County Council - Regular Meeting

21st Charleston County Council Committee meetings. I'm Joe Boykin. I represent District 8 and currently serve as chair of council. And at this time, I'd like to ask all of our council members and our key staff to please introduce themselves, starting with Mr. Wehrman.

Rob Wehrman, District 3.

Teddy Bryan, District 5. Larry Kabrowski, District 2.

Bill Tootin, County Administrator.

Kristen Worcester, Deputy Clerk of Council.

Herb Sass, District 1.

Mr. Darby, District 4, please pardon my attire for this afternoon, please. Brantley Moody, District 7.

Natalie Hamm, County Attorney.

Thank you all. At this time, we'll begin our Planning and Public Works Committee, which is chaired by Mr. Pryor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All members of council participate in this one. Our first item is approval of the minutes. What is the pleasure? second addition for me seven uh minutes all in favor signify by saying aye item number two is the town of kiowa island and a portion of betsy karrison parkway request to adopt i think the mayor was here one time before for those of you who don't know and um wanted to take that over but um i think they know my position but Do anybody need a presentation? Everybody's under there, so is there a motion?

I move to approve, Mr. Chair.

Okay, is there a second? I second. Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. I'm a nay. Okay, item number three, mutual drive sidewalk project. Staff recommendation. Is there a second?

Second.

Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? The ayes have it. The first item on 4A is the bell grid zoning. And I think you remember when that?

Move for planning commission recommendation, which is approved. Move for planning commission recommendation. Which is approval? Yes, sir.

Second.

OK. Mr. Moody moved.

Yes, sir. Mr. Moody. I want to make sure. This is the one we discussed last week. This is a down zone that this daycare center is looking to expand their, what I would see as non-passive, a more passive operation. If they want to down zone it, far be it for us to tell them that. There were two gentlemen that came and spoke against it. And I'm not sure that they understood what could actually go there by right should this down zone be turned down. So I think this is it. It is a commercial corridor. There are some residences back there. But I think a down zone requested by the property owner is probably not a bad deal for this area. Thank you, sir.

Anybody else? Mr. Grabowski? I think that Councilman Moody brings up a good point. And I just want to say, because it's a public meeting, that somebody from the staff to – so that anybody listening can understand what is being zoned down from and what would be entitled if they didn't down zone it and what would be entitled if we vote to approve this i feel would be this good to hear that all right sir you can just give them the zoning uh you can show it on the screen right yeah just briefly because so what's um allowed now and what they are down zoning too but while he's looking at that um the community did come and speak and um

Matter of fact, the engineer that came to speak for them, this project, I know him real well. But I'm going to have to not support this because the community is, I've been over in that area. I used to represent that area. And they're being enclosed in on Belgrade with all this commercial. And even though this person is trying to do something good, I mean, the traffic there, we're more concerned about the traffic and cars being parked in and out. And so I'm going to have to be a no on this one. But five people to decide. Go right ahead, sir.

Sure. So the slide on the screen is a comparison of land uses with Job Center being the current zoning, residential office being the requested. As you can see, the current density is 12 units per acre, while the requested density is four units. And then the uses in bold under each zoning are allowed exclusively in that zoning district.

And just to... I mean, I hear both sides, and I hear what Councilman Pryor said, but under an existing zoning, you can build 12 units per acre, and the change, we're reducing that to four units per acre, correct?

Yes, sir. And the intention of the property owner, he owns the two pieces of property that are part of this and an adjacent property that has the current daycare business. He just wants to combine the properties.

One other question. If it's down zoning, how can you then build a convention center if they change it to this? That seems to me like a big up zoning. Am I reading that wrong?

You're not reading it wrong, but the size of the property would constrain the uses available. So even if it's an available use, the size of the property would... Just one other question.

Under the existing Zoning. You cannot build a hospital, and you cannot build a convention center, correct? Or a recycling center. Right. Right. I see that. But under the requested one, you could build a hospital, and you could build a bank. Mm-hmm. Am I reading that right?

Yeah, and as you can see, some of these uses have S's next to them, which means it requires a special exception approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals. So even if someone was trying to get one of those uses on the property, they would have to get a special exception approved where conditions can be added or it can be denied.

All right. And just my final say, if you look at the current zoning, child care centers included. Okay. So what would it be other than, you know, gaining 40s of, I say, of the business or the industrial side, because once we zone this property, if this owner wants to resell it or sell it to somebody else, you're going to add more. and what they got, but so I don't understand why, did somebody explain to me, maybe he can, why he wanted to change the zoning if he already can operate a childcare center? Is the applicant here?

I can explain. I'm familiar with the reasoning is the special exception that was approved for the current daycare allows has conditions of certain hours, so starting at 6.30 a.m. The Job Center It has a specific requirement of 7 a.m. being the earliest time you can have a business open. So they want to be able to apply, if they expand the daycare, be able to apply for a special exception, keeping the current 6.30 a.m. start time.

So the current zoning is what, 7 o'clock for child care care?

under under job center is seven o'clock but where the existing daycare is is under the has the residential office zoning so these other properties he wants to switch to that so it all matches what's the difference yeah that's what i'm saying is this a 30 minutes worth of difference in the time right Yes.

Yeah, I mean for the child center, but is there any way, I'm just asking because I sympathize with these people, is there any way that we could do something to give them special exception for the time the way it's currently zoned? And my biggest thing is if we zone this thing now and we change it, these people are stuck with this forever. Okay? And somebody can come in and build all these stuff, you know, and when the original owner was, it used to do a child care center.

So you can see the two subject parcels here. The parcel to the south that's a different color, that's the existing daycare parcel. So he wants to combine those three. And like I kind of mentioned earlier, the size of this will constrain a lot of these available uses. There's not enough room to build a hospital, those kind of things. The main impetus is to possibly expand daycare and keeping that 6.30 start time.

All right, Mr. Moody.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. He needs to speak first, yes. Go ahead, Mr. Moody. No, you go. You need to speak first. That's the rule.

If I could clarify one thing, is the goal of this thing to have all three parcels share the same zoning? Yes, to keep a split zoning. Nope, understood.

Correct.

I just I think this this down zone is just a much more passive. It makes a good point about the size of the lots constraining what may be permitted by right. But, you know, 12 houses versus four. I mean, it's just I can think of a lot of worse uses on a property than a daycare center that has some drop off time in the morning and then some drop off pickup time in the afternoon. It's not like it's going to be an industrial concern where there's people coming and going all the time. We're not just downzoning or upzoning just on the whim that they may do something. We know what his intentions are. We know what the operation is. I just think it's a more passive use of the property. I think the neighbors, I hope they would agree if they saw all this, but I just think it's a, you know, we've looked at downzones in historic districts and things like that. If somebody wants to downzone their property, knock yourself out. That's kind of the way I look at it.

Mr. Chairman, and then we kind of back to Mr. Cabrera.

Thank you, Mr. Pryor. I guess one potential outcome of all this, if he gets all the properties zoned alike, he could then look at abandoning the lot lines and having one parcel.

Yes, and they have already submitted a proposed subdivision doing that, but they can't have the split zoning. That's my whole point.

I picked up on that when I was looking at what was going on. No, thank you, sir. That clears it up.

Thank you. Just two brief questions, and thanks for your time. Sure. So the total was 0.12 acres?

Let me, hold on. I think it's, let's get the total here. So yeah, combined acreage is 0.38. 0.38.

Well, then my concerns about a hospital and all those other things really wouldn't apply, right?

Yes, sir.

And what the Chairman Boykin brought up, I was concerned, what if they combine all, by changing this and down zoning, would we make it easier or harder for them to combine this into one lot that they wouldn't be allowed then to do all these things? If somebody was to sell this, they could possibly do the hospital and other things. Does that make it less likely or more likely? I don't know.

Well, they're asking for the rezoning to be able to combine it, because otherwise they can't combine the three properties. So they want to match the...

So what is the combined acreage then of the three properties?

So I believe it might be... I think it's less than two acres total if they combined it with the... Because this is the... This is the parcel right here.

How many homes are there on there now? That'll be my question.

It's just the daycare business. And then these subject properties, asking for the resenting, are both vacant.

All right. Thank you very much.

OK. So there's already been a motion and a second. All in favor? Should we do a vote? Yeah, we're going to vote.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye. All opposed, I'm a nay.

Me and Mr. Grabowski.

Our names. Okay. Item 4B. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Ayes have it. Item 4C. The Hamlin Beach Community HD designation. What is the pleasure? I'll motion. Mr. Kabrowski motioned. I'll second. Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Aye. Ayes have it. That concludes our Planning and Party Works Committee agenda.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Pryor. We will now move on to our Transportation and Sales Tax Special Committee. I'll serve as chair and all members of council are members of this committee.

Mr. Chairman, before you move on, I'd like to say hi to Mr. Joel Evans. He's back. Glad to see him back. You didn't stop. Thank you all so much. Always good to see you. All right.

Thank you all. Yes, sir.

Okay. All right. Do we have any motions for the ordinance for the sales tax referendum? I'm sorry. Excuse me. Excuse me. Item one, approval of minutes. All right.

I'll second it.

We're on the minutes. I'll second the minutes, too, then.

I'm with you, Mr. Wayman. I was moving right on to the meat, so sorry. Excuse me. So we're on the minutes. So any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. The ayes have it. All right. Moving on to item two. A, the Transportation Sales Tax Referendum Ordinance Request to Approve.

Move to approve. I'll second it.

All right. Any discussion?

All right. So is it the same sales tax ordinance that we did? Circulated. Did you send it out to everybody? Yeah.

Yes, sir. So it's the same ordinance except for the ballot question language. That looks a little bit different. If you want to turn to page 4 of your packet, item 2.4 is where the projects are listed. So it's a little bit different than what we have done before where it pursuant to the instructions received from this body, the featured projects are outlined based on the public input that was provided.

Mr. Chairman, I'm asking the attorney this, but anyone can answer. Have we evaluated the comments that came from Charleston Moves? There was a definition that they had asked us to look at. I don't know if anyone... Yeah. Well, even if we haven't, when this goes to council, we can request to amend up to third reading, right?

Yes.

Okay.

So you need to change the motion to amend up to third reading?

In finance? Okay, yeah. In this committee? I didn't know we needed to do it in committee. So just make sure everybody's on the same page that the motion would be to be able to amend up to third reading. But we'll take up that motion, I guess, in full council after this.

All right.

yeah i i would echo um what miss honeycutt said i i took a look at the uh the sort of red line that was sent in by charleston moves i'm certainly open to that i'll just say that's sort of to stake out my position here I'm open to providing as much detail as we possibly can, so long as it's, first of all, accurate, and second of all, legal. And so, you know, personally, on the second of all part, I would ask our legal staff to take a look and weigh in. We don't have to deal with that tonight.

We can certainly have that discussion before first reading next week. Sounds great. That sounds good. All right.

Chairman?

Yes, sir, Mr. Moody.

Mrs. Hamm, question for you. With these, and I hear you, Mr. Warren, with these feature projects and all this stuff, What happens if we get into some of these projects and we find out there's bad dirt, there's environmental problems, we can't do the project, yet it's listed in the ordinance? How do we move that money? There they go, moving the money again. How do we move that money to another project if one of these projects or several of these projects cannot happen, whether it's by flood restrictions, the ground's dirty, Old cemeteries under there, whatever. You name it. What happens if you can't do a project that's listed in here? Is that money stuck?

I do not believe so. The way that the TST ordinance and statutory provisions are outlined is such that it is a process by which you're planning for the future, a lot of which is unknown. And so there's language in the ordinance that allows for this body to make future decisions when necessary.

Good luck.

Mr. Moody, I'll raise the point to that issue. Main Road Corridor Segment C was completely rejected by the public. We went to put it out to actually move forward with it and ended up not being pursued. And those funds were rolled over into Main Road Corridor Segment A.

That was under a previous sales tax, Mr. Chairman, that we're not governed with this much detail, which I'm not opposed to, but I just worry about us getting jammed up where you can't do a project and then the money's stuck.

Yes, Mr. Pryor. I think that's a good point, too, because maybe we may have to put something in this to say in the event a project is not doable, the funds can be used as counsels direct, Would that something that we might be able to add into that language?

Thank you.

So Mr. Moody is asking if it's like bad dirt and you got to move the money. You know, that's, you know, we're already getting beat up. I know a lot of y'all see we're getting beat up because people are saying you can't trust, you know, and not of our making, but public perception, the newspaper, the special agents group, you know, they're putting this in the minds of people. I'm getting calls from my constituents, well, you know, why haven't y'all put more toward roads and transportation census or roads and transportation tax? And so I just want to make sure by the time this thing gets to third reading, we got it. most of these things out of the way so that way it won't be a stand on us because i find it ironic the same people that was telling everybody not to trust us now the same people in the paper saying well we got our hands out y'all go ahead and you know and let's get this thing done because we need more money for green belts and we need money for this so you know i'm a little skeptical right now but i've been getting calls from constituents And they are concerned about why not enough money is going toward roads and transportation versus the Greenbelt since we've already achieved the goal that we started out years ago.

Ms. Honeycutt.

Ms. Hamm, and maybe I am not reading it correctly, but under item number one after the question, it says $2.7 million for financing the cost of highways, roads, streets, bridges, and other transportation-related projects, facilities, and drainage facilities related thereto such as... And it lists items that we would like to see completed. There's featured items. There's intersection projects, pavement management, bike and ped, and even other projects. But it would be my interpretation of that language that we're talking about we want projects like this. But there is some flexibility in there. For instance, if it becomes impossible to do the battery extension west because it's not permitted or some other issue, this language doesn't bind us to complete the project. It may have to be done by the Corps or somebody else or some other way. Is that a correct interpretation? That will be accurate.

Mr. Sass. On a different tack, Ms. Honeycutt, if we had a project that was not able to be taken on, to be done, would there be a possibility of of bringing up a couple of different projects and picking a good one or having the public be involved or whatever. So if we had a project, and sales tax is a 25-year thing. So I mean, suppose 10 years in, we're into one project and we haven't started it yet and we find out we can't do it. There's still plenty of time to pick a substitute project. I mean, could we, is there some way it could go out to the public and they could help pick that new project that would come? It would have to fit in the amount of money that was there, you know, to do the project that didn't get to be completed. But, I mean, is there a possibility that we could do something like that? I mean, because they accuse us of moving the money around, and this way we wouldn't be moving the money around. The public would have some say in it.

Mr. Kabrowski.

I was going to make another comment, but I'll also address that. You know, I think the fact that we listed specific projects this time shows that we got the lessons from last time and for somebody who vigorously fought the last one i want to thank those everybody here working together and coming up with um being specific so people know what we're voting on and i think councilman honeycutt addressed that by saying that it talks about pavement management and so forth and intersection projects but i opposed the last time because we weren't specific this time i think we went to great lengths to make it so everybody that knows if they vote for this, what they're getting. And I think with the Greenbelt, just to comment, as we get the Long Savannah project, West Ashley, and to me, that is going to be a nightmare addition to traffic management. that the green space is the way to get land off so we can't do that in other places. So I think this is a great step forward, what we're voting on, and a real improvement from last time. And I congratulate the members of council for coming up with a compromise. We all represent different districts. And to come up with something that to the most way possible to address our needs. I think we've done this in a responsible way and are as specific as possible. So I thank everybody for that.

If I might offer one other possibility, as we experienced in the last sales tax with 57% inflation over five years, prudent course might be to hold those funds or the expenditure of those funds in abeyance and have them in reserve for other projects that the voters did vote for. to cover any cost overruns. I mean, there's another potential. We wouldn't necessarily have to spend them immediately. At the end of the day, if we get on budget for all these projects and we've got money left over, that would be a different situation. But I think that could be prudent to be prepared for something like that. Mr. Wehrman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, first of all, I'd echo what other folks have said. I mean, I think that the purpose of specificity is to demonstrate commitment to the project and to combat some of these narratives about, you know, moving things around. You know, tying our hands to the mast as much as we, I guess, legally can here is, I think, the right move. I did also want to ask about the timing here. So I know there is... I know there is still some, you know, we got this request from the city of North Charleston. I think they're investigating that issue with the sound wall. That still seems to be sort of up in the air. And so, you know, first, second, third reading here take, what, a month to get done? I mean, does that put the timeline for that issue to be figured out within a month? Or do we, you know, we could extend this to, I guess, into early August. But I mean, I guess here's my question. Is there any way to revisit that issue after we pass this a third reading? Because this kind of third reading kind of seems like the last time we touch this.

Madam Attorney.

I'm going to try and answer your question best I can. So if the issue isn't resolved and you have third reading, that does make the ordinance final. But as you know, there are processes by which you can revisit things and time frames upon which that needs to be done. Those would need to be adhered to. Of course, we do have the deadline with the election commission that we want to be mindful of, and we've curated the schedule in coordination with the clerk's office. Obviously, the chairman has the authority to call special meetings when necessary, but I hope that that perhaps answers your question to the best of my ability.

It does. The deadline with the election commission is August 15th.

Okay. All we can just do like the state, just change the date. Change the election. Okay. All right.

Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay. Two nays, Mr. Pryor and Mr. Moody. All right, that concludes our Special Transportation Sales Tax Committee. Moving on to our Finance Committee agenda. I serve as chair of the Finance Committee and all members of council are members of the committee. Approval of minutes. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it.

Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Vote for approval 3A through D. Second.

All right. Any discussion?

Yeah. Quick comment, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. 3B, I wanted to thank our economic development partners. Y'all may recall this is that project property down Highway 61 that had the busted up car wash that we let them change the zoning on so they could get this thing fixed up. This is a follow-up to that where there's tax credits, I think, that are associated with this for improving and or fixing up abandoned properties. We had one similar to that dry cleaning building on Highway 61. So this is a great follow-up by our economic development partners. Mr. Tootin, if you'll pass that along, I'd appreciate it.

Okay. Any further discussion? Oh, there you are.

Sorry, I didn't see you.

Hearing none. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Moving on to agenda item four. Yes, sir.

Can I ask a question? So I saw on the news where this hotel on the corner of Dorchester and where I-26 comes, we're going to be applying for affordable housing. Is there any of this related to 4A or 4B? It's 4B?

Yes, it's in Eris.

All right. Well, I will discuss 4B when we get to it. Okay. Move for approval 4A.

Second. All right. Any discussion? I'm sorry. I wanted to thank the staff for keeping their eye on the timeline. Yes. To make sure we get that money out. If people, whoever's dragging their feet on it, let's get it where it can get to good use. So, Mr. Tootin, thank you and your staff for keeping your eye on that. Let's get the money in the street. Mr. Pryor, that's 4A only. Yes, sir.

Yes, sir. All right. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Let's have it. 4B. Move for approval.

Second.

All right. I want a discussion on that one.

No. Okay. I want to ask some questions. Go ahead, Mr. Pryor.

Okay. So how many rooms are we getting in that one, my man? Because I think it says like 100 and something and so many of them is affordable. And I'm sorry, I didn't, you know.

134 units, Mr. Brown. 134? 134.

And how many of them will be, they said, I think, 30-something of them?

75% of those. Will be affordable? Yes, sir. And 80% AMI.

And so what's the price range that would be when they say affordable for rent?

I'm going to defer $1,200. $1,200 will be the average.

And that's just a one-bedroom?

Yes, sir. Studio.

$1,200 a month. All right. Affordable to who? That's the question. And then the other 25% would be what? 120% AMI. And what would be the price on that?

He said $1,300 to $1,400.

They say $1,400, and that's a two-bedroom? They're all studio apartments, Mr. Pryor. Okay, so $1,200 to $1,400 in the price range. You know, that guy has been trying to get something out of that place for years, okay? And I think we're going to be giving like $1.2 million, I think it is. $1.2 million.

1.6, and this would be to purchase that property from the current owner that's had it vacant for about five years.

And then deed it over to?

To the new organization, which is Brick Lane.

You know, and I worry about the traffic as well, too. Dorchester Road has become, you know, a bottleneck. And, you know, so we got a hundred and... 34. If people got caught, that's going to be up and down Dorchester Road. The traffic used to get bad after you pass the middle school up there. But now it's bad from I-26 all the way on up Dorchester Road. That's every day. Steve, you know you're in it. What are we going to do to... Everything is coming to North Charleston. Traffic, traffic, traffic. Everything is hitting Dorchester Road. I'm... You know, while I like affordable and doing all that, but I got to look out for the constituents as well with all this traffic being dumped in that area. So, I mean, while I think this might be a good idea, but, you know, I think I'm going to be a no tonight until I can get some more information on Monday. I mean, before Tuesday. And then I can look at it. But it's like everything is being dumped in North Charleston. You know, and somebody else has got to take the brunt of some of this stuff, too. No knock on y'all. No knock on y'all. Y'all doing your job. But I'm just saying, and then look at the area it's in right now. You got the wheeling right there, and then you got Dutch Estateras right across from there. Maybe we could have better used some of those money to fix up houses on there, roofs and floors, and keep those people in their houses. But that's something else I'll talk to Mr. Rand about.

Okay? Thank you, Mr. Eric. All right.

Anyone else? All right. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?

I'm going to be in NATO Tuesday, Mr. Chairman.

All right. Mr. Pryor is in the item carries. All right. Moving on to Agenda 5, 5A, and 5B.

I'll vote for approval A and B.

Second. All right. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Item six, committee recommendation for transportation sales tax committee, 6A. I have a motion.

I move to approve committee recommendation with, again, the caveat that that includes amendments up to third reading. OK. Second.

All right. We got it properly moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay. Two nays, Mr. Moody and Mr. Pryor. And that concludes our committee meetings and we stand adjourned.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.