[00:00:01]
CAPTIONING PROVIDED BY BEAUFORT COUNTY.[1. Call to Order]
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, UH, WE'LL CALL THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND.WE START OFF OUR MEETING, UH, WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE OF THE UNITED, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE REPUBLIC.
[3. FOIA Compliance]
UH, KAREN, CAN I ASK IF WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT? YES, SIR.MAY KAREN, I MAY I ASK YOU TO CALL THE ROLL? CERTAINLY.
[5. Approval of Agenda]
HAVE ANY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA BEFORE? NO.UH, MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA BEFORE THE COMMISSION? MR. HENS MOVES A SECOND.
MR. SIBO? ALL IN FAVOR? PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND UNANIMOUS, UH, VOTE ON THAT APPROVAL EVENTS.
[6. Approval of Minutes]
UH, MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 15TH MINUTES THAT ARE IN YOUR KIT? OKAY.[7. Appearance by Citizens]
UH, TY SCOTT, MS. MR. TY SCOTT HERE.HI, YOU, UH, WELCOME TO THE PODIUM.
YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES? YES.
UH, TYRONE SCOTT, FOR THE RECORD.
UH, IN REGARDS TO THE PROPOSED ALAMO CHANGES, WHAT WOULD HAVE TO QUESTION? WHY WOULD THE TOWN BE CONSIDERING ANY CHANGES TO THE ALAMO, WHICH WOULD DIRECTLY AFFECT THE GULLAH COMMUNITIES WITHOUT HAVING FIRST IMPLEMENTED THE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT PLANS? AFTER COUNTLESS EFFORTS TO RESOLVE OUTSTANDING HISTORICAL GU NATIVE CONCERNS, WHY ARE WE RUSHING THROUGH AMENDMENTS WHICH COULD HAVE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED, WHICH COULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE HISTORIC FELLOW NEIGHBORHOODS? BEFORE IMPLEMENTING THE DISTRICT PLANS TO FOUND STRESSED AND DECIDED THAT AN OVERLAY WOULD BE A DIFFICULT TASK AND SUCH, AND DISTRICT PLAN, SUCH AS TO MID OUT PLAN WOULD BE BEST FOR PLANNING DEVELOP COMMUNITIES ARE WE PUT IN THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE NOT ONLY HAS THE PLANNING COMMISSION TASK FORCE AND THE TOWN COUNCIL APPROVED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT TOWN COUNCIL'S TASK, THEY REMAIN IN THEIR DISTRICT PRIORITIES.
THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY PROPOSED ALAMO AMENDMENTS IMPLEMENTED PRIOR TO THE INCORPORATION OF DISTRICT PLAN.
HOW WILL THE PROPOSED ALAMO AMENDMENTS IMPACT THE DISTRICT PLAN? YOU DON'T KNOW WHY.
IMPLEMENT REGULATIONS THAT COULD COUNTER THE EFFECTS OF THE DISTRICT PLAN.
A PRIME EXAMPLE OF NOT TRULY RESEARCHING THE IMPACTS OF AMENDMENTS CAN BE SEEN.
THE APPROVED FAMILY SUBDIVISION AND FAMILY COMPOUNDS.
STAFF ARE STILL HAVING DIFFICULTIES WITH HOW THESE APPROVED PLANS IMPACT GU NATIVE.
IF THE TOWN IS TRULY DEDICATED TO FULFILLING THEIR OBLIGATIONS REGARDING THE GULL COMMITTEE INITIATIVES, THEN NO ALAMO AMENDMENTS SHOULD MOVE FORWARD.
STOP PEACEMEAL IMPORTANCES, AND LET'S DO IT RIGHT.
RESTRICTIONS AMENDMENTS TO APPEASE CERTAIN GROUPS OF PEOPLE HAS ALWAYS HAD NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE GOVERNATOR ABSOLUTELY NO ALAMO AMENDMENTS, WHICH DEVALUES RESTRICTS CURRENTLY PERMEATED USES PLACES MORE RESTRICTIONS SUCH AS GREATER BUFFER REQUIREMENTS, WHICH WILL IMPACT THE FURTHER USE OF DEVELOPMENTAL LAND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WITH OUR FIRST HAVING A DISTRICT PLAN, IMPLEMENT, DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE TOWN WANTS US TO TRUST THEM, AND THE PROCESS IN ACTIONS SUCH AS THESE RUSSIAN AMENDMENTS SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AFTER MANY YEARS OF GULLAH TASKFORCE COMMITMENT TO THE BETTERMENT OF OUR GULL NATIVE COMMUNITY, RUSHING AND DISREGARDING THE GULLAH BETTERMENT RUSHING, AND THANK YOU.
AND DISREGARDING THE GULLAH COMMUNITY'S EFFORTS IS HISTORICALLY MORE OF THE SAME.
LET'S GIVE AND SHOW THE GULLAH NATIVE COMMUNITY THE RESPECT THAT WE SURELY DESERVE.
UM, I'M GONNA CALL ON, UH, UH, IS IT MR. RADO, UH, CRESS? ARE YOU IN THE AUDIENCE? YES.
I'M, DID I SAY THAT RIGHT? YES.
I HAPPEN THAT I OWN PROPERTY IN RD.
[00:05:01]
UM, AND LOOKING AT THE PROPOSED CHANGES, I CAN SEE THAT, UH, SERIOUSLY AFFECTS THE, UH, BUILDING ENVELOPE OF THE PROPERTY.UM, AND I'M JUST ONE SINGLE OWNER.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OTHER PEOPLE ARE OUT THERE.
THERE ARE SERIOUSLY GOING TO BE, UH, UH, AFFECTED BY THOSE CHANGES.
UH, IT REDUCES, UH, BUILDING ENVELOPE.
IT REDUCES, IT BASICALLY REDUCES DENSITY.
IT GOES BACK TO A SINGLE, A VERY SIMPLE THING.
YOU REDEFINE MULTI-FAMILY FROM, UH, SINGLE FAMILY HOME, UH, DUPLEX.
UH, YOU TAKE THE, UH, DUPLEX OUT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME DEFINITION.
YOU'RE BASICALLY RESTRICTING, UH, UH, UH, DENSITY.
YOU'RE BASICALLY CUTTING DENSITY IN, UH, TWO, JUST SIMPLE MATH.
UH, SO I'M SPEAKING AGAINST IT.
I THINK, UH, UH, IF, IF THE COMMUNITY WANTS TO EVALUATE THIS, IT HAS TO BE DONE IN A PROPER WAY AS MR. SCOTT VERY, UH, WELL, UH, SAID, THIS IS A RUSH, UH, UH, DECISION THAT, UH, SIGNIFICANTLY WILL IMPACT, UH, UH, EVERY SINGLE OWNER OUT THERE.
IF A REDUCTION IN DENSITY IS NEEDED, THEN LET'S, UH, LET'S, UH, LET'S LOOK AT REZONING AND, AND DO IT THE PROPER WAY.
I MEAN, UH, I PERSONALLY DON'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT THE CHANGES UNTIL I LOCKED IN THE TOWN, UH, UH, AGENDA.
I MEAN, PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW HOW THOSE CHANGES ARE MADE, AND EXACTLY HOW IS THE, UH, UH, IS GONNA AFFECT THEIR, THEIR PROPERTY.
I MEAN, I'M, I'M AN ACTIVE PERSON.
I, I WORK, UH, UH, EIGHT HOURS A DAY.
I, I CAN'T KEEP UP WITH, UH, VERY, VERY MINOR CHANGES THAT HAVE A VERY, VERY SERIOUS IMPLICATION IN THE WAY OUR PROPERTY RIGHTS, UH, UH, UH, UH, ARE AFFECTED.
SO, I, I, I SPEAK TOTALLY AGAINST IT.
IT'S A RUSH, RUSH DECISION AND IS NOT DONE IN THE, UH, UH, IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY.
MR. BRADON, ARE YOU IN THE ROOM? HE HAD SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, BUT HE'S NOT HERE.
SO, UH, UH, WE, WE WILL, UH, WE ON, ARE THERE ANY OTHER, WE HAVE RECEIVED PORTAL COMMENTS, HAVE WE NOT, KAREN? YES, SIR, WE DID.
UM, AND I, UH, EMAILED THE PORTAL COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSIONERS, AND THEY WILL BE MADE PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD.
I HAD A CHANCE TO READ THOSE, AND I'M SURE THE OTHER GENTLEMEN UP HERE HAVE AS WELL.
THE, UH, WE, WE HAVE NO UNFINISHED BUSINESS BEFORE US TODAY, AND THE NEW BUSINESSES, WE'RE
[9.a. Public Hearing]
HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THESE ALAMO O AMENDMENTS.THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND IS PROPOSING TO AMEND CHAPTERS FOUR AND 10 OF THE LAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE, ALAMO, TO REVISE THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS.
SECTION 16 DASH FOUR DASH 1 0 3 D TWO, AND 16 DASH FOUR DASH 1 0 3 E TWO, AND 16 DASH TEN ONE OH FIVE TO ELIMINATE THE ALLOWANCE OF DIVISIBLE DWELLING UNITS IN SECTION SIXTEEN TEN ONE OH THREE, A TWO TO MODIFY A MULTIFAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY DEFINITIONS, WE HAVE, UH, PRESENTING, UH, FROM THE STAFF OF MISSY LUK.
MR. LU IS OUR, UH, ASSISTANT, UH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE, I JUST GOT A TEXT FROM MACTA FORD, OUR, OUR, UH, GENERAL COUNSEL WHO SAID HE WASN'T ABLE TO HEAR US.
UM, MATT, CAN YOU HEAR THE MEETING NOW? I CAN HEAR YOU.
AND THEN, UM, BUT I, I CANNOT HEAR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS I'M WATCHING ON YOUTUBE AS WELL, BUT THERE'S A DELAY, SO I I, I, I CANNOT HEAR IN REAL TIME FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS.
CAN YOU FIX THAT REAL QUICK? ALL RIGHT.
I THINK I'D HAVE TO LEAVE THE, UH,
[00:10:02]
TEAMS IN ORDER TO GET IT BACK INTO IT.CAN YOU HEAR US A LITTLE BIT BETTER NOW? UH, I CAN HEAR WHOEVER'S AT THE PODIUM.
UH, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, UM, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO OPEN UP A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ALAMO O AMENDMENTS.
DO I HAVE SUCH A MOTION ON ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS? MR. SIBO? IS THERE A SECOND? MR. DEAR ENZO IS SECONDING AND, UH, ALL IN FAVOR OF OPENING UP PUBLIC HEARING ON THESE YELLOW MOMENTS.
MISSY LUK, ASSISTANT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FOR THE RECORD.
UM, SO THIS, UH, ALAMO AMENDMENT SET, UM, IS, UH, UH, RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD, UM, AS FAR AS THE DEFINITION CHANGES GO.
UM, AND I WANTED TO ALSO ADDRESS SOME OF THE COMMENTS FROM, UM, THE PUBLIC, UH, BUT IT IS TO CHANGE THE SINGLE FAMILY DEFINITION AND MULTI-FAMILY.
UM, OUR DEFINITION FOR SINGLE FAMILY INCLUDED TWO OR LESS HOMES ON A LOT, AND, UM, AND THEN MULTI, MULTI-FAMILY WAS GREATER THAN TWO.
UM, AND THIS SIMPLY, UM, CHANGES THE SINGLE FAMILY DEFINITION MORE IN LINE WITH HOW SINGLE FAMILY IS DEFINED AND OTHER ZONING CODES ACROSS THE COUNTRY, WHICH IS ONE UNIT ON, ON A PARCEL.
AND THAT MULTI-FAMILY IS TWO OR TWO OR MORE.
UM, SO THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE DEFINITION CHANGE.
UM, AND THEN THE SECOND CHANGE THAT'S INCLUDED IN, IN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT THAT'S BEFORE YOU IS TO ELIMINATE DIVISIBLE DWELLING UNITS, WHICH ARE COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS LOCKOUT UNITS.
UM, AND, AND THAT IS THERE, THERE WILL BE OTHER, UM, THERE ARE LOCKOUT UNITS ON THE ISLAND.
UM, THOSE WOULD BECOME LEGAL NONCONFORMING USES, BUT THIS CHANGE WOULD NOT ALLOW ANY FUTURE, UM, LOCKOUT UNITS OR DIVISIBLE DWELLING UNITS TO, TO BE APPROVED.
UM, AND THEN IN, IN REGARD TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE, UM, THE, THE CHANGE DOESN'T, UM, DISALLOW ANY, ANY DENSITY THAT IS PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED.
IT'S JUST HOW, WHETHER THE USE IN HOW WE APPLY THAT IN, IN THE TABLES THAT WE HAVE, HOW WE APPLY SETBACKS AND BUFFERS, WHETHER IT'S SINGLE FAMILY OR MULTI-FAMILY, UM, WOULD CHANGE A LITTLE BIT.
UM, BUT IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS THAT CAN BE PLACED ON A PROPERTY.
UM, DISCUSSION, UH, MR. I'LL START WITH MR. ZO.
DO YOU HAVE ANY, UH, COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? YES.
UM, CAN YOU FURTHER EXPLAIN, UH, WHAT IS DRIVING THESE, THESE AMENDMENTS? IS IT TO BECOME SIMILAR TO OTHER COMMUNITIES, OR IS THERE SOMETHING, UH, THAT, THAT REQUIRES THIS KIND OF AN AMENDMENT AND REDEFINITION? SURE.
UM, WELL, WE WERE LOOKING AT, UM, OUR DEFINITIONS AND WE WANTED TO BRING BOTH SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY MORE IN LINE WITH HOW THEY'RE TRADITIONALLY DEFINED IN OTHER AREAS.
UM, AND THEN AS FAR AS THE USE AS IT RELATES TO DIVISIBLE DWELLING UNITS, UM, THE COMMUNITY AND, AND STAFF, UM, FEELS LIKE THAT'S NOT AN APPROPRIATE USE TO CONTINUE AND THAT, UM, AND SO THAT'S WHY WE WANTED TO REMOVE THAT USE GOING FORWARD.
AND SO ANY, ANY, UH, LOCKOUT UNITS THAT EXIST WILL REMAIN.
AND MOVING FORWARD, NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL ABIDE BY THE NEW, THE NEW RULES, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
UH, MR. SIBO, UH, I'M WONDERING BOTH OF THE PEOPLE WE'VE HEARD FROM THROUGH THE PORTAL REFERENCE THE, UM, CONCEPT OF MOTHER-IN-LAW SUITES AND A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.
UH, WOULD THIS ORDINANCE CHANGE HAVE ANYTHING TO, WOULD, WOULD IT LIMIT OR DISALLOW ANYTHING LIKE THAT? MOTHER-IN-LAW SUITES? I DID NOT, UM, RECEIVE THE PORTAL COMMENTS.
UM, SO I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT.
THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT MOTHER-IN-LAW SUITES, SOMEBODY WHO ANTICIPATES HAVING A, A RELATIVE MOVE IN AND THEY WANT KIND OF SEP SEMI SEPARATE QUARTERS IN THEIR OWN HOME FOR THEM.
WOULD, WOULD THIS, UH, WOULD THIS DISQUALIFY THAT FROM TAKING PLACE, UM, CONDITION OF A LOCKOUT? MAYBE WE COULD DO IT THAT WAY.
I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT.
I CAN'T ANSWER THAT RIGHT NOW.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, SIR? UH, MR. HEN? YEAH.
NEW DEFINITIONS SEEM LOGICAL, MULTIFAMILY.
[00:15:01]
WILL THIS AFFECT THE OVERLAY DISTRICT ADDING IN COURT? UH, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE, THE ONE FOR THE HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD GUE OVERLAY? UM, IT, AGAIN, THIS DOESN'T IMPACT, UM, YOU KNOW, DENSITY OVERALL.IT'S JUST A CHANGE IN THE DEFINITION.
UM, IT, IT'S JUST HOW WE WOULD DEFINE WHAT DEVELOPMENT IS BEING PROPOSED.
AND THEN, RIGHT NOW IT'S HOW WE WOULD APPLY, UM, THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
I E LIKE SETBACKS AND BUFFERS BASED ON IS IT A SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT OR IS IT MULTI-FAMILY OR NO, MR. O'NEIL.
JUST, JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS HERE.
IT MIGHT BE THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND SOME OF THIS, BUT FIRST OF ALL, TO THE INITIAL COMMENTS FROM THE GULLAH COMMUNITY, UM, STAFF FEEL LIKE THAT WE'VE ADDRESSED THOSE, THOSE CONCERNS.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE NEED FOR A DISTRICT-WIDE PLAN FIRST, UM, THE, THE UNDERSTANDING OF WHO'S IMPACTED BY THIS, THAT COMMUNITY.
UM, UH, THE QUESTION OF WHAT'S THE RUSH RUSH HERE? UM, CAUSE I'M HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING HOW YOU'RE GONNA GO WORK WITH ONE SET OF RULES AND GRANDFATHER, EVERYBODY WITH THE OLD SET OF RULES MM-HMM.
AND OVER TIME, HOW ARE WE GONNA, HOW ARE WE REALLY GONNA MANAGE THAT? UM, I'M, I'M REALLY NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT AND I NEED TO UNDERSTAND.
HELP, COMMISSIONER O'NEILL, COULD YOU PLEASE UNMUTE? UM, UNMUTE YOUR MICROPHONE, EVERYONE, THE SPEAKING AT YOUR, THAT YOU HAVE A RED LIGHT, RED BUTTON UNREAD.
IT'S ON, YOU'RE ON THE, YOU NEED TO START OVER
UM, THE, THE, THE QUESTION IS, THE, THE FIRST COMMENTS, UH, FROM THE GULLAH COMMUNITY, I THINK ARE, ARE GOOD QUESTIONS.
WHAT'S THE RUSH? WHY NOT WAIT FOR A DISTRICT PLAN FIRST, UM, AND UNDERSTAND BETTER THAN I DO ANYWAY, THE IMPACT OF A SET OF RULES FOR PEOPLE THAT HAVE ALREADY BOUGHT AND BUILT, UH, FROM IN-LAW APARTMENTS TO SETBACKS, UM, AND BUFFERS THAT ARE ALSO GONNA BE AFFECTED BY ALL OF THIS.
AND HOW ARE WE GONNA MANAGE THOSE TWO DIFFERENT SITUATIONS GOING FORWARD? SURE.
SO, UM, REALLY THIS CHANGE APPLIES TO, AND WHAT WOULD BECOME NONCONFORMING ARE PARCELS THAT HAVE TWO UNITS ON ONE LOT CURRENTLY THAT ARE NOW CONSIDERED TO BE SINGLE FAMILY, THAT NOW WITH THIS DEFINITION CHANGE TWO HOMES ON ONE LA THEY'RE NOW GONNA BE CONSIDERED MULTI-FAMILY.
SO THAT'S WHAT COULD BECOME NON-CONFORMING.
UM, IF THE SETBACKS AND BUFFERS WOULD CHANGE, SOMETIMES, UM, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE ADJACENT USE IS, THE SETBACKS AND BUFFERS ARE THE SAME, WHETHER IT'S ONE OR TWO HOMES.
SO IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE, CUZ WE HAVE ADJACENT USE SETBACK AND BUFFERS.
THAT'S HOW WE APPLY IT WITH WHAT THE USE IS ADJACENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT.
UM, BUT THAT IS WHAT THIS, THIS CHANGE COULD AFFECT AND MAKE NONCONFORMING AGAIN, ARE THE, THE SITES THAT HAVE CURRENTLY TWO HOMES ON ONE LOT THAT ARE CONSIDERED SINGLE FAMILY.
THE DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T CHANGE, IT'S JUST THAT THEY WOULD BE CONSIDERED A LEGAL NONCONFORMING, YOU KNOW, WITH TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON ONE LOT.
BUT REALLY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THAT THEY WOULD JUST BE CONSIDERED INSTEAD OF SINGLE FAMILY USE, THEY WOULD NOW BE CONSIDERED MULTI-FAMILY USE.
BUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF TWO HOMES STAYS THE SAME.
UM, AS FAR AS YOUR QUESTION ABOUT TIMING, UM, WE HAD OUTLINED TO THE PUBLIC PLANNING COMMITTEE, UM, A MULTI, MULTI-FACED ALAMO AMENDMENT PHASING PLAN.
UM, THIS AMENDMENT IS PHASE THREE IN THAT PLAN.
PHASE FOUR THAT'S COMING NEXT HAS A RANGE OF, UM, L O AMENDMENTS THAT, UM, THAT WILL, UM, REALLY COMPLIMENT SOME OF WHAT'S STARTED HERE IN PHASE THREE.
UM, BUT REALLY LOOKING AT A LOT OF THE DEVELOPMENT, UM, STANDARD SECTION, SOME OF OUR ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION, SOME DEFINITIONS WILL BE LOOKED AT AS WELL IN THAT PHASE FOUR.
UM, SO THIS IS JUST A LITTLE BIT AHEAD OF THAT PHASE FOUR SET, BUT IT IS IN LINE WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING AS FAR AS OUR ALAMO AMENDMENT OVERHAUL.
AND, UM, REALLY LOOKING AT, UM, CHANGES BASED ON THE L M O SWAT ANALYSIS THAT WE HAD DONE IN JANUARY.
DID I ANSWER ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.
I, I GUESS THEN, CAN, CAN YOU TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD BE AFFECTED? UM, HOW, HOW MANY EXISTING STRUCTURES WOULD NOW BE CLASSIFIED, UM, DIFFERENTLY THAN THEY ARE NOW? I DON'T HAVE THAT ANSWER FOR YOU TODAY.
IT IS SOMETHING THAT THE, THE TEAM IS LOOKING INTO MM-HMM.
UM, AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A NUANCED SEARCH, UM, JUST BECAUSE OF OUR ADJACENT USE REQUIREMENTS MM-HMM.
[00:20:02]
OKAY.SO MISSY, UH, AGAIN, I'M SOMEWHAT CONCERNED ABOUT THE, UH, THE SOURCE OF THE CHANGES.
WHY, WHY, UH, IS THIS MOVING AT THIS POINT IN THE CALENDAR YEAR? FOR EXAMPLE? WHY ARE WE DOING THIS NOW AND ARE WE IN SOME HURRY? UH, WELL, WE HAVE RECEIVED NUMEROUS, UM, COMMUNITY, UM, YOU KNOW, CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT A NUMBER OF SECTIONS IN THE, IN THE, IN THE CODE, WHICH IS WHY WE'VE EXECUTED BOTH THE SWOT ANALYSIS AND THIS FIVE PHASED ALAMO AMENDMENT PLAN.
AND THIS JUST HAPPENS TO BE A LITTLE BIT IN FRONT OF THE, THE PHASE FOUR SET.
UM, SO IT'S, IT'S PART OF THE LARGER PLAN.
SO IF WE RECOMMEND THIS TO TOWN COUNCIL AS WRITTEN, UM, BASICALLY WE'RE GRANDFATHERING IN ALL CURRENT LOCKOUTS IS CORRECT.
WE'RE GRANDFATHERING HIM IN YEP.
UM, BUT THEY ARE NONCONFORMING, IS THAT RIGHT? THEY WOULD BE CONSIDERED LEGAL NONCONFORMING USES, YES.
UM, WHAT IF WE PUT A CERTAIN DATE ON THIS, WE HAVE, UH, PEOPLE, UH, MAY HAVE PLANS TO BUILD LOCKOUTS, FOR EXAMPLE.
HOW WOULD THIS AFFECT THE FOLLEY FIELD, UH, ISSUE? I MEAN, THEY'RE PLANNING TO BUILD LOCKOUTS AS PART OF THAT DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.
UH, WOULD THIS BAN THEM FROM DOING LOCKOUTS? UM, THIS WOULD
DID HE LEAVE ASHLEY GOODRICH PRINCIPAL PLANNER? YES.
ASHLEY, IF YOU COULD STEP UP TO THE MIC, I'D APPRECIATE, WE, WE CAN HEAR YOU.
SO, ONE ASPECT OF NONCONFORMITIES IN TERMS OF, UH, ILLEGAL NON-CONFORMING AND THE, UH, BOTH TO THE USE AND THE STRUCTURE IS THAT, UM, THE APPLICABILITY FOR ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT WOULD BE THAT A NEW DEVELOPMENT WOULD NEED TO BE IN CONFORMANCE TO THE CODE, TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE.
AND AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, THE RULE OF THE CODE OF LAW WOULD STAND.
SO PART OF WHEN SOMETHING BECOMES A NON-CONFORMING USE, IT IS ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN EXIST UNLESS AT WHICH AT SOME TIME IT COMES FORWARD AS A REDEVELOPMENT.
AND WHEN SOMETHING IS COMING FORWARD AS A REDEVELOPMENT, THEN THE NEW ASPECT OF THE CODE, IF IT'S NON-CONFORMING, THE GOAL IS TO BRING IT INTO CONFORMING COMPLIANCE.
NOW, IF, IF WE WERE TO MOVE THIS UP TO TOWN COUNCIL AND TOWN COUNCIL WERE TO, UH, APPROVE THE LMO AMENDMENTS AS, AS THEY'RE WRITTEN BEFORE US, WOULD, WOULD THE, THE DATE OF THE PROPOSAL FOR FOLLEY FIELD, HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT? IN OTHER WORDS, UH, WOULD WE BE BANNING LOCKOUTS, UH, ONCE TOWN COUNCIL ACTS THAT, THAT THAT PROJECT COULD NOT GO FORWARD WITH LOCKOUTS? IS THAT THE CASE? SO, AS IN ANY OTHER ASPECT OF OUR LMO CODE OF, OF ANY OTHER CHAPTER, THE D THE DIFFERENCE WITH FOLCO IS, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY IF IT'S A FULL APPLICATION, IF IT'S CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW FOR THAT ONE TOPIC.
THAT'S WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
AS AN ACTIVE APPLICATION, OUR CODE STATES THAT THEY WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO WHERE THEY WERE WHEN THEY APPLIED, IF THEIR APPLICATION IS COMPLETED.
SO THEY COULD HAVE LOCKOUTS THEN AS PART OF THEIR PLAN.
THAT BEING SAID, EVERY OTHER ASPECT OF OUR REVIEW IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IS TO WORK THROUGH FROM WHERE THE CODE WILL BE.
AND THAT IS WITH ANY APPLICATION FROM THE MOMENT THEY'RE, UM, FULLY ENTERED IN AND APPLIED, UM, UH, MISSY AND OR MAYBE ASK YOU WHAT YOU CAN ANSWER THIS, WHAT IS THE EFFECT ON A FAMILY COMPOUND, UH, BY, BY THIS, UH, LMO CHANGES? WHAT WOULD BE THE EFFECT? UM, FAMILY COMPOUNDS DEVELOPMENT IS CONSIDERED TO BE SINGLE FAMILY, NO MATTER THE NUMBER OF UNITS ON THE FAMILY COMPOUND.
YEAH, I JUST DON'T, IF YOU ARE GONNA DO A LOCKOUT, YOU DON'T WANNA LOCK OUT YOUR MOTHER-IN-LAW THAT YOU COULD HEAR ABOUT THAT AFTER A WHILE.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? UM, I DON'T SEE THE SOURCE OR THE REASON FOR THE SPEED AT WHICH WE'RE GOING ON THIS.
UM, I DON'T WANNA HOLD UP, UH, SOMETHING AT THE TOWN COUNCIL LEVEL IF THEY,
[00:25:01]
UH, ARE INTERESTED IN MOVING THIS THING ALONG QUICKLY.BUT, UH, I THINK THERE'S SOME QUESTIONS THAT ARE NOT ANSWERED HERE, UH, AND WE NEED TO GET 'EM ANSWERED.
UM, IN TERMS OF THE DISTRICT PLANS AND OTHER THINGS, ANY COMMENT OR ANY THOUGHTS THAT ENLIGHTEN US ON THAT? SO ONE THING TO THINK ABOUT AS WE CLARIFY THE CODE TODAY, AND EVEN IN THESE SMALL PIECES, UM, AS FIRST WITH LOOKING AT THE LMO SWAT THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY DONE WITH OUR STAFF AND REVIEW, IS THAT CLARIFYING SINGLE FAMILY VERSUS MULTI-FAMILY IN A VERY CLEAR AND CONCISE WAY IS AS WE WORK THROUGH OUR DISTRICT PLANNING, WE ARE ABLE TO THEN THEREFORE AS WE CREATE, OUR DISTRICTS HAVE A VERY CLEAR AND CONCISE DEFINITION TO LEAD US IN THE GUIDANCE FOR THESE DISTRICT PLANS.
UH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WHEN WE LOOK AT WHAT MAKES A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN TERMS OF THE VALUES OF OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR ISLAND CHARACTER, AND THOSE OF US WHO ARE ALL HERE TODAY IN OUR ADVOCACY AND INTEREST, AS WELL AS, UH, OUR HOME OWNERSHIP, UH, OUR PROPERTY IS THAT, UM, THAT HAVING SINGLE FAMILY BE RELATIVELY STRICTLY ONE UNIT MAKES IT CLEAR FOR THE APPLICABILITY OF US TO IN IMPLEMENT OUR CODE AND ALL OF OUR, BOTH OUR DISTRICTS AND THEN OUR, OUR ZONING AND, AND OTHER PIECES.
I'M TRYING TO DETERMINE IF WE BAN LOCKOUTS, DOES THAT BAN PUT PERSONS FROM PUTTING IN THEIR SINGLE FAMILY HOME, A MOTHER-IN-LAW UNIT? DO YOU WANT YES.
THE, THE BIGGEST THING TO THINK ABOUT A LOCKOUT UNIT VERSUS A MOTHER-IN-LAW SUITE, UM, AND THIS IS, IS IT RENTED SEPARATELY? THAT'S THE REASON IT'S A LOCKOUT.
IT, IT'S NOT EVEN SO MUCH ABOUT IT BEING RENTED SEPARATELY AS THE NUMBER OF UTILITIES THAT CAN BE THEREFORE ADDED INTO, UM, THE SPECIFIC BUILD OUT IN THE STRUCTURE, UM, TO BREAK DOWN SORT OF HOW SOMEONE CAN ADD A MOTHER-IN-LAW SUITE OR HAVE EXTRA ROOMS IN THEIR PROPERTY.
UM, THE DIFFERENCE THEN BECOMES, AND THE, AND THE REAL STRICT DIFFERENCE TO SAYING WHAT IS ONE UNIT VERSUS TWO UNITS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, IS IF, LET'S SAY YOU HAD TWO UTILITY BOXES MM-HMM.
UM, SO THE CLARIFICATION OF ONE VERSUS MULTIPLE IS ALSO TO HELP CLARIFY THAT AS WELL.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE CLARIFYING ANYTHING.
SEAN, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD?
I HAD TO STEP OUT DURING SOME OF THE DISCUSSION.
SO THE, THE, THE DETERMINATION ON MORE THAN ONE DWELLING UNIT ON A SITE, IT HAS TO MEET ALL FIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR A DWELLING UNIT.
THE, THE LOCKOUT UNITS ARE DEVELOP DIVISIBLE DWELLING UNITS.
HAVE BEEN PRIMARILY, UH, LINKED WITH, UH, TIMESHARE OR OTHER RESORT USES.
RIGHT? SO AS IT RELATES TO MOTHER-IN-LAW SUITES OR FROGS, YOU KNOW, FINISHED ROOM OVER GARAGE, IF IT DOESN'T MEET THE DEFINITION OF ANOTHER DWELLING UNIT, SO IF IT DOESN'T HAVE, UH, EATING, SLEEPING, COOKING, SANITATION, AND LIVING, DID I GET ALL THAT? IS THAT RIGHT? UM, THEN IT DOESN'T MEET THE DEFINITION OF A DWELLING.
AND SO THEREFORE DEPENDS ON THE MOTHER-IN-LAW SUITE.
IF IT'S FULLY ARTICULATED WITH A FULL KIT OR A KITCHEN AND A BATHROOM AND A BEDROOM AND A EATING AND SLEEPING FACILITY, THEN IT'S A, IT'S A, IT'S A FULL UNIT.
IT'S NOT A DIVISIBLE DWELLING UNIT, WHICH UNDER OUR CODE OR HALF OF A UNIT, HOW CAN WE, CAN WE, IS THERE SOME LANGUAGE WE CAN PUT IN HERE THAT WOULD DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN A LOCKOUT AND, UH, AND ADDING A MOTHER-IN-LAW SUITE TO A CURRENT SINGLE FAMILY OWNER? WELL, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS, I THINK THE, WHAT THE LANGUAGE BEFORE YOU TODAY IS, IS RELATED TO THE LOCKOUTS.
AND, AND IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE ABILITY OF A MOTHER-IN-LAW SUITE OR, OR FINISH ROOM OVER GARAGE UHHUH
SO I'D LIKE TO HANDLE THE LOCKOUT ITEM THAT'S BEFORE YOU, AND THEN AS WE COME FORWARD, THIS LMO OVERHAUL.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT A MOTHER-IN-LAW SUITE IS NOT IN THE DEFINITION OF A LOCKOUT.
AND, AND SO I THINK AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE FULL OVERHAUL OF THE CODE THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY IN PHASE THREE, THIS IS PHASE THREE, WE HAVE A PHASE FOUR AND A FIVE, BUT BETWEEN NOW AND THE END OF THE YEAR TO OVERHAUL THE WHOLE CODE, WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT THAT CLARIFICATION ALL
[00:30:01]
RIGHT.AND THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.
SO WE GET INTO, HEY, MAYBE AS PART OF A WORKFORCE SOLUTION IS TO HAVE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS THAT YOU COULD THEN PROVIDE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR WORKFORCE.
IT'S, IT, IT'S A, IT'S A PROGRAM THAT'S USING A LOT OF COMMUNITIES.
AND SO I'M NOT PROMOTING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S WHERE WE LAND, BUT THAT WOULD BE PART OF THAT DEEPER POLICY DISCUSSION FOR END OF YEAR.
SO TODAY WE'RE DISCUSSING LOCKOUTS.
SO IF WE WERE TO VOTE FOR IT, WE ARE ELIMINATING FUTURE LOCKOUTS.
AND ANY OTHER QUESTIONS GO AROUND ONE MORE TIME, TOM? YEAH.
I, IF, IF SINGLE FAMILY DOESN'T MEAN SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY DOESN'T MEAN MULTI-FAMILY, I DON'T SEE HOW YOU COULD EVER PLAN IT.
LIKE IT'S JUST BASIC RICK, ANYTHING ADDITION? THERE WAS ANOTHER, UH, ANOTHER WRITTEN COMMENT, WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT THAT THAT CAUGHT SOME LANGUAGE THAT, UM, SHE WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THE, THE VISIBLE DWELLING UNITS ARE STRICTLY IN THE CR AND THE RD DISTRICTS AND NOT IN THE RSF DISTRICT.
DO YOU RECALL SEEING THAT PARTICULAR COMMENT? YES.
SO, UH, I THOUGHT THAT WAS A PRETTY GOOD COMMENT THAT, UH, IN TERMS OF, OF GRANDFATHERING THIS, THIS, THESE NEW DIVISIBLE LOCKOUT UNITS, UH, IT WAS HER OPINION THAT SHOULD BE APPLICABLE IN THE CR.
AND THE ONLY, THE RSF AND I, AND AGAIN, I THINK AS WE DO THE DISTRICT PLANNING, FINISH THE DISTRICT PLANNING, IF WE IDENTIFY WITHIN THAT DISTRICT PLANNING THE DISTRICTS AND THEN THE ZONE ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS WITHIN THE, WITHIN THE DISTRICTS, UM, IF, IF CERTAIN USE TYPES ARE APPROPRIATE, THEN THEY SHOULD BE INCLUDED.
IF THEY ARE NOT APPROPRIATE, THEN THEY WILL BE EXCLUDED AND IT'LL, IT, THAT PART WILL BE CLEANED UP AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
UM, IT, I I DON'T WANNA MAKE A POLICY DECISION CUZ WE HAVEN'T HAD THE DISCUSSION ON IT, BUT I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE PREMISE OF MAKING SURE THAT YOU PROMOTE RESORT STYLE USES IN AREAS THAT ARE RESORT AND NOT NECESSARILY WHAT WE WOULD SAY TRADITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY OR COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOODS.
SO THAT SHOULD, THAT SHOULD BE PART OF THE, THE NEXT STEPS THAT WE'RE TAKING WITH DISTRICT PLANNING, THE ISLAND WIDE MASTER PLAN AND THE OVERHAUL TO THE CODE.
CAN WE GET, UH, SOME KIND OF A GENERAL FEELING FOR HOW THIS AFFECTS, HOW THIS CHANGED FROM, FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO MULTI-FAMILY AFFECTS THE BUFFER AND THE SETBACKS? AND I KNOW MESSI MENTIONED THERE'S SOME ADJACENCY ISSUES, BUT CAN WE PUT IT IN SOME KIND OF A GENERAL PERSPECTIVE? I THINK MESSY CAN ANSWER SOME OF IT, BUT WHEN YOU HAVE MULTI-FAMILY NEXT TO SINGLE FAMILY MM-HMM.
AND SO, UM, IF YOU HAD A, IN, IF YOU HAD AN INSTANCE WHERE YOU HAD A SINGLE FAMILY LOT NEXT TO A LOT THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE MORE THAN ONE, RIGHT? MM-HMM.
AND SO THE BUFFER WOULD INCREASE, I DON'T KNOW, LET'S SAY 20 FROM 20 FEET TO 30 FEET BETWEEN THAT.
UM, BUT THAT WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED IN.
SO IT REALLY WOULDN'T AFFECT SITU, WELL IT WOULD BE GRANDFATHERING IN ON EXISTING LOTS, BUT ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT RIGHT.
WOULD HAVE TO MEET THAT STANDARD.
SO YES, THERE WOULD BE SOME IMPLICATIONS AND I FULLY EXPECT THAT AS WE GO AGAIN THROUGH THE FULL CODE THAT WE, THOSE PERFORMANCE AND, UH, SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MM-HMM.
AND IF WE ARE NO LONGER GONNA ALLOW MORE THAN ONE UNIT ON A LOT, UM, IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONES, THEN THAT WILL BE A DIFFERENT, WE'LL PROBABLY LOOK AT A DIFFERENT SETBACK AND BUFFER OR DIFFERENT BUFFER STANDARD IN THAT, IN THAT CASE THAN, THAN EXISTS TODAY.
BUT IT'S TOUGH TO THINK THROUGH EVERY SCENARIO.
MR. CAMPBELL? NO QUESTION AT THIS POINT, MR. SI, I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF, UH, I, I UNDERSTAND THE VALUE OF CHANGING THE DEFINITION BETWEEN SINGLE AND MULTI THAT THAT MAKES SENSE AND, AND MAYBE THE DIVISIBLE LOCKING UNITS TO THE EXISTING UNITS.
BUT THERE'S A HOME IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD IN PORT ROYAL RIGHT DOWN THE STREET FROM RICK, UM, THAT, THAT HAS FOR 35 YEARS HAD A STANDALONE OTHER SECOND HOME IN THE FRONT YARD.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A CATCHING IN IT OR IF IT MEETS ANY OF THOSE STANDARDS, BUT, UM, IT'S JUST A, IT'S A GUEST HOUSE FOR WHEN THE FAMILY COMES.
I'M PRETTY SURE, BUT, YOU KNOW, UH, I'M STILL NOT CLEAR ABOUT HOW THIS WOULD CHANGE ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
THO THOSE CONDITIONS WOULD BE LEGAL NON-CONFORMING OKAY.
FEATURES OF THE SITE AND, YOU KNOW, PROVIDED YOU DIDN'T, UM, HAVE A, UM, A RENOVATION THAT WAS 49% OR MORE OF THE VALUE
[00:35:01]
OF THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO, TO CONTINUE SUPPLY AT THAT POINT.YES, MR. YOUR HONOR, I, I REMAIN CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THIS AND NOT KNOWING ENOUGH ABOUT THE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE THAT ARE IMPACTED.
I, IT'S NOT THAT I'M NOT SUPPORTIVE OF SINGLE FAMILY DEFINITION AND ALL OF THAT, BUT GOING FORWARD, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TWO DEFINITIONS.
THE ONE WE HAD BEFORE THE DATE OF THIS APPROVAL, AND THEN FOREVER ON THE OTHER DEFINITION, AND I'M, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE BALANCE HERE OF, OF PEOPLE THAT ARE, UM, IN ONE GROUP, UM, ASKING ABOUT THE OTHER GROUP.
AND I THINK WE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN TO THEM IN MORE DETAIL THAN, UM, FIRST WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY, AND SECONDLY, UM, THE, THE, THE IDEA THAT BUFFERS AND, AND SETBACKS AND ALL OF THAT ARE KIND OF ILL-DEFINED UNTIL YOU GET A PROJECT, RIGHT.
SO ALL OF THAT, UH, STILL CONCERNS ME.
AND I THINK RIGHTFULLY SO, AND I, YOU KNOW, I'LL POINT BACK TO LIKE WHEN WE ADOPT THE NEW FLOOD, FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS FROM FEMA, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE BASE FLOOD CHANGES.
AND THEN, SO YOU MIGHT HAVE A HOUSE THAT WAS BUILT A CERTAIN YEAR AND IT'S FOUR FEET LOWER THAN WHAT YOU'RE REQUIRED TO DO TODAY.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, SO, UM, SAME THING, RIGHT? THE, THE HOUSE THAT WAS BUILT IN THE PREVIOUS VERSION IS LEGALLY COMPLIANT WITH A CODE AT THAT TIME, BUT NO LONGER COMPLIANT TO THE ADOPTED STANDARD.
AND SO YOU SEE THAT EVERY TIME YOU ADOPT A CODE, RIGHT? UM, UNLESS IT'S IN AN AREA THAT DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT OR ANY DEVELOPMENT ALREADY.
UM, BUT ANY, ANY AREA THAT'S GOT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IS GONNA HAVE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, RIGHT? YOU SAID YOU, YOU ADJUST THE SETBACK OR BUFFER OR PARKING STANDARD, THEN YOU'RE GONNA HAVE SITES THAT ARE NON-COMPLIANT BASED ON THE CODE THAT WAS IN PLACE AT THE TIME THEY, THEY MET IT AND THE NEW CODE.
AND THERE ARE PROVISIONS TO BRING SITES, NONCONFORMING SITES, LEGALLY NONCONFORMING SITES INTO COMPLIANCE OVER TIME.
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? AT LEAST MAKE 'EM NOT MORE NONCONFORMING.
AND SO THAT'S PART OF THE PROCESS.
YOU CAN'T FLIP A SWITCH AND SAY EVERYTHING'S GOTTA COMPLY TO THE NEW CODE.
IT IS OVER TIME THERE'S A MIGRATION THAT THAT'S A BETTER STANDARD.
AND I, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND AND, AND AGREE WITH YOUR CONCERN, UM, THAT YOU DO CREATE SORT OF DISPARITY BETWEEN A ONE HOUSE THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET FROM ANOTHER, MEANING A DIFFERENT, A DIFFERENT STANDARD.
YOU KNOW, THE HEIGHT CHANGE, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A HEIGHT CHANGE OR SETBACK ANGLE, UM, LET ALONE A USE, UM, CHANGE, UH, OR DEFINITION FOR SINGLE VERSUS OF MULTIFAMILY.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER, UH, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO, UH, SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE? YES.
AGAIN, UH, AGAIN, TY SCOTT, UH, FOR THE RECORD, UM, I'M ACTUALLY CURIOUS IF IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
IT APPEARS AS THOUGH THE MIC WAS OFF WHEN I GAVE MY SPEECH.
AND IF IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO REREAD MY SPEECH INTO PUBLIC RECORD, UH, I GUESS THE, UH, THE TOWN ATTORNEY, ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY COULDN'T HEAR, AND IF HE COULDN'T HEAR, THEN I'M IMAGINING PUBLIC WE DIDN'T HEAR EITHER.
DO WE HAVE THAT ON ANY RECORD? I MEAN, UM, SIR, UM, THIS IS MAC DEFORA GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE TOWN.
UM, MR. SCOTT, JUST, JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE, I COULD HEAR ANYONE WHO WAS AT THE PODIUM.
SO I HEARD YOU, UH, SPEAK AT THE PREVIOUS PUBLIC COMMENT.
I COULD NOT HEAR ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS, UM, OKAY.
BEFORE, BUT NOW I CAN HEAR EVERYONE.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT MY SPEECH WAS ON RECORD AND EVERYBODY WAS HEAR.
UM, SOME, SOME ISSUES THAT I, I'M STILL WANT, UH, TO, TO BRING TO EVERYBODY'S ATTENTION.
UH, AGAIN, WE WANNA STRESS AGAIN THAT THE DISTRICT PLAN SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED PRIOR TO ANY CHANGES OF THE L M O.
AND WE ALL HAVE, WE ALL HAVE TO QUESTION OURSELF WHAT WOULD BE THE FINANCIAL IMPACT ON THE GULLAH COMMUNITY WITHIN THE RD ZONE.
IF WE ARE PICKING OUT PERMITTED USES TODAY, HOW ARE THEY GONNA BE COMPENSATED FOR THOSE USES? BECAUSE THAT'S A VALUE THAT THEY CAN DO TODAY THAT WE ARE JUST GRABBING THAT OUT AND TAKING IT RD THE, THE AVAILABLE PROPERTY THAT'S AVAILABLE IN THE RD IS CURRENTLY OWNED BY, THE MAJORITY OF IT IS OWNED BY GU NATIVES.
SO IT, IT FEELS AS THOUGH WE'RE KIND OF PICKING AND CHOOSING HOW WE GONNA MANAGE THEIR POTENTIAL USE IN THE FUTURE WHEN IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S PERMITTED TODAY.
UM, AND AGAIN, ALL THESE CHANGES ARE GONNA RESULT TO, UH, NONCONFORMITIES.
THE ISSUE WITH BUFFERS, UH, IS NOT JUST PROPERTY LINES THAT'S GONNA BE AFFECTED FROM GOING BETWEEN SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE BUFFERS FROM ROADS.
SO HOW IS THAT GOING TO IMPACT THE USE OF THE GULLAH NATIVE FAMILIES OUTSIDE OF THE FAMILY COMPOUNDS AND FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS? ARE WE TAKING THAT INTO CONSIDERATION?
[00:40:01]
I MEAN, EVERY, EVERY GULLAH NATIVE FAMILY IS NOT GONNA DO A FAMILY COMPOUND AND FAMILY SUBDIVISION.HOW ARE WE GONNA IMPACT THESE PEOPLE'S PROPERTY BY MAKING THESE DECISIONS TODAY WITHOUT HAVING THE DISTRICT PLAN IMPLEMENTED? SO IT APPEARS AS THOUGH THERE'S A LOT OF UNANSWERED QUESTIONS, AND WE ARE TRULY RUSHING THIS THROUGH WHEN WE SHOULD STAKE, TAKE A STEP BACK AND LOOK AT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND BRING FORTH THE DISTRICT PLAN TO SEE HOW THIS, THESE AMENDMENTS ARE GONNA TRULY AFFECT THE GULLAH COMMUNITY.
THAT'S MY CONCERN, THE GULLAH COMMUNITY AND HOW WE CAN ADVANCE IN THE FUTURE AND CONTINUE RETAINING OUR LAND.
ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WANT TO TALK ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE OF THE ELEMENTS? CHESTER? THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN NAME'S CHESTER WILLIAMS. UM, I KNOW YOU ASKED THE QUESTION, MR. CHAIRMAN, BUT I'M NOT SURE IF MS. GOODRIDGE EVER GAVE A DIRECT ANSWER TO IT, IS WHAT'S THE EFFECT OF THIS ON THE FOLLEY FIELD ROAD DEVELOPMENT? RIGHT.
MY MY UNDERSTANDING HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT AN APPLICANT PLAYS BY THE RULES THAT ARE IN PLACE AT THE TIME THEY MAKE THEIR APPLICATION.
AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, THAT, THAT THAT'S AN ACCURATE STATEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THAT DEVELOPMENT AND THAT GETTING RID OF LOCKOUTS DOESN'T HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THEIR ABILITY TO GO FORWARD WITH AIR.
THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL.
AND IS THAT, IS, IS THAT, IS THAT A FAIR ASSESSMENT? I I SEE MR. COLE SHAKING HIS HEAD YES.
BACK THERE IN THE BACK THERE, YES.
ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? IF NOT, UM, ONE MORE MIC BACK, ONE MORE IN THE BACK.
UM, I THINK THEIR WAY TO EVERYTHING, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, IT'S SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION, ESPECIALLY WITH THE DATE OF A APPLICATION BECAUSE THE, THE, UH, THE PLANNING COMMITTEE, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CAN SAY IF AN APPLICATION FOR SOME REASON IT'S INCOMPLETE, IF IT'S MISSING ONE THING, UH, OUT OF THE APPLICATION, IT MIGHT BE A FULL APPLICATION, BUT THEY, THEY, YOU KNOW, THEIR COMMENTS AND, AND YOU NEED TO, YOU NEED TO SUPPORT THOSE COMMENTS.
IF THE APPLICATION IS NOT FULLY, UH, UH, FULLY COMPLETED, THEY CAN SAY THAT, UH, IT'S, IT'S INCOMPLETE AND THEREFORE THAT DATE OF THE PREVIOUS DATE OF THE APPLICATION I THINK DOESN'T STAND.
SO PLEASE, PLEASE CLARIFY THAT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, I LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT BUFFERS AND, AND ADJACENT USE.
SO NOW WE ARE GOING FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO, TO MULTI-FAMILY.
YOU HAVE A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE OF BUFFERS.
SO NOW YOU HAVE A PROPERTY IN RD, THE, TECHNICALLY YOU HAD THE RIGHT TO HAVE TWO UNITS ON IT, BUT BY THE TIME YOU APPLY THE BUFFERS, YOU BASICALLY, UH, DON'T HAVE A BUILDING ENVELOPE ANYMORE.
SO THEREFORE IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN YOUR DENSITY RIGHTS IN ADDITION TO, UH, TO NOT BEING ABLE TO, TO DO WHAT YOU, WHAT YOU MEANT TO DO.
AND WITH RESPECT TO MOTHER-IN-LAW SUITE, UH, I THINK THAT WILL QUALIFY TO BEING A MULTI-FAMILY IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A FULL KITCHEN ON IT.
SO, YES, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT'S, IT'S, IT'S A BUILDING CODE ISSUE.
AND I DON'T THINK EVERYBODY, UH, UH, FULLY UNDERST UNDERSTANDS, UH, THAT, SO I THINK THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED, AND I, I WILL RECOMMEND, UH, THAT, UH, THE COMMITTEE DOESN'T GO FORWARD WITH THIS BECAUSE, UH, THERE'S PRETTY MUCH ALL THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE THEY OUT THERE.
UH, YOU KNOW, MOST OF THE LOTS ARE 60, 70 FEET.
IF YOU HAVE 30 FOOT BUFFER ON ONE SIDE AND 30 FOOT ON THE OTHER SIDE, YOU HAVE AN UNBUILDABLE, UH, UH, UNIT.
SO THEREFORE THEY INTEND IT'S, YOU CAN ONLY DO ONE UNIT VERSUS TWO UNITS.
SO, SO THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE A DENSITY OF, UH, 16 AN RD DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING, AND THEREFORE IT WILL DEVALUE THE PROPERTIES, THE REMAINING PROPERTIES THAT ARE UNBILLED.
UM, SORRY, MAY I ASK YOU? YES, YOU MAY.
WHAT IS YOUR NAME, SIR, PLEASE? STATED FOR THE RECORD.
UH, I, I JUST THINK IT'S INTERESTING THAT WE'RE HAVING A, A DISCUSSION ABOUT SINGLE, I MEAN, WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS THEY'RE A SINGLE PARENT, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THAT THERE'S MULTIPLE PARENTS OR SINGLE PHASE WHEN GO THROUGH ELECTRICITY? IS THAT MULTIPLE PHASES? SINGLE IS SINGLE ONE.
YOU KNOW, SINGLE FAMILY IS ONE FAMILY, MULTI-FAMILY IS MULTIPLE FAMILIES.
SO I, I, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE HAVING SUCH A HARD TIME WITH THIS AS, UH, I THINK IT WAS MISSY SAID ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES, SINGLE FAMILY MEANS SINGLE FAMILY.
AND I DON'T THINK WHY, I THINK THIS WAS DONE BACK IN 2014, I DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT DEFINITION OF SINGLE ON A HIL HAND.
[00:45:01]
ONE MORE IN THE BACK.SALLY AON, I'M AT 85 FOLLEY FIELD ROAD.
UM, SO WHEN, WHAT I THINK I'VE HEARD TODAY IS THAT THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 15 WIMBLEDON WILL HAVE LOCKOUTS.
SO I HOPE THAT THAT MEANS, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IN JULY, THAT THAT WILL INCLUDE THE DENSITY THAT HAVING THESE LOCKOUTS MEAN, AND ALSO AN IMPACT ON ISLANDERS BEACH AND WHAT THAT WILL DO TO THE ISLAND RESIDENTS SINCE THIS IS DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THEIR BEACH.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS, SIR? YES, SIR.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
WE WERE LOOKING FOR YOU EARLIER.
UM, SO I'VE HAD SOME RD UH, LOTS FOR A FEW, FOR 25 YEARS, REALLY? AND I HAVEN'T BEEN, I'VE BEEN MAKING PLANS FOR THEM, AND THIS JUST SEEMS LIKE ONE MORE, RIGHT? THAT IS TRYING TO BE, UH, DISCLUDED AND INCREASING OUR BUFFERS AND SO ON.
IT'S, THERE'S A LOT OF UNKNOWNS THAT CAN'T BE ANSWERED.
AND, UH, ONE THING I WANTED TO SAY ABOUT LOCKOUTS IS IT SEEMS TO ME THAT, UH, THEY'RE GETTING A BAD REP BECAUSE, UH, WE NEED WORKFORCE HOUSING, WE NEED MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS.
AND HERE THEY, THEY HAVE, UH, LOCKED OUT BEDROOMS SO THEY CAN MAKE MORE OF, OR PEOPLE CAN AFFORD TO LIVE HERE.
EXCLUDING THAT, WE'LL SEND MORE PEOPLE OFF THE ISLAND.
SO THAT'S ANOTHER THING TO CONSIDER.
WE DID GET YOUR COMMENTS ON THE PORTAL.
UM, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE GO TO A, A VOTE? WELL, THE WAY IT SEEMS IS THAT, UM, WE, WE, UM, WE MADE THE MISTAKE WHEN WE SINGLE FAMILY IS NO MORE THAN TWO.
AND NOW THAT WE WANT TO CORRECT WHAT SINGLE FAMILY MEANS, IT SEEMS LIKE WE CAN'T, EVEN THOUGH IT'S LOGICAL THAT SINGLE FAMILY MEANS ONE UNIT, IT SEEMS LIKE IF WE MAKE THAT CHANGE NOW, WE, UH, IMPACT RIGHTS THAT THAT OWNERS HAVEN'T HAVE EXPECTED TO HAVE ANTICIPATED.
SO IT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT TO LOGICALLY CHANGE FOR A, A LOGICAL DEFINITION BECAUSE OF ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE VOTE? JUST, UH, I DO HAVE A SUGGESTION FOR CONSIDERATION AND, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO WRAP A FEW DIFFERENT RELATED ITEMS HERE INTO ONE PACKAGE, AND THEY'RE NOT, WE'RE HAVING SOME ISSUES, I THINK.
AND IF WE WERE TO SUBDIVIDE, UH, THE DEFINITION OF MULTI-FAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY AND SEPARATE THAT FROM THE, THE ISSUE OF ELIMINATING THE ALLOWANCE OF DIVISIBLE DWELLING UNITS, WE MIGHT HAVE AN EASIER TIME WITH THIS.
SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE SEPARATE THOSE AS TWO SEPARATE ITEMS. AND, UH, I THINK IN MY OPINION, WE NEED MORE DEFINITION ON THE ELIMINATION OF THE DWELLING UNITS.
AND THE OTHER ISSUE OF MULTI-FAMILY VERSUS SINGLE-FAMILY DEFINITIONS IS MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD.
AND I, I CAN SEE THAT BEING CHANGED.
MR. CAMPBELL, ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
MR. SIBO? UH, MAY I WOULD AT THIS POINT ENTERTAIN A MOTION AS TO, UM, THESE, UH, THESE AMENDMENTS, UM, ON CHAPTERS FOUR AND 10 OF THE LAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE? IS THERE SUCH A MOTION, MR. CHAIRMAN? I'M NOT, UH, I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE, UM, SEND THIS BACK FOR MORE, UH, ANALYSIS FOR THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ANSWERED IN MY MIND AT THIS, THIS STAGE OF THE GAME, AND NOT GET HUNG UP ON DEFINITIONS OF SINGLE FAMILY.
BUT LET'S GET HUNG UP ON IMPACT ON COMMUNITIES LIKE THE GULLAH COMMUNITY, LIKE SOME OF THE EXISTING FOLKS THAT HAVE THESE, UH, UH, LOCKOUTS.
UM, AND, AND KNOWING, KNOWING WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT 15 PLACES OR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT 200 PLACES? I JUST, I, MYSELF, I'M JUST NOT COMFORTABLE.
AND WOULD TO MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE SEND IT BACK FOR, FOR MORE INFORMATION.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION, MR. HENS AND MR. CAMPBELL? SECOND.
UM, WE'LL, UH, THIS REQUIRES A ROLL CALL VOTE, DOES IT NOT, KAREN? YES, SIR.
ANY OTHER STAFF COMMENTS? MISSY? UM, CAN I, UH, ASK, UH, FOR A LIST OF THE THINGS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE FOR US TO ADDRESS? SO THE IMPACT TO COMMUNITIES, UH, FROM, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE,
[00:50:01]
BUT I'M SURE WHAT WOULD HAVE QUESTIONS? WHAT IS THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR? OKAY.MINE IS THE, THE ROUGH NUMBER OF FOLKS THAT ARE IMPACTED BY THIS CHANGE.
BOTH FROM THE STANDPOINT OF SETBACKS AND, UH, AND THE REST.
AND, UM, UM, HOW, HOW MANY EXISTING? LET'S JUST USE MOTHER-IN-LAW.
I DON'T, I'M NOT SURE I LIKE THE TERM, YOU KNOW, BUT, BUT THE IDEA THAT THE LOCKOUTS, HOW MANY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? AND WHO ARE WE IMPACTING? OKAY.
THAT'S ALSO, UH, HOW THIS, UH, UH, THE DISTRICT PLANS AS WERE RAISED BY THE PUBLIC, HOW THAT FITS INTO, UH, THIS DECISION MAKING AT THIS TIME.
I MIGHT WANNA CALL FOR A DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION TO OKAY.
IS THERE, IS THERE A DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO SEND THIS BACK TO STAFF? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, UH, WE'LL CALL THE RULE, CERTAINLY MR. ZO, UH, RESUBMIT PLEASE.
NAY? NO, YOU'RE, UH, AND I WOULD SAY, YEAH, IT'S GOING BACK TO STAFF.
SO ALL IN FAVOR WOULD SAY, AYE, IT GOES BACK TO STAFF.
IF YOU SAY NO, THEN WE, UH, WE MOVE IT UP TO TOWN COUNCIL? YES.
THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN SCANLAN, CAN YOU PLEASE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? YES, I WOULD, UH, NOW AT THIS TIME, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, SEEING NO OTHER HANDS IN THE AIR.
UM, AND THANK YOU FOR THOSE WHO COMMENTED.
WE APPRECIATE IT WHEN YOU STEP UP AND TELL US HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE MOVING THROUGH THIS COMMISSION.
[9.b. Proposed Amendments to Planning Commission Rules of Procedure.]
OF BUSINESS HERE, AND THAT IS THE, UH, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE.UH, AS YOU KNOW, WE ARE NO LONGER, UH, GOING TO BE HAVING ALL THE VARIOUS SUBCOMMITTEES.
UH, WE WILL ACT AS A COMMITTEE ON THE WHOLE, OR IF NEEDED, UH, ASK TOWN COUNCIL FOR PERMISSION TO SET UP AN AD HOC COMMITTEE.
UM, MISSY, WOULD YOU KIND OF WALK US THROUGH THAT? SURE.
UM, MR. SCANLAN, UM, AS MENTIONED, YES, THE RULES AMENDMENT COVERS, UM, THE ELIMINATION OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE.
IT ALSO INCLUDES, UM, REMOVAL OF A SPECIFIC MEETING TIME AND DAY FROM THE RULES AND WOULD REQUIRE THE, UH, ADOPTION OF A MEETING CALENDAR.
UM, ALSO THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL STANDARDS PROPOSED FOR PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLICANTS SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL MATERIALS, UM, PRESENTATIONS FOR APPEALS, VOTES ON APPEALS.
UM, AND SO THOSE CHANGES WERE NOTED, UM, IN THE STRIKEOUT AND DOUBLELINE IN THE PROPOSED, UH, AMENDMENT TO THE RULES.
AND ALSO, UM, MACK DEF FORD, OUR GENERAL COUNSEL, IS ON THE LINE AND HAS, UM, TWO ADDITIONAL CHANGES HE WOULD LIKE TO GO OVER WITH YOU.
ONE IS, UM, RELATED TO HOW THE RULES ARE AMENDED, AND RIGHT NOW IT REFERS TO THE RULES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE.
THAT WAS AN OMISSION ON OUR END THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO CORRECT TODAY.
THAT'S IN ARTICLE THREE, SECTION TWO, WHICH IS ON PAGE TWO.
IF WE, WE CAN TURN, IF YOU HAVE YOUR, UH, GOT IT.
I THINK IT'S ON PAGE TWO OF THE, UH, YOU'RE RIGHT.
SO THE, UM, PROPOSED LANGUAGE, UM, THAT WE'D LIKE TO PROPOSE IS THAT, UM, SECTION TWO AMENDMENT WOULD SIMPLY STATE THE RULES OF PROCEDURE MAY BE AMENDED AT ANY REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THEN THE REST WOULD BE OMITTED.
AND THEN SECONDLY, AS IT RELATES TO COMMITTEES AS WELL, ON PAGE FIVE, SECTION FIVE, UM, WE HAD STRUCK ALL OF THE COMMITTEE LANGUAGE FROM THE PROPOSED RULES, UM, BUT FAILED TO STRIKE THE PARAGRAPH THAT PROCEEDS IT.
AND WE'RE, UM, PROPOSING THAT, THAT ALSO BE STRUCK TODAY AS WELL.
SECTION FIVE COMMITTEE WITH, WITH PERMISSION.
WITH PERMISSION OF TOWN COUNCIL.
MAX, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT? NO, THAT COVERS IT.
AND, AND JUST, UH, FOR, FOR CLARIFICATION, UM, THAT SECTION FIVE LANGUAGE IS ESSENTIALLY REPLACED WITH THAT, UH, AA AD HOC COMMITTEE WHERE IT SAYS, UH, FROM TIME TO TIME, TOWN COUNCIL MAY ESTABLISH AN AD HOC COMMITTEE WITH ITS MEMBERSHIP, UM, IN CHARGE AND, UH, DETERMINED BY TOWN COUNCIL.
[00:55:01]
PLANNING COMMISSION CAN STILL FORM SUBCOMMITTEES, UH, DEPENDING ON THE NEED FOR THEM.AND THEN THE ONLY OTHER THING I'LL ADD IS UNDER THE, THE FIRST AMENDMENT WE WERE DISCUSSING, UM, IT WILL, IT WOULD READ THESE RULES OF PROCEDURE MAY BE AMENDED AT ANY REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE, MISSY, THAT YOU WANT TO TELL US? NO, THAT'S THE SUMMARY OF THE RULES AMENDMENT.
THIS WAS SENT OUT, UM, YES, I KNOW, OVER A MONTH AGO.
I WOULD ENTERTAIN A, A MOTION AT THIS POINT ON YES.
ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? YES, SIR.
CHESTER WILLIAMS. I, I DO HAVE SEVERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
UM, NUMBER ONE, THE, THE NEW CHANGE THAT MR. DEF FORD HAS RECOMMENDED IN ARTICLE THREE, SECTION TWO, THE, THE PUBLIC OUGHT TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW PROPOSED CHANGES TO YOUR AMENDMENTS RATHER THAN SHOWING UP AT A MEETING AND FINDING OUT THAT THERE ARE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ON THE AGENDA.
LIKEWISE, WE MEAN, Y'ALL OUGHT TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT.
SO, I MEAN, THE LA THAT LAST SENTENCE THERE IS ANY AMENDMENT MUST BE BY MAJORITY VOTE OF THE COMMISSION HELD AT A MEETING OF THE COMMISSION AT LEAST SEVEN CALENDAR DAYS AFTER A WRITTEN DRAFT OF THE AMENDMENT IS DELIVERED TO ALL OF ITS MEMBERS.
I THINK YOU NEED TO KEEP THAT, BUT EXPAND AND SAY, AND AVAIL MADE AVAILABLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
NOW, I, I ADMIT THAT I'M ONE OF THE VERY FEW WHO'S PROBABLY REALLY INTERESTED IN THESE SORTS OF THINGS, BUT THAT'S AN VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE.
I MEAN, I CAN'T TELL YOU, I USED TO SERVE ON THE COUNTY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, AND I CAN'T TELL YOU THE NUMBER OF TIMES THAT PEOPLE WOULD APPEAR BEFORE US AND NOT BE FAMILIAR WITH THE RULES.
AND YOU KNOW WHAT, IT JUST DROVE ME UP A WALL.
AND THAT'S ONE THING THAT I ALWAYS TRY TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND IS WHAT THE RULES ARE.
BUT IF THE RULES ARE GONNA CHANGE ON A DIME, THAT MAKES THINGS VERY, VERY DIFFICULT.
NOT ONLY FOR FOLKS LIKE ME, BUT FOR Y'ALL ALSO.
SO THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME PERIOD OF TIME WHEN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AND DIGESTION BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC AS A WHOLE.
UM, THE COMMITTEES, I MEAN, WHO'S GONNA DO THE WORK THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMITTEE HAS DONE SO FAR? WHO'S GONNA DO THE WORK THAT THE LMO COMMITTEE HAS DONE SO FAR? WHO'S GONNA DO THE WORK THAT THE CIP P COMMITTEE HAS DONE SO FAR? I MEAN, WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT'S BROKEN ABOUT YOUR CURRENT COMMITTEE SYSTEM THAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED BY THROWING THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATH WATER.
I MEAN, SOMEBODY HAS TO REVIEW THAT.
SOMEBODY OUGHT TO BE REVIEWING THOSE THINGS AND VETTING THOSE THINGS BEFORE THEY GET TO THE FULL PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW.
AND THIS WILL LEAVE YOU WITH NO PROCEDURE WHATSOEVER AS TO HOW TO GO ABOUT DOING THAT.
THE OTHER CHANGE PUBLIC COMMENT DURING APPEALS, DID ANY OF Y'ALL EVER RECALL HEARING AN APPEAL? UHUH? I DON'T THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS EVER HEARD AN APPEAL SINCE 1987.
I'VE FILED SEVERAL OF 'EM TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT I CAN'T GET ANY FURTHER THAN THE, THE TOWN STAFF.
THEY SAY, OH, YOU CAN'T APPEAL THAT.
AND WHICH, WHICH IS A WHOLE NOTHER SEPARATE SET OF ISSUES BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONE WHO DETERMINES WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE JURISDICTION HERE.
A PARTICULAR APPEAL IN THE TOWN, IN THE TOWN STAFF HAS BEEN USURPING THAT, BUT THERE SHOULD BE NO PUBLIC COMMENT WHATSOEVER IN AN APPEAL WHEN YOU SIT AND YOU, IN FACT, THE ONLY TIME, THE ONLY APPEALED JURISDICTION YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW IS WHEN SOMEBODY APPEALS A DECISION OF THE TOWN STAFF ON A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION OR A SUBDIVISION APPLICATION.
YOU KNOW, IF YOU GO BACK AND, AND MR. HENSA STILL OWE YOU A COPY OF THE STATE ENABLING ACT, I'LL SEND THAT TO YOU.
IF YOU GO BACK AND READ THE STATE ENABLING ACT, THE DEFAULT POSITION IS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEWS AND ACTS ON ALL SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS AND ALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATIONS.
BUT THE STATE ENABLING ACT ALSO ALLOWS FOR THE DELEGATION OF THAT AUTHORITY TO STAFF.
AND, AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.
IF YOU GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT THE 1987 ORIGINAL LMO, AT THAT POINT, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD RETAINED JURISDICTION TO REVIEW AND ACT ON SUBDIVISIONS OF 50 OR MORE LOTS.
AT SOME POINT ALONG THE WAY, EVEN THAT WAS DELEGATED TO THE STAFF.
SO THE ONLY APPEALS THAT Y'ALL ARE EVER GONNA HEAR AT THIS POINT ARE APPEALS FROM STAFF DECISIONS ON THOSE APPLICATIONS.
AND IF THERE EVER DOES COME A TIME WHEN YOU SIT TO HEAR IT APPEALED, YOU'RE SITTING THEN IN A QUASI JUDICIAL CAPACITY WHEN YOU'RE, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT LMO AMENDMENTS, YOU'RE SITTING IN A LEGISLATIVE CAPACITY.
BUT WHEN YOU'RE SITTING IN A QUASI JUDICIAL CAPACITY, YOU'RE ACTING AS THE JUDGE.
AND THERE'S, THERE'S CERTAIN DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS THAT
[01:00:01]
GO ALONG WITH THOSE SORTS OF HEARINGS.AND ALLOWING PUBLIC COMMENT ON AN APPEAL HEARING WOULD BE LIKE IN THE SETTING IN A COURTHOUSE WHERE YOU HAVE TWO, UH, PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT WHO BOTH PUT ON THEIR CASE, AND THE THEN THE JUDGE SAYS, OKAY, ALL YELL OUT THERE IN A PEANUT GALLERY.
WHAT DO Y'ALL HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS? LET'S PUT ALL THAT ON THE RECORD.
ALSO, THAT'S, THAT'S WHOLLY AND COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE.
AND THERE SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY NO PUBLIC COMMENT ON AN, ON AN APPEAL CROSS-EXAMINATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED.
I MEAN, IF I HAVE AN APPEAL AND THE TOWN PUTS UP A WITNESS, WELL THEN I WANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THAT WITNESS.
AND THIS EXCLUDES THE, THE RIGHT OF CROSS-EXAMINATION.
I THINK THAT'S A VIOLATION OF BASIC DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS.
SO I THINK THESE, THESE CHANGES NEED A LOT MORE CONSIDERATION BEFORE YOU GO FORWARD WITH MO.
UM, I DO ATTEND, UH, NOT ALL, BUT MOST DEVELOPMENT TEAM REVIEW, UH, REVIEW TEAM MEETINGS, UH, SO THAT A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS THERE WHEN WE'RE FIRST INTERVIEWING A, UH, PROPOSAL TO THE TOWN.
AND, UH, SO I'VE BEEN TO SEVERAL OF THOSE MEETINGS, UM, AS, UH, AS, AS CHAIR I, I'VE BEEN GOING TO THEM WHEN I CAN.
UM, I DON'T KNOW WHY IN TERMS OF, UH, THESE REVISED, THERE IS NO, UH, CLOCK TICKING ON THESE THAT I AM AWARE OF.
UM, AND IF STEPH DIFFERS WITH ME, LET ME KNOW.
BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT, UH, WE SHOULD PROBABLY GO BACK AND TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THESE AS WELL IN TERMS OF THE NOTIFICATION AND PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF THE FACT THAT WE ARE, UH, ELIMINATING THESE SUBCOMMITTEES AND ACTING AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, UH, ON ANY OF THESE MATTERS.
UH, WHENEVER, UH, WE, WE NEED TO TAKE UP SOMETHING, UH, OR TO SET UP AN AD HOC COMMITTEE IF WE NEED TO WITH THE PERMISSION OF TOWN COUNCIL.
UH, MR ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THE FINISHERS? YEAH, I, I GUESS FIRST OF ALL, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'VE HEARD SOME OF THIS.
UM, THIS HAS BEEN TREATED A COUPLE OF TIMES BEFORE.
UM, AND ISN'T THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION FOR US HERE IS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE ENABLING LEGISLATION SAYS THAT WE HAVE THESE RESPONSIBILITIES AND WHAT WE HAVE DONE IN EFFECT IS TO DELEGATE MOST OF THOSE RESPONSIBILITIES TO STAFF, CORRECT? YES.
AND SO THAT WHEN, UM, WORK COMES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IT'S COMPLETED STAFF WORK THAT WE TO, UM, APPLY NOW, UM, ANALYZE AND THE REST OF IT.
SO IT COMES DOWN TO ARE WE TRYING TO GET MORE EFFICIENT WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHICH WOULD MEAN YES, YOU CONSOLIDATE THESE COMMITTEES AND YOU'LL LET HAVE TO DO THE REST OF IT.
STREAMLINED THE PROCESS, RIGHT? OR ARE WE TRYING TO, UM, DO WHAT YOU SAID, WHICH IS, IS MAKE A KNOWLEDGE BASE THAT'S MUCH BIGGER THAN WE HAVE NOW, UM, BECAUSE WE'RE DEPENDING ON STAFF TO DO THAT.
SO THOSE ARE THE, THOSE ARE THE CHOICES.
AND I'M NOT SURE, YOU KNOW, WHERE, WHERE YOU GO WITH IT.
UM, I, I, YOU KNOW, WE ALL LIKE THE IDEA OF STREAMLINING AND MAKING IT MORE EFFICIENT.
ON THE OTHER HAND, WE, FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD, WE DON'T NECESSARILY LIKE THE, UM, THE RUBBER STAMP NATURE OF, OF WHAT WE DO BECAUSE WE'RE DEPENDING ON VERY GOOD, BY THE WAY, VERY GOOD STAFF.
THE BEST I'VE, I, I CAN IMAGINE.
SO THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT JUDGMENT.
IT'S REALLY MORE WHICH WAY DO WE WANT TO GO AS A COMMISSION.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE BEFORE WE, UH, DECIDE WHAT WE WANT TO DO, UM, I AM, UH, WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON, ON WHAT WE DO WITH OUR, UH, UH, UH, COMMITTEE, UH, THESE AMENDMENTS TO OUR, OUR OPERATION.
YOU MIGHT JUST, JUST ONE OF THE COMMENTS WITH RESPECT, UH, MR. WILLIAMS, LET YOU GO WITH RESPECT TO THE, UH, THE APPEALS PROCESS.
I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT BECAUSE, FOR INSTANCE, 15 FOLLEY FOLLEY FIELD DEVELOPMENT THAT CONTINUES TO RESURFACE IN VARIOUS FORM FORMS EVERY TIME WE WE MEET IT SEA, AND IT'S PROBABLY THE LAST, NOT THE LAST TIME WE'LL HEAR ABOUT THAT, THAT DEVELOPMENT.
SO IF THERE WAS A MORE DEFINED PROCESS AS TO HOW IT APPEAL IS MADE AND HOW IT'S PURSUED, IT'D BE IN OUR BEST INTERESTS WITH RESPECT TO THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT.
MR. D, THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY FORMAL APPEAL TO YOU YET BECAUSE, NOT FORMAL.
ANOTHER, ANOTHER, HERE'S, YEAH.
THE CODE SAYS THAT THE TOWN IS SUPPOSED TO ACT ON AN APPLICATION WITHIN 60 DAYS.
NOW, I READ THAT AS SAYING, APPROVE IT OR DENY IT.
THE TOWN READS THAT AS SAYING, WELL, IF WE GIVE YOU SOME COMMENTS AND ASK YOU TO CHANGE SOME THINGS, THEN WE'VE ACTED, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY CAN CONTINUE TO DO THAT.
[01:05:01]
ADD INFINITUM, YOU KNOW, EVERY 60 DAYS, GIVE YOU YOUR LETTER, SAY, HERE, CHANGE THIS, CHANGE THAT, AND JUST DRAG THINGS OUT.BECAUSE THAT APPLICATION WAS FILED OVER A YEAR AGO, AND IT HAS STILL NOT BEEN APPROVED OR DENIED BY THE TOWN.
WE'RE GOING ROUND AND ROUNDABOUT THAT THE TOWN WANTS US TO CHANGE.
WE HAVE A PARTICULAR SYSTEM THAT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE, AND THE TOWN SAYS, WE WANT YOU TO CHANGE IT.
AND THE LAST RESPONSE BACK WAS, NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO CHANGE IT.
YOU EITHER APPROVE IT AS IS, OR YOU DENY IT.
YOU GET ALL THE MATERIALS, YOU LOOK AT IT, YOU DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THE TOWN STAFF HAS DONE THE RIGHT THING THERE.
IT'S NOT THE TYPE OF THING WHERE THE GENERAL PUBLIC GETS TO.
EVERYBODY PUTS THEIR 2 CENTS WORTH IN RIGHT ON THERE.
AND ALSO THE PROVISION IN HERE, PROPOSED PROVISION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN DEFER ACTION ON AN APPEAL.
THE STATE CODE SAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO ACT ON AN APPEAL WITHIN 60 DAYS.
AND IF YOU DEFER IT AND IT GOES BEYOND 60 DAYS, THEN YOU VIOLATED THE STATE STATUTES.
UH, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON, UH, UH, WHAT WE DO WITH THESE PARTICULAR CHANGES OF THE RULES AND PROCEDURES AS WE HAVE SUCH MOTION, MR. O'NEAL.
I THINK I'LL THINK I'LL MAKE IT JUST FOR THE SAKE OF ENTERTAINING ANY MORE DISCUSSION THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO HAVE, MR. CHAIRMAN.
UM, BECAUSE WELL LET, LET ME READ THE MOTION.
I MOVE TO AMEND THE PROPOSED RULES OF PROCEDURE AMENDMENTS BY REVISING ARTICLE THREE, SECTION TWO, WHICH PERTAINS TO THE AMENDMENTS.
TO STATE THESE RULES OF PROCEDURE MAY BE AMENDED AT ANY REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY A MAJORITY VOTE IN DELETING THE FIRST PARAGRAPH UNDER ARTICLE FOUR, SECTION FIVE, WHICH PERTAINS TO COMMITTEES ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE DELETED PROVISIONS WILL NO LONGER SERVE ANY PURPOSE DUE TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE DISSOLUTION.
I'M SORRY, OF THE, UM, STANDING COMMITTEE.
SO WHAT, WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY THERE IS, THERE IS A PHRASE IN HERE THAT SAYS, WE CAN CHANGE THESE RULES AND, AND AT ANY TIME, BY MAJORITY VOTE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND, UM, TO CHET'S VERY GOOD POINTS.
WE EITHER VOTE THIS MOTION DOWN AND GO, GO BACK, UM, GO BACK TO GO BACK TO WORK, OR WE VOTE FOR IT.
AND UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, GOING FORWARD, WE'LL, WE'LL HAVE TO, WE CAN MAKE CHANGES SINCE WE NEED TO MAKE CHANGES.
IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION BY MR. O'NEILL? THERE IS A SECOND FOR MR. ZO.
UH, ANY COMMENT ON THE MOTION BEFORE WE VOTE ON IT? UH, DID YOU COVER TWO THINGS IN THAT PARAGRAPH FOR ONE MOTION? DID YOU COVER TWO POINTS OF THIS, OR ONE? I THINK, I THINK ONE POINT, WHICH IS THE, THE BIT ABOUT, UM, BEING ABLE TO CHANGE THE RULES AT ANY POINT IN THE FUTURE BY MAJORITY VOTE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER.
THAT WAS MY, THAT'S, THAT'S ARTICLE THREE.
AND WHAT'S YOUR PERMIT? SO HERE'S WHAT STAFF RECOMMENDED.
WHAT'S YOUR CHANGE? THERE'S NO CHANGE TO WHAT STAFF RECOMMENDED.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I THOUGHT THAT STAFF WOULD CHANGE THAT THIS MEETING? WELL, WE DID CROSS STOP.
WELL, UH, IS MARK STILL ON THE LINE? MATT? THAT'S MATT.
MAX, ARE YOU STILL ON THE LINE? YES, I'M HERE.
COULD YOU GIVE US A QUICK WALKTHROUGH OF MR. O'NEILL'S MOTION IN LAYMAN'S TERMS? WHAT, UH, YES, SIR.
OH, YES OR NO? TELL US WHAT WE'RE DOING.
SO WITH, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES.
WITH, WITH REGARD TO ARTICLE THREE, SECTION TWO, UM, WHAT YOU WOULD BE DOING IS AMENDING THE, UM, THAT PARAGRAPH TO READ THESE RULES OF PROCEDURE MAY BE AMENDED AT ANY REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, WITH A MAJORITY VOTE, OF COURSE.
UM, ANY, UM, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WOULD NEED TO BE NOTICED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SOUTH CAROLINA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, UM, AS THEY HAVE BEEN TODAY.
UM, AND THEN IT'S, IT'S STRIKING OUT ANY, UM, ANY OF THE OTHER LANGUAGE THERE, UM, WITH, UH, A WRITTEN DRAFT, UH, AT LEAST SEVEN CALENDAR DAYS BEFOREHAND BECAUSE, UM, WE
[01:10:01]
ARE BRINGING THAT INTO ALIGNMENT WITH STATE LAW UNDER FOIA.AND THEN WITH REGARDS TO THE OTHER AMENDMENT, LET ME SCROLL DOWN.
UH, THAT IS BEING STRICKEN BECAUSE WITH PERMISSION OF TOWN COUNCIL, MATT, HOLD US SECOND PERMISSION IN THE, HOLD IT FOR A SECOND.
I'M, LET'S JUST FOCUS ON BACK WHAT WE JUST TALKING, SO WHEN YOU HAVE A COMMENT OR A QUESTION.
YEAH, I, I'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS BEFORE WE MOVE.
I'D LIKE TO, THAT WAS A GOOD TIME.
YOU WANT REPEAT YOUR MOTION? MOTION ON ARTICLE THREE, SECTION TWO? YES.
THAT SECOND PART IS NOT PART OF THE MOTION REPEATED.
MOVE TO AMEND THE PROPOSED RULES AND PROCEED RULES OF PROCEDURE AMENDMENTS BY REVISING ARTICLE THREE.
SECTION TWO, WHICH PERTAINS TO AMENDMENTS.
TO STATE THESE RULES OF PROCEDURE MAY BE AMENDED AT ANY REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY A MAJORITY VOTE IN DELETING THE FIRST PARAGRAPH UNDER ARTICLE FOUR, SECTION FIVE, WHICH PERTAINS TO COMMITTEES ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE DELETED PROVISIONS WILL NO LONGER SERVE ANY PURPOSE DUE TO THE DISSOLUTION, THE RED LIGHT.
THE RED LIGHT USUALLY MEANS STOP, BUT UP HERE IT MEANS GO.
SO, UM, YOU WANT ME TO TRY THIS AGAIN? DID YOU, MR. HENS, YOU HAD ASKED THE QUESTION, DO YOU UNDERSTAND MOVED ON TO ARTICLE FOUR RIGHT.
FOR LOOP, IS THAT REQUIRED OR, OR CAN YOU PAUSE AFTER YOUR AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE THREE AND THEN MOVE ON TO ARTICLE FOUR NEXT? SO IN OTHER WORDS, TREAT IT AS TWO SEC SEPARATE MOTION.
I THINK, I THINK FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSE, RIGHT? JUSTIN, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? I DO.
AS, AS MR. DEF FORD HAS MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, ANY, IF YOU DO ADOPT, THERE'S ANY CHANGES THAT HAVE TO BE NOTICED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.
WELL, THIS PARTICULAR CHANGE WASN'T NOTICED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT FOR THIS MEETING, NOR TO MY KNOWLEDGE WAS IT INCLUDED, UM, IN A, IN A WRITTEN DRAFT PROVIDED TO Y'ALL AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS IN ADVANCE.
SO ADOPTING THAT AMENDMENT RIGHT NOW VIOLATES YOUR CURRENT RULES.
SO YOU, I I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT YOU CAN ADOPT THAT RIGHT NOW.
THANK YOU, JUSTICE CHAIRMAN, I, I WITHDRAW THE MOTION.
UH, THAT BEING THE CASE AGAIN, UH, WE NEED TO GET, UH, THIS BACK TO STAFF FOR THE NEXT MEETING AND MAKE SURE WE HAVE GIVEN THE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC NOTICE, UH, SO THAT PEOPLE KNOW WE'RE CHANGING THE RULES, ELIMINATING THE COMMITTEES IF THIS IS ADOPTED, AND, UH, MAKING SURE THAT, UH, UH, WE HAVE A CLEAR NOTION OF TWO, TWO SEPARATE THINGS.
OKAY? ONE IS THE, THE FIRST THING AND THE SECOND ARTICLE, UH, THE TWO DIFFERENT MOTIONS INSTEAD OF ONE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND ONE MOTION.
UM, I WOULD MOVE THAT WE TAKE THIS AND SEND IT BACK TO STAFF AGAIN FOR THE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC NOTICES AND ALSO TO, UH, IF THERE ARE ANY, UM, APPEALS, MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S DELINEATED IN THERE.
UH, WHAT CAN AND CANNOT BE DONE WITH REGARDS TO PUBLIC HEARING.
NO PUBLIC HEARING, THAT SORT OF THING.
I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT IN, IN BLACK AND WHITE FOR THE COMMISSION.
UM, IS THERE A SECOND TO MY MOTION OF SENDING THIS BACK TO STAFF? MR. HENS SECONDS.
ALSO, MR. CAMPBELL, UH, ALL IN FAVOR OF SENDING IT BACK FOR CLARIFICATION.
[9.c. Proposed Revised 2023 Meeting Schedule.]
OF BUSINESS.IS THE PROPOSED MEETING SCHEDULE'S BEEN SENT TO YOU, MR. CHAIR? YES.
UM, CAUSE WE DID NOT AMEND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE.
WE CANNOT ADOPT THE NEXT, UM, AGENDA ITEM.
WE CAN'T, WE DON'T NEED TO DO THAT.
NOW, THE SCHEDULING A MEETING? NOPE, WE CANNOT BECAUSE THE RULES STATE ARE OUR MEETING DATE AND TIME.
THE NEXT MEETINGS OR, WELL, THE GUY'S RUNNING THE NEXT MEETINGS.
[10. Commission Business]
BUSINESS, WE NEED TO SET UP A NOMINATING COMMITTEE AND THAT YOUR CURRENT CHAIRMAN IS RESIGNING.AND SO THEREFORE, UH, I WOULD ASK, UH, FOR VOLUNTEERS OF MR. CAMPBELL, UH, MR. O'NEILL AND MR. SEABOLD, IF YOU WOULD SERVE AS A 3 MILLION NOMINATED COMMITTEE FOR A REPLACING.
WE GET TO COLLECT OUR OWN OFFICERS, VICE CHAIRMAN AND CHAIRMAN.
[01:15:01]
SO I WOULD ASK THAT YOU THREE SERVE AS A NOMINATED COMMITTEE AND, UH, GET TOGETHER AND, UH, FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO FOR FUTURE LEADERSHIP.[11. Chairman’s Report]
REPORT.UH, THIS BEING MY LAST MEETING, UH, AS I'VE INDICATED, UH, PREVIOUSLY I WILL BE LEAVING.
I'VE SENT MY LETTER OF, UH, RESIGNATION TO MAYOR PERRY, AND I'VE DECIDED AFTER, YOU KNOW, FIVE YEARS ON THE COMMISSION, UH, TWO AND A HALF OF THOSE AS CHAIR, THAT I WILL BE RESIGNING FOR BOTH PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL REASONS.
UH, MY WIFE PAUL, IS IN THE, UH, AUDIENCE AND THE PKA DOTS OVER HERE.
AND I WANT TO THANK PAUL FOR PUTTING UP WITH ME IN ALL THESE MEETINGS,
UH, I LEARNED, UH, I THINK IT WAS CLINT EAST WHO SAID, A MAN HAS TO KNOW HIS LIMITATIONS.
AND I'VE BEGUN TO GOTTEN TO THAT POINT WHERE I KNOW MY LIMITATIONS AND WHAT I CAN AND CAN'T BE DOING IN TERMS OF TIME AND EFFORT.
UH, I WANNA EXPRESS THANKS TO MANY PEOPLE, BUT INCLUDING MY TWO PREDECESSORS AS CHAIRMAN OF BOTH ALEX BROWN AND PETER CHRISTIAN FOR HELPING ME, UH, LEARN THE ROPES ALONG THE WAY.
UH, I, I HOLD THE, THE CURRENT AND PAST MEMBERS OF THIS COMMISSION IN, IN VERY HIGH REGARD, KNOWING ABOUT THE TIME AND THE EFFORT THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY PUT INTO THIS FORM OF COMMUNITY SERVICE.
I WANT TO THANK MY, MY, UH, VICE CHAIRS ALAN PERRY AND THE CURRENT MARCO O'NEAL FOR THEIR ASSISTANCE ALONG THE WAY TO, UH, RICK ZO, BRUCE SIBEL, TOM HANS, JOHN CAMPBELL, MARK O'NEAL.
I WISH YOU SMOOTH SAILING AND NON-CONTROVERSIAL MEETINGS IN THE FUTURE.
UH, AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, I WANTED TO SEE HOW MUCH I'VE ENJOYED AND APPRECIATED THE WORK OF THE TOWN HALL STAFF FOR MAKING SURE WE PREPARE FOR EACH AND EVERY MEETING.
NOW, WE, UH, OBVIOUSLY TODAY WE HAD A FEW GLITCHES, BUT THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS SOMETIMES IN GOVERNMENT.
UH, SO TO KAREN KNOX AND TERESA HALEY, WHO PRECEDED HER, I WANNA THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK OVER THE YEARS AND TO MISSY AND JENNIFER MACK.
BRIAN, UH, BRIAN HAD TWO BRIANS, UH, SHA, TREY, AND ASHLEY, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR DILIGENT WORK AND COMMITMENT TO THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND.
I WANT TO THANK THE CITIZENS OF THIS TOWN AND THE PEOPLE THAT WE TRY TO SERVE.
UH, WANNA ESPECIALLY THANK A FELLOW NAMED CHESTER WHO HAS KEPT ME ON THE STRAIGHT AND NARROW FOR FIVE YEARS NOW.
HE'S THE MOST VALUABLE ATTENDEE AT MEETINGS.
UH, I WILL LEAVE YOU WITH ONE THOUGHT.
NEVER DOUBT THAT A SMALL GROUP OF THOUGHTFUL, COMMITTED CITIZENS CAN CHANGE THE WORLD.
IT'S THE ONLY THING THAT EVER HAS.
UH, THERE ARE, UH, THERE ARE NO STAFF REPORTS.
[12. Staff Reports]
IF I MAY, IF I MAY BE SO PRESUMPTUOUS AS TO SPEAK.I DON'T KNOW IF I RECOGNIZE FOR THE
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE.
UM, PEOPLE LIKE YOU, THE QUALITY OF THE, UH, Y'ALL UP THERE WHO ARE WILLING TO SERVE IN THESE SORTS OF POSITIONS, YOU KNOW, NOT ONLY IS A GREAT BENEFIT TO THE TOWN, BUT TO BE SELFISH ABOUT IT MAKES MY JOB SO MUCH EASIER.
AND FOR THAT, I THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I WISH YOU GOOD LUCK AND THANK YOU.
IF IT IS, WE CAN DO, PLEASE LET US KNOW.
IS THERE BEING NO OTHER BUSINESS? IS THERE SOME MORE BUSINESS? WE DO HAVE SOME STAFF REPORT.
OH, WE DO HAVE A STAFF REPORT.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY AND, UM, I APPRECIATE AND, AND THANK YOU FOR THANKING US, BUT WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR DEDICATION AS CHAIR AND AS A LONG TERM PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER.
BRIAN EBER ALSO HAD A QUICK STAFF REPORT AS A FOLLOW UP FROM THE LAST MEETING.
THANK YOU ALSO FOR WHAT YOU'VE DONE FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
A QUICK STASH REPORT ON THE CURRENT PROJECT AT SOUTH ISLAND PSDS DOING DOWN DUNIGAN ALLEY.
OH, THAT'S RIGHT, THAT'S RIGHT.
AND, UM, IF I MIGHT PROVIDE JUST A, A, A BIG PICTURE SCALE FOR IT.
THE PROJECT CAME IN, UM, THAT WAS GONNA BE A PHASE PROJECT.
AND THE FIRST PHASE OF THAT PROJECT, UM, CAME IN, UM, I WANNA SAY ABOUT OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR.
AND SHORTLY AFTER THAT, WE MET WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, UH, IN THE MOTOR COACH FACILITY.
RIGHT? WE'VE SAT DOWN WITH THEM, UM, ON THREE DIFFERENT SEPARATE OCCASIONS.
TOWN STAFF HAS ONCE WITH SOUTH ISLAND PSD, THE OTHER TWO WITHOUT SOUTH ISLAND PSD, UH, TO GO OVER LISTEN TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR CONCERNS THAT THEY HAVE ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE HAPPENED.
UM, PHASE ONE IS THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW HALF A MILLION GALLON, HALF A MILLION GALLON, UH, TANK ELEVATED, UM, AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ENTRANCE AND THE INSTALLATION OF ONE SHALLOW WELL AND ONE VERY DEEP.
[01:20:01]
THE WORK AND ACTIVITY THAT'S LIMITED TO WHAT THEY'VE BEEN APPROVED TO DO AT THIS TIME.UM, THAT WORK, UH, WILL IN INVOLVE THE DRILLING OF A DEEP WELL, WHICH DOES MAKE, UH, A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF NOISE, IF NOT PROPERLY ADHERED TO TOWN STANDARDS.
THE TOWN HAS IN ITS MUNICIPAL CODE, UH, OF, OF BOTH A FREQUENCY AND A AND AN ELEVATION.
EL DESCRIBE THE DECIMALS, THE NOISE LEVELS, AT DIFFERENT FREQUENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH DURING THE DAY AND AT NIGHT.
UM, AT THIS TIME, THE TOWN STAFF HAS NOT BEEN SATISFIED WITH THE APPROACH FROM SOUTH ISLAND PSD TO, UM, PUT FORWARD TO MR. MARK ORLANDO THE SIGNATURE OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS WORK TO HAPPEN.
WE FEEL THAT SOUTH ISLAND PSD MOST RECENTLY LAST WEEK SUBMITTED NEW INFORMATIONS ON NEW WAYS ARE GONNA DAMPEN THE SOUND FROM THE DRILLING OPERATIONS.
THEY'RE GOING TO MANAGE THE WATER FROM THE DRILLING OPERATIONS AND HOW THEY'RE GONNA DO THAT BOTH DAY AND NIGHT.
CUZ THIS HAS TO BE A CONTINUOUS DRILLING OPERATION.
THEY'RE ESTIMATED ABOUT TWO AND A HALF MONTHS TO DRILL IN THESE DEEP AQUIFERS THAT WE NEED.
CUZ OUR SHALLOW AQUIFERS ARE CONTAMINATED WITH SALT WATER.
SO THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE TO GO TO THE DEPTHS.
WE FEEL THAT THE PROPOSAL THEY SUBMITTED LAST WEEK AND THE COMMITMENT THAT THEY HAVE CONTINUED TO MAKE TO TOWN STAFF THAT THEY WILL ADHERE TO ALL, UH, CONCERNS AND ADDRESS THEM AS BEST THEY CAN.
THE MOTOR COACH, UM, DECIDED TO PURSUE A LEGAL ACTION AGAINST SOUTH ISLAND P S D.
THAT'S WHY SOME OF THE COMMUNICATION AND THE BACK AND FORTH MM-HMM.
UM, WE HOPE TO GARNER MORE, WE'RE GOING TO MEET WITH THEM YET AGAIN, UM, TO, TO TRY TO LAY OUT THIS NEXT PHASE, UM, THAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO DO AS THEY FINISH UP PHASE ONE, PHASE TWO WILL HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE TO SEEK APPROVAL.
YOU GUYS WILL, AS WE GO THROUGH OUR CODE AMENDMENTS, WE'LL WE'LL BE UPDATING THAT, UH, PROCESS FOR YOU ALL.
BUT THEY'RE ABOUT A YEAR OR YEAR AND A HALF AWAY FROM SUBMITTING TO THE TOWN FOR THE WORK THAT'S INVOLVED IN PHASE TWO, WHICH THE TOWN HAS SHARED WITH THE MOTOR COACH THAT WE'RE, WE HAVE SOME VERY SIMILAR CONCERNS AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE, I WANTED TO ASK YOU, DO YOU FEEL THAT THEY'RE GOING TO TRY TO, UH, TAKE TO HEART WHAT THE COMMENTS FROM THE PEOPLE OF THE RV PARK ARE OR ARE THEY PERHAPS, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO SHUFFLE THIS ASIDE? I, I AS THE, AS THE DIRECTOR, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR POO, BUT I BELIEVE HE IS ABSOLUTELY COMMITTED TO TAKING TO HEART THE SENTIMENTS WERE CONCERNS WHAT SAID NOTE THAT THEY HAVE PUBLIC HEARING HERE.
ANY QUESTIONS? AFTER IT'S FINISHED NOISE, THIS THAT AFTER TWO MONTHS IT'S DONE IS 50 YEARS.
THAT'S A GREAT, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
THERE ARE OPERATIONAL NOISES AND SYSTEMS THAT NEED TO BE PUT INTO PLACE.
SOME OF THOSE CAME FROM SUGGESTIONS FROM THE MOTOR COACH IN THEMSELVES, BUT THE TOWN IS ABSOLUTELY LOOKING TO, AND THE PSD IS COMMITTED VERBALLY TO ENSURING THAT LONG TERM THAT THEY DO RECOGNIZE AVENUES AND PURSUE METHODS DURING CONSTRUCTION TO MITIGATE THAT NOISE BEING TRANSFERRED OFFSITE TOWARDS THEM.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.
THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE RESPOND TO ALL THOSE COMMENTS THAT WE'RE AT OUR PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT TOPIC.
THERE BEING NO OTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION.
THIS IS LARRY ROLAND AND THIS IS A BEAUFORT COUNTY MOMENT.
[01:25:01]
ONE OF THE EXCITING ASPECTS OF COLONIAL, THE COLONIAL SEA ISLANDS WAS THE ARRIVAL OF NUMEROUS FREE BOOTERS AND PIRATES IN THIS AREA.THE PIRACY IN THE CARIBBEAN WAS ESSENTIALLY ENDED IN 1713 WITH A TREATY BETWEEN SPAIN AND ENGLAND.
BUT THE PIRATES WHO, UH, HAD INFESTED THE SPANISH MAINE FOR A HUNDRED YEARS MOVED NORTH.
MANY MOVED INTO THE BAHAMAS, MANY MOVED INTO THE SEA ISLANDS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA COAST AND INTO THE OUTER BANKS OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THIS AREA.
THE COMMON PIRATE HANGOUT WAS THE COAST OF NORTH CAROLINA, WHICH WAS LESS POPULATED AND LESS DEFENDED THAN EITHER THE SEA ISLANDS OR THE NORTH COAST OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
SO IN 1719, SOUTH CAROLINA SENT A FLEET TO NORTH CAROLINA, WHICH CAPTURED STEVE BONNET AND SANK HIS VESSEL, DROVE BLACKBEARD NORTH IN DE BEAUFORD, NORTH CAROLINA, WHERE VIRGINIANS CAPTURED HIS VESSEL AND KILLED BLACKBEARD AND HIS VESSEL, QUEEN ANNE'S REVENGE IS BEING ARCHEOLOGICALLY RECOVERED OFF OF BEAUFORT, NORTH CAROLINA AS WE SPEAK, UH, SOUTH OF CHARLESTON.
THIS PLACE BECAME A VERY ACTIVE CENTER FOR A PRIVATEER WAR IN THE 1730S AND 1740S.
IT WAS ESSENTIALLY A CONTEST BETWEEN THE SPANISH AND ST.
AUGUSTINE AND THE ENGLISH IN CHARLESTON.
DURING THE 1740S, SPANISH PRIVATEERS INFESTED THIS COAST AND VIRTUALLY STOPPED THE MARITIME TRADE FROM PORT ROYAL NEAR BEAUFORT AND FROM CHARLESTON HARBOR.
THE MOST NOTABLE OF THOSE SPANISH PRIVATEERS WAS FRANCISCO LORENZO.
HE CAPTURED MANY SOUTH CAROLINIANS IN HIS VOYAGES, CAPTURED 56 ENGLISH VESSELS OFF THE COAST OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE SINGLE YEAR OF 1741.
BUT ALL OF HIS PRISONERS, HE TREATED WELL WHEN HE WAS FINALLY CAPTURED BY SOUTH CAROLINA NAVAL FORCES IN LATE 1741.
HE WAS TAKEN TO CHARLESTON AND THE POPULATION ASSEMBLED AND CHEERED HIM WHEN HE CAME ASHORE BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN SUCH AN HONORABLE PIRATE.
IF THERE IS SUCH A THING, OTHER PIRATES, FRENCH AND SPANISH CONTINUED TO INVEST THE COAST FROM 1742 TO 1744.
AND THEN AGAIN FROM 1748 TO 1751.
THE LAST SPANISH PIRATE, DON JULIAN VEGA, UH, WAS HERE, HIS LATEST AS 1760, AND HE WAS CAPTURED BY SPANISH GARDA COSTAS, NOT ENGLISH COAST GUARDS.
DURING THAT TIME, THE BURE AND THE CHARLESTONIANS BUILT TWO INLAND GALES ROAD GALES WITH HEAVY GUNS THAT COULD PROTECT THE INLAND WATERS FROM THESE SPANISH AND FRENCH FREE BOOMERS.
BUT BETWEEN 1739, WHICH IS THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR OF JENKINS' EAR AND 1763, WHICH WAS THE TREATY OF PARIS THAT ENDED THE FRENCH AND INDIAN WAR, THIS WAS AN ACTIVE AREA FOR PRIVATEERS AND PIRATES AND THEIR COUNTER FORCES, THE GALES OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND GEORGIA.
THIS HAS BEEN A BEAUFORT COUNTY MOMENT.
TO SEE MORE BEAUFORT COUNTY MOMENTS GO TO THE BEAUFORT COUNTY LIBRARY HOMEPAGE AND CLICK ON THE LOCAL HISTORY TAB.