Town Council - Special Meeting

Thought I was late.

It may be sooner than you think.

Calling to order the Mount Pleasant Town Council special council meeting for this Tuesday, September the 8th. Call to orders item number one. Number two is public comment. If you're here to make a public comment, please come forward and give name and address. No one for public comment. Public comment. Okay. Item three, would be looking for a motion to go into executive session. So moved. Second. Personnel consideration of applications to serve on the planning commission. Two, consideration of applications to serve on the commercial design review board. Three, discussion of possible action regarding a seat on the commercial design review board. And B, is legal and contractual to receive advice in Deerline at all versus town of Mount Pleasant? We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All right. We are in executive session.

Y'all ready? And luckily it wasn't my fault. Thank you.

Oh, I did.

No, there's five.

Thank you.

How many of you do this?

Amen.

I think all of them.

Amen.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. So that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. . . Thank you.

Thank you. It was good.

All right. We got everybody.

All right. Madam Clerk, please note that we have reconvened from executive session in our special town council meeting. And do we have any motions to follow based on the information received in executive session, please?

Yes, sir. Under the planning commission, I move that we reappoint, not reappoint, but reappoint

Mr. Dr. Richard Gray.

Second.

We have a motion and a second for Mr. Gilmore to be appointed to the Planning Commission. Is there any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All right. Mr. Gilmore is appointed. Nothing on any of the others. That moves us down to item number five, recognition of the Wando High School girls soccer team state champions. How about that?

All right.

Thank you.

All right. The Wando girls soccer team finished the 2026 season as the Class 5A Division I state champions. The team finished the season with an impressive 21-2 record and finished off their incredible playoff run defeating JL Mann High School in penalty kicks to secure the title. Wando finished the season ranked number eight in the United Soccer Coaches National Rankings. Wow. The team was led by All-State players Marlee Nagel and Kira Jeffries. Lily Evans, Abby Shaw, and Alex Golo were selected to the All-Region team this season. Congratulations to Coach Shannon Champ and the entire Wando girls soccer team on their 2026 state championship.

All right, ladies, we're going to get you guys to turn around.

Good job.

all right thank you all very much awesome congrats see you next year

All right, that completes the agenda for our 5 o'clock special meeting. We will adjourn, and then at 6 o'clock we will reconvene for our monthly meeting. We stand adjourned.

That's a pretty good bet. We should be back here. Did we have, did Oceanside?

Yes. I think we already have it. Is it?

My son was on the state championship. Was he? And scored one of the three goals. For soccer? Against Emerald. Go for it.

Against Emerald?

Emerald.

Oh, Emerald.

I was about to say they wouldn't be there. Emerald is huge.

As I knew there was a play this summer.

That's awesome.

It was terrible. It was so hot. Sorry. It was so hot.

Thank you. Right. It's my favorite part of this.

Oh, did you? Yeah. So, yes.

Cool. I'll just come tell him. I sent an email. I'll run that.

Right.

Stop. You do?

I think so, yeah. I think we've got a couple minutes. Ask her officially.

Michigan and come up with a Phantom X for a second.

That was insane.

I mean, I don't understand the explanation.

Oh, what?

The Michigan one second thing? What happened? How did they just say, oh, we have some magical secret clock?

Jake, they said they do it like basketball, but never reveal that clock. You know how the basketball clock has the tens of seconds? So why don't they show that clock?

No, but it would still hit zero at the same time. Like, supposedly the broadcast, the scoreboard, it's all plugged into the same clock. So, like, I don't know. Well, it'd be interesting to see. I don't really care. I just would have loved to see it. That would be great. But, like, it'd be interesting to see if we took off. It's time. You all ready? Staff, prepare. All right.

calling to order the Town Council meeting for Mount Pleasant Town Council for this Tuesday, September the 8th. Before we have the prayer and the pledge, in a minute I will ask us all to stand and observe a moment of silence for three reasons. One for prominent citizen Joe Rice, who passed away unexpectedly over the weekend for Columbia Police Officer DeLong Jr., who gave his life in service of his city and in memory and honor of those who were lost and served in 9-11, being this is the 25th anniversary of that day in American history. Please stand in silence, and I'll ask Chaplain Gill to break that silence when he begins the prayer, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance by Mayor Pro Tem Chaplain, please. Where is the chat?

Oh, there we are.

Yes, sir.

Let us pray. Almighty God, I pray for this person Yet each counselor and member and a support team, the wisdom, the guidance that they deliver on the agonies that is before them. May every decision be righteous in your sight for our benefit.

Amen.

Please face the flag.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Chaplain. Mayor Poutem.

Item three, approval of the agenda.

Do we have a motion? We have a motion, a second, any discussion? All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All right, the agenda is approved. Item four, public hearings, awards, and presentations. I believe we have a longevity award for tonight.

Good evening, Mayor, members of council. Tonight, I have the privilege of recognizing Deputy Chief Pat Carter for 30 years of dedicated service to the town of Mount Pleasant. Pat grew up in Mount Pleasant, graduated from Wando High School, and began his law enforcement career with Mount Pleasant on September 4th, 1996. Over the past three decades, he's grown through virtually every level of this organization, from patrol officer, corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, captain, and ultimately deputy chief. Throughout his career, Pat has distinguished himself not simply by the positions he has held, but by the work he's done. Early in his career, he served in the Traffic Services Unit and on the Special Response Team, our predecessor to the SWAT Team. He became deeply involved in traffic safety and DUI enforcement, serving as an instructor, educator, and helping train other law enforcement officers. His passion for traffic runs so deep that every morning when I'm driving to work, I hear him stopping cars. And he's doing that to keep the public safe. Pat also invests heavily in developing himself as a leader. He was selected to attend the University of Louisville Southern Police Institute officer's administrative course where his classmates selected him as the class chaplain. He was recognized as a dean scholar for outstanding academic performance. Some of the other awards include a two-time recipient of the Mount Pleasant Police Department Supervisor of the Year, recognized multiple times as a Law Enforcement Network Coordinator of the Year, and in line with his passion for protecting the motoring public and DUIs, he has received the MAD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving Lifetime Achievement Award. But perhaps what stands out most over the 30 years is his consistency of service. His personnel file contains letters from police agencies, schools, citizens, businesses, students, and many members of the community thanking him for his professionalism, his patience, and willingness to help. Pat has served under different chiefs through tremendous growth of this town, enormous changing in policing, while remaining committed to the same fundamental mission, serving the people. Thirty years in law enforcement represents countless calls, decisions, long nights, weekends, and holidays away from family, and an enormous commitment to the community that you serve. A career like Pat's cannot be measured by promotions or assignments. It's measured by the officers he's helped develop and the citizens whose lives he's touched. Perhaps Pat has helped shape the department for generations. One of the best examples that I can give of this is his dedication to the cadet program. He serves as the head of the program and in this role has spent countless hours teaching and molding teenagers that eventually went on to become police officers. We have with us tonight his wife, Wendy. Wendy, thank you. Thank you for sharing Pat with us for all these years and the sacrifice that you have had to make. Pat, on behalf of the Mount Pleasant Police Department, the town of Mount Pleasant and the citizens, you have served for three decades. Congratulations on 30 years of service and thank you for your leadership, but most importantly, your loyalty and commitment to this community.

Deputy Chief, on behalf of all of us up here, we thank you. Thank you very much for your three decades of service. Item five, approval of minutes from the August 11th special and regular council meetings and the July 2026 financial statement.

Move for approval, Mr. Chairman.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Thank you very much. Item six, public comment. If you signed up and your name is called, please come forward. Give name and address. Two and a half minutes, please. Thank you. Mr. DeMore.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ladies and gentlemen, we have several speakers tonight. I'm going to call up two of you at a time, please. The second speaker to stand just a few feet behind the first. First two speakers this evening, Mary Frances Bishop, followed by Sandra Connick, please.

I wish this was on a happy note, but it's not. I'm very concerned about what's being sprayed in our skies. And so my role here tonight is only to raise awareness.

Did we get your name and address?

Mary Frances Bishop. I live in Ion. Okay, thanks. Pam Anderson came to my house when they did the metal boner. Okay. So I've been taking pictures. I think, did y'all get the pictures that I took? That's, this is going on, if not daily, weekly. I've got dates. I don't take pictures every time I see them. But these are chemtrails. These are not contrails. People say it's conspiracy theory. That's wrong. My husband flew for the Navy and the Marines for over 22 years. He flew 160 missions in Vietnam. He has two distinguished flying crosses. He knows the difference between a chemtrail and a contrail. And he has Parkinson's. Parkinson's has doubled in the last five years. It's gonna double again in the next five years. So is Alzheimer's. So is dementia. So are all kinds of pulmonary issues, heart disease. This is catastrophic, what they're spraying over the skies in Mount Pleasant. We're talking about aerosolized aluminum, barium, strontium, mercury, cadmium, viruses, fungi, and nanoparticles. It's not sustainable. They've tested the blood in children's eight-year-olds, but their aluminum content in their blood for an eight-year-old is already extremely high. So I'm here to suggest that everyone watch The Dimming. It's a documentary by Dane Wigington, which will explain what is going on, why it's going on. No one can really say why. Those are the two questions I'm asked. Who's doing it and why are they doing it? I do not have a good answer for you. But if you can go to the Deming and watch that documentary, it goes into great detail. He's put a lot of time and effort into this. Also, you can listen to Christian Megan, who's a whistleblower from the Pentagon. It's not just Mount Pleasant. This is all over the world that this is happening. And there's something called the geofight.com, which is some lawyers that have come together, and the lawsuits are being filed as we speak. Tennessee has banned spraying, geoengineering. Florida, Rhonda Sanders banned it in Florida, and Louisiana has banned it, and 31 other states are trying to ban it now. Thank you very much for your time.

Good evening. Good evening, Mayor and members of the Town Council. My name is Sandra Connell. I live at 2106 Seawee Indian Court in Dunes West, and I'm asking you to support a prevention-first approach to animal welfare in Mount Pleasant. I'm providing two. I think I provided that with to you guys. There's two short reports. One shows where the total expense are for the town. And that's not what I'm advocating for. But I wanted you to see worst case scenario. And on like the first page, it actually talks about the seven policies I would, I'm asking to have implemented. It's all prevention. And I wanted you to look on page three, the number 600 is the one I'm using. That's what I got out of the internet. And I'll say off your budgeting, it looks like about 600 animals enter our shelters from Mount Pleasant. And, um, So I wanted to have you guys look at that because basically these policies, if we implement them, it actually would prevent cruelty, reduce shelter intake and euthanasia, and avoid future costs. So one of the most expensive things I'm asking for is a required microchipping and spay and neutering. And that one of the reports says you guys pay for it all, which I'm not advocating, but there's one that says not the town. So I'd love for you to look at that when you get a chance. And then you'll notice after five years, we actually have a surplus. Like we could avoid like 50% of our current costs or more. And every statistic, every number is actually an animal that was abandoned or lost by an owner. or just neglected or born in an unwanted litter that could have been prevented so i'm thankful you guys are already looking with our attorneys at prevention and i love that my mayor and town councils love animals but prevention is the only way and that's why in here i'm mentioning required microchip if we have required registration or microchipping, if you find a dog, it can make its way back to the owner instead of the shelter. So that's where a lot of your cost avoidance will be. And also breeders that can be held accountable. So I just want to thank you guys for continuing to look into this. And I'm asking that this be implemented or part of our changes that you guys are already working for. So thank you again. Thank you for working for us so hard. I appreciate it.

Next two speakers, first is Amy Murray, followed by Marty Jackson.

Hello, council. Hello, my name is Amy Murray and I live at 16 05 adventure crossing in Mount Pleasant. The 38 acres of land up for discussion today is located opposite our 55 plus. Active adult community restore at Carolina park adjacent also is an assisted living facility, Merrill gardens and a memory care. Center, the Fellowship. Each of these facilities uses Faison Road to enter and exit. The traffic on this road has increased significantly with the addition of two storage facilities, extra space storage and the vault, and the three large distribution warehouses built just two years ago. The road traffic was already busy with the completion of the housing in Restore at Carolina Park and the Mount Pleasant School Bus Depot and the dual session class structure at Oceanside Collegiate Academy, which has separate a.m. and p.m. sessions. My concern is for the safety of the residents in our community. who depart daily from Encore Way, Lively Lane, and Lenox Drive, as well as the numerous students at Oceanside who walk or ride bikes, and especially those who use e-bikes on Faison Road. An increase in traffic with the development of the 38-acre plot would increase the risk of traffic accidents. I think the community would best be served by preserving these 38 acres for a walking exercise trail similar to what exists at Laurel Hill Park or at the Nature Preserve. Thank you for your time.

I'm going to stand aside a little so I can see you because this thing's in the way. I'm Marty Jackson. I live at 3532 Artful Loop and it's been a long time since I've addressed a council. Dick Riley was governor and Howard Chapman was working for the city of Charleston. So that means I'm old and I'm one of the 750 plus seniors. living along Faison Road. We respectfully, I respectfully request you consider us. You come see us, you meet with us, you consider walking trails, a senior center, do something with those 38 acres. I can honestly tell you everyone who lives at Restore in the houses was heartbroken when it was contracted to be an addition to the warehouses. We don't need that anymore. Those warehouses are not serving the port as they're advertised. And so now we've got traffic, but we would really like to see things like senior centers, walking trails, and amphitheater, provided we watch the noise, because we already get crazies out of the vault. You should come by on a Sunday night and listen to those cars, or send the police. They might be able to help us. But seriously, come meet with us, talk with us. I am happy to open my home and bring in my neighbors and let you have one-on-ones. because I think you need to know who we are, and I think it'll help you make a good decision. Thank you. Thank you.

Please don't applaud. Thank you. It's a longstanding policy. I appreciate it.

Next speaker is Elizabeth Ruth, followed by Robert Spencer.

Good evening, Mayor and the Council. My name is Elizabeth Roth. I live at 1610 Bloom Street, also in the Carolina Park Restore area. Our neighborhood, as Marty and Amy have just told you, is right along Faison Road. We are right across the street from where these 38 acres are. When I moved there four years ago when our neighborhood was first developed, the whole side of Faison Road was trees. And now we have these enormous warehouses. They are unsightly and they really don't fit in the neighborhood. So I am asking that those 38 acres that are still have trees and are natural to please stay that way, whether it's walking trails. Okay, that would be fine. But really leaving it just how it is would be, I think, the best for our community of, as Marty said, almost 1000 senior citizens. with the traffic from Oceanside and the bus depot, we really don't need any more development there. So respectfully, I'm asking you to be thoughtful when you consider how this property will be developed. Thank you.

Hello, everyone. My name is Father Robert Spencer. I'm the pastor at Christ's Archangel Catholic Church in Mount Pleasant. That's 1149 Russell Drive in Mount Pleasant. Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. We have something in common. Both of us want the best for Mount Pleasant. I'm here because I'm concerned about the proposal to possibly change the rezoning. If this goes through, I'm afraid it may hamper my ability to serve the people of Mount Pleasant as it will other churches and places of worship and synagogues as well. My church and all churches, we do a lot for our community. um i have a large congregation 1450 families i have a large school with 660 kids i'm always looking for parking i'm always looking for additional real estate to expand the playground There's a possibility I could purchase some real estate in my neighborhood. If I do that, I'll probably have to sell other real estate off the campus to do this. But I'm afraid if you go through this proposal, it may diminish the property values and prevent me from doing other things. My church and other churches, I have food drives to support the community, toy drives, diaper drives I support. the newly home for unwed mothers. uh in the calendar year 2025 over 300 families came to my church directly asking for assistance to pay the rent to pay the mortgage to pay car repairs to pay fees we gladly do it uh in this so far this calendar year we've had over 160 people to come to us seeking assistance my church and other churches we have service community or service organizations for men and women We do a lot for the public, and I'm afraid that if we go through this, it's going to damper and diminish the real estate, and I won't be able to do as much as I would like to do. And this is for all churches as well. So I thank you for letting me speak, and I'm sure that you'll make the right decision.

Thank you.

Deborah Rowe, followed by Cheryl Butler.

Good evening, Mayor and Town Council. Deborah Rao, 1604 Bloom Street, also a resident of Restore for the last four years. And I'm here asking you, just in agreement with my friends, to not put any more big buildings or anything that's going to cause any more traffic or safety issues. I agree, too. I would love to see it stay just as it is as a green space. if something has to be done, maybe walking trails or some type of small community gatherings. But anything else is going to require so much more parking lots, more traffic, more interference in our neighborhood. And it has changed already tremendously since we first moved in there. So I ask, along with my friends, that you consider maybe just leaving it as it is with the green space or just walking trails. Thank you.

Hi, good evening. I'm Cheryl Butler at 3513 Artful Loop. Thank you all for... This is my very first town meeting, so I appreciate all the work that y'all do for us. I moved here from Atlanta four years ago and moved into the Restore community because I wanted this to be my final home. And I totally believed in... living on a street that is not a through street, that was a dead end, which Faison Road is, a dead end into the airport. I saw the green spaces. I saw the development that had assisted living, memory care, apartments, and single family homes for 55 plus. I thought maybe I'll age into those. If I need assisted living or need memory care, I'll just go down the street. But I loved the green space that was across the street. I just thought it would be a calm, gentle area in which to live out the rest of my days. And little did I know that there would be you know the things that have been built there so i would love to see what is still there left as green space and i would want y'all to seriously consider that i don't think we need any more traffic i'm already having a hard time turning left out of my neighborhood there's no other way to get out except for that and i'm a pretty good driver and as i age into my 80s and my 90s. Driving is going to get even worse. And I just think it's a big safety issue for all of us seniors who are living out there and will be living there forever. So thank you for your time. Thank you for listening to me and keep up the good work.

Sharon Marsh and Molly Starr.

My name is Sharon Marsh. Thanks for letting us all have our say. I live at 1481 Oldenburg and that's in Mount Pleasant in the Tupelo subdivision. I'm here, I guess, a little bit in opposition, I didn't realize. I'm old and I have a lot of old friends. And I really feel the need for a senior center in some location in North Mount Pleasant, as it is now called. Even if it's just an exercise room, it would be great. The gym that is in our area does not really serve older people. So that's really all I'm asking. I'd like to see a senior center. If any other things, if anything like this were to add to traffic problems, we all deal with traffic problems no matter where you are in Mount Pleasant, but there are other ways to handle traffic problems instead of just doing nothing with the land that the city has already spent so much money on. So I would just like to see a senior center. Thank you.

Hi, Mayor, Council. Thank you for your service to our community. I'm Molly Starr and I too live on Bloom Street, 1602 in Carolina Park in the Senior Restore area. I moved here four years ago with my husband from San Francisco where we We're close to one of the oldest groves of trees in the world, I guess. The huge giant sequoias that are 2,000, 2,500 years old, and I spent a lot of time there. They live in groups together, and they're quite extraordinary. I came here because my family's here and a lot of people are retiring here. It's a great place. I really love it. And I was very attracted to the trees here. I'm a tree lover and I really am here today to speak for the trees because when I came there were so many rows of gorgeous trees, live oaks and oaks and crape myrtles and just fabulous trees that are indigenous to South Carolina. And one by one, they were just raised. and concrete buildings, blocks were put in. And I understand that. I understand commercial commerce. I understand all of that. But I would argue that this grove of trees on the 38 acres should be dedicated as a park and be made into an old grove. dedicated so that no one can touch it no one can knock it down no one can kill those trees and that we as seniors in that community can go in there to walk it's awfully hot I'm in my 80s and it's very hot to go walking in the summertime and a lot of the fall and spring too so if we had paths in those woods it would be just lovely even some benches if you like but I would dedicate it as old grove and really preserve it Thank you so much.

Ross Marazzo, followed by Bruce Landsberg.

Hello, my name is Ross Marazzo. I live at 1883 Bolden Drive with my wife Linda. That's in the Carolina Park subdivision, so you know what I'll be talking about. So I'm here to speak about the Faison Road development and using the parcel for something that will promote a sense of community. I've lived in multiple locations from Buffalo to Fort Worth, Texas. I've traveled and worked in over 40 countries. I've seen what overdevelopment looks like and how it hurts communities. With the proliferation of apartment complexes, new homes, and migration to towns such as Mount Pleasant, the sense of community is being severely challenged. We need to do whatever we can to provide an environment that ignites and supports that sense of community as it provides a feeling of belonging, fellowship, and a safer environment for our residents. The facing road parcel would provide North Mount Pleasant with a much needed area for residents to gather, supporting that need for a sense of community. So the other people that spoke tonight, they all have great ideas that would bring that type of thing together. Developing that parcel into more warehouses and storage facilities would be a detriment to the community. So I ask that you seriously consider, you know, the redevelopment of that area, whether it be walking trails, YMCAs, something that can bring the people together. It's very difficult when you have So many people moving in, moving out. And again, when you have apartment buildings, that's what happens. And when you have new people coming in from different areas or just moving into new homes in the area, you want everybody to really feel that they can be together and support each other, especially the families. So just hoping you do give that consideration and thank you for your time.

Mr. Mayor, town council members, my name is Bruce Landsberg. I live at 3720 Oconee Loop in Carolina Park, and that's the Riverside section. And I'm going to struggle here to come up with something original to say that you haven't already heard. In spades, but this is obviously talking about the face-on-road consideration and the commercial area and so on. I think you've heard what we really don't need. We don't need another car dealership unless I happen to be in the market for the kind of car that they are selling, which is probably not likely. And I only need that every decade or so. Warehouse distribution centers, definitely out. Self-storage places, car repair, oil change, well, occasionally, but not really. Inexpensive strip mall construction, I think we've had our fill of those. We also don't need the land, regardless of what you put in, to be completely clear-cut. We did so well on Highway 17 by having the 50-foot setback, and I understand about the deal that was made in 2011, and that's not your fault, but somebody should be held accountable for that, but be that as it may. Have you been on Faison Road when Wando and Coastal Academy let out? Mm-hmm. It's pretty brutal. You and your car will get to be very, very friendly together for a long period of time, and it's not as safe as it might be. I think you've heard about some of the other suggestions, and I would hope that you would consider those. And I thank you for your efforts on our behalf. Thank you.

Jessica Ziegler, followed by Rogan Solon.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the Town Council. My name is Jessica Ziegler, and I live at 1438 Crane Creek Drive, which is in the Villages section of Carolina Park. And I'd just like to say, I think the demographic of moms like me, we'd have a lot more of us here if it wasn't at dinnertime, if they didn't just leave their dinner in the oven and their husband to take over, which is what I did to race down here. But as a resident of Carolina Park for the last eight years, I just ask that you take no action or keep your options open regarding the Faison Road property. We would like to see either some green space, as many have talked about with trails, some type of passive recreation, or even family entertainment, as has been mentioned. We have two large high schools right there in Wando and Oceanside, as well as just lots of families. we have to drive a long way for a lot of family entertainment. So if we are going to do something with it, let's make it something that benefits the unique dynamics of our North Mount Pleasant community. But right now, we don't need more housing. warehouses, industrial development where we've just gotten our fill of that in North Mount Pleasant for right now. And we do have a chance to do this right. I know it's not an easy decision. I know you have, I think, an Army Corps of Engineers approval or that's going to be fading at some point. But we don't once we start moving on this, we can't go back on it. The trees would be gone. Development would be there. So let's take the time. Let's not rush into anything. and go back to stakeholders in the community and see what we can all come to an agreement on. Thank you so much.

Sorry, I need glasses. I'm also a mom. I'm going to switch it up for y'all for a second. My name is Rogan Saul. I live in the Old Park neighborhood in Mount Pleasant. I'm a fairly long-term resident. I am a mother of a child who has benefited from the opportunity to attend Trident Academy. um the past lucky five years amazing school um i'm here to kind of talk about how mount pleasant is wanting to rezone a number of churches and schools to a new public institutional designation and i'm kind of confused i am confused on what the problem really is and what we're trying to solve We're not talking about tearing down schools and churches and putting up condos and apartment complexes. And we're not developers. We're just focused on being community organizations, churches and schools, and helping our community. The organizations, these organizations, they don't have to be planning to develop their property for these rights to matter. Land is an asset. We all know that. And the future uses can affect an institution's ability, its ability to borrow against it, respond to a financial emergency, to make long-term plans. And overall, that's, let's be honest, it's taking money away from our children and our ability to help our children. and educate them, and they are our future. Like Trident, we do individual learning plans, and I feel like this should be a little bit more individualized, not, I guess maybe not so generic. and one size fits all approach because these, we have a history in Mount Pleasant Trident does. We've been there for quite a time. I'm not going to bore you. I'm just going to keep, that's really what I have to say. I guess moving forward, I would just ask that most of y'all are parents. I'm making an assumption there. I'm sorry. But please vote like this involves your child's school or your place of worship. Thank you.

Hacker Burr, followed by Lloyd Stewart.

Good evening. My name is Hacker Berg. I live at 1596 Headquarters Plantation Drive on Johns Island. I'm the interim head of school at Trident Academy, but I'm also a parent at the school, and so I'm really passionate about the impact that that school has on families and students. I've shared in past meetings some of my frustrations around process and pace and communication as it pertains to this issue. And I still don't really understand the motivations behind it or the haste act so quickly. We've been at a bunch of meetings. I haven't been at every single one, but I haven't seen one community member in all those meetings stand up and point out a positive or support this. So that's curious to me. I don't really want to focus on all that tonight. What I really want to focus on is legacy and respect. Colonel Myron Harrington spent 15 years building Trident Academy for the future. He was a strategic leader who understood that the land we own one day would be instrumental to the school's long-term strength and sustainability. The Denton's family shared that same commitment by donating the property to Trident. Both believe deeply in the school's mission and its ability to grow, adapt, and continue meeting the needs of children who learn differently. To honor Colonel Harrington's legacy and the intent behind the Dettins family gift, we're asking the town council to ensure Trident Academy retains our land rights so that we can serve children for generations to come, just as they would have wanted. I truly believe that if council members understood firsthand the difference that Trident Academy is making in the lives of students and families, they wouldn't want to do anything to hurt that school. um so it's my hope that we can slow down have constructive conversations and problem solve this together just the way we would recommend that our students do so i appreciate all that you all do and thank you for the time and one other thing anyone from trident academy please stand up there are thousands more of these people in this community and i just wanted to note that

Good evening. My name is Loy Stewart. I live at 1502 Mariner Place Drive. I'm the president of Denton Shipyards and the owner of Shipyard Park. Denton Shipyard was founded in 1962 on the Wando River where Shipyard Park is now. My family has lived, worked, and invested in Mount Pleasant for generations. I'm here tonight because I'm concerned about the proposed density restrictions on land my grandfather donated to Trident Academy. My grandfather, W.J. Dentons, donated this land more than 50 years ago because he believed in the school, he believed in its mission, and the children it serves. One of my sons was a beneficiary of his great-grandfather's vision. This gift was intended to strengthen Trident Academy and help secure its future. He gave Trident an asset with the freedom and property rights that came with it. We never expected that decades later, the town would restrict those rights and diminish the value of the land. My grandfather gave this property to provide options, stability, and a future, not so those options could later be taken away. Trident Academy has served this community for more than five decades. This community needs this school and the school needs this community. I understand the town's concerned about growth and density. I've grown up here my whole life. I graduated from school right here. I've watched Mount Pleasant change firsthand, but I respectfully ask that those very real concerns not be addressed at the expense of our schools and our churches. There are other ways to address growth, possibly start with land the town already owns before limiting the rights and value of property donated to institutions like Trident Academy. I respectfully ask you to honor the intent of my grandfather's gift and protect Trident Academy's future in Mount Pleasant. Thank you. Please don't applaud. Thank you.

I'm Julie Medich, and I'm the in-house counsel for Christ Our King. This is Jeff Tibbles, who's our outside counsel, so I'm going to cede my time to him.

Thank you, Julie. Good evening, Mayor Haney and members of council. My name is Jeff Tibbles. I'm with Bybee and Tibbles, 1100 Queensborough Boulevard, Suite 202.

I represent Christ Our King Catholic Church.

Christ Our King owns 13 parcels on Russell Street and Camellia Drive, the parish campus, the rectory, and Christ Our King Stella Maris School. Parish has served Mount Pleasant families for more than 70 years and we intend to be here for the next 70. I'm speaking as to item 8A2. I'll be brief because your own boards have done the work. On August 19th, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed zoning text amendment and asked staff to return with an alternative. On August 31st, a motion and planning committee to recommend approval failed for the lack of a second. Several of you have already said things that we think are right. I believe Council Member Whitaker said her intention was never to limit future uses on these properties. Council Member Crosby asked whether property rights could be preserved while addressing density. On the commission, Ms. Ireland and Chairman Bennett both said housing for clergy ought to be allowed. Those are the right questions and this draft doesn't answer them. As written, it would cap our campus at one residential unit per parcel, whatever that parcel size and anything more would take a comprehensive plan amendment. We're asking you not to adopt this ordinance, to change the zoning code to impose this additional restriction, and rethink the need. And if there is a need, Christ our King would like a seat at the table to discuss the impacts on its properties.

Thank you very much.

Hello, good evening. My name is Allison Pine. I live on 963 Warwick Oaks Lane off of Coolman Ave. I'm a parent of a child of a daughter at Chartered Academy. I'm also a parishioner of Christ Our King and I'm here tonight on the land rights. I'm really curious of what the council has done so far in terms of your analysis and the study that you've put into the individual financial outcomes of the schools, churches and nonprofits that you guys would be affecting on your decisions. I know that the process usually, correct me if I'm wrong, most any Town Council changes deserve a clear explanation of the public benefit, the consequences for all the affected owners, and I'm really asking why less restrictive alternatives would not accomplish the same goal that you guys are looking at in your study. I don't know if you've really thought about the impact that the individual impact has on our schools, the churches and the nonprofits. It definitely affects my own daughter. There's no other place in CCSD that she could go to. She is learning differences plus medical needs, and it's literally the only school. And your decision definitely affects many children around the community. Thank you.

Chad Martins, followed by Carla Pinkney.

Good evening, Mayor, members of the council, and town staff. My name is Chad Martins. I live at 3732 Oconee Loop in Carolina Park. and I'm a friend of Faison. Council has described this property as a blank tablet. I urge you tonight, do not put this land back up for sale to corporate real estate developers. Keep it in public hands and preserve it for the community. When the town purchased this property in 2021 for 6.5 million, it was funded primarily using federal relief ARPA funds from COVID times. These public ARPA funds were given to municipalities to invest in civic health, public infrastructure, and long-term community recovery, not to act as a commercial real estate speculator flipping land for short-term revenue. ARPA funds require local governments to follow strict federal eligibility, reporting, record keeping, and conflict of interest rules. Selling this land to commercial developer will only add more traffic, pressure our surrounding road networks, and permanently strip North Mount Pleasant of one of its last remaining major town owned green tracks. We don't need or want another giant concrete warehouse that sits empty on Faison Road becoming another eyesore to our community. Instead, look at what our residents actually want and need. Community surveys and outreach from local groups like Friends of Faison show overwhelming resident support for keeping this property public. I loved the idea of a community YMCA with biking distance, within biking distance of Carolina Park in five of our schools. That reduces traffic with biking or golf cart access. An all-in-one place community center like a YMCA will provide fitness, sports, early learning, summer camps, before and after school care, and many more youth programs that are lacking in our community today. With 38 acres, there should be enough surrounding green space around the YMCA for a public park, outdoor amphitheater for the arts. I urge you to consider the YMCA forensic phase-on suggestions. And once public land is sold to a developer, it is gone forever. You cannot buy back the 38 acres in Mount Pleasant once concrete is poured. Thank you. Please reconsider. Appreciate it.

Good evening, Mayor Haney, Town of Mount Pleasant Town Council, and Mount Pleasant Town Council staff. My name is Karla Pitney. My address is 3768 Robbie Glover Road, Alwindaw, South Carolina. I was born and raised here, east of the Cooper. I am standing here tonight on behalf of the Ten Mile community and the other Gullah Geechee communities east of the Cooper. We are asking the Town of Mount Pleasant Council to extend the temporary moratorium on the acceptance and processing of major subdivision applications in Charleston County Historic Districts. The benefit of this moratorium is it will allow a pause on large-scale residential subdivisions, provide time to plan for long-term safeguards, and it will assist with the preservation of cultural communities founded after the Civil War. This moratorium will allow each community time to protect their respective settlement communities from overdevelopment. Thank you for your time and attention tonight.

That's all I have signed up, Mr. Mayor.

Is there anyone who didn't have the opportunity to sign?

Kevin Kinane, 3032 River Vista Way. I'm here tonight. We have the 25th anniversary of 9-11 this week. I'm a responder with the FDNY. I have survived 25 years. One of the things I've done for about the last decade is to come here and let my elected officials know that if you do nothing for the fire department and the police department 364 days a year, you should do nothing on 9-11 day. Some people smartly took the advice. You had a moment of silence tonight that was very nice. Silence is perfect when you're silent the rest of the year. Don't grandstand on 9-11. Okay, when I get a five-word response to an email, I'm not gonna call anyone out, but I send email accounts, I get one five-word response, thanks for letting me know, and then their name. That's the response I get after a fatal fire in my neighborhood, because nobody cares about the fire department on the Mount Pleasant Town Council. Not many care about the police department. If you're one of those who cares about neither, don't pretend you care one day a year. If I asked my neighbors to stand up if they agree, I think everybody would. But I'm not going to. It's the height of hypocrisy. He goes for a Facebook post, Twitter, showing up at something as if you care one day a year. And you can follow what's going on around the country. The mayor of New York is worse. I mean, some of you might be on his team. I don't know. But he's worse, and he'd be told not to show up. That's, I think, advisable. Can you show up? Certainly. But so can we say something about it. And we're into the hundreds of people like me are connected to this event. So... That's that part of it. As far as face on road, I think you should look at something called the Beach House that Father Spencer had a big part in building at Christo King. It's used for seniors during the day and children at night. So it's one facility. It covers all ages. It's easy enough to put something like that and cover two bases. You could contract that and let the YMCA build it and say we want seniors for a certain time frame, you know, during school hours or whatever. Everybody knows the benefits of senior center that we have over here, which covers the beaches, and our residents have to drive, you know, 10, 12 miles, and nobody seems to care. I think it's time we start to care. Thank you.

All right. If there are no others, that will conclude public comment. Item seven is consent agenda items. There are no consent agenda items. This moves us to section eight, planning new business. Mrs. Reid, please.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is an ordinance for a temporary moratorium on the acceptance, processing, or granting final approval of applications, permits, and other requests for data centers. With that, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Pavarini. I think he's been working on an ordinance.

And that definition comes from the proposed state that has identified primary issues related to the centers so that we can make certain that no other smaller businesses

Move to approve.

Second.

All right. We're in discussion. Mr. Paglumini, a quick question because I'm sure everybody out there hasn't read this. We heard from Mount Pleasant Water Works that what the people of South Carolina don't want and what we certainly don't want in Mount Pleasant is what's called a hyperscale data center. Also heard today from Mount Pleasant Water Works, which Mr. Rambo and I have served as commissioners together for eight years, that Mount Pleasant Water Works has a data center. It's a area that's there, it doesn't use any water, it doesn't use any electricity. So I want people to understand and hear that we are in a capacity use area for groundwater. which means that any organization, any business, anything in this area, east of the Cooper, from which Mount Pleasant Water Works gets more than half its water, has to get a permit from the state if they use more than three million gallons a month. Not a day, but a month, which is a very small amount for this type thing. The chances of that happening are zero. for that getting permitted. And then someone could say, that's from the Charleston Aquifer. And then someone could say, well, what about going down to the Grambling Aquifer, which Mount Pleasant Water Works is doing now to secure our water supply for the next 100 years. That is costing between 18 and $20 million from Mount Pleasant Water Works to go to the next deeper aquifer, which is about a thousand feet lower than the one that we all get our drinking water from. So I don't want hyper, I know what the public and what I don't want is hyperscale data centers. And if we're gonna do a moratorium, we've already got a motion to approve this. How do we know that we are not making non-compliant the data centers that we already have that bear no resemblance at all to the ones that are always in the news that nobody wants?

There are several parts to that, Mayor. First is this is not going to affect any operations that are currently in effect. It would only be for new development. So that's the first part of it. Second, the definition is provided by the state. Remember, it has to be the primary business. And it has to be on such a large scale that it would meet the energy requirements as proposed in this definition. So I think there's, at least in drafting this, there's

very little to no concern that any that anyone else other than these major data centers would be affected by this ordinance but since we don't have the land we don't they can't get water and we don't have the electricity isn't this kind of like having an avalanche preparation for mount pleasant i mean that's not going to happen in mount pleasant either

So from a realistic standpoint, Mayor, it is unlikely, but this is to protect council and our members of our public while council debates potential changes to our ordinance.

I would just like to ask those that are very supportive of this why we're passing something that's not, I mean, it can't happen in the state, even a firm that nobody has ever looked at putting one in the town of Mount Pleasant.

I'll be happy to answer that as the sort of the originator of this process, Mr. Mayor. It really started with a question of how does our zoning code treat this? And there are certain zoning designations that allow data centers by right with no public process whatsoever. I agree with you that it's unlikely. However, we are going to see a lot of changes, I think, in the Long Point Road area with the new entrance to the port. There are large warehouses in that area. And this is merely an effort to be proactive so that we're not finding ourselves in the headlines like some other areas of our state where a data center is proposed and approved without a public process.

Are those warehouses large enough to house this and they still would not have water? That's my point. If they can't happen, I mean, why are we chasing a boogeyman that doesn't exist?

I take your point on that. And like I said, it's unlikely, but I think that we will regret the fact that our zoning code treats it the way that it is. I can't speak for Mount Pleasant Water Works. That's more your capacity as a board member, but it's merely meant as a safeguard for our community to prevent something that, while unlikely, would impact a great deal of our citizenry.

Yes, sir. Mr. Chapman.

Mayor, I had the privilege of attending a seminar given at the Municipal Association meeting, specifically talking about data centers. There is one in the process of going in Dorchester County right now. And there was some very good discussion, and discussion on both sides, both from the data center individuals there representing that data center, as well as the Dorchester County Public Works personnel, as well as Dorchester County Administrator. The idea of this resolution or moratorium for a short period is for us to get more information. I agree with Councilmember Brownstein. I don't think it's very likely that we're going to get a data center in the town of Mount Pleasant, but I'd rather be positive in knowing that With the ordinances, we would have in effect then to have something happen where we were caught off guard. So this is not a very lengthy time. It's not a lengthy ordinance. I would just suggest that it's something to get the ball rolling for us to make sure we have the necessary ordinance in place that would stop it. And I remember very well participating in the Council of Government meeting when I did not at the time work for the town of Mount Pleasant. But it dealt specifically with why the town of Mount Pleasant had to reduce the amount of water that was eligible. And we don't want to have that happen again. That's why I voted and I was very glad to make the motion that we have our Mount Pleasant waterworks start going into the ground and getting a better opportunity for bringing water to us. But until we get all of that done, I think this small moratorium, a short moratorium, gives us the ability to do whatever we need to do with our ordinance to make sure we don't have that problem with a large data center or hyper data center coming in here.

Yes, sir. Mr. Tinkey.

And then Mr. Ikefong.

At the committee meetings,

We were addressed by Mount Pleasant Water Works in the question that you asked before about how they would or would not be affected. Jake, you mentioned it too. They're planning on building one, and they're planning on building one with solar for the very reason that they need to process the water because they've been restricted from the water they could have from Charleston County. So they're doing it as a defensive mode, but they're not going to be using the water they're actually going to be very efficient in how they go about it. And we're blessed that they're doing it. But they had to put a bond forward to do it because of the data centers north of us and the rest. So I would just like to make sure whatever we do protects people like Mount Pleasant Water Works that are doing the right thing without the large-scale use of water and energy that the AI data centers are not doing. So for that reason, if we can investigate that, but for the purposes of this motion, I'd like to make sure we're not in some way impeding that as they come forward to get permits. because that could happen perhaps with this. And so I think we want to look at the wording. Second is, I don't want to be redundant. The state has taken this up, the General Assembly in their next session. And so their next session, it's high on the agenda. So we want to be very careful about, I think the moratorium is great, but I think we need to make sure we don't start doing some laws and adopting laws and ordinances, and then the state come and do something else. So we want to be careful about Being redundant, so I think it the timeline 120 is good, but why not do it and and coincide with the General Assembly, so we work in lockstep with the state on doing the right thing as far as data centers. Mr. Icafano is next, and then Mr.

Thank you. So this is going to go back to planning, and planning will have enough time to get this back for a second reading within the 120 days, because this is going to go to planning to redo the ordinance. Is that? Because we'll have to have a second reading on that.

on zoning if approved this would take if approved on final reading and 120 days from that standpoint from that point okay and then again if it comes to council if any ordinances come to council Council has the authority to adopt a pending ordinance restriction at that point.

So I do have a legal question then. Can, let's say this gets approved tonight, can planning still start discussing it in planning committee ahead of the

final vote yes to speed things up because 120 days is a tight window when you have two more readings that's going to take 60. so if it stayed on track if approved tonight it would go to council for final reading in october correct in the interim planning committee

can take they can take any action and move proposals forward to uh planning commission consideration um i'm glad to hear that it's not we've got roper saint francis being built right over here there's a lot of data centers in these buildings so as long as we're not affecting things like that thank you

Mr. Rambo. So I hear all the comments on like redundancy. To me, redundancy in this sort of context is a good thing because it's additional safeguards in place. Do I think one would ever happen in Mount Pleasant? No, but just in case. I would like to ban them. And so I'm good with it. It's like getting on a roller coaster and they have like the shoulder things, but then you also have a seatbelt. Like redundancy can keep you safe. And also on second reading, I would like to make it a year. But that's just me.

i was just going to say that this is something that we didn't address at this level when we did the uh our zoning code rewrite you know technology changes all the time so i don't see a harm in us reviewing and um making sure that we're covering ourselves in this i don't find Mount Pleasant is a great place for them to put something like this. It would be real expensive, but I don't see a harm in us addressing it and just being proactive on it.

So one of the questions in a veteran of at least one moratorium here is you've got to get to the point where you feel that the moratorium can then be lifted. And we all know in today's social media, what I like to call fomentum, then you're voting to remove the moratorium and you're sending the signal that hyperscale data centers are okay. So I strongly support maybe a text amendment changing our zoning code, that type thing. I think that the... The moratorium is window dressing. It's an empty gesture because we know they cannot do a hyperscale data center without the water and they cannot get the water. And to Mr. Chapman's point, they cut Mount Pleasance draw from the aquifer by 36% so that Google could get theirs, they're not going to cut Mount Pleasance again. So I'm a no vote on this because I think it's a totally unnecessary empty gesture. And I'm a little surprised that a lot of folks up here who are always talking about government overreach are backing that. But that's okay. We'll end up at the same place with a zoning code that does not allow hyperscale data centers. All right. Yes.

Yeah. In addition to what you said, Mayor, I agree with you about the additional groundwater withdrawal permit that would be necessary and wouldn't be granted if there was one. But there's not one. I just wanted to reiterate that DES has said no one is interested in siting here. Our own planning staff has said they have concerns. No, you know, inquiries from anyone. We have asked Planning Commission to look at the three zoning districts where the uses are currently allowed. So, again, I appreciate my council members' perspectives, but agree and think it's unnecessary and excessive to do this moratorium. So, we'll be letting you know as well.

Any other comments? All right. So, the motion is, let's see, let me get back to approve. And... I guess we can do this by a roll call, or would you, I mean, by a show of hands? All right. All in favor of the motion to approve, please say aye. Aye. All opposed?

No.

All right. So the motion carries 7-2. Two notes. Ms. Whitaker?

First reading, ordinance number 26045.

Okay. Moving on, this is first reading for an ordinance to amend the zoning code. This is not a rezoning, but it is a proposed.

Move to deny. I'd like to move to defer this item. To defer? To get more public input.

Second.

This is my move to deny quicker. She had the floor. She has recognized.

She also chairs the committee that came from it. Okay, so the motion is to defer item two, right? First reading of the established density provisions. Yes. Move to defer. To defer. You still have a four.

It came to committee and commission had a four and four. They only had eight members. So when they first voted on this, it was a tie. So it didn't pass. But they really asked for more ideas and information. And I've never really felt that where we're going with this is what we're really trying to accomplish. And this is not about rezoning property. This is about addressing something that the town's been doing for decades.

So We just need to have a whole lot more public input and more conversation about it before we move forward So I believe that this can be taken up in the next comprehensive plan future land use map So for me, my vote is going to be no for deferral. And if that does not pass, then I will be going with my motion to deny afterwards.

Mr. Chapman. Mayor and members of council, when this first came up, there was a lot of discussion among ourselves as to how this should be presented to the Mount Pleasant community. And I think we're still there. Where should it be presented? And I definitely agree with Councilmember Icafano about it going back to the comprehensive plan whenever it comes back to us. And I say that because We already have a church that has come to us with a plan which I have voted for and I think is a very good plan for housing on their property, which also is good for our friends who need a little help for a house. So I think we also have potential for some other churches and or schools that could come to us individually with what we have on the books today to do something with their property and we then could review it and see whether or not it has an inappropriate impact on the surroundings or whether it's a good thing like the church that's putting in attainable housing So I'm going to vote with the motion to defer, but eventually I think it needs to hold off until the next comprehensive plan and then see what we want to do with it.

There's a couple things, three or four things I want to comment on. we were asked what studies has the town done on this? What the town did on this was not a one year, but a two year process. for the comprehensive plan because it was during COVID, we formed a commission of 40, was it 40 sitting members of residents of this town from all over the town, went through a long, laborious public process, put everything up, all the maps, the future use map, all of that, future land use map up. And at the time, that document had more hours of public hearing, more public input, and more citizens. Most of our boards and commissions are eight or nine members. This was 40 people. And then we extended it a year. So if somebody asked what studies have we done, we asked the town. We asked them to do this during the designated as required time for a comprehensive plan. So when I hear let's put all this off to the next one, why put it off to the next one? We already did the one and the future is here. This is the future use that they were talking about. The future use plan is is now. Is there a clear explanation? Somebody asked for a clear explanation. That is it. We asked the citizens of Mount Pleasant. We did all of that a unanimous in 2020 unanimous vote by this council to pass that comprehensive plan. The public input I already mentioned was by the hundreds. And in 2016, when a developer wanted to put houses on the fields behind Trident Academy, which is what spurred all this tonight. I don't know who was there. I don't know which of your board members were part of this community at the time. The community came out. What was the seating capacity in the old town hall? 150? Okay, it was packed. And they were all against this. So I'm asking Triton Academy tonight, please hold a public meeting with your neighborhood. If they're good with it, I think it's fine. But if they're not, like they weren't 10 years ago, you're going to see what we got 10 years ago. And it's not pretty. And somebody asked, well, what started this? What problem are we trying to solve? We had three properties come to us at one time, one in Park West. The knowledge of this one, I don't know if there was a formal application, but the discussion was there. And then the soccer fields and everybody wanted to develop it. So we said, why is our zoning not matching our future land use map? So I'm a yes on deferring this because we've got to find a balance here. I agree. We don't want to devalue everybody's property, but we've got to find the right way to match our duty to our citizens. And we love Christ our King and we love Trident Academy, but our duty is to represent our citizens. And when they do a document and present it to us and we pass it with amendments and all that, we usually work for it. And I don't see any reason to kick this down the road when this process was done in 2019 and 2020. So this doesn't mean we're going to do a draconian rezoning, but I think the deferral respects that process, respects the input that we got from our citizens when we asked for it, and see if we can work with each one. A remark I heard this week as we discussed this, none of these properties were hurt by that process that we followed for 40 years, where we look at these on a case-by-case basis. So let's just take it back. find a way to build those protections in there. And I think we can all, you know, help these, help them and help the people we represent as well.

Yes, sir. Is it the current code to take the properties one by one right now? When there's an application, like we did. Not take, I apologize. We're not taking your property. To hear the individual properties in the current ordinance right now? No, they don't have to go before council.

If it's, so our current residential density used to be regulated for about a 10 year period. It was regulated by the comp plan. And I have the history here. So before 2014, you had a table in the zoning code that gave you your zoning districts and it told you your density. In 2014, it removed the zoning and it just referenced the comp plan. So if my zoning was residential, but the comp plan said I was recommended for community facilities, you had to amend the comp plan. when we redid the code in 2025, so this is what it looked like after the 2014 amendment. There was no zoning in there. So in 2025, when we redid the zoning code, we put it back in the zoning. And so this would put it back in the comp plan the way it was for that time period. And so essentially what it says is if you're zoned, for residential, but the future land use recommends a community facility. And it's not just churches or schools. There's town properties that are included in that. There's utilities, there's libraries, there's an airport. So it's a whole host of properties. There's like 83 of them. But if the comp plan recommends community facilities, then the zoning does not confer that residential density. You have to amend the comp plan so that you're given your density. So that's what's proposed. So right now, if that is the case, under the current code, if I'm residential but the comp plan calls for community facilities, I can develop it in accordance with the zoning and if the planning commission approves a sketch plan and all those other things. What this would do is put it back into the hands of council. So zoning would not confer the right of density. It would be in the comp plan and town council would approve a comp plan amendment to confer that right. Does that make sense?

I'm sorry. So everybody that's here right now, would have to come to council for approval to do that because they're planned as, they're shown as a community facility on the land use. So they have to come to us.

Correct. Well, no, no, they don't now. Because in 2025, when we redid the zoning code, we put density back out of the comp plan and back in the zoning code. So that if I'm zoned R1, my density is three units an acre. If this goes through and gets final reading, it would go back to the old way of doing things. So right now, they do not have to come before council unless they want to rezone their property. Or do a planned development.

Yeah, the only reason we saw Life Park is because they requested rezoning. If they'd already had residential zoning, they wouldn't have had to come before us currently.

That's correct. Did anybody that voted when we voted in 2025 on the zoning think or think we were changing that process?

I don't remember it being mentioned.

Okay.

Okay. Does anybody remember having that? I'm not saying that it's not in there, but I don't remember that ever being discussed.

Yes, sir. We didn't have discussion. So prior to 2025, if they had the public institutional and the underlying zoning was R1, R2, and they were following that, did they have to come through the process to get approval or discussion?

What, when?

Well, prior to 2025.

Prior to 2025. Yeah. So from 2014 to 2025, if you had a property zoned residential, but it was recommended for community facilities, you couldn't develop residential. You had to come get a future land use map amendment through town council.

But you could end up doing it. You just have to go to council.

You just had to get council approval. That's correct.

Let me make a comment. To me, this is all about property rights. And it's property rights for the churches, the schools, the recreation facilities. But it's also property rights for the citizens. And the citizens make up a larger group. They are the parishioners, they are the students, they are the parents, they are the teachers. And so this is a delicate balance because schools and churches and recreation facilities are some of the first things that you look for when you purchase a piece of property. It's the thing that helps you understand if your child can ride the bike to school, if you'll feel safe going back into the church and recreation. So it's important that the community gets to weigh in on it, too. So I think deferring is a good idea just because I think if you study land use and you take a school or a church or a recreation area out of a community, it devalues the property by up to 30%. And a lot of people have been spending a lot of money to buy their houses these days. So I think we need to take a little more time and just make sure we do not take away the rights of the schools, the churches, and the rest, but we also balance that with the need of the community at large.

the point needs to be made too that we also make other decisions based on looking at zoning and current maps and those type things and if we think something is one thing or a public institution and we approve a few units for something they are thinking it's not going to harm anything there's you know council voted i was a no vote but council voted for was it 50 units in park west um what if you know then then the success of that starts a chain reaction and every public institution zoning thing wants to become what that one was so it's this thing i you know it doesn't i mean my heart is with i ran non-profits for 20 years my heart's with the schools and all that but in in this position we have to we we have to be able when we're planning the future of this town and we have a future land use map, we have to have some say so when those things change. And it doesn't mean they won't get it, but it means they got to work. We've got to work together. And I think we can do that by deferring this. Yes, Mr. Brown.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I've been reluctant from the beginning on this. I think it opens a can of worms for nonprofits, schools, churches, community facilities that are legally operating under the zoning that they have. What I heard from the Planning Commission was to go back to the drawing board, and so I'm not sure resurrecting this same proposal after sending it back to committee is going to get us anywhere different than we are here today. I really feel for the churches and schools. I don't want to get in the middle of y'all being able to carry out your missions. And so, you know, I'd prefer that we just kind of end this tonight and start with, I guess, a blank slate at planning committee if that's where it goes. So I'll be a no vote on the deferral in hopes that we can get to a motion to deny and just stop kind of stringing people along.

Anyone else just Sir yeah since planning is here and since you made the motion to defer and since the property owners are here we have any kind of game plan at all. When it goes back to planning Commission and so we can let the public hear what the game plan is. Do we know.

Well, I mean, the point is to get more public input and more information from staff. I've gone back to 1982. And what we had originally started our conversation with was to reinstate what we've done for decades. We just want to go back further in how our zoning has functioned over the years and see what we could come up with that's a nice compromise that takes everybody into account. I know people are here. They feel like they want to defend their schools and churches, and that's really not what we want to focus on. But the way things stand now, I think they're less protected. passed our last zoning code we didn't realize we took ourselves out of the conversation and really we're here to protect the rights of the citizens and that's just what we want to do and the property owners so there's a balance between the two and it doesn't mean that we wouldn't approve projects we've just approved three in the last few months so it's just a matter we're the voice of the citizens and so it's a matter of leaving us in the conversation and and to make sure we're representing the citizens in the best Mount Pleasant. So we want to protect those facilities and the rights of everybody the best way we can. We want to look at how we can do that better than what we have in place right now doesn't protect those properties at all. They could be sold tomorrow to a developer and the schools would be gone and the churches would be gone. So, we're not talking about rezoning them. We're talking about just to vote a council and a review of any proposals that come up. So.

All right. So, the motion is to defer. It will go back to the committee. Would you call the roll please, Madam?

Mr. Tinky.

Yes.

Mr. Tinky votes yes. Ms. Whitaker. No. Ms. Whitaker votes no. Mr. Brownstein. No. Mr. Brownstein votes no. Mr. Chapman. Yes. Mr. Chapman votes yes. Ms. Crosby.

Yes.

Ms. Crosby votes yes. Ms. Hyatt.

Yes.

Ms. Hyatt votes yes. Mr. Iacofano.

No.

Mr. Iacofano votes no. Mr. Rambo.

Yes.

Mr. Rambo votes yes. Mayor Haney.

Yes.

Mayor Haney votes yes.

If I go to six to three, the motion to defer carries. All right, this moves us to item number three, which is a first reading on Oyster Park.

Move to deny.

We have a motion to deny and a second. Do we need to wait a minute? Ms. Hyatt was.

You made the motion, you have the floor. So we already gave this developer and this development more height several years ago. They don't need, and there was lots of community feedback from the neighbors who were very concerned about that. We were promised that this was like the last amendment. Now they're coming back for more height and I just don't feel like it's appropriate or necessary. without getting into how some of these local tenants are being treated by their landlords. So, not a fan.

All right, the motion is to deny. Yes, Mr. Chapman.

Ms. Reed, could you explain... why planning commission recommended approval on this and why the planning committee recommended approval on this?

Yes, sir. So just to go through some real brief history, this was all developed into the urban corridor overlays, overlay district. So it was zoned area wide business. When the overlay district was repealed in 2016, Much of it was non-conforming. At that time in 2021, it became a planned development. The purpose of the PD was to bring it into compliance with how it was developed under the urban corridor overlay district so that it was not non-conforming. Part of that 21 amendment was to include a height map. And if you think about this is the old by-low along here. And when it was originally approved for the 48 foot height, it did not include West Marine, which is along that area. And so what they are before tonight asking is that you would also approve this little jog out here at the same 48 feet. That would bring all of this back at the same distance from New Parish Village. And so right now. From structure to structure, it's about, I think, 45 to 50 feet. This would push it back 120 feet, and it would bring that all into the same height requirement of 48 feet. And so that's the request before you. And I think the Planning Commission, they took into consideration the distance right now that there is. And that it would, they were going up three feet in height, but they were pushing it further away from the neighboring residential structure. And you can kind of see it there. And this is the 2021 plan that was approved. And so you can see West Marine here. is still there and then so it's really bringing it in line with the the already approved 48 feet so all of that would be demolished and then rebuilt in that footprint that was approved and so the request is to do the 48 feet right here to match the rest of that And that's the only request before you tonight. And so the planning commission recommended approval and then planning committee also recommended approval.

Yeah, I'll just say to reiterate, Mr. Chapman, because I think it's a good question. You know, what was compelling to me was the further setback of the 120 feet separation from that neighborhood. I think that's meaningful. And to make it consistent, you know, that's that's the request. So I was in favor of it on the planning committee and will be tonight as well.

If we deny the what is our height?

The height would be 48 and 45.

So it's a three-foot difference?

Yeah, let me go back just a minute. But they would move it further back?

Yeah, further back. And it would be symmetrical?

So this is the current height map. This is the proposed height map. You can see that.

Do we know what's going on with their plans because West Marine just closed most of their stores in South Carolina?

This one as well. Yeah. So, um, I, it, it sat for a while, but I think they're, they're going to start working on it and they're kind of waiting to see what happens in this process.

Yes, sir. Is that your hand? Okay.

I got a lot of public comment on the, uh, stormwater pond and the, uh, trees. that are underneath the right side, if you could, well, point where the lagoon is or the stormwater pond.

The existing pond is right, the little pond right there.

So I was very interested in that, too, because it's a wonderful green space and seemed like it'd be perfect to keep. The problem is, in 2021, they got permission to do it, so they have vested rights on that. And so it can be built. They just have to do the stormwater some other place. So that was an easy answer when I saw that it was already approved.

Yes, sir. That was approved as part of the 2021 plan. And I think part of the problem was that pond over years has lost storage volume. And so what they'll have to do is put in a second detention, underground detention facility, which will actually increase their capacity. Right now, it drains back here into New Parish Village. But they'll have to meet. Because they're proposing to fill that pond in, they're going to have to meet it through an underground detention facility.

Mrs. Reed, what's the net addition or reduction of square footage by this change?

There's no change with this. They're already approved with a certain square footage.

What is the addition of that square footage?

This particular square? I don't have that one. It's going to be smaller, I think, than the West Marine because it's going to But they're maxed out. They have a max overall of what they're allowed to do. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am.

Yeah. I think you were saying that it's allowed 45 and this is 48. Isn't it 35 right now at West Marine? Hold on. That green map is saying it's 35.

You're right. Yes, ma'am. Yep.

Okay. When you said 45, I was like, wait a minute. Yeah. Okay. Okay.

All right. Any others? All right. The motion is to deny. So all in favor of the motion to deny, please say aye.

Aye. All opposed? No. Can the no's raise your hand? What was it?

One, two, two or three? Three. Okay. So six, three. The motion to deny carries. All right. This takes us to item four. Move to deny. Second.

Second.

All right. Is there any discussion on item four? All in favor of the motion to deny, please say aye. Aye. That rhymes then. All opposed? Motion carries unanimously. All right. Item five is this is on Joe Bryant Court, a rezoning to AB1.

Yes, sir. When the PD for the retail village was denied, this property right here came in as R1, and the request before you is to make it AB1, which matches the rest of the development.

Move to approve.

Second. Okay.

Is there any discussion? All right. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. First reading, ordinance number 26049. Item number six, please. Another rezoning to neighborhood commercial.

Yes, sir. This is a small parcel in between the Christ Arching parking and commercial on the corner. Move to approve.

All right. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? What? Yes, sir.

I didn't miss the point. What's the purpose of this or who is trying to do what with this?

They want to rezone it from residential to neighborhood commercial too, which is what it's recommended for in the comp plan. And it sits between commercial and a parking lot, so it's really not conducive to residential.

So is it currently undeveloped or is there currently residents?

No, there's an old residence on there, yeah.

And do we have any idea what the future use of this site is?

We do not. I know that in C2 you're allowed to do office, retail, no drive-thru, and whatever they propose to do, obviously they have to meet the parking, so that would be the challenge we have. Yes, ma'am. R2.

R2. Not a great place for a residential.

Yeah.

All right. Any other discussion? All in favor of the motion to approve, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.

First reading, ordinance number 26050.

Another rezoning, area-wide business.

All right, this is a proposal to rezone from planned development to AB1. These are the two properties here, and just, they are zoned PD. A little bit of history, they were part of a larger Jordan tract, which eventually was sold off and became ION. other properties were sold off and became area-wide business and these are the last two remaining this pd is a little bit like patriots annex where it was zoned pd but there were never any development standards and so these properties sit with no development standards no allowed uses or anything like that and so the proposal is just to rezone them to ab1 which matches the surrounding areas you can see here

Move to approve.

Second. All right. We have a motion to approve and a second. Yes, sir. Mr. Rambo.

Both of those are undeveloped?

That's correct.

So tell me more about there was no development standard. So that means there's no building rights.

Huh? That's a good question.

You could argue there's no building rights or they could build anything. Or they could build anything. Yeah. Got it.

I like the first argument.

We mentioned that there would be required buffers in that. Yes, ma'am. So you might mention that to them as well.

Yeah, they are heavily wooded. I don't know what they have, but they'll have to do tree surveys. They'll have to go through DRB and get approval. And they'll be required to maintain buffers. And they'll be required to do 160 inches per acre. So they're going to have to maintain a lot of that. And they're going to have a lot to work around. So it'll be challenging.

Yes, sir.

Could they not come to us for a PD amendment? And then we would have...

say an approval of what they want to do i mean would that not be a better route than blanket zoning hey that's policy decision based on the future land map for council but yes they could do that um keep in mind and if you remember years ago before the south carolina local government comprehensive planning act came in in the 90s there were pds that were drafted like this that really had no no map nothing to tie it to so if it could happen it would be a long process to do that and if that's council's preference that's what they would have to do okay all right is the one right there between the two that ab1 is that the cvs okay

Yeah, that was, and that was part of it. You can see here. So that went away. Then Shelmore Village, then that one. So you're left with the two there.

If we leave it as PD, does that mean that it's much harder to develop?

I think if we do that, it leads to the greater potential of dispute as to how to develop, whether that means more difficult to develop depends on what is intended to be developed. Are you a lawyer?

I'm not sure.

I don't mean to be vague about it. I think it depends on what's going to be developed. It depends on whether it's disputed by the town as to whether council and staff dispute.

Disputed as what would be allowed in the PD. Correct, sir. Okay.

So in that vein, definitive may be better than non-definitive.

Okay. I might be more comfortable with it staying in the PD.

anyone else all right the motion is to approve i just have one i'm sorry yes sir i think i think the issue is is you may be looking at the at the current council and saying you'd be comfortable with the pda but we don't know what the next councils are and that which may be why it needs to be definitive well how about we have an election next year

any other comments all right all in favor of the motion to approve please say aye aye all opposed no no how many notes are you enough so five four it passes first reading ordinance number two six zero five one all right old business

This is final reading to rezone 913 Bowman Road to AB1 from Office Professional.

Motion to approve. Second.

Okay. Motion to second, Ms. Chapman. Unless one of the... Did you have the floor first? No, I'm good. Okay. Ms. Chapman.

Mayor, back when the hospital was getting ready to be built in the early 80s off of Bowman Road, it just so happens that a fast food restaurant named G.D. Ritzy's came to town and got Joel Ford, the planning director at the time, to think that that was a good idea. And unfortunately, he convinced five members of council that it was a good idea to have a fast food restaurant at the corner of Bowman, on the office professional side of Bowman Road, to be AB, which is why we've got Arby's there today. I didn't think it was good at that time, and then I was working with Mayor Dodds to help get the hospital there where it is today, or where it was at that time, let's put it that way. There are a number of office professional sites on both sides of Bowman Road. Today, most of them are doctor's offices or offices that specifically work with doctors. Unfortunately, I was not successful when we got the coffee shop built because the hospital decided they were going to sell that property. I don't think we liken it now any better than we did then because the traffic has substantially increased. The purpose for this rezoning is to put some type of a grocery store on this site. That's why it's being requested for area-wide business. Again, you've got office professional behind it. You've got a foot doctor's office on the US 17 side. And I'm concerned if we allow this AB1 from a former pharmacy that we're doing something similar to what we did with GD Ritzy's at the corner of Bowman Road and US 17. So I'm going to be a no on this. And I don't think it's proper. to get it to area-wide business when we've got all these doctors, office businesses, office buildings there on both sides of Bowman Road. And behind the hospitals, you've got a neighborhood. And so I'm going to be a no vote. And I really don't think it needs to go to area-wide business.

Any other comments? All right, the motion on this one on 913 is to approve. So all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? No. All right, the noes. We're trying to avoid roll calls tonight. Is this four? Okay, another famous 5-4 vote.

All right, motion carries.

Final reading, ordinance number 26041.

I'm told that items number two and three, they're requesting a defer.

Move to defer both items.

Second. All right. All in favor of the motion to defer items two and three, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carried. Item four.

Move to approve.

This is the moratorium on subdivisions to match the counties that has to do with historic district.

What did the county do? Because I know that's why we held it. Yes, sir.

It was deferred to see what the county did. So they had final hearing on the 21st and they did extend it for two years, but they extended it for only one year for 10 mile and then they excluded the Tisdale properties.

I'd like to make a motion for our ordinance to reflect what was passed by Charleston County Council. Second.

I'd like to make a motion on page 3 of 7.

Hang on, I can only deal with one motion at a time. Just to... So the county moratorium is for two years? Yes, sir. Does ours, I'm not, I don't have all the wording in front of me, does ours already not tie into the county's?

I think it's a blanket two-year, correct?

Ours paralleled their original. Right, yeah. And theirs expired, and now ours is expired. Right. And so if we just readopted what we had, it would be another two years, but it would not mirror exactly what the county adopted. Okay.

Second question. So, this would be an amendment to coincide with county?

So, essentially, yeah. So, it's exactly like the county. So, there's not an incentive for them to jurisdiction shop.

Okay. How about we say that the timing coincide with that of the moratorium by Charleston County? Yes, that's correct. Okay. All right. So, that's the motion of the amendment. Is there a second to the amendment? I second it. All right. Any discussion on the amendment?

I just have a question. What is the Mr. Tisdale's properties?

Yeah, I tried to track those down and I didn't get very far, but there are a few properties. It's a, he owns a couple of properties and he petitioned the County to not be included. He was in their historic, but I think he was in the original historic overlay, but since they've been going through the whole 10 mile overlay zoning, he has since been excluded from everything and they have honored his wishes. And so he owns maybe two adjacent properties back off of Highway 17. And they've just honored his wishes to exclude those properties.

The description given to me was that he sort of got in at the ground floor and has been exempt this whole time based on the timing of when he got involved.

That's from the county. So is the area historic or not? Right.

I mean, this is silly. No, not in the town. That's just the description from county council.

Okay. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Hyatt, you have the floor.

Your motion is just to follow their timeline or every detail about it?

Yeah, just the timeline.

Okay, because they still have excluded 10 miles, and we wanted to include them, didn't we?

Well, they included a moratorium on 10 Mile, but only for one year, whereas all the other districts are two years. And Mr. Tisdale's property sits within the 10 Mile as well, for reference, but yes. So that was the main difference.

And if I may make a point, the whole reason we did this was so that they coincide. Were you not following that? If it's one year, it's one year. If it's two years, it's two years.

Were you not following that one year on that? That's what I thought you were saying.

Yes, that's the basis of my motion to amend was that our timelines mirror the county's time. Oh, the full time. Okay. So the two and the one. Okay.

Yeah, I did second that. Okay. That's true. All right, Mr. Rambo.

I'm just still confused why one person gets to say their properties don't get included. Did everybody get polled to see if they wanted their properties included? I mean, what the heck?

That's not in the town of Mount Pleasant, so I'm ruling you out of order.

That's why when y'all talk so highly favorable about county council, you know, just saying.

No, just in the wording of the ordinance, it says, whereas county... Charleston County is considering, I just would add past instead of whereas Charleston County is considering, that's page three of the ordinance 26039, just a scribbles error.

Okay, thank you. I promise I've been paying attention to all this, but I'm confused about the one year for 10 mile instead of two years. So what did the county say about only doing one year for 10 mile?

I believe it's because they're further along in the process of developing their historic guidelines.

That character appraisal we were talking about, for me, I would like to be consistent in our protection.

But the reason for this is so that people don't come into the town to get out of the counties. And as long as they coincide, we can do all that. But for the sake of final reading, let's coincide with what they did. All right. So the motion, we are on the amendment to coincide with what Charleston County passed for these. So all in favor?

I have one more question. I'm sorry. So does our map include that one guy's properties? Like if you were to request it requested annexation to are we preventing it?

If we did not amend the forum shopping question, I'm not sure it's of concern because our restrictions without an amendment are greater than what the county has offered, meaning it's a longer moratorium as it relates to 10 mile. We are not accepting a property. It's highly unlikely that Any of those that fit in that category would come to the town because we have more restrictions without the amendment.

Why would he come in the town if he's exempted from the counties?

Well, they wouldn't. So I'm not sure the concern of there being a forum shopping to come into the town is reasonable given that, as currently stated, we're more restrictive. Got it.

Okay, we're still on the amendment.

All in favor of the amendment that coincides our moratorium with the Charleston counties, whichever it may be for whichever one, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay. Now we are on the, as amended, we are on the final ordinance. Is there any more discussion? All in favor of the motion to approve, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Final reading, ordinance number 26039. Section nine economic development committee discussion on possible action regarding town on property on phase on road.

We have

I'll go quick. So just very quickly I wanted to give a little history on how we got here so it's a refresher. 38 acre property roughly that the town bought in 2021 and 22. The town went through a process to solicit private sector ideas for a potential public-private partnership. We spent a fairly extended period exploring that approach but ultimately did not reach an agreement in 24 council changed direction we put the property on the market um we did get it on a contract but that contract um Did not close. And then today the property remains town owned and that's what we're here to talk about. So there really hasn't been a single preferred vision for the site. We've heard and discussed a pretty broad range of possibilities. private development, family entertainment, recreation, or civic amenities, or just preservation. One thing staff has tried to do is separate out that if council wants a major town funded facility or capital project here, that should be evaluated through our CIP process. So last week, the Economic Development Committee met, framed it around three basic paths. One, take no action, retain the property, and preserve flexibility. Two, issue a new RFP, but with clearer expectations informed by everything Council has discussed over the last several years. Or three, pursue some other direction that Council wants to explore. So the point is not so much to recommend a specific concept, but get clarity from council on what they want to do. And then the Economic Development Committee, the preference last week was to take no action. So that doesn't dispose of the property. It doesn't prevent y'all from taking any action. So tonight we're really just bringing that recommendation forward. to hear from all nine. Yes, sir.

Yes, sir. Thank you for recognizing me. I did want to update Council on something that's transpired since the committee meeting. On Friday, Council members Tinkee, Iacofano, and myself met at their request with the YMCA. It was David Bird, from the YMCA of Coastal Carolina, Dave Curry from the YMCA of Coastal Carolina, and Paul Stoney from the YMCA of Greater Charleston. They did during that meeting express an interest in perhaps utilizing a portion of the Faison Road site. They're building three or four new Ys in the Myrtle Beach area where they've partnered with MUSC. They felt like that the town site on Faison Road would be ideal given its proximity to the neighborhoods and the senior housing across the street. And they would like to participate in discussions with town staff to look at the feasibility of that. And so I think that's all very exciting. They're not you know, we're obviously not ready to commit to anything. They're not ready either. But I do think that it would be productive if those if those conversations could take place and then The information from those could go back to our Economic Development Committee. So I would like to make a motion for town staff to meet with YMCA officials to examine the feasibility of a YMCA offering early childhood education, senior programming, and an auditorium as an anchor tenant for the town's Faison Road property and to report back to the Economic Development Committee.

I'll second. That's a long motion. You may have to read it again.

Yes, motion for town staff to meet with YMCA officials to examine the feasibility of a YMCA offering early childhood education, senior programming, and an auditorium as an anchor tenant for the town's Faison Road property and to report back to the Economic Development Committee.

Is a natatorium a swimming pool?

Yeah, it's an indoor aquatic center.

Yeah. A big one. Well, I think Nat's in the location.

That's what currently exists on the land, as some of us have walked through it. Yeah, so the thought with this is that it, you know, we've heard tonight that there's folks who want a second senior center. In the past, we've heard from folks who who think that we need better aquatic facilities. And so this might be a way to achieve some of those objectives. The YMCA would, in their typical model, kind of leads the fundraising efforts for those facilities. And so this is just to really see if that would be a viable option for the land, and if so, what that would entail for the various parties.

Okay, so the details of the motion, is that one meeting? I mean, when do they, what if staff reaches a point where it's all been discussed and there's no more meetings? I mean, what's the, how does staff know when they have fulfilled this action? Or do you want council to see it?

I think it should go back to committee to economic development at the conclusion. So I guess when I feel that they've got enough information to sufficiently brief the economic development committee. I would hate to prescribe a number of meetings. It could be one meeting. It could be a series of them.

Yes, ma'am. Ms. Whitaker.

Matt, will you go back to what you asked the Economic Development Committee for and then what you then came to us for? So there's these three paths here, which I think are what you're asking of us. I feel like Mr. Brownstein's proposal limits us, and I know it's a certain direction, but to me it's one specific direction, and to me that's a little too early. When I was reviewing this on committee last week, My preference would really be to bank the land for now. I wouldn't be voting to put it out for another RFP, for example, right now, because I think if we have a project we want to do on our town-owned land, as Matt just described, we need to go through the CIP process for that. I understand that this might be a public-private partnership, but still, to me, that reeks of CIP a little bit, especially if we're talking about a second senior center as part of that or fulfilling that need that some requests that we look at. And so to me, it feels too directive when this was the request. And for me, it's a take new action for this piece of property right now. I don't want to rush us toward a conclusion when we're still trying to decide on a general direction.

Mr. Chapman. Mayor and members of council, I concur with Councilmember Whitaker. I think because it's on the agenda already for the Economic Development Committee, we need to send whatever information came from meeting with the ymca whatever we think we heard from some of the residents tonight because i didn't hear all of them saying they wanted a ymca i think it needs to go back to the economic development committee not to go to staff yet Staff works with the committee already. So if the committee thinks they need some help from the staff looking at the YMCA, then they can suggest that to the staff to come back to the committee. But this is an Economic Development Committee issue to start with on what should or shouldn't be on that land. I personally think, which I tried to convince my friends on council several years ago when we had the referendum, that an additional senior center in that part of town was a good idea. And I heard some of that tonight, which I was glad of. Anyhow, I think this needs to simply go back to the Economic Development Committee, and then they can look at what the YMCA people suggested and maybe look at the potential for an RFP which might be with the YMCA and somebody else for maybe a movie theater. Or maybe something else for the kids in that area. So at any rate, that would be my amendment to the motion.

Is that a motion to amend?

Well, yes, that would be my recommended amendment to the motion.

All right, the chair will second. I would, I mean, if we're going to do this by a vote, I've been approached by somebody who is wealthy enough by themself to buy it. They want to put an ice skating rink for family recreation there. I think we should talk to that person. I think we should talk to conservation groups about the element of green space there. I would add all of those things, or without... voting which we rarely vote to tell staff what to do we encourage staff to have all these conversations because i heard family entertainment i heard i heard green space a lot of green space natatorium a lot of nats um and and daniel i'm not opposed to i'm what i'm saying is yes we should talk to the to the ymca but i think We should listen to all of those and not just have one motion on one thing that we heard. So we can either all make a Christmas tree amendment here or just recall the

The actual amendment for Howard is... My amendment is to send it back to the Economic Development Committee to listen to the YMCA proposal, to listen to... what we heard from the residents, which wasn't just the YMCA, potentially for other issues, including a senior center, and whatever else is out there that we heard from them. We just heard something from the mayor. So I think rather than just look at one, that's what we have this committee for. Look at what we need to do there.

all right comment on the amendment to the motion i have a comment just i guess it's a amendment comment so are are we saying that there's an appetite on council for economic development to bring them back a better plan because i don't on being on economic development and the chairs here miss whitaker's miss whitaker as well We didn't know if there was an appetite. So if you guys are saying, go get us a game plan and we're willing to hear it again, then that would be an exciting, probably an exciting thing. And I'm down with us. Okay.

Yes. Let's go this way, Ms. Crosby.

I just don't understand the sense of urgency to do anything with it right now. It was because when we took it, the sale fell through. I'm just asking.

It's already been on the Economic Development Committee agenda. I guess that's the main thing.

Okay. I mean, I'd love to see it as green space. I think a lot of people here said that tonight. You know, I think of Senior Center in the future. I know we heard on HRE or the Recreation Committee a few months ago or right maybe this past winter that those numbers are high and it's packed. But I don't know, I don't, again, don't see the sense of urgency to develop this land at this time. So that's where I sit.

Mr. Chapman, as long as what you're suggesting lets you to look at any and all options. Yes, sir. Because I think we're at a point to look at any at all. What I was encouraged by tonight was a large showing of people that heard there's a possibility that we're looking at things. So... I think there's everything from land buy to sell to lease to public-private use to green space and park to a recreation center to a senior center to all the above. And so as long as we're looking at all those, I think that's good. And it was a good meeting with YMCA. They were exciting. It was exciting news. But I think we need to look at those in context with everything else. And the last thing, at some point, when we have a better feeling for it, make sure that the public knows you're meeting on those at that at economic development so there can be good, strong public input, just like we had tonight.

And Mayor, I know Paul Stone. He's a nice fellow. I was in Rotary Club with him. I'm not doing this to pull this away from him and the YMCA. I'm trying to get a larger group because that's what we heard from the residents tonight, not just the YMCA. I've heard from the residents about Senior Center There are a number of things still out there, including what you suggested there. So I think that that's where we need to go. We need to go back to economic development and see if we can't come up with some kind of a plan of where we need to be. And I don't know what it is, but I sure heard a lot tonight.

All right. The amendment. Go ahead.

Okay, sorry. With the amendment, which I do agree with, actually, it almost seems like we really are taking no new action. Really. To me, it fundamentally changes the motion itself. Which, again, I agree with. I don't know if operationally that was really the correct way to do it. I definitely am not a fan of issuing a new RFP. Was operationally that the way to do it, or should it have been

I think you stated it very well, sir. It was the amendment itself is fundamentally different than what was suggested, but both can be accomplished.

Okay.

I just don't know that it really... I mean, I agree with what everybody's saying. I think we're still just in the same point where we should just do nothing until a good option comes around. But I would think that if the YMCA was serious, that I'm sure Eric and staff will meet with them or whoever else, Oceanside, whoever else has reached out.

should we just pull all motions and just say go back to economic development and bring us a better plan to council is that the because there was a the we saw some plans with some bigger things as well mr tinkey could probably state that as as well i think there's economic development stuff still still out there as well you made the motion and you second if you want to recall the the primary As long as it goes back, as long as my developer knows it's going back and we're going to discuss YMCA and some other options, I'm cool with that.

Yes, as long as the YMCA is considered, that accomplishes what I hope to tonight. So I will recall my motion.

Okay. And thank you for giving me an earworm. Because I'm hearing da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da.

You can just say pool.

All right. Thank you all. Because I think that's, that's the thing to do. And anytime we've got a piece of property worth that much money, we ought to be, you know, listening and seeing what might, what might be happening. Thank you all for meeting with the YMCA. All right. Good discussion. So we are on B, finance approval to establish the average annual millage rate.

I would make a motion, a recommendation to approve the proposed millage rate and local option sales tax credit factor for fiscal year 2027. Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second. Do we want to hear?

That was my question. Do we want to hear from our finance director?

I would like at least a summary if y'all are okay.

So again, our fiscal year 27 budget was built on maintaining our current millage rate of 44.3 mils, which is the same millage rate we've retained for the past two years. And then the last credit factor is strictly a calculation based upon our total estimated amount of local option sales tax revenues we anticipate receiving in fiscal year 27 divided by the appraised property value we received from the county report so that last credit factor. is calculated to be .00042 for this year, which will give somebody with a $750,000 appraised value home an additional $37.50 credit.

All right. Any questions? We have a motion to approve the proposed millage rate and the local option sales tax credit factor. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right. Item C is from the Flood Resilience Committee. B-2. I'm sorry? Item number two.

I would like to hear from the chief together with Ms. Harness on the next item, which is a recommendation to accept the donation of a canine officer to the Mount Pleasant Police Department. Chief, can you come up with her in case there are any questions? I don't think there will be, but I'd rather have you help answer them.

Yeah, this is strictly on finance because it conforms with our procurement code and that town council is required to approve or accept any donation whose value is greater than $10,000.

Move to approve. Second. Motion to approve and a second. All right, we are in discussion. Any questions?

Just want to thank that foundation for donating a new canine for our police department. It's very much appreciated.

Has the dog been selected yet? No. You needed this foot? But, I mean, this will be a patrol dog, not a sniffer dog? Like, this will be a mallard log?

Yes. I believe so.

Any other discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Thank you. We look forward to seeing the dog. Okay. Now, Flood Resilience Committee presentation of final report and recommendations of the TREE Task Force. Jamie, thank you for your work. Thank you to all your committee for your work. We appreciate it. If you'll give us the highlights, please.

Sure. Let me try to keep this brief because I feel like the speaker at the end of a conference. The audience has gotten much smaller. You selected seven of us and gave us a charter here with a really pretty broad scope to look at strategies and maybe ordinance changes for better managing the tree canopy. The seven of us come from very, very different backgrounds. And I think what you're going to find out of that is our recommendations have a lot of balance. There might have been some concern that we would lean one way or another. But I think what you're going to see as we run through this, that there's a lot of balance in what we're suggesting. The one thing we all agreed on, although we're all very diverse, is that trees are important to the residents of Mount Pleasant. They were important to us as committee members. But you heard all the people today that talked about green space and trees, and that just was something that resounded with all of us. And so I think that starting point was to think about in our recommendations why. That is what is the why and what we're recommending and trees have a great benefit in terms of cooling. So I don't know about you, but when I came in here this evening to park, I looked to see if I could find a spot that were shaded. So trees have this tremendous cooling benefit to it, but they also make livable communities in there and they're also, you know, prevent flooding. So there are a lot of really positive economic benefits, but we were focused on what does this mean for the residents? And we recognize we're not We're not the first in the chain of things. You have been a proactive council in valuing trees. So have many other councils prior to this because it's important to the residents. And so we're a really successful town. Development means we've taken some trees out of the canopy that was here. But you've also implemented and have had an ordinance in place for a long period of time. And you've had tree planting programs that put some of them back. So our recommendations were kind of looking at that. And what we found as we were going through this process, and I have to say a big thank you to the staff that are sitting over here. While we might have met once a month for two hours, they spent 10 times that kind of time preparing information for us going into this, you have a tremendous resource in the team that is in here. And I want to point out two of the data points in here that are really, really recent. And one is that the latest canopy study, which is about to come out, it's finished, but the report is not here yet, shows you got a 54% canopy. And that's an improvement. So I think, one, celebrate the success of having done that. But it also points out that there are still a lot of places to put trees that would benefit residents. So 1,200 acres of potential plantable areas in the town where we could put trees that residents would value. The second thing is that you've done a public tree inventory. So you've counted all the trees you've owned. You've got a GPS location for them. You've got the species. In that survey, you've also found that there's 1,300 spaces where you got a stump or a well. There used to be a tree there, but there isn't anymore. Great potential opportunity to put a tree. So as we were thinking about this, Our first idea was where can we plant more trees, but we also want to balance that with preserving the canopy that we've got. And so I think what you're going to see is we have a combination of those. So let me start with the recommendation around planting more trees. And the thing that we found right at the very beginning is there's no goal. So you've got tree planting programs. that you're spending money on. But as a council, what you haven't established is a goal for what the program should look like. Like how many trees should that, are we shooting for a canopy goal? And we talked about those options and what we came to was tree canopy cover is metric nobody that's a resident is really gonna understand. What they want to know is, is there a tree where I shop? Is there a tree where I wander around and gather? Is there a tree in my neighborhood, right? So our suggestion is a goal that you set that is we're going to add more trees in these places where we've got gaps. This is an inspirational goal to answer the suggestions from the residents like the ones that were here today saying we want green space. We want trees. And so it's a really positive goal to set one that says we're going to plant a certain number of trees a year. We came up with a recommendation of 1500 trees a year, very achievable goal based on the numbers of what you've got in there. How would you do that? That is, how would you actually get 1500 trees a year in the ground? You have a lot of people on staff that love trees. They've been doing planting programs. The problem is it's a small, tiny fraction of their everyday job. And so there's no focus on it. So what you need is somebody whose job is every day to think about, how do we get those 1500 trees a year? Where do we put them? And how do we make sure they're the right tree? And we don't put them in the way of Andy's team, who's, you know, trying to maintain all the sewers and the stormwater drains and all that kind of stuff. So our two main goals, if you look at this whole circle, I'm gonna run through it quickly, but the two main things is set a goal for them and hire somebody that'll own that goal. And what you're gonna get out of that should be the next step in the process, which is a plan. How do I plant those trees in those spaces? And where is most of that land? In the town, you're responsible for maybe 10% of the land use in the entire town. The rest of it's private. So what we need to do is have a person who's a leader that will engage the community in how can you as a community help us plant more trees. So if your goal is get more trees in the ground, we need the community buy-in. And that takes a lot of activity. It takes the right kind of person to lead that effort, to convince them to get involved in that. I know in my neighborhood where my gaps are, And I've taken some steps as part of our HOA to do that. But how do you get everybody else behind those kind of ideas? And we're not talking about a rule. talking about how do you engage them and being participants in the process we a bunch of us myself members of town council the mayor planting trees last fall right i mean we were out there um and you know there were there were some school kids that showed up it happened at the last minute but if you engage the community you're going to get lots of people they're going to show up at big events like this and we saw that in some of the other communities so i think you could do A way better job if you hire the right person to drive towards that goal. And then the last one here is measure the progress. So if your goal is 1,500 additional trees a year, you've got to recognize you're also still losing some. What we found is we asked the question, are we gaining or losing trees every year? We couldn't answer the question. We did get some sample data from planning that was really helpful to understand you had the data. It just wasn't organized in a way in the dashboard that would let you as a council know and the residents know, are we making progress when we need it? How many did we gain or lose this year? Right? So a leader is going to help you accomplish that. So to make this circle come back around, I think you need to go when you need the leader. Um, the, uh, second set of our recommendations, right, is what would you do about the ordinance, right? So we were really selective here. So we recognize people like trees, planting trees, that is an inspirational goal, but more rules is not something that they're necessary. Like there are some people that are for it and some people against it, but preserving some trees is really important. So we're really selective as we went through making these recommendations. So the first one, you doubled the tree protection zone in the last ordinance. What that caused is a number of requests to remove the trees so that they didn't have to work around them. Our proposal is modify the ordinance to allow more flexibility, right? There's some flexibility language in there, but define the flexibility and how you can encroach on the tree. The arborist on there told us, yeah, you can encroach on the tree. It'll still be healthy. You just need a good plan. So our proposal is make it easier on the developers to keep those trees, not take them out, by showing them, hey, there's some flexibility in the ordinance that allows for encroachment around that tree protection zone. It'll be easier for them. The second column in this one was about bringing residential construction kind of into this same standard for keeping trees, minimum canopy trees, as other construction in commercial areas and the like. And so it's just extending that into the residential area. And then the third one here was actually to make it easier for individual homeowners who are taking out a tree. If you look at this, have you looked at the mitigation table in there? It's hard to understand. There's four tree categories, there's three health categories, right? There's a lot of stuff to look through. What we came to with a lot of discussions with the staff and some recommendations, why don't we make this really simple? If they're just trying to take out a tree, replace the tree, that's really all we wanted is for them to replace the tree. This whole idea of them paying into a tree bank and all that, it was really a tiny amount of money where individual homeowners were requesting a tree to be removed for their property. It wasn't contributing much to the tree fund. It was making the process long and arduous for them. So why not make a one-for-one replacement and in fact make the tree size smaller for them? so that a one and a half inch tree is a lot easier for you and your neighbors to go grab at a local place and plant. It also might mean they might plant more than one tree, which would add some value to our canopy. And so really our whole goal in doing that was make that whole process simpler. We were spending way too much staff time collecting all the different categories and measuring the size and how much inches of mitigation that is. Let's just make this simple. The last slide on here is the other prevention protection measures. And here we're just adjusting some of the categories of trees that are in that mitigation table for all of the projects. I don't know about you, but We have Laurel Oaks and Water Oaks in my neighborhood. Nobody can tell the difference between them. They're all last in a short period of time. So our suggestion, the recommendation of staff is just make them in the same category. That way, They're easier. Nobody's arguing over what kind they are. And we also talk about pines. So pines are grouped into the fourth category of trees, which basically says they're zero value. And that's not true. pines are important right they do a lot in flood mitigation water absorption and stuff like that yes some some pines are a problem and we need to allow them to be able to be removed category three is a better place to represent the quality of the type of tree longleaf pines are a totally different story they were in uh all over South Carolina. There are unique species of pine trees, very important to the region, so we suggested that those be in category one. So these were category adjustments which affect the mitigation that gets paid by those categories, but it reflects what the staff's observation is in the importance of these different types of trees in the quality categories that we've got. The replacement gap, the one in the middle, I mean, we had zero. Basically, if you were in category three and you had a declining tree, still a good tree in terms of the canopy, but you didn't have to replace it if you took it out. And so we found in category three trees, 90 some percent of the requests that were coming through planning department had zero mitigation, no tree planted, no payment into the tree bank fund. even though that was an important tree, yes, it was declining, we need to replace it. And then, oh, sorry, skipped ahead. So the last one on here was to take a real small part of the tree canopy that's there that's very important. These are trees that have been growing for a really long time. The BOSA right now looks at any tree that's above 24 inches. Our suggestion is drop that down to 16 inches because we've found that there's a small portion of these trees that are really, really important and getting taken for reasons that may or may not be appropriate. They're the replacement trees. They represent less than 5% of the requests that came through the planning group. I want to be really clear that that statistic is a little limiting because we don't have the data from engineering, which is a much more comprehensive number of tree removal requests, but we didn't have the detailed data to go on that while we figure The numbers in terms of percentage would probably be similar in terms of the impact on how many trees would be seen by BOSA. So we don't think this is a lot of transactions. It's a small number of trees, but they're really, really important ones. And they're only the healthy ones and only the ones in categories one and two. So we didn't try to make this really broad. We had a really narrow, here's a core set of really important trees that we'd like to protect. So three suggestions to you as a council we'd like you to consider. One is set the goal. And our suggestion is 1,500 trees a year. The second thing is invest in a program. And what I mean by that is fund the position that hires the leader. You've got a good budget for tree planting programs. That leader will come back and tell you if they need more or less. They'll get you funding from outside partners. I think if you do a really good job of that, there's a lot of potential for other investments outside of the town's money that that leader would do. So I think it's funding the position that would allow you to hire the leader. And the third one is strengthen the tree protection. So I think if you send a message to the staff that says pursue the ordinance changes, those will go through a whole public review process with a lot of detail for you to look at that would come back through that normal review process that you just went through. So hopefully I did that fast enough.

Thank you. Thank you for your, was it a year?

It was a year.

A year's worth of work, all the committee. That's a lot of people hours. We really appreciate it. So in the interest of time, from the Flood Resilience Committee, there is a motion that that we received the report from the Tree Task Force, and that council approved that, if needed, that the Tree Task Force could hold workshops to assist with the drafting of ordinances that puts all this into place. They've done their work, they have submitted their report, but we're gonna be incorporating this into our ordinances going forward, and we may need them to meet and say, help us with that. So that is a motion that does not require a second, but we got one anyway. Is there any discussion on that? All right. All in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Jamie, thank you very much. We will be working with you. Okay. Item 10, new council business. Item A1, also a motion from the police judicial and legal committee is that we amend our section 30.22 of the town of Mount Pleasant code of ordinances requiring, concerning the requirements for calling a special meeting of town council and that is to comply with title five of South Carolina code section 5-7-250. This says special meetings may be held on the call of the mayor or a majority of the members of the body. That's a motion that doesn't require a second, but Howard, you can go ahead anyway.

It doesn't require a second to change the ordinance?

No, no motion from a committee requires a second. When a committee votes on one, but Howard seconded it anyway, so we're good. Anytime your committee has a motion that does not require a second. I started talking to other municipalities about their rules. There was only one local one that does not. It's one of the island beaches, by the way, with whom we have sort of an ongoing feud about things. But in this conversation, found out this is what state law says. And I also have a copy of our municipal association, how special meetings work. And they say also they can meet at additional times as called by the mayor or a majority of council, regardless of the form of government. So that's the motion. We have a second. Is there any discussion? Yes, sir.

Yes, sir. Mr. Pagliarini, 5-7-250, does that preclude us from having our own rules about who calls a special meeting or how many members?

A little bit of history. If you all don't mind, I'll keep it brief. In 2019, council changed the provision to put matters on an agenda. It used to be one. They went to three. And at that time, this issue was considered. And but council at that time felt that placing a matter on an agenda was the rough equivalent of calling a council meeting. And that is why and how that is. Mayor read it. I'll put the I'll put the ordinance up here. And I'll be direct. It is simply not well written as to this because it provides provision may there is room for dispute. It is absolutely true that our folks at the state level believe that it takes five and I'm not going to dispute that. That is what they say. We have done it as three and I think that's certainly defensible. I'm not trying to quibble on this. I would prefer to follow state law if that were, if that is what is being asked of me and to follow what is said on there. I think there's a good argument to be made that we don't need to as well. So that is my answer.

Thank you, sir. Yeah, I just I want to talk for just a second about this because it seems like that the impetus for this change is due to the special council meeting that that I requested and was seconded and third by council members Crosby and And that was during our committee day last month at the beginning of August when there was a group of citizens from Carolina Park, the Friends of Faison group that was referenced earlier, really just neighbors who wanted to provide some input about our town land on Faison Road. It was held during committee day when all of us are here anyway, didn't require people to come in on an off cycle or staff to spend more time than they already would have been spending here. To me, it's a challenge. sort of a solution in search of a problem. We haven't had a proliferation of special council meetings. They're very rare other than the ones that we kind of build into the schedule to handle some of our executive sessions prior to our regular council meetings. So to me, it just feels like a reaction to maybe some people not wanting to hear information coming to the full council. And, you know, we are a council form of government where the mayor has a few additional powers, but for the most part, all of our votes are the same. And so I really... I didn't mean to cause offense by calling that special meeting. I think a couple people agreed with me that it was the right thing to do. And so I guess I don't really understand this reaction to it. It feels very personal. And so I see no reason to cede any of council's powers to require five members. I also kind of wonder about the practical implications of finding four other members and whether that constitutes a quorum and sort of how you would line up those votes without violating open records laws. So that's all I have to say about it. Appreciate everybody's time.

I can answer that. First of all, it feels personal, too, when you say that the reason we would want to follow state law, you know, we want to follow state law. It has nothing to do with what information we don't want to hear. I don't recall any motions coming out of that. There might have been one. I don't know. But there certainly was no action of counsel, and we heard from a resident who said now that the precedent has been set, They are going to expect a special council meeting when they approach a couple of council members and say, we want a special meeting so we can be heard, and it's not going to stop. I assure you, I've called Charleston, I've called Goose Creek, I've called Somerville, Sullivan's Island, Isle of Palms, Edisto Beach. City of Casey, because their city attorney sits on the Patriots Point board with me. We were talking about another issue. They all follow it. And the law says a majority of members of the council, they didn't set that up so we can be in violation of open meeting laws. So I guarantee you that if I was not operating under state law, I would be the first one to hear it. The mayor can't do that because state law says the mayor can only do this or that. Council is doing something that state law says requires a majority of council, just like a vote to pass requires a majority of council. We either are gonna follow state law and the guidelines of the Municipal Association or we're not. The time has come for us to, for the mayor, I don't say me because many other people have had this and many will have it in the future, for the mayor and for the council to do what our oath said we would do and that's apply the laws of the state in this town and this is what the law says. Yes sir, you have the floor.

Thank you. I typically don't read, but I spend a little time on this. I typically go off the cuff. But I strongly oppose changing this requirement from three members to five. Calling a meeting is not the same as taking action. Three council members cannot pass an ordinance, spend money, or direct the town. They can only ensure that an issue receives public discussion. Requiring five members means requiring a governing majority merely to hold a conversation. That defeats the purpose of having an independent mechanism for council members to call a special meeting when the mayor or the majority does not want an issue heard. This change does not improve efficiency. It concentrates control, weakens the ability of individual council members to represent their constituents, and makes it easier to prevent uncomfortable matters from reaching the public agenda. Unless there's documented evidence that the existing three-member rule has been abused, there is no legitimate reason to change it. And that's all I have to say. Thank you.

Before we vote, let me just read Title V, South Carolina Code Section 57250. And special meetings may be held on the call of the mayor or of a majority of the members. I've only come across one other municipality that does not obey that. I am familiar with many state laws that they don't obey, some of which negatively affect our constituents as well. When we go for things like what was in the paper today, $245,000 for the Long Point School. We got 4.9 million for the Center for Leadership. All that's coming to the town of Mount Pleasant. I would like for us to be able to say we take seriously when state law says it requires a majority of the members and we do it. I'm not going to act outside of what state law allows me to do under our form of government. Council loves to throw that out there that we have the quote weak mayor form of government, but what I'm hearing tonight is Our council is powerful enough to thumb your nose at state law because it suits your political agenda. And I think that is a violation of the vows, the oath that you took when you took this office.

Any other discussion? Is the state law up to five or does it demand five, Mr. Pagliarini? Because it used to be one here. It says a majority.

But I mean, the state law is shown on your screen. And it says special meetings may be held on the call of the mayor or the majority of the members. So I certainly understand that the majority reads it as it takes five. It is correct we have not operated under that. Again, council addressed that in 2019. It could be read as that you cannot implement a rule that requires more than five, meaning you couldn't do it as a supermajority. But as I said, conservative reading is that it takes five. That's what it says, so.

So we still can place an item on an agenda with three, right? This is about special meetings, which could mean any random Wednesday, right, that most of us might not be able to attend. Whereas on committee days, we plan meetings. to be here and expect that. So it means more to me when it's on an off day than on a council day. But I feel confident that if anybody wants to discuss anything, that there probably won't be much opposition. We're all pretty open to sharing and listening when people want to discuss a topic. So it was interesting to learn that this is a state mandate. Thanks.

All right. Mr. Chapman.

Yes. Mayor, we not only have council meetings, we have committee meetings. So if there is an urgency to get something on an agenda of meetings of council, it could be put on one of the committees. We have committee meetings. The first Monday of every month. Which happened to happen on the 31st of August, or September, because it was able to move through federal holiday. But by changing this to a majority for all nine members of council to be there, because it's a special council meeting, I think is a little overboard. We can do it with committees if you want, with three. That satisfies that for me. And I think we need to be under state law.

All right, if there are no more comments, do I need to read the motion again? Everybody knows the motion didn't align with state law. I'm going to ask the clerk to call the roll, please. A yes is to do the majority as in that law right there. Go ahead.

Ms. Whitaker? Yes. Ms. Whitaker votes yes. Mr. Brownstein? No. Mr. Brownstein votes no. Mr. Chapman?

Yes.

Mr. Chapman votes yes. Ms. Crosby?

Yes.

Ms. Crosby votes yes. Ms. Hyatt?

Yes.

Ms. Hyatt votes yes. Mr. Iacofano?

No.

Mr. Iacofano votes no. Mr. Rambo?

No.

Mr. Rambo votes no. Mr. Tinkey?

Yes.

Mr. Tinkey votes yes. Mayor Haney?

Yes.

Mayor Haney votes yes.

By vote of 6-3, the motion carries.

First reading, ordinance number 26052.

Item two, first reading an ordinance to provide to amend for the town code of Mount Pleasant ordinances about towing. Basically what this does is increases the radius that tow companies can be called to do. Our police have asked for this. The committee recommended that we approve this, please. So that's the motion from the committee as you see it.

Do you want to second that?

Second.

Yes, sir. Even though it increases the distance, would it still have to be within the town limits? Or are people going to have to drive over bridges? Because I don't agree with that.

Right, sir. The proposal is it increases it to 10 miles. So wherever that 10 miles is.

I think, was it 10 miles from the town limits?

that's right yeah it was so you could already be so those were already outside of the town limits okay all right i didn't realize that okay all right any other discussion

All right, all in favor of the motion to approve, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, motion carries.

First reading, ordinance number 26053.

Section B, old business and ordinance making the Mount Pleasant green space environmental ecology and natural resources commission a standing commission. We do have an amendment to propose from the committee to approve final reading, but we do have some amendments if y'all will work through us. Mr. Chapman, would you second? I'll second. All right, thank you. One of the motions, I believe you have the wording for.

Yes. One of the issues was initially that that commission would set up all the time their own agendas. we think that there is a reason that council should help direct what the agenda is, similar to what we did, I think, with another group as well. So I would like to recommend as a motion that council help direct to set the agendas for the Green Commission.

Second. All right. We'll have a motion and a second. Any discussion on that? I don't think we had an original motion to approve. I did, and he seconded it.

Mayor, sorry. The ordinance is already set up at first reading and was voted on at first reading that council makes the agendas and committees. The proposals that came out of committee were related to what is on your screens in bold, and that is both the mission and main objectives. Those were the that is what committee considered. There was no proposed change about how agendas are set. So I just wanted to clarify that.

We can amend or recall that motion, but we do have to have a motion that says that. Correct, sir. Why don't you amend your motion to just say what's on the screen.

I'll amend my motion to recommend what's on the screen submitted by the town attorney.

And forwarded by the committee.

I'll amend my second and then re-second his opinion.

Are we all clear on what that amendment is and why it's there? All right, all in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, now we're on the motion to approve final reading as amended, unless I have skipped one. I don't think I skipped one, did I, Mr. Pagliarini? No, sir. Okay. All right, we're in discussion on the motion to approve final reading of the ordinance to make it a standing commission. Any discussion? All right. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. Final reading, ordinance number 26044. Item 10 being concluded. Item 11 is to adjourn. We stand adjourned.