah. And then it's pitching up. So it's not, you know, right? It's a matter of where the windows are and how people feel. For sure. Yeah. Or if it's a there could be a shed roof style, but just No, I get that. And I live in a house that's very elevated and because of that I have a very low pitch, you know, in order to meet that requirement. But um I just feel as if a lot of the complaints coming from people in the old Mount Pleasant area are that they feel like they don't have any privacy anymore because there's a, you know, a window looking right now into their backyard. Um, so again, as I said, it may not be a problem with 18, but I just feel uncomfortable about that six foot side setback. It seems so small that um I just wanted to revisit that. And you know, if everybody feels that's adequate, then we'll let council decide. But yeah, I' I'd prefer it's it's it's at least 10. But me, too. Anyway, it's just that's that's Brett's judgment. No better than that. Yeah. Anybody else? Well, maybe you can maybe we can

recommend to council that we have a split opinion on that. Absolutely. I mean, and this live stream we have a couple of our council members here and no so I'll we'll express that when we take it to committee that it was you know it's a it's difficult complicated. I would just chime in to what Adam was saying. I think with the 18 ft uh my opinion and it may be physically able to be built, but I don't know that you're going to have that second floor living space and 18ft structure just when you think about the the peak of that roof and it slows down. So I feel like you know and it's a valid point if you're six feet off and and you got a window up here. Um, but I think that the 10 foot set back then if you exceed that 18 ft and you want to have that second floor accessory uh room or something that's going to give that a little bit more until somebody can show me drawings and how it really applies. It's hard for hard to visualize. Yeah. Yeah. It used to be three feet. For years it was three feet. Uh well, we had some of that too. I remember in on a previous commission where it was difficult to visualize how either party was going to be able to care for right their side of the fence, you know, you can't fit that. You can't you can't Well, I will I'll I'll make sure and express all of these ideas and thoughts and um I appreciate your input and um thank you. So, uh, Michelle, would would you care for us to to have a vote or I would be happy if you wanted to. Seems like there's is there enough consensus for us? I'm not gonna have a motion. I mean, I I couldn't summarize it if you ask me. Discussion, David, discussion. Yeah, it's it's titled discussion. So, so what I'll do I we've got the minutes. I'm going to go back and listen to the recording and then um actually I

can watch it. So, I'll go back and watch it. Well, I think too you've got what I was hearing was general consensus on a lot of these. Yeah. Yeah. I think we've got it all captured. So, we'll All right. We have pictures to look at and we didn't even see them. Well, you saw this last time. It was a repeat. I could have answered my question. Thank you. Okay. So, this is uh number eight on the agenda. This was brought up last month for planning commission to discuss the rules of procedure and the matter of proposing um items to be placed on the agenda by the body. And uh we see here from the uh rules of procedure matters proposed by a member of the body with at least one additional sponsoring board member with one um at least one meeting in advance uh may be added uh with the affirmative vote of full commission. So this is the item that um I believe Miss Ireland wanted wanted to discuss and um and I have I have a simple um suggested revision to this that we could propose be done and that is and especially since uh talking with Mr. Paglerini um about what how council does it. So it would be matters proposed by a member of the body with at least two additional sponsoring board members. Period. And then that would could go on the agenda. It doesn't have to then come up for a vote to be even put on the agenda for the next meeting. It skips a whole meeting's worth of, you know, bureaucracy. Okay. So, it would be two additional members and then it could be put on the agenda. Okay. And just the recommendation because we're on a different time, right? Yes. Yeah.

Yeah. As long as we know what the deadline is for for presenting a me, you know, an item to go on the agenda, that's fine. Exactly. We have to meet the notice. Sure. So, just these are some notable dates because we are going to need to attach this to some date and time in which there's a cut off. Y and so our public hearing agenda um that is posted 15 days in advance of the meeting. The the packet that y'all receive that's 7 days in advance and the correspondence cutoff is three business days. So obviously you you wouldn't want to have something come on the agenda with no ability to respond to it. Sure. And and no correspondence. So it would need to be uh you know prior to or maybe at the public hearing agenda items. So would it matter what the nature of the item is? Because if it's an item that would require a public hearing, like a a change to a zoning ordinance, that requires a public hearing, right? So, that would have to come up before the 15-day advance deadline. If it's just something to be discussed among the members, does that need I mean do you want to be simple simple and just say before 15 days, you know, give the 15 days in advance or um so I I'm actually not aware of commission generating um and you know it's starting with commission and generating a a zoning code amendment or anything like that. that would typically come from council committee and then you know flow toward commission to hold the public hearing. Right. My thought on this was that it was more geared toward discussion items and things that you would like research on. That's fine. I I'm just wondering so the 15 days really doesn't apply to any of these things. So it would be just before

the seven day in advance. So here's here's the other thing. um based on the amount of time that you give staff to prepare um research presentations, it will correspond to how detailed that presentation will be. um I can typically throw something together um with with that much notice, but if you really want a deep dive on something uh closer toward the public hearing item or even the submitt deadline would be appropriate. So the submitt deadline for every planning commission is essentially one month in advance. So the uh submitt deadline for August is actually tonight at midnight. um that would be no different than our current uh uh bylaws where you're just uh proposing something for the next agenda. But with two um two members of the commission um you could do it with with the public hearing item 15 days because it would be three members. So it' be a member with two sponsoring members. And it just seems to me if something comes up and we start talking about something having 15 days beforehand seems like and I understand that we're not going to get a deep dive into something with some huge report. But um it just seems like boy tonight to have to discuss with members of you know an item to come up. I don't even know what would come up. It just seems to me that you know if something does come up it seems like a very laborious process to go through two meetings you know to get to it. I agree. So 15 days in advance is perfectly fine as far as you could even say 21. I don't care. I just think a month ahead is a lot because that would mean think of something tonight if I you know um wanted to get it on for next month.

I I agree. So we're we're saying three um sponsoring members and you know so it's one it's a board member with two sponsoring members. That makes three commission members total. And we're good with the 15 days in advance being the the cut off. Yes, I think that's that's fair. Yeah, I'd agree. A month is I mean, who knows what could come up in the period of a month. Yeah. So, okay. Okay. That's correct. Yeah, that's correct. And when we receive correspondence and that Monday is a holiday, I I factor that in and so have to get you the correspondence a day sooner if if we do receive any. So, all right. Okay. So, we probably need a motion to make that change. Yes, correct. Okay. You want to articulate that? Sure. So, again, it's just discussion because it listens on the agenda. It is discussion. I'm sorry. Thank you, Lynette. Okay. We can. So, does this go to council to make the change? Is this No, I would I would we would have to amend the bylaws to do that and I can bring that. If this is uh how you would like to have it worded, I can put that in amendment in the bylaws and have you vote on it next month? Okay. Is there a general cons consensus on the 15 days? Anybody concerned about it? Okay. We don't have and there's no I mean I can present to you amended bylaws. you will vote on it and if there is any difference on that it can come back again. So yeah good. Okay that's great. Thank you. Um Mr. Pagarini. Yes sir.

And good evening everyone. Um we do we thought it was appropriate every once in a while we have a legal update. We have some newer members of the commission and it's a good opportunity to refresh um answer some questions and you may very well have some additional changes to the bylaws that you'd like for us to consider for you all to consider. Um please interrupt me if you have any questions. I'm going to go briefly from the top down. Um a basic function what is the planning commission? The planning commission emanates from state law. I know that you will go home this weekend and read um the South Carolina local government comprehensive pl uh comprehensive planning enabling act of 1994. Um this is where the planning commission idea originates and the state in its infinite wisdom grants local governments the authority to create a planning commission to do things ex exactly as you do every month. Um those statutes again if you're into this type of thing starts at state code 6-29-310 local planning commission defined creation by town council and areas of jurisdiction which are essentially the corporate limits of the town pleasant in our case. So not outside that any areas uh in the county. Uh no um but our corporate limits. Um what is all of that's important the most important part of state law is 6-29-340 functions powers and duties. Um it is a fairly significant paragraph but in general um the functions are uh uh to create plans and programs um to undertake a continuing planning

program for the physical, social and economic growth, development and redevelopment of the area within its jurisdiction. Um so th these plans um that you come up with exact a good example was tonight a discussion item regarding ordinances that ultimately will need to be addressed by or should be addressed by town council. Um those are within your scope. Um and just as uh Miss Ireland brought up tonight, you may want to add discussion items to the agenda to address those. And that of course means you need not wait for these for these ideas to be brought to you. Um it is within your scope and your power and authority to discuss and make recommendations on these and any other items within the planning um um area of the town of Mount Pleasant. So that's state law. Um briefly we go to town code. Uh our council established planning commission by town in our town code. If you would like to read that, it is 156.400. Has that been reumbered? It may have been reumbered. Uh but 156.400. The functions, powers, and duties that the town enumerates in the or uh in our ordinance is pretty much the same as state law. We copy it for for the most part verbatim. Um a few highlights. Um I would point out in there the function and duty that I read about the physical, social and economic growth development are similar or the same as state law. Plans and programs must be designed to promote public health, safety, morals, convenience, prosperity or the general welfare as well as the efficiency and economy of its area of jurisdiction. That is government speak at its best. Um but that is your uh that is within your function power uh and powers and duties.

Specific planning elements must be based upon careful and comprehensive surveys and studies of existing conditions. Um and this this is something that I point out to you. um planning commission. Um I I often I measure our our commissions like by how often we have to go to court on them and this David right this commission um rarely um and and rarely because mostly you're making recommendations and ultimately the final not final decisions although with subdivisions and the like that's where we do see litigation. Um, and what I will get to in a moment is is really what we see and that is foyer requests. And for those of you who have been on this commission any length of time, you've heard my discussion and and I'll get into that about foyer requests. But, uh, my my chief legal advice is don't make yourself a witness. Um, the town, as you are all aware, you can read any newspaper over the last 15 or so years, has been involved in substantive litigation related to development rights and and restrictions. Um, and we um have fortunately been successful in almost all of those. Um, um, and you know, so we fought those battles. Um, but it's not without scars. And what I mean by that is there have been times where planning commissioners and we get into the discovery in a lawsuit and lawyers who bill by the hour are adept at this. They want to take as many depositions and as many witness as they can and that has gone down. I don't want to say gone down but the planning commission level even though decisions were not made um discovery has expanded into those areas. So how to not make yourself a witness um is is what I can tell you. First thing

um is by all means it is best to not have substantive discussions via email, text or otherwise. Um there are limitations on that but substantive discussions related to decisions should be in the public forum and I think that's a good rule for for everybody just as a general matter of open government. There's a lot of discussion at our council uh and other councils across the state and country about openness about about um just about making sure that the public has access to what it is that we discuss and do. Um so so that is part number one. Um the other is um statements in the press. There is nothing that will get you made a witness faster than saying something for example to the post and courier. um about what it is that you do. Um there aren't restrictions on that. Um you you you can do that. Whether that is in council's favor or not is a decision that you will have to make. The exception I would say is anything that we talk about in executive session. This commission rarely has executive sessions. U but when we do um that that is very important. So those are the two things um to protect your personal privacy. Uh you all have townisssued email addresses. Um please, this is my plea to you, use those for for business purposes for this commission. The reason is this. Um we delivered a report to council about two months ago. Our number of foyer requests has crept up to over 2,000 per year. Wow. Um amazing. The enormity of it is something that is difficult to comprehend. And most of those um are are reports and and

the like. But um lawyers, press, citizens have all learned and and this is part of open government and we're happy that this is available. Um but what has truly expanded the number of requests because of the availability but also what it is being requested it is emails, texts and other communications now that we in real the reality is 20 years ago we weren't having this sort of email traffic. We are now the amount of work that gets done uh via email and other communications is significant. And when we get these requests, we have to go to the town server, our IT staff, and we have to do word searches. If you are emailing or texting on a private number, that is a town record subject to FOIA and then you will get an unfriendly well, it'll be friendly, but you will get a phone call from me that you don't want. And that is lawyers are mostly smart. They know that many politicians have decided, and I'm not classifying you as politicians, but well, if I just do this on my personal phone, I don't have to disclose it. Um, that is decidedly not the case. In fact, it is a public record. You are required to keep public records. And if you put them on your personal phone, it may be that we're going to have to you are going to have to turn that in and do a search on it. Uh now we don't under any circumstances I don't want that to happen. What I promise you is we'll fight that as much as we can. But the ultimate decision comes down to a judge who may very well will order that and then there's very little I can do. Please protect your personal privacy, your business's privacy, your family's privacy and the like and just do everything on town email because then

you can say I don't have anything on my personal um everything goes to the server. If you are emailed I'm using email but there are other forms of communication on your private email address. Simply forward it to your town email address and then it will be on the server and we will not have to bother you. Make sense? Yeah. Yes. Beyond being deposed, can you touch on immunity a little bit for those who don't know? Um well, there is something called legislative immunity. Okay. Um so I don't want to be completely dire in my um and and again um we have been very fortunate. We've had a number of favorable rulings over the years of courts protecting legislative immunity. And that what that essentially means is um decisions are made as a body. No one individual or three individuals have the ability to make a decision. They are joint and your individual reason for making a decision other than what is spoken is not. So if one person says uh let's go to the discussion before I want 30 feet because I think 30 feet is the best possible thing and the commission votes whatever it is to 30 feet. Um typically you're not subject to discovery on your personal opinion. Now, where judges do not like is the two things I mentioned before. Sending that out to an email to the public in an effort to lobby for a position and or going to the press. For whatever reason, they've been fairly inconsistent in that regard. And those things firstly will get you noticed by the other side, right? Whoever it is. Secondly, judges are less likely to protect you, our council, and everybody else from that immunity. So that's more than you wanted, but um we do fight that fight.

Okay. Uh questions about FOYA, anything like that? Okay. Um just a few items. U your rules of procedure. Uh we've gone over one item tonight. Um there is a provision in there related to conduct of members. um that mostly relates to your uh the the integrity of the position um and your um requirements for attendance. Um so one of the items I do want to um bring up is item 11 which is in the bylaws uh 2B11. If you happen to be want to read this, commission members shall refrain from initiating, commenting or responding on social media on any matter before the commission as such commun communication creates an appearance of an inability to render an impartial and objective decision on an agenda item. I'm not sure if everyone was aware of that. I I don't know of any activity like that happening and I'm not scolding anyone. and just it is on there and it is a condition um that council could review if um if a commission member was out there posting on social media about items that are coming up for vote. Um please note the conflict of interest. Um if you have a question about conflict of interest, please contact me. Usually um in South Carolina ethics those laws, it has to be a financial interest. What I would tell you though is that there is a conflict and that there is the appearance of conflict which in many cases is viewed as equal as equally uh poor decision making voting on an item that has the appearance of conflict as there is a conflict. Um typically we like to state the reason for a conflict and um I'm

happy to discuss that. I cannot make the ultimate decision as to whether it is. you will do that. But um mostly we heer on the side of caution. So it's not to put you in a bad spot um and you to sub subject yourself to criticism. Um I won't go into all the details about officers and the like. Just a brief refresher on um the order, excuse me, um order business for public hearings. Um just note if you do have the opportunity to review section three hearing procedures um we do have a U chair designate opens the hearing. We have staff presentation the applicant presentation public comments board commission questions application or applicant and staff response or rebuttal and then the public hearing is closed. So it's not just the public comment part and then there are comments and deliberation once it's closed then it's all commission it's comments um and the like um over the years and commend you sir um of all the chairs I've gone through you have it down and uh we do it the right way um we haven't always done it the right way so thank you for that I on you to correct me when I'm so thank you uh do note that um public comment um it just it's always on our agenda the council has has uh ru uh made a decision a few years ago that public comment is permitted at all meetings. So even if we had a special meeting without a public hearing, public comment is permitted and we have the same rules across the town. So I know everyone wants to get going. Those are the general provisions. Um I do have a document that we have prepared over the years. It is uh it is our town council legal training outline. There are several provisions in here that are relevant to you and I can send

a version of this to you. It has details about executive session. Um it has details about um about electronic communications. Just keep in mind that our Supreme Court is 20 years behind the times. Um there are very few rules and very few case decisions about electronic communications. But those in the last five years have all started to make their way through. And so things like if there are five of you emailing each other about a matter, are you having a public meeting? Does that create a quorum? And the answer is yes. It's a quorum and you are discussing business. That is a foyer violation. So we don't want to have that. But so we can't avoid just being in the room doesn't mean it's a public meeting. We can have a a public meeting without notice. If there is a quorum, the next logical question I always get is what if we are all at a town function and there are five of us standing around and we bring up a matter. Well, the technical answer is yes. It doesn't mean that any five of you cannot congregate at the same time. It just simply means that you can't talk about business, commission business at that time. And I'm I'm aware of of these types of questions. So, if you have them, please let me know. Um, otherwise, if you have anything, uh, I'm here to answer them or you can call me at any time. I'll be glad to answer any individual questions. I I I have a question for you. Yes. So hypothetically, supposing um a company wants to build a cell tower in a particular area, right? And would it be would are we allowed would I be allowed to go to that neighborhood and talk to some of the the people in in that neighborhood to see, you know, what their feelings are about it?

Yes, sir. Um state law prescribes that you have the right to view um with permission. You can actually go on the property or or there's a provision that you can go view it and provide if you provide 10 days notice. In my 14 years as town corporation council, we've never had to provide notice. People just generally go buy properties. What I advise that you do not do is walk onto somebody else's property without their permission. Um we have had that happen a couple times. um is not no I remember a couple years ago there was um let me think how it's worked now there was a there was a road and and the people in the neighborhood you know wanted to keep that road closed the way it was now because kids played there and so forth and so I actually went out there and I saw a lady with a stroller with a baby and and I I asked her her opinion on you know should you know how she felt about that right and she explained to me no these kids all play and this is a dead end street we really don't want to expand it you know that that sort of thing. Was I okay doing that? Yes, sir. Uh I mean, as members of the planning commission, you have not only can you a duty and obligation to learn and understand what it is you are voting on. Now, where the state tells us that you have to stop short is in a they call it a contested hearing. Well, we really don't do contested hearings at planning commission, but if there is an application, um you you probably um well, let me ask this in you can silently answer. Has has anyone ever been contacted by an applicant to say, "Here's what I'm doing. You know, will you will you take this into consideration? Will you vote in my favor?" Um I I know that that happens. I know that people do it. you're not doing anything wrong. Um, you

are welcome to talk to people. Um, if asked, you would have to disclose that. I would limit. Just again, don't make yourself a witness. You can do that. And I'm talking about applicants here. Um, you probably don't want to do that. Um, your question, sir, isn't about applicants, but but citizens or residents. No, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the residents in an area who are have an issue with something that may be coming up. Sure. Uh there's no problems with that at all. Okay. Um and and in fact um for years and um for many years um Mr. Chapman who was a council member now sat on planning commission and he you know I think he visited every single thing that ever came up on an agenda. He was so diligent about it and you know it was just the the it was a good thing to do. He was very familiar with the with what properties looked like the surrounding neighbors. He was so diligent about that and and and that is mostly encouraged in the language of a contested hearing. Yeah. In your opinion, if we were to speak on a matter and then defer it to a later date by statute, does that make it a contestant here? Speak on it and defer it. If we spoke on something as an action item and let's say we deferred it, right, for another special meeting, would that bring it? Okay. So, that's that's open close. All right. Right. There is a number of rules about deferrals and the like in your rules and deferrals continues. There's some technical difficulties, but we we as a as a commission really never have a problem with that. You're permitted to defer. You get requests to defer um all the time. And um again, I'm getting off the scope of your question, but it does bring up that if you don't act in six months, then it's an automatic. I just wanted your interpretation language.

If we m if we hear something before us, we make a recommendation to council, it's no longer before us. It may come back to us. Yes. But until it comes back to us, it's not a matter before the commission. Is that right? Yeah. But the problem is when it comes back and there are public comments on it, it becomes a problem. Um because I mean it I can't remember when things come back, but it seems to me that things sometimes do. So I I think in that situation and you know it's about making comments on it. I think there would probably have to be a discussion. You're you're right, ma'am. That's it's not often, but in that situation, it would have to be an individual analysis of whether there should be a recusal of some sort, right? Um based on what the comments are. If it's a position of advocacy, well, then it's more likely that at least my recommendation is going to be to stand down. Yeah. Right. Yeah. To recuse. Very good. Anything else, sir? um executive session. Again, you you touched on it very quickly. We've only had to go in that I can recall once, maybe twice in several years, but you may um highlight the criteria by which we would do that. Um sure. For purposes of this commission, anything that anything that relates to legal advice, um general legal advice on a particular matter before you or pending litigation. So there uh there there are occasions where what you do may very well affect pending litigation. Um and I will notify you of that. Staff will notify you of that. Um but if there is something that arises um during a meeting um this is

and again I'm gonna I can go off for for hours on the Supreme Court and they're back and forth about things but um you do have that option available to you if a legal matter arises but it has to be legal advice. Um council on the other hand deals with contracts, personnel. Those are different matters, but for purposes of this commission, it is legal advice um that could negatively or positively I guess affect the town or pending litigation. Um again sir I think it's mostly happened to my recollection in matters of final decisions such as uh subdivision of lots and things like that. Um and part of the reason I bring it up for the entire council is that um it's not required that the chairman do that. Um any one of you could right to to make that motion and request that we seek seek that kind of guidance and you should if if you feel it's uh it's necessary. And so that is again there are no votes in executive session. It is legal advice. You all cannot deliberate. Um it is just legal advice. So that that's on me to stop you know any discussion and say you have the advice. Anything else needs to come out as a matter of public record. Um and that is you are it's one secrecy. Um and you know anything that is any legal advice specifically And over the years, hypotheticals, um, decisions made that could affect pending or pending litigation, um, towns involved once in a while in property transactions, purchase and sale of properties. Um, those types of things, um, as I recollect over the years, um, have arisen and sometimes there is sensitive information that

could negatively affect the town from a litigation or bargaining perspective. Um, if you all don't have my cell number, um, I'll make sure I send it out again. Uh, if you all have any individual questions, it is best to communicate directly with me. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks, y'all.