Town Council - Special Meeting

Hey, after after this stomach virus, I ain't got a best side anymore. Good evening everyone. I'm Howard Chapman. I'll be chairing the meeting tonight. Mayor Haney is under the weather, but he's with us tonight on team. So, Mayor, can you hear me? Okay.

Yes, I can. Can you hear me? Yes, sir. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Okay. We've called this meeting to order and we'll move forward with public comment. Is anyone here for public comment? Come ahead and give us your name and your address. And you got two and a half minutes. Good afternoon. Good afternoon.

My name is Ray Hobbs. Um, my address is 25005 Charter Oaks Drive in uh Charleston National Country Club. I'm here in Mount Pleasant and uh here this evening to say thank you on behalf of uh those of us who live near Porche Creek. uh very excited to see the town taking action to protect our wetlands. We have a very vested interest in that we live on Porsche Creek and I would like to ask uh just one favor as we move through the considerations for this ordinance. Please include impact statements from people that are living or residents of Mount Pleasant who are living adjacent to development projects. We have a project currently uh Crescent Homes is trying to uh develop the Leland Park subdivision on the 614 00004 parcel. Have to remember to get all the zeros in there. And there are nine of us who are adjacent to the roadway that they are attempting to build which has the marsh immediately adjacent 5t away with critical lines on one side and two wetland areas, wetlands A and wetlands B in the Jack Leland Road um access which is a one lane gravel road that has served the residents which were only three up until about 1980. Uh it connected the Porsche family home on the

bluff to the old Georgetown Highway. Um, we're now surrounded. There's only 526 feet of it left. And it serves as private driveway for the 006 parcel, which I own, and the 007 parcel, which is owned by Miss Allison Okconor. Uh, Crescent Homes wants to destroy this roadway and this green space. There are six homes adjacent to it on the other side and there are 19 other homes on the other side of Charter Charter Oaks Drive that are going to be impacted because of the removal of this green space. Uh hey Mr. Yes sir.

Oh thank you very much. Nice to see everyone and appreciate the opportunity. Thank you sir. Have a good day. Would anyone else like to speak during public comment? Seeing none, we'll move on to the next item on the agenda, executive session. In the executive session, we have legal and contractual issues as well as personnel issues. Um, would someone like to make a motion? Move to go into executive session for the items listed on the agenda.

Motion made and seconded to go into executive session for the items listed on the agenda. Council may take action on any item, including any subsection of any section listed on an executive session agenda or discuss in executive session during a properly noticed meeting. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying I. I like eyes have it. We go upstairs executive session.

the uh special council meeting back in order as we were in executive session. Uh during that executive session, council may take action on any item including the subsection of any section listed on an executive session agenda or discussed in executive session during a properly noticed meeting. Okay. going into those items. Is there a um we're we're executive session a legal and contractual? Um Mr. Chairman, I know I have a motion. Mr. Rambo,

motion to authorize town administrator and corporation council to proceed as discussed in executive second. Motion made and seconded to allow us to move forward as discussed in executive session on item A1. Any discussion? Seeing none, call for the question. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Oppos? Eyes have. Next item is item number two. Um, do we have a motion on item number 2 A? Motion to approve mediation settlement on item 2A. Second. Motion made and seconded. Uh any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying I. I opposed. Vice have it. Next item under item 3B, item number one. Yes. Mr. Chapman have a motion. Yes, ma'am. Um motion to approve or to um nominate Rich uh Corvalin for the recreation advisory commission. Is there a second? Second. Motion made and seconded. Uh any discussion? Seeing none, call for the question. All those in favor signify by saying I. I.

Eyes have. Okay. Item number B2, applications on the planning commission. Mission that we reappoint Michelle Mansour to her seat on the planning commission. Second motion made and seconded to reappoint Miss Monsour to the planning commission. Any discussion? Seeing none, call for question. All those in favor signify by saying I I

eyes have it. Okay. Um, next item is to adjourn the special council meeting. We got a few minutes to let the clerk get ready for our regular council meeting in just a few minutes. So, let's give her maybe five minutes and then we'll start up on the town council meeting. Ready? You did say five minutes.

Good evening everyone. Um, I'm Howard Chapman. I'll be chairing the meeting tonight. Unfortunately, Mayor Haney is under the weather and I'll ask my council members for their indulgence as we go forward. First item on the agenda is a prayer by Chaplain Lewis Lee. M Reverend Lee. Good evening everyone. Bow your heads please. Heavenly Father, thank you for another day in your wonderful world. Lord, make us f make firm our purpose that our word may be as good as our bond and our dealings fair and honest to all in our workday world. Guide town of Mount Pleasant to be good stewards of our resources and make pro wise, prudent decisions for our citizens. Help us always strive to live well. If we do, our well will never run dry. Help us to forget the mistakes of the past and press on to the greater achievements of the future. Give us grateful hearts for all your bounty. Protect our military as they protect us. Keep us safe, but above all, keep us faithful. In your name we pray. Amen.

Thank you, Please. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay. Do I have a motion for approval of the agenda? So moved. Motion made. Motion made and seconded to approve the agenda. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. Like sign. Eyes have it. Next item is public hearing awards and presentations. Uh first public hearing uh is regarding the budget and this harness.

Good evening. So, this is a public hearing on the proposed fiscal year 2027 budget pursuant to section 6180 of the South Carolina Code of Laws. The total proposed budget of all funds is 177,979,494 and maintains the same millage rate as the current fiscal year 2026 budget. Okay, this is a public hearing. Now, this is a public hearing specifically about our budget. If you choose to speak on the budget, you still have the opportunity going forward during public comment to speak. So, you don't give up your right to speak during the normal public comment period. Would anyone like to speak on the budget?

Please give us your name and address. You have two and a half minutes.

Denise Fugo, Housing for All Mount Pleasant. Johnny Dobs. Um the because the town of Mount Pleasant has done extraordinarily well with their finances. Um, I would just like to request or suggest that we explore putting aside some funding for affordable housing. Again, 851 employees. If you had to hire them all today, you probably couldn't because they can't afford to live here. Um, and just remember, um, when I first started, I think it was 2020, you approved a bond for $53 million for soccer fields and recreation fields, which is wonderful, but our population is eight. We have older people moving down here now without children and that's a great great use of funds. I love I was a soccer coach. Um however I think now we are in a crisis in terms of housing and if you can put 53 million aside I would take half of that to put aside for affordable housing. Okay. And that's all I want to say. Thank you so much. We love what you do.

Would anyone else like to be heard on the budget? Seeing none, call public hearing to close. Next item on the agenda is approval of minutes from the March 10th, 2026 special meeting, the March 10th, 2026 regular meeting, the April 6, 2026 special town council meeting, and the February 2026 financial statement. Do I have a motion? Move to approve.

Motion made and seconded to approve of the minutes of those meetings that I went through. Any discussion? Seeing none, call for the question. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed like sign. The eyes have it. Next item is public comment. Anyone that would like to make a public comment, you have two and a half minutes. You have to give us your name and address. Is there anyone here who would like to speak during public comment? And Mr. Mayor Proch, we have several who have who have signed up for

Yes, sir. to speak this evening. Um, ladies and gentlemen, we have several uh speakers. I'm going to call up two at a time if you don't mind. Um, the second person I call up, if you'll stand 10 feet behind the first speaker, please. Uh, first two speakers are David C. followed by Denise Fugo.

Good evening, David C. 3404 Salter Street. Um, just wanted to talk on item 8B1 on the agenda. I'm just thanking you on behalf of First Baptist Church. Uh, represent that seller of the property. Thank you. they wanted to extend their gratitude for all the discussions um all the conversations and any support you can offer for their goals and parish. Thank you.

Thank you again, Denise Fugo, Housing for Mount Pleasant 1000, Johnny Dods. Um we're speaking on two issues here tonight. One, we are in favor of the Centerpoint development uh Park West um and the five affordable housing units. So, thank you for getting that help passed. And also for uh uh Olive Branch Church, uh their restaurant um drive restaurant, fast food restaurant that they're adding to their property. Um we do want to encourage the drive-thru. Um if you look at sales for fast food restaurants today, most of them are drive-thru. And because of the employment shortage in Mount Pleasant, you will notice at lunchtime, many of your fast food restaurants don't open their doors for their dining room because they only have enough stuff to support the drive-thru. So, please support the drive-thru uh for the branch. Thank you.

Next two speakers, John Chowy, followed by Dedra Kennedy. Thank you, Eric.

Council members, appreciate your thank list service. I'm um here today to speak on item 8B2. Um as Eric mentioned, my name is John Chalpy. I'm here on tonight on behalf of the Managol and Palmer families who I believe are here, generational owners of a sixacre parcel currently in Charleston County that has laid the groundwork towards annexation into the town to access essential sewer service. I stand before you to strongly object to the proposed ordinance amending the town's wetland development requirements. As written, this ordinance would fundamentally strip my client established development rights upon annexation and render it somewhat worthless. The crux crux of our objection is the new expansive local definition of freshwater lettons to include all features whether jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional directly conflicts with established federal scientific and legal standards. I brought with me a copy of a formal approved jurisdictional determination issued by the Chief Regulatory Division of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District. The core of engineers verified determination conclusively states 2.82 acres of the freshwater wetlands of my client's parcel are not waters in the United States as defined by the Clean Water Act. The Army Corps of Engineers, the premier wetland authority, has explicitly stated that it does not have regulatory jurisdiction over these areas. This is a conclusive binding finding. For the town to ignore this formal federal determination is a significant regulatory overreach. Now, to be absolutely clear, this a JD is not a license just casually fill in these wetlands. This is not a get out of jail free card. My client must still obtain proper permits from dehack and state which are standard for impacting any non-jurisdictional wetlands. The

step um I'm going to skip because I'm running out of time. Um for the town to ignore this is attempt to create a local environment mandate no scientific or lease basis. This is in fact the taking of the Palmer and Manag family land. It strips away the entire site by applying a local rule that has no basis on federal and state laws. the town claims to enforce. We urge the council to amend this ordinance to respect federal determinations. The ordinance should be modified to state it shall not apply to any freshwater wetland feature for which a formal approved jurisdictional determination has been issued by the core of engineers conclusively determining that such feature is non jurisdictional. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Sorry. Hi guys. Um, Dedra Kennedy, 971 Cliffwood Drive. Um, I wanted to start by saying thank you to Kevin and Mave. Um, I appreciate all the work that's gone into this ordinance, the wetland ordinance that we're discussing tonight. It's thoughtful and it's addressing a gap that really matters. I also think this is one of those moments where we have to ask ourselves, what side of history do we want to be on? Regarding section D2 of the ordinance, I understand the concerns and I think it all comes down to fairness. The town should be held to the same standards as everyone else. And as it's written, I can see how a town project, a road, or other capital improvement could impact wetlands and avoid mitigation. And that's not okay. But I don't think removing parts of it is the right fix. I think we keep D2, but fix the gap. require a clear explanation, make it transparent, and make sure mitigation is still part of the process. That gives you accountability without losing flexibility. And onto residential, I think everyone on council respects private property rights, but we're discussing wetlands, which don't follow property lines. Um what happens on one lot can directly affect the neighboring lot and the broader community, especially when it comes to drainage and flooding. Um if you remove residential from this ordinance, it would undermine its whole purpose. Wetland loss doesn't happen all at once. It happens one lot at a time. And if we take an even broader step back, we'll see that the town doesn't have meaningful limits on imperous versus pvious lot coverage. I know that there are a few neighborhoods that do, but

most do not. And I know that there were studies that the town relies on that were done years ago, but that was before the level of development we're seeing now. We have larger homes, more paving, more pools, and people are maximizing every inch of their property. Times have changed, and we need to respond now. I would argue that probably every neighborhood in the town is already seeing some aspects of flooding. To not decide to protect wetlands would be irresponsible. So, let's make the right choice now. Thank you.

Next two speakers, Leah Kabelloo followed by Anthony Bryant. Leah Kabelloo 558 Palmetto Battery Away. Hi everybody. So great to see you tonight. I have two thoughts on my mind. One is I serve on the town of Mount Pleasant green commission and I wanted to introduce myself and say hello. We serve as a resource for you all should you have any concerns about environmental aspects, sustainability or anything like that. We're here to help you as volunteers for the town. The second thing on my mind is item 8B. The town staff has worked really hard and in a very collaborative manner to put together an ordinance that is very thoughtful to preserve the wetlands that we do have. They're critical to the resilience of this town and to preserve the character that we are all here to celebrate. If you have any other questions, I'm happy to answer them. Um, but that's about it. I I hope you vote in favor of this ordinance and I look forward to being of service moving forward. Thanks.

Thank you for your service.

Anthony G. Bryant. I'm a cousin, not a brother, but I'm here for uh Henry and Palmer Andy Madagos legacy uh who's been here for quite some time. We understand sometime growth has not really been defined. And I'm a former BCA member for Charleston County that bought adjustment the 1990s and show and Henry did a lot of work downtown and affordable housing on the east side of Charleston and provided so much for folk and now they have the latter years of their life and want to do a transaction and generational wealth to pass on to their family and sometimes you're just caught in historical paradigm shift. I submit for the record that's what's going on here. We understand we're trying to do for the future, but there were theirs in the past who may have been redlined who may not have gotten insurance or flood insurance in the past. That history is real. And so therefore, I hope that you look at this a little differently and provide them said relief which they need is very important to them. The future as George was saying 1984, right? You know, you know that is the past, the present, the future. Yeah. Right. We're dealing with that right now. We're in a quiet mind and sometime political fix and so therefore it's incumbent upon you to provide a little relief for folk you know try to look tenderness is what say and so we want low tenderness for us we hope that you could provide that for these gentlemen Henry Palmer's a legend he's a legend let's just be real Henry Palmer is a legend he has done more for folk than folk has ever could ever do for him we have an obligation sometime look back a little bit and say we're going to do this for Henry and Joe give him a little bit relief from the future because they get relief in the past. Thank you for your service and time.

And um sir, we have we have Joe Palmer and Henry Palmer. Please come on up, sir.

Good afternoon. My name is Joseph Palmer. I'm a I live at 901B Longpoint Road. I'm a uh born and raised in Mount Pleasant. left here at the age of nine, went to New York City, educated, came back and got involved with my brother in construction and became contractors and we've been building all over. The issue is we've been fighting this issue of this property on Highway 17 for the last 15 years plus. Henry Palmer and Andrew Mano passed who passed. He's the brother of the persons who once owned the gas station on on 17. We built that. My brother and I, we built that. Anyway, the issue is this property we've been trying to sell for the last 15 years and we've had issues with different contractors coming in. We've had issues with the wetlands or many times they just backed away from it and left us kind of stranded. We've had numerous investment in in in in trying to get this property sold and we're at the point now where we're trying to get it done. And here we come now with uh wetlands ordinance that's going to block us from all the money and time that we put into this property. The Manico family and the Palmer family. We've been work we've been working diligently to make it happen. And and then all of a sudden we're hearing something about an ordinance coming in. We're saying we we're not for the ordinance because it's going to hurt us. all of our time and investment that has gone into it, it's going to hurt our family. And so we asking to please do not create an ordinance that's going to impact and hurt our family economically. Thank you, sir. Ma'am,

and Henry Palmer is Come on up, sir. Be too Yeah, that's what we need to know.

Good afternoon. My name is Henry Palmer. just trying to sell this property for the last 15 years and just hoping and pray that y'all do change the order to I thank you very much for that. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Next two speakers, Michael German followed by Jennifer Palmer. Good evening. Michael German, 1707 Snow Road. Um, I'm here representing uh my church, Gina Ola Branch Ame Church on Highway 17 and we're asking you to continue your support of of the zoning allowing that drive-thru to take place. Uh this is the final reading and we're hopeful that it'll be just like the first two. And again uh we'd like to invite you all of you please come and join us Sunday morning 10:30 uh for worship. We'll be glad to have all of you. I think it'll be a joyful experience. Thank you. Hey, good evening. I'm Jennifer Palmer, 8633 Refuge Point Circle. I work for Seaman Whiteside and Associates, and I am here to speak on agenda item 8B1. Um I just wanted to clarify a few things from uh last council meeting and the planning committee meeting um regarding some of the questions and um concerns that were brought up during those last couple of meetings. One is uh about the cut through uh through the buffer that's going from this development to the Life Park Church. Um, we did reach out to Life Park Church and they have security concerns about having that cut through there. They've actually had some recent

issues and don't want to add yet another um area that they have to monitor for security. So we will be um providing a connection from this development that is a safe connection from the development to George Browder sidewalk and then down the George Brder sidewalk to Life Park Church doors. Um so there will be connectivity as far as the buffers are concerned. Um, the town ordinance requires a 10-foot undisturbed buffer on the life park side of the property line plus a 10-ft undisturbed buffer on the development side of the property line which would total 20 ft, 10 on each side. Um, those buffers are undisturbed where clearing will not happen in those buffers. Those will be secured by tree protection and silk fence that the town um requires in order to be in place even before clearing starts. Um, so that is something that will be protected. And then also per the town ordinance, there are also additional planting requirements that need to go in place in those buffers and we will make sure that those also are in place as part of this project. Um the the additional 20 ft of drainage easement um per the ordinance and per regulations plantings cannot go within the the easements that goes for any type of easement. So um that is necessary for drainage behind the buildings and the 10-ft buffer would be on the other side of that drainage ement. I'm happy to answer any questions during any point in time during your discussion. Thank you.

Thank you. Turner Rose followed by followed by Andrew Wonderly Turner Rose 2278 Tillage Street. Um I'm with the center park group potential developer for the George Browder town home project. Um I know I mentioned some of these during planning committee last week but just want to share with all of council during last council meeting it was mentioned that we may receive a grant to lessen the burden on the price reduction for the church um by including affordable units. This was incorrect as concessions uh given will unfortunately have to be negotiated with ourselves and the church just to make sure the property remains economically feasible for both parties. Uh we were introduced to the South Carolina Community Loan Fund who can provide gap financing of up to $2 million. Um currently we don't plan to pursue a loan with them, but again this is a loan, not a grant. Um we have worked on many affordable projects in the town and hope to continue to do so with um housing for all of Mount Pleasant. Also wanted to reiterate um that we know the town has robust architectural review process through the design review board and look forward to working with them to develop a high quality product. Um, additionally, we are happy to design per uh, Park West architectural standards enforced by by the Mount Pleasant DRB and we are willing to share those drawings ahead of time with Park West um, if they would like to take a look at them prior to that meeting. As our engineer stated, um, we want to keep that buffer at 10 feet because um, any increase in that buffer would then impact more wetlands and trees within the site. Um, and then like she mentioned, we have the drainage ement there and we have utility easement in the front of the site. Um, so we think providing, you know, plenty of cover and ample space off the road. Lastly, we started negotiating the purchase of this land uh with the church using only market rate units. Um, as you all know, after discussions, we're now offering these five units to be affordable, adding additional expenses

such as requiring the community to join the Park West Ha will harm the value of the land for the church and probably jeopardize the project. But even more importantly, I think it would produce an undue burden on the future tenants, not just in the affordable units, but in the market rate units as well. Many families already live paycheck to paycheck, and adding any unneeded additional monthly expenses for an amenity that is not adjacent to the community, um, we believe hurts the people we're trying to help here. Um, but happy to answer any questions you all have any, but thank you very much. May police council uh Mr. Mayor Prom council members my name is Andrew Wonderly and I'm your Charleston waterkeeper. I'm here again this evening to speak in favor of ordinance 26022. I think again the ordinance is a very thoughtful approach to protecting wetlands within the town's jurisdiction that lack state and federal protections. But more than that, and this may be a little surprising, but the most common refrain I hear from people in my work at Charleston Watereper is not about water quality. It's that local cities and towns should be doing more to protect local wetlands. People get it, right? They really understand that, you know, wetlands filter pollution. They protect us from floods. They provide habitat for wildlife. And they understand that we've lost a lot of wetlands and they don't want to lose anymore. So people understand too that wetlands are some of the most valuable infrastructure we have in the low country. It works every day. They work for free. They only work if we protect them. And so Charleston Water Keeper supports this ordinance. And I want to thank you for your leadership, but not just for your leadership, for your courage in addressing this important issue. Uh it's one of the most important things that I think we can be doing at the local level right now to make sure that our future is both uh uh resilient and we have high quality habitat and water quality for future

generations. So thank you Andrew Walden followed by David Spender.

Andrew Walden 107 Bennett Street. Members of town council, I represent the personal representative of the estate of Andrew Manico, whose family owns the lot at 2631 North Highway 17, whose that we've been talking about in some degree today. Um, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you on item 8B2, ordinance number 26022, which we oppose is as it is currently drafted. I want to be clear, we do not oppose protecting wetlands. We share those values, but the ordinance as drafted bypasses the review process is already in place and will seriously harm land owners like my client. Much of my client's property contains isolated non-jurisdictional wetlands. This ordinance provides no application process, no mechanism for land owner to develop property containing these wetlands. It is a blanket prohibition. The only recourse is an appeal in circuit court. Litigation most affected land owners cannot afford. This renders their land permanently undevelopable overnight without process and without compensation. It is in practical effect the taking of their property without so much as a hearing. Council should understand that even for non-jurisdictional wetlands, a land owner must secure Bureau of Coastal Management permit and demonstrate that filling in those wetlands is necessary. This is already a high standard that's in place. The existing development process evaluates these impacts at every stage. This ordinance shortcircuits all of this. We are not asking council to weaken this ordinance. Wetland fill permits should be considered on a case-byase basis as the Bureau of Coastal Management already does. Requiring the town to issue permits through the current development process makes far better sense than an overnight

and outright prohibition with no recourse. We urge council not to pass this ordinance in its current form. Thank you. This is just

Dave 3429 Tumor Kil Circle. Good evening, council members. Ordinance number 26018. This is a threat to Park West. Adding 43 homes in an area that is not currently zoned as residential. This area is already oversaturated. The traffic situation that part of Park West is an issue. The town has recognized that and the completion of All-American Boulevard, the plan Stockdale Circle are intended to relieve traffic and improve safety. Those projects were not designed to add more housing. Park West will soon fill the traffic of 100 attainable homes. The towns of Carolina Park, which is really in Park West. It's 310 of a mile from the Stockdale Circle, and it's barely a mile from where this new development would go. The bottleneck at Park West Boulevard and Highway 17 will just worsen. Access to everyday essentials like the public shopping area will become more congested and frustrating for the current residents. They're also filling in some wetland. What's most concerning is the imparent imbalance in scrutiny. In other parts of town, such as the old village development, traffic, zoning decisions receive deep investigation and very thoughtful discussion. In contrast, this proposal feels like it's being pushed forward without the same level of care. Look at the big picture and the people that already live there. You're reszoning an area that was not designated residential and you're going out of your way to make it happen. The planning commission did not approve this request. Are we ignoring a key adviser in this matter? If approved, removing the park west HOA requirement will quickly allow the law abundant intended consequences to kick in. Who will take care of the proposed buffers, the retention pond, the common spaces, and make sure that appearance appearances stay up to that of the keeping of the neighborhood. Much of the thinking around this is wrong. The Park West HOA is against this. I shared my email with the HOA president and he

agrees with me. That was the email I sent you all on March 18th. Eugene White who spoke at the planning committee is a member of camps. He's not a representative truly of Park West and I'm going to talk to our HOA about the representation that he provided that meeting. Please deny this request for a minimum defer so more investigation and discussion can happen. The people of Park Westfield abandoned by the council. Who of you is representing the other side of town? who is challenging constructively this request from all from all angles. Please take a bigger picture look at this. Thank you. Next two speakers, Lauren Pavo and Bradoir Hel. Hi, Lauren Pavo, 317 Hawthorne Street. Actually, right down the street from you, Laura. Hi. We're neighbors. Um, I'm here um to thank you all for your time. Um, and to thank the members of council and Mayor Haney, who's of course not here, for his work on the wetlands protection ordinance. Um, I look like this actually because I've been in the marsh all day with a bunch of kids ages 7 through 14 um planting oyster beds and marsh grass trying to protect our wetlands. So, um, I'm here tonight to urge you to vote yes on this ordinance. Um, as you all know, our wetlands are a huge part of what makes Mount Pleasant special. Um, they're vital for so many reasons, including, of course, the species that live there. Um, but also for managing runoff, which in Charleston, Mount Pleasant is such a huge issue um that I believe we can't afford to um lose any more of our sponges that are soaking up the water that we don't want in our houses and on our streets. Um, so I want to thank you for your leadership in um, working toward protecting our town's future and

ensuring that development here um, responsibly interacts with all of our wetlands and reduces its impact on water qual quality for the future, wildlife, and of course um, the flooding of our home. Thank you.

Hey, good evening. My name is Rodon Halab. My address is 710 Rottage. So I am speaking on behalf of the proposed wetlands ordinance and specifically how it would affect my property at Highway 17 and McNight. I'm trying to understand as concretely as possible what this ordinance would change for that parcel if adopted. This parcel is not a blank blank slate parcel. that already has prior wetland history, including prior CZC and core related review, mitigation requirements, and wetland master plan obligations. Because of that history, I'm concerned that the ordinance would adversely affect this parcel unless there's some clarity on exactly what the town believes is or is not regulated here. Is the I have several questions and I'll just put them out there that you can con contemplate on and consider. Is the town's present concern based on current site conditions, historic delineation history, prior permit history, or some combination? Because this parcel already has prior federal and state wetland history, does the town view that history as meaning the parcel has had a prior delineation for purposes of proposed exemption analysis? If so, does that mean the parcel would not qualify for the affidavit GIS and no density increase exemption pathway that was discussed at the special meeting? During the special meeting, Mr. Mitchell described what appeared to be a possible application process for property owners to submit a wetland a wetland impact application and have it reviewed by the planning commission. Is that process being incorporated? And if so, would it be available for a parcel like mine? Will the town provide a written parcel specific explanation of its position before expecting the owner or owners to incur additional consultant expense? Basically, my central question is I'm trying to answer as straightforward. What specifically does the town believe the ordinance changes for my specific parcel or others like mine that has not already been addressed through prior

wetland review and permitting history? I'm asking the town council to either defer, pause, and reflect greater on these specific issues and other greater issues before passing it until there's clarity on these issues. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Pro 10. That's all I have signed up. Thank you. Is there anyone who has not been heard during public comments? Come on up and give us your name and address, please.

My name is Bob Adams. I live at 35 East Lake Road in Mount Pleasant. Uh, I want to thank the town council members for conducting a very comprehensive and thoughtful examination of the wetlands preservation issue over the past seven or eight months. Uh, the draft wetlands ordinance reflects widespread input from the community, from members of portions of this government and from organizations throughout the community. The result that you have drafted completely fills the gap created by the Supreme Court in Sack. And I would point out that contrary to what a speaker said earlier, just because it's not covered by the federal protection under the Clean Air Act, that doesn't mean you can't do what you propose to do. In fact, the Supreme Court recognized that that could be done and it is being done in many states and in fact has been done in Buford. So what I would like to do is urge you to approve the wetlands ordinance this year. Thank you.

Hello council members. My name is Elise Campaign. I live at 1314 Wayne Street in town and I am here to also applaud the great work of the town um in hopefully joining Bluffton and in recognizing the distinct and crucial role that wetlands play in cost-effectively managing flood risk and providing habitat and keeping us healthy. Um, I also want to applaud the staff for the the um being thoughtful of how these tools will be applied, creating mapping tools that are reinforced with best practices that we see in other cities and states. And um despite some of the hyperbole about what this is amounting to in terms of a taking I I want to reiterate like what's great in my mind is that this just like all building development standards and planning tools is something that will go through a deliberative process that planning commission looks at the planning committee looks at and it is not a sledgehammer. It is bringing a critical component of review because of the function that these places serve. And I want to go to the source of who is the most important um authority on this in the state. Our South Carolina Office of Resilience, they're the ones that manage the money and have to help us after a storm. and they in their June 2023 um statewide resilience and risk reduction plan specifically spoke to the concern of what happened when the second decision removed those protections. They called out that in our state there are so many isolated wetlands that quote provide important ecological functions filtering pollutants and mitigating flood risks. These include distinctive coastal features and depression meadows, high ponds, light limestone sinks, cypress wetlands, ponpine flatwoods, picosins, and oxbow lakes. In fact, they

went on so far as to make a recommendation to the state and to localities to do exactly what you're doing, which is to step up and put protections in place that will um minimize the loss of these distinct features. So, we're um doing what makes sense for our community and we are supporting the great work of our state office and resilience and managing the risks for today and for the future. So, thank you. I hope you support this.

Good evening, council members. My name is Susie Carlson. I'm an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center and a resident of Mount Pleasant. My address is 423 King Street. I know you've heard from me before on this topic, so I'll try to be brief, but I want to reiterate my strong support for the wetlands ordinance as it comes before you tonight for final reading. This ordinance is a necessary forward-looking measure that fills a critical gap left by recent changes in federal protection. And I also want to just bring up that South Carolina in an amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court actually acknowledge that localities in the state can and should pass ordinances like these. Wetlands are one of our community's most effective natural defenses from flooding, storm surge, and pollution. Just one acre of wetland can store up to 1.5 million gallons of flood water. And a single square kilometer can provide an average of $1.8 million a year in storm protection services. This ordinance is therefore not just about conservation, but also smart, cost-effective investment in the safety and resilience of our community as flooding risks continue to grow. By adopting this ordinance, the town is setting an important example for communities across South Carolina, and I appreciate your thoughtful work and consideration in getting it to this point. Thank you for your time.

Good evening, Perry. We're at 2004 Brook Hill Parkway. I don't think anybody can argue that we need to protect wetlands in our town, but at what financial cost is that going to be to a single family homeowner? I don't know if a lot of people realize that this or new draft ordinance will cover all single family homes in this town, current homes, and this requires any ground disturbance permit to follow this procedure. So that means if I want to put a fence into my yard, I'm going to have to follow the criteria. Now, people will say there are some exemptions, but you must meet three criteria for those exemptions. The first one is now where an owner certifies that there's no wetlands. As of the other week, it's clearly stated that you had to sign a legally binding court binding affidavit. So, I guess the question I would ask council tonight is I hope some of y'all will ask, "What is the certification? Is that still an affidavit? Has it just been lightened up to sound a little bit better?" And you're asking somebody to sign a legally binding court document off the fact that they are quote knowledgeable enough on what is a wetland. Of course, if there standing water in my yard, yes, I would sign it and say there's a there's wetlands in my yard, I can't sign it. But this is very subjective on what's being laid out here. The other option is and and I can try to read this from the ordinance. Number two is that you determine that sorry it's a kind of a long ordinance so I'll try to no wetlands are identified on the site by any prior wetland delineation or any existing watershed plans or advanced identification of disposal areas adid studies interm wershed plans natural resource conservation service natural resource I mean and the list goes on so staff spoke last week that they're going to use a map and they currently have a map that determines and there's blue dots on these map to determine current wetlands in the town. That map is not published right now. I don't know what staff is looking at and whether my yard has wetlands or not. So, and they said it's not published and it said it's an ever evolving map. So, one person spoke earlier and I think they brought up a great point that that your yard could be affected by what others do. And you're exactly right. So, if I don't have any wetlands in my yard and somebody develops next to me or they put a

roadway next to me and water gets diverted to my yard, do I now use lose the use of my property because it's now classified as a wetland. So, and also who's who's deciding, you know, they they kind of said that it's going to be subjective for staff, but keep in mind this is an enforcable ordinance. So, if somebody legally complains to the town, they have no choice but to act. And keep in mind, $1,500 to $2,000 to get one of these wetland surveys done. And you may not have any wetlands. I don't know how many of y'all have an extra $1,500, $2,000 laying around that can pay for that, but I certainly don't. So, please give this some reconsideration when it comes to single family homes before y'all move forward with it. Thank you all.

Would anyone else like to be heard that hasn't spoken this evening under public comment? Hearing none, we'll move on to the consent agenda items. Please read. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tim and council. I'm happy move to approve all consent agenda items. Motion made and seconded to approve all the consent items. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, we'll move on. I'll call for the question. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those eyes have it.

Final reading of consent agenda items A through D. Next item is again under planning new business. Move to approve item 8 A1. Second. Motion made and seconded to approve item 8 A1. Any discussion? Steve.

Yes. Um I'm curious. I I I recognize that the intent of this is to prevent the f the further subdivision of lots using uh private access easement. um curious um what if any impact this would have on um properties in the settlement community that are seeking to annex within the town. Would this provide a disincentive for them to annex into the town is the specific question.

Um it does raise the standards for these type of subdivisions. you would have to uh have to have a little bit more property because now the square foot area, you cannot include the easement area for your minimum zoning requirements. Uh the building setback is now measured from the easement area, not the property line. So those are the two changes that are being proposed. So the square foot area would have to be meet the minimum zoning requirements exclusive of the easement area whereas now you actually could uh include the easement area in your minimum square foot area. And then the second one is the measurement of the building setback. So we're making it uh we are improving the standards to protect the neighborhood character and protect the zoning intent. And that's um that's different from how the county would treat those um those easements.

Uh no sir, the the county does measure from the easement area for their building setbacks. Um I do not I can't say I can't tell you 100% whether or not they they include the easement area in the area the minimum area or not, but I do know that we were consistent with the county measuring the building setbacks from the easement area. Okay. Thank you, sir. Sure. Any other discussion? I have a question. Sorry, Mr. Akan.

Thank you. For right here it says without a waiver from the planning commission as defined. Um dot dot dot. So is is it typical that planning commissions make the decision on this or is this typical staff? Is it typical that a council comes in and sets the standard and then staff follows that standard and it skips something like the planning commission? I guess this is more for David, but I'm trying to understand the planning commission part of this section where council sets the ordinance, sets the rules, staff follows those rules and I know we have bozo, right, which is that's fair quasi judicial and commission's not.

The first statement really is redundant because they already have that right and all these subdivisions do go before the planning commission. So that is the normal process. Yes, it is. So that that first paragraph really is just restating what is already in place in a prior section of the ordinance. Okay. Thank you. Sketch plans. For sketch plans for subdivisions only. Yes, sir. And that's what this is. Yes sir. Yes sir. For sketch. Okay sir. Okay. Thank you for clarifying. It applies throughout but planning commission has the first step at a sketch plan and this would be the standard throughout the process but I think you were asking a procedural question. Correct. Thank you.

Any other discussion hearing? None. I'll call for the question. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Nice. Have it. First reading. Ordinance number 26023. Now, Miss Reed.

Thank you, sir. Um, I do want to say a couple of things about the Dunes PD. I know this is for final reading. uh it was deferred last month after first reading back to planning committee where it received further consideration and I'd like to point out what that uh what it comes to you with from the planning committee and then maybe clarify a couple of things. So from the planning committee it came with these three um final recommendations to preserve the existing natural buffer and imprive provide enhanced buffer where appropriate up to 20 feet in width when possible. design should be in accordance with the architectural standards of the Dunes West Park West and at least five of the 43 units uh shall be provided as attainable housing. I do have an updated um conceptual to show you and there are some things that I think we need to clarify um that may not make one of those conditions possible. First of all, there is already an existing 10-ft required buffer on the side of Life Park Church and that's called out right here. Um then there is the required buffer that will be for this property and that's also a 10 foot. So you effectively have a 20 foot buffer. Um just half of that is on the side of the church. Um then we have a 20ft drainage drainage easement that already exists. And I would like to point out that if that if it's a requirement that a buffer extends into that drainage easement, that's not typically something that we would encourage or want to happen. Um, and so I just wanted to point that out uh and clarify that. So with the existing life park buffer and with the proposed buffer on the side of this development, there will be a 20 foot buffer um but we can still keep that 20 the 10 feet on the side of the um this development. Uh preserve what's there and then they can enhance what's required which is per 100 feet. You have to have three canopy trees I think 10 or

15 understory and then you have to have so many shrubs. So, it can still be enhanced based on the requirements of that buffer, but also preserve what's in there. But I did want to point out that that easement does exist. Miss, may I ask a question on that? Yes, sir. Um, the 10 ft, excuse me, the 10 ft that's on life uh church. Uh, they're not required to have any trees in it, are they? Yeah, they're required to have a 10-ft buffer. It's just that this is up against a vacant parcel right now, so there's not been anything done to it. But if you go and look at it or you look at an aerial, it's all wooded. Um, but they are required to have a 10-ft buffer also on their side. And do they have natural uh trees in that buffer now?

Yes, sir. And so would the uh 10t on life uh park church and the 20 the 10 feet on the new proposed development retain the all the natural trees and then supplement with trees as needed for the buffer? I think you can condition the 10 feet on the side of this development. Uh because the other side of the church is not part of this development. Um I'm not sure that they can condition another piece of property, but you can condition the 10 ft on the development side. Yes, sir. Thank you. Are you thick?

Uh yeah. want to move to approve the plan development zoning as part of the Dunes West plan development with conditions that five units are designated for affordable housing that they meet the Dunes West Parkway architectural standards and the enhanced 10 foot buffer I just described procedurally Mr. Chapman. Oh, can't do it. What we should first go ahead is if there is such a motion to approve simply a motion to approve and then each amendment or can be handled or set or together. That's right. So I withdraw the motion and restate the new motion. Is that what I need to do? Well, you have to make an amendment. Yes. To the earlier motion. A simple approach. A motion. She withdrew it. Now she just needs motion to approve.

I have a motion to approve. Now she can make a motion. Second discussion. Under discussion and now amendments are appropriate. Yeah. Any amendments? Um well, go ahead, Mr. Tinky.

Well, a couple a couple amendments. Um one, um and I think the the developer mentioned this as well on the uh number two listed here. Um, I would like to make an amendment that the the uh the owner developer uh would uh have his designs reviewed by the Park West HOA uh preliminarily to the design review board. The design review board would be the governing body. Uh that would save a step long term by having it reviewed and then brought with the stamp of approval by the Park West POA. I've spoken to both Park West and the developer about it. I think that would work well. Second, uh that the buffer be a natural buffer uh on the live park side. Three, uh that the buffer on the side by uh George Browder be a natural buff buffer too. um for that the um that the the the walkway the sidewalk instead of it being a 5-ft sidewalk would be more consistent with Mount Pleasant Way and be between 8 and 12 feet I'd prefer it be more like Mount Pleasant Way be 10T that'd be two less than Mount Pleasant Way is and um the I would certainly I know it's not something that's been discussed but the drainage buffer you know instead of cutting down all the trees is there. I really would love to see them see about and do the drainage buffer through the center of the property where you've already interrupted the um and cut down the trees and worked on the drainage that way going through the property.

Okay. Motion has been made. I can take it one at a time if you prefer. I think you better do it one at a time for everybody's benefit. Okay. The first the first one I'd like to make is that the um that the uh design uh of the building's architectural design be uh re re reviewed by Park West first and then uh then it can go then it would be go to the our design review board. Is are you suggesting an advisory review?

No, they just Yes, an advisory review. They would review it first and it wouldn't go through the full park west, but they would review it if that's possible. Mr. Tinky, it's if it's an advisory review and no authority, I guess I bring up two potent potential concerns or at least something to think about. One is if they're if this um the subject is not in that I I don't I don't know that they have any base authority to to review it. Second, my concern will be timing. Even if that were a a best practice, I would certainly put a time limitation on review for

I I agree with you. I think it actually speed it up. Instead of them not going to Park West and put it for design review board, then having Park West show up at the meeting and and cause interruptions. You would already have the approval and it should speed up the design review process. The wording, I I defer to you, sir, as far as how it might be stated and the timing. Is there a second to this? I have a question. F first of all, we have an amendment with a motion. Do we have a second for that amendment? I'll I'll second. Okay. Motion made seconded for discussion. Mr. Akafanu.

I like all these suggestions from Mr. thinking, but shouldn't this just go then back to planning commission or planning committee and then aren't aren't these kind of micro things done at more like the planning commission planning committee? Should we be deferring it back to the planning commission and committee and then it comes back as a whole package again Whitaker I would just answer that my understanding on the planning commission that that's what we did our recommendations okay thank you from our committee okay thank you that makes sense does that does number two actually answer that question.

Well, sir, I think there's a distinction between um architectural standards of Dunes West and Park West versus a review. Um even if it is advisory, I I do even though it as you're considering it is advisory and has no I don't want to say weight has weight but not a final disposition. Um I think those are two different things. Okay. Um, Miss Hire, um, would you like to amend your motion to follow item two? And I can withdraw my second and rescue you.

I'll I'll defer I'll defer to number two and um hopefully it won't be a situation where uh it's just brought straight to design review board without consultation of the park west because they they're going to come anyhow. So I'll I'll go with number two then. Okay. Motion motion to Do you remove your motion? Remove my motion. I move my second. So the motion be design should be in accordance with the architectural standards of Dunes West Park, excuse me, of Park West uh HOA. Second. Motion made and seconded to u discussion accept the design should be in accordance with the architectural standards of Dunes West.

No, Park West. Park West. It's a Park West HOA. There's not a dues westing from number two, which was what was used in the motion. I'm sorry. Uh any discussion on that amendment, Mr. Rambo? Uh what does that mean? I mean, literally like is there a design like standard for Park West that they then have to follow? So then it would be the design review board's responsibility to make sure that their design has met all of the town architectural standards as well as the Park West PA standards. Am I I'm just trying to figure out what the heck this means.

So their architectural standards are laid out in their PD ordinance. So before it before anything is placed on the DRB agenda, staff would make sure it meets zoning, whether it's town zoning, a PD zoning document. So staff will make sure we'll check it in accordance with the PD document to see if it matches the architectural standards before it's placed on the DRB agenda for them to review because they would be required to review it anyway because it's a a multifamily development. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Any other discussion? Mr. Akaf,

I'm just I know there's already a motion on the thing. I just there's a lot of questions very micro. I I really think this should go back to uh planning committee and come back as a nice package to us. That's I know I can't make a motion on deferring on this because we're on one, but any other discussion on the amendment. We're hearing none call for the question on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I opposed. Eyes have. Okay, that's one amendment. Uh Mr. Chapman, Mr. Brownstein, I'm sorry.

Yes. I'd like to make a motion that at least eight of the 43 dwelling units will be provided as attainable housing and that they contain the same fixtures and configuration as the market rate housing. Is there a second? Second

motion made and seconded to change item number three on our material that there will be eight instead of five of the 43 units provided as attainable housing. Any discussion, Miss Whitaker? Um I I'm hesitant to agree to this because of all the work we've done to um be assured that the five could be included and I think we heard tonight in public comment that any change to that might jeopardize the project um and that the financing you know we had some conversations about that but obviously the business people are making the business work um with five and I think if we do anything more than that we will also increase the market rate units um which I was happy with the original rate of the market units being something that was not as excessive as so many of our other housing um is in the town now. So I am concerned that we are um doing a little bait and switch here when we've been talking about five before tonight.

Any other discussion? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chapman. Uh my re my reasoning for making that motion is that five was the initial offer provided by the developer and um I think that they can do a little bit better than that. I think um you know having the ability to build 43 town home units in Mount Pleasant is a rarity uh these days and um and so I'm pretty confident that the two sides can get together and can make those numbers work. um considering um where they stand in this approval process. Any other discussion?

Okay. All those in favor of the amendment, which is item number three, changing five to eight. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed? No. No. The eyes have it. 62. Okay. Do we have any other amendments to add? Mr. Tinky,

I'd like to item number one, preserve existing natural buffer meeting existing trees and provide an enhanced buffer where appropriate up to uh 10 feet in width when possible. Um, I'm very concerned about this um because the standards of the uh Park West HOA are um Park West HOA or uh 20 ft. Uh we do pick up the extra 10 feet on the other side. So, I'm I'm a little concerned about this because I there's no guarantee that that uh really has to be treated and how much it has to be treated. And um I'm also concerned about the um enhanced uh the the drainage easement there because I think the drainage easement should could be reconsidered someplace else or mitigated. But anyway,

do we have a second? That's my We have a second before we have any discussion. Yeah, I'm sorry. That's on item one. Item one. Okay. Second. Okay. Continue, Mr. Tinky. Point of point of information, Mr. Rambo, point of information. Isn't the buffer already required 10 and your motion was to require a 10 foot buffer? So, I'm confused. Okay. Yeah. Natural, leaving a natural buffer. But

yeah, I think Councilman Tinky had mentioned at the committee meeting and then also tonight just a typical perimeter buffer would be per 100 ft. It's a set planting schedule. Um, I think what he would like to see is maintain anything natural that's already in there and then add in where there's any gaps with what's required instead of clearing it and planting what's required. He'd like it to be as natural as possible. Um, okay. And and I think is that correct? Okay.

Okay. Any other discussion? called question. Seeing none, all those in favor of the request in number one, preserve existing natural buffer and provide enhanced buffer where appropriate. Did you say up to 20? Mr. Tinky, 10. You said 10. No, I said I said 10. Okay. Up to 10 feet in width when possible. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying I

I opposed hearing none. The eyes have it. Okay. Are we ready to vote on the exc? Thank you. It's just a legal question. I know motion's on the floor, but I cannot make a motion to defer at this point. Only if it it's correct. There's a a motion to approve. that is on the table.

Well, I think there's uh I still think there's a lot of confusion here. I think there's some staff level stuff happening that we're talking about here. I think I think we're kind of I I think we're here to make 30,000 ft uh decisions and we're um and we're in in staff level um doing their job. So I uh for right now this is extremely extremely confusing and uh I personally think that we should defer this back to uh planning committee and for that I would probably be a no vote because this is um obviously not hammered out yet in my mind. I don't know what the public thinks or

any any other discussion. Thank you Mr. Rambo. Um, so me and the mayor, I guess, are the only two that have consistently voted against this. I will continue to vote against it. And I think the comment that we heard from Mr. Sped in public comment is exactly true, whether we want to admit it or not. This proposal would never fly in other areas of town, but yet we're spitting in the face of the residents of Park West. And I don't think it's right. And I'm a complete no. Uh it's a ridiculous idea that the vast majority of our residents do not support and we're not listening to them. Any other discussion? Miss Miss Whitaker.

Yeah, I would just say in response, Mr. Rambo, I appreciate that. I appreciate the public comments. I did have some conversations with staff and we talked about this in committee in particular around the the traffic impact and the one mile away from the Carolina Park town homes and the Scottsdale intersection and all of that that's being done and is being planned. And this area of town is an area where I do feel like there is it is it is okay to have some density. So yes, it is being treated differently than if we're talking about putting 43 town homes in, you know, old village or somewhere else. I do think this is the right place for it. That's why I've been supportive. So just would would disagree with your um comments,

Miss H. Once again, an issue that we're not bringing up tonight for the public to realize. There are already 50 units that are approved um to go into this PD and this is an opportunity to consume those units and keep them out of the neighborhood. This is something that I normally would never vote for and I've had a hard time considering it is is really hard for me, but with the idea of some attainably priced units and the fact that 50 units are already approved for this PD, they can be built without coming to council for a vote at all. So, this is a request for this property to um join the PD. And by doing that and building 43 units, we're consuming 43 units that are already approved, already on the books. So, we're not really adding density in in my mind, we're taking it away and we're putting it on the perimeter of the neighborhood and not in the middle of the neighborhood. And that's why uh what Miss Whitaker is saying when she says it's a better place for density, it's because it's not in the middle of the neighborhood. And um it's it's just one of these hard decisions. It's you know what what could come up you know a year from now there might be a place somebody finds 50 units that's on the corner of you know 41 investors you know Bessemer and you know some horrible place. So anyways, I just want everybody to understand these units are already approved for this area and it's just a way for them to be consumed out on the perimeter where we might have better infrastructure and um a consideration for attainable units which we may not have an opportunity for with another plan. So

that's the reason council's considering it. And I also would like to let Mr. Iano know that this plan did already go back to committee and the three motions that were made are what came out of committee. So thank you. Any other discussion?

The reason I'm doing it, the reason I'm doing it too is that this is zoned for institutional and um and and uh and and for that reason, you could have a hospital, you could have medical, you could have child care, and as we're approving medical facilities all over town. They have a lot of density, uh a lot more. And this is actually protecting some of the wetlands, more wetlands than I think you would if you put in a hospital or child care, etc. there. So that's and it also fits more the comp plan and it also has a new road All-American Boulevard that's uh going to it. But um that's just the comment as far as the the other uh item. I think we need to have the the the walkway that's shown on here be a minimum of a 10t walkway. I'd like to move it as a minimum of a 10 ft a 10ft walkway. Is there a second this extra amendment?

I'll second that. Motion made and seconded to have a 10-ft walkway as opposed to 5T. Any discussion? Yes, sir. Mr. Brownstein, question. Um, how does that tie into the other um sidewalks and walkways in the area? Is that consistent? Thank you. This ties directly, to my understanding, this ties directly to um uh Mount Pleasant Way and to um all all American Boulevard and and you would have an connecting at a connection in the from the middle of to that walkway and around the site as you see. Oh, let me pass this. You can see the drawing. Uh could you show that on the

Oh, it it where it connects to All American Boulevard. Let me see. did that. Uh let's see. Well, the one you were showing before. Okay.

Yeah. Yes. It would the to the part that he they could control. It would come to the corner of George Brower Boulevard and the church I believe and it will help um all that road that access is already there. There there it is. So that portion they would build, not the entire portion in front of Life Park, but the portion in front of their own development, which would tie into George Browder, which would go down All-American Boulevard. It would give access. Otherwise, you have children, families, etc. that are really uh just out on the road. I mean, this gives them that access. You can't really do the same thing on the other side down to Publix because all that land is owned by Publix. So this is really the only opportunity for them to do something

and follow up. So that would tie in across the the Life Park Church property or I'm just want to make sure it's not a 10-ft sidewalk to to nowhere. No, it's Thank you very much. It ties into Life Park. Any other discussion regarding the amendment to change the sidewalk along George Browder in front of here? It wouldn't be that entire amount. It would be simply the part in front of the the development. Okay. You're talking about 10 foot right there. Is that 10? The only part they can control is the part in front of their development. Yeah. Yeah. There you go.

That That's what I was trying to Yes. have her point out. Yes. Okay. Any other discussion regarding the amendment to add five more feet to a 5-ft sidewalk to make it 10 just alongside the development. Mr. Rambo? I know I seconded the motion. I think I misunderstood. I I do want clarification from staff. Would this connect into a five-ft sidewalk or a 10ft sidewalk? I think it's going to connect into a five foot sidewalk. So, it's going to go 10 foot like randomly, then back to five, and then once you get to All American Boulevard, it'll be back to 10.

Yeah, because Mount Pleasant Way comes along All-American Boulevard. I think this is five, and this if the request is for this to be 10, it's my understanding. So, you have five here, 10 Mount Pleasant Way, and then the request is to have 10 here. Okay. All right. So, I'll vote against the motion. I second it just because it seems like extra impervious surface for no reason. But any other discussion? Oh, Mr. Tinky. No, I'll stay with it.

All in favor of the motion to have 10-ft sidewalk instead of five just alongside the development signify by saying I. I. Opposed? No. No. Then I'll propose five. So we get it there. Okay. Any other discussions? So we go now we're going to the full motion as amended. Mr. Ian. Okay. This is the full motion. I my question is to I just I made another motion. I didn't get a second or not. If I didn't to just propose five. Five is required.

It is required. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Aon,

thank you. The my question is I guess for legal is so when we make a PD it's a it's a perfect line or perfect uh area. What about the people that have bought property in that PD? They think they have the vested right to build there. There's 50 units left and then somebody's coming in and saying, "I'm attached to the PD now. Bring me into the PD, annex me into the PD, and then I get my 50 units even though I'm not within the lines of the PD." What What's the point of a PD then? Well, the the point is to max set certain standards, areas of development and maximums.

So there are maximum number. Can you repeat that again? The point is what

among many things to set standards, development standards, uh location of units, unit types, and essentially plan growth in certain areas. So there is an expectation, but they can be amended. I believe what you're asking me is whether those in the current boundaries of the PD have some right to those units. Well, it it's not part of the issue is who who are they? Anyone who owns land in the PD um unless governed otherwise, which it is no longer governed by the declarant could use those units. they could develop their them as Miss Hayyatt said anywhere in that PD um if it is zoned accordingly and they they they could be used for that. So the town does have the authority to amend the PD. We've done it before. We've done it many times and we can do it. That's exactly what this is. Um and um it is exhausting those particular units in this case.

Okay. So my further comment is and it was mentioned I think earlier is you know when we originally discussed this I mean I was I was I was kind of for this at first but then there was a point on on Rifle Range Road we shot down like three additional units and and I do think that there's my personal opinion is that there's hypocrisy on the fact of how we treat what is South Mount Pleasant compared to how we treat North Mount Pleasant. Um and and for that reason I'm not I'm not going to be for it because Okay. Well, so you're not gonna be for

I still have the floor, but um so for that reason, I think it's important that we understand we're all one Mount Pleasant and we need to treat all one Mount Pleasant equally um on our decision making. So, thank you. Anyone else? All right, Mr. Rambo

um to address a few of the comments uh that were directed towards my comments. Um one of the comments I heard in response to that is this part of town can handle it. This part of town has horrible traffic problems. I I have no idea what this part of town can handle it means. Um I think we talked to anybody who resides out there and drives that daily. I go back and forth to Oceanside. It's not it. This part of town can't handle it. Um, also on the comments of more potential fictional units in the future, there's very few undeveloped properties left in Park West. Many of the undeveloped properties, ironically enough, would be prevented from developing uh housing units because of the wetlands ordinance that's about to pass because most of the properties that have not been developed are pretty wet out there. um properties that have been sent to me um don't pass muster or would need the same type of approval. Um so I just don't it's just a lot of excuses um and it's not what the people want.

Any other discussion? Miss Whitaker. Just quickly um if we use the Palms Connector as the dividing line for Mount Pleasant, which again we are one town. I completely agree with Mr. Akana that we need to be acting that way. I'm the only one on council who lives in the north part of town. Um, so I'll just say I meant specifically this parcel is a good place for 43 units when we get five or eight um, affordable housing units. We do have a traffic problem all over town, but we also have a housing crisis as we heard tonight and this gets us more choices for people to be able to live here who we want to be able to live here and that's the bottom line for me and why I'm for it. Mr. Mr. Ch,

just a slight correction. I'm also North Mount Pleasant, just barely, but I'm there. Um I I do agree these are 50 units that will someday be built in the in the Park West um area. I think this is a much better option um than putting them more central in the neighborhood or, God forbid, putting them anywhere near Highway 41. Um I'm a obviously a yes vote on this and I've uh given my reasons for that before. I think this is a um a good opportunity, as Councilwoman Hayyatt said, to extinguish um or utilize those remaining units and put them in a place where they're going to cause the least amount of issues for the the residents of Northern Mount Pleasant.

Are we ready to vote on the main motion as amended? All those in favor signify by saying I opposed. No. Seeing two, Mr. Afano and Mr. Rambo. Those are only two nos. Motion passes. Final reading ordinance number 26018. Next item is item B two.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor Pro Tim of council. Uh before you have first reading of uh ordinance amendment uh ordinance change is chapter 155. That's the green space preservation and protection planning and uh environmental guidelines for land development. Um during the April U council meeting uh there was a number of motions that were made and I'm going to go through a couple of them. Um there were actually four. Uh motion number one we'll discuss at the very end. Uh this will be uh just a recap and refresher of what's being proposed uh as it relates to the motion that was made um during the meeting. And uh the the recommendation was to clarify what the adjacent uh what is really defined as as adjacent and making sure that the buffer or the ordinance is related to just the buffer boundary and protecting the the integrity of the actual buffer ends as well as the wetlands. So what's being proposed in front of you is number two and I'll I'll read it. um uh buffer to isolated wetlands or perennial pools. Uh no owner shall remove native vegetation that becomes established within the wetlands or buffer areas. The use of herbicides and pesticides shall not be used in proximity to where it negatively impacts town protected wetlands or buffers to these wetlands. As such, no owner shall introduce or plant other forms of invasive species or non uh native landscaping within the buffer or wetlands. And above it is what was struck through and it relates to the adjacent to issue that we had. So moving on, motion number three uh was presented and it was to exempt single family activity.

That motion failed 72. Motion number four. Um, this was more of a clarification and clerical uh request and uh what's in red is what's being proposed and I'll read just the sentence. U this is in relation to the clean water act. Make sure it's clarifying what what the intent purpose of the ordinance is is areas not protected by the clean water act including all isolated non-jurisdictional wetlands but not limited to perennial pools and seasonal wet surface depressions. Prior ordinance language did not include what's in red. So, we made that clarification um which hopefully satisfied motion number four. Uh there was some discussion uh on the procedure. I think it got a little confusing. So, I just want to bring that before you again um and kind of clarify and take take the steps a little bit more uh deliberate with this. Um so as it relates to uh evaluating proposals for the potential that's the not so obvious isolated wetland impacts at the internal staff level is what we would do. Uh these are the the five very simple steps. Uh first we check when an application comes in if it's less than five acres has the owner does do they have any known knowledge of wetlands or any prior delineations. So that kind of covers that. Um also increase in density as well. That would be obvious whether or not they're adding a unit or not. Um this the second we would check uh any of the uh the readily available internet sources that we are using our GIS tool to uh to bring together under one map. Uh it's national uh uh resource inventory data for hydric soils. The US fish and wildlife for national wetland inventory. we were using our LAR uh

inventory for depressional areas as well. So if it was an indication of having it uh on the particular property and within the the affected area of what's being proposed then staff would do our vetting process and that is understand that if there is a indication of the blue dot that's been referenced on on a rooftop on a road our vetting process would remove that from from consideration if it is in what we would use the aerial photographs for. If it is in an undeveloped area um and it uh suspected of wetlands, then we would actually do a field verification uh we would look at it and then do the next level of vetting to make sure that it is not an obvious um wetland that um that the applicant would then need to move forward with a wetlands professional. Um, and then we would be coordinating with the with the owner and the wetlands professional and then they would actually have the onest and the burden on them to come back to staff and say that it is or it is not an isolated wetland. Um, then we would proceed with if it's not then they they would proceed if it is an isolated wetland.

Mitchell. Yes, sir.

Um, in in that regard, I'm I'm looking at the staff field inspection to visually verify database results. There were comments made during public comment about when staff can help make the determination as opposed to maybe spending the $1,500 to have somebody do it to start with. Um, when would that occur? On a permit somebody submits or on a phone call there, somebody's thinking about doing doing it and then how would you work with the property owner?

Yes, sir. That's a great question. Um and my approach would be at any particular time during a feasibility of a DRT review if there that information of the GIS information would be available for them at that particular time. Um we would then or even at the building permit uh application process we would begin we would have the owner's information then we would actually start working with them on providing that sort of information or field visit uh at that particular time. But as soon as they inquire about our information, it would be available for them and we would be able to help u show them the GIS information and have any field visits if it's necessary.

Well, having worked with your office in the past, that's what I expected. I just wanted to put that on the record. Yes, sir. because we've gone through this whole process with wetlands uh ordinance for almost a year and we're trying to make it work. Um and I I think we've done a pretty good job uh working with you in committees, etc. to come up with a reasonable approach. And I just wanted to make that on the record for people to understand. We're not trying to stop people from working with their property if it's not an impact on the wetlands. But we want to show them where there is a problem, if there is, and to help get that understanding accomplished. Go ahead. I'm sorry for interrupting, Miss. Item one is you check the sign affidavit. Would it stop there if you have a sign affidavit? No, that says there's no wetlands or you see the blue dot and then you you start going further. Is that

as the ordinance is proposed? There's three criteria. Okay. So the owner would be divulging any information they have historically on their property. Second would be is there any data sources that we are using that are on the internet to indicate whether or not there is sus suspected of wetlands? If there is, then we will take a field visit to further vet it and then we would then require the owner to get a weapons professional. So maybe they understand. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else have Mr.

Thank you. I've got I would think the signed affidavit will come after the wetlands inspection. I know, but signed affidavit is a legal binding. You're you're asking me to say that I don't have wetlands on my property by signing an affidavit. How am I an expert on wetlands? I mean, I'd rather bring an expert. That's not the intent. The I I understand. I'm just What if I just sign a piece of paper that says I have I'm not an affidavit. Um so, there's no prescribed order, right? If your concern is about the order of it, um there's nothing in there. I don't think there's anything preventing anyone from Okay. I thought this was I thought this was termination. Okay, Miss Hy.

Um I believe the affidavit says that the homeowner is not aware of any. It doesn't say that there aren't any. And it's just like when you sell a home and you sign like the lead letter that you're not aware of the home having lead. It's just, you know, it's them saying that they are not aware. It's not a guarantee. It's just their their knowledge. Go ahead, Mr. Richard. Thank you. Um, so I wanted to recap the the the three motions that we have and our and our next uh motion I think received a a good bit of discussion and it is about the exemption for town property and capital improvement projects and I think Mr. Pagarini should like to

Sure. Thank you Kevin. Uh, Mayor Proam and councel, there was a uh an amendment made at the special counsel meeting that related to exemptions. Um, and the exemption, at least the proposal was to remove remove everything essentially from um, you'll see what's struck up there about the alteration overriding public interest. There was a motion that was approved to remove everything except the part about overriding public interest and emergency type issues. um upon review. Um and there are several concerns that we as staff as legal have with at least the way that it was um the way it was presented and those include um if there is a town council approved project. Um then these factors would have already have been considered by town council. Meaning the town is town projects are not exempt from review. it just happens during the town council approval process rather than the staff approval process. Um further I think if that were if it were to remain as such the town essentially would be an applicant in its own um process meaning uh planning commission and town council effectively would be seating its voting and discretion to our planning commission. um which I believe is very problematic up to and including the fact that the town would essentially upon an adverse decision be suing itself. Um that is probably not a good situation. Nevertheless, um I have taken to draft language that for your consideration that perhaps solves the problem. Um it

may not. You may find it not to be appropriate but it is in bold above. Essentially number two is split and the first part relates to the alteration of areas about overriding public interest related to critical infrastructure and emergency activity would remain as discretionary by our professional engineer who can handle an emergency type situation. And number three um says um exactly what I just indicated, public projects approved by town council. However, nothing prevents town council from requesting an an advisory opinion from any other source, specifically planning commission. Of course, town council already has that authority, but if there is additional information that you would like, at least this spells that out. So that is the the proposal.

Just just a question about that. Yes. Since this is up for fine reading tonight, right? Is this something we need to vote on now? If you've suggested the revision in existing language that's in the portion we've already approved. So what you're suggesting is I think that we need a motion to accept your revision to exceptions include D2 and D3.

Yes sir. Th this would be it would need to be voted on as an amendment and it would supersede the amendment made last Monday essentially as I don't want to use the term corrective measure but alternative approach to that. um amendment made last Monday. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Brownstein.

Yes, sir. I have a a question. I'm kind of thinking through this and and I understand um that this could put the town in a situation where one committee or commission is at odds with um a town council decision. Um thinking through this, I'm wondering um if such a scenario could also arise um with a PD. PDS are approved by council. Um would this ordinance enable the planning commission to essentially block a project a PD approved by town council?

The specific language sir is in there if um under number three is public projects and um it was written that way because it considers public. So um and remember when town and certainly that is potentially an appropriate amendment if you want to exempt PDs. I'm not saying that can't be done just under this scenario, it's not covered. Um what I guess what I'll also say about this in voting for APD um council is adopting um some standards and it is possible that in APD council could adopt standards saying you must you are exempt from this ordinance for reasons. That would be very specific. But if you wanted a general exemption, you could put that in the ordinance or it can just be specific as HPD if that makes sense to you.

Yes, I understand. I was just kind of thinking through that a scenario albeit a a not a public project but there could be a uh nearly identical scenario. Yes, sir. Within the private realm, right, but and in PDS though council is typically usually not getting to the granular level of of these types of things. So it may or may not be a vote that is opposing what council does. It just depends on the PD. Thank you, sir. Mr. Pagarini, do we need a motion to start this off with?

No, sir. That was made last Monday. There's on the floor right now is a motion to approve and we are still in the amendment process. Okay, Mr. Chair, Mr. Rambo. Um, I would like to uh make a motion to amend to adopt the language on this screen. Second. Is that a valid motion made seconded to adopt the motion on this screen as an amendment? And then I have Okay. And there was a motion made and seconded. All is there any discussion? I just have a brief comment because I I did hear a lot of feedback um from friends Sue that said, "Hey,

it doesn't seem right to pass something and then say town council does not have to abide by that." To me, that's not what we're doing. It's saying town council will consider these things within the whole process of approving a project. What I really don't want to do is put a like planning commission or any other unelected body in a really weird position of overruling town council. So I think I understand that perception. Um but that's why there's elections. Mr. Mr. Any other discussion? Mr. Tinky.

Um I agree with the motion in the second. and I was the one that brought this forward in the first place that we should live by the same rules as everybody else. And I think the clarification that you've done here reflects the intent and I I heard loud and clear from some of the other council members. You wanted a clarification of that as far as not having an unelected body being able to do uh something like that. So, this I think clarifies it. Thank you.

Okay. Any other discussion, Miss Hyde? Um, okay. So, I'm wondering if there going to be any further amendments. Um, because I'm would like to make a motion to um approve the ordinance as amended. This amendment is still on this no vote. There can be additional amendments after this one is voted on this amendment up but the o overall ordinance was given a vote in a special meeting.

I'm just ready to clarify. There wasn't a vote there but there was already a motion on the floor. Yeah. We need to vote on this amendment. We got a vote on the amendment. I believe there's also another one um that Kevin presented towards the beginning of this PowerPoint uh related to the buffers. As the person who made this motion, my request would be we take action on this one and then we can right entertain other amendments. Yes. All those in favor of the amendment as presented by our town attorney signify by saying I opposed.

Okay. Now, do we have a I'd like to make a motion. Mr. I'd like to make a motion to remove the property owner having to sign an affidavit. I mean, I'm okay with the statement, but an affidavit is legal binding. I don't agree with that. So, I don't know that I'll get a second on that, but uh I'll second it. Motion made and seconded to amend by removing property owner having to sign an affidavit. Mr. Chair, Mr. Brown Street.

Do you have a question kind of what is the purpose of that affidavit? If could you go back to your your slide about um the town process if if you all are going to be going through anyway and looking at um the maps and the the various data sources, do we really need an affidavit from the the property owner if you're just going to go down that that process? Um anyway,

it's always good during the vetting process if they have historical knowledge on their property that they actually own um to ask them whether or not something has been done previously or not. So, we would have that we would treat everybody exactly the same. There wouldn't be one person we wouldn't ask and another person we would ask. we would actually actually have the affidavit or an email or something that says that yes, I am not aware of any previously historical wetlands on my property. So that makes it the process consistent in my opinion.

Okay. And uh Mr. Paglerini, um assuming somebody signs that truthfully, um are there any legal ramifications to that? You know, I'm just kind of curious. I mean, don't they have to be notorized? Well, yes, Mr.

If it's a known false question, if it's a known false statement, I mean, we get into how difficult that is to prove, but I I I take the position legally. I I was somewhat ambivalent on on it legally, but I think Kevin brings out a very good point. It's it's to the town's benefit that all of these I guess an alternative could be that not a sworn statement but that the landowner applicant is required to pursue or to produce any and all information that would subject to the ordin be subject to the ordinance. I think it would have the same effect if an affidavit was of concern to this council.

Thank you. Mr. Akafan just real quick. So I just looked it up real quick. The lead base is a disclosure. It's not a it's not an actual affidavit. It's a disclosure subject to state law. Meaning if if there is

but I I would agree with a more of a disclosure. I'm okay with the land over h having to write down what they want. I'm just not okay with an affidavit. And what I'm also stating is when you sign the leadbased paint disclosure is a disclosure, not an affidavit that has to be notorized. So, this has to be notorized, which is extremely legally binding. Um, subject to a lot more than than signing a lead based disclosure. So, for that, I'm not okay with the landowner having to sign something they don't they're not wetlands experts. So, Miss Cross, to get an affidavit, do you have to go to a law pay for it at a law firm?

No question. uh notaries are available but sometimes yes ma'am it could be they're not always around miss

I mean any most of your banks have notaries and I believe Mr. Mitchell's explanation helps to clarify it. Um, it would be good. A lot of people when they buy their home and have it surveyed, they are aware like they may have some wetlands in one corner but not in another. And so the other side of the yard is where they want to build the ADU, but at least they can divulge and help us in the process and let us know what they do know about. You know, it just would help with the whole process for us to know upfront what they are aware of and what they aren't aware of. I think the point we're making is are we going to go down some more

amendments? Mr. Mitchell, uh my purpose was just to cover the motions that were presented at the last Monday's meeting. Right. Um I was not going to get into the details of the ordinance. Mr. Chair, Mr. Rambo, um I'm not great at mind reading, but I believe that Mr. Patini has additional thoughts.

Sir, I just wanted to clarify in the event that I was confusing. I think there are two ways to do it. One is to require an affidavit. The other is to make it a requirement of the ordinance. They have the same effect essentially that if a landowner applicant it is part of the ordinance that they are required to disclose information and they do not they violate the terms of the ordinance they risk getting their uh uh plat approved and they risk not getting a permit. So um from a legal standpoint I think either way is sufficient. I just wanted to clarify that. So it could be as simple as a question on the permit application.

Yes sir. And it would serve the same purpose as going through the process of an appetating. Yes sir. And it would be required per the ordinance that if there is knowledge or information they provide it. Okay. That does seem simpler. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead and strike. That is my motion. I'm just not okay with the affidavit disclosure. Fine, but affidavit. Do you want to amend your motion to say replace because I think your motion just says not to have an affidavit, but it would be to replace the affidavit with what I will was just said by him.

I'll remove my motion if he'll remove his second to state I make a motion to remove the word affidavit and replace it with disclosure. Second. Okay. Motion made and seconded to remove the word affidavit and replace it with disclosure. Does that suffice? Well, and affidate, right? The idea is that there will be a disclosure required if the owner applicant has information. They are required to produce the same um and divulge that to the town of Mount Pleasant and I will write the language accordingly.

Okay. Exactly what he said. Ditto. Madame clerk suffice. Have you got that on the record? Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none, off the question. All those in favor of the material signed or suggested by our attorney signify by saying I. I. Opposed? No. The eyes have it. Okay, Mr. Mitchell, what else do we need to do besides going final reading?

Unless there's any more I have a motion. I have a motion, Mr. Rambo. Um, in light of some of the public comments, I I have some additional legal questions that I don't think uh are appropriate for a public setting. Um, so I would like to make a motion to go into executive session. Second. Motion's made to go into executive session for legal legal advice. Advice. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. Okay, we're in executive session.

We are now out of executive session. No motions were made. Uh those seconds and um Mr. Pagorina, what is our next motion to move forward? There are weapons. There are if there can be additional amendments if any council member wants to bring those forth. Otherwise, there is a motion on the floor to approve and that would be uh approved subject to the amendments already made. Right. Um, are there any motions that anyone has? Mr. Chapman, amendments.

Uh, I just had a a question um on that buffer. Do we need to amend that buffer to the language that you suggested or was the amendment from last week sufficient um for us to use the language that you had on that slide when we removed the word adjacent to? Yeah, I can put this back up if y'all would like to. There you go. Again. Yeah. Do we need to make an amendment to get that in the code or is it already um in the ordinance?

What's in red is being proposed. What's in black is the actual ordinance with the strike through. So, uh I did take some liberties in rew writing the second sentence a little bit, but it's not verbatim as in a strike through and it gets eliminated. Yeah. I'd like to um Yes. I'd like to propose that we amend the ordinance as indicated on the slide. Second. Motion made and seconded to uh amend the ordinance as proposed on the slide in front of us. Any discussion hearing? None. Call for the question. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Eyes have. Okay. And just one more Mr. Chapman. Uh I am

I I think that we are taking a step forward um tonight on on what I presume is the passage of this wetlands ordinance. Uh I do continue to have some concerns that we're applying this to existing single family homes where the person's not adding any additional density. Maybe they're building a patio or a deck addition um fence. Um so I'd like to make an amendment. And just to let people in the audience know, we did um have a vote on this last week. I was on the losing end um 7 to2 I think. Um but I do think that as this goes into effect, there is going to be a learning curve for the town and its staff. Um, I think regardless of what happens on on the motion that I'm about to make, I do hope that we will hear where some of these pain points are once this is on the ground and and look to make changes to to to make it a a better ordinance for for everyone. Um, but I would like to uh make an amendment that the provisions for single f existing single family homes where they are not adding density that that portion of this ordinance goes into effect on October 1st.

Is there a second to Mr. Brownstein's motion? A second for discussion purposes. Mr. I final seconds. Any discussion? So, my intent is really just to make sure that the kinks of this are worked out before our existing homeowners have to go through this process. Any other discussion? Does that include Oh, Mr. I can find

would that include this going back then to council to hear those kinks, I guess. I mean, or and and for council to consider changing the ordinance. Uh, it could be, but it would automatically go into effect on on October 1st. So, if there were changes to be made, we could do so. I'm just very reluctant um to put our homeowners, existing homeowners through this until it's had some time out on the street. Any other discussion on the motion of the amendment? Sir, hearing none. Call for the question.

Question. All those in favor of the motion to exempt single f existing single family properties from this until October 1st. Is that what you said? Correct. Brownstein signify by saying I I no the nos have it. Now Mr. Mr. Attorney the motion. What is the next motion we need to make? Call for the question. Call for the question. Yeah. Call for the question.

And this is for approval of the uh ordinance as amended. As amended. A call. Okay. Call to the question of the ordinance wetlands as amended. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. The eyes have this. We have ordinance. Ordinance number 622. Okay. Next item on the agenda, I believe, is our budget for first reading. Move to approve. Second.

Motion made and seconded to approve. of the budget. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Mike, Mike, sorry, Mr. First reading ordinance number 26024. All right. The next item is the Trident technical. Move to approve. Second. Motion made and seconded to approve of the agreement with Trident Tech. All those in favor signify by saying I. I.

All those opposed, eyes have it. And I will just say that we are very lucky to have Trident Tech in our town helping a lot of our students. Any other business to come before town? No, sir. We're ajourned. Is that loud? I loved it. A job may for