You're looking good, looking sharp.

Okay, yeah.

I know.

It's like uh when the wind blows, you can see the fall in the middle of the way.

Let me call to order the special town council meeting for Tuesday, March tenth.

And uh appreciate y'all being here.

Council members, hello.

Everybody's got on their spring wardrobe today.

Um item number two is public comment.

If anyone is here to make a public comment, please come forward.

Give your name and address.

Anyone for public comment?

Seeing none.

Item three, executive session, A for legal and contractual consideration and possible action regarding an economic development incentive package.

B personnel, consideration of applications to serve on the commercial design review board for which there's one vacancy and consideration of applications to serve on the accommodation tax advisory committee for which there is one vacancy.

All right.

In our special council meeting that began at five.

We have reconvened from executive session.

No action was taken and no votes were cast.

Um do we have a motion regarding item A, uh consideration of possible action regarding economic development package.

Yes.

I'd like to move to approve the economic development package based on the terms as discussed in executive session.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All right.

Motion second.

We're in discussion.

Yes, sir, Miss Ramit.

So I won't elaborate previous meetings, but I continue to be a no on this uh matter for reasons I previously stated.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Any other discussion?

All right.

All in favor of the motion to approve to instruct staff to negotiate as discussed in executive session, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

No.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

All right.

Item B, uh appointments.

Um item B, Mayor.

Item number one.

Uh consideration of application to serve on the commercial design review board.

I'd like to recommend uh Taylor Craig Porter as the uh replacement.

Second.

All right, we have a motion and we have a second.

Is there any discussion?

All in favor, please say aye.

All right.

Two, the consideration of applications to serve on the accommodations tax advisory committee.

I'd like to move to appoint L Livia Thomas to seat number four of the ATAC committee.

All right.

It's six o'clock.

Let me call to order the town council meeting for this Tuesday, March the 10th, 2026.

Welcome to the new daylight.

It sure is nice starting the meeting, and it's not dark, and I hope everybody is surviving the pollen.

Okay.

Our first item of business.

We will have a prayer led by Chaplain Gill, and then the Pledge of Allegiance will be led by Mayor Pro Tim Chapman.

So if everyone will please rise.

Would you join me in prayer?

Almighty God, I pray for this council meeting tonight.

Give each council member the wisdom and guidance that they deliberate on the item that is before them.

May every decision be righteous in your sight and for our benefit and for your glory.

This reacts in your holy name.

Amen.

Please place flag.

I pledge it to the flag of the United States.

Okay.

Item three is approval of the agenda.

We have an amendment to the agenda, please.

Yes.

Mayor, I'd like to make an amendment that we revise the agenda and bring up item number 10A one.

Has item number one?

I know it's to be deleted.

To be to be deleted.

I'm sorry.

The recommendation from legal is to remove 10 A1 at the request of Crown, and that is resolution number 26031.

They've requested it be removed, and that would be the agenda amendment.

And to notify anyone here to speak on that matter that it won't be addressed this month, in fact, if the amendment is approved.

Okay, and our understanding their intention is to uh submit it through committee and it'll come up, it'll be on next month's agenda.

Correct, sir.

That's the intention.

Right.

All right.

We have a motion and a second, so that's item 10A1 will be removed from the agenda at the request of the applicant.

Any discussion?

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

The agenda is amended.

Item four, public hearings.

Uh, we don't have any awards or presentations.

Come on, Kevin.

Um, but we do have the public hearing about our land development uh regulations, and this involves our new wetlands uh ordinance, proposed wetlands ordinance.

So Mr.

Mitchell.

Yes, sir.

I'll be brief.

Uh this is an amendment to chapter 155054 to change the green space preservation protection plan and environmental guidelines for land development to include the protection of isolated wetlands.

This is a public hearing.

Well, this is in chapter uh 155 land development regulation, so it does require town council to hold this public hearing.

Okay.

So the public hearing is uh separate from our regular agenda.

If you would like to comment on this, you are not using up your space in the public comment, which is a different agenda item.

Is there anyone to comment uh in the public hearing on the um on that proposal?

No one, yes, sir.

Yes.

Name and address in two and a half minutes, please.

Yes, sir.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the council.

My name is Michael Ramsey.

I'm here on behalf of the Charleston Trot and Association of Realtors representing more than 2300 realtors across the region.

More than 1,500 of our members live in the town of Mount Pleasant.

First, we'd like to acknowledge that we appreciate the town's effort to protect the national environment that makes Mount Pleasant such a special place to live.

Environmental stewardship matters to our members and to the homeowners we represent.

However, we are concerned about the cumulative impact of layering regulation upon regulation on homeowners, businesses, and property in Mount Pleasant.

One issue is the potential scale of impact.

We understand that based on available mapping, and this is plus or minus, as much as nine percent of the land area in Mount Pleasant may be impacted or contain non-jurisdictional wetlands.

This means this ordinance could affect a significant amount of property owners across the town.

First concern, overregulation of property owners.

This proposal continues a trend of adding layers of regulation on top of existing ones.

In recent years, the town has implemented building size limitations, the tree ordinance, and other developmental controls.

Now, this ordinance would expand environmental review for single-family permits, including additions, pools, details structures, and similar improvements.

At some point, the homeowners should reasonably be able to improve their own homes without navigating a web of consultants, environmental reviews, and compliance requirements.

Second concern, impact on commercial investment.

As we understand it, this ordinance would also expand regulations to commercial development where they do not currently exist.

Mount Pleasant's economic health depends on maintaining a healthy pipeline of commercial investment and redevelopment, adding new additional regulations for wetlands that are not vaguely regulated, creates additional uncertainty, cost and delay of projects.

The downstream effect is straightforward.

Fewer projects mean less economic activity and potentially less tax revenue for the town.

Third concern, housing affordability.

Finally, we urge council to consider the community impact of housing affordability.

Each regulation may seem small on its own, but when stacked together, tree requirements, open space mandates, wetlands, buffers, environmental studies, and other restrictions, they significantly increase the cost of building or improving your property.

These costs do not disappear.

They are ultimately passed on to homeowners and renters.

Lastly, suggested safeguards.

If council chooses to move forward with it, we encourage a few guardrails.

Your time.

Thank you.

I have these letters for council.

Give them two that is there anyone else to comment in the public hearing?

Yes, please come forward and name and address in two and a half minutes, please.

Well, uh, my name is Monica Bon Miller 37 Jane Jacob Street.

And I would like to point out to that gentleman that I completely disagree with him, because just think about it.

You uh think that we shouldn't limit the trees in this town.

You need trees to live, you know, they produce oxygen, right?

And as far as wetlands are concerned, wetlands are necessary because you know, water is very strong.

Is it you know, people can put nothing in the way of water, so so and wetlands, that's where the water goes.

If you start building in wetlands, then you know the water goes somewhere else because it's going to go somewhere.

And wetlands are designed for the purpose.

That's where the water is going to go rather than end up under your in your foundation aware of it.

So I actually think there is nothing, nothing to discuss here.

It's it's an obvious thing.

We need to preserve the wetlands.

Sir, madam, and thank you.

Very much.

Anyone else?

Comment during the public hearing.

This doesn't use my two and not you still get the comment in public comment, yes.

Um my name is Michelle Stress, and I'm at uh 545 Verandaview in Mount Pleasant.

Um, I also would like to um just disagree with the man uh here from the Realtors, and that I think that he has a vested interest that um is different than the regular communities interest in um in this possible ordinance.

Um, but what I wanted to do is just call out um in the draft item D2, and that it says that when the alteration of these areas serves an overriding public interest as deemed by the director of engineering and developmental services, this includes but not limited parks, recreational facilities, capital improvements.

My comment is if we as the town can follow our own rules that I I don't that concerns me that that's in there, and that if we're going to ask the public and the homeowners uh to follow these rules, that the town should also follow those rules.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Hello, my name is Bob Adams.

I live at 35 East Lake Road, and if I thought I was gonna testify tonight, I would have worn worn trousers, so I apologize.

I'll be very short and sweet.

I strongly endorse these regulations, and I think the staff and the committees have done a wonderful job in preparing the language.

Um I wholly disagree that this is imposing an unfair you know layer of regulation.

I think there's a gaping hole that was created by the Supreme Court decision.

And you are invited to do something about that gaping hole.

And I hope you pass it tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Good evening, everybody.

Mike Van Horn, Iron Bridge Drive.

Um, I just have a question, and I know council cannot answer this now, but maybe in your deliberations, take it into consideration.

Obviously, I'm in for the protection of the wetlands and stuff.

My question is if if this uh moves forward, how do we act as far as the rifle range situation as far as the park that's you know supposedly going to be built in that wetland area?

You know, we have a $50 million bond that the taxpayers have already approved for that uh recreation area that has had absolutely no traction whatsoever as far as you know some clearing that they've been doing in that area.

But again, I you know I would like to consider you know how that's gonna affect this ordinance here moving forward to protect that area as well.

That's already a wetland that should be protected.

Thank you.

Anyone else for public comment?

No, I'm sorry for um comment on the public hearing.

Yes, sir.

Uh Andrew Wonderly, Charleston Waterkeeper, may please the council.

Um I'm here to speak in favor of the ordinance.

I think wetlands are our most valuable public infrastructure that we have.

They filter pollution before it reaches our creeks and rivers.

They uh store storm water during rainstorms and floods, and most importantly, they provide habitat for fish and wildlife.

Now, as you know, recent federal court decisions have taken away protections for a number of different types of wetlands.

I think your ordinance is a very thoughtful response to that, and it's a local response to that design by people here in the community.

I think that's an important point that we need to emphasize.

So it recognizes that those areas uh still provide real ecological and community benefits, and that uh especially when federal law no longer protects them.

So Mount Pleasant has long taken pride in protecting its creeks and rivers and its marshes, and I think this ordinance ensures that that can continue to happen.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else for the public hearing?

Come forward, please.

Name and address, two and a half minutes.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

My name is Susie Carlson, and my address is 423 King Street in Mount Pleasant.

I'm an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center and a resident of Mount Pleasant, and I'm here tonight to support the proposed ordinance to protect our local wetlands.

Wetlands are some of the most valuable natural resources our community has.

They absorb floodwaters, filter pollution from our waterways, and provide habitat for the wildlife that makes our area unique.

I commend the town for its hard work on this ordinance.

Mount Pleasant has an opportunity to be a leader in the state on this particular issue, and this ordinance is a practical step to safeguard both our environment and our community's future.

As has been said, um, following the decision of SAC at V EPA, this protection is more important than ever.

Thank you for your time and for your consideration.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Good evening.

My name is Tori Sanders.

I'm here with the Coastal Conservation League.

I would like to express our support for the wetlands ordinance.

Um, you know, we appreciate the town's efforts in this matter and really applaud your leadership here.

As we all know, uh wetlands not only help protect communities from worsening floods, um, but they also help support water quality and critical wildlife habitat, as our colleagues at Charleston Waterkeeper and SELC explained.

You know, these are natural um essential systems that benefit both the environment and the community.

Uh we do also ask council to reconsider the exceptions that are currently allowed for the pools, sheds, and garages.

You know, while these may seem like minor structures individually, the cumulative impact of hundreds of of these sheds, pools, garages.

Place in wetlands is significant and should not be overlooked.

Um, you know, filling in wetlands to accommodate those kind of structures.

Um, it really they increase impervious surfaces, it worsens flooding, it reduces green space that naturally absorbs and stores water.

Um, and over time, those incremental losses will add up and will begin to undermine the very protections that this ordinance is intended to provide.

So we respectfully urge council to consider those impacts and to strengthen the requirements included in the ordinance.

So thank you for your time.

Denise Hugo, Housing for All Mount Pleasant Executive Director, 1000 Johnny Dodds Boulevard.

Since affordable housing was mentioned, I just want everybody to understand that we work with tree engineers.

We in affordable living, we need to make sure that we have the right amount of shading on affordable homes so that we don't have outlandish electric bills, which seem to be increasing.

And we work very closely to make sure there's no flooding on grounds because we have a lot of areas, even in Mount Pleasant, that are wet when it's been sunny for three months.

And we um the one thing that I would ask, and I did try to get this changed when you built that recreation center.

There's no way on earth we should be using palm trees in South Carolina.

We have water issues throughout the entire state.

Um we have unstable earth, and um, even though palm trees are pretty in our license plates, they really don't do much to help our earth, they don't do that much to help our air, and all you got to do is come to the College of Charleston and see all the sandbags we have in front of all of our buildings because all we have are palm trees.

But we will make sure that we do support this, and we work very hard to work with tree engineers that help us do the right thing.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

All right.

I am required by ordinance um to close the public hearing with sounding of the gavels.

So this public hearing is closed.

This moves us to item five approval of the minutes.

I'll make sure I didn't lose my place.

Approval of the minutes from February 2nd, 2026 special and the February 10th, 2026 special and regular town council meetings and the January 2026 financial statements.

Move for approval, Mr.

Chairman.

Second motion and a second.

Any discussion?

All in favor, please say all right.

The minutes and and the statements are approved.

Now we are at item six, which is public comment.

Um if you signed up to speak, please come forward when your name is called.

Um name and address, two and a half minutes, please.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

First speaker, David Spid.

David Svedden, 3429 Tumor Kilned Circle.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

I'm here tonight about Highway 41.

Over the past several months, I and some of you have worked hard to open a direct and positive productive dialogue with Charleston County.

I was able to gain access for face-to-face meetings and updated you along the way.

I think we can agree that we now have an open dialogue and the county is being transparent.

The plan they provided us provided details that we had not seen before, and I greatly appreciate that progress.

We also need to be clear about where things stand.

Charleston County offered entitlements to the Phillips community in order to accept a four traffic lane solution on Highway 41.

Those offers were rejected.

The county's current plan is to build a road through Laurel Hill Park and Litis expansion in the Phillips community of three lanes.

At the same time, Charleston County has acknowledged that from a pure engineering standpoint, the best long-term traffic solution for this corridor would be to expand 41 to four traffic lanes.

So the reality is that Mount Pleasant residents are being asked to accept the plan that the engineers themselves acknowledge is not the best traffic solution.

If there is still a strategy like persuade Trusting County to reconsider this decision, the residents of Mount Pleasant deserve to hear that.

But if we're on the current plan and it's going to move forward regardless, then the council should immediately shift focus and work on what's best for our communities.

We don't want to have the worst possible outcome of this.

One suggestion was to shift Highway 41 towards Dunes West so they could gain more space to have a very elegant and probably better solution than what we're seeing right now.

We also need to look at practical improvements and make sure they're included.

What's the speed limit going to be?

How is lighting going to be handled?

And then creating signage on 41 that states park west dunes west exit.

So people know clearly it's not a pass-through.

My request tonight is simple.

I just need you to leave this effort, create a list of uh improvements and priority informally present them to Charleston County.

If we can't change the overall plan, we should at least make sure we fight for the best possible outcome for residents who live here.

I'm also going to be submitting a list that I already started of some ideas that you should investigate.

And if you need any help with that, please let me know.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Denise Fugo.

You did want me to come now, right?

Okay.

All right.

Um, Denise Fugo, Executive Director Housing for All Mount Pleasant.

And now I have to comment on two things, but we'll start with the first thing.

First of all, I want to thank the planning committee or commission, which other one that approved the project for the First Baptist Church in Mount Pleasant.

Um we were able to work with the developer center park group to get five affordable townhomes added to their project of 43.

So out of 43, five will be affordable.

Um we also made a recommendation for foundation technologies to be used for the walkway through the wetlands to publics.

And also I have to thank Charleston County, which has helped us with which is going to be helping us with the gap financing so that the church receives the proceeds they're expecting, and we're able to include the five affordable housing.

Now, talking about the county and 41.

Um, I we are working very closely with the settlement communities, and we now have three banks that are funding long-term residents in the town of Mount Pleasant to renovate homes and where we can add additional housing for family.

So these are long-term residents, they've been here many, many years, but they've never had any help from the banks.

But now we have three banks working with us.

I'd be very careful with 41 Phillips community is very, very important to the history of this community and the residents, and we want to make sure we're helping everybody so that their families that want to move back to Mount Pleasant can move back.

So thank you.

Did I go too long?

No.

No, ma'am.

Michelle Stress.

Hi, uh Michelle Stress, 545 VerandeView in Mount Pleasant.

Um, so many of you may have been given the final report from the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

The science is very valuable and well supported.

However, it's important that we look beyond the headlines.

The study itself acknowledges several major limitations when it talks about artificial turf and its safety.

These include that examining only that they only examine crumb rubber infill and not the entire surf uh turf system.

They've omitted the microplastics, field degradation, environmental contamination, physical and infection risks, and the fact that modeling was used and not true longitudinal studies.

What the study did show though is very important.

There was a higher carcinogenic risk for infants and toddlers.

The surface temperatures of the fields were measured in excess of 150 degrees.

119 chemicals were detected in above the air in the air above the fields.

75 chemicals were detected in the sweat of patrons and participants, 76 chemicals in the gastrointestinal extracts, and 35 metals, many of which the panel itself described as poorly studied without complete toxicity data.

Additionally, Councilman Brownstein met me and others at the Awenda fields.

We learned that we we learned several things here.

It also raised some additional concerns.

These fields are very expensive to install and expensive to replace.

Repairs are noticeable.

They're raised and they're visually unappealing patches.

Chrome rubber is crumb, sorry, rub rubber crumbs are ubiquitous and readily released with minimal abrasion to the surface.

And very importantly, and something that maybe we hadn't considered, I didn't.

These fields require significant scrutiny and strict rules.

Spectators there are routed to avoid walking the field, no dragging, no rolling, no wagons, no coolers, no tents, no metal spikes, no umbrellas, no pets, and constant vigilant monitoring for gum shelled seeds and chewing tobacco.

And although there is signage, these continue to require remediation.

While the level of control may work for these professional venues, it does raise the question about the practicality of this public recreation space without diligent supervision.

So if you'd allow me to share just an alternative, could we please consider installing three natural fields at the Rifle Range Park and two additional fields at the new Long Point Redevelopment Area?

This would create a win-win-win environmental field, uh increased field access and rotation and a huge economic development that would directly benefit the many restaurants and breweries in the area.

Thank you.

Jennifer Palmer.

Good evening.

My name is Jennifer Palmer at 8633 Refuge Point Circle.

I work for Seaman White Sodon Associates, and I'm here on behalf of Center Park Group for the uh PD amendment for Park West.

Um I just wanted to take a minute to reiterate some of the positives about this project to council and the mayor, and also um make it a point to give some updates on some of the comments that we received at the last council meeting and at the planning committee meeting.

This townhome residential project will be a great use in this location to complete the mixed use development by adding the residential component amongst all the shopping, the schools, the work, and the church.

Only 1.42 acres right now is planned to be impervious, meaning less than 25% of the site will be composed of buildings and pavement.

The remainder, close to 80%, will consist of open space, buffers, pond, and preserved wetlands.

The developer is committing to uh have five of the units to be affordable and attainable housing.

Um a couple of the things that got brought up in the planning committee and also in the last council meeting were uh looking to increase the buffers.

Um we did look into that, and unfortunately, increasing those buffers would cause the roads and the buildings to shift to the north and the west, which would impact wetlands and wetland buffers.

Uh in the last council meeting, it was mentioned that possibly a daycare would be a good use for this property instead of residential.

However, a daycare use as significantly more peak hours, um, peak hour trips and increase traffic as opposed to residential uh traffic that this would generate.

As far as connectivity, um Center Park has uh reached out to the public shopping center uh to discuss connectivity with them and also connectivity with Life Park Church.

We have uh come up with a safe solution to that as well that we will work with staff on.

Thank you.

Jason Esposito.

Um good evening, Mayor and members of the council.

Uh thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.

Uh my name is Jason Esposito.

I'm with Center Park Group.

We are a local company.

We're based right here in Mount Pleasant, we're right across the street uh on Wingo Way.

Our team lives and works in this community, uh, and we do take a lot of pride in the projects that we build.

Most of you are pretty familiar already with some of the projects that we've done in Mount Pleasant, Gregory Ferry Town Homes, which is a workforce townhome development.

We did we did we worked with the Barrie Company on.

We are actively building in Carolina Park right now, the other workforce uh development that's in Mount Pleasant.

We built homes in Shell Point, Shell Ring, uh Theodore Road, Rifle Range Roads.

We're very active in the uh Charleston Tri-County area and and very much so in Mount Pleasant.

Um we studied this site, one of the things that stood out immediately was how well suited it is for the type of housing that we're proposing.

It's located close to everyday services like publics and other neighborhood retail from a planning perspective.

Uh these are exactly the types of locations where modest residential density, not apartments might make more sense, placing housing close to daily needs and existing infrastructure.

The other important part of this conversation is of course housing attainability across the country right now, and certainly here locally, communities are struggling with how to bring more affordable housing to market.

Uh often the conversation turns to subsidies or municipal incentives.

On this particular site, we have unique opportunity to utilize already allocated density the town owns to create a development with attainable housing within the community in addition to the affordable housing component now being uh provided.

The homes we're proposing have smaller footprints and very efficient designs that do allow us to deliver housing at a much more attainable price point than traditional larger lot development.

We believe this is a responsible and thoughtful use of the property, one that places housing where it makes sense and helps address real housing demand.

Uh at the end of the day, if communities want housing to be more attainable for the people that work here, we must allow the types of housing that make that possible, and sites like this are exactly where that kind of housing belongs.

Uh, we appreciate your time and consideration, and we hope to earn your support tonight.

Thank you.

Blake Hill.

Uh Blake Kill 3759 North Highway 17.

Mr.

Bob, if you were disappointed in your appearance, you can imagine how I feel.

Um wasn't planned on speaking with you guys this morning or this afternoon, but um we are needing to defer our um approval hopefully until next month's meeting.

Um, had some family issues come up that we'd appreciate if we could defer until next month's meeting.

Still would love to join.

Um, and thank you all for your time.

Which which item is that A and B.

Um I believe item number one.

Yeah, on the consent agenda.

Yes, thank you.

We we made note of that.

Thank you.

Michael German.

Good evening, Mayor, City Councilman.

My name is Michael German.

I live at 1707 Snowden Road.

This evening I stand before you as a member of the Great Olive Branch AMU church, requesting that you continue the approval process to allow that drive through off of Indial Market drive.

Um that's all.

But I also wanted to extend an invitation to you from my church to you and all of your family to worship with us any Sunday at 1030 service.

Thank you.

David C.

Good evening, David C 3404 Salterbeck Suite 202a.

Uh, thank you for your time.

I'd just like to thank uh the council and also the committee for all of the back and forth and good discussions that we've had.

I really appreciate the collaborative process.

I can't tell you how much uh that is refreshing for me, so thank you very much.

I hear uh representing First Baptist Church this evening, and I can tell you from being in the real estate business for a long time, they have been a wonderful client to have because they've been very flexible to try to stay engaged in the process and they've they've had to show a lot of flexibility to try to monetize this for the things that they want to do for their capital improvement.

So on behalf of the church, thank you also for listening.

Um the only concern that we have that I wanted to call to your attention tonight is when the project moved towards affordable housing, the church had to show some flexibility the way that our contract was written in full transparency to everyone here.

We are concerned that if now it's also needs to become a part of the hoa and actually be subject to any park west fees, that that could greater impact the financial burden on the church.

The church is the only one that would have to give in that situation the way that our contract is ordered, just to be very candid with you.

But we think it's important that you know that they have been very flexible up to this point, but that may be the part that maybe flies in the face of the affordable housing that's trying to be done here, because then you could have some fees that are going to be passed on to someone, whether they're a tenant or whether they end up being a property owner.

And I think that that might put the deal uh beyond the breaking point for the church, just because they have to be fair to their stewardship of that as well.

So as you discuss, we would appreciate you keeping that, and I would greatly appreciate it if we could have a motion to approve, so have a fair discussion tonight.

Thank you.

That's all I have, Mr.

Mayor.

Is there anyone who did not get to sign up who would like to speak?

Yes, sir.

Name and address two and a half minutes, please.

Good evening, Council Mike Vanhorn Iron Bridge Drive.

Um, I just wanted to uh if we can revisit uh last month we discussed as far as the wish list of all the different projects that the county would like to do throughout Mount Pleasant as far as with their uh referendum that they may do as far as the half cent sales tax.

So I would like to sit there and see.

I mean, our roads in Mount Pleasant are deteriorating little by little, you know, all the way, whether it be 17 side streets, you know, and a lot of those are either from the state aspect that have to be handled, the county aspect has to be handled, or local, you know, streets that we handle.

So obviously, with you know, highway 41 being the topic of discussion and the potential money that is set aside for that area that we could lose if we don't end up you know moving forward with the project on 41.

If we could sit there and put something out to the public, so you know, because the county's having a new round of uh question and answer sessions for folks to sit there and study before they propose the next half cent sales tax because the next one's supposed to be sunsetting pretty soon.

And so maybe if the residents of Mount Pleasant, because we are a huge voting block as it is throughout the county, if we have an idea of what that wish list was supposed to be that was going to be put to the county, because again, you know, there was some things that were put up as far as different potential projects.

But if we could have an idea of what you submitted to the county, and in that way we can sit there as a residents go to the county meeting as well and sit there and you know try to push to get our wish list put through because as I said, a voting block, you know, we carry a lot of weight in that sense, and maybe it's one of those things we can use that voting block as as leverage to put a stop to that laurel hill that they want to sit there and cut through as part of that project as well.

So whatever we can do to help facilitate that, but just giving us that information.

You know, it was one thing to sit there and put it on the screen last month, but then I haven't seen any other topics or conversations about that.

And I'm sorry I didn't see the subcommittee uh you know reports this past month, but you know, maybe it was mentioned during that time.

Thank you.

Anyone else Jason Fabrizio 501 Brampson Court, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina?

Uh local business center, uh Verlana Holmes.

Um talking in reference to number A3, uh, the rezoning on White Flat Road.

Um thing I did want to bring up just for clarification.

Uh we were not present for the February 2nd uh planning committee meeting.

Uh we were present for the meeting prior to that by the uh planning commission, but uh in reviewing the tape uh during that meeting, there was some question as to why this is being done.

There's a lot of back history on this particular property.

Um the one of the some of the council members had a concern of maybe leaving it as a multi-use or a commercial.

It really doesn't work for that.

We're we're requesting the R3 zoning on this particular just because of the size of the lots, the width of the lots, the depths of the lots.

Uh, our intention is to build two single family homes on the property.

It's uh I don't think the commercial they would have the law firm that had it prior, uh would have left it as commercial if the parking could have been solved.

I think that went back and forth for the numerous years.

So that's that's why we're looking at this particular zoning.

If we were to zone it to R1, like the properties in back of it, one of the lots would it doesn't qualify under R1 because I'm big enough.

Uh the other lot has a depth issue that wouldn't qualify either for anything to be built on it.

So it's just it's really the the only use in the current zoning structure.

So I thank you for your time.

Um Lawrence Disdale, 1535 Trumpeting Street, Mount Pleasant.

Uh, thank you very much for hearing us all tonight.

Um, here in regards to uh I'm here for the kids actually, and for parents and for the rifle range park.

Uh I know I've been there at parks and get rained out and have grandparents there, and the kids are just shattered when they can't play.

I've never went to a field before where there's actually uh artificial turf where the you can't play, it drains well, it's just it's an aesthetically pleasing thing for the community, and the kids can play there all the time.

I don't and some people like like to joke about this, but it's not a joke.

The kids need someplace to play, and you know, I'm here for the kids, and I'm here for the parents and the grandparents, and this is something I don't know how you would sell something to someone, the environmentals, whatever, by dumping tens of thousands of gallons of water into grass instead of something that doesn't need water or chemicals or anything.

Uh I just uh hope that you could really uh think about the kids when you vote for this park.

And uh also want to thanks uh uh there's a bit of video about uh going to Laura Hill Park.

It was really sad to see that this is gonna be bulldozed down to build a road and uh just hit home and uh thank you very much for posting that and uh really hope you guys think about the kids.

Thank you very much, guys.

Anyone else for public comment before it's closed?

No.

All right, public comment is closed.

Thank you all very much.

Item number seven is consent agenda items, and uh I will defer to our parliamentarian on how to proceed on items A and B.

Just appropriate motion would be to remove items A and B from the consent agenda and to defer.

So move a second.

So to remove and defer.

Yes, sir.

Items A and B.

We have a motion and a second.

Any discussion?

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All right.

Motion carries.

So we are now on item C.

No, I'm sorry.

We have item C and E.

Yes, sir.

In the consent agenda.

I'll move for approval of items C D and E.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Is there any discussion?

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Final reading.

Consent agenda item C D B.

All right.

Section eight planning new business.

Mr.

Chair, move to defer.

Second.

Uh which one?

A one?

A one.

A one A two.

And A2.

And A2.

All right.

A one and A two.

The motion is to defer.

We have second.

We are in discussion.

Is there any discussion?

Yes, sir, Mr.

Chapman.

Um Mayor, members of council.

Um I know the ITM is scheduled to defer at first and second reading.

But it's been recommended by the planning committee in both cases to deny items one and two.

Um as a result um I'm going to vote no for defer.

And then depending on how it how it is approved or denied or deferred, then make a motion to deny as recommended by both by the planning committee for both items.

Okay.

Discussion.

We're in discussion, yes, sir.

Um I've I seconded it for the purpose of discussion.

And I would concur with um Mr.

Chapman on that.

Uh we've plant uh move to deny um these are in the settlement uh community.

And um as such have an historic overlay, and therefore I would be moving um uh uh I would be voting to um deny I will not be voting for the motion right.

The motion is to defer any further discussion.

All right.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

No.

All right, we're gonna have to do a roll call.

Sorry.

This is to uh defer items one and two.

Ms.

Whitaker, no.

Miss Whitaker votes no, Mr.

Brownstein.

Yes, Mr.

Brownstein votes yes, Mr.

Chapman.

No.

Mr.

Chapman votes no.

Ms.

Crosby, no.

Ms.

Crosby votes no.

Ms.

Hyatt.

Yes.

Ms.

Hyatt votes yes.

Mr.

Eykafano is absent.

Mr.

Rambo, yes.

Mr.

Rambo votes yes.

Mr.

Tinky?

No.

Mr.

Tinky votes no.

Mayor Heaney.

No.

Mayor Heaney votes no.

Four to four.

Five.

Five three.

We're one short tonight.

So the eight votes.

So the motion to defer fails.

Fails.

Okay.

Mayor.

I'll I'll move to deny items eight a one and eight a two.

Second.

All right.

We are in discussion.

Yes, sir, Mr.

Rambo.

Um, so by denying this property, it's annexation.

It will get water, it will get sewer, it will be developed without impact fees without town taxes.

Our residents will bear the brunt of the impact of any development that occurs here.

While it isn't a historic overlay, that doesn't prevent development of this property.

So our residents will get all the impacts and none of the financial improvements that would go with it.

So that doesn't make sense to me.

Okay.

So it seems yes, sir.

Ms.

Chapman.

In most cases, I vote with Mr.

Rambo on these issues.

Um however the residents of Phillips have come to us and asked us not to allow this to happen.

We are working with them on several items, but in particular on 41.

So I continue to vote.

No for this.

Um in deference to our friends in the Phillips community.

Yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

Um I wanted to concur with uh councilmanbeau.

Uh I mean this is really setting somebody up for a developer's dream uh to be able to develop this property without uh joining the town, without um paying impact fees, without paying property taxes to the town.

Um it continues an inefficient provision of public services where you know two trash trucks going through the same area, two fire departments, two law enforcement agencies.

I just think that the more prudent thing for us to do would be um to continue to defer this while we can work out um you know expanding um what the county is doing in the area.

We can ultimately match what they come up with their zoning overlay, and and I I just don't see the the reason uh for us to to vote on this tonight.

I think that there's the opportunity to come to an agreement.

Um and and you know, you see lots of for sale signs along Highway 41, and and that's a road that uh can't bear any more traffic as as we all know.

Um it's just um I think setting us up for uh a bigger mess than already exists in that area.

Confirm they're more protected in the county.

Like zoning-wise, um so the underlying zoning is comparable to ours.

Um in the county, they're S3, which is uh similar to RCC, which is what it would come in as.

What it has in the county is the county historic designation, and then this is also on the National Register of Historic Places, as is the rest of the Phillips community, which the National Register does not have any bearing on any development plans or approvals, um, but it does have that uh placed on it regardless whether it's in the town or the county.

So comparable comparable zoning in both the protection with the the vote uh to deny allows us to uh work with them on the historic overlay that they have and also to work with them as we are in uh 10 mile hamlet and the Phillips community and extra protections of the settlement areas.

Mr.

Baglerini, I have a question.

Um this is 1.24 acres.

If it's annexed into the town under C C that's how many units per acre.

Oh depends on lot size or that.

It's three units an acre.

Um so 1.24, I can't do the math.

Okay.

So I I don't know, I don't know the applicant, and this is no reflection on the applicant, but seeing how this property is on highway 41.

Um what happens if if two residences are there, right?

And then the um when the highway is widened or changed in any way, and I know they're saying everything's gonna be done in the right of way that already exists, but um then you have two houses that could potentially be impacted and entitled to compensation.

Is that correct?

I sound like a TV lawyer, I know, but no, sir.

That that'd be right.

It's one parcel now.

If if it is divided, there'd be separate landowners as defined by our South Carolina code, and if they are impacted, um each landowner would be entitled to compensation.

We have no idea whether the whether it would be impacted and whether the amount of compensation would be more or less one property versus three, but it would still impact two residences instead of the one that's already there.

Correct, sir.

Yes, sir, Ms.

Rambo.

Um, so that's a really good point.

But oh, I guess my counter to that would be it has the same essentially the same zoning in the county, so they'd be on a subdivide in the county.

Um it doesn't meet the criteria for their um uh moratorium because it's not large enough, it wouldn't be subdivided that many times.

So it really I don't see the additional protection and Mr.

Tinky, I see all of your points, but I feel like you just made a point for deferring why we while we continue to have something that matches that historic overlay.

So I don't know, I'm hearing a lot of conflicting things because they can develop this in the county.

Uh I simply second it for the purpose of the discussion.

Ms.

White?

Um as you stated, our density is comparable to what the county would allow.

Uh the main difference having that historic designation, they would have to be re go through that board review.

That's correct.

That's basically the only difference.

The yeah, the main difference would be they have to go to the county's HPC for any approvals.

That's correct.

Um there is no zoning in place at this time, overlay in place at this time, like that was just adopted for uh 10 mile.

Um they have started a community survey to start to work towards that, but as you recall, it took 10 mile three years, so it's gonna it's gonna be a process, it's not gonna happen in the next three or four months.

Okay, so they're still not at the level that no, no, ma'am.

Okay, but they would have to go to that board.

And that's only like an architectural type of board.

I know people not on our committee might not be familiar with the that process.

Yeah, they look at different design standards.

Uh it would be almost like our DRB, our design review board.

That's correct.

So I feel like that's gonna be the only difference.

Okay.

All right.

The motion is to deny.

And is there any further discussion?

I'll see if we can do this on a voice vote.

All in favor of the motion to deny, please say aye.

I all opposed.

No.

All right.

Mr.

Brownstein.

And who else?

I think Miss Crosby, were you announced?

Were you a yes or a no to deny?

To deny yes.

Okay.

So five by five three motion to deny passes.

Okay.

Moves us to item three.

This item was also deferred from uh last month at the request of the applicant.

So it is before you for first reading.

Um this is pertaining to two properties located at the corner of Bowman and White Flat Road.

Um they are currently zoned OP2, office professional.

Um there is some history here before 2019.

They were zoned R1.

They've historically been zoned R1.

Um without getting into too much detail, the structure here was constructed without proper permits.

It's a commercial building.

And in order to try to um make it right, the town staff and town council worked with the owner at the time, not the current owner, and rezoned the property to office professional.

Um, but there were further issues with this building, um, parking buffers, and then meeting our commercial codes.

And so it has sat vacant since that time, and it has changed ownership.

And so what's before you now is to zone it back residential, but instead of R1, the request is to go to R3.

Again, those are two separate parcels, same ownership.

Um R3, the the main difference is that R3 would allow a duplex dwelling and single family detached, R1 only allows single family detached.

I would like to say, in light of a text amendment that you're gonna see later on the agenda that deals with density, that would make these parcels only eligible based on their square footage for a single family detached for each one.

Um but the R3 is more comparable or appropriate given the size of these properties.

One is 11,000 square feet, which would mean R1, the other one's 9,000, so that'd be more like an R2.

Um, but they could have single family or duplex under the R3 based on the size, they're likely only to get one unit on each lot.

So I'm happy to answer questions.

Move to deny.

Second.

We have a motion to deny, and we have a second.

Is there any discussion?

Yes, sir.

All right.

Um we have heard this parcel has been an issue for quite some time.

Um it almost goes back to when I was on the planning commission a few years ago.

And we're no better off today than we were then.

And so I think that's a better reason to deny and put this in conjunction with the R1s that are in this neighborhood to help protect this neighborhood.

Ms.

Hype.

But when speaking with the residents that live behind there, they would like it to remain R1.

They can see to the office professional be because it fronts Bowman Road, but they are opposed to having R3 density there at the front of their neighborhood.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

Do you have a question for Miss Reed?

Um earlier during public com comment, the applicant said that you would not be able to fit an R1 um lot on those properties.

Is that correct?

I I in my opinion, I think you could.

They were historically zoned R1.

These are legally established lots.

Now, if they're the owner were to come in and subdivide, that would be an issue.

But these lots have been in place, you know, we'd have to do the research.

But whether they're R1, R2, R3, their existing legally established lots.

Um, so I suspect that if you went back to R1, they would be what they were before, and you you would be able to issue a building permit.

Um, I know the one on the right, um, the larger one there, it's 11,000 square feet, and R1 requires a 10,000 square foot lot.

This one here is 9,000, and so that would not quite meet the the threshold, but we have a lot of lots out there that are zoned R1 that don't meet that 10,000 square feet, they've been existing.

And so if it's non conforming you would get certain um variances from your setbacks like a 20% reduction and and things like that.

But and that that property that's on the left the smaller of the two that currently has a a single family home on it right now, right?

Or is that vacant okay I think so we go oh well there's an aerial I think it's vacant.

I think the build there's just a building on the right yes sir Ms.

Rambo plan and future land use what does the comp plan and future land use call for um these are mixed use let me see here there we go mixed neighborhood so mixed neighborhood allows for a lot of different um zonings so R1 R2 R three R4 townhouse or multifamily um so any of those would be appropriate given what the what is recommended for um so it's currently office professional because that's what we voted to do right uh yes ma'am and would they would be able to do like a uh mixed use they could do an office with an apartment upstairs well to do that that is the problem with the building that's there now is that trying to have a commercial use and meet your parking and your buffers they realized it it's not working I know I remembered original um originally we approved it because they purchased the lot across the street to use for parking that's why there's not a billing on it so it's got gravel and the two lots were working together but yes um I'm thinking that if they're gonna go R3 they're gonna demolish that building of course so I would assume if they're gonna consider duplex or something so I would think the building's leaving and so then that's when I start thinking would they be able to put an office with maybe an apartment upstairs if they start from ground zero.

Perhaps zoning it would depend on what the office use was again given the constraints of the size it would they went to the board of zoning appeals to try to get a variance back in 23 from their parking and from buffers and setbacks and they were denied so at that point they couldn't move forward with anything.

Perhaps if they demolish this building and and put a much smaller building they could depending on the use they could meet it but it's a lot of you know but legally that's a that's a permitted use in office professional yes to do like a mixed use of this with an apartment that's correct.

Okay.

So okay so they have options if they think out of the box.

Any further discussion right the motion is to deny all in favor of the motion to deny please say aye.

Aye any opposed right motion carries item four.

All right this comes back to you after getting further consideration at committee um earlier this month um this is the site for the Dunes West um park west P D as you'll recall it's to incorporate uh seven acres currently zoned public institutional into the planned development to do the 43 uh multifamily townhouse style units um what came out of the um committee was that five of those units would be um attainable housing and um I did want to point out that it does cut the park west in 2019 there was a there was a a settlement where there was a reduction in density it left 50 multifamily units available to park west this would if this were incorporated into the PD it would pull out of that 50 so 43 so there would be seven remaining out of the park west utilization and this comes to you uh from the planning committee with a re recommendation for approval with those five units to be designated for attainable housing and then also for um an access pedestrian bike access to all American boulevard and I did want to point out and it was mentioned from um Jenny with seaman and whiteside that they had looked at um there is a sidewalk in place already up above but they would make this connection along uh George Browder um if if it were approved and that's something that we could work with through the design process but it does come to you with a recommendation for approval Mr.

Right.

Yes, sir.

That is that is precisely what council is voting on, and and there was discussion at planning committee related to HOA.

And we want to be certain to not conflate PD inclusion with HOA inclusion and corresponding.

That's what I that's what I wanted to know because we're we're doing things on here that we can only do if it is in the PD.

Correct.

But I just wanted to clear up whether there was any question whether this property would be in the PD.

Now the the question is the other question as a point of order is um will this necessarily use those um those remaining multifamily units because we bought we bought all but but fifty.

Right.

Okay.

Does the HOA decision have anything to do with that?

No, sir.

The PD and PD only the units belong to the PD and only the PD, okay, not the respective HOAs who have no control over those units.

Okay.

I just wanted to make sure we're clear on it.

Yes, sir.

Mr.

Brown's Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to move for approval and also request that this um be discussed during the next planning committee meeting.

Okay, motion to approve and and also have uh doesn't require a motion for that one in your motion to take it to the planning committee.

Is there a second?

Yes, second.

Okay.

Um we can probably shorten debate on this.

Um last last month, Ms.

Rambo and I were on the losing end of a 7-2 vote.

Um we voted uh to deny.

And um I told him we will we will lose that badly again tonight, but we won't because it'll it'll only be um six to two because we're short one one council member.

Um so we're we're getting better, but I I just have some I I appreciate everybody's good intentions on this.

Um I it's just that my this is my personal history on on this council was when I first got on things that were in the comp plan and in the zoning were all getting changed because somebody came along and and wanted to do a housing development.

A case in point is Rifle Range Road at Porsay's Bluff was our last remaining workforce uh development work workforce housing area.

That got changed and turned into you know fancy upscale um townhomes, and there are other places where things that were were either in the comp plan or the zoning or both, um had one you know, one type zoning, one type use, but it was there's always an incentive in Mount Pleasant to do another housing development, and that's that's how I see this.

Um and we just finished the two-year process and spent a lot of money paying the legal firm to redo our zoning, and I don't ever remember this coming up or anybody saying, you know, this would be much better as a residential property.

And I and I I like everybody involved in proposing this.

I really do.

I just it it's just something that spurred me to run, you know, ten years ago in the in the first place, is that um there will always be an incentive to do more housing in Mount Pleasant, and I think that's kind of how we got in the mess that uh that we've been trying to to fix.

Um we also um I have serious questions on whether the HOA can or will or can function.

I don't think anybody's here from the HOA to say we would love to have this in the HOA, but I I I live in a town home and I don't see how you can have some that are subject to all the covenants and restrictions and the fees, and then have some who aren't and how that works and how that's administered.

And um, I'm afraid that that will cast um uh attainable housing in a in a negative light.

So I'm I'm gonna be a no vote on this, but hopefully it won't um be a long discussion because I know the majority of council strongly favors it.

Who's Ms.

Cross?

To confirm we can't do any amendments now at first reading, right?

That is correct, ma'am.

Tonight is first reading for notice, and then any amendments would be at final reading, presumably next month.

Okay.

Yes.

Um Mr.

Tinke and then I agree with you many times.

I think one of the things I looked at is the current uh use.

There's two things in the comp plan.

One, what it's currently uh listed as, and two that we want to have live work and play areas and we want affordable housing and we want green space, all those above.

So when um um councilman Crosby and I walked the property again yesterday and got covered with uh pollen, uh we realized that uh 5.5 acres of that is going to be maintained as green space, and we weren't so certain that the institutional use or church uses or daycare or the other hospitals would reserve 5.5 acres.

It's a beautiful area that uh hopefully uh can be interpreted and used by the community.

A lot of beautiful trees in it, etc.

Um if it's with the HOA it'll have additional buffers on either side would go from 10 to 20 10 to 20 foot buffers and uh we'll have interconnectivity to the uh it may have interconnectivity to publics because Publix owns that land, but it would have connectivity to all American Way.

So I'm I'm conflicted.

Uh, but I think it uh for me it it it it ticked all those boxes and it uh the affordable housing.

Would I like to have more affordable housing?

Absolutely.

But I'd love to see it go we'll go back and have discussion.

Right.

And this is first reading.

So yes, ma'am, this would just a point of clarity.

So in in my recommendation and motion, I specifically use the word affordable housing.

I know that it's been referred to as attainable a couple times, just making sure we're using those interchangeably because there is a true definition of affordability and affordable, and that's what we want here.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

Yes, uh, and thank you for for everybody for their comments.

I I think it's important to note that these 50 units um do exist.

I know there's been some comments about well, where could you actually put those in Park West?

Um, and I think there actually are several locations in Park West where those units could be built.

Uh one off of Joe Rouse Road, which would be um not great given its proximity to 41.

Um I've heard Graythorn um has some available lots near the um retirement community there.

Um and and they could be built within the commercial areas in Park West if they were redeveloped.

I think in light of that, this is a much better spot.

It is kind of located um a little bit outside of the the Park West footprint.

It's on a brand new road, and so I think in terms of impact, uh this is a much better spot than the alternatives of where this could be developed if we just leave it to chance.

Um I also think that the attainable housing is a significant component.

Um the people that we rely on in this town to make it work increasingly can't afford to live here.

And while I concede that five is a small number, that's still better than than zero.

Um and then I finally um this does help um an important church in our town, First Baptist, um reinvest in its pro in its property um in old Mount Pleasant.

And so I you know, I I understand that there's some heartburn um with with this type of of development, but I do think um that we achieve um some pretty good benefits by approving it.

Thank you.

Yes, sir, Ms.

Ramba.

Um so a few things a general statement that I want to talk about some other things, but uh like Mr.

L the mayor said, Um, I like uh everyone involved.

Um First Baptist Church is where I grew up, where I met my wife, where I got married.

I have the utmost respect for everyone at the church.

Uh but one thing the church taught me was to always stand up for what I say I'm gonna do and do what I'm gonna say.

Um throughout campaigning twice, I have consistently said that I will not be voting to increase residential density in this town.

The vast majority of our citizens don't want to see more people crammed in to this already overdeveloped town.

Um also made that same promise.

And so I would challenge you to look within yourself to uphold the things that you talked about.

Um a couple of the points that are being used to say, oh, well, I said this, but it's beneficial in this way.

Uh yes, some of it will be undeveloped, but that's because the majority of the property is wetlands, you won't be able to develop it regardless.

Um five affordable housing units is to me a slap in the face out of uh 40 something.

Um also I've looked into several of the parcels that have were presented to me as oh, you could build them here if they're not built here.

Um and those don't hold water either, because they do hold water in that they are wet wetlands, or they are they don't meet the property size requirements to be able to do much density in the first place.

Really, the only areas would be commercial redevelopment, which would be extraordinarily expensive and decades away.

So again, no one in this town wants to see 50 more units, 43 more units crammed in to Park West, an area that's already overdeveloped.

I think we all need to live up to the promises that we promise people.

Any other comment?

Um I would just say I agree with uh a lot of what everybody has said here.

And normally this is the type of project that I would never say yes to, but the fact that these 50 units have already been approved, I feel there will come a time that some developer will find a way.

So if we can choose a less impactful location, I'm I'm really not there um with this.

I I don't agree with them having to join the HOA if we're trying to keep it affordable.

And um I'm not sure that five units is enough, especially if we heard tonight that the county is going to pitch in funding.

Um I I need to get more detail, so I'm glad it's gonna come back to committee and I may have a different opinion at my s at second reading if we can't um improve a few things, but um tonight I'll I'll be for it to keep it moving forward.

All right, the motion is to approve and to have the planning committee um bring this up again.

So all in favor of the motion to approve, please say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

No.

So by six to two, the motion carries.

First reading, ordinance number two six zero one eight.

All right, this next request is to amend the indigo square plan development district ordinance um several years ago, 2023 to be exact.

Um this was all one property owned by the olive branch AME church, zoned R1.

Uh, they came through zoned the church property PI one and then broke off a a parcel a little over an acre and incorporated that into the PD.

Um it was established with a few conditions, a 15-foot buffer adjacent to the Wando East Townhomes, maximum size of any um office or or neighborhood commercial use that could go there, and then those were the types of uses that were allowed.

Um it's back before you tonight for one change for a restaurant use, they would want to um have the ability to have a drive-thru.

And um it does come with with a recommendation for approval, and I'll say I think both the commission and the committee felt comfortable recommending approval because our transportation impact assessment ordinance changed in that um if you any use with a drive-thru now has to get a transportation impact assessment done.

And so this would go through our transportation department, they would have to look at what the what size the building was, that they would look at all those things, so it would get extra scrutiny based on that drive-thru as an added use.

And so I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

What can we get a motion first?

Motion to approve.

Okay, thank you.

All right, Mr.

Tinky.

Uh I believe we had a further caveat in the planning committee when we recommend approval, and that was that there'd be a natural buffer of um trees, existing trees would be that if you can recall that for me.

You're right.

The 15-foot buffer that's required as part of the 2023 amendment.

Added to that is that if there's any existing vegetation there, keep it, add to it.

So don't clear to vegetate and create a buffer.

So maintain any landscaping, any trees that's already there, and then add to it to create that 15-foot buffer.

You're correct, thank you.

And we thought that was important because there's a subdivision here and we've had issues when commercial meets residential, and I've been adamant about making sure we have good buffers, both for light, noise, et cetera.

And so I think this allows that, but it provides the church with the opportunity to develop this lot and and monetize it for their benefit.

Is is that in I'm asking that.

That would be not get put in the first reading.

It comes it it's before you for first reading, but it comes to you with uh that recommendation from the planning committee.

I I'm my question is do we need to amend it and that has to happen at second reading?

It's already in.

It's just already in.

This is a natural buffer in the and the Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Yes, sir.

Do we know what it's gonna be the drive-through?

Um I mean I don't think so.

It's gonna be food.

Maybe a copy shot.

There's some I'll vote for some I won't.

I'm just I said it to your point, Councilmember Randall.

I said at committee that if it was um, you know, an in-and-out burger or Christopher Kreme, we'd have to look at that transportation line, you know, in terms of that.

All right.

All right.

Any other yes, sir.

Um this photograph, and I'm going for memory, because I was on the planning commission, went in a go was approved, and we specifically denied any um drive-through.

However, things have changed, yeah, and there will be a impact statement done on whatever project they want to put in there to minimize the impact.

And there will be a uh impact statement done on whatever project they want to put in there to minimize the impact.

Um in the segment between where it appears they want to put this restaurant and the actual intersection.

It appears that there's vacant land with trees on it.

Will those trees remain in place?

That's part of the church property.

Um let's see here.

So this is all church property.

And I think they intend to do improvements at some point, but I but there will be a buffer that's going to be required there anyway.

So I don't know.

That'll be something we have to look at if the church ends up redeveloping or making improvements.

And I I believe that's the future intention, but that's something we would look at.

But that's pretty close to the edge, so I I don't know that those would be impacted.

Right.

But be that as you may, it's still a significant distance away from the intersection of indigo marker drive and US 17.

So it basically continues the restriction that we put on uh indigo when it was approved previously by the planning commission.

Yeah, you're correct, and that good memory.

And I think part of when it came through originally, that had to do with the fact that everything was internal.

So you think about all the restaurants in within Indigo Square, and this one's a little bit different just because it came in later and it's it's on the outer um part and off of indigo market.

So it's a little bit different, wasn't part of that original contemplated PD where that condition was.

They initially wanted to put a bank at the intersection.

That's right.

So that was that got turned down.

But thank you very much.

This is a good improvement, I think, to help the church, but it still does not force that traffic to go into the intersection of uh indigo market drive in 17.

Right.

I just realized this is a big real estate night for two churches in our town.

I don't know that we've ever had this before.

All right, um motion is to approve.

Is there any other discussion?

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

First reading, ordinance number two six zero two zero.

All right, these next two will be presented by Mr.

Mitchell.

Okay.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor.

Good evening.

We're ready.

Uh, this is the uh first reading of an ordinance to remove the density uh well, excuse me, the exemption of uh uh of the one-acre threshold um for subdividing the property.

Um the uh as you see here is the strike through um and what's being proposed is B for the purposes of lot subdivision development density is applicable to all parcels of land regardless of the parcel size.

Calculation of maximum density is specified in 156 1616, uh, which goes through a uh a general uh calculation as far as uh how to uh you know calculate the density.

So there are any questions.

Move to approve.

Second.

Is there any discussion?

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed motion carries?

That's first reading.

Ordinance number 26021.

Number seven, please.

All right.

Uh this is the uh the uh ordinance to amend Chapter 155, uh 155.05 for Green Space Preservation and Protection Plan and Environmental Guidelines for Land Development.

Uh this ordinance established development standards for environmental protection of isolated non-jurisdictional weapons.

Uh hitting on some of the key components.

We will not go through the entire ordinance in its entirety, but uh just as a refresher, this has gone uh this has been tracking back uh many months is uh went through the planning committee as well as the flood resilience committee.

Um the key components are this only pertains to non-jurisdictional wetlands.

Uh the field investigations are to be conducted by a qualified wetlands professional with at least a minimum of five years of experience.

That training will be verified.

Um this does apply to all subdivision requests and single family activity requiring building permits.

Uh the buffer shall be 10 feet, uh average 20 feet, but no less than five feet, and also the planning commission has the authority to increase the size of the buffer when deemed necessary.

So larger tracts of land, larger ice-led wetlands, the planning commission has the discretion to increase the buffer.

Um lastly, the exceptions.

Um this does exclude boundary surveys, uh, property line adjustments and aggregational lots.

It also excludes the uh overriding public interest when it's being served.

And also uh for five acres and less, the any historical traces of wetlands per the map GIS mapping tool.

And the owner provides an affidavit.

And when the proposal does not increase density of the property.

So those are the exceptions.

Those are the highlights.

That's all I have.

There are any questions?

Um so as chair of the flood resilience committee, um, we have worked on this.

I forgot how many months now, but um the chair moves uh for approval at first reading.

Second.

Um, I want to remind everybody this has been through the planning commission.

It has been through did y'all do it at the planning committee as well.

Yes, sir.

Yeah, planning committee.

Yeah, I was here.

I was I was trying to remember which committee that was.

Um planning committee, flood resilience.

Um we've had public hearings.

Um the first draft is never perfect.

Um this is first reading.

There's a reading, there's a reason why we have two readings.

There are some things um I would like to change uh at second reading, but we can't do that at first reading.

Um it has to do with like just getting another set of eyes and possibly a workable thing so that we, as was mentioned earlier, in Councilman Tinky.

I know you're big on this, that the town lives by the rules that we are expecting everyone else to live by and some other things, but um we we were uh unanimous in bringing this to first reading, and uh we will also put it on the committee agenda for next month.

Um so any council members that have some concerns about some wording or provisions of that, please bring it to us.

No reason it can't go on the planning committee uh as well.

So um I did get a second, right?

Yes, okay.

Any other discussion?

Yes, sir.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, and thank you to both committees for the hard work that you've done on this.

Um I think overall uh it is a good um work product that that is going to protect wetlands, which we all know are vitally important to us.

Um I do have a a little bit of consternation about this applying to existing single family lots.

I think it makes a lot of sense for um when you're subdividing land or you're engaging in a large commercial project where you have the ability to move things around.

Um I think with an existing single family home, however, um you may not have that ability.

And so I kind of wonder what the impact would be for a homeowner who wants to build a garage or a deck or a shed um as as was previously um stated earlier in the meeting.

And so um I I'm not not so sure about that part.

Um and I guess I I would request that that if it would be possible that that maybe we do rather than putting this through committees where some of us don't sit on those committees that would touch this ordinance and have questions about it, if we would maybe consider doing a special council meeting or workshop so that everybody could provide their input and we could um uh get a better sense of what the final product will be uh prior to second reading.

Any other comments?

Uh yes, sir.

I probably shouldn't admit this, but I I don't know if it's a workshop.

I think I just need a remedial course.

Uh I I read through this and it's uh very technical.

I'm still not like a hundred percent sure what defines a wetland, to be quite honest with you.

Um clearly you can look at some areas and visually see that there's water all the time, and sometimes there might not be water most of the time.

And so, like, are people gonna be surprised that a random area of their yard is marked as a wetland?

I I don't know.

I I'm just kind of I'm in support of the overall theme ideas.

Um I'm just struggling with the comprehension, and um, I know I could probably schedule an individual meeting with you.

Um but I just say that maybe other people are thinking the same thing.

I don't know.

Might just be me.

Those are certainly two reasonable comments.

Absolutely, no problem with that at all.

I mean, we can't put that into the motion, of course.

Yeah, you know.

Yes, sir, Ms.

Tinker.

Um we were very fortunate that we had uh talented staff that uh worked on this and they were able to demonstrate and and uh I think some of you were at that meeting, demonstrate the impact of where those wetlands were, where they weren't, and how they overlap.

So that would be a really good one to make sure that all the council gets uh that information they can see it and perhaps even sit down and go over it.

It really helped, it really helped me and it showed that we've done a lot of hard work on this and took into account uh probably all the maybe you can uh help me, Mr.

Mitchell, the the different entities that were used to gather that information, uh the different uh uh regulatory bodies.

There were three or four, and so we use readily reliable or uh reliable data to show that in overlay.

So I thought it was quite good.

Thank you.

All right, any other comments?

All right, all in favor of uh the motion to approve first reading, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

First reading, ordinance number two six zero two two.

Thank you all.

It was a great day for Mount Pleasant.

Um B, there is no old business.

Nine committee action items.

There are none.

Ten was removed.

This moves us to I'm sorry, 10 A1 was removed.

10 2 is a resolution uh to enter to approve to approve.

This is a memorandum with the sheriff's office has to do with incident management systems.

Is there any discussion?

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Resolution 260, thank you.

And B, old business final reading of the ordinance to amend section entitled Public Right of Away Planting and Replacement.

Move to approve.

Second.

Is there any discussion?

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, motion carries.

Final reading, ordinance number two six zero one nine.

Item 11, and I was wrong.

I said we'd be here till 7:30.

It's uh a little before that.

Is uh there's nothing further for this body, we stand adjourned.

Kevin gets in touch with it.

I was I didn't really know what that.