7. PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING NATIONAL CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS WEEK - Council Member Anna Maria Tabernik

[13. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE BEAUFORT COUNTY 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADD THE BEAUFORT COUNTY LONG-TERM RESILIENCE STRATEGY AS AN APPENDIX - Rob Merchant, Director of the Planning & Zoning Department Vote at First Reading on April 22, 2024 - 11:0]

NONE. ITEM 12 IS APPROVED. ITEM NUMBER 13 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF THE ORDINANCE AMENDING THE BEAUFORT COUNTY 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADD THE BEAUFORT COUNTY LONG TERM RESILIENCE STRATEGY AS AN APPENDIX. MAY I HAVE SUCH A MOTION? I'LL MAKE THE MOTION, MR. CHAIRMAN. MISS HOWARD MAKES THE MOTION. MR. GLOVER MAKES THE SECOND

[00:30:02]

DULY MOTION AND SECONDED. IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. SEEING NONE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT.

IS THERE ANY MEMBER COUNCIL WISHES TO MAKE A COMMENT SAYING NONE? THIS WILL BE APPROVED FOR READING WITHOUT OBJECTION. ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS?

[14. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FROM THE SOUTH CAROLINA OPIOID SETTLEMENT FUNDS. (FISCAL IMPACT: The South Carolina Opioid Relief Fund (SCORF) award is $582,606 for one year. No matching funds.) Vote at First Reading on April 22, 2024 - 11:0]

SEEING NONE. ITEM 13 IS APPROVED. ITEM 14 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF THE ORDINANCE . TO ACCEPT AND TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FROM THE SOUTH CAROLINA OPIOID SETTLEMENT FUNDS. SO MOVE.

MR. MCCLELLAN MAKES THE MOTION SECOND. MR. GLOVER MAKES THE SECOND DULY MOTIONED IN SECONDED I GO TO THE PUBLIC. IS THERE ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISHES TO COMMENT ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? SEEING NONE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT. IS THERE ANY MEMBER OF COUNCIL TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM SAYING NONE. THIS WILL BE APPROVED WITHOUT? ITEM NUMBER 15 IS A PUBLIC

[15. PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO CONSIDER A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FOR 86.16 ACRES (R100 028 000 0264 000) LOCATED AT 98 JENNINGS ROAD FROM T2 RURAL (T2R) TO C3 NEIGHBORHOOD MIX USE (C3NMU) Vote at the Community Services and Land Use Committee Meeting on April 8, 2024, was to deny the rezoning amendment based on the recommendation from the Planning Commission and Staff. 6:0]

HEARING AND FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO CONSIDER A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FOR 86.16 ACRES LOCATED AT 98 JENNINGS ROAD FROM TWO RURAL TO THREE NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE.

MAY I HAVE SUCH A MOTION? I'LL MAKE THE MOTION THIS TABACHNICK MAKES THE MOTION.

SECOND NO ONE WILL SECOND THIS MOTION. THEN MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 16. CHAIRMAN IS THERE A NEED TO TAKE ACTION? I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT SO. YEAH. I MEAN I THINK YOU CAN NOT GIVE IT A READING. I THINK YOU NEED TO APPROVE IT OR DENY IT BASED ON OUR CDC.

SO BUT I NEED A SECOND. YOU NEED A SECOND? YEAH, I'LL SECOND IT IS HOWARD MAKE THE SECOND DULY MOTIONED IN SECONDED. I WILL NOW TURN TO THE PUBLIC FOR HEARING AND THE FIRST GROUP WILL BE THE APPLICANT. GOOD EVENING.

THANKS FOR HAVING ME. I'M JOSH TAYLOR. I REPRESENT THE BOTH THE LANDOWNER AND THE DEVELOPER. WE DO HAVE A BRIEF POWERPOINT PRESENTATION WE'D LIKE TO PRESENT AND THAT SERVES THAT READY GO TO THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR.

CAN WE DO A FULL SCREEN? YEAH. THERE.

I'LL BE HONEST YOU KNOW IT'S REZONINGS ARE ALWAYS DIFFICULT .

IT BRINGS OUT A LOT OF EMOTION ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU DEAL WITH CHANGING PROPERTIES AND CHANGE IN USERS AND CHANGE IN DENSITIES. WHEN I SERVED ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN BLUFFTON THESE ARE SOME OF THE MOST DIFFICULT ISSUES WE HAD TO TACKLE.

WHAT MADE IT EASIER WAS THAT WE COULD ALWAYS LEAN ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS A GUIDING DOCUMENT TO HELP US THROUGH THAT. THAT THAT REZONING AND WE WE HAD PREPARED AND SUBMITTED AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION A FULL NARRATIVE THAT ADDRESSED THE CRITERIA FOR MEETING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND I THINK WAS SOME MISCOMMUNICATION. WE THOUGHT WE'D HAVE THAT ABILITY TO TALK THROUGH THAT.

AT THE LAST MEETING WE HAD WITH YOU ALL BACK AND BACK LAST MONTH WE'VE PASSED OUT A OUR NARRATIVE FOR Y'ALL FOR THE RECORD AND WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS KIND OF GO THROUGH THE THE I GUESS POINT BY POINT THE CRITERIA BECAUSE THERE WERE SOME INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN OUR OUR NARRATIVE AND WHAT THE STAFF PRESENTED LAST MONTH. WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

OKAY. YEAH, WE'LL NEED TO ZOOM OUT A LITTLE BECAUSE WE CAN'T A FULL SCREEN. THAT'S GOOD. RELATED TO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT

[00:35:04]

ANALYSIS STAFF RECOMMENDED THAT WE EXPAND SOME OF THE INTERSECTIONS STUDY AS PART OF THAT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY AND WE WE DO AGREE WITH THAT. ONE THING TO NOTE IN THE EMAIL FROM KEVIN SULLIVAN TO TRAFFIC ENGINEER ONE THING THAT WAS STATED AS PART OF THIS IS IF YOU LOOK DOWN THE BULLET POINT THERE AND THERE'S THE TIMING OF YOUR DEVELOPMENT, NO SECRET WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF A DEVELOPMENT BOOM SEVERAL SEVERAL MORE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE VICINITY ARE CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR IN THE PIPELINE.

YOUR APPLICATION NOT PROPOSING TO ON REMOTE HOMES IN THE MIDDLE OF RURAL AMERICA ON THE CONTRARY WE'RE PROPOSING 200 HOMES AT GROUND ZERO OF NEW URBANIZE BURTON SOUTH CAROLINA AND THAT CAME FROM THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER FOR THE COUNTY. THE NEXT AND THESE ARE ALL NOW WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE ACTUAL POINT BY POINT FOR EACH OF THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS.

THE FIRST REVIEW CRITERIA IS THAT IS THIS REZONING CONSISTENT WITH CONSISTENT WITH AND FURTHERS THE AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE PURPOSES OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE . STAFF FELT THAT THE PLACE TYPE OVERLAY WAS THE BETTER APPLICATION THIS. THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE BUT WHEN YOU AT THE ORDINANCE AND THE WAY WE INTERPRETED THE ORDINANCE UNDER PLACE TYPE OVERLAY ZONING STANDARDS IT IT CALLS OUT THE PLACE TYPE OVERLAY AS AN OPPORTUNITY NOT A REQUIREMENT.

SO IT GIVES US A CHOICE. IT GIVES US ADDITIONAL DENSITY WHAT WE THINK ARE OUR ACTUAL PROPOSAL IS MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. IT DOES HIGHLIGHT THIS AREA THE GREEN AS A HAMLET WHICH WOULD BE A PLACE TYPE OVERLAY. BUT IT ALSO SHOWS THE UNDERLYING ZONING AS IS COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING WHICH WE FEEL IS MORE IN LINE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THEY ALSO STATED IN THE STAFF PROPOSAL THAT OUR SITE WOULD BE MORE IN LINE WITH THE CALHOUN STREET OF BLUFFTON WHICH IS A MUCH HIGHER DENSITY, MUCH MORE RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAN WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY PROPOSING. WE ALSO WENT THROUGH COMP PLAN AND RESPONDED THE INDIVIDUAL CHAPTERS WITHIN THAT COMP PLAN . I'M NOT GOING TO READ ALL THESE BUT YOU DO HAVE THAT IN YOUR PACK IN PRINT OUT WE JUST PROVIDED YOU IT'S PART OF OUR OUR NARRATIVE NOW SECOND REVIEW STANDARD THAT THIS PROPERTY IS IN CONFLICT CONFLICT WITH ANY PROVISION OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE OR THE CODE OF ORDINANCES ACCORDING TO STAFF PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED ACCORDING TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OR I'M SORRY ACCORDING TO SAP TO BE CONSISTENT WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MUST BE A PLACE TYPE OVERLAY.

WE DISAGREE WITH THAT INTERPRETATION. WE FEEL THAT IT'S AN OPTION THAT THE PLACE TYPE OVERLAY IS AN OPTION AND THAT THE BETTER MORE CONSISTENT USE IS THE C-3 MIXED USE ZONING THIRD CRITERIA THAT IT ADDRESSES A DEMONSTRATED COMMUNITY NEED UNDER THE STAFF REVIEW WHICH IS ON THE LEFT THEY FELT THAT THERE'S THERE'S ENOUGH EXISTING C THREE ZONING THAT'S UNDEVELOPED THAT COULD BE USED RATHER THAN OUR SITE.

THE REZONING OF OUR SITE BUT IF IN FACT DRILL DOWN INTO THAT AND IF YOU LOOK TO THE RIGHT THERE'S A MAP OUR SITE IS RIGHT THERE IN THE MIDDLE IF YOU INCLUDE ANY SITE THAT BETWEEN 50 UNDEVELOPED SITE THAT'S WITHIN 50 AND A OVER 100 ACRES, THERE'S ONLY A COUPLE OF OUR PARCEL. THE REMAINING ARE EITHER ADJACENT OR.

SO IT'S A LITTLE MISLEADING THE MAP ON THE LEFT IS A LITTLE MISLEADING.

YOU'VE GOT SOME EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS. YOU'VE GOT SOME SCHOOLS IN THERE THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY SO. IT'S A LITTLE MISLEADING AS TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY NEED AND THE SURROUNDING ZONING USES .

AGAIN THIS PROPERTY IS CLOSE PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT WITHIN A MILE OF THE THE THE BEAUFORT CROSSINGS DEVELOPMENT. WE'RE ALSO WITHIN 8 MINUTES

[00:40:03]

OF THE MARINE CORPS AIR STATION WHICH IS THE OF FAMILIES THEY'D LIKE TO SELL THESE RESIDENTIAL TO. WE'RE ALSO WITHIN 17 MINUTES OF PARRIS ISLAND THE FOURTH REVIEW CRITERIA THEY JUST STATED THAT THE REQUIRED BUDGET IS REQUIRED BY CHANGE CONDITIONS AND THEY SAID SEE THEIR ITEM NUMBER THREE. WE DISAGREE THE USE OF THE PROPERTY AS A PINE PLANTATION IS NO LONGER CONSIDERED ITS OPTIMAL USE.

THE PROSPECTIVE OWNERS AIM TO ALIGN WITH THE PROPERTY'S PROPERTY ZONING WITH FUTURE LAND USE MAP OUTLINED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE THEY ENVISION TRANSFORMING THE LAND INTO ENTRY LEVEL TO MEET THE HOUSING NEEDS OF THE GROWING EMPLOYMENT BASE IN NORTHERN COUNTY.

GIVEN THE COUNT, THE COUNTY'S REMARKABLE RATE OF GROWTH WHICH IS EXPECTED TO PERSIST PERSISTS. THERE IS A PRESSING TO ADDRESS THE IMBALANCE BETWEEN HIGH DEMAND AND LIMITED. WE HEAR COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE COST OF HOUSING EVERY.

REZONING THIS PROPERTY PRESENTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO TACKLE CRUCIAL ISSUE OF ACCOMMODATING THE AREA'S RAPID GROWTH. THE FIFTH CRITERIA IS A PROPERTY COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING PROPOSED USES SURROUNDING THE LAND SUBJECT TO THE APPLICATION IN AND AS THE APPROPRIATE ZONE AND USES FOR THE LAND. WE DISAGREE WITH STAFF.

WE FEEL IT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE THE EXISTING ZONING. IF YOU LOOK AT THIS EXHIBIT HAVE HIGHLIGHTED AND READ THE SITE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE YOU SEE THE THE PROXIMITY TO THE CROSS CREEK SHOPPING CENTER.

YOU ALSO SEE THE PROXIMITY TO THE WAL-MART CENTER IN THE FUTURE COMMERCIAL ACROSS ROBERT SMALLS PARKWAY JUST TO THE BELOW THAT SITE THERE'S A 500 UNIT MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAT'S CURRENTLY THE PIPELINE WITH THE CITY OF BEAUFORT. TO THE LEFT OF THAT YOU'VE GOT THE EXISTING CROSS CREEK APARTMENTS TO THE RIGHT. IF YOU CONTINUE ON THERE'S ROBERT SMALLS ACADEMY AND THEN TO THE RIGHT OF THAT YOU'VE ALSO GOT 312 UNITS OF THE GREAT TRACT A TRACT A APARTMENTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

THEN AS YOU COME CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY YOU'VE GOT THE MILLER VILLAGE ROAD RESIDENTIAL TO THE LEFT OF THAT THE BUS DEPOT AND THE GLAZED DRIVE PROPERTIES WHICH ARE SIMILAR IN SCALE TO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. AND THEN TO THE FAR RIGHT OF THE PAGE YOU'VE GOT MINT FARM IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. AND THEN JUST BELOW THAT IS THE BATTLE CREEK HIGH SCHOOL WHICH WILL BE IN WALKING DISTANCE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.

IN ADDITION WE WE LOOKED AT THE SITE AND COMPARED IT TO THE MARINE CORPS AIR STATION ZONE.

WE FALL OUTSIDE OF THAT THAT AQ SOUND SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONFLICTS WITH MILITARY NUMBER SIX. THIS PROPERTY REZONING WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEARBY LANDS. THE NEWLY IMPLEMENTED STORMWATER THIS IS OUR OPINION ORDINANCE IN THE COUNTY WILL BE APPLICABLE TO ALL FORTHCOMING PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS.

FURTHERMORE THESE FUTURE WILL INCORPORATE BUFFERS TO SAFEGUARD ADJACENT PROPERTIES AGAINST ANY VISUAL IMPACTS. IF YOU LOOK AT THIS EXHIBIT WE'VE GOT SOME ADJACENT PROPERTIES YOU'VE GOT MENT FARM BELOW AND THE GLAZE DRIVE PROPERTIES.

THE SCALE OF PROPERTIES LIKE I MENTIONED EARLIER ARE VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE SO WE FEEL THAT THEY ARE VERY COMPATIBLE. WE'VE ALSO BEEN SAFF OUR CONCERNS ABOUT BEAUFORT JASPER BEING ABLE TO COMEDY THIS DEVELOPMENT.

WE'VE GOT A LETTER HERE THAT'S INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKAGE. IF WE DIDN'T GET COPIES MADE WE CAN CERTAINLY PROVIDE THIS LETTER. BUT IT DOES STATE THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE SERVE THE PROPERTY . THE SEVENTH CRITERIA IS IT WILL RESULT IN A LOGICAL AND ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. STAFF DIRECTED US TO SEE PREVIOUS CRITERIA. WE STATED THAT THE LOCATION CONVENIENTLY REACHABLE FROM BOTH JENNINGS AND RAMSEY ROADS SEAMLESSLY LINKING THE NEIGHBORING DEVELOPMENT AND OFFERING THE POTENTIAL FOR A SECURE AND PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY COMMUNITY EXPERIENCE.

AGAIN, WE LOOK AT THIS EXHIBIT WHICH SHOWS WHICH I WALKED THROUGH EARLIER WHICH SHOWS THAT LOGICAL CONNECTION TO TO THE GROWTH PATTERNS WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY.

[00:45:05]

THE EIGHTH CRITERIA IS THAT THE REZONING WOULD NOT IN ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WATER AIR NOISE, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, WILDLIFE, VEGETATION AND THE NATURAL FUNCTIONING OF THE ENVIRONMENT.

WE WITH STAFF ON THIS ONE AND THEIR RESPONSE THIS. THE PROPERTY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WOULD MEET OR EXCEED THE COUNTY'S CURRENT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. THE NINTH CRITERIA THE PROPERTY WAS THE REZONING WOULD RESULT IN DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ADEQUATELY SERVED BY PUBLIC FACILITIES STREETS POTABLE WATER, SEWERAGE, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, SOLID WASTE COLLECTION DISPOSAL SCHOOLS, PARKS, POLICE AND FIRE. WE FELT THAT IT'S ANTICIPATED THE PROPOSED REZONING OF REDEVELOPMENT WILL BE SERVED BY EXISTING UTILITIES AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES. THERE IS AN ADEQUATE SPACE TO ADDRESS STORMWATER ON SITE ANY DEVELOPMENT AND NO ADDITIONAL ROADWAYS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SERVE THE SITE.

IN ADDITION WE'VE GOT TWO SCHOOLS THAT ARE CURRENTLY UNDER CAPACITY THAT ARE WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE. THE PROPERTY AND WE'VE ALSO GOT AGAIN THAT LETTER THAT INDICATES THAT THEY THE CAPACITY TO SERVE THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO I'D BE HAPPY TO OPEN IT UP FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS I'VE GOT MR. ROB MERRITT WITH PULTEGROUP WHO IS THE DEVELOPER CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT HOUSING AND THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. WE GO AND ASK ANY QUESTIONS. IS THERE ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO COMMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? PLEASE COME FORWARD MY NAME JOYCE GIBBS AND I WANT TO THANK THIS COUNTY COUNCIL SUPPORTING OUR COMMUNITY AND ENJOYING THIS PLAN, GOING FORWARD. WE JUST WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE MAKING LESS THAN $45,000 A YEAR BECAUSE THEY HAVE A NEED FOR HOUSING IN OUR COMMUNITY TO NOT THAT EVERYBODY DOESN'T START OUT AT $77,000 THEY HAVE GROW TO THAT POINT SO YOU KNOW OUR FAMILIES NEED THAT KIND OF SUPPORT SO THEY CAN AND START THEIR FAMILIES SO AS PEOPLE DEVELOPERS OR COMING INTO OUR COMMUNITY WE JUST ASK THAT YOU CONTINUE TO THINK ABOUT THE LOW INCOME FAMILIES AND ENSURING THAT THEY HAVE A PLACE WHERE THEY CAN LIVE AND HAVE ACCESS TO BE ABLE TO DRIVE TO WORK SO THAT THEY CAN WORK. I MEAN PAYING SOMEBODY $30,000 A YEAR AND THEY HAVE TO DRIVE 45 MINUTES IN IS IS A HARDSHIP ON THOSE FAMILIES? WELL. IN ADDITION WE DON'T WANT THE CONTINUED LEVEL OF GROWTH THAT IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW WHERE WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE COUNCILMAN GLOVER JUST SAID WE NEED TO CREATE AN ORDINANCE OR SOMETHING SO THAT THE PEOPLE ARE USED TO LIVING THERE WHOSE FAMILIES GRAVES AND SACRED LAND AREAS CAN'T GET INTO AREAS TO EVEN YOU KNOW, VISIT THOSE GRAVES. WE'RE JUST WANTING TO BE ABLE TO STAY ON OUR OWN LAND AND TO CONTINUE TO LIVE. AND BEAUFORT COUNTY AS WELL AS LOW INCOME.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE SAYING NO NO CLOSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT NOW I'LL TURN TO THE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL IF I START WITH MR. DAWSON YEAH.

THIS REZONING REQUEST PROJECT IS IN MY DISTRICT DISTRICT ONE. I MET SEVERAL TIMES WITH THE DEVELOPER ROB MERRICK AND WE OVER THIS PROPOSAL TO INCREASE THE ZONING 2 TO 2 MIXED USE SEE THREE NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE AND I HELD TWO COMMUNITY MEETINGS AT BOTH MEETINGS.

THERE WAS MIXED REVIEWS AS TO HOW THE COMMUNITY PUTTING THEIR SUPPORT BEHIND THIS REQUEST.

[00:50:04]

AND AFTER THE SECOND MEETING IT WAS FOLLOWED UP BY A FROM MS.. GIBBS WITH APPROXIMATELY 100 SIGNATURES IN OPPOSITION TO THE INCREASE IN DENSITY FOR THIS PROJECT.

AND SO I HAD A MEETING WITH ROB AND I EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT I NOT SUPPORT HIS REQUEST TO ASK COUNCIL ZONED THIS PROPERTY FOR THE BENEFIT OF BUILDING MORE HOUSES THAN THE CURRENT ZONING WHICH ALLOWS THE TWO TO RULE WOULD ALLOW HIM TO BUILD ABOUT 28 MAYBE 29 HOMES MAX.

AND SO HIS DESIRE IS TO INCREASE IT TO C-3 WOULD ALLOW HIM TO BUILD EXPONENTIALLY HOMES THAT HAVEN'T BEEN SAID AT THE MARCH FOUR PLANNING COMMISSION WHEN ROB MERRICK, THE DEVELOPER, WENT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND PRESENTED HIS REQUEST OF ZONING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DESIGN VOTED UNANIMOUSLY UNANIMOUSLY TO DENY THE REQUEST.

AT OUR MEETING I THINK IT WAS LAST MONTH OUR STAFF MADE THE PRESENTATION AND.

OUR STAFF RECOMMENDED THAT COUNCIL DENY THIS REQUEST AND SO I, I STATED AT THE COMMUNITY SERVICE MEETING WHERE STAFF MADE PRESENTATION FOR COUNCIL TO MOVE THE COUNCIL WITH A DENIAL. I'M GOING TO MOVE TONIGHT THAT WE DENY THE REQUEST FOR REZONING BASED ON THE ON THE POINTS THAT I MADE AT THE COMMUNITY SERVICE MEETING LAST MONTH AND THAT IS THAT I MOVED THAT WE DENY THE REQUEST FOR REZONING FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS ONE IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE CODE AND THE PURPOSES OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE . TWO IT IS NOT IT IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND CODE OF ORDINANCES.

IT DOES NOT ADDRESS THE DEMONSTRATED COMMUNITY NEED. THE COMMUNITY IS ADVERSELY OPPOSED TO IT. IT IS NOT REQUIRED BY A CHANGE THE CHANGE CONDITIONS IN THE AREA. IT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING AND PROPOSED USES OF LANDS SURROUNDING THIS LAND. IT WOULD NOT WOULD RESULT IN ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT WATER, AIR AND NOISE STORMWATER, WILDLIFE, VEGETATION, WETLANDS AND THE NATURAL OF THE ENVIRONMENT. IT WOULD NOT RESULT IN A DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ADEQUATELY SERVED BY PUBLIC FACILITIES SUCH AS STREETS POTABLE WATER, SEWER STORM MANAGEMENT SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS AND DISPOSAL SCHOOLS FOR QUALIFIED EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES BASED ON THOSE POINTS I MOVE THAT COUNCIL THAT WE DENY THIS REQUEST ZONING. IS THERE A SECOND SECOND SECOND TO THE MOTION DIDN'T SECOND IN DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS HOUSE STAFF REGARDING THE DEVELOPER SHOWN AN EXCUSE MA'AM BUT I THOUGHT THIS WAS AN EXCUSE ON NUMBER ONE BUT I COULD BE MISTAKEN. GOOD EVENING. SO YES A PORTION OF THIS IS IN WELL THE ACRES WE THE AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT WHICH IMPLEMENTS THE SO A LARGER PORTION IS IN THE ACTUAL ACRES BUT WE ONLY ENFORCE UP TO THE 65 DECIBEL RANGE AND SO THERE'S A CORNER OF THE PROPERTY IMPACTED BY THAT. SO WE DID REACH OUT TO THE AIR STATION AND I DID NOT RECEIVE A RESPONSE UNTIL TODAY AT TWO AND THEY WROTE IT A RESPONSE TO US SAYING THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS INCOMPATIBLE.

SO I WANTED TO SHARE THAT INFORMATION BUT YES THERE IS A SMALL PORTION OF THE SITE BUT MOST IT IS OUTSIDE THE AREA THAT WE REGULATE IN OUR AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT WIND FARM TO THE DEVELOPERS POINT IS CLOSE TOO BUT IT WAS IT WAS A IT WAS APPROVED PRIOR TO THE AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT ORDINANCE I'M PRETTY SURE BUT IT'S NOT ACRES EITHER IT'S YEAH IT'S FURTHER

[00:55:07]

SOUTH AND FURTHER TO THE WEST AND FARM ALSO HAS DESIGNATED DEEDED HOUSES THAT ARE DESIGNATED THE FORT. YEAH WHICH THOSE ARE DEEDED SO THEY CONTINUE THOSE UNITS THROUGHOUT. YES THERE THEY GO WITH THE PROPERTY I MEAN MINT FARM IS A IS A GOOD STORY IN THAT IT DOES THAT BUT IT WAS APPROVED. OKAY.

OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. TAYLOR, DOES THIS PROPOSAL HAVE AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENT? OKAY.

SO THEY THINK I'M ROB MERRICK WITH. THE MAP THAT WE DID PROVIDE IS FROM AS FROM THE COUNTY WEBSITE. SO AS FAR AS THE HQ GOES THAT'S WE THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO USE AND HAVE TO FOLLOW. AS FAR AS THE AFFORDABILITY ASPECT UP NO NO NOT AFFORDABILITY AND HAVING AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENT WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH THEM BUT WE'VE NEVER BEEN PRESENTED THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE IT. SO THE ANSWER IS NOT NOT AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU. I THINK MR. MAYOR, YOU AND I MET I TALKED TO YOU ABOUT THAT IS A GOOD AND IMPORTANT PART OF THAT WAS GOING TO BE I WAS TOLD THAT WE WOULD ADDRESS IT AS REQUESTED A WORKSHOP TO BE ABLE TO TALK THROUGH IT AND THEN WAS TOLD THAT WE COULD NOT HAVE A WORKSHOP THAT WE WOULD BE DOING IT AT THE THE LAST ONE THE NATURAL RESOURCE MEETING THAT WOULD BE THE TIME THAT WE CAN TALK THROUGH THESE THINGS AND THAT WE WERE NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. MR.. MS. I'M JUST QUESTIONING THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER. NOVEMBER 2023 WE'VE NEVER SEEN IT AS YOUR COMMITTEE SEEN THIS BEFORE. THIS WAS HOW I MEAN THIS IS A LOT OF INFORMATION. I WASN'T IN CONTACT DIRECTING OUR PLANNING STAFF.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO BELIEVE. WHAT'S HERE? WHAT'S THERE? NO. SO I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS IS COMING FORWARD NOW.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT'S BEEN EVER SINCE COME FROM TRYING TO GET YOUR ATTENTION.

I'LL GET TO YOU SO ALL RIGHT. SO THE PLANNING STAFF DID RECEIVE PETITION AND THEN WE TYPICALLY WE FORWARD THAT TO CHAIRMAN OF OUR PLANNING COMMISSION AND SO THAT WAS SOMETHING THEY USED IN CONSIDERATION WHEN THEY REVIEWED IT.

SO IS YOUR OPINION THAT EVERYTHING WRITTEN HERE IS BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE SAME AS WHAT WAS PROPOSED BY GROUP BY STAFF AND I DON'T KNOW I DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO BELIEVE. THIS IS CONTRADICTORY TO WHAT YOU PRESENTED.

I'M NOT OH THAT I'M SORRY. GETTING MIXED UP. I THOUGHT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE PETITION. THIS IS WHAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT AS PART OF THEIR AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE RECEIVE AT THE STAFF LEVEL THAT WE USE IN MAKING THE REVIEW OF IS THAT WHAT YOU HAVE IS IS THE APPLICATION THAT I ASKED DOES HE HAVE THAT DO YOU HAVE THIS IS THE DEVELOPER'S APPLICATION? YES.

SO THE NARRATIVE THAT THE DEVELOPER PROVIDED WHEN THEY SUBMITTED APPLICATION THEY THOUGHT YOU SAW THIS? YES. IN THE PLANNING PROCESS I DON'T THINK YES. MR. DAWSON HAS QUESTION ON THAT.

OKAY. HE DOESN'T THINK YOU'VE SEEN IT .

WELL HE'S LOOKING THAT UP. OKAY 13 THIS THIS DOCUMENT ACTUALLY DISPUTES STAFF RECOMMENDATION ALL YES AND SO BASICALLY THAT THE COMMITTEE MEETING IS STUFF AT ALL BUT YEAH LET ME BACK UP A LITTLE BIT. OUR APPLICATION PROCESS FOR REZONING WE REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE A NARRATIVE THAT FOLLOWS THE CRITERIA COUNCIL USES THAT SAME CRITERIA BUT THAT'S PROVIDED FOR OUR STAFF IN MAKING THE DECISION SO WE YOU KNOW WE HAVE THEIR NARRATIVE BUT IT'S ULTIMATELY UP TO OUR DEPARTMENT TO REVIEW THE APPLICATION AND FOR CONSISTENCY THOSE CRITERIA SO WE WE USE THAT AS CONSIDERATION BUT IT'S NOT YOU KNOW IT'S UP TO STAFF TO PROVIDE OUR RESPONSE TO THE CRITERIA THAT ARE PROVIDED WHEN WE HAVE A NEW JOB. YES.

ON THE COMPREHENSIVE WAY, CORRECT? YES.

OKAY. MR. BURTON, ANY QUESTIONS? MR. REED'S ANY QUESTIONS MR. LAWSON ANY QUESTIONS? NO, I'M GOOD. THANK YOU.

[01:00:02]

OKAY. MR. CHAIRMAN, ONE QUESTION TO COUNCILMAN DAWSON WITH TO CRITERIA NUMBER EIGHT ADVERSE IMPACT. I THINK SAID WOULD NOT RESULT IN THAT FIRST IMPACT AS PART OF YOUR MOTION DENY DO YOU MEAN THAT IT WOULD RESULT IN ADVERSE IMPACT AS PART YOUR MOTION TO DENY I THOUGHT I SAID WORD YEAH HE SAID I MAY HAVE MISHEARD IT YEAH THE APPLICANT WHEN HE PRESENTED ABOUT THE FIRST AND SECOND ITEMS HE USED THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THE FUTURE GROWTH AND INDICATED THAT FUTURE GROWTH ALLOWED THIS TO BE A THREE ZONE. IS THAT AN ACCURATE STATEMENT? I THOUGHT I WAS OFF THE HOUGH'S HOT SEAT FOR SURE. YEAH. SO IT'S A IT'S YES.

AND SO THE WE HAVE TWO COMPONENTS OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

WE HAVE THE THE COLOR YOU KNOW IT'S COLORED YELLOW WHICH IS NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE CORRECT.

AND SO THAT IS A DISTRICT THAT ONE OF THE ZONING OR THAT'S A FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION THAT ONE OF THE ZONING CATEGORIES THAT C-3 AND NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE CAN IMPLEMENT IN THE CODE BUT THE AREA THAT IS BEING CONSIDERED FOR UP IS ALSO DESIGNATED AS A HAMLET PLACE TYPE AND SO THAT HAS ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. YOU KNOW WHEN WE CONSIDER FOR UP ZONING THAT THEY WOULD FOLLOW EITHER USING THE PLACE TYPE OVERLAY WHERE YOU'RE LOOKING AT A MIX OF THE TRANSECTS THAT PROMOTE MORE WALKABILITY OR YOU KNOW SOME COMBINATION OF THOSE DISTRICTS. AND SO THAT'S YOU KNOW, THAT WAS THE REASON THAT WHEN WE LOOKED AT CONSISTENCY WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN IT DID NOT IT WASN'T A COMPLETE PICTURE.

IT DIDN'T COMPLETELY IMPLEMENT IT. OKAY? IT IMPLEMENTS ONE ASPECT OF IT BUT NOT THAT OTHER. THE PLACE TYPE OF WAS THIS EVERETT BECAUSE I WROTE DOWN ABOUT THE PLACE TYPE OVERLAY MORE APPROPRIATE FOR EITHER ONE OR TWO. YEAH. HAS THAT BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT? YES. YES.

AND THE APPLICANT CHOSEN NOT TO FOLLOW THAT AT THIS TIME. CORRECT IF THIS IS DENIED ON THE BASIS OF YOU WOULD PREFER PLEASE TYPE SUCH AS A HAMLET COULD THEY THEN COME BACK AT SOME FUTURE TIME AND SAY WE'RE NOW WILLING TO DO THIS YEAH I THINK YOU KNOW THIS GOES TO THE QUESTION OF IF YOU DENY AN APPLICATION YOU CAN'T IT BACK FOR A YEAR BECAUSE I WOULD SAY THAT IF IT WERE A TYPE OVERLAY THAT IT COULD BE REINTRODUCED BECAUSE A DIFFERENT APPLICATION I WILL SAY THAT THERE ARE OTHER REASONS IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT WE GAVE FOR HAVING CONCERNS ABOUT THIS UP ZONING AND THAT WAS ONE OF THEM SO I DON'T WANT TO INDICATE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER WHAT OUR POSITION WOULD BE AND I WOULD ALSO WHEN YOU DEAL WITH A PLACE TYPE OVERLAY YOU'RE PROVIDING MASTER PLAN. SO A LOT OF IT COMES INTO THE DETAILS OF HOW THAT'S LAID OUT . OKAY.

AND I'M SURE THIS IS GOING TO COME UP IN THE HAMLET. WHAT WOULD BE THE PERMITTED NUMBER OF UNITS IN A PROPERTY SUCH AS THIS THIS PROPERTY? THE ACREAGE IS 86.86 SO THE HAMLET SEE THAT I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK ON THAT NUMBER BUT THERE IS A CAP WHEN WE LOOK AT PLACE OF OVERLAY THERE'S A CAP IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT DENSITY THAT IS IN THE CODE AND.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE GO SO FAR THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH ZONING. YES, YES IT WOULD BE OKAY BUT NOT NECESSARILY ZONED FROM THE T TWO TO THE C THREE CORRECT. IT WOULD BE A MIXTURE OF DISTRICTS THAT ARE THERE'S KIND OF A TABLE THAT PROVIDES YOU KNOW FOR THIS TYPE PLACE TYPE THESE ARE THE MIX OF DISTRICTS AND THE PERCENTAGE OF EACH THAT YOU KNOW SO IT GIVES YOU KIND OF LIKE THE COMPONENTS AND THEN IT'S UP TO THE APPLICANT TO PUT IT TOGETHER INTO A MASTER PLAN. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE ON THE TABLE A MOTION IN SECOND FOR THE REQUEST FOR THE REZONING TO BE DENIED UNDER THE FOLLOWING UNDER ONE.

[01:05:02]

IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS AND POLICIES TO IT IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE THREE IT DOES NOT ADDRESS A DEMONSTRATED COMMUNITY NEED FOR IS NOT REQUIRED BY CHANGED CONDITIONS FIVE IT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING AND PROPOSED USE SIX IT WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT NEAR NEARBY LAND SEVEN WAS NOT ADDRESSED EIGHT WOULD RESULT IN ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND NINE WOULD RESULT IN DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ADEQUATELY SERVED. DID I WOULD NOT I'M SORRY WOULD NOT WROTE THAT IN REDWOOD OAK IS THAT WHAT YOUR MOTION SAID SIR? YES. OKAY. IT WAS DULY MOTIONED IN SECOND IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE I I WOULD SIMPLY SAY I STILL HAVE SO MANY QUESTIONS WHY? I MEAN I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY SOME OF THIS WAS NOT ANSWERED PREVIOUSLY AND WE'RE SITTING HERE NOW AS IN THE VOTE ON IT AND THE LOW INCOME I MEAN NONE OF THAT WE HAVEN'T EVEN HEARD THE COST OF THE HOMES. I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING I DIDN'T HEAR THAT PART. I WILL LET THE APPLICANT ADDRESS THAT.

YOU KNOW, IT'S FAIR QUESTION THREE WE'D BE WE'D BE WILLING TO MEET WITH COUNSEL AND MAYBE A SUBCOMMITTEE TO WALK ALL THESE QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE TABLE THIS FOR TONIGHT.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S THE WILL OF COUNSEL TO TABLE THIS IF IF I MIGHT AS FAR AS THE COST OF THE HOMES THE COMMUNITY I ASKED ROB THAT QUESTION AT THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR ROB BUT IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY IT STARTED AT ABOUT 300 TO 1.

SO IN THIS FOR EXAMPLE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE PLACE TYPE OVERLAYS WE ADDING INTO THAT WHAT THEY ALSO DO IS THEY ADD ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS THE DESIGN OF AND THE PLACEMENT OF THE HOMES AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND THEY GET IT TO A COST POINT THAT IT'S ACTUALLY GETTING MORE INTO SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD SEE IN A HABERSHAM A BATTERY POINT.

WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING TO BRING IN THIS COMMUNITY WAS AN ENTRY LEVEL AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR FIRST RESPONDERS. THOSE TEACHERS UTILIZING A SHADOW MOS WOULD BE A GREAT EXAMPLE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD. IT WAS A SUCCESSFUL NEIGHBORHOOD AND MANY FAMILIES LIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND PUTTING YOUR DAUGHTER COUNCILMAN DAWSON IN SHADOW.

WHY? BECAUSE IT WAS A NICE FAMILY ORIENTED COMMUNITY.

THAT IS WHAT WE WERE WANTING TO BRING TO THIS FRONT LOADED PRODUCTS TRADITIONAL FLOOR PLAN THAT YOU WOULD SEE TWO CAR GARAGES, ONE AND TWO STORIES BEING ABLE TO HIT MANY DIFFERENT GROUPS IN THIS BUT PRIMARILY HITTING THE WORKFORCE AND AFFORDABLE ASPECT TO IT AND WE ARE OPEN TO TALKING SOME OF THE IF THERE IS A YOU KNOW AN INCOME PROPERTY OR WHAT WAS IT I'M SORRY THAT COMPONENT THAT YOU WANTED TO ADD TO IT WE'RE MORE THAN WILLING TO SIT DOWN AND SEE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE THE PRICE RANGE. WHAT'S THE PRICE RANGE? THE PRICE RANGE YOU'RE GOING TO THE PRICE RANGE ARE GOING TO BE MARKET PRICE RANGES ENTRY LEVEL IN OUR MARKET THIS MARKET HERE YOU ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING IN YOUR 300 RANGE IS YOUR FIRST TIME HOMEBUYER PRICE POINTS A NEW HOME WE'VE MET AND I DIDN'T HEAR A WILLINGNESS TO DO THAT BEFORE WITH DEEDED PROPERTIES THAT WOULD MEET SOME OF OUR REQUIREMENTS.

I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT IT NOW I'D BE HAPPY TO SIT DOWN AND TALK THROUGH IT AND SEE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. I JUST BUT HAVEN'T HAD THAT OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND THAT . SO I WOULD LIKE TO UNBURDEN SOME LINES.

MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, RIGHT? IT MATTER WHAT THEY SAY THEY'RE GOING TO PUT THERE AND I DON'T MEAN THAT TO BE RUDE OR CRUDE BUT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN UP ZONING WHEN THEY GET THE ZONING THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT THAT IS ALLOWED IN THAT NEW ZONING REGARDLESS OF WHAT IS PROMISED WITH THE PLACE TYPE OVERLAY YOU DO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN TANDEM THAT ENSURES WHAT YOU'RE GETTING RIGHT NOW IT DOES WHATEVER IS ALLOWED IN THAT NEW ZONING DISTRICT IS WHAT THEY CAN DO.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT IS SAID THERE IS NO AGREEMENT OF NO I MEAN WE KNOW WHAT THE COULD BE.

WE DON'T KNOW THE STYLE OF HOUSES. WE DON'T KNOW THE PRICES OF THE HOUSES AND NO MATTER WHAT IS SAID THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT UNDER THE NEW ZONING PERIOD. SO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT ARE THE HOUSING PRICES WITH THE ZONING, WHATEVER THEY WANT IT TO BE THAT'S THE REAL ANSWER.

THERE'S NO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THERE'S NOTHING TIED TO THIS AND WE CANNOT DO CONDITIONAL ZONING THAT'S A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

[01:10:06]

SO WHAT YOU'RE VOTING ON IS TO ZONE THIS PROPERTY TO GIVE WHOEVER OWNS IT AFTER IT'S UP ZONED THE ABILITY TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT WITH IT. IT'S ALLOWED IN THAT ZONING.

SO I JUST WANTED TO UNBLOCK THOSE LINES. THANK YOU JIM.

MR. MAYOR? YES. REGARDING THAT NOW THIS IS WHAT WE'VE DONE IN A FEW OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AS WE GO THIS THIS IS WHERE THE WORKSHOPS COME IN. WE JUST SIT DOWN AND AS WE GO THROUGH THE WORKSHOPS PART OF THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL AS WE GO THROUGH WOULD CONDITIONAL LAND PLANS COULD BE IN PLACE AT A TIME STYLE THE FLOOR PLAN CAN ALSO SO THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE CAN AS WE GO THROUGH THE C THREE ZONING WE CAN PUT A CONDITION REGARDING THAT AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE IN OTHER MARKETS BUT AS JUST HEARD IF IT WAS UP ZONED TO C THREE WE WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHAT YOU CAN BUILD IN AC3C3 ALLOWS MIXED USE AS A PLACE TYPE OVERLAY WOULD ALLOW US TO HAVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WOULD SPECIFY EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE WILLING TO ALLOW YOU TO BUILD IS THAT A FAIR ASSUMPTION IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY.

OKAY. SO WITH THAT IN MIND, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO MOVE FORWARD IN THAT? I WOULD BE WILLING TO MOVE FORWARD IF WE CAN WE CAN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ABLE SIT DOWN, TALK THROUGH THOSE AND BE ABLE TO COME UP SOMETHING THAT COULD WORK WELL FOR ALL PARTIES INVOLVED THAT WOULD BE PLEASED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT . BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S ON THE TABLE TODAY AND I THAT SO WHAT THEY'RE DOING TODAY IF THEY WANT TO DO THAT THAT'S A WHOLE SEPARATE CONVERSATION CORRECT AND I JUST I'M TRYING TO BEAT THIS DEAD HORSE. I JUST DON'T WANT ANYONE TO HAVE THE MISUNDERSTOOD THAT WE'RE AGREEING TO ANYTHING CONDITION WISE FOR THIS ZONING REQUEST IF THEY GET THIS UP ZONING YOU CAN HAVE ALL THE WORKSHOPS YOU WANT BUT IT'S FOR BECAUSE THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT WITHIN THAT. SO THE LAST QUESTION WOULD BE BEFORE WE VOTE IF WE VOTE TO DENY THIS OKAY THE UP ZONING HAS BEEN DENIED BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY COULDN'T COME BACK AND START THE PROCESS IMMEDIATELY WITH THE PLACE TYPE OVERLAY WITH CONDITIONS CORRECT I THINK I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT IT YOU AND ROB KNOW YOUR CDP BETTER THAN I DO SO ANSWERING THAT QUESTION IS GOING TO PUT STAFF IN KIND OF A DIFFICULT SPOT I WOULD NEED TO GO BACK TALK TO OUR ATTORNEYS ABOUT HOW THAT PROVISION IS WRITTEN AND WHETHER WE WOULD CONSIDER THAT BE A COMPLETELY NEW APPLICATION OR WHETHER IT WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT OF THIS APPLICATION WHICH IS WHAT THE YEAR IS DESIGNED TO PREVENT.

SO I, I CAN'T REALLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION BUT THAT'S THE QUESTION ON THE ON THE TABLE TODAY IS THE UP ZONING AND THAT THAT QUESTION WAS POSED STANDING BY THE UNDERSTANDING THEY HAD BOTH OPTIONS. CALL THE QUESTION, MR. CHAIRMAN.

YEAH, OKAY. I'M GOING TO NEED YOU TO CALL THE ROLL.

I'M SORRY, BUT WE'RE GOING TO CALL THE ROLL AND MOVE ON. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON NOW THIS IS TO DENY SO IT WOULD BE YES FOR TO DENY. YES.

I'M SORRY. OKAY. I'M STATE OF COUNCILMEMBER GLOVER. YES. COUNCILMEMBER TABACHNICK NO COUNCILMEMBER REED'S YES. COUNCILMEMBER LAWSON SORRY. LAWSON YES.

COUNCILMEMBER HOWARD YES. COUNCILMEMBER BARTHOLOMEW YES. VICE CHAIR MCGOWAN YES.

CHAIRMAN PASSING IT I'M GOING TO SAY NO IN HOPES THAT WE THE IDEA THAT THIS HAS PASSED BUT THAT CAN START THE PROCESS AGAIN BUT THE MOTION IS 7 TO 2 THE MOTION IS DENIED BUT MEANS THEY CAN COME BACK FOR A YEAR. WELL WE DON'T KNOW THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING HAVE TO WORK.

THE MOTION IS GRANTED A MOTION DO IS TO DENY THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS.

THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME UP WITH NOW WHETHER THEY ARE OUT FOR A YEAR OR WHETHER THEY COULD COME BACK NOW WITH A WHOLE NEW PLAN. OKAY.

[16. SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE INTERIM COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO PURCHASE AND TO FUND THE PURCHASE OF THE REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS PROJECT BRAVO Vote at First Reading by Title Only on April 22, 2024 - 11:0]

MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 16 IS A SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE

[01:15:03]

INTERIM COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR EXECUTED THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO PURCHASE AND TO FUND THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS PROJECT BRAVO.

MOTION PLEASE MOVE O SECOND MR. MCCALLUM MADE THE MOTION MISS HOWARD MADE THE SECOND DULY MOTION DIDN'T SECOND IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION SEEING NONE. THIS WILL BE APPROVED WITHOUT

[17. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF MULTIPLE PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY FROM BEAUFORT COUNTY TO SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN CONNECTION WITH SC 802 SAMS POINT ROAD RIGHT TURN LANE (FISCAL IMPACT: these properties have already been purchased through the 2018 Sales Tax Program per an IGA with SCDOT. There is no financial consideration for the transfer of ownership from Beaufort County to SCDOT)]

OBJECTION THEN I SEE NO OBJECTIONS. ITEM NUMBER 17 IS A FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF MULTIPLE PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY FROM BEAUFORT COUNTY TO SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN CONNECTION WITH S.C. 802 SIMS POINT ROAD RIGHT TURN LANE SO MOVE MR. MCCULLEN MADE THE MOTION SECOND MR. BARTHOLOMEW MADE THE SECOND DULY MOTION THEN SECONDED. IS ANY OBJECTION SEE NO

[18. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE INTERIM COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE PURCHASE OF A PORTION OF REAL PROPERTY ABUTTING THE HILTON HEAD ISLAND AIRPORT LOCATED ON SUMMIT DRIVE WITH TMS NO. R510 005 000 271A 0000 (FISCAL IMPACT: purchase price of $22,390.56 plus seller and purchaser closing costs. Account balance $54,455.64, Account # 5402-90-0000-571320; costs to be reimbursed by grant funds (23-025) awarded by the South Carolina Aeronautics Commission)]

OBJECTION THIS HAS PASSED FIRST READING ITEM 18 IS THE FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE INTERIM COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE PORTION OF REAL PROPERTY ABUTTING THE HILTON HEAD ISLAND AIRPORT LOCATED ON SUMMIT WITH THE TERMS OF OUR 510 005000271840 MOTION SO MOVE MR. MCCULLEN MS. TABACHNICK DULY MOTIONED IN SECOND AND YOU DISCUSSION THIS WILL BE

[19. APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INTERIM COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO ENTER INTO A NON-TENANT COMMERCIAL OPERATING AGREEMENT BETWEEN BEAUFORT COUNTY AND M&L MOBILE DETAILING (FISCAL IMPACT: Beaufort County Executive Airport will receive $75.00 for each detailing transaction. Beaufort County will not incur any costs or expenses associated with this agreement)]

APPROVED WITHOUT OBJECTION AND I SEE NO OBJECTIONS. ITEM NUMBER 19 IS APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INTERIM COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO ENTER INTO A NON TENANT OPERATING AGREEMENT BETWEEN BEAUFORT COUNTY AND THE M AND L MOBILE DETAILING SOME OF MR. BARTHOLOMEW MADE THE MOTION MR. READS MADE THE SECOND DULY MOTIONED AND SECONDED AND ANY DISCUSSION SEEING NO DISCUSSION THIS WILL BE APPROVED WITHOUT OBJECTION AND I SEE NO

[20. APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INTERIM COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO PURSUE CONDEMNATION FOR PORTIONS OF PARCELS R120 003 000 0609 0000 & R120 003 000 0682 0000 ASSOCIATED WITH RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION FOR A PATHWAY LOCATED ON DEPOT ROAD AS PART OF THE 2018 ONE CENT REFERENDUM (FISCAL IMPACT: R120 003 000 0609 0000 is $32,795.00; R120 003 000 0682 0000 is $23,860.00. Funded by 2018 One Cent Referendum account# 4705-80-0000-PTHWY)]

OBJECTIONS. ITEM NUMBER 20 IS APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INTERIM COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO PURSUE CONDEMNATION FOR PORTIONS PARCELS ASSOCIATED WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY OF ACQUISITION FOR A PATHWAY LOCATED ON DEPOT AS PART OF THE 2018 $0.01 REFERENDUM I'LL MAKE A MOTION MR. CAMERON SECONDED HOWARD MADE THE MOTION MR. MCKELLEN MADE THE SECOND DULY MOTION THEN SECONDED. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, MR. CHAIRMAN. YES SIR. BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD TO CONDEMNATION, I DO BELIEVE THAT IF I'M INFORMED CORRECTLY THAT ALL EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE.

YES. TO AVOID THIS. YEP.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? SEEING NONE. THIS WILL APPROVED WITHOUT

[21. APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT THE USDA COMPOSTING AND FOOD WASTE REDUCTION PROGRAM GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $273,600 FOR A COUNTY PILOT COMPOST PROGRAM (FISCAL IMPACT: The grant is a 75/25 match. 75% from USDA and 25% from local match. The county's match is $68,400 will be from solid waste funds 2555-10-0000-43780. It is anticipated that $50,000 of the local match will be expended in FY25 and remaining in FY26. Funds for the first $50,000 in expenses have been budgeted for FY25)]

OBJECTION AND I SEE NO. ITEM NUMBER 21 IS APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT THE USDA COMPOSTING AND FOOD REDUCTION PROGRAM GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $273,600 FOR A COUNTY PILOT COMPOST PROGRAM. SECOND, MS. HOWARD MADE THE MOTION MR. BARTHOLOMEW BARTHOLOMEW'S SECOND DULY MOTION DIDN'T SECOND ANY DISCUSSION SAYING NO DISCUSSION

[22. CITIZEN COMMENT PERIOD]

THIS WILL BE APPROVED WITHOUT OBJECTION AND I SEE OBJECTION. WE ARE NOW AT OUR SECOND CITIZENS COMMENT AND DO HAVE MORE PEOPLE THAN TIME SO I'D LIKE YOU TO BE BRIEF IF YOU POSSIBLY CAN. WE'RE GOING TO START WITH JULIANNE PETROFF.

WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD SIZED GROUP HERE TONIGHT THINKING THAT PINE ISLAND WAS BACK ON THE AGENDA IT IS NOT. WE KNOW THAT NOW THANKS TO MR. GLOVER WHO EXPLAINED IT TO US AND I WANT TO THANK COUNCIL FOR LISTENING US TO US SO OFTEN ON THAT SUBJECT BUT IT SEEMS ME VERY BRIEFLY THAT ALMOST EVERYTHING ON THE AGENDA HERE TONIGHT HAS BEEN ABOUT DEVELOPMENT. I'M AFRAID THAT DEVELOPMENT IS GETTING AWAY FROM US AS FAR AS ROADS AND BRIDGES ARE CONCERNED. IF YOU WILL ONE EVENING OR ONE AFTERNOON AT 4:00, IF YOU WILL GET THE SWING BRIDGE HERE AND DRIVE OUT TOWARDS HUNTING IF YOU HAVE NOT DONE THAT LATELY, YOU MIGHT BE AMAZED AT HOW MUCH TRAFFIC THERE IS.

I LIVE ON SAINT HELENA WE HAVE ONE BRIDGE FOR ALL THOSE FOUR ISLANDS.

ONE BRIDGE WHEN THERE'S A WRECK ON THAT BRIDGE WE ARE TRAPPED. I'M SPEAKING OF THE BRIDGE ACROSS CHOWAN CREEK SO THANK YOU. ARNOLD BROWN.

I DON'T KNOW WHY. GOOD EVENING. I WANT TO THANK THE COUNCIL

[01:20:07]

ONCE AGAIN FOR UPHOLDING THE CPO IS THE CPO IS A VERY POPULAR DECISION YOU MADE SOME TIME AGO. THE PETITION THAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY HAS OVER 20,000 SIGNATURES IS SUPPORT IT BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HERE AND IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS? NO ZONING AND IT ALSO ADDRESSES THE ISSUE OF ZONING WHICH COULD BE A QUAGMIRE. SO JUST WANT TO ASK THE COUNCIL THAT IN THE FUTURE TO TO UPHOLD THE ZONING LAWS THAT WE HAVE THE CPO. THE OTHER ISSUE I WANTED TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT IS THE PATH WE PROJECT ON SAINT HELENA ISLAND.

WE'RE IN THE PROCESS AT THIS TIME OF PUTTING TOGETHER A COMMUNITY MEETING.

I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR THE COMMUNITY BUT WHEN WE HAVE THIS MEETING I KNOW WE'RE TO HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS. FIRST OF ALL, THE AREA IS A RESIDENTIAL AND A HISTORIC AREA . THE CURRENT DESIGN THAT'S ONLINE CALLS OF FIVE FEET OF GREEN SPACE, THEN A FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE EASEMENT FROM THE EDGE OF ROAD IS ABOUT 13 FREE FROM THE SENATOR I THINK IT'S 23 FEET.

THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN MANY WHEN IT COMES TO THE SIDEWALK IS A BOOK OF RECOMMENDATION IS NOT A BIBLE AND IT'S NOT A BOOK OF LAWS BUT A BOOK OF RECOMMENDATIONS. IT'S 700 PIECE PIECE PAGES. CHAPTER TWO IN CHAPTER THREE ADDRESSES SIDEWALKS SO A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY IN THE DESIGN OF A SIDEWALK IN THIS AREA ON MLK THERE ARE OAK TREES THAT ARE OVER THREE FEET AND 3 TO 4 FEET IN DIAMETER.