[Town of Hilton Planning Commission on March 15, 2023]
[00:16:01]
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS I.E. LIKE SETBACKS AND BUFFERS BASED ON IS IT A SINGLE FAMILY
[00:16:05]
DEVELOPMENT OR IS IT MULTIFAMILY? YOU KNOW MR. O'NEILL YEAH, JUST[00:16:11]
JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS HERE. SURE.[00:16:15]
IT MIGHT BE THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND SOME OF THIS BUT FIRST OF ALL TO THE INITIAL COMMENTS FROM THE GOLD COMMUNITY THAT FEEL LIKE THAT WE'VE ADDRESSED THOSE CONCERNS.YOU KNOW, THE NEED FOR A DISTRICT WIDE PLAN FIRST THE UNDERSTANDING OF WHO IMPACTED BY THIS AND THAT COMMUNITY AND THE QUESTION OF WHAT'S THE RUSH RUSH HERE.
I'M HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING HOW YOU'RE GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH ONE SET OF RULES AND GRANDFATHER EVERYBODY WITH THE OLD SET OF RULES AND OVER TIME HOW ARE WE GOING TO HOW ARE WE REALLY GOING TO MANAGE THAT AND I'M REALLY NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT WE'RE DONE RIGHT. SO COMMISSIONER O'NEILL, COULD YOU PLEASE ME ON YOUR MICROPHONE, EVERYONE THIS WEEK MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE READ THE REPORT.
IT'S ON YOUR HONOR. IT MAY JUST START OVER. OKAY.
THE QUESTION IS THE FIRST COMMENTS FROM THE COMMUNITY I THINK ARE ARE GOOD QUESTIONS.
WHAT'S THE RUSH? WHY NOT WAIT FOR A DISTRICT PLAN FIRST AND UNDERSTAND BETTER THAN I DO ANYWAY THE IMPACT OF A SET OF RULES FOR PEOPLE THAT HAVE ALREADY BOUGHT AND BUILT FROM APARTMENTS TO SETBACKS AND BUFFERS THAT ARE ALSO GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY ALL OF THIS AND HOW ARE WE GOING TO MANAGE THOSE TWO DIFFERENT SITUATIONS GOING FORWARD? SURE. SO REALLY THIS CHANGE APPLIES TO AND WHAT WOULD BECOME NON-CONFORMING ARE PARCELS THAT HAVE TWO UNITS ON ONE LOT CURRENTLY THAT ARE NOW CONSIDERED TO BE SINGLE FAMILY THEN NOW WITH THIS DEFINITION CHANGE TWO HOMES ON ONE THAT ARE NOW GOING TO BE CONSIDERED MULTIFAMILY.
SO THAT'S WHAT COULD BECOME NON-CONFORMING IF THE SETBACKS AND BUFFERS WOULD CHANGE SOMETIMES DEPENDING ON WHAT THE ADJACENT USES, THE SETBACKS AND BUFFERS ARE THE SAME WHETHER IT'S ONE OR TWO HOMES SO IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE CAUSE WE HAVE ADJACENT USE SETBACK AND BUFFERS THAT'S HOW WE APPLY IT WITH WHAT THE USE IS ADJACENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT NUANCED BUT THAT IS WHAT THIS THIS CHANGE COULD AFFECT AND MAKE NON-CONFORMING 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 NON-CONFORMING 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.
AS FAR AS YOUR QUESTION ABOUT TIMING, WE HAD OUTLINED TO THE PUBLIC PLANNING COMMITTEE A MULTI-PHASED ALAMO AMENDMENT PHASING PLAN. THIS AMENDMENT IS PHASE THREE IN THAT PLAN PHASE FOUR THAT'S COMING NEXT HAS A RANGE OF ALAMO AMENDMENTS THAT THAT WILL REALLY COMPLEMENT SOME OF WHAT STARTED HERE IN PHASE THREE.
BUT REALLY LOOKING AT A LOT OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD SECTION, SOME OF OUR ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION, SOME DEFINITIONS WILL BE LOOKED AT AS WELL IN THAT PHASE FOUR.
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 OVERALL AND REALLY LOOKING AT CHANGES BASED ON THE ALAMO SWOT ANALYSIS THAT WE HAD DONE IN JANUARY. DID I ANSWER ALL YOUR QUESTIONS ? THANK YOU. I GUESS THEN CAN YOU CAN YOU TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD BE AFFECTED, HOW MANY EXISTING STRUCTURES
[00:20:06]
WOULD NOW BE CLASSIFIED DIFFERENTLY THAN THEY ARE NOW? I DON'T HAVE THAT ANSWER FOR YOU TODAY. IT'S SOMETHING THAT THAT THE TEAM IS LOOKING INTO AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A NUANCED SEARCH JUST BECAUSE OF OUR ADJACENT USE REQUIREMENTS.BUT WE'RE LOOKING INTO THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU.
YES. SUBMISSION AGAIN, I'M SOMEWHAT CONCERNED ABOUT THE THE SOURCE OF THE CHANGES. WHY WHY IS THIS MOVING AT THIS POINT IN THE CALENDAR YEAR, FOR EXAMPLE, WHY ARE WE DOING THIS NOW AND ARE WE IN SOME HURRY? WELL, WE HAVE RECEIVED NUMEROUS COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT A NUMBER OF SECTIONS 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. SO IT'S PART OF THE LARGER PLAN.
ALL RIGHT. SO IF WE RECOMMEND THIS TO TOWN COUNCIL AS WRITTEN, BASICALLY WE'RE GRANDFATHERING IN ALL CURRENT LOCKOUTS. CORRECT? WE'RE GRANDFATHERED IN FOR THE FUTURE BUT THERE ARE NONCONFORMING IS THAT RIGHT? THEY WOULD BE CONSIDERED LEGAL NONCONFORMING USES. YES.
ALL RIGHT. WHAT IF WE PUT A CERTAIN DATE ON THIS? WE HAVE OF PEOPLE MAY HAVE PLANS TO BUILD LOCKOUTS FOR EXAMPLE.
HOW WOULD THIS AFFECT THE FOLLOWING FIELD ISSUE? I MEAN THEY'RE PLANNING TO BUILD LOCKOUTS AS PART OF THAT DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.
WOULD THIS BAN THEM FROM DOING A LOCKOUT? THIS WOULD BE SHOWN HERE IF YOU ASHLEY GOODRICH, PRINCIPAL PLANNER. YES.
ASHLEY, IF YOU COULD STEP UP TO THE MIKE. APPRECIATE IT.
WE CAN AGREE. SO ONE ASPECT OF NONCONFORMING THESE IN TERMS OF A LEGAL NONCONFORMING AND THE ARE BOTH TO THE USE AND THE STRUCTURE IS THAT THE APPLICABILITY FOR ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT WOULD BE THAT A NEW DEVELOPMENT IT 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 NONCONFORMING USE IT IS ALLOWED TO REMAIN AND EXIST UNLESS AT WHICH AT SOME TIME IT COMES FORWARD AS A REDEVELOPMENT AND WHEN SOMETHING THAT'S COMING FORWARD AS A REDEVELOPMENT THEN THE NEW ASPECT OF THE CODE IF IT'S NONCONFORMING 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 APPROVE THE ELMO AMENDMENTS AS THEY'RE WRITTEN BEFORE US WITH THE DATE OF THE PROPOSAL FOR FOLEY FIELD HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT ? IN OTHER WORDS, WOULD WE BE BANNING LOCKOUTS ONCE THE TOWN COUNCIL ACTS THAT THAT PROJECT COULD NOT GO FORWARD WITH LOCKOUTS? IS THAT THE CASE? SO AS IN ANY OTHER ASPECT OF OUR ALAMO CODE OF F ANY OTHER CHAPTER THE DIFFERENCE WITH FALCO BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY IF IT'S A FULL APPLICATION IF IT'S CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW FOR THAT ONE TOPIC.
RIGHT. 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 COULD HAVE LOCKOUTS 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 ARE FULLY ENTERED IN AND APPLIED AND OR MAYBE ACTUALLY WHICH YOU CAN ANSWER THIS WHAT IS THE EFFECT ON A FAMILY COMPOUND BY THIS ELEMENT OF CHANGES? WHAT WOULD BE THE EFFECT FAMILY COMPOUNDS DEVELOPMENT IS CONSIDERED TO BE A SINGLE FAMILY NO MATTER THE NUMBER OF UNITS ON THE FAMILY COMPOUNDS OR THERE'S NO EFFECT. NO EFFECT NO.
[00:25:05]
OKAY. YEAH, I JUST DON'T IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO A LOCKOUT YOU DON'T WANT A LOCKOUT. YOUR MOTHER IN LAW THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR ABOUT THAT AFTER A WHILE. LET'S SEE THROUGH YOU. I DON'T SEE THE SOURCE OF THE REASON FOR THIS BE THAT WHICH WE'RE GOING ON THIS I DON'T WANT TO GO UP SOMETHING AT THE TOWN COUNCIL AT ALL IF THEY ARE INTERESTED IN MOVING THIS THING ALONG QUICKLY.BUT I THINK THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS THAT ARE ANSWER HERE AND WE NEED TO GET THEM ANSWERED IN TERMS OF THE DISTRICT PLANS AND THE 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 AS FIRST WITH LOOKING AT THE ELMO SWAT THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY DONE WITH OUR STAFF AND REVIEW IS THAT CLARIFYING SINGLE FAMILY VERSUS MULTIFAMILY AND 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 AND THE GUIDANCE FOR THESE DISTRICT PLANS. 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 OUR HOME OWNERSHIP OR PROPERTY IS THAT THAT HAVING SINGLE FAMILY BE RELATIVELY STRICTLY ONE UNIT MAKES IT CLEAR FOR THE APPLICABILITY OF US TO IMPLEMENT OUR CODE AND ALL OF OUR BOTH OUR DISTRICTS AND THEN OUR OUR ZONING AND OTHER PIECES.
I'M TRYING TO DETERMINE IF WE'VE BEEN LOCKOUTS THAT BEING PUT PER PERSONS FROM PUTTING IN THEIR SINGLE FAMILY HOME A MOTHER IN LAW UNIT YES THE THE BIGGEST THING TO THINK ABOUT A LOCKOUT UNIT VERSUS A MOTHER IN LAW SUITE AND THIS IS IS IT SEPARATELY AND THAT'S THE REASON IT'S A LOCKOUT IT'S NOT EVEN SO MUCH ABOUT IT BEING RENTED SEPARATELY AS THE NUMBER OF UTILITIES THAT CAN BE THERE FOR ADDED INTO THE SPECIFIC BUILD OUT IN THE STRUCTURE TO BREAK DOWN SORT OF HOW SOMEONE CAN ADD A MOTHER IN LAW SUITE OR HAVE EXTRA ROOMS IN THEIR PROPERTY. THE DIFFERENCE THEN BECOMES AND IN 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 OR TWO WATER LINES YOU HAVE DUPLICATE SETS OF INFRASTRUCTURE CONNECTING INTO YOUR PROPERTY. SO THE CLARIFICATION OF ONE VERSUS MULTIPLE IS ALSO TO HELP CLARIFY THAT AS WELL. I DON'T KNOW FOR CLARIFYING ANYTHING SHOPPING SORRY.
I'M SORRY I HAD TO STEP OUT DURING SOME OF THE DISCUSSION SO THE THAT THE DETERMINATION ON MORE THAN ONE DWELLING UNIT ON A SAY IT HAS TO MEET ALL FIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR A DWELLING UNIT AND THAT THE LOCKOUT UNITS ARE DEVELOPED. DOES THE VISIBLE DWELLING UNITS HAVE BEEN PRIMARILY LINKED WITH TIMESHARE OR OTHER RESORT USES ? SO AS IT RELATES TO OTHER LAW SUITES OR FROG'S YOU KNOW FINISHED ROOM OVER GARAGE IF IT DOESN'T MEET THE DEFINITION OF ANOTHER DWELLING UNIT SO IT DOESN'T HAVE EATING SLEEPING, COOKING, SANITATION AND LIVING THEY GET ALL THAT. SO RIGHT 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 KITCHEN KITCHEN AND A BATHROOM AND A BEDROOM AND EATING AND SLEEPING FACILITY THEN IT'S A IT'S A IT'S A FULL UNIT SEPARATELY IT'S NOT A DIVISIBLE DWELLING UNIT WHICH UNDER OUR CODE ARE HALF OF THE UNIT. HOW CAN WE CAN WE IS THERE SOME LANGUAGE WE CAN PUT IN HERE THAT WOULD DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN A LOCKOUT AND AND A MOTHER INVOLVES ME TO A SINGLE FAMILY ON WELL WHAT I WOULD SAY IS I THINK THE PUT THE LANGUAGE BEFORE YOU TODAY IS IS RELATED TO THE LOCKOUTS RIGHT RIGHT. AND IT IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE ABILITY OF A MOTHER IN LAW SUITE OR FINISH ROOM OVER GARAGE BECAUSE THOSE AREN'T CLASSIFIED AS LOCKOUTS PER OUR DEFINITION THROUGH THE VISIBLE DWELLING UNIT.
[00:30:01]
SO I'D LIKE TO HANDLE THE LOCKOUT ITEM THAT'S BEFORE YOU AND THEN AS WE COME FORWARD THIS ALAMO OVERHAUL OF DEFINITION I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT MOTHER LAST WEEK IS NOT INCORRECT FOR ADDITION OF A LOCKOUT. AND SO I THINK AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH A 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 WILL MAKE SURE THAT THAT CLARIFICATION IS PROVIDED.AND THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.
SO WE GET INTO HEY MAYBE AS PART OF THE WORKFORCE SOLUTION IS TO HAVE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS THAT YOU COULD THEN PROVIDE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR WORKFORCE IT'S A IT'S A PROGRAM THAT'S USED IN A LOT OF COMMUNITIES. SOME COMMUNITIES MANDATE IT 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. YES.
SO TODAY WE'RE DISCUSSING YES, SIR. AND THIS AMENDMENT.
OKAY. SO IF WE WERE TO VOTE FOR IT, WE'RE ELIMINATING FUTURE LOCKOUTS. ABSOLUTELY. YES, SIR.
ALL RIGHT. WELL AND THE OTHER QUESTIONS GO AROUND ONE MORE TIME.
SO YEAH, IF IF SINGLE FAMILY DOESN'T MEAN SINGLE FAMILY OR MULTI FAMILY DOESN'T MEAN MULTIFAMILY, I DON'T SEE HOW YOU COULD EVER PLAN IT LIKE IT'S JUST BASIC RICK ANYTHING ADDITION THERE WAS ANOTHER ANOTHER WRITTEN COMMENT WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT THAT THE COURT SOME LANGUAGE THAT SHE WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THE DIVISIBLE DWELLING UNITS ARE STRICTLY IN THE C R IN THE R D DISTRICTS AND NOT IN THE RCF DISTRICT. WE'RE CASTING THAT PARTICULAR COMMENT. YES. SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS A PRETTY GOOD COMMENT THAT IN TERMS OF OF GRANDFATHERING THIS THIS IS NEW DIVISIBLE LOCKOUT UNITS IT WAS HER OPINION THAT SHOULD BE APPLICABLE IN THE STATE AND OBVIOUSLY NOT THE ANSWER AND AGAIN I THINK AS WE DO THE DISTRICT PLANNING FINISHED THE DISTRICT PLANNING IF WE IDENTIFY WITHIN THAT DISTRICT PLANNING THE DISTRICTS AND THEN THE ZONE ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS WITHIN WITHIN THE DISTRICTS 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 THAT PART WILL BE CLEANED UP AS WE MOVE FORWARD BUT I DON'T MAKE A POLICY DECISION BECAUSE 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 A RESORT AND NOT NECESSARILY WHAT WE WOULD SAY TRADITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY OR COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOODS THAT THAT SHOULD BE PART OF THE THE NEXT STEPS THAT WE'RE TAKING WITH DISTRICT PLANNING ISLAND WIDE MASTER PLAN AND THE OVERALL TO THE CODE THIS ARE THE WE GET SOME KIND OF A GENERAL FEELING FOR HOW THIS AFFECTS HOW THIS CHANGE FROM FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO MULTIFAMILY AFFECTS THE BUFFER AND THE SETBACKS AND I KNOW BETSY MENTIONED THERE ARE SOME ADJACENCY ISSUES BUT WE PUT IT IN SOME KIND OF A GENERAL PERSPECTIVE. I THINK MISSY CAN ANSWER SOME OF IT BUT WHEN YOU HAVE MULTIFAMILY NEXT TO THE SINGLE FAMILY THE THE BUFFER REQUIREMENT IS HIGHER THAN IT IS BETWEEN SINGLE FAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY.
AND SO IF YOU HAD IF YOU HAD AN INSTANCE WHERE YOU HAD A SINGLE FAMILY LOT NEXT TO A LOT WITH A CAN ACCOMMODATE MORE THAN ONE, RIGHT? SO TWO OR MORE NOW BASED ON THIS CHANGE IN DEFINITION THEN THAT LOT WOULD BE CLASSIFIED NOW AS A MULTI-FAMILY LOT AND SO THE BUFFER WOULD INCREASE I DON'T KNOW LET'S SAY 20 FROM 20 FEET TO 30 FEET BETWEEN THAT WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED IN. SO IT REALLY WOULDN'T AFFECT WELL IT WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED IN ON EXISTING LOTS BUT ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT 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 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS GET CALIBRATED SO THAT THEY MAKE SENSE AND IF WE ARE NO LONGER GOING TO ALLOW MORE THAN ONE UNIT ON A LOT IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONES THEN THAT WILL BE A DIFFERENT WE'LL PROBABLY LOOK AT A DIFFERENT SETBACK AND DIFFERENT BUFFER STANDARD IN IN THAT CASE THAN THAN EXIST TODAY BUT IT'S TOUGH TO THINK THROUGH EVERY SCENARIO WE JUST KNOW THAT THAT'S AN IMPACT THAT WE'D HAVE TO CLEAN UP WITH PERFORMANCE STANDARDS GOING FORWARD.
MR. CAIN IN QUESTION AT THIS POINT. MR. SIEGEL I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF I UNDERSTAND THE VALUE OF CHANGING THE DEFINITION BETWEEN SINGLE AND MULTIPLE THAT MAKES SENSE AND MAYBE THE DIVISIBLE LOCKING UNITS OF THE EXISTING UNITS BUT THERE'S A HOME IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD IN PORT ROYAL RIGHT DOWN THE STREET FROM RICK THAT HAS FOR 35 YEARS HAD A STANDALONE OTHER SECOND HOME IN
[00:35:04]
THE FRONT YARD AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A KITCHEN AND OTHER FOR ME IT'S ONLY THOSE STANDARDS BUT IT'S JUST A GUEST HOUSE FOR WHEN THE FAMILY COMES I'M PRETTY SURE.BUT YOU KNOW I'M STILL NOT CLEAR ABOUT HOW THIS WOULD CHANGE ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
THOSE CONDITIONS WOULD BE LEGAL NONCONFORMING FEATURES OF THE SITE AND YOU KNOW PROVIDED YOU DIDN'T HAVE A A A RENOVATION THAT WAS 49% OR MORE OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE SUPPLY AT THAT POINT. BUT YES, MR. O'NEIL, I REMAIN CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THIS NOT KNOWING ENOUGH ABOUT THE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE THAT ARE IMPACTED. AND I ALSO REMAIN CONCERNED IT'S NOT THAT I'M NOT SUPPORTIVE OF SINGLE FAMILY DEFINITION AND ALL OF THAT BUT GOING FORWARD WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO DEFINITIONS THE ONE WE HAD BEFORE THE DATE OF THIS APPROVAL AND THEN FOREVER ON THE OTHER DEFINITION AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE BALANCE HERE OF OF PEOPLE THAT ARE IN ONE GROUP ASKING ABOUT THE OTHER GROUP. AND I THINK WE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN TO THEM IN MORE DETAIL THEN FIRST WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY AND SECONDLY THE THE IDEA THE BUFFERS IN AND SETBACKS AND ALL OF THAT ARE KIND OF ILL DEFINED UNTIL YOU GET A PROJECT RIGHT? SO ALL OF THAT STILL CONCERNS ME.
YEAH AND I THINK RIGHTFULLY SO. AND YOU KNOW I'LL POINT BACK TO YOU KNOW LIKE WHEN WE ADOPT THE NEW FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS FROM FEMA, YOU KNOW, THEIR BASE FLOOD CHANGES AND THEN SO YOU MAY 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 SAME THING ,RIGHT? THE HOUSE THAT WAS BUILT IN THE PREVIOUS VERSION IS LEGALLY COMPLYING WITH THE CODE AT THAT TIME BUT NO LONGER COMPLIANT TO THE ADOPTED STANDARD. AND SO YOU SEE THAT EVERY TIME YOU ADOPT A CODE RIGHT UNLESS IT'S IN AN AREA THAT DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT OR ANY DEVELOPMENT ALREADY BUT ANY AREA THAT'S GOT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO HAVE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT RESULT. YOU HAD JUST A SETBACK OR BUFFER PARKING STANDARD THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SITES THAT ARE NON-COMPLIANT BASED ON THE CODE THAT WAS IN PLACE AT THE TIME THEY MATTER AND THE NEW CODE AND THERE ARE PROVISIONS TO BRING SITES NON-CONFORMING SITES LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING INTO COMPLIANCE OVER TIME. YOU KNOW, I MEAN AT LEAST MAKE THEM NOT MORE NON-CONFORMING. AND SO THAT'S PART OF THE PROCESS.
YOU CAN'T FLIP A SWITCH AND SAY EVERYTHING'S GOT TO COMPLY TO THE NEW CODE .
IT IS OVER TIME THERE'S A MIGRATION THAT THAT'S A BETTER STANDARD AND BUT I DO UNDERSTAND AND AGREE WITH YOUR CONCERN THAT YOU DO CREATE SORT OF DISPARITY BETWEEN A ONE HOUSE THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET FROM ANOTHER MEANING A DIFFERENT A DIFFERENT CENTER.
YOU KNOW, THE HEIGHT CHAIN MIGHT BE THE HEIGHT CHANGE OR SETBACK ANGLE LET ALONE A USE CHANGE OR DEFINITION FOR SINGLE VERSUS MULTI-FAMILY. SO THANK YOU SHOULD SIR THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE? YES, MR. SCOTT AGAIN. YES.
YOU YES I AGAIN TAIWAN SCOTT, FOR THE RECORD, 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 WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO REREAD MY SPEECH INTO PUBLIC RECORD I GUESS THE THE TOWN ATTORNEY ASSISTANT AND ATTORNEY COULDN'T HEAR AND IF HE COULDN'T HEAR THEN I'M IMAGINING THE PUBLIC CAN HEAR EITHER. DO WE HAVE THAT ON RECORD? I MEAN, SIR, THIS IS MACK DAY FOR GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE TOWN.
MR. SCOTT JUST JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE I COULD HEAR ANYONE WHO IS AT THE PODIUM SO I HEARD YOU SPEAK AT THE PREVIOUS PUBLIC COMMENT I COULD NOT HEAR ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS OKAY BEFORE BUT NOW I CAN HEAR EVERYONE. OKAY.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT MY SPEECH WAS ON RECORD. EVERYBODY IN HERE, SIR SCOTT, YOU ARE ON RECORD. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, SOME SOME ISSUES THAT I STILL WANT TO BRING TO EVERYBODY'S ATTENTION. AGAIN, WE WANT TO STRESS AGAIN THAT THE DISTRICT PLAN SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED PRIOR TO ANY CHANGES OF THE ALAMO.
AND WE ALL HAVE WE ALL HAVE TO QUESTION OURSELVES WHAT WOULD BE THE FINANCIAL IMPACT ON THE GULLAH COMMUNITY WITHIN THE RED ZONE IF WE'RE PICKING OUT PERMITTED USES TODAY, HOW ARE THEY GOING TO BE COMPENSATED FOR THOSE USES BECAUSE THAT'S A VALUE THAT THEY CAN DO TODAY THAT WE'RE JUST GRABBING IT OUT AND TAKING IT ALREADY AVAILABLE PROPERTY THAT'S AVAILABLE IN THE IT IS CURRENTLY OWNED BY THE MAJORITY OF IT IS OWNED BY GULLAH NATIVES.
SO IT FEELS AS THOUGH WE'RE KIND OF PICKING AND CHOOSING HOW ARE WE GOING TO MANAGE THEIR POTENTIAL USE IN THE FUTURE WHEN IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S PERMITTED TODAY AND
[00:40:03]
AGAIN ALL OF THESE CHANGES ARE GOING TO RESULT TO NON-CONFORMITY THE ISSUE WITH BUFFERS. IT'S NOT JUST PROPERTY LINES THAT'S GOING TO BE AFFECTED FROM GOING BETWEEN SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY. WE'RE GOING TO 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? I MEAN EVERY OTHER GULLAH NATIVE FAMILY IS NOT GOING TO DO A FAMILY COMPOUND A FAMILY SUBDIVISION.HOW ARE WE GOING TO 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 WHERE WE SHOULD TAKE A STEP BACK AND LOOK AT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND BRING FORTH THE DISTRICT PLAN TO SEE HOW THIS THESE AMENDMENTS ARE GOING TO TRULY AFFECT THE GULLAH COMMUNITY.
THAT'S MY CONCERN. THAT'S MY CONCERN THE GULLAH COMMUNITY AND HOW WE CAN ADVANCE IN THE FUTURE AND CONTINUE RETAINING OUR LAND BUT THANK YOU, SCOTT.
THANK YOU. AND THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.
I WANT TO TALK ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. THE OTHER MOMENT JUST THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. CHESTER WILLIAMS I KNOW YOU ASKED THE QUESTION, MR. CHAIRMAN, BUT I'M NOT SURE MRS. GOODRIDGE EVER GAVE A DIRECT ANSWER TO THIS.
WHAT'S THE EFFECT OF THIS ON THE FAMILY FUEL ROAD DEVELOPMENT? MY UNDERSTANDING HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT AN APPLICANT PLAYS BY THE RULES THAT ARE IN PLACE AT THE TIME THEY MAKE THEIR APPLICATION RIGHT. AND I WOULD JUST WANT TO 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 THEIR RIGHT. THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL.
OKAY. AND IS THAT IS THAT IS THAT A FAIR PROCESS? I SEE MR. COLLINS SHAKING HIS HEAD. YES.
BACK THERE IN THE YES. OKAY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, SIR. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS IF NOT ONE MORE IN THE BACK, OKAY.
YES, SIR. YEAH. ANOTHER CHANGE ADDRESS FOR FOR THE RECORD. YES, SIR. I THINK THEIR WAY TO EVERYTHING THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN IT'S SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION ESPECIALLY WITH THE DATE OF APPLICATION BECAUSE THE THE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CAN SAY IF AN APPLICATION FOR SOME REASON IT'S INCOMPLETE IF IT'S MISSING ONE THING OUT OF THE APPLICATION IT MIGHT BE A FULL APPLICATION BUT YOU KNOW THEIR COMMENTS AND AND YOU NEED TO YOU NEED TO SUPPORT THOSE COMMENTS IF THE APPLICATION IS NOT FULLY FULLY COMPLETED THEY CAN SAY THAT IT'S IT'S INCOMPLETE AND THEREFORE THE 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 ADJACENT USE. SO NOW WE GOING FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO MULTI-FAMILY YOU HAVE A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE OF BUFFER SO NOW YOU HAVE A PROPERTY IN THE THAT TECHNICALLY YOU HAD THE RIGHT TO HAVE TWO UNITS ON IT BUT BY THE TIME YOU APPLY THE BUFFERS YOU BASICALLY DON'T HAVE A BUILDING ENVELOPE ANYMORE SO THEREFORE IT'S IT'S IT'S YOU KNOW IT'S IT'S A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN YOUR DENSITY, RIGHT? IN ADDITION TO TO NOT BEING ABLE TO TO DO WHAT YOU WHAT YOU MEANT TO DO AND WITH RESPECT TO MOTHER IN LAW SUITE, I THINK THAT WOULD QUALIFY TO BEING A MULTIFAMILY IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A FULL KITCHEN ON IT. SO YES YOU KNOW THAT THAT'S IT'S A BUILDING CODE ISSUE AND I DON'T THINK EVERYBODY A FULLY UNDERSTOOD UNDERSTANDS THAT.
SO I THINK THERE'S THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ANSWER AND I, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE COMMITTEE DOESN'T GO FORWARD WITH THIS BECAUSE THERE'S PRETTY MUCH ALL THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE OUT THERE. YOU KNOW MOST OF THE LOTS ARE 6070 FEET IF YOU HAVE 30 FOOT BUFFER ON ONE SIDE AND 30 FOOT ON THE OTHER SIDE, YOU HAVE AN UNBILLED ABUTTING UNIT SO THEREFORE THEY INTEND YOU CAN ONLY DO ONE UNIT VERSUS TWO UNITS. SO SO THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE A DENSITY OF 16 AND ARE THE DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING AND THEREFORE IT WILL DEVALUE THE PROPERTIES THE REMAINING PROPERTIES THAT ARE BUILT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. YES, YOU MAKE WHAT'S YOUR NAME, SIR? LISTED IT FOR THE RECORD. YES, SIR. MY NAME IS KAREN STORE AND I JUST THINK IT'S INTERESTING THAT WE'RE HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT SINGLE I MEAN WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS THERE ARE SINGLE PARENTS, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN THAT THERE'S MULTIPLE PARENTS OR SINGLE PHASE WOMEN GO TO ELECTRICITY IS ON MULTIPLE PHASES.
[00:45:02]
SINGLE A SINGLE ONE YOU KNOW SINGLE FAMILY IS ONE FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY IS MULTIPLE FAMILIES. SO I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE HAVING SUCH A HARD TIME WITH THIS AS I THINK WHAT MRS. SAID ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES SINGLE FAMILY MEANS THE SINGLE FAMILY AND I DON'T THINK WHAT I THINK THIS WAS DONE BACK IN 2014 I DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT DEFINITION OF SINGLE ON A HELPING HAND. THANK YOU.THANK YOU, SIR. ONE MORE THING ABOUT WHAT I DIDN'T SALLIE AND I'M AT 85 POLY FIELD ROAD 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.
THANK YOU AND YOUR COMMENTS SAID YOU KNOW FOR THE RECORD CARL BRADEN OH YES.
GENTLEMEN, WE'RE LOOKING FOR YOU. OKAY.
THANK. SO I'VE HAD SOME ALREADY LOTS FOR FEET FOR 25 YEARS REALLY.
AND I'VE BEEN I'VE BEEN MAKING PLANS FOR THEM AND THIS JUST SEEMS LIKE ONE MORE RIGHT? THAT IS TRYING TO BE DISCARDED AND INCREASING OUR BUFFERS AND SO ON.
AND THERE'S A LOT OF UNKNOWNS THAT CAN'T BE ANSWERED AND ONE THING I WANT TO SAY ABOUT LOCKOUTS IS IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THEY'RE GETTING A BAD REP BECAUSE WE NEED WORKFORCE HOUSING, WE NEED MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS. WE HEAR THAT THEY HAVE LOCKED OUT BEDROOMS SO THEY CAN MAKE MORE OR PEOPLE CAN AFFORD TO LIVE HERE.
EXCLUDING THAT WILL SEND MORE PEOPLE OFF THE ISLAND SO THAT'S ANOTHER THING TO CONSIDER.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. WE DID GET YOUR COMMENTS ON THE PORTAL. WE'VE READ THIS. THANK YOU.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION AND OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE GET TO A VOTE.
WELL, THE WAY IT SEEMS IS THAT WOULDN'T WE? WE MADE A MISTAKE WHEN WE DEFINED SINGLE FAMILY IS NO MORE THAN TWO. THAT THAT WAS THE MISTAKE.
AND NOW THAT WE WANT TO CREATE 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 IMPACT RIGHT THAT THAT OWNERS HAVE AND HAVE EXPECTED HAVE ANTICIPATED.
SO IT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT TO LOGICALLY CHANGE THAT FOR A LOGICAL DEFINITION GIVEN BECAUSE OF ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS. ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE GO? JUST I DO HAVE A SUGGESTION FOR CONSIDERATION AND 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. YES.
AND IF WE WERE TO SUBDIVIDE 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 TWO SEPARATE ITEMS AND 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 CAN SEE THAT BEING CHANGED BUT YOU CAN'T WITH THE ADDITIONAL TERM IT'S JUST WE CAN'T WE FACEBOOKAND I WOULD AT THIS POINT ENTERTAIN A MOTION AS TO THESE THESE AMENDMENTS ON CHAPTERS FOUR AND TEN OF THE LAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE. IS THERE SUCH A MOTION? MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M NOT SURE I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE SEND THIS BACK FOR MORE ANALYSIS FOR THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ANSWERED IN MY MIND AT THIS STAGE OF THE GAME AND NOT GET HUNG UP ON DEFINITIONS OF SINGLE FAMILY. BUT LET'S GET HUNG UP ON IMPACT AND COMMUNITIES LIKE THE GULLAH COMMUNITY LIKE SOME OF THE EXISTING FOLKS THAT HAVE THESE LOCKOUTS AND DON'T KNOWING WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE WE TALKING ABOUT 15 PLACES ARE WE TALKING ABOUT 200 PLACES MYSELF I'M JUST NOT COMFORTABLE AND WOULD BE TO MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE SEND IT BACK FOR FOUR
[00:50:02]
MORE 0 SECONDS TO THAT MOTION. MR. HINTZ IN MR. CAMPBELL'S SECOND, WHAT WILL THIS REQUIRES A ROLL CALL VOTE AS TO NOT CARE ? YES, SIR.ANY OTHER STAFF COMMENTS MISSING? CAN I ASK FOR A LIST OF THE THINGS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE FOR US TO ADDRESS SO THE IMPACT TO COMMUNITIES.
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE I'M SURE IT WOULD HAVE QUITE IS THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT.
OKAY MINE IS THE ROUGH NUMBER OF FOLKS THAT ARE IMPACTED BY THIS CHANGE BOTH FROM THE STANDPOINT OF SETBACKS AND IN THE REST AND HOW MANY EXISTING. LET'S JUST USE MOTHER I DON'T I'M NOT SURE 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 MY THAT'S ALSO HOW THIS THE DISTRICT PLANS IS RAISED BY THE PUBLIC HOW THAT FITS INTO THIS DECISION MAKING AT THIS TIME. ARE THERE ANY OTHER ANY OTHER COMMENTS THAT WE WANT STEPH TO CHECK INTO BEFORE WE BRING THIS ONE BACK? OKAY.
ONE CALL FOR A DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO. OKAY.
SIR, IS THERE A DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO SEND THIS BACK TO STAFF? IT'S BEEN BUMPED AND SECONDED. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT WE'LL CALL THE ROLL.
CERTAINLY MR. DARIAN SO RESUBMIT PLEASE. NAY NO AND I WOULD SAY THAT'S GOING BACK TO STAFF SO ALL IN FAVOR WOULD SAY I RESPECT STAFF IF YOU SAY NO THEN WE LEAVE IT UP TO TOWN COUNCIL. YES, MR. SIEBOLD. YES, MR. HANDS.
YES, MR. CAMPBELL. YES, MR. O'NEAL. YES.
AND MR. SCANLAN? YES. IT SHOULD GO BACK.
THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN SCANLON, CAN YOU PLEASE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? YES, I WOULD AT THIS TIME CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING SEEING OTHER HANDS IN THE AIR AND THANK YOU FOR THOSE WHO COME AND WE APPRECIATE IT WHEN YOU STEP UP AND TELL US HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE MOVING THROUGH THIS COMMISSION, WE HAVE A ONE OTHER PIECE OF BUSINESS HERE AND THAT IS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE YOUR KNOW WE ARE NO LONGER GOING TO BE HAVING ALL THE VARIOUS COMMITTEES. WE WILL ACT AS A COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE OR IF NEEDED ASK TOWN COUNCIL FOR PERMISSION TO SET UP AN AD HOC COMMITTEE. MISSY, WOULD YOU KIND OF WALK US THROUGH THAT? SURE. THANK YOU, MR. SCANLON.
AS I MENTIONED, YES, THE RULES AMENDMENT COVERS THE ELIMINATION OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE. IT ALSO INCLUDES REMOVAL OF A SPECIFIC MEETING TIME AND DAY FROM THE RULES AND WOULD REQUIRE THE ADOPTION OF A MEETING CALENDAR.
ALSO THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL STANDARDS PROPOSED FOR PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLICANT SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL MATERIALS PRESENTATIONS BUT FOR APPEALS VOTES ON APPEALS AND SO THOSE CHANGES WERE NOTED IN THE STRIKEOUT AND DOUBLE UNDERLINE IN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE RULES AND ALSO TO FORD. OUR GENERAL COUNSEL IS ON THE LINE AND HAS TWO ADDITIONAL CHANGES HE WOULD LIKE TO GO OVER WITH YOU.
ONE IS 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.
YEAH. IF WE COULD TURN IF YOU HAVE YOUR ARTICLE THREE I THINK IT'S ON PAGE TWO OF THE REPORT I HAVE THERE WAS OKAY SO THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE IS THAT SECTION TWO AMENDMENT WOULD SIMPLY STATE THE RULES OF PROCEDURE MAY BE AMENDED AT ANY REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PERIOD AND THEN THE REST WOULD BE PERMITTED. AND THEN SECONDLY AS IT RELATES TO COMMITTEES AS WELL ON PAGE FIVE, SECTION FIVE WE HAD STRUCK ALL OF THE COMMITTEE LANGUAGE FROM THE PROPOSED RULES BUT FAILED TO STRIKE THE PARAGRAPH THAT PRECEDES IT AND WE'RE PROPOSING THAT THAT ALSO BE STRUCK TODAY AS WELL UNDER SECTION FIVE WITH WITH PERMISSION.
YEAH. WITH PERMISSION OF TOWN COUNCIL.
THAT'S CORRECT. MAX DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT.
[00:55:07]
NO THAT COVERS IT AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THAT SECTION LANGUAGE IS ESSENTIALLY REPLACED WITH A AD HOC COMMITTEE WHERE IT SAYS FROM TIME TO TIME TOWN COUNCIL MAY ESTABLISH AN AD HOC COMMITTEE WITH ITS MEMBERSHIP IN CHARGE AND DETERMINED BY TOWN COUNCIL SO SOME PLANNING COMMISSION CAN STILL FORM SUBCOMMITTEES DEPENDING ON THE NEED FOR THEM . AND THEN THE ONLY OTHER THING I'LL ADD IS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT WE WERE DISCUSSING EQUAL IT WOULD READ THESE RULES OF PROCEDURE MAY BE AMENDED AT ANY REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE, MISSY, THAT YOU WANT TO TELL US? NO. THAT'S THE SUMMARY OF THE RULES AMENDMENT. THIS SENT OUT. YES.ALL RIGHT. OVER A MONTH AGO I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION OF THIS POINT ON YES. ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? YES.
I'M SORRY. JUST THANK YOU AGAIN, CHESTER WILLIAMS. I DO HAVE SEVERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS .
NUMBER ONE, THE THE NEW CHANGE THAT MR. DE FORD HAS RECOMMENDED IN ARTICLE THREE, SECTION TWO WITH THE PUBLIC ALL TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW PROPOSED CHANGES TO YOUR AMENDMENTS RATHER THAN SHOWING UP AT A MEETING AND FINDING OUT THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS ON THE AGENDA. LIKEWISE WHEN Y'ALL OUGHT TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT SO THAT LAST SENTENCE THERE'S ANY AMENDMENT MUST BE BY REGARDING VOTE OF THE COMMISSION HELD ON MEETING THE COMMISSION AT LEAST SEVEN CALENDAR DAYS AFTER A WRITTEN OF THE AMENDMENT IS DELIVERED TO ALL OF ITS MEMBERS I THINK YOU TO KEEP THAT BUT EXPAND AND SAY AND AVAILABLE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC NOW I ADMIT THAT I'M ONE OF THE VERY FEW WHO'S PROBABLY REALLY INTERESTED IN THESE SORTS OF THINGS BUT THAT'S IN A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE. I MEAN I CAN'T TELL YOU I USED TO SERVE ON THE COUNTY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. 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, 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 THAT THE RULES ARE GOING TO CHANGE ON A DIME THAT MAKES THINGS VERY, VERY DIFFICULT NOT ONLY FOR FOLKS LIKE ME BUT FOR Y'ALL. SO THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME PERIOD OF TIME WHEN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AND DIGEST WRITTEN BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC AS A WHOLE THE COMMITTEES I MEAN WHO'S GOING TO DO THE WORK THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMITTEE HAS DONE SO FAR? WHO'S GOING TO DO THE WORK THAT THE ALAMO COMMITTEE HAS DONE SO FAR? WHO'S GOING TO DO THE WORK THAT THE CAIB 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 BATHWATER? 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 THE ANY I'LL EVER RECALL HERE AGAIN APPEAL I DON'T THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS EVER HEARD AN APPEAL SINCE 1987 I'VE FILED SEVERAL OF THEM TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BUT I CAN'T GET ANY FURTHER THAN THEM. THE TOWN STAFF THEY SAY OH YOU CAN'T APPEAL THAT AND WHICH WHICH IS A WHOLE ANOTHER SEPARATE SET OF ISSUES BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONE WHO DETERMINES WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE JURISDICTION HERE PARTICULAR APPEAL IN THE TOWN IN THE TOWN SOUTH HAS BEEN USURPING THAT BUT THERE SHOULD BE NO PUBLIC COMMENT WHATSOEVER AN APPEAL WHEN YOU SIT AND YOU IS THAT THE ONLY TIME THE ONLY APPEAL 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 IN AND MR. HANDS I STILL OWE YOU A COPY OF THE STATE ENABLE YOU ALSO KNOW THAT 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 AND ALSO ALLOWS FOR THE DELEGATION OF THAT AUTHORITY TO STAFF AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE IF YOU GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT THE 1987 ORIGINAL ALAMO 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 YOU'LL EVER GOING TO HEAR AT THIS POINT ARE APPEALS FROM STAFF DECISIONS ON THOSE APPLICATIONS AND IF THERE EVER DOES COME A
[01:00:07]
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 ALAMO AMENDMENTS THAT YOU'RE SITTING IN A LEGISLATIVE CAPACITY BUT WHEN YOU'RE SITTING AT A QUAYSIDE JUDICIAL CAPACITY YOU'RE ACTING AS THE JUDGE AND THERE'S CERTAIN DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS THAT 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 TO THE PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT WHO BOTH PUT ON THEIR CASE AND THEN THE JUDGE SAYS OKAY I'LL YELL OUT THE PEANUT GALLERY. WHAT DO YOU ALL HAD TO SAY ABOUT THIS? LET'S PUT ALL THAT ON THE RECORD ALSO THAT'S THAT'S WHOLLY AND COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE AND THAT 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 OPERATOR CROSS-EXAMINE THAT WITNESS AND THIS EXCLUDES 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 MULTIPLE THANKS. THANK YOU, SIR. APPRECIATE I DO INTEND NOT ALL BUT MOST DEVELOPMENT TEAM REVIEW REVIEW TEAM MEETINGS SO THAT A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS THERE WHEN WE'RE FIRST INTERVIEWING A PROPOSAL TO THE TOWN.
AND SO I'VE BEEN TO SEVERAL OF THOSE MEETINGS AS A SENATOR AS CHAIR I'VE BEEN GOING TO THEM WHEN I CAN I LOOK A WHAT IN TERMS OF THE REVISED THERE IS NO CLOCK TICKING ON THESE THAT I AM AWARE OF AND A STAFF DIFFERENCE WITH ME LET ME NOW PLEASE PICK UP BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT 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'RE LIMITING THESE SUBCOMMITTEES AND ACTING AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON THESE MATTERS WHATEVER WE NEED TO TAKE UP SOMETHING OR TO SET UP AN AD HOC COMMITTEE IF WE NEED TO WITH THE PERMISSION OF TOWN COUNCIL. MR.. ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THE EIA? I GUESS FIRST OF ALL THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE HEARD SOME OF THIS.
THIS HAS BEEN TREATED A COUPLE OF TIMES BEFORE AND ISN'T THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION FOR US HERE IS YOU KNOW, THE AND 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. AND SO THAT WHEN WORK COMES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IT'S COMPLETED STAFF WORK AT WORK AND A PANEL 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 TO DO THE REST STREAMLINED RIGHT OR ARE WE TRYING TO DO WHAT YOU SAID WHICH IS IS MAKE A KNOWLEDGE BASE THAT'S MUCH BIGGER THAN WE HAVE NOW BECAUSE WE'RE DEPENDING ON STAFF TO DO THAT.
THOSE ARE THOSE ARE THE CHOICES AND I'M NOT SURE YOU KNOW WHERE YOU GO WITH IT.
I YOU KNOW, WE ALL LIKE THE IDEA OF STREAMLINING AND MAKING IT MORE EFFICIENT.
ON THE OTHER HAND, WE THAT FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD WE DON'T NECESSARILY LIKE THE THE RUBBER STAMP NATURE OF WHAT WE DO BECAUSE WE DEPENDING ON VERY GOOD BY THE WAY VERY GOOD STAFF THE BEST TIME 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 DECIDE WHAT WE WANT TO DO? I AM WILLING TO KEEP THE MOTION ON WHAT WE DO WITH THE COMMITTEE.
THESE AMENDMENTS TO OUR WORK IS JUST ONE OF THE COMMENTS WITH RESPECT MR. WILLIAMS LET IT OUT WITH RESPECT TO THE APPEALS PROCESS, I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT BECAUSE FOR INSTANCE 15 PROBABLY FAIRLY FIELD DEVELOPMENT THAT CONTINUES TO RESURFACE IN VARIOUS FORM FORMS EVERY TIME WE MADE IT SEEMS 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 AN APPEAL IS MADE AND HOW IT'S PURSUED WOULD BE IN OUR BEST INTERESTS BUT IT WAS REFLECTED THAT PARTICULAR
[01:05:04]
PROJECT. MR. DE VRIES THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY FORMAL APPEAL TO BECAUSE OF THE TOWN STAFF STILL YEAH. ANOTHER ANOTHER USING THE CODE SAYS THAT THE TOWN IS SUPPOSED TO ACT ON AN APPLICATION WITHIN 60 DAYS. NOW I READ THAT YOU'RE SAYING APPROVE IT OR DENIAL BUT THE TOWN READS THAT TO 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 AD INFINITUM YOU KNOW, EVERY 60 DAYS GIVE YOU A LETTER SO YOU 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. THERE'S ONE PARTICULAR ISSUE WE'RE GOING ROUND AND ROUND ABOUT 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 AND LAST RESPONSE BACK WAS NO WE'RE NOT GOING TO CHANGE IT.
YOU EITHER APPROVE IT AS IS OR YOU DENY IT. SO THAT MAY COME UP TO YOU I DON'T KNOW BUT IF IT DOES COME UP TO YOU ALL THEN IT SHOULD BE WHAT'S REFERRED TO AS A RECORD APPEAL. YOU GET ALL THE MATERIALS, YOU LOOK AT IT, YOU DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THE TOWN STAFF HAS DONE THE RIGHT THING IT'S NOT THE TYPE OF THING WHERE THE GENERAL PUBLIC GETS TO EVERYBODY PUTS THEIR $0.02 WORTH IN RIGHT ON THEIR OWN AND ALSO THE PROVISION IN HERE PROPOSED PROVISION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN DEFER ACTION ON ON 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.
I THINK THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON WHAT WE DO WITH THIS PARTICULAR CHANGES SO THE RULES AND PROCEDURES THAT WE HAVE SUCH A MOTION. MR. O'NEILL I THINK I THINK I'LL MAKE IT JUST FOR THE SAKE OF ENTERTAINING ANY MORE DISCUSSION THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO HAVE. MR. CHAIRMAN, BECAUSE LET ME READ THE MOTION.
I MOVE TO AMEND THE PROPOSED RULES OF PROCEDURE AMENDMENTS BY REVISING THREE SECTION TWO WHICH PERTAINS TO THE AMENDMENTS TO STATE QUOTE THESE RULES OF PROCEDURE MAY BE AMENDED AT ANY REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY A MAJORITY VOTE AND 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 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 AT ANY TIME BY MAJORITY VOTE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THAT'S VERY GOOD POINTS. WE EITHER VOTE THIS MOTION DOWN AND GO GO BACK GO BACK TO GO BACK TO WORK OR WE VOTE FOR IT AND UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, GOING FORWARD WE'LL HAVE TO WE MAKE CHANGES THAT WE NEED TO MAKE CHANGES. THE SECOND FOR THAT MOTION BY MR. O'NEILL THERE IS A SECOND FOR MR. DURKIN'S OF ANY COMMENT ON THE MOTION BEFORE WE MOVE ON . YOU COVER TWO THINGS IN THAT PROGRAM FOR YOUR TWO POINTS ON THIS. I THINK I THINK ONE POINT WHICH IS THE BIT ABOUT BEING ABLE TO CHANGE THE RULES AT ANY POINT IN THE FUTURE BY MAJORITY VOTE THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT WAS MY INTEREST. THAT'S OF THE THREE SESSION TWO.
YES. WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM? SO HERE'S WHAT STAFF RECOMMENDED WHICH CHANGE? THERE IS NO CHANGE TO WHAT STAFF RECOMMENDED.
THE OTHER QUESTION THAT CHANGED AT THIS MEETING WHAT WE DID SO WELL IS STILL ON THE LINE NOW BUT THAT'S NOT AN EXCLUSION ACTUALLY STILL ON YES, I'M HERE.
OKAY. COULD YOU GIVE US A QUICK WALK THROUGH IF MR. O'NEILL'S MOTION IN LAYMAN'S TERMS WHAT YES SIR. YES OR NO? TELL US WHAT WE'RE DOING.
YES, SIR. SO WITH CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, MA'AM.
OKAY WITH WITH REGARD TO ARTICLE THREE, SECTION TWO, WHAT YOU WOULD BE DOING IS AMENDING THE THAT PARAGRAPH TO READ THESE RULES OF PROCEDURE MAY BE AMENDED AT ANY REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH A MAJORITY VOTE.
[01:10:01]
OF COURSE ANY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WOULD NEED TO BE NOTICED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SOUTH CAROLINA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AS THEY HAVE BEEN TODAY.AND THEN IT'S IT'S STRIKING AT ANY AND ANY OF THE OTHER LANGUAGE THEY'RE WITH A WRITTEN DRAFT AT LEAST SEVEN CALENDAR DAYS BEFOREHAND BECAUSE WE ARE BRINGING THAT INTO ALIGNMENT WITH STATE LAW UNDER FOYA. AND THEN WITH REGARDS TO THE OTHER AMENDMENT ME SCROLL DOWN THAT IS UNDER SECTION FIVE THAT IS BEING STRICKEN BECAUSE WITH PERMISSION OF TOWN COUNCIL THE COMMISSION IN THE HOLD FOR A SECOND FIFTH QUESTION ON THE CIVIL RIGHT LET'S JUST FOCUS ON THAT BY WHEN YOU HAVE A COMMENT OR QUESTION. YEAH, YEAH I COULD COMMENT ON THIS BEFORE I THINK NOW'S A GOOD TIME TO REPEAT YOUR MOTION ON ARTICLE THREE.
SECTION TWO. YES, THAT'S IT. I MEAN I THINK PART OF THIS PERIOD TO AMEND THE PROPOSED RULES AND PROCEED RULES OF PROCEDURE AMENDMENT BY REVISING ARTICLE THREE SECTION TWO WHICH PERTAINS TO AMENDMENTS TO STATE RULES OF PROCEDURE MAY BE AMENDED AT ANY REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY A MAJORITY VOTE AND DELETING THE FIRST PARAGRAPH UNDER ARTICLE FOUR, SECTION FIVE AND TWO COMMITTEES ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT DELETED PROVISIONS WILL NO LONGER SERVE ANY PURPOSE DUE TO THE DISSOLUTION BRIEF THE RED LIGHT HEREBY RED BY USUALLY MEANS STOP BUT UP HERE IT MEANS GO SO YOU WANT ME TO TRY THIS AGAIN? SAID MR. HANDS.
YOU ASK THE QUESTION DO YOU UNDERSTAND GOING TO ARTICLE FOUR RIGHT YOU QUIET OR PAUSE AFTER YOUR AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE THREE AND THEN MOVE ON TO ARTICLE FOUR THAT SO IN OTHER WORDS TREATED AS TWO SEPARATE OKAY YEAH IT'S FINE WITH ME I THINK WE'RE DISCUSSING PRIVACY RIGHTS JUST TO DO THAT. THE COMMENT I DID AS MRS. DE FORD JUST MENTIONED YOU KNOW ANY IF YOU DO THAT THERE'S ANY CHANGES HAD 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 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 I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT YOU CAN'T ADOPT THAT RIGHT NOW .
OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I I WITHDRAW THE MOTION.
THE MOTION IS WITHDRAWN. THAT BEING THE CASE AGAIN WE NEED TO GET THIS BACK TO STAFF FOR THE NEXT MEETING AND MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC NOTICE SO THAT PEOPLE KNOW WE'RE CHANGING THE RULES, ELIMINATING THE COMMITTEE SO THIS IS ADOPTED AND MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE A CLEAR NOTION TO TWO SEPARATE THINGS. OKAY.
ONE IS THE FIRST THING IN THE SECOND ARTICLE THE TWO DIFFERENT MOTIONS INSTEAD OF ONE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND ONE MOTION I WOULD MOVE THAT WE TAKE THIS AND SEND IT BACK TO STAFF AGAIN FOR APPROPRIATE PUBLIC NOTICES AND ALSO TO IF THERE ARE ANY APPEALS MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S DELINEATED IN THERE 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 BLACK AND WHITE FOR THE COMMISSION. IS THERE A SECOND TO MY MOTION OF SENDING THIS BACK TO STAFF? MR. SECONDS WELL SO MR. CAMPBELL ALL IN FAVOR OF SENDING IT BACK FOR VERIFICATION IT WAS A UNANIMOUS VOTE RIGHT NEXT TO BUSINESS IS THE PROPOSED MEETING SCHEDULES AND SET THE CHAIR BECAUSE WE DID NOT AMEND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE WE CANNOT ADOPT THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM. WE CAN'T WE DON'T NEED TO DO THAT.
NO SCHEDULING NOPE WE CANNOT BECAUSE THE RULES STATE OKAY OUR MEETING DATE AND TIME RIGHT THERE AND THE NEXT MEETING AS WELL. WELL THE GUY WHO'S RUNNING THE
[01:15:04]
NEXT MEETING IS HIS OKAY COMMISSION BUSINESS WE NEED TO SET UP A NOMINATING COMMITTEE AND THEN YOUR CURRENT CHAIRMAN IS RESIGNING AND SO THEREFORE I WOULD ASK FOR VOLUNTEERS AND MR. CAMPBELL, MR. O'NEILL AND MR. SIEBOLD IF YOU WOULD SERVE AS A THREE MAN NOMINATING COMMITTEE FOR A REPLACEMENT AND WE GET TO ELECT THEIR OWN OFFICERS VICE CHAIRMAN AND CHAIRMAN SO WITH THIS THREE SERVICE NOMINATING COMMITTEE AND GET TOGETHER AND FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO FOR FUTURE LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE REPORT THIS BEING MY LAST MEETING AS I'VE INDICATED THE PREVIOUSLY I WILL BE LEAVING I'VE SENT MY LETTER OF RESIGNATION TO MAYOR PERRY AND I HAVE DECIDED AFTER FIVE YEARS ON THE COMMISSION TWO AND A HALF OF THOSE AS CHAIR THAT I WILL BE RESIGNING FOR BOTH PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL REASONS.MY WIFE PAUL IS IN THE AUDIENCE AND I'LL PUT IT UP. SO OVER HERE I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR PUTTING UP WITH ME IN ALL THESE MEETINGS AND BEING AWAY I LEARNED THAT IT WAS CLINT EASTWOOD WHO SAID A MAN HAS TO NOTICE LIMITATIONS AND I'VE BEGUN TO GET TO THAT POINT WHERE I KNOW MY LIMITATIONS AND WHAT I CAN AND CAN'T BE DOING IN TERMS OF TIME AND EFFORT I WANT TO EXPRESS THANKS TO MANY PEOPLE BUT INCLUDING MY TO PREDECESSORS THIS CHAIRMAN BOTH ALICE BROWN AND PETER CHRISTIAN FOR HELPING ME LEARN THE ROPES ALONG THE WAY.
I HOPE THE CURRENT AND PAST MEMBERS OF THIS COMMISSION IN VERY HIGH REGARD NOTHING BUT THE TIME AND THE EFFORT THAT THEY PUT INTO THIS FORM OF COMMUNITY SERVICE.
I WANT TO THANK YOU MY PICK MY VICE CHAIRMAN HELEN PERRY AND THE CURRENT MARK O'NEILL FOR THEIR ASSISTANCE ALONG THE WAY TO RICK PERRY UNDER THE BRIDGE SYMBOL TOM AND JOHN CAMPBELL MARK O'NEILL I WISH YOU SMOOTH SAILING AND NON-CONTROVERSIAL MEETINGS IN THE FUTURE AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST I WANT TO SAY HOW MUCH I'VE ENJOYED AND APPRECIATE THE WORK OF THE TOWN HALL STAFF FOR MAKING SURE WE PREPARE FOR EACH AND EVERY MEETING.
NOW WE'RE HERE OBVIOUSLY TODAY WE HAD A FEW GLITCHES BUT. THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS SOMETIMES IN GOVERNMENT SORT OF CURRENT ACTION. HALEY WHO PRECEDED HER I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK OVER THE YEARS AND TO MISSY AND JENNIFER, MATT RYAN, BRIAN TO BRYANT SHAY TREY AND ACTUALLY I THANK YOU FOR YOUR DILIGENT WORK AND COMMITMENT TO THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND. I WANT THANK THE CITIZENS OF THIS TOWN AND THE PEOPLE THAT WE TRIED TO SERVE WHILE ESPECIALLY FROM NAMED CHESTER WHO HAS KEPT ME ON THE STRAIGHT HERO FOR FIVE YEARS NOW I WANT TO THANK YOU SO MUCH THAT YOU WILL ATTEND THE MEETINGS.
THANK YOU. I WILL LEAVE YOU WITH ONE THOUGHT NEVER DOUBT THAT A SMALL GROUP OF THOUGHTFUL COMMITTED CITIZENS COULD CHANGE THE WORLD.
INDEED IT'S THE ONLY THING THAT IT EVER HAS. THANK YOU ALL I KNOW STAFF REPORT IF I MAY IF I MAY BE SO PRESUMPTUOUS AS TO SPEAK I DON'T HAVE A ROOKIE FOR THE RECORD FOR FOR THE WHOLE TOWN THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE AND PEOPLE LIKE YOU THE QUALITY YOU ALL UP THERE WHO ARE WILLING TO SERVE IN THESE SORTS OF POSITIONS YOU KNOW NOT ONLY IS A GREAT BENEFIT TO THEM 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 IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE CAN DO, PLEASE LET US KNOW. I THINK YOU JUST KIND OF I APPRECIATE THAT THERE BEING OTHER BUSINESSES ARE SOME MORE BUSINESS BUT WE DO HAVE A STAFF REPORT. I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY AND I APPRECIATE IT AND THANK YOU FOR THANKING US BUT WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR DEDICATION AS CHAIR AND AS A LONG TERM PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER.
WE TRULY APPRECIATE IT. AND BRIAN HEBER ALSO HAD A QUICK STAFF REPORT AS A FOLLOW UP. OKAY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.
THANK YOU ALSO FOR WHAT YOU'VE DONE FOR OUR COMMUNITY. I DO APPRECIATE THAT.
A QUICK STATUS REPORT ON THE CURRENT PROJECT AT SOUTH ISLAND PRESTIGE DOING DOWN DUNNING THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S RIGHT AND IF I PROVIDE JUST A BIG PICTURE SCALE THE PROJECT CAME IN THAT WAS GOING TO BE A PHASE PROJECT IN THE FIRST PHASE OF THAT PROJECT CAME IN I WOULD SAY ABOUT OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR AND SHORTLY AFTER THAT WE MET WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE MOTORCOACH FACILITY. RIGHT.
WE'VE SAT DOWN WITH THEM ON THREE DIFFERENT SEPARATE OCCASIONS.
TOWN STAFF HAS ONCE WITH SOUTH ISLAND CITY THE OTHER TWO WITHOUT SUFFERING BSD TO GO
[01:20:04]
LISTEN TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR CONCERNS THAT THEY HAVE ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE HAPPENED. PHASE ONE IS THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW HALF A MILLION GALLONS OR HALF A MILLION GALLON TANK ELEVATED AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ENTRANCE AND THE INSTALLATION OF ONE SHALLOW WELL AND ONE VERY DEEP WELL CURRENTLY THAT'S THE WORK AND ACTIVITY THAT'S LIMITED TO WHAT THEY'VE BEEN APPROVED TO DO AT THIS TIME.THAT WORK WILL INVOLVE THE DRILLING OF A DEEP WELL WHICH DOES MAKE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF NOISE IF NOT PROPERLY ADHERED TO TOWN STANDARDS THE TOWN HAS IN ITS MUNICIPAL CODE OF BOTH A FREQUENCY AND AN ELEVATION DESCRIBED THE DECIMALS THE NOISE LEVELS AT DIFFERENT FREQUENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH DURING THE DAY AND AT NIGHT AT THIS TIME THE TOWN STAFF HAS NOT BEEN SATISFIED WITH THE APPROACH FROM SOUTH ISLAND PTSD TO PUT FORWARD TO MR. MARK ORLANDO THIS SIGNATURE OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS WORK TO HAPPEN WE FEEL THAT SOUTH ISLAND PD MOST RECENTLY LAST WEEK SUBMITTED NEW INFORMATIONS ON NEW WAYS THEY'RE GOING TO DAMPEN THE SOUND FROM THE DRILLING OPERATIONS.
THEY'RE GOING TO MANAGE THE WATER FROM DRILLING OPERATIONS AND HOW THEY'RE GOING TO DO THAT BOTH DAY AND NIGHT BECAUSE 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 BECAUSE OUR SHALLOW AQUIFERS ARE CONTAMINATED WITH SALTWATER.
SO THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE TO GO TO THE DEPTH THEY DO. WE FEEL THAT THE PROPOSAL THEY SUBMITTED LAST WEEK AND THE COMMITMENT THAT THEY HAVE CONTINUE TO MAKE TO TOWN STAFF THAT THEY WILL ADHERE TO ALL OUR CONCERNS AND ADDRESS THEM AS BEST THEY CAN.
THE MOTOR COACH DECIDED TO PURSUE A LEGAL ACTION AGAINST SOUTH ISLAND.
THAT'S WHY SOME OF THE COMMUNICATION IN THE BACK AND FORTH AND THE UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE AT IS VERY CHALLENGING. CURRENTLY WE HOPE TO GARNER MORE. WE'RE GOING TO MEET WITH HIM YET AGAIN TO TRY TO LAY OUT THIS NEXT PHASE 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 BE UPDATING THAT 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 THERE YOU TRIED TO TAKE TO HEART WITH THE COMMENTS FROM THE PEOPLE AT THE RV PARK OR WERE THE PERHAPS YOU KNOW, TRYING TO SHUFFLE THIS ASIDE AS THE AS THE DIRECTOR? I CAN'T SPEAK FOR PAPU BUT I BELIEVE HE IS ABSOLUTELY COMMITTED TO TAKING TO HEART THE SENTIMENT WHAT WAS SAID WAS THAT THEY HAD A PUBLIC HEARING HERE. YEAH.
THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS AFTER IT'S BEEN QUITE AFTER THIS HEARING YEARS . IT'S A GREAT IT'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 THAT THE TOWN IS ABSOLUTELY LOOKING TO AND THE PSC IS COMMITTED VERBALLY TO ENSURING THAT LONG TERM THAT THEY DO AVENUES AND PURSUE METHODS DURING CONSTRUCTION TO MITIGATE THAT NOISE BEING TRANSFERRED OFFSITE . TOWARDS THE OTHER QUESTIONS THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE RESPOND TO ALL THOSE COMMENTS THAT WERE AT OUR PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT TOPIC.
THANK YOU, SIR. THERE BEING NO OTHER BUSINESS THE COMMISSION WE STAND ADJOURNED. THANK YOU
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.