Mount Pleasant Planning Commission Meeting – August 19, 2026

The Mount Pleasant Planning Commission held its regular monthly meeting on August 19, 2026, at 5:05 PM. The agenda included six public hearings on zoning and rezoning requests, a controversial text amendment to the zoning code regarding density on community facility parcels, and updates from staff on previous recommendations to Town Council. The commission heard extensive public testimony, debated legal and policy implications, and voted on each item. Notably, the text amendment (7A) was recommended for denial with a directive for staff to return with alternative solutions. Other items included a height amendment for Oyster Park, a rezoning on Highway 17 denied as out of context, and several rezonings to align with comprehensive plan recommendations.

Consent Calendar

• Motion to approve the agenda (moved by Pam, seconded by Mr. Davis, passed unanimously).
• Motion to approve the minutes from the July 2026 meeting (moved by Ms. Mansoor, seconded by Pam, passed unanimously).

Public Comments & Testimony

• General Public Comment: No one spoke during the general public comment period.
• Public Hearing on Item 7A (Text Amendment):
  • Hacker Burr (Interim Head of School, Trident Academy, 1596 Headquarters Plantation Dr., Johns Island): Opposed the amendment, stating it would negatively impact the school’s financial stability and property values. Noted many affected organizations were unaware of the proposal and criticized the process and communication.
  • Eric Reutner (Assistant Head, Trident Academy, 906 Mr. Perch Lane, Charleston): Detailed that the town had not contacted Trident Academy or other schools about the issue, despite earlier statements from council that outreach had occurred. Quoted council minutes expressing concerns about optics and lack of public engagement. Called the process a failure in communication, community outreach, and accountability.
  • Firman Buchanan (Rector, Christ Episcopal Church, 2304 N. Highway 17): Opposed the amendment, explaining the church’s need for R1 zoning flexibility to build staff housing and potential affordable workforce rental units on its 20-acre property. Urged preservation of current zoning rights.
  • John Royal (self-identified, asked about two churches not in the 82 properties): Questioned whether St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church and Friendship AME Church were exempt and why. (Staff later clarified both are already zoned PI.)
  • Gilly Dodderer (Attorney for Christ the King Church and Catholic Diocese of Charleston): Submitted a letter outlining legal concerns. Argued the amendment would devalue church properties by subjecting them to additional council approval, unlike other residential properties. Cited state law (enabling act) that prohibits giving zoning effect to the comprehensive plan map. Concluded there was no identified problem to solve.
  • JC Taylor (Board Chair, Trident Academy): Reiterated financial consequences, noting a similar process reduced property values by 75% in a previous case. Emphasized that churches and schools are community assets, not developers.

Discussion Items

• Item 7A: Zoning Code Text Amendment (Chapter 156.039) – Staff presented a proposed amendment to add density restrictions for residentially zoned properties recommended for community facilities on the future land use map. Key points:
  • Of 162 community facility parcels, 82 are not in planned developments or already zoned public institutional. Most are R1 or R2.
  • The amendment would automatically restrict development beyond one residential unit unless council approves a comprehensive plan amendment or planned development.
  • Commission members expressed concerns about property rights, legality, and the lack of a clear problem. Ms. Ireland proposed an amendment to allow one unit per acre instead of one per parcel. After extensive debate, the commission voted 4-4 on that amendment (failed). Mr. Barry then moved to recommend denial of the proposed text amendment and direct staff to bring back alternative solutions considering public input. The motion, with an amendment to include the directive, passed 6-2 (Ms. Ireland and Mr. Davis opposed). The recommendation is that underlying zoning uses be preserved and council revisit the issue.
• Item 7B: Oyster Park Plan Development Height Map Amendment – Staff presented a request to mirror existing 48-foot height on one side of the development to create symmetry, replacing the former West Marine building. Applicant Lockie Brown (Dewberry) explained the change would allow a better architectural solution after West Marine’s bankruptcy. The footprint would shift 40 feet away from residential neighbors. Commission questioned parking and buffer details; staff noted the PD imposes design constraints. No public comments. Motion to approve (Mr. Davis, seconded by Mr. Smith) passed unanimously.
• Item 7C: 3587 North Highway 17 – Rezone to Town Home District – A 2.45-acre vacant former church site zoned R1 requesting town home zoning at 9 units/acre (22 units). Staff noted the request was inconsistent with surrounding context. Applicant not present. Public hearing no comments. Motion to deny (moved, seconded) passed unanimously.
• Item 7D: 1129 Joe Bryant – Rezone to AB1 – A 14-acre parcel (0.64-acre recently annexed) received default R1 zoning; request to rezone to AB1 to match surrounding commercial uses (community scale commercial in comp plan). No applicant present. Public hearing no comments. Commission supported uniformity. Motion to approve (Ms. Ireland, seconded by Mr. Smythe) passed 7-1 (Mr. Davis opposed).
• Item 7E: 1182 Russell Drive – Rezone to NC2 – A 0.21-acre residential parcel zoned R2, requesting neighborhood commercial to match adjacent uses (event rental company with 24/7 lighting). Staff noted existing land use already commercial in nature. No applicant present. Public hearing no comments. Motion to approve (Mr. Barry, seconded by Mr. Smythe) passed unanimously.
• Item 7F: Jordan Tract Plan Development – Rezone to AB1 – Two vacant lots at Highway 17 and South Shelmore, currently with a shell PD from 1986 (no standards, no uses). Applicant sought AB1 to make sites commercially viable. Staff explained the PD was originally a boundary-tracking tool; other parts have been rezoned over time. Commission discussed tree preservation; staff noted tree study would be part of future design review. Public hearing no comments. Motion to approve (moved, seconded) passed with two opposed (Mr. Barber and one other).

Key Outcomes

• Item 7A (Text Amendment): Motion to recommend denial with directive for staff to return with alternative solutions passed 6-2 (for: Barber, Harris, Smythe, Mansor, Bennett, Barry; against: Ireland, Davis). The recommendation goes to Planning Committee and Town Council.
• Item 7B (Oyster Park PD): Approved unanimously.
• Item 7C (3587 N. Highway 17): Denied unanimously.
• Item 7D (1129 Joe Bryant): Approved 7-1 (Davis opposed).
• Item 7E (1182 Russell Drive): Approved unanimously.
• Item 7F (Jordan Tract PD): Approved 5-2 (Barber and one other opposed; exact tally not clear but two opposed noted in transcript).