Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Peter, Peter, I think your volume your volume's on or yours are Chris's. to keep speed. But no, you're computer,

your emails. I haven't heard anything from her, so I'm not sure.

Okay, Gary, you're good. All right. Okay, we'll call the U January meeting of the Town of Mount Pleasant Planning Commission um uh open. Um thanks for everyone's attendance. Uh I'll go over our procedure in just a little while. Um it looks like we've got a quorum. Um, I'll ask for a motion to approve uh tonight's agenda. So, moved. Motion's been made by Mr. Smite, second by Miss Island. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed?

Agenda is approved. And the same for the minutes of the last meeting. Is there a motion to approve? Any any first any amendments or questions, edits to those minutes? If not, okay, Gary has moved to approve them. Is there a second? Mr. Smite is seconded. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries.

Uh, Mr. Stone, Planning Commission recommendations update. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Town Council decisions from January 2026. The first reading uh to reszone the bank at 3305 North Highway 17 from R1 to 81. That was approved. had first reading on 1490 Bostonville Road. Uh reszone or zone it to conservation annexation was also approved. First reading on the zoning to R3 at 602 rifle range that was denied. So that will terminate the application. The first reading uh to reszone from 81 to R2 the 1306 man drive site with a single family home that was approved. probably help if you could see it. Yeah. And then final readings. Uh there was the ordinance to um amend the automatic designation of rural neighborhood properties to RC2. Final reading also occurred on rural residential and the development standards and density being one unit per 3 acres. And final reading also occurred in ordinance to review vested rights extensions. That'll be uh something that we'll be talking about later, but a duty that planning commission will be taking on. And finally, uh Michelle has been working hard to coordinate uh public input and building area ratio and amendments to the accessory uses and structures ordinance. Um the last last Wednesday uh meeting was held at Hendle Hall and uh just going through that public input and categorizing it and uh and uh

deciphering that. So that is the extent of the updates from town council. Great. Thank you. I think there was I I actually attended the uh uh the session at Alhhamra Hall last week and it was well attended. So I was glad to see community participating. [clears throat] Just confirming that we received all the correspondence within the the time allowances uh uh per policy.

Yes, sir. Great. We had quite a bit. So hopefully um all the commission members had a chance to review those letters. Uh now's the the time for public comment. So, uh, if you're not familiar with our meetings, we have really two opportunities for people to speak on various issues. Um, first, if you, if you're here specific to one of the proposals or public hearing items on the agenda, I'd urge you to speak uh, specific to that particular agenda item. But if there are other comments you'd like to make or issues of of more general nature, now would be the time to do that. Um, the process is we'd ask invite you up. you have 2 and 1/2 minutes to speak and it's important that you uh state your name and your address for the uh for the record. So if there if there's anyone for the general public comment period, if you have comments, uh you're welcome to do so now. If you would uh make me need to make sure the microphone's on, which I think it is, but if you would speak into the mic, that would be helpful. So a can but also for recording. Thank you.

Okay. My name is Jerry Eddings. I live on Rose Lane in the old village and um the issue that I came to speak about is probably going to be taken up later, but I just wanted to mention now that I'm very concerned about one issue that I have very little information about. So partly I'm here for information about a proposal to for a zoning change um on main lane which is a very tiny lane and it's um um traffic is an issue emergency vehicles are an issue and um I I when this issue comes up I assume that there'll be a chance to will there be a chance for public comment on specific

topics at at that time I will have more to say but just wanted to make sure that we would have an opportunity to to speak about that later. Yes, ma'am. Nice. Anyone else to speak about any topic? Um, yes, sir. you speak through here? Yes. And your name and address for the record?

Yes, sir. Well, my name is Master Rockman. Uh, my parents live on 109 million. They had that residence since I think 1957 and that is a little small area and like uh for emergencies like they said and stuff like that. And I have a question. I'm not familiar with it, but they plan on changing the area into commercial. I'm asking a question. Um I'm not able to to respond to direct questions, but I think that will come up a little bit later on in the agenda.

Okay. Cuz I don't know. So I'm asking that for a reason. If they were to do that, would they have a dual zoning for like residents and for the newcomers for commercial? Again, we can't respond to to direct questions, but I think those issues will be answered when we address that particular agenda item a little bit later this evening. Okay. All right. That's all. Thank you.

Anyone else for the general uh public comment portion of the uh meeting tonight? Seeing none, we'll close that portion of the of the meeting. Um, we'll go to our first uh item, item 7A, a public hearing for 1651, Highway 41. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is one that you saw last month that has been properly advertised and is requesting annexation and community conservation zoning. As you can see here, this is the 1.224 acre parcel and water and sewer is not only readily available for this site, but is already connected to this site. So, this site is uh fully hooked up to water and sewer as of today and it is in the county zoned S3. Uh furthermore, it's in the Philips Community Historic District Designation. So the request is to annex and zone into the town uh CC community conservation which as you know uh would be very similar to the county's version of S3. So that is the request um for zoning. Uh annexation will be taken up by committee and council but for for zoning um glad to answer any questions you might have. Questions at this time for Mr. Stone. We've talked about these reszoning requests a number of times over the last few months. So it sound like this one's similar.

I quick question. Um, I I believe I checked into this and I think I'm correct in assuming, but I think there's currently a HBAC business or something operating out of this residence. Is that is that part of knowledge or is that a guess? I I believe that um in speaking with the county that has been a a code enforcement issue that they have had to address. Okay. Thank you. Okay. This is a public hearing. So, if there's anyone here to speak on this matter.

Yes. My name is Richard H. I'm the president of the post community association at 2930 Bennett Charles Road. Um, at the last meeting, y'all didn't advertise this thing because the the sound was put out at I think about 12:00 the same day y'all had the meeting, and we didn't have a chance to see anything at the at the last meeting. But, um, the problem we have at this this parcel is that we are on a national historical register.

Mhm. And if you take this out of um the fork, you take it out of the Charleston County historical zone, but it still be under the National Register. Is your plan to put this under the tongue of mouth pleasant um ro street historical commission because CC is a little bit different cuz anything that happened in Phillip the county do um notify anybody within that area by email and we do have a chance to you know to comment on this CC don't y'all don't do that y'all don't notify the wrestling in the area also like you said about um running hitting the air business in that area. We have one problem now on Joseph Joe Joel Ross Road. This guy came in as a landscaper. He got a fullblown business over there and we had problems with him and you know in the past and we don't want that to happen. That's why we went under the historical designation so we can you know contail some of this the people who buy property in the community. And now don't get me wrong, we don't have a problem in people buying property or selling property. It's the use of the property that we have a problem with and and that's what some of the people comes in. They want to change zoning and they want to do other things that we don't want in the community. So annexing in the town and you've seen in the past with sweet grass basket um over district when when you change the zoning and and it goes into town the uses change all total. So we want you to deny this annexation. Thank you.

Mhm. [clears throat]

My name is Diane Tindle Sutton and I reside in Phillips community at 2952 Bejo Road and I too am opposed to the zoning change in Phillips for the same reason stated by Mr. Havsham. I would like for you all would love for you all to consider not doing that.

Anyone else on this matter? I just realized a moment ago that I strayed from procedure. Um is there is there someone here to uh um representing the applicant to speak to this project? That's interesting. Yeah. Okay. Discussion. Yeah. I have a question. Um, can you just refresh my computer on what CC uh would hold on to? I need to close the uh the comment period. That's okay. I'm sorry. I am doing that now. So, no more comments. Okay. Mr.

Okay. Just to refresh my memory, can you tell me again what CC allows uh what what the zoning would permit?

So that would be uh it it's mostly centered on the development standards of the lot. So 12,500t lots, three um units an acre and um it you would find it predominantly in uh settlement community areas. And um it also allows for a little bit more flexible development pattern um as historically uh these areas have developed. And it's it's it's very interesting. It's just it's a very culturally c culturally rich um story seeing how how this um has developed and and we've use CC to mimic that and try to uh enforce and allow that uh that development pattern to continue.

Okay, Miss Ars. Okay. Um,

sorry. Just to clarify a couple things in case anybody in the audience doesn't know. Um, first of all, we don't deal on the commission with annexation of the property into the town. We only are asked about the zoning, a reszoning in the event that it annexes in. And the second thing is that um we make recommendations for these matters. this is going to go one way or the other to the committee on council and then to town council and they make the final decision. So, um you know, if you're concerned about anything after this and you want to go, you should go to the town council or the committee meeting and express that to them or write them as well. Um my thoughts about this are we've we've dealt with this kind of issue several times in the past and so my answer remains the same. The CC is is a mimics the same kind of zoning that the county has, but the zoning um in the county is has a historic protection overlay that they are very close to adopt or maybe they have adopted and they've gotten they've got some details to work out. Um so my feeling is that this would be premature. We don't have a a mirror image of that and we need to protect the settlement communities. So I would move to deny. Well, and Miss Island, your your comments were sort of prelude to a question I wanted to ask staff, and that is whether there's any update with respect to establishment of um a historic preservation sort of district designation for Phillips and possibly other settlement communities in the in the area.

I'm sorry, just a moment, Miss Ireland. Was that a motion? No, I I will move, but I have not moved. Thank you. That's a good question. We we have been coordinating with the county and um we have been uh pretty aggressively marking up. We have a copy of the 10mi overlay district that we're using as a model and we're marking up and and looking at all from all angles. And so we're currently in the research and and design of how we would go about implementing this.

Okay. Well, that's that's that's good to know that there's been progress and um you know, I assume there's been conversation with representatives of the settlement communities themselves too for their input. So, I think that's a step in the right direction would would uh achieve what I think Pam is uh at least implied, you know, at some point in the future, right? So, okay. I I have one question. Um, so if there is a discrepancy in the current use and what they're requesting to be zoned, why would the town allow that zoning to happen if they're not complying with the zoning they were requesting?

This I don't um trying to understand the you said that Charleston County is dealing with a non-compliance issue. Correct. So if you if you annex it, then you're inheriting that. Why why would like the town do that? It it happens often, I think. Um in some cases, Charleston County encourages um them to annex in the town. So it's [laughter]

I've seen it happen probably. So it it does become our code enforcement issue, but it is a um a pretty good indicator that CC is is the zoning that it would automatically get if it annexed in. So it it is it would be I I guess I would take um pro more in the direction of it's properly it would be properly zoned but there are some code enforcement issues on the site.

So I guess the more direct question is like there's nothing in our town laws that require them to like be in compliance when they're annexing. It's um we we inherit that um that problem. Part of the issue too is it I don't know why but it's showing in the county is a a vacant lot. So there's some discrepancy there too. Okay. Yes sir. Yeah Mr. Chair, real quick Peter. Um just to give you more questions. So CC, what I I think I remember is very limited uh as far as any commercial use uh allowed in CC. Correct.

That's correct. Yeah. So it's it mirrors uh for the most part the county's S3 zoning for residential and it's for this area. I mean that's the recommendation for future land use would be CC. If they just applied for annexation, uh, do they have to apply for reszoning along with that? They they don't have to. It it would be automatically assigned to them. Okay. Thanks. Any other questions for staff? If not, Miss Sound like you were getting close to making a motion. Sure. I'll move to deny. [clears throat] Motion's been made to deny. Is there a second? Second.

Okay. Well, we'll we'll say that Mr. Smite second. We have multiple seconds. [laughter] All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion's denied or the proposals denied. Okay. Item 7B, a public hearing for 3759 North Highway 17.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And uh my name is Chris Lieber from the planning department. I'll be taking you through the next couple of of zoning requests. So, as you mentioned, this is a request to annex and zone conservation recreation open space. This site here is the one starred that you can see on the map ahead of you. And give you a little more context. If this map was zoomed out, you would have Carolina Park or Daryl Creek Trail up towards the top left of this map. And then here's Leven Road. And if you're familiar with our infrastructure, this is our Leven Road facility there. It's currently zoned in the county uh commercial under the 10mi community overlay district and the future land use under our comprehensive plan would be settlement community. And so I realize this likely an odd request. You don't see a lot of CRO or conservation recreation open space. Uh so I want to give you guys a little more context about the uses allowed in that and also kind of the the development standards beyond those uses. So, as you can see on the left side there, I've highlighted, and that's not all of the uses. Um, but I've pulled out a couple uses from the 10mi community overlay, and then I've also shown you some recreation space uh allowed uses as well. Um, and if you look closely at the application that the applicant provided, you notice the project name was Golden Times Campground. Um, so you can probably assume something like that is what you're going to see, which is an allowed use for this space. uh if that were to come to fruition, they would still be required to go through our internal design review team and any other processes for review. And then again, lot standards, you can see on the left, that's within the county. On the right side, again, there's no lot standards. Uh just put in there the purpose. So, it's important to understand the purpose of this this zoning district. um you know provide improved public private recreation activi activities and providing a

communitywide network of open space buffer zones recreation spaces and also to ensure the preservation of conservation recreation again of open space and so that is the request uh before you today and if you have any questions I'm happy to answer them questions for staff Anybody?

Miss Ireland, you know the code or the I'm sorry, the comprehensive plan um better than anyone I'm familiar with. What do you think in terms of settle? Well, I mean, I guess [clears throat] what I would it's it's settlement community, but um I haven't to my knowledge, we don't have any opposition by anyone from 10 mile unless people are here to speak about that tonight. Mhm. So, I'm, you know, I'm inclined not to worry too much about it if there's not been any because it's open. It's generally open space. Mhm. Campground. One of the thing that was interesting to me though about the request is how, you know, there's a good bit of uh of road frontage there. Uh, it's really narrow. It is

for the most part. And I was asking myself, well, what what use really could be made of the property? and and I'm I'm as most of you know, I'm usually a real advocate for open space and recreational space because, you know, it's it's really precious in our community as it's grown over the years. So, um but anyway, this parcel in itself is just the way it's laid out is it's fairly narrow by comparison to some of the other parcels. So, I don't know whether that's a factor in our decision-m or not, but um so, well, we should probably have a car hearing that.

Yeah, we will. Yeah. Any any questions for staff? I I guess I had a question. You had mentioned there's there would be a review process for someone who wanted to make this a campground. Okay. Okay. This is a public hearing. So now would be the time for anyone interested in speaking on this particular agenda item to to speak. Do we have the applicant here tonight? Okay. Interesting. Seeing no one, um I will close the public comment period on this particular item. Okay.

Um one comment that I have is um I mean I'm not so concerned about a campground. I would prefer that to someone coming and trying to build houses. Although, you know, I am usually very differential to the settlement community association and the residents. So, we just haven't heard from them. But the one thing that I noticed um and I actually asked Mr. Stone a couple of days ago just for more information about this is I looked at the permitted uses under CRO so conservation recreation open. All of them are great except one of them is community residence and in looking at that there's no that's like a it could be like a halfway house or a you know that I don't know any other word for that but that sort of thing like a rehab with halfway house and there's no condition that it be a certain amount of open space. So it doesn't seem to make sense in the CR. There is a CR and then there's a CRO which is open space.

And the only thing that concerns me is that although someone can propose what they want to do here, the property can also be sold and it can be sold and then any permitted use is, you know, is a go no matter what. So that's that's the real the only kind of weird thing about it. I don't think this is amendable really to that kind of facility, but it just struck me because I've never looked into the CRO designation before. That sort of sound it's not very often used. Yeah, that's a good caution. Thank you for that. Was that also is that a use in CR as well? Um, I think so. I think it is. Yeah, I'll look it up because I brought my

Or maybe Yes. staff. I mean, is that something a permissible use? Yes, that's permissible use. It's permissible in every zoning district, too. Okay. And tell us a little bit more about that designation because, you know, I'm not as familiar as I'd like to be. Yeah. Miss Miss Ireland pretty much hit the hit the nail on the head there. It is a state requirement. Um there's certain uh criteria they'll have to meet with the state and it's laid out in the state code. I'm not as familiar with it, but it is something that's in every zoning district. It's kind of they'll make the request to us as a municipality and uh there's certain procedures they'll have to take.

Okay. So, there would be similar to some of the other questions earlier, there would be a process for making that decision as to whether that was a permitted use. Okay. Uh Mr. Chair, I was just being familiar with commercial real estate development. I think yeah,

it is very narrow in nature and you're going to reach likely some uh Mr. Bar can attest to this. Likely some auto turn issues with fire trucks and life safety um ambulance and things of that nature. It is interesting though they've got this street, this culdeac, this potential other street. So I think there's some good circulation that could happen with this. And it appears to me as they're trying to I'm I'm not I'm speculating, right? Clean up the site, increase a little bit of the value, make it less of an eyesore. So I think there's some some goodwill there on the owner's part trying to do that. So, for that reason, I I like the um proposed uh annexation or not annexation, but the zoning the reszoning. Yeah. Resoning, excuse me. Yeah.

Okay. Any other comments, Mr. Ferrar? Was that a motion? Uh just a comment. Thank you. Where the couch service is? Is it next to this? Where is that? It's on this site. It's on the site. It's on that site. It is that site that is. So they're not using it for coffers. No, they are. They are. They're repurposing. Okay. It's more of a lay down yard right now. Yeah. It's probably the best way to describe it. Yeah. I think this time of year they sell firewood and that kind of thing. But yeah, to Adam's point, I think mostly it's a place for their trucks and equipment. Well, yeah. [clears throat]

And just if I could, Mr. Chair, just to follow up, I personally uh CRO seems very restrictive. So, I think they're they're asking for a zoning that's very restrictive. They're in between town property and a right of way and then they're bound by a rightway on the the tail end. So, I I think, you know, it it doesn't really uh scare me. I think they're asking for a very restrictive zoning and and again, they've got to go through design review board uh for any proposed development. So, Okay. Um

well, good. It sounds like there's some general consensus on this, at least directionally. Do we My only concern is like a campground can be very different things. You know, it can be very green and open or it could be a bunch of concrete pads for RVs to park on. So, I would just hope that the town in their review process, you know, uses their discretion. Okay. U anybody want to care to make a motion, Mr. Gard? Maybe. Um I I would say I'd like to make a motion to approve as requested. Is there a second? Second. Second made by Mr. Snipes. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed?

Motion carries unanimously. Okay, great. Um, item 7 C, a public hearing for Zero May Lane. Um, uh, one of the attendees tonight has already questioned about this. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mhm. So, as you mentioned, this request is to reszone from AB1, Area Wide Business, which is a commercial district, and reszone to a residential use, uh, specifically R2. And to give you context there, the aerials, if you recall, last year, you reviewed 106 May, which came under a similar circumstance.

And as you can see there, uh, it is currently a commercial zoning, and they are requesting R2. And you see 106 May down there. And then across the street there of May Lane of all R2 zoning, the future land use has it under community scale commercial. And and again, so I I took this slide from the original one at 106 May. I think this shows a good job of of kind of while you see the future land use map shows a lot of this um as commercial uses, it's actual a lot of it is being utilized as residential almost 50/50 especially if you approve this request. So, the similarities here too, uh, with 106 May Lane, that was currently an existing residential use. As you can see in the GIS image, there's a house there. This one, as you can tell, is vacant. That's the big difference there. And also, I put up there the square footage. So, 106 May, you're about.14 acres. This one's a little smaller, about 1.11 acres. So you can tell and I highlighted there on the left side the Coleman Boulevard overlay district um specific to the village scale pedestrian standards. Basically what their setbacks are going to be 20 foot setback off May lane. Uh you would also have parking requirements that would make it difficult to develop this as a commercial property without aggregating it into one of the neighboring properties. And that is the request before you tonight. And I believe the applicant is here to speak towards it. Yes, sir.

Okay. But before please come on up, sir. Are the questions for staff before uh the applicant uh speaks? I have one just to refresh my memory. What did what's 106 zoned as? Is it R1 or R2? R2. Yes, sir. If you would state your name for the record and address. Sure. Uh my name is John Rice and my address is uh 2147 Parkway Drive in Charleston. Um, and so yeah, I'm I'm the applicant and I would, you know, from hearing the resident's concerns, I would I would, you know, echo their sentiment of not wanting to develop more commercial on that street and that's the direction we're going wanting to go. And so I think, you know, changing the use to residential would be in line with with their sentiment. So,

and the intent is, I suppose, is to build a home. That's correct. Yes, I think so. All right. Questions for the applicant while we have them? Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you. So again, this is a public hearing. So if there's anyone to speak on this topic, now would be the time. Zero May Lane,

Miss Addings. Hello again.

Yes, ma'am. Um, I think I just want a clarification about R2. I think it is a wonderful idea for that space to be zoned residential. I just want to make sure I understand whether R2 is residential, meaning a single family home as opposed to multiple structures like we have at the other end and end of uh May Rose Wilder um lane. um because the concern is is the density in that small lane. So this might be in line with my thinking. Um but I just want to be sure that that is that is the case.

So technically we're not allowed to respond to questions. However, we can ask staff to provide a little bit of a backgrounder on that particular matter, but I think you'll be pleased. Thank you. [laughter]

Anyone else? My name is Barry Newton and my wife and I are the current owners of the property for the last eight years. It has been rented out to a kayak company that put the kayaks on trailers and and carried it down to Shim Creek and it encouraged the public to come down the narrow main lane. So we are now selling the property and we agree that a single family home would be the best designation for the property. Great. Thanks for that background, sir. That's very helpful. Anyone else to speak on this matter?

[laughter] And if there's anyone else beyond I think this gentleman, then I'd encourage you to sort of be prepared so we can line up. Yeah. Move things along. Yep. And again, sir, you have two and a half minutes. And if you would uh state your name and uh my name is address for the record. Okay.

Yes. Uh, my name is Frederick Gathers and I've been living in May Lane for over 50 years. Okay. And I'd like to say that the place is getting really really crowded and from what I'm understanding is they're planning on putting more like condos in the area and I just like to get some kind of understanding on it. Okay. Again, we're not able to respond directly to your question, but I think that staff will be able to answer that particular one here in a few moments, but I think you'll be pleased. Okay. Because I just wanted to let it be known that I pulled that.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Anyone else to speak on this topic? Yes, ma'am. [clears throat] Can I speak? Yes. Can you state your name for the and address for the record?

My name is Belma Wright Dickerson. I live next to my own the property next door to where they're planning to build. I just want to know if it's going to be a single family home. Is it going to be units of homes? The area is very congested now. Single family home. Yes. It's a very small area, very tight-knit for anything other than a family home rather than a building complex. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else in this matter?

Yes, sir. Um Dwayne Gathers, 109 May Lane. Um that that property has been in our family since 1957, I think, way before I was born. Um but what we do notice is it's a very congested road. You can only have one car, I mean a single car come down the lane at one time.

Sure. And our concern is if a fire truck or emergency vehicle needs to come down, um it's tight enough already um to where they're not going to be able to turn around. Um we there was a residence once that had some renters that had a boat and I tried to come down the road and I had to wait until they basically went to the end of the road, tried to turn around. So I had to end up waiting like 15 20 minutes just to to get to our family home. Mhm. So, we just ask that the board consider that there's also houses that are at the end of the road when you make a right that live there, but they have a different address than May Lane. They actually have a Rose Lane address. Mhm. [clears throat]

So, I just ask that the board kind of take a look at the maps and look at those things, too. Right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, we'll close the uh public comment period on this this matter. If you would uh if you sort of explain um the R2 designation a little bit, that'll be helpful to everybody.

Yes, sir. So, the R2 district will only allow for a single uh detached house dwelling. Um they'll still be within the neighborhood preservation overlay district. We still meet all those zoning requirements as well as far as imperous surface uh stuff like that, but there'll only be one dwelling unit on there if approved as presented tonight. Right. And remind everyone too about the parking requirements on a square footage basis for even small properties if that I think that may address some of the concerns that the residents have as well. Yeah. Though um the house houses will still have parking requirements. Are you referring to commercial? That's right. For for a home.

Yes. for a home. Yeah. So, they'll have one parking space required on site um for that and then if they do have an ADU down the line, they'll have another parking space for that. Okay, sir. Got it. Okay. Any other questions for staff or discussion? Open it up for discussion. So, it seems to me that the residents are okay. My sense is that the residents are are okay if we reszone this for a single family home. Um and that's that's it, right? There's other than single family home, nothing else would be permitted on this property if if it's freezoned.

There's other allowed uses on the principal use table, but it'd be consistent with R2. And this is things like the community residents we talked about before, amenity buildings. Um, but basically what you're seeing in R2 district is going to be detached house dwelling, and I believe that's what the Mr. Given the I'm sorry, Chris, given the modest size of this particular lot, those other possible uses are impractical. They're just not gonna happen. I was just just curious. Yeah.

One more question for staff. Thank you. Um I guess for everybody in the audience in here, can you remind us the um pvious versus impervious area of that residential lot being roughly under 5,000 ft? What's the percentage of of density of of the home? So for the imperous surface coverage, if it was exactly 5,000 ft, about 2,000 imperous surface coverage is going to be the limit. And that counts driveways, everything that water cannot penetrate. So 40% of the lot would be buildable in essence. Yes, sir. Okay. That's that's a great point, Mr. F. So, just a quick scale

for the audience to to if you're not following along, the largest home that could be um constructed on this property would be 1,800,900 square ft something like per floor. Per floor and so very very modest in size. The footprint would be very modest in size. And just to add to that, I'm looking at the zoning code right here too for R2. The front set back is 25 ft. The rear set back is 25 ft and the sides are 10 um or 20 combined. So this would be what? I think this is a special overlay. So those are all reduced.

So it would be reduced are reduced here. The overlay before the zoning trade in Bay first used to reduce the front yard set back to 15 ft for the building foundation. At this time, how this code reads, that 10 extra feet is for front porch, basically open editions, no no closed foundation type structures. That's fine. Um, yeah. And just as comparing the R1 district, which is a single family, you know, the sort of highest level single family, detached is 35% co building coverage. This is 40%. So, you know, not a tremendous amount of difference.

Okay. And just to comment, I mean, I typically do not like to change commercial properties to residential. That's kind of my standard. Um, we need to keep the commercial. I am making exceptions for this particular road because of the access um and because of the residents that are there. So, it would be an exception. I I don't want anyone to think in this whole area that we're looking to change all of the commercial properties to residential. this that won't will not be that that slippery of a slope. So, [laughter] okay. I entertain a motion. I'd love to make a motion to um approve the request. Great. Is there a second? Second by Mr. Smite. All those in favor say I.

I. Any opposed?

Motion carries unanimously. Great. Thank you. Item 7D, public hearing again for Children's and Old Georgetown Road. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a request on seven parcels um either on Children Road or Old Georgetown Road. And in aggregate, we're talking about 5.12 acres. and the applicant uh has made it clear that water and sewer is readily available and they would like to annex in order to uh connect into that water and sewer. So the the important thing uh to note is that this is in the county right now and it's zoned S3 and it it kind of straddles the 6 mile 7 mile uh boundary but it does not have a historic designation on it. So qualitatively it is it is a like for like I understand the uh first agenda item the distinction made there but qualitatively this is a like for like CCS3

u exchange. So this would be requesting CC zoning and remaining in the sweetgrass basket overlay district for these seven parcels. And I did want to point out the contiguity uh because that is important. Um the reason this is one big agenda item is because these parcels are contingent on one another. Number one gives you connectivity to two, three, four. Number five, that's your point of contiguity to six and seven. So this is being handled as you couldn't um annex in number three without having one and two first. So this is kind of an all or nothing uh vote. So, uh that is the request before you for these seven parcels and uh the applicant is not here. Uh they're currently at work, but um

Oh, great. You're doing a fine job. [laughter] Come on up, sir. We'd like to hear from you. Yeah. If you've got more to add, we always invite the applicants to speak to us directly if at all possible. So, thank you. He's he's taking care of anyway. My name is Kuban German. I live at 2355 Old Georgetown Road. Mhm. And this is basically family property. It's been in there for years and we decided to join the town because of the amenities and other things that we could benefit from. Mhm. So, um unless you have a question for me, I'm good with what's going on. Okay. Any questions for Mr. Jones? Yeah. Thank you, sir. Appreciate you.

Are are you the applicant, too? So, I'm actually on the other side of the street at 11:38. We're not quite ready for public comment. Okay, hang on [laughter] one second. Hang on one second. Are there more statist stand by? Yeah, stand by. You're going to be asked to come up in just a second. Are there questions for staff before we open the public comment period? All right. Yes, ma'am. Please state your name and address for the record. Jamal Better, 1138 Children Road. Okay. So, I'm across the street and I'm seeing this is only affecting the other side of the street, not my side of the street. I'm exactly adjacent to number seven. Okay. Yes.

And so my question when Pamela mentioned reszoning once you annex in, my question is if you annex in the town can come back and want to reszone. That was my question. Like how does that how does resoning affect once you're annexing? Okay. And we'll ask staff maybe to address that in a moment. But uh thanks for the question.

Anyone else during the public comment period on this particular topic? Seeing none, we will close the public comment period. Okay. Uh questions for staff or staff, you may want to address some of the some of the questions that uh were just raised. Sure. I don't um I mean this would be the automatic zoning designation that uh would be placed on these properties and I I don't foresee a reason that we would ever reszone especially since the comprehensive plan recommends that this this zoning

the the one thing that that could occur in the future is the the overlay district and working with the community we could expand into 6 mile 7 now and develop historic districts and and trying to keep up with the county. So, uh that would that would be something that would be done in coordination with the community rather than uh just a a council action to reszone a property. I don't believe that would happen. It strikes me as this would be advantageous to a residential neighbor. So, if that addresses your concern, right? So it's not it's currently CC not S3 or S2. Is that right?

Currently CC zone which is community conservation. I don't know if that I think the question is just the conversion from county to town. Yeah. Yeah. Just just for me. Correct. It would just be jurisdiction. Yeah. But it's so if as currently in the county it's S3 when it comes in even if even if we did nothing but if we reszone if we agree to the reszoning it comes in as CC which is the exact same zoning designation as S3

and it's not in a historic overlay you know area. Um, and I also I went by there and went through went up children road and downhole Georgetown and there's Fulton Hall. You know, there's that whole sort of swath there seems consistent with this sort of parcel [clears throat] designation. So, it seems to make sense to me. Yeah, I would agree with Miss Ireland. Any other comments or discussion? Miss, you care to make a motion? Sure. I'll move to approved. Second by Mr. Smi. All those in favor say I.

I. Any opposed? Motion again carries unanimously. Next item on the agenda is 7E, a public hearing two for White Flat Road. Thank you, Mr. Chair. These are two parcels on the corner of White Flat and Bowman. Both these are around a quarter of an acre each and they are currently zoned OP2 and I do unfortunately feel the need to interject some some background information on this. Um the 1242 White Flat Road up until 2019, that was a single family home that was zoned R1. Uh pretty consistent with the remainder of White Flat Road in 2020. Uh some unpermitted work occurred. Um and this is what is currently on the the site. uh the property owner wanted to uh correct this and resone the property to OP2 and that wasn't necessarily that that is not where the the end is because you then have to bring the the building into compliance. Let's go through building plan review, design review. And I believe in 2023 they went to Boza with six variance requests. Wow. And unfortunately those were denied and I believe the property owners kind of walked away from the property distance themselves. But um that is why we have our current request. the uh applicant is requesting to walk it back toward residential uh requesting R3 on these lots and that would be

consistent with the conference of plan uh stating that mixed neighborhood. Mhm. I guess it'll be up to the commission to determine whether that mixture is to be hap happening in in a kind of a siloed development because here you have the central square multif family. This is Bowman Woods, you have the townhouse and here you have single family uh that'll be uh up to commission to determine if the content of plan is the intent of it is being met with with R3. So that is the current request before you to reszone these two parcels to R3.

Great. Thank you. Yeah. So mixed neighborhood um and again if you would go back one one pages to write every one of the um um various um zoning districts and uses there. So, and it could be multif family or townhouse. I have a question. A question for for you, Peter. Um, since all of the houses on White Flat Road are zoned R1 and Bowman Woods is a separate community, did they contemplate R1 or why are they asking for R3?

Right. It certainly R3 certainly uh gives you uh more of an opportunity to develop uh the property. I believe the square footage minimum is 4,000 and um with R1 is 10,000 ft² minimum. So there is a lot more flexibility with R3 uh and the diversity of housing types uh that that would be afforded in R3. So, um, that would that would probably why it's the star on the left not it's just vacant and the star on the right is the one where the correct

vertical structure is. Okay, that's correct. Both, right? Aren't they're asking for two parcels? Correct. No, I understand. I just Yeah, this this is the the vacant uh property. So, I intimated that that could be the reason they're doing that is to try to get a better tasting lemonade out of this situation. Yeah.

Okay. So, is the applicant here um to speak to this? Yes, sir. If you would. Eager to hear from you. Good evening. My name is Jason Frizzio. I live at 2414 Ion Avenue on Sullivan's Island. Um yeah, we're coming into this way late. So all this other stuff done, we have absolutely nothing to do with. Me and my other partner have absolutely nothing. We're a single family home builder here locally.

Um and the reason for R3 is really if we go to R1, we're you'd be approving something that isn't it doesn't fit those requirements. Uh the lot's too small. So the R1 depth lot depth is 110 ft, which neither of those lots have 110 ft. Okay. Um R2 we looked at and it really just especially the the 1242. Mhm. Um 1242 the it's 75 ft deep.

Mhm. If we were to use white flats, which I believe we have to as where the front door is because that's the address. Uh so I mean if you use R2, you're at 2525, you got 25 foot house. Mhm. That just really doesn't make it uh as far as a front setback and the rear setback. So it just does give us a little bit more flexibility uh with the setbacks. Okay. So that's why we're going for an R3. Um, you know, the intention is to do um single family homes. So, got it. Okay. Yeah.

Is do you foresee taking down the current structure that's there or do you have a strategy for that yet that you're you're able to share? Okay. Okay. Questions for the applicant? Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Discussion on this. I mean, it seems straightforward to me. I think we hear. Yeah. I'm sorry. Thanks, Michelle. If this is a public hearing, thank you to Michelle for reminding me. Is there anyone here to speak on this uh agenda item? Now would be the time to do it. Yes, ma'am.

Hi. Who Who am I? So, um I'm Laura Standridge. Um I live in Mount Pleasant and um I just had you address me up for the Sure. Sure. 1532 Walk and Daw Road. Okay.

Um the sites So I just guess want to start. I'm just curious. I'm here to sort of learn as much as I can about this as a as a newly uh minted Charleston County or South Carolina nonprofit. So we're we're around and I'm looking at properties and I'm curious about zoning because I'm at the beginning. I'm I'm at the nexus of my education. So, thank you for that tonight. Um, and I just my husband and I have driven by many times and we're looking at this property and we're like, why would they we saw the public notice and we we found out that they're going to be reszoning and we're like, why would you want a residential thing there? And we understand what like White Flat Road is and knowing that it has what its history is, but it is a very interesting place. As it's been mentioned, there's condos right behind. Right in front is a main main thoroughfare like main thoroughfare. And then next to that is a little empty lot with another road that goes to shopping. So it seems very strange that you would put a private home there. I don't know who would the heck would want to live in a private home essentially on Bowman a Bowman Road. So that's my just my observation. And then the site's evolution highlights how zoning decisions affect families, children, and community services. And I'm very interested in community services as a as a newly incorporated South Carolina nonprofit focused on kids with challenges and I'm here to just understand how you as the town um weigh those impacts. And that's just the conclusion of my comment. Is that it? That's it.

Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else on this particular topic? Seeing none, we will close the public comment period for this particular item. Okay. Any other questions, discussions on this uh matter? Uh yes. Um, Peter, is the lot that's 1236 is that's that's an R1 zoned property. That's correct. And is that a non-conforming property? Do you know? It it would be considered non-conforming uh with the depth. Um, you

um it it would be considered non-conforming. Okay. Uh, and the reason I mention it is I believe R3 also would allow duplexes. Is that correct? That's correct. So, I mean, I know that none of the residents are here to speak from White Flat Road, but I just fundamentally I feel like this isn't a single family home um road. And I agree. I wouldn't particularly want a house that abuts Bowman Road there, but um but I'm just I think R3 is a stretch. R2 maybe would make more sense, but he's not applying for R2. He's applying R3, right?

So, I feel that's just a little too much. And and um I think, you know, it's a red herring to say, well, there are condos or town homes right in back. That's really is a different neighborhood. You know, it's a diff it's buffered. It's not um you know the access way is all white flat road here, not Bowman Woods. Mhm. So I I look at them differently having gone by there and gone up the road. So uh I I just think it's the wrong request for you know the zone. So that's my my opinion. Okay.

Um I don't know what the buffering would be like off DomenA, but correct me if I'm wrong. Thought I saw a slide earlier that shows it was in the these two lots were in that overall yellow highlighted comp plan or a couple of pages back. Future land use future land use that one. Yeah.

So to me trying to clean up the the undo what was done um feels like the better path. Um, and you've got appears to be an applicant willing to do it. So, um, I think there's going to be some requirements they're going to have to go through to continue on through this design. They might yield, you know, six to eight units out of it. So, that feels like a better use than what is currently contemplated. Um, and I wouldn't want to see a commercial jammed up against those residential homes.

So, that's my soft take on it. No motion. Okay. [laughter] Yes, sir.

Uh, Mr. Chair, yeah, and I would just piggy back on what Mr. Ferrar said. I, you know, this area is obviously a little bit of a transition. Uh, Watermark Boulevard goes to a number of different uses, commercial uses, um, and a lot of different multif family. And then you've got, uh, commercial zoning across the road. Um, and then you've got AB2 zoning uh just on the other side of Watermark with Hughes Rental. So, you know, I feel like in and the fact that you've got multif family uh adjacent to you on Bowman Woods, I think this is an area if you know, somebody's looking to live uh on Bowman Road, I think it is a more appropriate uh type use is just my opinion uh in this area. So, you know, on the other side of the road, you got larger lots, you know, maybe more conducive to larger single family homes, but I think with kind of what we got here, the way these were subdivided, it it doesn't feel like a stretch. They can only do so much with those small lots.

Thanks. Thank you, Mr. So, going from low density to medium density to me is not the right way to go. You know, I think that I I'd be happy with R1 or R2, but as far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't be too happy with R3 because I just don't like to go from low density to medium density. And so that that's that's my feeling on it. I I concur with that. I I have no problem with it being residential. I think it should be residential, but um I think R2 is a more appropriate zoning.

Okay. The question I have is what like the additional lots on White Flat Road when they go to want to redevelop or they're not going to be able to do much under R1 is what it sounds like. So [clears throat] like the domino is going to be the there are houses there, right?

Correct. There there are currently um and if I could zoom this out further there are single family homes that go all the way back to a culde-sac and they would be protected by the non-conforming ordinance u allowed to repair um and it it really I mean to a certain extent even rebuild so not as concerned about the the existing properties um and the non-conformities that are are kind of assigned to them.

So if someone had an R1 on White Flat Road, it was at the end of its functional lifespan and they tore it down, they would be able to put back like the same exact thing that they had or they would not because of the limitations of the setbacks. There there are certain provisions built into the non-conforming ordinance where if you and if you have a non-conforming law, there are reductions and and setbacks and and other um provisions that would allow you to to build something back. It's a I mean, it's a buildable lot. It's a lot that uh either the county or the town created at some point in history. So it it um and

could I just add to that maybe to I think if it were totally due to improvements and not an act of God, you know, or a loss or something. [laughter] I think there you'd have to conform to certain things that are applicable to the lot like the setbacks and things like that. But my understanding is that other than for use, you could go and ask the board of zoning appeals for variance um to meet, you know, to have exceptions to those things. Is that's right?

That's correct. You you reach a certain extent where we can with a non-conforming lot, we can reduce your your setbacks up to 20%. But if if you're proposing plans that we're now realizing you're going to need more than that, it's it's going to be the board of zoning appeals to give you relief. Mhm. So as R1 [clears throat] though, this would be a non-conforming lot 1242. Correct. And the one across the street.

Yes. I mean that was well that's that has a little bit more of a a different history we don't have to get into but it was in the watermark PD and they acquired that property just for the freestanding sign that's on it. Um so [clears throat] it there are a couple non-conformities on that that site. So Mr. Stone I'm looking for guidance from staff on what are our available options. We've heard comments that, you know, we're not there's some that are concerned about the request to reszone to R3, but may be willing to to reszone to another designation. Is that we have to deny? We have to deny and come back or not. Yeah.

Okay. They have to come back another time. Yeah. Okay. Mr. Chair, one one more thing just for the record. Um it's commercial zone today. Now, when that happened, it sounds like there's some history. So, it's zoned off as professional today. Undoubtedly, nobody's been able to make that feasible to work as as that. So, uh whatever we look at, I think is is a downzoning uh to some extent. Now, would it be great if it was our one maybe, but anyway, just my two cents.

Yeah, I mean, my thinking is consistent with yours. I think I'd rather it just make the decision to drive it to where what's been requested as opposed to, you know, possibility of of another designation that is near. But I can I can make arguments both ways. I mean, the other this is Roman Road. It's a pretty major road. I feel like for density, it's not the craziest place to put higher density. Mhm. Anybody care to make a motion? I'd like to make a motion to approve the request.

Okay. Um I I just don't think we're going to think we're going to get any more out of trying to manipulate the zoning in any other ways. Not saying anybody on this board is trying to do that. Just I don't think I understand it any more than than I'm going to at this point. I don't know where we could go from there. Okay. I I'll second that motion. Okay. We'll take a vote. All those in favor of the motion to approve to um R3, reszone to R3, say I. I. Any opposed? We've got one, two, got three opposed.

Why don't we Why don't we do by roll call Lynette for the record then? Mr. Barber. Uh approve. Uh Mr. Ferrara approve. Miss Ireland no. Mr. Davis no. Mr. Smith approve. Miss Mans no. Mr. Barry I. And Mr. Bennett I. Uh motion passes 5 to three.

Okay. All right. Uh next uh is another public hearing. Item 7F uh project proposed for 1520 Rifle Range Road. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 1520 Rough Range Road. This is currently home to Mallister um Smith Funeral Home and a recreational field in the rear. It's 4.88 88 acres and it is adjacent to it's in between Shell Point and Central Mount Pleasant uh PD. Currently the uh property is zoned R1 and the funeral home use is permitted under the Boza special exception. what they're proposing with R2 funeral home use is also permitted under the BOSA special exception. And I think that's going to be a recurring theme as we work through this that R1 and R2 are almost identical and in all the major categories they they they're they're very similar. The only area where they diverge is on lot area, lot width, depth. So you can see here the lot area for R1 10,000 on the 8,000 for R2. So this really this request is not so driven by expanding the uses or anything like that. It's more of a dimension is driving this request. So that is the uh current request. But it does need to be pointed out that the future land use and the comprehensive plan have designated this as neighborhood scale commercial.

And it's neighborhood scale is is often just isolated commercial in large pockets of residential. And it's really up for the commission to determine if that's something that the comp plan designated it because it was an existing business or if that is the direction that the town is trying to maintain. So that is the request before you. The the applicant is here and uh would like to speak.

Okay. Any questions for staff um before we invite the applicant? Is the applicant here? Yeah. Yes, sir. if you would state your name and address for the record.

Thank you. I'm Steuart Whiteside, Simon Whiteside and Associates AS 618 Hop Gul Bluff Drive in Mount Pleasant. I'm here representing Mark and Parker Smith who are the owners of the facility. Uh they do own the 4.8 acre tract and uh they are looking to relocate in Mount Pleasant uh to a different facility and more modern facility. They've kind of outgrown or outpaced that themselves at the current location. Uh the property that they're in now is completely surrounded by single family uh uses. Um the R2 that they're requesting is basically the same as next door which is the Shell Point and it's actually less dense than next door on the other side which is central Mount Pleasant. Most of the properties on north side of life range road or R2 R3 or PD. Uh the proposed subdivision they'd like to do is a 14 lot subdivision for family members for several of the lots and then to sell a few of the other lots that are left over. Um it will be less than 3 o per acre be similar to a gemstone drive which is a block or two down the road if you're familiar with that. Due to the width of the property, uh, we are looking for R2 because the R1 has some lot depth requirements of our 110 ft. Especially as you get down to the end of the road that we'll have for the subdivision, you have lot depth problems and it's difficult to get a lot on both sides of the road. when you get to the end of the cult site and it does give us some flexibility that's well cuz there are a few trees on there that we like to work around or two would give us more flexibility of the lot sizes and shapes to work on that and I'd be glad to answer any questions as far as the use I believe if people went back they would probably find that comprehensive plan put that as neighborhood commercial or limited commercial just because that's what it was it really is not a great location for a commercial facility of that location, but glad to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you, sir. Questions for the representative, the applicant? Yes, I have a question. Yeah, so I'm a little confused. So, the funeral homes on right off Highway 17, right? No, this is rifle range. So, so I guess I'm thinking the wrong one. Another Yeah, it's Stirs is on um that's on Matthysse. Mallister Smith is on rifle range and there's another one further up on uh out towards the 10 milei area. Gary, this is the one near Whitesides Elementary. Okay. Yeah. Correct. I I got it. Yeah. Okay. Questions for uh the applicant or representative the applicant? I

think straightforward. Thank you, sir. You're very kind. Okay. Discussion. Further questions? Michelle, you said

Oh, yeah. Here I go again. I'm [laughter] sorry, guys. My head's all over the place. I got I got so much going on at my work and I just uh [laughter] became a grandfather for the second time about four hours ago. So, my head's all over the place today. Um, [laughter] so thank you. Uh, it is a public hearing as Michelle said. Is anyone here to speak on this topic? Okay. Seeing none, we'll close the public comment period. All right. Comments, questions, a motion?

Well, I'll make a a comment. Um, I can't speak specifically for this, but generally speaking, when we were working on the comprehensive plan, um, I know that we specifically were looking for places to insert neighborhood commercial where there wasn't any small commercial because we really wanted to have some kind of connectivity to some very small commercial. And I'm thinking of the sort of thing like the neighborhood commercial is the size of the um village in Ion or the little pit street, you know, block or two. Um that sort of thing. And so, you know, and there aren't very many properties that are amendable to that. So, I know that um staff and consultants and we on the committee were trying to find places that would fit that. So, um I understand, you know, the desire to put residential here, but I just feel I need to stay I need to stay consistent with the comp plan because I know what the conversation was. Um so, for that reason.

Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I I understand the logic that the counterargument is right now those kinds of um retail type establishments are really struggling. They're tough. I know. And um just, you know, it's just the culture that we're living in at this moment. And so as quaint and as as conceptually, as much as I want to support that, it's just that's that's hard. That's hard right now. The only thing I would say is if I were going to be converting from that concept, I would feel more amenable to an R1 where, you know, you don't have as many watts as 14. This just seems like a highly dense

purpose. And that's that's a good point. Uh just I I can uh agree with what uh the chair just said, but as I was kind of just running some quick math in my head and by the time you dump in the street and you dump in, you know, some level of of storm water protection and tree protection and things of that nature, I don't think you're ever going to get to the potential density that you would get to. Um, and it, you know, hearing the applicant talk about 14 lots likely it's been conceptualized in some capacity that they're not ready to share yet. But, um, I feel like that's actually even less dense than the R1 would would pencil out at. Um, personally, I'm a little sad to see the soccer field go cuz I played uh, soccer there with my son and [laughter] he played on team there. So, appreciate the the use of that. But, we've got the new soccer fields going down the street. So, um, so for that reason, I I think likely it's probably going to be a welllaid out plan. It's going to be less dense than R1 would show. So, I I do understand the depth requirement they need and that's really the the path forward. And so, for that reason, I'm in support of it.

Okay. Anyone else? I just discuss question or comment question like on this diagram does that gray box with the funny hatch indicate something or Yeah. So there is a 35 ft easement uh on the the property. So you look at a aerial or a plat and you might think that this is a 300t wide property but that 35 ft easement further condenses this long skinny dimension that that we have. Um so just trying to see if uh is that easement for a road?

No, it's it's a drainage easement. Sorry. Yeah, but the the I guess the the difference between R1, R2 and and the compression of of the site and the incumbrances that are existing on it. It was it was meant to show that that that really this is um something else to be contended with. They'll have to install the tension roads, all that. So, Okay, a motion or Mr. Barry, you have a question or comment?

Just a comment. I I and just doing some quick math um based off this chart. Yeah, it looks like you know once you take out a 50 foot rightway and you try to load both sides is 105 ft uh at best and just Mr. Whiteside said. So I I'll make a motion. I'll uh make a motion to approve uh reasonzoning request for R2. Okay. Is there a second? Second. Second, Mr. Far. We'll take a vote. All those in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. No.

Okay. Motion carries. Uh the next is uh 7G public hearing again for zero George Browder Boulevard. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a request to amend the Dunes West PD uh by incorporating a 7 acre parcel into the Park West development.

So this is the 7 acre site. You can see that uh on one side you have Laurel Hill County Park, Laurel Hill Primary and Lifeguard Church and then the commercial shopping center there at Park West. property is zoned PI1 which is public institution uh number one district and previously this entire campus was under a plan development and it contains uh the church's master plan intent but this vision changes over time and they they've scaled back and they are now uh looking to sell this property and the future land use is consistent with that current zoning. So, community facilities. So, the PD zoning map for Dunes West is uh showing here that this is the parcel on the very bottom to be included. It's the 7 acres and they're proposing to uh designate as multif family. And again, uh, this parcel is abunded by two institutions, one being a church, one being a a county park, and public school. And, uh, within walking distance of the commercial shopping center. This is the conceptual plan. George Brown Boulevard will will be the access point, uh, for ingress, egress, and there's a 10-ft perimeter buffer uh, here and along George Browder. And as far as the development summary, uh they're proposing 43 multif family units uh to be built as town home style. Uh overall with the 7 acre site, we're looking at 6.1 units per acre. They are creating 1.34 acres of open space

amenity areas and there's 2.77 acres of wetlands that will be preserved. they will be filling in 0.10 acres um as a part of this development plan and the max height is 40 ft. So one thing to bring up with this plan development um back in 1990 Dunes West um was established in 96. they uh partnered with Park West and at that point they assigned and allocated units for each separate development to pull out of. So the basket that Park West development uh is pulling out of they they have 50 multif family units left. So with this proposed 43 multif family units that that would leave seven remaining if if this were to be approved. So, uh, just something to make you aware of and that is the request before you. Glad to answer any questions. And the applicant is here as well.

Mhm. [clears throat] Okay. Questions immediately for staff. Yeah, I I have one. So, do you have an aerial showing what the trees look like on that property? Um, it's not real clear. I'm not really sure what I'm looking at here. Well, he's got the he's got the drawing, too, that shows trees. Are are there any who mature trees on the property? There are. And it it is a heavily wooded site.

And what's the expectation for all that? I mean, we have the tree committee and and you know, I'm like a tree hover here, so I'm always concerned about the trees. Sure. Yeah. It will have to go through design review and because this is this is not a town home development. This is a multif family development which means it is commercial in nature and would have to go through design review board. So it will be reviewed by our staff and uh the tree survey and tree protection plan will all have to be reviewed uh by then. So there's potential for clear cutting a lot of this. Is that right?

Not clear cutting. They have they have to they're still subject to they're cutting. Yeah. Okay. I understand the applicant here. That'll be the time.

Hi, my name is Jenny Palmer. I also work for Seaman Whit and Associates. My address is 8633 Refuge Point Circle in North Charleston. Um I will address your question first regarding the trees. We have an older tree survey that was done that will be updated um based on the the requirements of getting through staff and the town process. Um most of those trees that you see where the actual um development is going to occur, most of those trees are pines and gums. Most of your larger oak trees are back in the wetland area that will be preserved. Um, and we will work with staff on the new tree survey. Any of those trees that we need to preserve based on the tree assessment and staff recommendations, um, we will work with with those trees as well that, uh, we can we can work around. But most of the large trees that that you see on the property are back in the wetland that will be preserved.

Um, as far as this this infill area, we really believe that this uh the use of this will further enhance the mixeduse dynamic of the immediate adjacent areas uh with the church and the schools and all the commercial that is nearby. Um all of this will help with the connectivity. There will be sidewalks connecting to all of all of these areas. Um we are only developing less than half of of the whole entire site. Um since we are trying to uh preserve all of that wetland area in the back and uh this also this property is also owned by the church. So, this will benefit the sale of this land will benefit the church as well. Um, and uh the the town home units are are for rent. It's it's not a a be simple type of development. Um, so we do believe that this use being in the PUD will benefit this area.

Happy to answer any questions. question when you're ready. No, go right in. Okay. Um [clears throat]

I mean I think it makes sense to have this as part of the Park West um PD. My concern is that the town is struggling all the time to find workforce housing, to find affordable housing. Um, I would be much more inclined to approve this kind of thing if it were to come here to say, you know, of the 43 units, eight are going to be affordable housing designated because if we're really looking to help um, Church Life Park Publiclix, the schools, um, the local fire station, you know, Carolina Park area, that would I mean, it's not many, but it's more than nothing. And so, um, I would like to see if there would be some, you know, somebody amendable to doing that and to come and that would be a substantial change. So, you wouldn't, if it were denied tonight, you could come right back with that. You would not have to wait a year. So, I really feel like we would be pillaried if we allow this without any workforce housing. Um, that's [clears throat] that's my huge concern.

Thank you. Okay. question uh maybe a little bit um related to what Miss Ireland raised and that is uh and Mr. Stone already already mentioned 43 versus the 50 available. Is there is there a reason you're not asking for the the the larger amount or Well, 43 is actually all that with this particular product. um that's all that this site can yield while trying to preserve the wetlands and um making the the actual layout work. Um we did we did a few um concepts and 40 43 was about the max we can fit in there.

Okay. There's an element of speed I think too filling in the 0.1 wetlands versus a larger amount too. That's probably so it's probably a speed to market kind of thing too. Yeah, it's a good insight. Okay. Uh questions for the applicant part of the applicant as well. I just wanted to correct one one little item. We are looking at for both rent but also looking at potential parties on property regime. So it could still be for sale and not wait. Who are you? Sorry. Turner Rose, 2278 Tillage Street. I'm sorry. Say that again. Turner. Turner Rose. Turner. Thank you.

So there could be a conversion to It could be like a condo type regime instead. Okay. And and my concern would apply either way, whether they're for sale or for rent. Yeah. Okay. questions for the applicant. I have a question for staff. Okay. Anything for the applicant? Thank you. Thank you. All right. Cory, you had question for staff.

So, the I guess the the plan development doesn't indicate like whether the town wants it to be a rental versus a ownership regime. So that you you get to that granular level that that is not something that is in the category of zoning. Uh we I mean it it really does come down to the preferences of the um the property owner if they want to market this as horizontal property regime or [clears throat]

um rent. it that um it it is reviewed the same way for us. Your options available. Okay. This is a public hearing. Um so is there someone to speak on this particular topic? Yes, sir.

Good evening. Uh my name is David C. Uh my business address 3404 Salterbeck Street. Actually, right across the street there. And we represent First Baptist Church on this property. You made a wonderful point. Um, I've come up with a word that's not attainable or anything like that, but unfort this this will be a $500,000 price point most likely. So, I think it's an achievable price point in Mount Pleasant now for what we're seeing inventory-wise, even though I hear what you're saying, but it doesn't necessarily qualify for what the definition of maybe attainable might be. Um, but I don't think from what I understand, and again, I don't represent the applicant, I [clears throat] don't think that's going to be achievable for them for their financial modeling from what we've heard in the meetings. Um, but me being in this area for over 21 years, what I like about this opportunity and what really brought First Baptist to want to go under contract with this buyer because they were very hesitant of of many things, anything that says multif family is was it was a nice fit for one rounding out the Park Plus PD, which I think the number is kind of interesting that it aligns so well. Um, and because First Baptist planted Life Park and Life Park decided that they had figured out their geography needs on their own property, that they did not need to go forward with this, that they declined the option. And hopefully in the correspondences that you've seen, that both First Baptist and Life Park would really like this to proceed just because it's hard for them to raise money as a church and they have some capital campaign needs. Um, and they did vet the buyer, we think, very, very well. And we applaud the design team for really having a lot of open space. So, we see this as a nice urban infill best practice type of opportunity that can round out what Park West vision was. And uh so I'm just here to tell you First Baptist and Life Park wanted to thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, sir. Any other public comments on this topic? Yes, sir.

Thank you guys. How are you doing today? Uh I'm here as a representative of First Baptist Church where representative the the sellers. Um we're representing uh the address is 681 MC Drive. Um we we purchased this property in 1979 a long time ago in order to uh build Life Park. And at one time we were intending on building a a school there. Uh since then Life Park has grown and it's done very well. Uh and the uh school is no longer planned to be part of that property. Uh TW Life Park owns other 27 acres. We still own this 7 acre parcel and now it's under contract for sale for the application that you see before you tonight. And I'm here for two reasons. One to say I support that um the application uh for two reasons. one center park group, we've worked together and vetted their idea and come together with it as a as a church to to allow the sale. Number two, um I I as the property owner where we have uh listed this property in the past, we've not been successful because of the limitations of PI1. So, we're a little bit concerned as a as an owner of the property, what kind of uses are viable for the community, and that's really where our heart is. That's where we that's why we planted this church here was to support the community. So, we're we're concerned a little bit about um what a PI1 would allow us to do in the future and and really it's about the community and how this property can best benefit the community. So, we're we're here in support of the incorporation into the plan uh Park West plan development because it simply opens the window to more uses.

Thank you, sir. You introduced yourself and whom you're representing, but if you would state your name and also the address for the record. Sure. Jeff Johnston, uh 681 MCAT. Great. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, we'll close the public comment period. Um, okay. Can Can we ask a question of staff or now? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yeah, I thought so. Okay. Yep. Go right ahead, ma'am. I'm sorry. Yeah.

Um, hi, it's Michelle Stress 545 in Mont Pleasant. Um, I [clears throat] don't know if I buy that that it's this was intended they're com they're concerned that this isn't going to go to uh a good use for the community that that this is the best use for the community for this is to put 40 some odd families in here. They this area is already we're already troubled by the traffic in this area. looking at ways to get traffic down 41 and this is just going to add 40 more families needing to go up and down this area and I agree with Mr. Davis that this is a very heavily wooded area and there you know I come to a lot of these meetings um across the gamut and there's a lot of promises that are made like yes it's our intention to do this and we really have good hopes that we're going to be able to do that and then it gets the ball goes down the road and all of a sudden there's bulldozers and there's and a bunch of garbage happens and so I I just don't believe what I'm hearing and I I I'm strongly asking to oppose this and not to put it into the PD because um I don't think that it is I don't think it's a responsible thing to do. This is too wooded too much too already highly saturated with individuals and um really struggling for the traffic. So thanks

anyone else to speak on this topic. I'll close the public comment period again. [laughter] Okay. Thoughts? Quick question. Uh Mr. zone and I apologize if I missed it. Um, wouldn't be the first time, but does somebody from Dunes West or whoever's in charge of that PD have to be here or is that implied somewhere in the packet that I missed it? So, don't they have to request that or no? If if you anyone can amend the PD um that uh that is not

I own Dunes West. somebody can just jump in Dun's West with me without me knowing. Now, here here's the the the caveat. If you want to join in with the covenants and restrictions of Dunes West or Park West, that's a very different story. But if we're talking about zoning, anyone can amend a PV as long as they own the property. And Got it.

Yeah. Make case. Yeah. I mean, I would just restate that, you know, I'm not crazy about 43, but I wouldn't want to entertain something that doesn't have a affordable housing component to it. Um, I feel like we have to really be careful where we're putting additional density and to the extent that we can um justify it at all, it has to be um, you know, sort of for a primary reason to allow for some workforce housing. Uh, so and I don't, you know, maybe the the financial formula for this one isn't working for that, but I would suggest that there might be somebody that does have something that would work for it, but so I'm I'm not I'm not in favor of just adding 43 $500,000 town homes.

What if this folds into the PD? What else could they do with it? Yeah,

that's that's a good question. So this is not a general all-purpose commercial site. This is multif family. So there are in Park West, there are other forms of multif family. There's like a multif family town home, but let's get another look at what's left here. So yeah, I mean you're you're kind of limited. Um yeah, there's residential town home. Um R3, some R3 has kind of used that uh multif family aspect, but yeah. So I'm inclined to with the same logic that Miss Ireland has only because, you know, I'm seeing it, I'm understanding it, I'm sensing it as well. um boots on the ground and I feel like if they can get if they could get 50 and they're 43 there's still a pathway to get to 50 with some additional you know very well planned and I believe the civil would do that uh wetlandville

in order to get those additional units that could be affordable in some capacity. Yeah, I just feel like there should be some path pathway for that. I know we can't control the market, but I just want to understand what our latitude is as a board in that in that arena because I I think we need to somehow get a little bit more diversity in our community. Sorry to say it that way, but yeah, I like that notion conceptually. I just I guess where on this particular parcel where I'm um a little troubled uh maybe I'm just uncertain is um adding additional cost to um build those units given the wetlands on this parcel. Yeah, good point.

You know, and um so I don't know what to do about that, you know, it's all conceptual and I haven't, you know, that's not my field. I haven't estimated what those costs might be and you know I have that's more or less indifference okay to it. Okay. Does this parcel have to be in the plan development? Like is it already in the plan development just as a different use?

No. No is not. So, aren't there other properties within the plan development that could support these unallocated units or just seems weird that someone's trying to tag on and then steal their allocation? I don't know. I don't know

that. Yeah, that that remains to be seen. Again, it's that is outside of zoning and and traditionally this has all been handled through covenant agreements and restrictions that the they they privately have those agreements. Um that that uh will be coordination between this applicant and Park West.

Mr. chair. Um, I guess just to kind of chime in, I you know, I totally hear Mr. Ireland's point about workforce housing and I was sitting here trying to,

you know, assume or or look at is there a way or is there land? I mean, you obviously have the open space that they preserved. It looks like there's a couple large trees in that area and so I don't think that's, you know, necessarily feasible and I understand why they stayed away from it. You know, I the one thing I will say this area, uh, knowing this area, well, um, you know, the impact assessment for the schools was done based off of the allowed unit allocation. So, it's, you know, it's kind of already, uh, baked in. You got amenities there. You've got commercial. The town just spent a lot of money to put all American Boulevard uh, through that area.

So, you do have a lot of connectivity. So, there's a lot of positives, I think. Is it an infill uh into an area? Uh yes, I think it is. But is it would it be congruent and something that's maybe walkable for some of the commercial uses that surround it? I think there's a couple commercial uses right now that are being proposed and uh under design review along 17. So I don't think where it is I don't it's not a single family lot. Um obviously PI has not been uh something that's developable for anybody. So I don't know at our level I I you know would I love to see some workforce option there? Uh I would I just don't know where we're at right now. I don't know how we can ask or force because there's an economics component to that. Sure.

As a developer I I totally understand that. Yeah. I think my head's where where yours is, sir. So I I agree. Yeah. Is is there any remaining um balance for the Park West commercial area

there? There are I'm trying to think uh there are a couple of still vacant sites that uh I can think off the top of my head. There are those those were built into the original uh PD. There's not many. But yeah, I was wondering if this could be, you know, if the a proposal could be that this could go into the park west for commercial purposes and not residential

because it it is surrounded by commercial and [snorts] that would be I think a better use than adding a bunch of expensive town homes personally and and honestly if it's a if it's a matter of either accepting this use without workforce housing or not, I'd rather keep the property undeveloped. Um, I just don't think, you know, we I think we have to be really careful about what we're allowing for further um, residential housing, especially in a multif family category. I agree with I I agree with Miss Ireland. I really do.

Okay. We got an array of of views on this. So, I guess what we should do is call for a motion and we'll Is there room for more public comment? No. No, this that period's been closed. I move to deny. Motion been made to deny the request. I'll second it. Second made by Miss Ireland. All those in favor of denial of the request say I. I. I. Those opposed. No. So, there's one. Yeah, we'll do four opposed. Yeah. Roll call, please. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Barry. Nay. Miss Maner. I

Mr. SM opposed. Mr. Davis opposed. No toen. You're accepting denial. Okay. The motion is for denial, right? Okay. I'll start. Let me start over. Hold on. Mr. Barry may Mr. Miss Manser. I All right. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Davis, I approve for denial. Thank you, Miss Ireland. Yes, Mr. Ferrara. Nay as in your what Barry said denial [laughter] or favor of denial or opposed of denial?

Nay. Okay. Thank you. Um, Mr. Barber. [clears throat] in favor of denial. Thank you. And Mr. Bennett. All right. Motion tied to four to four. So motion fails. Okay. So does someone want to make a motion that's different? Yep. Yeah. Why don't you give it a go? M I No, I mean I'm not I'm denied so I don't want to move. Well, I thought you might have a compromised position. That's why I asked. Okay. I'll I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion uh to approve uh uh as requested. Second.

I don't understand. I don't understand what just happened here. We have opposite. Yeah, [laughter] it's the same just opposite. He just made a motion to approve. This motion is for approval of the request approval for the request to amend the PD of the Dunes West PD incorporating the 7.0 05 acres. Correct. Multif family. Yes. Okay. Is there a second? Mr. Ferraro seconded. Oh, you did. I'm sorry I didn't hear that. Thank you. Okay. Motion. Well, I was going to second it with one I have to amend.

You have to amend. So, I'd like to make a motion to approve with and I don't know if I can do this, but um with the limitation of 43 units. So, we vote on the request to amend. Can we do that? Can we do that motion? You you would like to add a limitation since Excuse me. This is a PD. So you can attach conditions and what your condition is a maximum of 42 units. Is that what they what they presented in their Okay. Or you can just say that the sketch as presented or however you want to do it is fine. Okay. And then sir, you'll need to vote on the amendment first.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thanks for that clarification. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I I would I didn't know if I missed it. You got to second it first and then we can make a motion for an amendment. This is an amendment is amending the motion. He needs a second. He needs and I will make the second on the amendment. Thank you. Okay. So, what we're voting on is the amendment before we get to the first motion. Okay. So, all those in favor of the amended amendment proposed by Mr. Ferrar say I. I. I. I. Okay. I think that's five at least. I'm sorry. Um,

I added that that was in favor. I've got Mr. Barry, Mr. Bennett. Yes, Mr. SM. Mr. SMAR, Mr. Far, I added an I. So, that's adding it. I'm sorry. I added Yes. to that just to the amendment. Okay. So, that's going to be Mr. Barber opposed and Mr. Davis opposed. I oppose. And Miss Monzer, Miss Mansara opposed. Okay. And I think that's everybody. Correct. It is. Anyone? All right. Thank you. Motion passed. I'm sorry. The amendment passed 5 to three.

Okay. Great. So now we'll take a vote on the um motion to for approval of the um approval of the request including the stipulation for 43 unit 43 I think if I remember correct David 42 okay the 43 units okay and if Mr. Bennett, we could do a roll call. I would love that. We We'll do that. Yeah, we'll do that from the outset instead of Thank you. attempting it. Okay. Yep. Mr. Pardon, the motion for approval with the 43 units as presented. Nay. Nay. Uh, Mr. Ferrara. Yes. Miss Ireland.

No. Mr. Davis? No. No. Mr. Smite? Yes. Miss Mans? No. Mr. Barry, I and Mr. Bennett. Yes. Uh motion fails due to a tie vote 4 to4. Okay. So, this means it goes to committee with no recommendation. Right. Mhm. Right. Okay. Move on. Take care. All right. Um next on the agenda is 7H. This is not a public hearing, but it's a street name request for uh specific to Gary Santos. I move to park. [laughter] Move to approve.

Is there a mo second? Second by Mr. Barry. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. I'd like to take a recess. Maybe it's what been out of this for almost two hours. I like to take a recess for about 5 minutes and come back. All right. Hi. Yeah. [laughter]

Crazy. Oh, thank you.

So, we're not really You're doing this. So, are you going to stay in your house where you live now forever or what are you doing?

Is that the plan? I love it. Are you married or my wife? I did see a ring. No, I've been married for 36 years.

I play golf. by the 12 stone house. So be able to go to the farm play or 40 minutes back to the house. We have 3.7. before we had 3.7. Right. Right.

With the exception of having to go somewhere you're quite insulated. Oh yeah. [clears throat]

So now you know He keeps small. You can fly. Still,

it takes like 15 minutes to get to work. And everything's right there. Right there. like 15 or maybe 20 homes, right?

So, you played the course out there? Oh, yeah. Yeah. I like the course. It's a good course. Yeah. Um, it's just not on windy days. When it's ultra windy. When it's windy, it's a tough course. Yeah. The greens can figure out the greens. Yeah. My greens are really ultra fast. So, I'm used to those greens. Yeah.

Yeah. I'll show you. I built my house. I'll show you my house. Yes, that's my sister. I just like privacy. for my house. I just I've always

my daughter's child. Yep. Exactly. I have good memory. So, yes, she delivered late last night and a little bit early for the house. There's my house. I built it because she had low elevated house windows just to kind of spice it up. I love seeing all the wild baby is not quite full term. Miss full term by about two and a half maybe three weeks.

There's my there's my dog. She's a silver lad. Sky that's watching [laughter] newborn. Yep. [laughter]

That's right. So, my granddaughter's staying with us, which is great. She's with us a lot. We love that. Her her paternal grandparents are right in the corner, too. Jerry and Karen. She's staying with them a lot, too. She doesn't know, but she's very fortunate. [laughter] It's just a third of an acre, but I've got all these expansive views. Yeah, I was that way. I mean, That was a good price. Yeah, I know. I benefited from being here. These are long.

We weren't out of our upper area in the back of our house. Ain't that great? Yeah. It's like I call this grass out there, [laughter] right? That's at the golf course. really I mean so it's a much bigger feel than than that that's our daughter we'll call meeting back to order

back in line I'm trying to find a picture my Okay, I think u the next several agenda items are sketch plans, right? And so not public hearings just as a for some context or background. Uh the next is item 7A on the sketch plan for 967 Pine Hollow Road. Yes, ma'am. Good evening.

Oh, there we go. All right. So, before you tonight is a sketch plan proposal for 967 Pine Hollow Road proposing to subdivide a.7 acre lot on Pine Hollow Road into two single family residential lots. The property is further identified by the following TMS number and this is zoned R1. So, this is located off of Pinehalla Road. If I zoomed out, the frontage road would be Johnny Dods. Um, this is currently zoned R1 with future land use being conventional residential neighborhood. So, this is the sketch plan in front of you tonight. In green is the current parcel. Uh red is the subdivision request. There is access off of the um 50 foot private rideway and there is currently one historic tree on the site um that is not being proposed for removal. R1 zoning requires minimum lot dimensional requirements of 60 foot width by 90 foot depth and a minimum square foot lot dimension of 12,000 ft. Um the lot sizes are approximately4 and.3 acres. Um like I said no significant or protected trees are removed are proposed for removal. Um the updated TPZs are currently shown on the plat and they are applying with an LDR waiver to subdivide off a private ingress egress. So staff comments from DRT review that occurred on 113. Planning staff confirm setbacks are shown correctly. True standards for subdivisions are 160 in DBH per acre and the applicant is going

to need to plant 19 in prior to final plat authorization on the new lot. The subdivider/developer shall be responsible for providing positive drainage for each lot individually as part of the project development. Water and wastewater extensions are the responsibility of the owner to extend services with payment to MPW. The applicant is accessing the proposed lot C3 by private road which the owner provided a letter from his attorney ensuring the rights of the owner of the private road are not violated with this new access and driveway shown on the plat does not appear to be a new easement for access. So this is the LDR weaver that was completed. Um the first one A1 which covers topographical constraints. The applicant responded the location of the historic tree, the existing 50ft easement and 50ft private rideway as well as the location of the house on lot C3 make it impossible to configure a subdivision of lot C3 on a public rightway. The 50ft private rightway was originally created in 1992 to provide access to the lot surrounding it. The 50-foot easement was created in 1954 when the parent parcels were created from which C3 was later subdivided. The use of these accesses for the lot shown it is consistent with the development plans from those time periods and staff did not have any comments. A2 which asks if um compliance with LDR standards is unreasonable in conflict with the public interest or um the it is practically impossible. The answer was the location of the nearest public rightway north of the property

makes it impossible to achieve frontage for either lot C3 or C3A onto the public portion of Pinehalla Road. The access easement and private right ofway were created many years ago to provide access to these lots and other lots created or located between the end of the public rightway portion of Pine Hollow Road and Sham Creek. Staff did not have any comments. Um A3 the modification will not adversely affect the reasonable development of adjacent property. All surrounding properties have been previously developed so this de subdivision would not impact surrounding properties. Staff did not have any comments. And the last one is about uh public welfare. Public welfare is protected by the preservation of the only historic tree on the property and by the requirements by town staff to manage storm water runoff on site. So that is all for this application. I will go back to the site plan. I believe the applicant is here tonight.

Yes. And can answer any questions you may have. Um, can you point out um where that um access easement is specifically? I just want to confirm that what I'm reading here is that's supposed to be a little bit lower, but that's the beginning of it. Is that Yep. Okay, got it. Thank you. All right. So the applicant is here. Um

sorry. Yes, sir. If if now would be your opportunity to speak on on this topic and provide any background or color you care to. And if you would state your state your name and your address for the record. Thank you.

Yes. I'm Alan Duncan. I live at 967 Pine Hollow. Uh Yeah, there's uh you know a few moving parts to this um or have been in the past to to surrounding properties, but you know this seems fairly straightforward to subdivide off that uh 29 acres. Uh the only issue that I'm seeing is is the LDR waiver request. If you with uh within the the way this road's gone over the years, the way all the properties back here have gone, with the exception of two creekfront, with the exception of two large creekfront properties, this would be really the last subdividable lot on the road. Uh with inside of us across that easement, there are there are already two lots back there. It's it's shown on a larger um view, but there there are two lots with inside of us that are uh already flag lots. You know, there already they've been built um with a uh an access easement like that. So, this would be uh the the third LDR uh lot on the road. As I say, uh, the final one and third time's a charm.

Sorry. Okay. [clears throat and cough] Any any other comments or questions for the applicant while we have them available to us?

I would, Mr. Chair, uh, Mr. Duncan, if you could, um, so the access easement serves, I mean, how is that built? Is it just one homeowner you mentioned that uh that access easement that comes down inside the property services? Is that right? really the uh the the proposed access that the the the uh ingress and egress it would actually would be at the bottom of this of these plats and they would the and the access would the ingress and egress would be out to the 50 foot easement.

Okay. So the so the so the the LDR wa request would be for that stretch at the bottom of these two pls to access the 50ft easement. Okay. So the owner So there's a property owner that owns the 50ft ingress egress easement. Is that 921 Pine Hollow? Uh let's see. And if have you spoken to that neighbor? I guess that was my Yeah, the the the owner of that easement,

well, I mean, if it if it's I mean, if it would it would the easement be owned? I guess it would. So, if if if it if it if it's owned by anyone, it would be the Madison's there at at 9 was it 98 980 Pineh Hall Road. Okay. and 980 uh has was approved a couple of years ago for subdivision into seven parcel I mean into five parcels.

Okay. Uh I from talking to to the owners, I happen to know that they're not now going to follow through with that subdivision at this point, but it the the the proposed easement or the LDL request would apply to a an ingress and egress across the bottom of these two uh plats. And the the uh Joe Kessinger from Weeks in Irvine has mentioned has uh you know written a balomous uh opinion on you know whether or not it would be feasible and he seems to think it is.

Okay. And just to clarify so uh you had stated you live at 967. Yes sir. So you live in the house. Okay. And that's your we've been there 25 years. 25 years. And and my wife built the house in 1992 93. So we know there's never and you know given that history there's there's never been any issues and and and the title you know as the as the attorney mentions the the title insurance company seems to it'll be protected and and so forth and so on. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

I still some confusion. So, um if access is at the bottom of what we're seeing here on this rectangular, um uh box. Um so, people would come down what's labeled the gravel road above. Yeah. Come all the way around or will they come from the um the what's on our Well, they'll come straight down Pine Hollow Road. All right. and then and then take a right to get access to that. No, they would come down then Yeah. Yeah. They would come down to the to the end of the Pineh Hall Road and then take a right to to get to the lot.

Okay. Then there would be a a reconfiguration of the um gravel drive that we see here on the on the plat. Is that right?

Yes. And apparently from looking at at the at the the new survey and and and and that uh looking at the new survey here that's in front of us. Um there there is an option to to access from that uh private ingress ingress easement. there is an option, but it it's more because the because of the width of that uh road there, it seems more likely that we would want to, you know, come down Pine Hollow and and access where that current just uh below where that current uh um Okay. Gravel Drive is.

Okay. So, I think you've addressed it because that's where my confusion was. I see the the gravel road. My assumption was it was going to wrap around from that. No, we essentially be we essentially be moving the the gravel road about 50 ft uh towards the bottom of those two plat. That's the other gravel road. I'm I'm speaking toward to the one to the north that wraps around to the west and assume that it would come um back yet again uh toward the uh the east. But you're telling me that that's been that's not what you're proposing or that's not the the notion, but instead the access would be lower, meaning to the south off of Pinehollow Row Act. Okay.

Do you currently have a garage at your existing residence? There's no garage. And where are you going to part after the kind of reshape potential reshaping of this? How's that? We as you can as you can see where the the structure is. Uh we would be park probably be parking for for at least initially we parking where we are now which is in the yard down to the to the uh south west there of the lot. Okay. Thank you. You know, there's a gravel area of course that we that we have, but uh and then the uh so to get fire or

get fire or or you know EMS or something, they would have to come through the other lot into yours through that driveway.

Yes. just as as I mentioned just as uh if you up Pine Hollow Road um just really right across that that [snorts] gravel road there there are two flag lots there already that uh you know have have been there one of them was uh one of those flag lots has been in existence for at least 20 years. The other one came into existence about 10 years ago when the properties across the road were subdivided. We don't we don't like even though some exist. Yeah. Yeah.

And I'm a little confused there. There's a whole bunch of um consent letters. Was that these are from 35 years ago from that relate to the subdivision of that 980 property that you were talking about? Right. That has really nothing to do with this though, right?

Not not at this point. Uh and uh Joe Kessinger also wrote an opinion about that and that that statement that that was requested I guess at the time was uh asking to subdivide the original 980 into four lots and and they and they got approved from neighbors but since then it has already been approved. has already been there's been some all those properties have already been sold but the bottom line is since that letter was written it's already been subdivided approved it's already sorry been approved for subdivision into seven parcels so we're just asking for one more which would be number eight from the original 980

right I was just confused as to why these things were even relevant to you I it just popped up because you know those people don't even exist anymore they're probably all sold yeah we yeah we just submitted you know what they they just submitted what it was asked for at the time and it it the question came up and it it doesn't doesn't seem to be an obstacle as far as the the attorneys or the staff at this point are concerned from what I could tell one more question does Pine Hollow that connects these other lots does it connect to Calvary Circle? It does not. Cavalary Circle terminates at a culdeac there and then you you walk as far as from here to the the deis to get from from Pine Hollow Road. So only by foot.

So they do not connect, right? Only by foot, right? By foot. Can we go back to the bigger picture, Peter? Can you go back to the bigger neighborhood picture? Yes.

Yes. So 959 and 965 are the are the lots that I mentioned that you know already you know granted LDR request apparently. Um so there's precedent there. Could I just ask you again, why are you not having driveways come into each of the new the two lots that are to propose to be subdivided from that northern ement so that it's not one going through the other,

right? um just I maybe just because of inertia because of of the of the the way we've always accessed the lot but uh you know we I have talked to the potential buyers about uh about this issue and you know we're we're open to the idea of of accessing it any anywhere you know from from the anywhere from the lot really but it it just we were just trying to keep it the kind of the way it is if if it's possible We're willing to live with either configuration.

You're not sitting here today saying that you know exactly where these future driveways are going to go yet. You don't know technically where they're going to go. You're just trying to subdivide at this point, right? uh our preference would be to to to to to go out on the on the south the southern border of 967, but uh if if for some reason that would be considered uh not desirable uh by the commission, we're perfectly amendable to to accessing from straight out to Pine Holland. I mean on the on on the north side of the lot there. So question for staff. Are we being technically having to approve the sketch plan as drawn, not just approving in concept of subdivision?

Good evening. Uh we assumed that it would be coming off Pine Hollow, both roads, and Pine Hollow is a private road, which means that they would be subdividing off of essentially an ingress egress easement. And that's why it's before you. Uh what you said coming off the culdesac is is also a private road. Now we were unaware that it was going to be an easement across the back. Otherwise, we would have said the easement needs to be on the plat shown on there for the subdivision for access to the both lots. So my fault on causing the confusion and not clarifying uh what uh what you know what he was describing. But um as a condition of the subdivision, if this applicant wants to uh still have an ingress egress eent going across the bottom, he's he he can have that easement. I mean, he actually owns both will own both lots and can deed restrict both lots to have easement on it

without the planning commission's approval, if that makes sense. The plan showed an easement on both sides. It is. It is a uh that's a drainage easement on the north side. Yes. I'm Yes. And I apologize for the confusion, but yes, that that is a drainage easement. And we should have specified had we had known it was going across the bottom. This one up here that that would be a that that would be a new driveway easement. We just assumed that both lots were going to be like you said, Miss Ireland, accessing straight up. Access straight up. So Kevin, more more to come Kevin more to come technically.

Uh well if we approve if we approve this but there would be more to come on site plan later down the road. Is that well if he wants to put an easement on the property then he would need to do that following your favorable vote. So once you vote tonight up or down that approves the subdivision still has access to the front. Mhm. Um and you can restrict access to property if it's a you know safety hazard doesn't meet you know conditions but um yeah but it would kind of be up to the applicant to do that. So I was trying to remind myself I think Adam had maybe where you're going with this in part. I'm trying to remind myself what we're being asked right

that's where I was going. I don't want to I didn't want to get too far. I go back to the agenda and it is really whether we are willing to allow subdivision of this parcel. That's the question the agenda item is sketch plan. So that's what I sketch. That's right. That's right. So sketch plan is kind of a pre uh preliminary plat essentially. They don't have to come back before you come. Theoretically, this could be approved with under the condition that the access be separately provided from the ingress egress ement of the Yes. Yeah. And in some cases, you can restrict access if a corner lot to both sides as a condition of the subdivision

and that would of course have to be put on the final plat, you know, but it works both ways. Mr. Mitchell, last question. Well, maybe for me. Um, the, uh, just for clarity, so Pine Hollow is a dedicated town rightaway, but is there a break? And then is that culde-sac where it says Pine Hollow 50oot rightway, is that town right away? Both are private roads from my understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong, but both are private roads. Yeah. The state, see that line at the top there? That line at the top right here. Okay. That's where that's where that's where it turns private.

Okay. So, so that's why it's before you is because it is a private road essentially making it a condition of a subdivision uh for planning commission approval. Okay. From a private road essentially. Okay. Sorry for the confusion. I I I did not catch that until he was describing his access. Okay. Sorry. I I don't mind taking a swing at it. Okay. Is there is there more for the applicant before we move to that? Uh Mr. Ferrar, do that to myself? Okay. Thank you, sir.

All right. So, so this is sketch plans, no public hearing. Are there questions for staff beyond what we've already asked? Are we allowed? I I believe I know the answer to this, but are we allowed I thought I heard we're allowed to put some conditions on this. Okay. Um just as a point, I think anybody that would own lot C3A would want to have whether it be a side load or a front entry drive off either Pine Hollow. um that that should be, you know, you know, good for them and and likely that they would want that. And I think that the existing home should should have a driveway off the 50ft private increase essent

um but not come through C3A because that would be odd. So I I would make a motion to approve the request with the condition that lot C3 have access from the Pine Holler Road 50- FFT private ingress egress easement as labeled uh north facing on the plan. Mhm.

I'll second that. I like that as a solution. Um, people have heard me say in the past and I think there's some general agreement. I'm not a flag lot person whether it's a true flag lot or some variation of that but what Mr. Ferrar's proposed I think addresses that through that uh that private easement. So yeah. So motion's been made and seconded. Any discussion beyond? If not we'll call for a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries with those uh conditions. Item 7J, sketch plan. This in this case for IDA road.

Wow. They have to put this together. [laughter]

All right, moving on. So, this is a sketch plan proposal to subdivide a 10.25 25 acre lot that is an aggregation of three different lots identified by the following TMS numbers. They are looking to create 17 single family residential lots zone CC. So the red outline is the total parcel after aggregating the three lots and this is located off the uh Boston Grow Road. So, it's currently zone CC and is surrounded by county parcels. Future land use as settlement community. So, this is the site plan. Um, 17 single family lots, three HOA lots. Um, the green shaded area is the green space that they had to provide per the green space preservation plan. It is 20% of the total lot. We have a slide on that later as well. Um, this is going to be a public road and there is a type A buffer surrounding the perimeter of the property. Um, there are currently no trees proposed for removal. Proposal is to activate three lots and subdivide into single 17 single family lots, three HOA lots, CZ CC zoning requirements. Um, our minimum of 12,500 square feet and dimensional requirements are 80 feet width by uh 110 foot depth. 10ft type A buffer required around the perimeter of the site. Applicant is required to plant 637.2 in to meet the tree requirements. They are currently not proposing to remove any significant or historic

trees. They are meeting the green space preservation plan requirements with 2.29 29 acres of undisturbed green space and storm water management plan is conceptual and will be coordinated with staff engineers. So this is a better look at the um green space regulations. They were required to do 20% of developable acreage. Um so that came out to be 1.78 acres. They provided 2.29 acres. It is all public publicly accessible. Um, for the most part it is interconnected with the um two smaller HOA uh parcels not being interconnected green space. And would you point out the HOA parcels, please?

It's all of the ones in green. Everything in green. Yep. Okay.

Um, LDL maximum road length for culde-sacs or road development subdivisions is 1,000 square ft. This project proposes to create a 1900 linear foot roadway with a connection to another public right of way which is currently unapproved and that is Georgiana Street that you see right here. Um staff comments from DRT review provide upstream upstream drainage analysis for the proposed covert sizing. Staff recommends some type of traffic calming along the straightaway segment of the road, possibly a raised table crossing for the pedestrian crossing. Applicant is to provide all necessary storm water permitting prior to the start of the project. Full technical review of the storm water plans will be coordinated with staff in future DRT submitts. MPW Mount Pleasant Waterworks proof of coordination letter has been issued and um the tree requirements which I mentioned earlier but they are required to be uh plant 637.2 in to meet the 160 inch per acre requirement.

So I will go back to the site plan. The applicant is here if you have any questions for them and I'm also here for questions. erase it by just double clicking. You're creating more. You've heard us a number of times over, but if you wanted to introduce your yourself by your name and um there you go. Address. Thank you, sir. Um my name is Ryan Williams. I'm with Kellum Engineering and our business address is on 1470 Ben Sawyer. Mhm. And um

record Kevin Carban. Uh my address is 618 Leisure Lane. I'm Vic Brandt of 1509 Galloway Lane, Charleston, South Carolina.

Um so as um was stated, three existing um parcels we're combining and subdividing 13 single family lots. Um, we have we've extensively worked on the layout on this to try to preserve as many or preserve all of the grand trees and um we've met with um town staff uh more than once to go over this and I think we have come up with a pretty wellthoughtout um layout for this property. We are exceeding the open space that we're required to have. Um, and I I think it will be a great use for the property.

Mhm. And any questions here to answer? Questions for the applicant? I have a question. So, I'm a little confused. So, if you're not taking down any trees, but you want to replant like 600 trees, I mean, there seems to be a conflict there. I don't Can you explain it to me?

Um, yes. So when we had the tree survey completed, we only surveyed the um protected trees. So there are other smaller trees that will go toward that 600 and uh 600 in of acquired plantings. So assuming we move on past planning commission, we're going to have a surveyor go back to the site and reservey all the trees that would count toward the plantings in these areas that are uh to be preserved in all these open space areas. So existing trees will count toward the 673. Is that what you're saying? It will count toward it. Yes, sir. Count toward that. Okay.

Yeah. Well, this plan is this. What's the color coding on the trees? Just is that uh those are tree grades. Um blues and greens are usually good trees. Um the lighter yellow trees are C gray trees and then the orange and red or D and F gray trees. So it's a lot of good trees on the site.

The the green space. Uh certainly applaud you guys for providing almost more than double than required. Um is the intent to the plans so well developed. I figured I would ask is there any intent to do amenities within this from a pocket park standpoint dog area? I mean things of that nature. Um just out of curiosity. Um or do we not know yet? Uh would you like to speak?

Sure. Uh, at this time we'll be looking into that and as the plans get fleshed out and as we get hopefully approval here, we'll then be able to make that happen and have a pocket park or yes, it'll be our intention to create dog space. I just think y'all have done such an awesome job preserving the space that I just wanted to ask a question. Thank you. Is there an aerial view of this if I could topo this? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. A lot of trees. How is the site 1540 accessed currently?

1540. Like it feels like you're kind of boxing that one in, but I don't know how it currently has access. The the lot 1540 is kind of they access through 1542 and 1544 currently. 42. Oh, there's a there's a little road there. Okay. So, you don't control Georgiana Street, right? Um, so until and unless that someone who does control it cuts it through and connects it, your development is a total dead end street. Correct. Yeah.

Okay. So, and the way that I'm reading this, um, it's about 900 linear feet longer than what the land development regulations allow for deadend streets. Yes.

Okay. So normally under the land development regulations LDR um commission has the discretion to grant a waiver of some of the LDR things if there's a waiver requested but I don't see a waiver included in this packet. There was coordination with our transportation department um because they are setting up for a future connection um that it's temporarily a dead end but because they're providing that connection there um the LDR waiver would not apply to this situation.

And who and who is providing the connection the the state or they the developer? the developer is providing that connection for whenever the state decides to improve Georgiana Street.

So, okay. So, there's no problem in terms of safety or getting vehicles through or access and things like that. No, we will be meeting the um the fire code for turnaround, fire access turnaround um at the end with the um culde-sac and for other safety means for the long is is might be a little off point, but as they stated, we'll be having traffic calming um traffic calming measures

mid midway through the subdivision. Do you have a sense as to when that connectivity would be established with that state road or Georgiana Street? No, we don't. Okay. But your plan provides the open door green light for that to happen when they're ready. Yep, that's correct. Sorry, what did you say? I just said their plan provides full access cross through when they're when the state's ready. They're the doors open for that. And it's fair. That's that's exactly why they're not asking for a waiver is because they are making that rightway connection. So in theory,

they really don't have a close site because they're connecting right away with public rightway. We don't have the condition in our LDRs. It actually has to be connected with a you know an approved rideway, but there will be and we have the ability to have access all the way through to prevent that from being a dead end street. So that's that's the reason why it's not a a waiver. It they are making that connection with another public rideway. So in theory it is not a dead end street. That's in theory, but we just never know if that will ever be connected. Right. That is true. Or improved improved. I mean

is the 1,00 ft like a safety issue? Like where did the 1000 ft come from?

Yeah, it's a standard. Um and um many years ago I we were kind of contemplating on that length, but I I know it is referenced in some land development and planning publications as a good rule of thumb of being able to control long deadend culde-sacs for just good land planning. And there's a safety component with that. There's also um the incentive or deincentivizing or incentivizing interconnectivity and making future stubouts for future development as well. So that all kind of goes into the land planning realm. Um and you know there's nothing real scientific about the actual length. It's just something that is a standard. So, can you just point me to the LDR section that allows them to do it just by virtue of a stub that you know is there in case it's ever connected?

It's 155.048. Yeah. A D D. Okay. That's what I need to I don't know if I'm right or not. I know it's 155.04. A is the street section. So definitive. So yeah, it's in there. But but this did go through our DRT. It did have uh and our our fire marshall is part of DRT. Our transportation engineer, James Eton, is also part of DRT. Matter of fact, he was instrumental in ensuring that that connection was made at a rightway. So it was

it was viewed by the right people to make that decision. I just needed to know where to find it for next time. This happened. I like these roadways from what is I guess like how do you control like if it is connected then you're just going to have this culde-sac in the middle of the street like do you have to include a plan of like what's going to be done when you do connect it?

Yeah, there will be just a culde-sac left in the street. Um because it will be dedic Well, is it going to be dedicated there? Um yeah, it it will be dedicated right away. So there will be a a culde-sac in the middle of a theoretically a street that will go right through which is you know I mean a little odd but there are tree islands too in in the middle of streets and things of that nature but we can't just stub to unimproved street without having the ability to turn around like solid waste trucks and things like that. Um, so there had to be a a turnaround

cuz like the other rightway also shows a call to so it's it's I mean it seems like it in the future is going to be a very odd configuration. Yeah. Well, the other rideway I would presume that they now would probably not have to put in a culde-sac. I mean the rideway is dedicated but they could just do a straight road through theoretically. Yeah. Okay. Any further questions for the applicant or for staff?

I don't think for questions. I just commend you on working around the trees and obviously y'all uh you know just I guess surveyed the 16inch trees and greater for residential uh development standards. But I would encourage I think Mr. Davis had pointed out and these green spaces, you know, I it looks like it's fairly wooded and so it sounds like your intent is to preserve that. Um, so, uh, you know, maybe under brush or something to make it usable for the patrons as Mr. Ferrar said, but um, but anyway, great job not taking any trees out. Significant trees. Thank you. Okay. I mean, I I don't have any more questions for you. Okay.

Great. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Anyone care to make a motion or should there be further discussion? Well, I was just going to mention um just mention that this was annexed into Mount Pleasant a few years back. So,

sadly, it is part of the settlement community and it is designated in the comp plan as part of the settlement community in Hamlin Hamlin Beach. But because it's already annexed in, it doesn't it doesn't have that historic over which um you know I think gives us certain limitations and what we can do or so that's the only thing I'd point out that that's why it's different in in my view and different from some of the other things we've been looking at that are in settlement communities asking to annex Mhm. and reszone. Okay. So,

I'll make a motion. I motion to approve uh the sketch plan uh as submitted uh including staff comments of uh that was detailed for mitigation um etc. Second. Motion's made and seconded. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? One opposed. Okay. Motion carries. Uh, next is a sketch plan uh at 781 785 Dunlow Court.

All right. So, this one is a little bit simpler. It's a property line adjustment between 781 and 785 Dunlow Court. Um, further identified by the following TMS numbers and zone R1. So this is an aerial image and the property line that we are looking to re uh readjust there. This all of these lots were platted in uh 2019. So just reiterating the fact that this is a property line adjustment, not a subdivision.

So the reason for this property line adjustment is to um relocate the drainage ement and drainage pipe. Um the red line is the line to be abandoned along with the drainage easement. Um and the green line is where the property line will be added with the drainage ement on each side. The u drainage pipe will run down the middle of that. Mhm.

Okay. So, it's really here before you tonight uh because of the tree removals and encroachment. Um they are proposing to remove a 17-in uh live oak in fair condition and a 19-in live oak in poor condition um and will be encroaching into a 40-in hickory tree. Um they have provided a tree uh preservation plan um which I can show more detail of if you would like. So staff comments um they have provided the tree preservation plan for the encroachment into the 40in hickory tree and they are to pay or plant 13.24 in of tree mitigation prior to final plat approval.

So again what what's triggering this is the need for uh improved drainage. Is that what I'm hearing? Correct. Okay. I guess I don't really understand that. May have been may and maybe and I'm guessing maybe the applicant's going to come and talk, but I would assume or when I looked at this, my assumption was it was to make that southern lot more buildable. Yes. So, if you see the dotted line is where they're proposing to put the house or the building pad. And currently the pipe and the drainage ement are running through that. Um, so they need to relocate it over to the side. Okay.

I'm I'm confused. Where's the building pad that you're talking about? I see like setback line. Yeah. Aren't those just the setbacks? Oh, yep. Sorry. Yes. Correct. So this is all for that, but it's affecting a tree that's not otherwise affected if the light if the line stays as is.

Can you go into more detail about the preservation plan for the tree, please? Okay. I don't know why it's not showing up. I had it in there, but um basically they will be and I believe the applicant is Yes. Um can speak to it more, but there will be root exploration that um goes along where the drainage pipe will be installed.

So, if I'm interpreting correctly, it's still feasible to build as the lot line exists. It just means that that structure would be uh a more modest size to to work within that um that drainage easement. Right. You can refer to the applicant as to their needs. Exactly. Okay. If you want Yeah. Come on up, sir. If you would introduce yourself by name and um and address. Uh Davis McNair, 1206 Pleasant Pines Road.

Mhm. Uh to address that question, the rear yard setbacks on that lot 785 really kind of restricts the potential footprint of that building. So the idea was to adjust the current lot line to just create a little more buildable of a lot. Um the 19-in live oak is declining and is in poor health. The 17in is being shadowed by the canopy of the 41in hickory. There is an option we could explore if it gets a little bit more approval where we could shift that drainage easement uh to the right plan right to have less encroachment on that hickory tree as well as that 17inch live oak. That would be an alternative approach. But all of this is to create 785 as more a buildable lot. Are you I guess I'm not You're saying like the blue line for the drainage ement you would just put like another jog in it.

So the blue line itself is the storm water pipe that we're going to install. Um the gray dash line that comes at an angle is the existing storm water line. But I'm saying like at some point you could kink it back down your plan southwest to avoid that hickory tree a little more. Uh I mean potentially you're saying just

Well, I don't know what your proposed alternate that you were just talking about was. Well, I was saying you could short so that blue line that extends to the left uh towards the trees, you could shorten the length of that to have less encroachment onto that grand tree and potentially salvage the 17in live oak. Is it going to connect to something or is it just an inlet? So, that's to pick up rear yard drainage as well as drainage from the properties on the the plan left side. Okay. And that drainage pitches toward the street [snorts] towards the culdeac.

It would pitch towards that the existing curb inlet at the rear of that lot and then it would go to the uh junction box within Dunlow Courtac. So yes, got it. Yeah. Yeah. Um so sorry to use my pen here but you know currently the currently that um that pipe is running you know kind of at this angle and you got it shown now um you know running plane left to right. If you kind of split the difference does that help? Does that make sense? So, so putting it kind of more in the middle it it does. I mean, it gives us Every little bit helps.

Every little bit helps, of course. Um, I still think you're looking at encroachments. Um, maybe less encroachments or impacts. It sounds like the live the 19inch live oak could is it's in very bad. Yeah. In rough shape. So, so where I was going with that is if you if you kind of split the difference in what you're asking for and the live oak indeed is likely going anyway, then that still may accomplish what your goal is. 17. Yes, preserving the 17 hickory and and

I I think you get the house you're looking for potentially. I'm not sure, but um you you can you can't put a house on top of the drainage uh pipe, of course, but there's other that's underground, right? It's it's not going to stop you from putting grass there and plants and trees and everything else. So, um just something to consider. Has any of the other lots on this culde-sac been built? They have on the opposite side of the street and the property south of 785 or the bottom lot. I'm just wondering how you're going to build on the lot to the north like that almost 781 I think he's talking about going to the north

taking the can down the road it seems like I think they'll have to go through a different kind of process through the with the architectural um or the building permit process to get approval for those encroachments. I think our focus right now is really that southern southern property. And one thing to note, 785 on the southern property or property of the south, there are two trees there as well. Two very healthy oak trees. And those tree protection zones push the building footprint on this property to the north. One of the reasons we we're trying to kind of square off that back corner.

Mr. McNair, I I think Miss Mansour had asked about um the preservation on the 42 in and I I scanned through your packet. I know you had a very extensive Can you talk that a little bit about what the uh preservation plan is uh with all these impacts to the hickory tree?

Yeah. To the hickory tree itself, I think the the most important part of that preservation plan is the the root zone inspection. Um, I believe they use almost an air disperser so you're not actually damaging the tree to move the dirt. And during that process itself, we'll we'll make sure wherever that structure is placed does not impact a critical root or the root system of that tree. And then the the tree protection BMPs will stay in place throughout the process and then they'll monitor it for an extended period of time after the fact to make sure that the the health of the tree remains. And I I actually have a printed copy of the tree protection plan. So there's some photos in here. copy of them here. I don't know who the best way to present this, but y'all want to pass it around. This bottom photo shows the the health of the two trees that being the 19 in decline and the 17 And what I'd also like to just pass out, this would be kind of the alternative approach as we work through the tree roots. This is if we were to shorten the drainage run as less impact in a 41 41 in hickory

and allows for potential preservation of that 17in live oak. Yeah, that's the challenge there is you're pushing drainage from adjacent neighborhood more onto this property. But from the grading standpoint, we can make it work. I think it's a variation of what Adam just uh Yeah. suggested. Yeah. Yeah. We shift the property line as you mentioned, but we kind of we brought in that structure to have less impact to that root system. I think it' be a good compromise if we can work work through that. Yeah. I think trees are always pretty hardy, but right, wrong, or different, it'll give them a give it a little bit of cushion. Give them a chance. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. More questions for the applicant.

Any additional commentary from you, sir? Is that No, here here to answer questions. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. As I said just a moment ago, I like Mr. Ferrar's, you know, slight modification. I suppose I could characterize it as um and it if you care to make it turn that into a motion that would be can this be approved with a just point of information or can we approve with that change or condition or do we deny this and have them come out? Well, that's a good question. I assume that we could. Yeah.

Yeah. Uh yes most certainly you can you can approve that with a condition as the applicant I think has verbally agreed to make that happen and it'll be part of the minutes. Describe it adequately. Right. Sure. That's a good point. Is there question for staff like is it always an option to pay into the tree bank or plant the tree or is there any That's a good question. Like can you force someone to actually plant the tree as long as they meet 160 in per acre? Um As long as they meet the 160 in per acre, their mitigation on the site on the site, correct?

Um, and then if they are removing significant or historic trees beyond that, they would How would you calculate that for like a small lot like this that is it for the whole It's for the whole development. It would be for per lot. So, how do we know if they have the diameters of the trees? Like these? Well, so for this one, um, they would be mitigating for the removal since it's a property line adjustment, if that makes sense.

So, we don't know if each lot meets the60 or So my understanding this subdivision was approved I don't five oh sorry subdivision was approved five or six years ago so it met the ordinance at that time. Um to speak to that the uh NPDS permit is still active on this development. So we will be doing all the work under the previous land disturbance permit. I don't know if that assists I don't know if there are 160 ines on there. My guess is there are with the grand trees that are protected. I believe the previously presented plan if it's modified there would only be roughly four and a half inches of mitigation required with the modification to keep that 17inch live oak. If removed 13 in would be required. Our goal is to plant that on site in the front yard. Mhm.

So isn't that part of the building permit process that you're showing you have to show what you need if anything to take out and then they count the number of tree inches and that is correct. Yeah. So it's part of the per you know the building permit itself. This application though it says or the was that the staff recommendation or the staff comment about paying or planting? So it yes they can pay into the tree mitigation um bank or they can plant [clears throat]

I just worried that everyone pays in and then their trees get theoretically I think that you pay into the town mitigation bank or we got a tree preservation committee member here but uh then the town plants trees um with those funds.

Yeah. And I think the town encourages mitigating over putting into the tree bank. So our goal is if they have to mitigate like the 19inch oak tree, we would encourage replanting on the lot. And the tree task force is that's what we're currently working on now is tweaking the or tightening up the ordinance so that it goes more toward replanting. And we are looking at taking the tree bank and replanting throughout the town. So right now we are and I think that's what the in this case I think that's what the applicant has proposed. The good news is is what I'm in line with that that vision.

The the good news is the motion I'm going to propose he has the flexibility to leave the 19 and the 17 alone and and and address that at a later date. uh if he wants to um or if his you know grading contractor when he repitches the soils says hey we need to do something here. So so I was going to make a motion uh if that's okay um to to uh approve the application um with the modification that where he's demonstrating that drainage box right below where it says live oak 17.

Mhm. Um, he needs to move it outside of the illustrated tree canopy line or to that line on the same line. Okay. Does that make sense? Yep. So, short shorten. So, just shorten it by by 55%. Yeah. Effective or 45% rather. Okay.

I'll second that. Anybody have questions of the um Mr. for our regarding the motion. If not, we'll call for a vote. Okay. All those in favor of the motion and the modification recommended or requested by Mr. Far say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Next is a sketch plan at 647 and 650 Ellis Street.

Yes. Um [clears throat] this is a request to uh subdivide uh two existing lots to create three new existing lots. Uh they are currently zoned R1. Uh this is a bird's eye view. I thought that kind of important to show you all the location and proximity of some of the uses. This is um almost directly behind the Maltry Middle School. There's a recreation field. There's also an access of their back parking lot right there. Uh so there is a little bit higher increase of pedestrian and vehicular traffic in this particular area because of the adjacent land uses. Uh this shows the uh zoning R1. It's uh pretty consistent throughout. Uh it's adjacent to AB which is the multi middle school of course but as far as uh you know the consistency is uh our one [clears throat] is still there future land use uh residential and uh that's fairly consistent as well. This this slide shows you a comparison of what they're doing so you fully understand uh what the proposal is. On the left side it shows the existing conditions. The the red is the existing property lines and you could see the trees and the structures on that one. On the right side, it shows where the new lot is going to be. So basically you're you're you're taking backyard and backyard and you're aggregating and you're creating one lot from there. It actually does have frontage on Belle view. So there is no need for a ingress egress easement there. This shows the aerial. So, uh, you could see the clustering of some trees along the back property line and the, uh, current conditions. There's some new builds there. You can kind of tell the difference in the roofs, um, in the

surrounding area, um, at that location. And the, of course, the new houses appear to be a little bit larger than the older houses, of course. Um, [clears throat] this shows it's superimposed basically on on where this is going to be on on the aerial. So you get a a little bit better perspective on that. Uh staff summary uh aggregating two lots creating three uh R1 10,000 square foot. Um the lot is proposed to front Belleview Street. The applicant is requesting a waiver uh to not meet the dimensional ratio of land development regulations which is 155047C91. Uh the lots uh wider than it is deep. It is 88 ft deep 135 ft.5 135.5 ft in width. Um during the DRT review and the feasibility review, Mount Pleasant Waterworks uh did note and want this part of the uh staff report is that the applicant if found in favor planning commission would need to uh extend a hydrant within 300 ft of the proposed building. Currently there's not one. Um so that would be a condition prior to the authorization of a final plat. [clears throat] going through some of the waiver uh comments and the responses to there. Uh A1, are there topographical constraints um such as wetlands, critical areas, unusual conditions such as the presence of historic trees? The response from the applicant. There are significant tree protection zones to both the northeast and southwest sides of the proposed property that limit the ability to build toward the property line on either side and would extend well beyond a standard 10-ft side setback if these ends of the property were to be considered the sides. So, as a result, uh I think he's

it's referencing the uh the zoning code where when you do have a shorter side, uh a shorter side on on the sides, that's shorter side can be the front and the rear setbacks. So, they're 30 ft from the sides. And then what would be if you're standing on the road, the front and the back would then be the side setbacks, which is 10 ft. So, that's being referenced here. I know it's it's confusing. Yes, sir. That's just for corner lots though.

No, sir. It's for uh lots that are configuration where the shorter sides are on the side and the longer sides are on the uh in this configuration. Um there's an exhibit in in 156 in the back there um that demonstrates where the how you measure the uh the front and sides on those type of configurated lots and that staff comment. Uh just some commentary here. A good example of an unusual condition such as the present of a historic tree would be the proposed configuration of the lot would be more beneficial to help preserve the trees or preserve canopy damage from the home construction. That would be the reason why the configuration would be needed. That was an example I provided as an unusual condition or extenduating circumstance that would u help justify the the width to depth ratio. Uh the next uh question is about uh is the provision of this section is un uh reasonable in conflict with public interest or practically impossible to demonstrate by the following. Uh the applicant's response, the Belleview Avenue uh lot would match the lot shown in the zoning code and diagram. That's the diagram I was telling you about. U and the request is to have the setback lines applied as indicated on this diagram. That's the front and back on either side. Uh if the Belleview street side of the property were considered the front instead of a side and the front and rear 30-foot setback were applied to the property along the sides, the remaining buildable area would only be 27 ft deep in depth uh by a very wide buildable area which would create a condition unlike the surrounding properties and resulting in a house that would not fix the context of the neighborhood at all. Uh it does get a little confusing. Uh

staff comments on this particular one is applicant could use the justification of being in between two defining constraints. Uh one constraint would be the Belleview rightway. He obviously cannot extend into the Belleview rightway to make his lot conform. Uh the second could be the establishment of a subdivision of Moltry Heights that was recorded 1946 80 years ago. Uh so therefore without incorporating more area uh behind him into the uh the Moltry Heights subdivision he is constrained by those two uh conditions. Um so without the incorporating of that area from the adjacent lots the proposed lot is confined to a depth not meeting the the standards of LDR. That just gives you another uh uh another perspective on what is confining and might be in compliance or might satisfy that unreasonable and conflict uh condition there. So A3 the modification will not adversely affect the reasonable development of adjacent property. Uh again uh this modification would create more buffer between 647 Ellis Street and 650 King Street. and that is referencing the larger side setbacks now which would improve the development of those properties. Uh the side property lined at about 653 Ellis Street and 656 King Street would still have a 10-ft site or 10-ft setback as there currently would be for any house built on 647 Ellis Street and 650 King Street. So that does not change the ability of those neighbors to do any development work. Staff comment. Uh, the addition of a new lot reduces the development potential of the existing lots running Ellis and King Street. Obviously, because of the back rear

setback is now closer to the house, less developable area. Uh, did I just No, I did not. So, the last one is uh the public welfare and interest of the town shall be protected. Uh again, uh setting the setbacks for the new Belleview Avenue uh property per the diagram uh would result in the development of a house on this site that would be more in scale and proportional with the other houses in this neighborhood and on the specific block in particular 17 1275 Belleview Avenue, which would be directly across the street from it. It prevents a house whose scale and massing is uh is in conflict with the neighborhood, thus protecting and preserving the intent and spirit of the regulations. So, uh staff comment public welfare is generally not impacted as a result of one lot being added to this area. However, the proposed the proposal does increase density. uh the addition of the lot will increase vehicular trips and the change of the development pattern uh of a wellestablished neighborhood. So there is those conditions added on to what the uh applicants responded to so for that one. But I do believe he is here. The applicant is here and I'm sure he can expand on some of these comments too. So

thank you. Yes, sir. All right. Thank you, Kevin. I'm Jeremy Kuska. Live at 1528 Old Village Drive here in the beautiful town of Mount Pleasant. Um, I'm here on behalf of Andrew Hunter, who is the owner of 647 Elder Street and who um is obviously present here tonight as well. This process began over the summer when Mr. Hunter sat down with Michelle Reed, uh, who's the director of planning here, obviously, and was talking to him about some, you know, what options he had with the 647 Elvis property, and she had kind of planted the idea in his head of studying the, you know, this concept of possibly creating situation where he could subdivide. So, he spoke with um with Mr. tolls who owns 650 King Street beyond or behind and they have an agreement for him to purchase 50 ft of the rear of 650 King Street. I have um copies of letters from Mr. Touls that describe that and support this application. But in doing so give the ability to create three independent R1 properties that all meet all the criteria of the R1, you know, lots. Um they something similar was done directly across Belleview in 2017 when portions of the rear of 633 Ellis and 637 Ellis Street were like the rear of each property were separated and combined to create 1275 Belleview. So, there is a property that's basically directly across the street from where we're proposing to have the new Belleview lot, which would be the the middle lot of these. Um, in looking up and down Ellis

Street, most of the homes on that twob block stretch range from about 1,000 ft to 3200 ft² or so. Same with that stretch on King Street. And then looking on Belleview up and down that couple, you know, that couple block area, those homes are all generally around between 2,00 and 3500 ft² as well. The existing 647 Ellis Street lot is 18,398 ft, which at a 35% building coverage would allow like 6,439 like feet of building area. So, a lot of buildable area with a 35 ft limit. So, I mean, you could build a house on that lot currently that would relate more to Moltry Middle School than it would to to any of the houses nearby. So, what Mr. Hunter would like to do is create these three properties so that in lie of building something larger in that one, he would have the ability to build a home on or build a house on Belleview for himself and then build a house on um Ellis Street that he would sell each of which would be closer to 3,000 ft. So it would relate directly I mean the house 1275 Belleview the one I was referencing earlier is a 3400 ft home. So this would relate to that. It would relate to the house that's currently built on 633 Ella Street. So the goal is just to kind of create homes that are more in scale and character with the the neighborhood or at least the direction the neighborhood is going at the moment. Um the yeah as as um Mr. Mitchell mentioned it does require an LDR waiver because of the Belleview lot and as per the diagram that was that was referenced or the the figure 156- or646-1

because this is a wider and shorter lot. Um we would request to have the the setbacks relate to you know the longer and narrower which allows us to build on that site especially because there is a grove of trees as you saw in the aerial view earlier that would we can move away from that bring bring it closer to Belleview. Um, so, you know, we think with this submitt, it allows and kind of actually limits those properties to to result in new homes that are more in kind again with the neighborhood, more in scale and more fitting and we get a shiny fire hydrant out of it as well. I think that the density I mean Mr. Mitchell mentioned the density it does add one house um which would be one vehicle. I mean at least by the way Mount Pleasant calculates you know vehic vehicle density loads um with regard to storm water we we've been working with an engineer so it doesn't change the the overall coverageability of those those and we've been working with um Shannon Harris arborist to make sure we're being very you know mindful of the the existing trees. So appreciate your consideration.

Thank you. questions for the applicant while we have not for the applicant. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Discussion comments. Um

the only thing I would say as a point of note is looking at Fairmont which is a block away and Simmons here on the other side is is that both of those streets have roughly on the same sort of length or depth of the uh of those streets have three homes. Simmons has four. Um, Belle has two, the ones in question. Um, there are some others that within the community that are more in keeping with what's currently there, but just noticing as you're exiting out of the community towards the GDC and towards the school, it's it seems to get a little bit more dense uh towards Alo Street. It's just something I noticed. I'm looking at the properties right next door on both King and so 653 and 656 and the ones beyond that. They're all the same size.

Mhm.

And there's a fairly significant size house on 656 with a pool, etc. It's not to say that those can't be built, but I don't see any benefit to adding another lot here. Um, and I also don't really understand there is a grove of trees there, but it's going to be right smack in the middle of, you know, on the one half of the new lot if it's added. Um, and it adds additional trips. Any house is going to have, I'm sure, at least two, if not three cars. Everybody seems to have many cars these days. So I don't think that the that the criteria um under you to give a waiver under the LDR are met in my view.

Yeah, I'm I I agree with Miss Ireland. I think that the statement of the one of the previous slides staff comments. I think this does deviate from the development pattern of that immediate area and uh I'm just uh I'm I'm concerned about that. Yeah. Mr. Mitchell, if you could can you go to the site plan uh page

cuz Yeah, I did have Yes. Okay. Yeah, I did have questions as well about the trees and and I think Jeremy had just mentioned. So, uh my first question, the property to the north 647 um are we creating a setback concern with the existing structure or is the intent to demolish that house? I guess yeah, they wouldn't be able to establish that property line without that being removed or the back half of the property would be removed. And there's some sheds too that would also have to be removed. So yeah, you couldn't create a

a new property line where it actually

created a zoning violation. That would be a zoning violation. Yeah. And then and then as far as the trees go and just trying to compare these two, I mean that that 42inch live oak obviously on Belleview uh sticks out, but um I mean I guess at at this level the the trees and the impacts of those related to would be a um a requirement at uh site plan review uh for post. Yeah, they would be uh that's when you would have a home build uh submittal, a building permit submitt, and then the impacts would be reviewed at that time.

Yeah. Okay. Sorry. Sure. mean um the way that we determined where the property line that would subdivide the existing Ellis Street site with the Belleview was we went to the edge of the tree protection zone of that grove of trees and then basically split the difference between that and the corner. So it's not it's not three necessarily equal. the the central lot is larger, the Belleview lot would be larger than the Ellis Street lot to try to shift as much as possible away from the trees. And we did, I mean, laid out building area before we submitted any of the just to make sure we could

construct a house that was clear of all tree protection zones within that lot. Thank you. Uh, as I said earlier, I'm I appreciate all the sensitivities and there's logic. I mean, I think, you know, this parcel could sustain the additional home. I just again think it since we're deviating from the development pattern in that immediate area. That's where I have real reservations and I just have a hard time supporting the u the proposal but I'm I'm one vote. Um,

is the applicant are you the applicant or the the property owner? Okay. Yes, sir. Go ahead.

I'm Andrew Hunter and I live at 906 Royal Avenue in the old Mount Pleasant. I [clears throat] apologize for my uh voice. So, right across the street on Belleview, it's already been done where they split the two lots into three lots. So when you're you're saying it doesn't fit the character, you've already kind of set a precedent where that was allowed to be [clears throat] done. So literally straight across the street from that middle lot is the house that you'd be looking at that that's already happened to. I I appreciate the comment, but what you you've just done is proven my point. I don't want to continue that. That was my statement earlier. Understood. But I I also I've lived there for 28 years and I see all the other areas that you've allowed it to happen and continue.

We have it. Somebody did.

Understood. Well, I'm not against it. I'm obviously as as Jeremy said, I'm going to build the biggest house on the existing lot if you don't allow it. So, it doesn't really fit. But like on Earth, you built the 5200 foot and you're getting these monsters where I really think what we're proposing does fit the character of the neighborhood. I understand the argument about extra cars and so on. The only other thing I wanted to point out is the trees that you see that are on the back side of 650 King when you do the new lot, that is part of the 30 foot setback from the side. So all the protected trees, there's three oaks in there. None of that would be unbuildable area and would exist the way it is now. So hoping you may consider other people's support trying to do this. Thank you.

Okay. thoughts, proposals. Was this I have a question. Was this posted with like a yellow sign? I I just zoning code uh zoning um changes. They go they follow state code by posting advertising. This is just on the agenda which actually is on our website and does neighbors wouldn't have seen it. Yeah. I just I don't know like if you had support of your neighbors that would mean a lot but since we don't know we don't know. We have a letter from the owner. Well, yeah. I mean, he's directly involved. They are directly involved.

Uh, Mr. Mitchell, and I apologize for making you double back on this, but can you touch on the depth again, the 87 or 88 ft depth? Yeah. Um, just to clarify because that's the only thing that's kind of sticking in my mind and I know you mentioned it. I apologize for missing it. The the depth is measured from Belleview back in that direction. So that's 88 ft and then this is this is 135. And and what's the logic behind that depth is allowed or not allowed? Is it supposed to be that deep or more? The minimum width for R1 is 80 ft. So they meet that minimum width. Okay.

Um so dimensionally it is an R1 lot. Dimensally the waiver is the is the width is wider than it is deep. I see. So that's the way. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Are there I I forget on the plan. Were there other examples of that with those other redeveloped lots? Uh other examples of lots that are wider than they are deep. Uh, I mean, you can see for yourself. Uh,

I can't see I can't find one. Uh, you they're rectangular and most of them front of a rideway. I think Sim Simmons you could see a couple there, Kevin, where you know when the pink uh 425 Simmons 501 um 51. What is pink? That's that white building there. But there's Yeah.

Yeah. There's not many uh obviously and it was 80 years ago it was uh established and um you know that's uh that's just the way it's always been that way on this particular block. So what what my thought is um Mr. Ben is with and I think Miss Ireland mentioned this 653 656 I um I don't know how enthusiastic they would be about the vibe uh with that and seeing another rooftop um that that just

it's like on one hand I I kind of I see that it can fit right but sometimes just because something fits doesn't mean you should do it right. Yeah, that's where my head is. 100%ity unless there's a real purpose for it that that justifies and [snorts] it just I don't see why the exception should be given in this case. Yeah, [clears throat] that whole block is you know the five across on both on king it's are very uniform and again we don't want to start creating precedence on that side of the street and then it starts going domino effect. Yeah. seem like every every u if we're listening to the community

like like Brett and I were at Mr. Bennett and I were at the um ADU discussion last week at Aleham Hall. The density is a huge concern especially in this area of town, the redevelopment and the density. And I think we have to listen to the constituents. I mean it's no secret I'm a property rights person but [laughter] but this just kind of feels a little bit out of context for me. Yeah, I agree with you, Mr. Far. Okay. Um, it sound like there's some [snorts] uh consistency of of view there, so maybe we'll call for a motion. I move to deny. Okay. Second. A second. Second from Miss Mansour. Okay. All those in favor of denial say I.

I. I. Any oppose denial? I'm going to abstain. Okay. Motion carries. All right. All right, y'all. We're on the home stretch. Yes, sir.

Rules of procedure, which actually, believe it or not, I I read pretty thoroughly because I like to do that each year. And I didn't follow as much of it as I needed to tonight. But I'm glad that you're you're driving us to do this at least every every January. That's right. That's right. Yeah. Thank you. Thank goodness we've got Lynette and Michelle and other people that grab me by the arm and sometimes my feet. reorient me.

So, this is the the adoption of the 2026 rules of procedure. Um, Mr. Davis reached out and uh we just talked about some of the recent updates in and history and uh just to give a bullet point real quick. March 2023, um the correspondence uh deadline was extended from two business days to three business days uh prior to the meeting. it increased the time uh that and it it kind of restricted um some input and kind of want to know if y'all still felt that this was working or if you would um like to shorten it back if um any input on that would be be great.

Three business days would be Friday. Mhm. So that I mean close close um sorry the way it reads close of business um typically on Thursday because you can't accept the date. So you don't count the day of you count Monday, Tuesday and the Friday. So the Thursday close of business I I know I don't accept correspondence past that point. Okay. Okay. Previously it would be close of business Friday. Okay. I didn't see where it says close of business. So Pete

Peter just ask I don't know how or why this originated. Maybe it's not poignant, but would it put more pressure on staff to be at two days? I mean, I I I think giving people time to give us feedback if they can't attend a meeting or something, something pops up is a good thing uh to two, but I didn't know if there was a reason or it No, there there was a former uh commission member that um wanted to establish the three business days. Um I'm I'm fine with two if I mean more public input um you know, is always better. So,

yeah, that's that's healthy. I completely agree and my assumption has been that it was just difficult for you to manage all that. But if it's not, I'd rather go to the shorter window. Yeah. I mean, on the on the historic district preservation commission, we would get stuff after the deadline and the staff would still they give it to us and just say it's after the deadline. Yeah. Did we say that? Yeah. [laughter] If it's two, can I just understand exactly what that means in terms So is it close of business on Friday would be two business days. Correct. Prior because we can't count the day of the meeting. Correct.

So to clarify that even further, that means Peter, they would be receiving the correspondence on Monday. I mean, unless they wait on late on Friday's making because that that means that he might send us correspondence after he sent us packets. Exactly. That's always we do though gets a yellow sign is what it sounds like. So people literally have to be in the know about it somehow. It's only the public hearing get assigned. Yeah,

my concern is just sometimes what I do is I look at the agenda and I get all ready and then I find out later that things are different because I didn't look recently. So I'm just concerned that I'm not having enough time to really give it time to look um and to consider everything. The weekend helps you know. Yeah, the weekend does. It does. Um correspondence is fine like on Monday but um the good deal. Yeah, I think it's given helpful to have that by the end of day Friday. But I think it's given the public uh more opportunity to give us some feedback and background if if it doesn't put too much onus on staff, which I think is

not at all. and and of course uh in August of of last year um we were talking about ways that commission members can add things to the agenda for the next meeting and and that was um revised and um so I haven't had any issues with that. Um so how is that done? Like we would always that'd be the last thing we would do at the uh historic commission would be like ask commission members what you want on the next agenda but I don't see that being done here. I mean

we we email you directly or something. Is that so the the criteria is um with at least two additional sponsoring board members and 15 days uh in advance of the meeting. um things have to get published um as well. It depends on what things are, you know, but uh it it used to be that you had to bring something up at a meeting, vote on it to be put on the agenda at the next month's meeting. Now, this is allowing with 15 days for three people, a member plus two additional sponsoring members to put something on the upcoming meeting. It saves a month essentially.

Yep. cuz well what's the if there's any more than three of us then it's a problem. No it just has to be three two people. I thought like only a certain number of us could talk amongst ourselves or you violate that's a different that's a quorum. Um like if four people are talking about something they want on the agenda that's allowed or not allowed. You're not supposed to have four people or more getting together to talk about issues. That that becomes a No, it's five. It's five creates a quorum because there are nine there only eight of us tonight, but there are nine people. Correct.

So five people or more is a quorum and that's not allowed without having it be a formal meeting with a public you know meeting. But that's different from the number of persons calling for is that only for agenda items? That's correct. Not like that's but I'm just saying if we're emailing back and forth and it starts to be like five or six of us we don't do that. Yeah, we don't. Yeah, that's that's a real three of us communicate to put something on the next agenda. You can email another person. You just can't individually. You can't do it as a group. Commission or a group of five people.

Once there's more than three people want to email, then it's a problem. Or can it only be one person at a time? More than four persons. If it's five people altogether, the person sending an email and four others receive them, you've got a quorum. If it feels like a decisions being made at once, it's wrong. You can't have you can't you can't have a Zoom meeting or a conference call. [laughter] It's not a violation of FOIA to email nine people. What is a violation is to discuss business. Yeah. Which you can't do. If it's a matter of putting something on an agenda, it's not a problem. Right. So, if you recollect, the way it's written is the way we do it at the council level. And that's why I recommended it last year. It's tried, true, and it works.

And you need three people to put it on the agenda, which means it's not one person bringing something that really care about. There's at least a a minimum number that want to talk about it. What what's great about this is it it you know, it's somewhat speedy and if it's legit, it's legit. and you got some some backup. And if it's not, then it just dies off and we just keep going. I agree. And and I'm probably I'm probably hyper sensitive to this. I don't even like the the appearance that we're doing something. That's why I'm ultra sensitive about group messages. You know, feel bad about saying it's okay to email. [laughter]

I I I understand the point. It's about conducting business on items that will require

already has these changes in it. We don't have any new changes that were adopting. No new changes unless there's recommendations. So, all right. Um we will move to election of officers and uh we we will use We need a vote. We have to vote. Okay. I move to Oh, so yeah. Yeah. Second as written. Motion made and seconded to approve the uh the rules for this uh 2026 year. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Unanimous. Okay.

All right. Thank you. um move to election of officers and we will use uh Robert's rules of order. So, uh we will start um with the vice chair and yes, so u on the back of your name plate uh tape is uh the ballots, but we'll start with with vice chair. But um so right now the floor is open. Um if anyone would like to um recommend themselves or advocate for someone else, uh we are um going to be voting on vice chair. So the floor is open.

Okay. I would like to make a statement. So I'm going to nominate myself for vice chair. And the reasons are, you know, next to Brett. I'm the senior member on the commission. I've been here longer than anybody else with the exception of Brett. So I have more experience than anybody else just because of tenure. Also, um I was just recently approved by town council for an additional term. So, my term will be the last one to expire um since I I'm just starting a brand new term right now. And so, um you know, you know, for those reasons, um I'm nominating myself for vice chair.

All right. Would anyone else like to speak? The floor is open. All right. So, um we'll fill out that um ballot and uh we'll tally those up. [snorts] I dropped mine. I just dropped mine. What do we do with these?

Do we put them in like the fire and the smoke comes out? Is that the [laughter] part? We just do We're doing olive or just vice just vice vice. You can't go yet, Adam. [laughter] Like I didn't think we had all this. Thank you. Don't look. Change them as they come down. I'm going to be vice chair and chair.

No. No. Yeah, it's a that's a that's a thing, Kevin. [laughter]

All right. Um Pam Ireland will remain our our vice chair for planning commission. We will now move to uh chair of uh planning commission. Uh the floor is open if anyone would like to nominate themselves or advocate for someone else. I nominate Brett. Brett Bennett. You're very kind, Gary. Thank you. Appreciate your confidence in me despite tonight's performance. [laughter] All right. I don't know. You guys are down. Yeah, sure. Here's some more.

Good job. Got it.

It's 8 8:40. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Mr. Bennett will remain our our chair for planning commission. So, thank you all so much. Yeah. Appreciate uh time. Very kind. Thank you for your service and your leadership. [laughter] Makes me wonder sometimes. I will be journ. I'll support you anyway. I need I need everybody. I need everybody behind my back.