[00:00:01]
TIME.[ 1. CALL TO ORDER]
NATURAL RESOURCE COMMITTEE FOR NOVEMBER THE 2ND, 2026 STARTED.UH, WOULD YOU RISE WITH ME AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG? PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
UM, JUST, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM OF ALL COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT.
IN ADDITION TO THE COMMITTEE MEMBER, WE HAVE, UH, MS. PAULA BROWN, AS WELL AS SATAN REESE, UH, UH, AT THIS TIME.
UH, MR. MCELLEN, UH, THE CHAIR, THE VICE CHAIR IS ONLINE.
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE, UH, WITH THE FREEDOM, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.
ALL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION WAS EXTENDED, UM, AND INFORMED ABOUT THIS MEETING AND THE DATE AND TIME.
[4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA ]
NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.MR. OKAY, IT'S BEEN SECONDED AND MOTIONED BY MR. PASSMAN, SECONDED BY MR. DAWSON.
UM, ANY QUESTIONS? THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE INDICATE BY RAISING YOUR HAND.
[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ]
APPROVAL FOR OCTOBER THE 5TH, 2026.I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE.
MS. MRS. MC - UH, MRS. TABERNACK, WHO SECONDED? MR. DAWSON.
UH, ANY QUESTIONS? THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE INDICATE BY RAISING YOUR HAND.
[6. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD – 15 MINUTES TOTAL ]
DOWN TO PUBLIC COMMENTS.UM, WE SET ASIDE 15 MINUTES FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.
I HAVE, I BELIEVE, 10 AT THIS TIME.
UH, WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH THIS, UM, AND, UM, UH, IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY WERE RECEIVED.
UM, THERE IS AN OVERFLOW SET UP, UM, FOR NEXT DOOR IF THAT'S NECESSARY, BUT WE DO STILL HAVE SPACE HERE, UM, FOR ANYBODY WHO'S COMING.
FIRST ON THE PUBLIC SPEAKER IS, UH, MR. WALTER MACK.
FIRST OF ALL, I WANNA THANK THIS BOARD, THIS COUNTY COUNCIL, FOR REALLY STANDING UP WITH THE PEOPLE OF ST.
AND, UM, I THINK Y'ALL GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS A WAY TO CHALLENGE, UH, SPOIL AND UNCONTROLLABLE DEVELOPMENT.
UM, I'M A LIFELONG RESIDENT OF NOT ONLY BEAUFORT COUNTY, BUT SPECIFICALLY ST.
AND DURING THAT TIME, UH, THEY WERE, EVERYBODY IN, IN THAT AREA WERE CONSERVATIONISTS.
WE LEARNED HOW TO, NOT TO PLANT ON LAND CERTAIN TIMES OF THE YEAR.
WE LEARNED NOT TO EAT OYSTER WITH MONTHS OF AURA UNLESS THEY HAD A.
AND WHEN WE WENT OUT, WE DIDN'T TAKE ALL THE QUAIL EGGS.
WE LEFT THEM FOR THE NEXT GENERATION.
'CAUSE WE UNDERSTOOD THAT IN ORDER TO PRESERVE YOUR CULTURE AND YOUR LAND AND YOUR, YOU HAVE TO REALLY BE CONSIDERATE OF NATURE.
THESE CONSERVATION IDEALS WERE REALLY DRILLED INTO ME AND I SAW THEM WHEN I SERVED ON VARIOUS CONSERVATION, UH, GROUPS IN BEAUFORT COUNTY, INCLUDING THE USDA FARM SERVICE AGENCY, UH, THE RURAL AND CRITICAL LAND PROGRAM, AND NOW THE OPEN LAND TRUST.
NOW THEY'RE THE REQUEST TO SPLIT PARTS ON THE ISLAND, AND REALLY, I CAN'T SEE THAT HAPPENING BECAUSE WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IS THEY GONNA REMOVE TREES, THEY'RE GONNA, UH, DISTURB THE WETLANDS, AND YOU WON'T HAVE PEOPLE PLANTING INVASIVE PLANT THAT'S NOT FOR THAT AREA.
AND ONCE YOU IMPLEMENT THESE CHANGE, DO YOU REALLY THINK THE REST OF THE ISLAND WILL NOT BE AFFECTED? I DON'T THINK SO, BECAUSE YOU WILL HAVE INLAND FLOODING, YOU GONNA HAVE...
IT'S LIKE REMOVING MY ARM AND THINKING THE REST OF ME NOT GONNA BE EFFECTIVE.
AND WHEN THEY CUT DOWN THE TREES, THEY'RE GONNA BE, UH, RISK FROM HURRICANE, FLOODING, AND INVASIVE SPECIES.
AND I RECALL, AND MAYBE SOME OF YOU RECALL AND SOME OF YOU DON'T RECALL, THERE WERE TWO NASTY HURRICANES THAT CAME UP TO HELEN OF SONG, ONE IN 1893 AND HURRICANE GRACIE.
NOW WHAT HAPPENED DURING THAT TIME WAS
[00:05:01]
THE LAND WAS REALLY A LOT OF FLOODING.PEOPLE COULDN'T PLANT FOR A COUPLE YEARS AND, BUT NATURE, UH, REALLY, UH, CURED ITSELF.
IT, IT REPAIRED ITSELF BECAUSE THERE WERE NOT A LOT OF, UM, DEVELOPMENT, SO THEY HAD TIME TO, TO, TO REALLY HEAL ITSELF.
SO I'M MOST AFRAID OF IF YOU PUT A, ANY TYPE OF SEWAGE SYSTEM ON CENTER, ON, ON THIS DEVELOPMENT, THE ENTIRE SPACE WILL BE AFFECTED.
AND, AND, UH, I GUESS I HEARD, I HEARD A NOISE.
SO ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT WE SHOULDN'T STOP BUILDING THINGS THAT DON'T BELONG, INCLUDING THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND LEAVE SOME ROOM FOR NA - MOTHER NATURE, PLEASE.
THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT MS. CARRIE, YOU'RE NEXT.
ALL RIGHT, YOU CAN GO AFTER HIM.
AND I'M THERE FOR A REASON, JUST LIKE EVERYBODY WHO COME HERE.
I DO WANT TO THANK ALL OF YOU FOR YOUR WORK AND, UH, IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO SEE YOU, YORK.
WE HAVE SOME QUALITIES, THOUGH CHANGING, THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO PRESERVE, PRESERVE FOR ALL.
YOU HAVE A PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF YOU THAT WOULD LIFT THE CPO FROM SOMETHING LIKE 500 ACRES.
I THINK IT HAS FAR REACHING IMPLICATIONS, BUT ALSO IT PUTS IN QUESTION THE WHOLE PROCESS THAT WE HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS ON THIS, WHICH IS DON'T WE HAVE A SYSTEM FOR DECIDING HOW TO INFLUENCE INEVITABLE CHANGE AND HOW TO PRESERVE SOME OF WHAT WE HAVE, SUCH AS A VERY ECLECTIC AND VARIED COMMUNITY ON ST.
HELENA ISLAND, PEOPLE OF ALL WALKS OF LIFE LIVING NEAR EACH OTHER, MOVING ABOUT FREELY.
DON'T WE, DON'T WE HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE A SYSTEM THAT ADDRESSES THAT AND HAS SOME CONTROL OF HOW IT CHANGES? IF WE REMOVE THE CPO, I'M NOT SURE HOW WE PROCEED FROM THERE WITH OTHER PROPOSALS.
AND IT WILL CERTAINLY CHANGE EVERYTHING.
CERTAINLY THERE WILL BE AN ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT, BUT THERE'LL BE A VERY BROAD CULTURAL EFFECT OVER TIME AS WELL.
AND THERE WILL BE NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT.
SO PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE CONSIDER THIS.
AND MS. MAJOR, ARE YOU COMING NOW? OKAY.
AND FOLLOW MS. MAJOR IS PAULA GALAN.
HELENA ISLAND AND, UM, ASKING YOU TODAY, UH, TO PLEASE, UH, IN YOUR FINDINGS BY THE PLANNING, UM, STAFF, PLEASE CONTINUE, UH, TO THE CPO AS IS DEFINED.
UM, YOUR STAFF RECOMMENDED DENIAL.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED, UM, SEVEN TO ZERO, UH, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL.
SO AS WE LOOK AT THIS, PLEASE, IF YOU WOULD SEND IT TO COUNTY COUNCIL AND DENY THE REQUEST TO CARVE OUT ANY PART OF THE CPO.
AND IF YOU CARVE THIS OUT, OF COURSE IT WILL WEAKEN THE CPO.
IT WILL ALLOW THE VERY USES THAT IT WAS DESIGNED, UM, TO RESTRICT.
AND WE ASK YOU TO PLEASE, AS COUNTY COUNCIL, WHEN YOU SEND IT TO COUNTY COUNCIL, GIVE THEM A CLEAR RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THIS AMENDMENT, UM, BECAUSE WE WANT TO PROTECT ST.
[00:10:01]
NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES.AND, UH, WE THANK EACH OF YOU AS COUNTY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO PLEASE, UM, SAY NO TO THE RECOMMENDATION.
AND FOLLOWING HERE WOULD BE JESSE WHITE.
UM, WE'RE ALL HERE AGAIN TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING THAT WE'VE ALL BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR FIVE, SIX YEARS.
AND I WANNA THANK EVERYBODY FOR UPHOLDING THE CPO, KEEPING IT THAT WAY, AND NOT ALLOWING SOMEONE TO COME IN AND DESTROY 500 ACRES OF LAND FOR RICH PEOPLE TO HAVE A GOLF COURSE THAT DON'T LIVE HERE.
IT'S GONNA AFFECT ALL THE PEOPLE THAT ALREADY DO LIVE HERE, AND THESE ARE ALL PEOPLE THAT DON'T LIVE HERE.
SO I THINK THAT THE, THE PUBLIC HAS SPOKEN IN ALL OF THE MEETINGS AND SHOWN THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE CPO.
AND, UM, FOLLOWING MS. WHITE, IT WILL BE, UM, BELINDAS JONES.
JESSE WHITE WITH THE SOUTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PROJECT.
AND I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF OUR CLIENT, THE GULLAH GEECHEE SEA ISLAND COALITION, WHO IS UNABLE TO BE HERE TODAY AND WHO ARE PARTIES IN THE ACTIVE PINE ISLAND LITIGATION WITH ORAL ARGUMENTS SCHEDULED IN THE FOURTH CIRCUIT US COURT OF APPEALS IN RICHMOND, VIRGINIA NEXT MONTH.
I WANNA FIRST START BY JUST THANKING EACH OF YOU FOR YOUR MANY, MANY VOTES AND DECISIONS TO DATE WHERE YOU HAVE STOOD WITH THE ST.
HELENA COMMUNITY AND THEIR LONGSTANDING CPO PROTECTIONS.
WE URGE YOU TO CONTINUE STANDING BEHIND THE PEOPLE AND THESE PROTECTIONS BY ONCE AGAIN DENYING THE PINE ISLAND LLC'S THIRD ATTEMPT TO CARVE OUT THE PROPERTY FROM THE CPO BOUNDARIES AND RULES.
WE'RE ALSO AWARE THE DEVELOPER SUBMITTED A REVISED SETTLEMENT OFFER, WHICH THEY'VE OPENLY STATED COULD RESOLVE ALL PENDING PINE ISLAND LITIGATION.
THE GULLAHEECHE C ISLAND COALITION HAS BEEN DEEPLY INVOLVED IN THIS ISSUE AT EVERY STEP, FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CPO IN 1999 TO THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CPO BE STRENGTHENED AND REFORMING THE CPO COMMITTEE TO SPEAKING OUT IN OPPOSITION TO REPEATED ATTEMPTS TO ROLL BACK OR UNDERMINE THE CPO'S PROTECTION, BOTH IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND IN, AS INTERVENING PARTIES IN THE LITIGATION, ALL IN SUPPORT OF THE COUNTY IN DEFENDING ITS LAWS AND LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
THE GULLAH GEECHEE SEA ISLAND COALITION HAS RIGHTS UNDER FEDERAL LAW THAT COULD BE IMPACTED BY A SETTLEMENT OF THE PINE ISLAND LITIGATION, AND THEREFORE WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST A COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT OFFER FOR REVIEW AND TO BE INCLUDED IN ANY NON-PRIVILEGED SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS SHOULD THEY OCCUR OUTSIDE OF OPEN SESSION.
WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND WE HOPE YOU WILL CONTINUE TO UPHOLD THE RULE OF LAW AND TO REJECT THE PINE ISLAND LLC'S ATTEMPTS TO USE ANY MEANS NECESSARY TO BEND THE RULES FOR THEIR SECRET INVESTOR'S PRIVATE GAIN AT THE EXPENSE OF AND TO THE DETRIMENT OF PUBLIC INTERESTS.
FOLLOW MRS. JONES WILL BE, UM, MR. ARNOLD BROWN.
THIS AFTERNOON, I'M HERE TO ASK THE, THIS COMMITTEE TO CONTINUE SUPPORTING THE CULTURAL PROTECTION OVERLAY AND OPPOSE THE REQUEST TO REMOVE APPROXIMATELY 502 ACRES FROM PINE ISLAND, UM, ON PINE ISLAND FROM THE OVERLAY AND ITS PROTECTIONS.
MY HUSBAND AND I OPERATE MORNING GLORY HOMESTEAD FARM WHERE WE PROVIDE OUTDOOR EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES FOR LOCAL STUDENTS AND VISITORS.
WE ARE CURRENTLY TEACHING A BACKYARD WILDLIFE STEWARDSHIP CLASS, INTRODUCING YOUNG PEOPLE TO WILDLIFE, HEALTHY HABITATS, BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION.
SCHOOLS AND EDUCATORS THROUGHOUT THE AREA AND ACROSS UNITED THE SOUTH CAROLINA AND UNITED STATES AS WELL ARE DOING SIMILAR WORK THROUGH PROGRAMS SUCH AS PROJECT LEARNING TREE, PROJECT WILD, AND OTHER CO - EVE - ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES.
STUDENTS ARE LEARNING THAT WILDLIFE NEEDS MORE THAN A PLACE TO EXIST.
IT NEEDS SPACE, SHELTER, FOOD, CLEAN WATER, AND PLACES TO REPRODUCE.
THROUGH VISITS TO WOODLANDS, PINE SAVANNAS, MARSHES, WETLANDS, AND TIDAL CREEKS, STUDENTS ARE LEARNING THROUGH PROJECTS LIKE SEED FROM SEED TO SHORELINE AND CLASSES TAUGHT AT NEMOURS THAT THESE ARE NOT SIMPLY UNDERDEVELOPED SPACES.
[00:15:01]
THEY ARE ESSENTIAL LANDSCAPES THAT SUSTAIN WILDLIFE AND PROTECT THE HEALTH OF OUR COASTAL ENVIRONMENT.IN PREVIOUS CLASSES, OUR STUDENTS HAVE USED AN ENVIROSCAPE WATERSHED MODEL AND AN INTE - ACTIVITY CALLED WETLANDS IN THE PAN TO SEE HOW DEVELOPMENT AND LAND DISTURBANCE CAN CHANGE THE MOVEMENT OF WATER AND CARRY POLLUTANTS INTO THE WETLANDS, TIDAL CREEKS, AND ULTIMATELY OUR ENTIRE MARINE ENVIRONMENT.
WHAT HAPPENS ON LAND DOES NOT STAY ON THE LAND.
AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE, THIS SCALE BEING CONSIDERED FOR PINE ISLAND RAISES SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT HABITAT LOSS, GROUNDWATER DEMANDS, CHANGES IN NATURAL DRAINAGE AND STORM WATER RUNOFF.
WE MUST CONSIDER THE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS O- ON SURROUNDING WETLANDS, WATERWAYS, WILDLIFE AND MARINE ECOSYSTEMS. THESE IMPACTS EXTEND BEYOND PRO- PROPERTY BOUNDARIES.
HELENA, I INCLUDED, HAVE CONTINUED TO DEMONSTRATE OUR SUPPORT FOR THE CPO THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS.
AS EDUCATORS, WE TEACH CHILDREN THAT STEWARDSHIP IS A RESPONSIBILITY.
STUDENTS MUST REMEMBER THAT WE C - AND, AND WE MUST REMEMBER THAT WE CANNOT TEACH THE NEXT GENERATION TO PROTECT NATURAL RESOURCES WHILE FAILING TO PROTECT THE VERY LANDSCAPES THAT MAKE THOSE LESSONS MEANINGFUL.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK THIS COMMITTEE TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE CULTU- CULTURAL PROTECTION OVERLAY AND I RECOMMEND THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST FROM THE CP - UM, FROM PINE ISLAND.
UM, AS MR. BROWN COME UP, I JUST WANNA SAY TO MRS. JONES, SOME OF THOSE PROJECTS OR PROGRAM YOU TALKED ABOUT SOUND LIKE 4-H.
UH, GOOD AFTERNOON AND THANK YOU FOR - UM, THERE ARE AT LEAST 21 REASONS THAT I HAVE LISTED AND I SENT AN EMAIL TO THE MEMBERS WHY, UH, THE PINE ISLAND LLC APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
UH, THE FIRST ONE IS 1926, THE SUPREME COURT HELD UP THIS TYPE OF APPLICATION.
NUMBER TWO, COMMUNITY RESPONSE AND INPUT.
UH, YOU REMEMBER THE NIGHT OF SEPTEMBER 22ND OF LAST YEAR, THERE WAS OVER EL - OVERWHELMING SUPPORT FOR THE CPO.
THE 1990 CPO AND THE 20- 2020 CPO, UH, LAWS WERE RECONFIRMED.
SPOT ZONING LAWS COULD BE VIOLATED.
WHEN THE INVESTOR BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, UH, THEY HAD SIX MONTHS OF DUE DILIGENCE KNOWING, UH, THAT THE PROPERTY HAD A ZONING RESTRICTION.
THE GOVERNMENT HERE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR BAILING OUT THE SUPPLIER.
IF THEY BILL 141 HOUSES AT $550,000 EACH, THE, THE GROSS SALES WOULD BE $78 MILLION AND THEY CAN GO HIGHER THAN THAT, THEY'RE NOT GONNA LOSE ANY MONEY.
THE EIGHT POINT, OVER $8 MILLION OF, UH, MONEY THAT THEY PUT ON THE TABLE IS A QUICK PRO QUO.
WE SEE THAT NATIONALLY NOW THAT CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS ARE TRYING TO BUY ELECTIONS AND TO BUY, UH, FAVOR WITH GOVERNMENT.
DISAPPOINTING CHILDREN IN RECREATION CENTER, THEY HAVE DONE THAT.
OVER 20,000 PEOPLE HAVE SIGNED A PETITION TO SUPPORTING AND SUPPORTING THE CPO.
IT IS SM - S - THE, UH, PINE ISLAND UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE IN SMART GROWTH.
PINE ISLAND LOW BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY.
THE FAKE, IT WAS A FAKE, UH, PROPOSAL OVER 80,000 JOBS ON PAYING ON THE GO - UH, PAYING THE GOLF COURSE.
CPO PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS, UH, EXCUSE ME, BUFORD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS REJECTED IT THREE TIMES.
UM, VEHICLE TRAFFIC, NOT A PROBLEM.
PUBLIC SCHOOL POPULATION IS NOT AN ISSUE OF ANYTHING.
WE NEED MORE SCHOOL, MORE KIDS IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
THE BIRTH RATE IS, UH, DOWN TO LESS THAN TWO KIDS PER HOUSEHOLD.
REDUCTION IN DENSITY OF THE SITE, UH, S - THE CPO DOES NOT, IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF A DEN- DENSITY PLAN.
WE, WE'RE NOT SELLING THE CPO WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN 26 YEARS AGO.
THAT WAS NOT A PLAN TO SAY, WELL, LET'S, LET'S SELL THIS ZONING AUDIENCE ONE DAY.
GOLF COURSE WILL NOT, WILL CONTRIBUTE TO POLLUTION.
GOVERNOR MCNAIR HAS SUPPORTED THE CPO.
I THINK THE NEW GOVERNOR WILL DO THE SAME.
UH, LVO AND STATE HAS A STATE AND FEDERAL, UM, LAWSUITS, UH, DO NOT TAKE THAT TO A GUN.
IT SEEMS LIKE THEY HAVE A GUN TRYING TO PUT A GUN TO THE COUNCIL HEAD FOR APPROVAL TO MAKE A SETTLEMENT AND YOU SHOULD NOT GIVE IN.
[00:20:01]
ROBERT ADAMS. THE FOLLOWING DR.UH, ROBERT ADAMS, UH, PENN CENTER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
AND, UM, JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT THE PENN CENTER'S DEFENSE OF THE CPO DATES BACK TO THE EARLY 1990S IN THE PRESERVATION SCHOOL WHERE THIS KINDA, THIS POLICY EMERGED FROM A GR - A DIVERSE SET OF, UH, BEAUFORT COUNTY RESIDENTS FROM ST.
HELENA AS WELL AS OTHER AREAS, BLACK AND WHITE, WEALTHY AND STRUGGLING FOLKS WHO DECIDED THAT IT WAS TIME TO SORT OF CREATE A TOOL TO MANAGE GROWTH IN THE AREA, TO MAKE SURE THAT SOME AREAS REMAIN RURAL AND, UM, THAT REFLECTED THE CHARACTER, THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF BEAUFORT COUNTY.
AND SO THE CPO CAME OUT OF THAT AND IT IS AN IMPORTANT TOOL FOR MANAGING GROWTH IN ADDITION TO PROTECTING THE LOCAL AND, THE LOCAL CULTURE AND HERITAGE THAT ATTRACTS THOUSANDS OF VISITORS FROM ACROSS THE WORLD.
SO I SAY THAT THE C - THE CPO IS A SMART POLICY THAT REFLECTS DEMOCRATIC CONSENSUS AND SHOULD BE MAINTAINED.
AND FOLLOWING MS. UHAS, UH, IS FELICIA MARKA, LAMARCA.
AND RIGHT NOW THAT OUR, THAT IS OUR LAST SPEAKER.
GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNTY COUNCIL, NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE.
CHAIRMAN GLOVER, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
WE RECOGNIZE THIS IS A LOT OF HARD WORK.
UM, WE RECOGNIZE ALSO THAT THIS, UH, ISSUE HAS COME BEFORE COUNCIL AND ITS, UH, COMMITTEES MANY TIMES.
AND AS MANY TIMES AS IT COMES UP, WE WILL CONTINUE TO SHOW UP.
I AM, UH, SPEAKING, UM, ASKING, REQUESTING THAT YOU UPHOLD THE GUIDING DOCUMENT, THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
I'M GONNA EXPLAIN A COUPLE OF REASONS WHY.
FIRST OF ALL, NATURAL RESOURCES.
WE ARE VERY RICH WITH NATURAL RESOURCES IN OUR AREA.
WE ARE A COASTAL REGION WHERE WE HAVE A REAL OPPORTUNITY TO UPHOLD THAT.
I GREW UP ENJOYING OUR NATURAL RESOURCES.
MY CHILDREN WERE ABLE TO GROW UP ENJOYING OUR NATURAL RESOURCES, AND NOW MY ALMOST EIGHT GRANDCHILDREN ARE GROWING UP ENJOYING OUR COUNTY'S NATURAL RESOURCES.
WE HAVE A REAL OPPORTUNITY HERE, AND SO I'M ASKING YOU TO PROTECT THOSE RESOURCES, NOT JUST FOR THE CURRENT GENERATION, NOT JUST FOR OUR BENEFIT, BUT FOR THE FUTURE GENERATIONS, BECAUSE IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE PRESERVE THESE SPACES.
I KNOW YOU ALL TO BE MEN AND WOMEN OF INTEGRITY, AND SO I'M ASKING YOU TO PLEASE UPHOLD THE CPO, PART OF OUR GUIDING DOCUMENT, AND THANK YOU SO MUCH.
MS. LAMARCA? IS USUALLY VERY, VERY DIFFICULT AND TOUGH.
AND YOU'VE BEEN ASKED SEVERAL TIMES TO VOTE ON THIS.
AND WHILE I APPRECIATE WHEN YOU STAND WITH THE PEOPLE, I DON'T APPRECIATE WHEN THAT MAY BE AT THE COST OF THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE COUNTY.
I WON'T GO INTO THE REASONS BECAUSE I ONLY HAVE TWO MINUTES LEFT.
PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT CONSERVATION OF THE LAND, PROTECT THE NATURAL RESOURCES.
HOW DOES BUILDING THREE TIMES THE NUMBER OF HOMES CONSERVE THE LAND? HOW DOES 150 SEPTIC TANKS CONSERVE THE LAND AND THE WATER? HOW DOES BUILDING 90 DOCKS CONSERVE THE ENVIRONMENT? YES, THE DEVELOPER OWNER OF PINE ISLAND CAN MAKE A LOT OF MONEY IF HE STAYS IN THE CPO AND BUILDS ALL OF THIS.
SO YOU NEED TO OPEN YOUR MINDS AND UNDERSTAND IT IS NOT 100% ABOUT MONEY.
HE ACTUALLY DOES WANT TO CONSERVE THE LAND AND BUILD FEWER HOMES.
[00:25:01]
YES, TREES WILL COME DOWN.I DON'T THINK AS MANY TREES WILL COME DOWN AS WILL COME DOWN WITH 150 HOMES.
I'M ON THE OTHER SIDE, AND I CAN SEE THAT BOTH SIDES HAVE NOT BEEN HEARD FAIRLY.
THE VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE CPO COMMITTEE, IF I MAY BE SO BOLD AS TO DO SOME QUOTING, IT BECAME CLEAR TO ME AT THE SECOND READING REGARDING THE CPO STRENGTHENING THAT I IN THE COMMUNITY GENERALLY WERE UNCLEAR OF ALL OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE COUNCIL'S VOTE.
FURTHER, I ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT WE WERE MISLED BY THIRD PARTY ORGANIZATIONS INTO BELIEVING THAT THIS STRENGTHENING MEANT THE END TO ANY POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S ACTUALLY GONNA BE MORE DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE OF THIS STRENGTHENING.
GIVEN THE CHOICE BETWEEN A GOLF COURSE WITH POSSIBLE 60 HOMES, I WOULD RATHER THE FORMER.
DOING THE RIGHT THING IS TOUGH, HARD.
THAT, UH, CONCLUDES OUR, UM, PUBLIC COMMENTS PERIOD.
UM, AT THIS TIME, WE WILL MOVE THE AGENDA AND I PROMISED MY COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT I WOULD, I WILL BE OUT OF HERE BY FOUR O'CLOCK.
OH, YOU DID?
[7.a An Ordinance to Amend Ordinance 2026/16 authorizing the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents to convey a parcel of real property TMS No. R100 033 00A 021B 000 to the Habitat for Humanity of the Lowcountry for development of workforce/affordable housing and other matters related thereto. (FISCAL IMPACT: None) - Dylan Kidd, ACA; Habitat representatives ]
AGENDA IS 7A, UH, AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ORDINANCE 2026 / 16, AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO CONVEY A PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY.UH, THE NUMBER IS R133A21B TO THE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY F - OF THE LOW COUNTRY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF WORKFORCE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED TO THAT.
IT'S BEEN PROPERTY MOTION AND SECONDED.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR AND COMMITTEE.
UM, YOU MAY RECALL THAT THIS, UH, MATTER WENT UP TO COUNTY COUNCIL BY WAY OF AN ORDINANCE, UM, AND THREE READINGS BACK IN THE SPRING.
UM, THE PROPERTY AT ISSUE IS A SURPLUS PROPERTY OVER IN THE SHELL POINT AREA THAT WAS ULTIMATELY TRANSFERRED TO, UM, OR AUTHORIZED TO BE TRANSFERRED TO HABITAT FOR HUMANITY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE AND WORKFORCE HOUSING.
UM, AFTER THE ORDINANCE WAS ENACTED, WE RECEIVED A CONTACT FROM THE HABITAT'S, UM, ATTORNEY ASKING US TO MAKE SOME CHANGES TO THE STANDARD COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS THAT THE COUNTY USES FOR AFFORDABLE AND WORKFORCE HOUSING.
UM, AND SO THE SUGGESTIONS FROM HABITAT ARE WHAT YOU SEE CONTAINED IN THE BACKUP MATERIALS HERE.
UM, IN THE BODY OF THE ORDINANCE, THE D AND THE PSA, WE HAD OUR STANDARD COVENANTS, WHICH INVOLVED, YOU KNOW, 30 YEARS AND AMI THRESHOLDS AND ALL OF THAT.
HABITAT, UM, IS REQUESTING THAT WE, UH, REPLACE THESE WITH, UM, THEIR COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS THAT ALIGN WITH THEIR MODEL THAT PERMIT, UM, A QUALIFIED PURCHASER TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY AND ULTIMATELY BUILD EQUITY AND, AND TRANSFER IT DOWN THE LINE.
SO WHAT YOU'LL SEE IN THERE IS THAT THE, THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE COUNTY, UM, COULD CLAW THE PROPERTY BACK, UM, INCLUDE IF HABITAT, FOR WHATEVER REASON, DOES NOT DEVELOP IT INTO AFFORDABLE OR WORKFORCE HOUSING, UM, DOES NOT FIND A QUALIFIED PURCHASER, UM, OR THAT THE QUALIFIED PURCHASER WHO HAS THE PROPERTY SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFERS IT WITHIN FIVE YEARS, HABITAT WOULD HAVE A FIRST RIGHT OF REPURCHASE ON THAT PROPERTY.
UM, THEY HAVE STATED THAT THIS ALIGNS WITH THEIR MODEL AND IT'S WHAT THEY'D LIKE TO SEE FOR THEIR PROPERTIES.
THERE ARE HABITAT REPRESENTATIVES HERE TO THE EXTENT YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THEM, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY, UM, FOR THE COUNTY AS WELL.
UM, MAKING THESE ALTERATIONS SO THAT WE COULD GET THIS PROJECT MOVING AHEAD.
ED, UM, I WAS NOT AWARE OF IT THE FIRST TIME, SO NOW I'M FULLY AWARE OF HABITAT'S GENERAL OVERSIGHT OF THEIR PROPERTY.
SO I APPRECIATE YOUR WORK YOU DID ON THIS.
OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH ANYONE THAT, UM, RECEIVES THEIR HELP AND THEIR, UM, AND, AND WORKS WITH THE FAMILY SO THAT IT, THEY WILL BE SUCCESSFUL, UM, AND I JUST WOULD LIKE TO S - ANYONE ELSE? DO THEY WANNA SPEAK? NO.
HEATHER RATH ON BEHALF OF HABITAT FOR HUMANITY.
AGAIN, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR PARTNERSHIP.
THIS IS GOING TO BE MEANINGFUL FOR OUR FAMILY, AND WE REALLY DO APPRECIATE BEAUFORT COUNTY.
[00:30:01]
AND AS PROMISED, EVEN THOUGH SOME OF Y'ALL ARE EXITING COUNCIL, I WILL MAKE SURE THAT Y'ALL ARE THERE FOR THE RIBBON CUTTING AND THE GROUNDBREAKING.AND, UM, AGAIN, THANKS TO DYLAN AND HIS TEAM.
AND I'LL TURN IT OVER IF, BRENDA, IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANNA SAY.
YEAH, WE'RE TRYING TO MOVE HERE, SO I WILL JUST ADD MY THANK YOU, UH, TO HEATHER'S.
WE, WE DO APPRECIATE YOU WORKING WITH US AND RECOGNIZING THE PROGRAM THAT WE'VE HAD IN PLACE FOR A LONG TIME THAT, THAT WILL BE SUCCESSFUL FOR A HOMEOWNER.
AND PLEASE CONTACT ME BECAUSE IT'S IN MY, IT WILL BE IN MY OLD DISTRICT.
UM, THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE INDICATE BY RAISING YOUR HAND.
[7.b An Ordinance authorizing Beaufort County Council to declare a temporary moratorium on the acceptance, processing, approval, or issuance of certain applications, permits, and approvals for data centers in Beaufort County, South Carolina; providing for a comprehensive study of the potential cumulative impacts of data centers; invoking the pending ordinance doctrine; and providing for other matters related thereto. (FISCAL IMPACT: ) - Rob Merchant ]
UH, ITEM NUMBER B, UM, AN ORDIN- ORDINANCE, UH, AUTHORIZING BEAUFORT COUNTY COUNCIL TO DECLARE A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPT - ON THE ACCEPTANCE, PROCESSING, APPROVAL OR ISSUANCE OF CERTAIN APPLICATION PERMITS AND APPROVALS FOR A DATA CENTER IN BEAUFORT COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE POTENTIAL, UH, CULMATIVE, CUMULATIVE, CULMATIVE, UH, IMPACTS ON DATA CENTER INVOKING THE PENDING ORDINANCE DOCUMENT, DOCTRINE AND, UH, PROVIDING FOR ALL THE MATTERS RELATED TO THEREOF.WELL, GOOD AFTERNOON, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN.
WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU IS COMING AT THE REQUEST OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE AT YOUR SEPTEMBER MEETING.
UH, THERE WAS CONCERN BROUGHT UP ABOUT DATA CENTERS, AND I THINK IF, AS ANYONE WHO'S BEEN FOLLOWING THE NEWS, THIS HAS BEEN AN ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, BECOMING MORE AND MORE IN THE FOREFRONT.
YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE, THE ADVERSE IMPACTS OF DATA CENTERS AND, UM, REQUESTED THAT, UH, STAFF LOOK INTO THIS ISSUE.
WHAT WE BROUGHT FORWARD WERE SEVERAL OPTIONS, AND ONE OF THEM IS KIND OF THE FIRST STEP, AND THAT IS A MORATORIUM.
AND WHAT A MORATORIUM DOES IS IT PROVIDES A TIME PERIOD WHERE ACTION ON WHATEVER IS DESCRIBED IN THE MORATORIUM, THE ITEM IS STAYED UNTIL A PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF TIME WHERE, YOU KNOW, THE COUNTY HAS TIME TO STUDY THE ISSUE AND COME UP WITH ALTERNATIVES OR, OR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF DATA CENTERS.
AND WE ALSO LOOKED INTO, WE HAVE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET, WE HAVE A, A MORATORIUM, UH, THAT IS BEING PRESENTED FOR ACTION.
WE ALSO PROVIDED A DRAFT KIND OF A SAMPLE ORDINANCE FOR, ONE WOULD BE A PROHIBITION OF DATA CENTERS AND THE OTHER ONE IS MORE OF A REGULATION OF DATA CENTERS.
SO TO KIND OF GIVE YOU THE SPECTRUM OF WHAT ACTIONS COUNCIL COULD TAKE IN THE FUTURE AND THE COMPLEXITY OF THE ISSUE, I THINK IF YOU START LOOKING AT IT, YOU REALIZE THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT ISSUES THAT, YOU KNOW, WOULD NEED TO BE STUDIED AND ADDRESSED.
BUT THE STEP BEING TAKEN TODAY, UM, IT WOULD BE, UH, THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM.
AND IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS ITEM PE- PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THIS MEETING, UH, THIS IS GOING TO THE, UM, 9TH, THE, THE NOVEMBER 9TH COUNCIL MEETING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.
YES, WHICH I BELIEVE WHAT THEY, THEY PLAN ON INVOKING PENDING ORDINANCE AT THAT MEETING, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT, UM, AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANNA PROVIDE SOME BACKGROUND.
JUST THAT THE, UH, ORDINANCE HAVE PASSED AT THE FIRST READING.
FIRST READING, PENDING APPROVAL AT THE THIRD READING RATHER THAN WAITING TILL THE THIRD READING.
UM, THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE A RECOMMENDATION FOR 12 MONTHS.
UH, IS THAT, UH, THE SPIRIT OF THIS MOTION HERE OR DO, DO WE NEED TO INSERT 12 MONTHS IN THERE? SO, UM, WELL - OR TIMETABLE.
SO THIS DID GO BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEY, UM, UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED, YOU KNOW, FORWARDING THIS TO, TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL, BUT THEY DID RECOMMEND...
AT THE REQUEST OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE, WE WENT WITH A NINE MONTH TIMEFRAME AND THEY FELT THAT THAT WAS NOT LONG ENOUGH THEY RECOMMENDED A 12 MONTH.
[00:35:01]
WERE LOOKING AT IS STILL THE ORIGINAL DRAFT WITH THE NINE MONTH, BUT IT'S COMING WITH A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, TO EXTEND THAT TIME PERIOD TO 12 MONTHS.AND I, UM, WANT THE AUTHOR OF THE MOTION IF HE SO DESIRE TO INCLUDE THE 12 MONTHS.
UM, YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
I, I, I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD DISCUSS AT THE 9TH.
UM, I JUST CAME BACK FROM THE SOUTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY CONFERENCE WHERE THIS WAS THOROUGHLY DISCUSSED.
THE REASON IT MIGHT, UH, BE BETTER TO DO A NINE MONTH IS THAT STATE IS INTIMATELY INVOLVED IN PROPOSING STATE LEGISLATION FOR DATA CENTERS.
UH, THE PROHIBITION OF A DATA CENTER IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO DO.
THERE ARE CERTAIN LEVELS OF DATA CENTERS THAT WE WILL HAVE TO ADDRESS.
UH, I DON'T THINK THAT BEAUFORT COUNTY HAS THE LAND TO HAVE WHAT THEY CALL THE HYPER DATA, DATA CENTERS THAT, UH, SUCH A- AS AWS OR GOOGLE WOULD HAVE, BUT THERE ARE OTHER DATA CENTERS THAT WOULD BE A POSITIVE IMPACT.
AND SO I, I WOULD OBSO - A- ABSOLUTELY MOVE THIS FORWARD, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT WE NEED 12 MONTHS BEFORE WE COME UP WITH THE APPROPRIATE ORDINANCE TO FIT BEAUFORT COUNTY.
SO THE AUTHOR DID, DID NOT WANT TO INSERT THREE MORE MONTHS.
UM, LET ME JUST SAY ALSO THAT, UM, THE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, DID NOT UNANIMOUSLY, UM, UH, FORCE SET THIS FORWARD.
AND, AND REAL QUICKLY, IF I CAN KIND OF WALK THROUGH THIS, JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA ABOUT WHAT, WHAT IS IN THE MORATORIUM, BECAUSE IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT, THAT CERTAIN INFORMATION IS IN THERE.
SO THE, WHAT IT STARTS WITH AFTER YOU GET THROUGH THE RECITALS IS A DEFINITION OF A DATA CENTER, YOU KNOW, AND SO JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE NOT INADVERTENTLY PUTTING A PROHIBITION OR A TEMPORARY PROHIBITION ON USES THAT, YOU KNOW, COULD BE ERRONEOUSLY, YOU KNOW, CALLED A DATA CENTER, YOU KNOW, LIKE WHETHER IT'S A, YOU, YOU KNOW, A SMALL DATA BACKUP FOR, FOR A BUSINESS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO THAT, THAT, THAT DEFINITION IS SPELLED OUT IN THE ORDINANCE.
UM, IT TALKS ABOUT THE, YOU KNOW, IT, IT HAS, IT GOES THROUGH THE TIMEFRAME, YOU KNOW, SO OBVIOUSLY IT'S ESTABLISHING HERE IN THE DRAFT NINE MONTHS.
THEN IT GOES INTO THE APPLICATIONS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE MORATORIUM.
SO IT'S JUST VERY SPECIFIC, YOU KNOW, IT GOES EVERYWHERE FROM, UH, ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS, SPECIAL USES, VARIANCES, UH, BUILDING PERMITS, YOU KNOW, ALL THE WAY DOWN THE LINE OF DIFFERENT PERMITS THAT WOULD BE ISSUED OR DIFFERENT, UH, PERMISSIONS, UH, GIVEN BY COUNCIL.
ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE, UM, SUBJECT TO THE MORATORIUM AND, AND, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY STAYED FOR THE TIME PERIOD OF THAT.
UM, IN ADDITION, ANY ITEM THAT IS IN THE PIPELINE, WHICH CURRENTLY THERE ARE NO DATA CENTERS IN THE PIPELINE, BUT IF THERE WAS, IT OBVIOUSLY WOULD NOT APPLY TO THAT.
SO, I MEAN, THAT'S THE IMPORTANCE OF MOVING FORWARD WITH THE ADOPTION, IF THAT'S THE INTEREST OF COUNCIL.
IT THEN GOES INTO, UM, SO THAT WOULD BE LIKE EXEMPTIONS, INVESTED RIGHTS.
THEN IT GOES INTO KIND OF OUTLINING WHAT COUNCIL INTENDS TO TAKE PART IN DURING THE TIMEFRAME.
SO IT, IT TALKS ABOUT ALL OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF DATA CENTERS AND PUTS A LOT OF EMPHASIS ON, YOU KNOW, GOING INTO, YOU KNOW, STUDYING THESE, LOOKING AT THE NECESSARY STEPS, YOU KNOW, IF, IF COUNCIL WANTS TO REGULATE THESE, UH, IN ADDITION TO HAVING A PUBLIC COMPONENT.
SO THERE, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT DEFINITELY FAVORS, YOU KNOW, THIS BEING AN EFFORT THAT INVOLVES STAFF AND THE PUBLIC AND, AND ULTIMATELY COUNSEL FOR DECISION.
UM, AND THEN FINALLY, AS, UM, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY SAID, IT, IT INVOKES PENDING ORDINANCE DOCTRINE, THAT LANGUAGE IS IN THE ORDINANCE.
SO THAT KIND OF GIVES YOU A, AN IDEA OF WHAT...
SO IT'S BASICALLY SAYING THE TIME PERIOD, WHAT YOU INTEND TO DO DURING THAT TIME PERIOD, WITH THE POTENTIAL, I WOULD SAY, OF THREE DIFFERENT OUTCOMES.
ONE WOULD BE A PROHIBITION, ONE WOULD BE THESE ARE JUST POSSIBLE OUTCOMES, SOME SORT OF REGULATION, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT, IT WOULD BE A ZONING REGULATION OR WHATEVER
[00:40:02]
THROUGH THIS PROCESS IT WAS DEEMED NECESSARY TO, YOU KNOW, REGULATE THE, THE ADVERSE IMPACTS OF DATA CENTERS.OR THE THIRD WOULD BE THAT, YOU KNOW, GOING THROUGH THE STUDY, WE DETERMINED THAT THE EXISTING ORDINANCES ARE DOING THEIR JOB AND THERE'S NO NEED.
SO THAT, THAT KIND OF GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF THE SPECTRUM OF POSSIBLE OUTCOMES.
BUT THE BENEFIT OF THIS IS IT'S, IT'S GIVING COUNCIL TIME TO THOROUGHLY STUDY THE ISSUE AND THEN LEAD IT TOWARDS MAKING, HOPEFULLY MAKING THE RIGHT CHOICE.
ANY FURTHER, MR. DAWSON AND THEN MRS. TABERNACK? YEAH, UH, WE DON'T KNOW THE PROS AND THE CONS AS FAR AS HOW THESE, UH, DATA CENTERS GOING TO IMPACT, UH, THE ENVIRONMENT AND OUR COUNTY AS A WHOLE.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, RECOMMENDED, UH, A 12 MONTH MORATORIUM.
THE MAKE OF A MOTION HERE AT THE NATURAL RESOURCE COMMITTEE, UH, MR. PASSMAN, UM, MADE THE MOTION TO, UM, TO ACTUALLY, UH, GO WITH THE NINE MONTHS MORATORIUM.
I, I'D LIKE TO AMEND, UH, THE RECOMMENDATION, UH, NO, NO.
I'D LIKE TO AMEND, UH, MR. PASSMAN'S MOTION, UH, THAT WE DO NOT GO WITH THE NINE MONTH AND WE ACCEPT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION OF 12 MONTHS.
THAT'S MY MO - THAT'S MY AMENDED MOTION.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? I'LL SECOND.
MS. HOWARD IS MOVED AND SECONDED.
UH, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT ON THAT, ON THE GENERAL MOTION.
SO I LEARNED SOMETHING NEW, A FLOATING ZONE.
STRICTLY WITH THE - I'LL VOTE ON THE AMENDED AND THEN GO TO MY FLOATING ZONE.
ANY, ANY, UM, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION? NO.
UM, THAT AMENDMENT IS TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF 12 MONTHS.
THOSE IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION, PLEASE INDICATE BY RAISING YOUR HAND.
THOSE OPPOSED? THERE'S ONE OPPOSAL, TWO OPPOSAL WITH MR. MC- MCELLAN.
WHICH ONE? ARE YOU OPPOSED OR IN FAVOR? MUTE.
YOU'RE ON MUTE, RIGHT? IS IT THIS VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE 12 MONTHS? YES.
YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M VOTING FOR.
THAT'S ONE OF THE, YOUR VOICE DELAYED MR. MCELLAN, THAT'S ALL.
SO WE HAVE THE AMENDED MOTION ON THE FLOOR AT THIS TIME, UH, WHICH IS BASICALLY THE, THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED.
MRS. TABANEK, YOU GOT A QUESTION ON THE FLOATING ZONE? SO I LEARNED ABOUT THE FLOATING ZONE.
I THOUGH THERE WAS A GOOD DESCRIPTION, BUT I'M ASKING ABOUT PAGE 40, THE MINIMUM SITE AREA.
IT SAYS, "PROPERTY SHALL CONTAIN AT LEAST 50 CONTIGUOUS ACRES UNLESS BLAH, BLAH, BLAH." SO IS THAT A STANDARD PEOPLE PUT IN OR IS THAT SPECIFIC FOR OUR COUNTY? SO THAT, AND THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF, THIS IS A DRAFT OR A, NOT EVEN A DRAFT.
I WOULD SAY IT'S A TEMPLATE THAT KIND OF OUTLINES THE ISSUES.
SO THAT 50 ACRES IS A NUMBER CHOSEN FROM - RANDALL.
ANY, ANY, BUT, AND THAT KIND OF GIVES YOU A DATA, BUT THAT'S ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL WOULD BE LOOKING AT IS, YOU KNOW, HOW LARGE, YOU KNOW, WOULD TRIGGER THIS ORDINANCE, YOU KNOW, THAT TYPE OF THING.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? WHICH IS TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF 12 MONTHS ON THE MORATORIUM.
NOW IT'S THE MAIN MOTION AS, AS- AS AMENDED.
THAT'S THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED.
THOSE IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION, PLEASE INDICATE BY RAISING YOUR HAND.
[7.c An Ordinance amending the zoning map for 502 acres located on Dulamo Road and St. Helenville Road (R300 007 000 0002 0000; R300 012 000 0256 0000) for the removal from the Cultural Protection Overlay (CPO) district. (FISCAL IMPACT: ) - Rob Merchant ]
WE'RE MOVING THE AGENDA TO ITEM NUMBER C.UH, IT'S AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FOR 502 ACRES LOCATED ON LAMA ROAD AND ST.
HELENAVILLE ROAD, UM, UH, MAP 30700002 AND MAP 30012, PARCEL 12, UM, UM, 0256, UH, FOR THE REMOVAL FROM THE CULTURAL PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT.
THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
[00:45:01]
I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT THIS COMMITTEE FORWARD THIS MATTER WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION SO THAT THE FULL COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 9TH CAN HEAR, CAN, UM, CONSIDER IT WITH THE LEGAL INFORMATION THAT COUNCIL HAS REQUESTED AND IS SCHEDULED TO RECEIVE NEXT MONDAY.UM, SINCE WE WERE UNABLE TO HEAR FROM THE ATTORNEYS ON NINE / 28, THAT MEANS THIS COMMITTEE IS BEING ASKED TO FORM A RECOMMENDATION WITHOUT LEGAL BACKGROUND AND FULL, FULL COUNSEL WE HAVE, THAT WE WILL HAVE NEXT WEEK.
NOW, I WANNA POINT OUT THAT MR. MCALLEN AND MR. BARTHOLOMEW ASKED FOR THE RISK ASSESSMENT.
WE HAVE NOT GOT IT BECAUSE OUR, THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE COUNTY IN THE FEDERAL CASE HAS BEEN ON VACATION.
AND I UNDERSTAND FROM MR. HOLBERT THAT WE SHOULD BE RECEIVING THAT THIS WEEK SOMETIME.
UM, ALSO, SO WE DON'T WANNA MAKE A DECISION TODAY.
WE WANT, I THINK, I'M RECOMMENDING THAT WE, UM, FORWARD IT WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION TO FULL COUNSEL NEXT WEEK.
UM, THE, THE MOTION IS ON THE FLOOR THAT YOU SECONDED, UH, IS FOR THE REMOVAL FROM THE CULTURAL PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT.
AND, UM, I'M ASSUMING THAT A PRESENTATION IS COMING FROM MR. MERCHANT WITH THEIR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
AND I SEE THE ATTORNEY FOR, UM, UM, UM, FOR PINE ISLAND IS HERE.
SO I DON'T KNOW, I MEAN, WE, THIS IS BEFORE US TODAY AND I THINK WE WILL GET A PRESENTATION.
NOW, ARE YOU ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WE NEED? NO, I'M JUST ASKING WE FORWARD THIS ON.
IT WILL GO - WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION.
ANY DECISION THAT'S MADE HERE WILL AUTOMATICALLY GO TO COUNSEL FOR - DID SHE GET A SECOND? NO, SHE HAS NOT GOTTEN A SECOND.
BUT - YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT IT UNTIL SHE GETS A SECOND.
BUT, UM - WHAT ARE YOU SECONDING? UM, MR. REED.
SECONDED WHAT? TO MOVE IT TO COUNTY COUNCIL WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION - OKAY.
SO NOW WE TAKE A VOTE ON THAT, YES? YES.
UM, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT TABLE? SO I HAVE A QUESTION.
I MEAN, IT, TO GO WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION IS, I BELIEVE, THE AMENDED.
YES, THAT'S JUST ALL I WANNA DO.
SO, I MEAN - BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T GOT ALL THE LEGAL INFORMATION THAT WE ASKED FOR TWO WEEKS AGO BECAUSE, UH, THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING US IN THE LAWSUIT HAS BEEN ON VACATION AND SHE HASN'T GIVEN IT TO US YET.
AND I UNDERSTAND FROM MR. HOLBERT, AFTER A CONVERSATION LAST WEEK, THAT SHE'S GOING TO BE GIVING IT JUST, GIVING IT TO US SOMETIME THIS WEEK.
MS. HOLBERT, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT ISSUE? I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THE MATTER WAS A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, NOT NECESSARILY THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT PENDING BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE RIGHT NOW.
SO WE DIDN'T RECEIVE THE LEGAL ADVICE THAT NIGHT FOR THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, AND THAT HAS BEEN RESUBMITTED AND WILL BE DISCUSSED IN CAUCUS ON NOVEMBER 9TH.
THIS IS A SEPARATE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT WHICH HAS TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND THE COMMIT - THE COUNCIL'S PROCESS IS THAT IT GOES TO, UH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THEN TO THE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE FOR ALL ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS, AND THEN TO COUNCIL FOR, UH, UP TO THREE READINGS IF IT PASSES.
UM, SO THIS, UM, I BELIEVE MS. BROWN IS MAKING A MOTION BASED UPON A COMMUNICATION FROM MR. UH, TROPIANO, UH, TO THE CHAIR TODAY IN WHICH THEY'RE ASKING FOR THERE NOT TO BE A VOTE REGARDING THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT THAT IT BE FORWARDED TO COUNCIL WITHOUT A VOTE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL SO THAT YOU CAN RECEIVE THE LEGAL ADVICE RELATED TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH WOULD RESOLVE ALL THE LITIGATION.
UH, BUT AGAIN, THAT IS SEPARATE AND APART FROM THIS PENDING ZONING MAP AMENDMENT, UH, IF YOU WILL.
UH, THEY'RE KIND OF TANGENTIALLY RE- RELATED, OF COURSE.
UM, MR. HOBART, LET ME MAKE SURE, UH, I UNDERSTAND AND AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC HERE, WHETHER WE VOTED UP OR DOWN THE AMENDMENT, UM, THE MAP AMENDMENT, IT WILL STILL GO TO COUNCIL ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
IT'S A, IT'S AN ORDINANCE WHICH - SO IF IT DOESN'T F - IF IT PASSES, IT STILL GOES TO COUNCIL TO HEAR IT.
IF IT DOESN'T PASS, IT STILL GOES TO COUNCIL ON THE 9TH TO HEAR IT.
AM I NOT RIGHT? REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OR DENIAL, UM,
[00:50:01]
IT STILL HAS TO GO TO COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION.IT'S AN ORDINANCE, AND THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES FULL COUNCIL VOTE, UH, FOR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL.
AND OF COURSE, IT TAKES THREE VOTES TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE.
UH, SO REGARDLESS WHAT THIS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS, IT STILL HAS TO GO TO COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION.
WITH THAT, I MEAN, UNDERSTANDING, WHY WOULD WE EVEN WANNA HAVE THIS AMENDMENT IF IT'S GONNA GO TO COUNCIL ANYWAY? SO - IT'S PART OF THE PROCESS AND - WELL, I'M SAYING IT'S GONNA BE PART TO GET THE THREE READINGS, SO THERE'S NO REASON TO DO THIS.
NO, NO, BUT IT'S PART OF THE PROCESS AND OUR, OUR RULES SAY THAT IT COMES HERE AND THEN IT GOES TO COUNCIL.
THE REQUEST IS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO NOT HAVE A RECOMMENDATION.
SO ARE YOU CALLING A VOTE, YORK, ON THE, UH, ON MS. BROWNS? NOT YET.
I'M JUST TRYING TO GET CLARIFICATION.
UM, JUST WANNA GET CLARIFICATION, MR. MCGOWAN.
THE REQUEST IS LIKELY MADE, UH, SO THAT THERE'S NOT A NEGATIVE CONNOTATION TO THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT UNTIL YOU'VE HEARD LEGAL ADVICE RELATED TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
THEY'D LIKE TO KEEP IT NEUTRAL TILL IT GETS TO COUNCIL IS WHY THEY'RE MAKING THAT REQUEST IS MY GUESS.
UH, THAT'S THE AMENDMENTS THAT'S ON THE FLOOR.
ANY MORE DISCUSSION? I'D LIKE A ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE.
MR. REEDS HAS SOMETHING TO SAY.
I'M JUST CONFUSED IN A SENSE THAT IF THIS IS GONNA GO TO COUNCIL ANYWAY, WHAT WOULD BE THE REASON? I, I DON'T - THAT'S OUR PROCESS.
OUR PROCESS IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION TOOK A VOTE.
IT GOES TO THE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE.
THE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE TAKES A VOTE TO SEND IT TO COUNCIL.
THAT'S THE PROCESS WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW.
THE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE WILL TAKE A VOTE, YAY OR NAY, AND IT GOES TO COUNCIL.
I, I JUST, AGAIN, MAYBE I'M CONFUSED, BUT I HEARD REGARDLESS HOW THIS GOES, IT'S GOING TO COUNCIL ANYWAY.
SO LET, LET'S JUST LET IT GO TO COUNCIL.
WELL, YOU HAVE TO TRY YOUR SECOND.
WHY COULD, CAN I, I'LL WITHDRAW MY, UM, SECOND THEN.
I'LL WITHDRAW TOO BECAUSE - HOLD IT, HOLD IT, HOLD IT.
THE OFFER OF THE MOTION - OKAY.
UM, IF SHE WANTS TO WITHDRAW IT, IF NOT, WE'LL VOTE ON IT AND WE MOVE FORWARD.
I'M GONNA WITHDRAW IT BECAUSE - OKAY.
OKAY, BECAUSE I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT - GOTCHA.
WELL, ID SAY THE ROB MERCHANT.
I DIDN'T KNOW MR. TROPIANO WAS GONNA SPEAK TOO.
IS HE GONNA SPEAK? UH, THESE...
YEAH, THAT'S PART OF THE PROCESS.
WITHDRAW MINE AS WELL, MY SECOND.
SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE BACK TO THE MAIN MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR, WHICH IS TO, UM, UM, LOOK AT THE REMOVAL, UM, UM, OF THE 502 ACRES FROM THE CULTURAL PROTECTION OVERLAY.
THOUGH I WAS GONNA GET OFF THE HOOK.
EITHER WAY, YOU WERE NOT GONNA GET OFF THE HOOK.
WELL, UM, SO AS YOU, UH, MENTIONED IN THE INTRODUCTION OF THIS AGENDA ITEM, THIS PROJECT CONSISTS OF REMOVING TWO PARCELS THAT MAKE UP A TOTAL OF 502 ACRES.
THEY'RE CURRENTLY ZONED RURAL WITH A CULTURAL PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT, WHICH IS AN OVERLAY OVER THE RURAL.
AND WHAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING IS THAT THE LAND REMAIN WITH THE UNDERLYING ZONING RURAL, THAT THE, UM, CULTURAL PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT BE REMOVED FROM THAT.
AND, UH, JUST A REAL QUICK SUMMARY, UM, YOU KNOW, RURAL IS THE PRIMARY ZONING DESIGNATION IN OUR RURAL AREAS OF THE COUNTY, UH, WITH, IN, ON ST.
IT PRETTY MUCH APPLIES TO THE ENTIRE ISLAND WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CORNERS COMMUNITY AND, UH, LANDS END.
AND THAT, YOU KNOW, DISTRICT IS BASICALLY, AS IT'S STATED IN THE ORDINANCE, INTENDED TO PRESERVE THE RURAL CHARACTER OF BEAUFORT COUNTY.
UH, YOU KNOW, IT APPLIES TO SPARSELY SETTLED LANDS, AN OPEN CULTIVATED STATE, YOU KNOW, AND IT INCLUDES, YOU KNOW, RURAL RESIDENTIAL FARMS, UM, AND, AND, YOU KNOW, NATURAL AREAS.
SO YOU HAVE THAT UNDERLYING DISTRICT, UM, AND IF YOU THINK OF JUST TO KINDA, KIND OF A REFRESHER, AN OVERLAY DISTRICT, YOU HAVE YOUR UNDERLYING ZONING MAP.
OVERLAY DISTRICT IS ALMOST LIKE YOU HAVE A TRANSPARENCY THAT YOU'RE PUTTING OVER THE MAP, AND IN AN, UH, OVERLAY DISTRICT THEN, IT COULD HAVE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS, UM, ALLOWANCES OR RESTRICTIONS, AND THAT IS WHAT THE CULTURAL PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT DOES.
UM, THE CPO DISTRICT BASICALLY, UM, YOU KNOW, SPECIFIC FOR THAT COMMUNITY, UM, PROHIBITS RESTRICTED ACCESS OR GATED COMMUNITIES, RESORTS, GOLF COURSES, AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WHICH ARE DEEMED BY THE CPO TO BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH CULTURAL PROTECTION.
SO THAT IS WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING
[00:55:01]
TO REMOVE FROM THIS PROPERTY.AND SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE USES THAT, YOU KNOW, FOR PINE ISLAND THAT WOULD BE RESTRICTED BY THE CULTURAL PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT WOULD BE PERMITTED IN THE, IN THE UNDERLYING, UH, T2 RURAL DISTRICT.
JUST TO GO OVER A, A QUICK, YOU KNOW, I THINK SOME OF THE PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, COVERED THIS, BUT THIS HAS BEEN, UH, IN PLACE.
THIS HAS BEEN A COUNTY LAND USE POLICY SINCE 1999.
IT CAME OUT OF A COMMUNITY PROCESS AND WAS ADOPTED, UH, WHEN THE COUNTY ADOPTED ITS ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ORDINANCE.
THAT, UM, POLICY THAT SET THAT IN PLACE CONTINUED THROUGH WHEN THE COUNTY ADOPTED A, A, UH, REVISED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN 2010, AND THEN WITH OUR CURRENT ZONING OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH WAS ADOPTED IN NOVEMBER OF, UM, 2021.
SO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ACTUALLY IN TWO DIFFERENT PLACES, ONE IN THE, UM, SPOTLIGHT ST.
HELENA SECTION OF THE CULTURAL, UH, RESOURCES SECTION OF THE CO - OR OF THE PLAN, AND THEN ALSO IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP CALL FOR THIS, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY CALL IN THE FUTURE LAND USE, IT'S A CULTURAL PROTECTION, FUTURE LAND USE OVERLAY, AND THEN IT'S ALSO REFERENCED IN THAT.
SO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS VERY CLEAR ABOUT THE CULTURAL PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT IN THAT IT IS A POLICY SUPPORTED IN THE PLAN.
AND IT ALSO OUTLI- OUTLINED A, UM, IT RECOMMENDED UPHOLDING, BUT ALSO FORMING A COMMITTEE TO STUDY AND, YOU KNOW, WHERE NEEDED STRENGTHEN THE DISTRICT.
UM, THAT WAS A POLICY THAT WAS MADE IN, IN 2021.
AS A RESULT, COUNCIL APPOINTED CULTURAL PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT COMMITTEE, AND IN THE, UM, F - WINTER AND SPRING OF 2023, THAT COMMITTEE PUT TOGETHER A SERIES OF REVISIONS TO THE CULTURAL PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT, WHICH, UM, PROVIDED A LITTLE MORE, UH, SUBSTANCE IN THE BACKGROUND OR THE, THE RATIONALE FOR THE DISTRICT.
UH, AND IT ALSO PROVIDED CLARIFYING LANGUAGE FOR THE DEFINITION OF GOLF COURSES.
AND SO THAT WAS DONE BY THE COMMITTEE.
IT WAS PRESENTED TO COUNCIL AND ADOPTED IN, UM, MAY OF 2023.
SO ALL OF THAT TO SAY IS THAT THIS HAS BEEN COUNTY LAND USE POLICY FOR 27 YEARS RECENTLY WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, YOU KNOW, UPHELD AND, AND SUPPORTED BY THE COUNTY COUNCIL.
AND, YOU KNOW, THE OTHER IMPORTANT THING TO MENTION IS THAT THE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES WERE DRAWN, UH, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING ENCROACHING DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE CULTURE OF, UH, ST.
AND FOR THAT REASON, IT WAS VERY SPECIFIC THAT IT APPLIED TO THE ENTIRE ISLAND, BUT THERE WAS A DESIRE GOING BACK TO 1999 NOT TO RENDER USES THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED NON-CONFORMING.
SO THE CURRENT BOUNDARIES DO NOT INCLUDE DATA ISLAND BECAUSE THAT HAD BEEN IN PLACE FOR DECADES AND IT'S A GATED COMMUNITY WITH A GOLF COURSE, AND ALSO DID NOT INCLUDE HARBOR FRIP AND DIDN'T INCLUDE THE ISLANDS THAT HAVE NO CAR ACCESS IN ST.
HELENA, JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, WEREN'T SEEN AS, AS, I GUESS, PRESE- PRESENTING A POSSIBLE, UH, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL IN THAT, IN THAT AREA.
SO WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE, UM, POLICY THAT'S BEEN IN PLACE.
UM, IT'S, YOU KNOW, BEEN UPHELD BY COUNCIL.
IN ADDITION, I, I DON'T KNOW IF I REALLY NEED TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORY OR NOT
AT THAT TIME, IT WAS A ZONING, UH, MAP AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THIS PROPERTY.
IT'S PRETTY MUCH THE SAME PROPERTY AS WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED TODAY FROM THE CULTURAL PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT.
THAT WAS, UM, DEFEATED BY COUNCIL IN JUNE OF 2023.
IN MAY OF 2025, WELL, NO, THAT WAS WHEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION LOOKED AT IT, BUT IT WAS, UM, SEPTEMBER 2025.
AT THAT TIME, IT WAS A RECOMMENDATION, OR IT WAS A PROPOSAL FOR 437 ACRES.
IT EXCLUDED A 65 ACRE PARCEL THAT WAS ALREADY, UM, APPROVED FOR, UM, A 20-LOT SUBDIVISION.
BUT AT THAT TIME, THAT WAS COUPLED WITH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH SPECIFICALLY OUTLINED THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD OCCUR ON THE PINE ISLAND PROPERTY.
UM, THIS TIME, IT'S SIMILAR TO THE FIRST, UM, REQUEST...
[01:00:01]
IS NO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ATTACHED TO THIS.THIS IS A STRAIGHTFORWARD ZONING MAP AMENDMENT.
SO, YOU KNOW, WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU COULD BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, THE, THE RESULT WOULD BE THE USES THAT ARE PROHIBITED IN THE CULTURAL PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT IF IT WERE TAKEN AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY WOULD BE PERMITTED.
SO I THINK THAT THAT'S, THAT'S THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE THAT WOULD BE CREATED BY THIS AMENDMENT.
UM, WITH THAT, UM, STAFF, YOU KNOW, IN EVALUATING THIS WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THE PAST RECOMMENDATION, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL, THE PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT.
UM, THE LOCATION EXTENT OF THE CPO BOUNDARIES WERE PURPOSEFULLY DELINEATED TO SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE PURPOSE STATEMENT OF THE CPO.
MOVING THE BOUNDARIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCLUDING CERTAIN PARCELS ERODES THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CPO BY ALLOWING THE VERY USES THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS POSING THE GREATEST THREAT TO THE CHARACTER AND STABILITY ISLAND, STABILITY OF THE ISLAND COMMUNITY.
IN SUM, THE PROPOSED REZONING IS INCONSISTENT WITH AND SEEKS TO DEFEAT THE GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE PURPOSES OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE.
IT IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE.
IT IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE DEMONSTRATED NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY WHICH LED TO THE CREATION OF THE CPO.
IT'S NOT REQUIRED BY CHANGING CONDITIONS, IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING OR PROPOSED USES SURROUNDING THE LAND.
IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE ZONE OR USE FOR THE LAND.
IT'S LIKELY TO ADVERSELY IMPACT NEARBY LANDS, WILL CONFLICT WITH ANTICIPATED LOGICAL ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND WILL LIKELY HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND WILL LIKELY RESULT IN INCREASED STRAIN AND STRESS IN PUBLIC FACILITIES.
UM, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION LOOKED AT THIS AT THEIR OCTOBER 5TH MEETING AND THEY VOTED, UM, S - UH, UNANIMOUSLY TO DENY THE RECOMMENDATION, SO, OR DENY THE APPLICATION.
ANY, ANY QUESTION FOR MR. I HAVE SOME.
UM, ROB, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE.
I'M GONNA TALK ABOUT IT AGAIN.
THE SIGNS SAY NO GATES, NO GOLF, AND IT ALSO SAYS NO RESORTS, CORRECT? NO RESORTS.
NO GATES, NO GOLF, NO RESORTS.
NO GATES, NO GOLF, NO RESORTS.
I SAY IT FIVE TIMES AND IT GETS, IT GETS, IT GETS TO THE THICK SKULL.
NO GATES, NO GOLF, NO RESORTS.
SO WHY DID THE WEDDING RESORT THAT WAS PUT OUT ON ST.
HELENA NEVER CAME TO PLANNING AND ZONING? IT NEVER CAME TO COUNTY COUNCIL.
IT NEVER CAME FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.
IT'S LISTED WITH THE COUNTY AS AN RV RESORT, 125 RV SLOTS OUT IN ST.
AND I WANT EVERYONE TO LISTEN TO ME THAT LIVES OUT THERE.
THERE IS NO TRA - THERE WAS NO, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, THERE WAS NO TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY WITH 125 RVS ON THE ROAD.
IS THAT RIGHT? I WOULD NEED TO CHECK THAT.
HELENA'S GONNA BE IN HERE NEXT YEAR YELLING AND SCREAMING.
THERE'S A RV THAT GOT STUCK OUT ON THE ROAD OUT THERE AND I COULDN'T GET THROUGH.
BUT THERE WAS NO TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY.
ISN'T IT? SO IF IT'S OKAY FOR THE WEDDING RESORT AND THE RV RESORT, WHY ISN'T IT OKAY FOR PINE ISLAND? UH, I THINK - IT SAYS NO GATES, NO GAUZE, NO RESORTS.
MR. BROWN, MS. BROWN, MS. BROWN? YES.
UM, LET MR. MERCHANT, UM, UH, TRY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
YOU ASK ABOUT THE, AN RV PARK THAT IS BEING CONSIDERED AND IS GOING THROUGH, UM, THE PROCESS AT THIS TIME, BUT I'M GONNA LET MR. MERCHANT AS BEST HE CAN, AND IF HE CAN'T, WE'LL FIND THE ANSWER FOR YOUR QUESTION.
CAN YOU ANSWER THOSE TWO QUESTIONS SHE HAS? SHE HAS - YES.
AND I, AND I PROVIDED ANSWERS FOR THESE, I THINK TO COUNCIL BECAUSE I THINK THIS CAME UP - NO.
BUT THE RV, UM, IT IS, IT IS UNDER OUR ORDINANCE AS A CAMPGROUND AND BECAUSE THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S CALLED A RESORT OR, YOU KNOW, A CAMPGROUND, IT BASICALLY MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF A CAMPGROUND WHICH IS PERMITTED IN RURAL.
AND SO WE, YOU KNOW, REVIEWED AND THAT APPLICATION AS SUCH.
IT'S PERMITTED USE, IT'S BY RIGHT.
[01:05:01]
WITH STAFF TO SEE ABOUT THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS BECAUSE WE REQUIRE ONE ANYTIME A DEVELOPMENT, UH, TRIGGERS 50 PEAK HOUR TRIPS.SO, UM, BUT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF THE PROCESS.
WE - THE MOST IMPORTANT PART IS THAT IT'S NOT PROHIBITED BY THE - CPO.
WHAT ABOUT THE WEDDING? IN THE WEDDING, WE HAVE PERMITTED IN RURAL AREAS WEDDING VENUES AND THEY'RE TYPICALLY, UM, OUTDOOR AREA WHERE THERE ARE TENTS SET UP TEMPORARILY.
UM, AND IT IS SOMETHING THAT I WILL CHECK BECAUSE I, I DON'T HAVE ON THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT THERE IS A PERMITTED USE IN THERE OUR USE TABLE.
IT'S A BY-RIGHT USE AND THAT'S WHAT THOSE WERE PERMITTED, UH, PERMITTED UNDER.
WE DO NOT CONSIDER THEM RESORTS BECAUSE THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE BASICALLY VENUES THAT, YOU KNOW, OPERATE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF DAYS A YEAR.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE, AND IT TYPICALLY CONSISTS OF IT'S EVENT ORIENTED AND PEOPLE SET UP, YOU KNOW, FOR THE WEDDING, HAVE THE WEDDING, AND THEN THEY TAKE DOWN.
ANYMORE? OR YOU STILL HAVE THE FLOOR? UM, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
UM - I, I WILL PROVIDE, BECAUSE I REMEMBER I SENT THIS TO - YOU DID.
BUT THE CAMPGROUND, YOU SAY CAMPGROUND, IT'S TO THE RV RESORT.
ISN'T IT UNDER THE CPO? SO IT'S UNDER THE U - SO IN OUR DEPARTMENT, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE TAKE THE FIRST STEP IN THE PROCESS WHEN WE LOOK AT A DEVELOPMENT APP - PERMIT IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS PERMITTED USE IN THE DISTRICT.
AND THE CAMPGROUND FALLS UNDER A CATEGORY OF SEMI-DEVELOPED CAMPGROUND, WHICH OUTLINES THE NUMBER OF SITES THAT THEY COULD HAVE.
UM, IT HAS TO BE ON WATER AND SEWER.
BUT I- IN OUR ORDINANCE, IT IS A CAMPGROUND.
WHETHER THEY'RE, THEY'RE MARKETING THIS AS A RESORT, THEY HAVE, THEY'RE HIGHLY LIMITED ON THE AMOUNT OF, UM, ACTUAL PERMANENT BUILDING SPACE.
I BELIEVE IT'S 3,000 OR 4,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICH INCLUDES LAUNDRY FACILITIES, YOU KNOW, UM, RESTROOMS, SHOWERS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND SO IN, IN INTERPRETING THE CODE, THAT FELL UNDER CAMPGROUND.
UM, SO THE WEDDING RESORT HAD BY RIGHT, THE RV PARK HAD BY RIGHT, BUT PINE ISLAND HAS BY RIGHT TOO, RIGHT? BECAUSE THE CULTURAL PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT SPECIFICALLY SAYS NO GOLF COURSES.
SHE SAID BY WHAT RIGHTS DO PINE ISLAND HAVE.
BY RIGHT YOU SAY THE WEDDING RESORT HAS BY RIGHT, THE RV PARK HAS BY RIGHT.
SO WHAT BY RIGHTS DOES PINE ISLAND HAVE? THEY HAVE ALL THE PERMITTED USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN RURAL WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE THAT ARE CALLED OUT IN THE CULTURAL PROTECTION OVERLAY.
SO THAT MEANS HE COULD BUILD 160 HOMES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? YES.
SO HE HAS BY RIGHT TO DO THAT.
BUT NOT 40 HOMES IN A GOLF COURSE, RIGHT? YES.
ANY OTHER QUESTION? MR. MCELLAN? NO? YES.
UM - I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION.
I'M GOING TO WAIT UNTIL THE QUESTION'S CALLED AND THERE'S A DISCUSSION, UH, ABOUT THAT.
I, IF THE DISCUSSION IS BEFORE THE, UH, QUESTION IS CALLED, I DO HAVE SOME COMMENTS.
BUT, UH, I'LL WAIT UNTIL YOU'RE READY TO DO THAT, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN.
UM, AT THIS TIME, I'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
APPRECIATE Y'ALL GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY.
I'M NOT GETTING ANY, UH, AUDIO, UH, ON YOUR MICROPHONE, MR. DUKES.
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? I'VE JUST - YEAH.
WE'LL GET THE PRESENTATION STARTED HERE IN JUST A SECOND.
UH, I AM KEVIN DUKES, AN ATTORNEY WITH THE LAW FIRM OF HARVEY & BATTY, AND WE REPRESENT THE APPLICANT IN THIS REZONING APPLICATION.
SO IT'S JUST A GENERAL BRIEF OVERVIEW ON WHAT THIS IS.
[01:10:01]
SAID ABOUT MAYBE WHAT IT ISN'T, BUT WHAT IT IS IS A SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD REZONING, UH, AS MR. MERCHANT POINTED OUT, TO REMOVE THE CPO.AND SO WE'RE GOING FROM ONE PARTICULAR ZONING REGIME TO ANOTHER ONE THAT IS T2R WITH THE CPO OVERLAY TO SIMPLY T2R.
AND AS MR. MERCHANT POINTED OUT, AND I THINK YOU READ THIS EARLIER, THE PURPOSE OF T2R IS ACTUALLY TO PRESERVE BY DEFINITION IN OUR CODE TO PRESERVE THE RURAL CHARACTER OF BEAUFORT COUNTY.
AND, UH, ALSO SHOWS THAT IT IMPLEMENTS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS OF PRESERVING RURAL CHARACTER OF PORTIONS OF BEAUFORT COUNTY.
SO AS WE MOVE FORWARD, I JUST WANT TO KEEP THAT IN MIND THAT IS, THAT IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT, UH, T2R.
IT ACTUALLY, BY DEFINITION, IN THE CODE, UNDER THE LAW OF BEAUFORT, PRESERVES THE RURAL CHARACTER OF THE COUNTY THAT IS SUBJECT TO THAT ZONING DESIGNATION.
SO THIS IS WHERE WE LIVE UNDER A ZONING, UH, REZONING.
AND SO I WANNA BE CLEAR THAT THIS IS A PROCESS THAT IS GIVEN TO INDIVIDUALS, ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN BEAUFORT COUNTY.
THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PETITION THEIR GOVERNMENT TO CHANGE THE RESTRICTIONS WHICH ARE PLACED UPON THEIR PROPERTY.
AND THERE IS A SPECIFIC, UH, PROCESS, AND AS YOU ALL ARE WELL AWARE, NON-STANDARDS TO CONSIDER WHEN LOOKING AT THAT PROCESS.
SO THE KEY HERE IS THAT THERE BE A UNIFORM PROCESS, THAT THAT BE REVIEWED AND THAT, UH, ONE NEIGHBOR BE GIVEN THE SAME OPPORTUNITY AS ANOTHER NEIGHBOR TO HAVE THEIR PETITION TO CHANGE THE RESTRICTIONS ON THEIR PROPERTY CONSIDERED IN THE SAME FASHION BY THEIR GOVERNMENT.
AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE WAY WE'RE PROCEEDING, UH, TODAY.
AND SO WE'RE GONNA TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT PROCESS.
I HEARD SEVERAL COMMENTS ABOUT PROCESS, AND SO WE ARE GONNA DISCUSS THAT, UH, SIGNIFICANTLY IN THIS PRESENTATION.
SO AS A WHOLE, THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE, THE 14TH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT EVERY INDIVIDUAL IS ENTITLED TO EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW BY THEIR GOVERNMENT.
AND SO THAT IS THE PENULTIMATE STANDARD THAT WE'RE UNDER, BUT EVEN UNDERNEATH THAT, WE HAVE LOCAL STANDARDS WHICH CLARIFY THAT TO SAY THAT THEY, WE HAVE THESE STANDARDS WHICH HAVE TO PRESENT AND THAT THIS IS DONE THROUGH UNIFORM MEANS AND THAT YOU RECEIVE REVIEW, UH, UNIFORMLY FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
ULTIMATELY, THIS COMES TO YOU.
IT IS A LEGISLATIVE DECISION BY COUNCIL AND COUNCIL CAN DECIDE YES, NO, HOWEVER THEY CHOOSE.
BUT THE KEY IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE INFORMATION YOU'RE GIVEN IS COMPLETE AND ALSO TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PROCESS IS FAIR AND THAT EVERYBODY IS TREATED EQUALLY.
AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS AWARE OF THIS.
AS STAFF, BASICALLY WHEN SOMEBODY SUBMITS AN APPLICATION, WE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T BE GATEKEEPERS BECAUSE WE HAVE TO RESPECT THE DUE PROCESS.
IF SOMEBODY, IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO COME IN AND REQUEST AN UPZONING, WE CAN'T STOP THEM.
YOU KNOW, IT, IT, THE, ONCE, IF THEY APPLY FOR THE REZONING, PAY THE FEE, GET ON SCHEDULE, THEN THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THROUGH COUNCIL AND LET COUNCIL MAKE A DECISION.
SO THAT COMES THROUGH THE REVIEW AND THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH IS THE INFORMATION THAT YOU GET, WHICH THEN YOU RELY UPON TO MAKE YOUR DECISION.
AND SO WE'RE GONNA RUN THROUGH THE STAFF REPORT AND THE STANDARDS, BUT I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW OF THE UNITED STATES, THE LAW OF BEAUFORT COUNTY, THAT THERE BE EQUAL TREATMENT AND EQUAL APPLICATION.
FURTHER, THE CODE SPECIFICALLY STATES, IN ADDITION TO THOSE GENERAL PRINCIPLES, STATES THAT ADDITIONAL STANDARDS CAN'T BE CREATED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
SO IF THE STANDARDS ARE THE SAME FOR ONE GROUP, THEY'RE THE SAME FOR ANOTHER.
SO WHEN WE START WITH A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT, WHERE DO WE GO AND WHAT DO WE LOOK FOR? WELL, THE, THE FIRST THING IS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THAT'S WHERE WE'RE ALL TOLD TO LOOK.
ANY SORT OF FUTURE PLANNING AND FUTURE USES, YOU LOOK TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MR. MERCHANT WILL EXPLAIN THAT PROCESS.
SO IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WE HAVE A FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
AND WHAT THIS IS MEANT TO DO IS TO PROVIDE KIND OF A GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE ZONING MAP, YOU KNOW, FOR OUR ZONING ORDINANCE.
SO IF YOU PICTURE LIKE IF SOMEBODY HAD A MAP BUT, UH, THEY PROJECTED IT ON THE SCREEN AND IT WAS SLIGHTLY OUT OF FOCUS, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS.
IT'S KIND OF GIVING AN OVERALL GOAL OF DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE COUNTY, WHAT THE CHARACTER OF LAND USE SHOULD BE, THE TYPES OF LAND USE, BUT MAINLY LOOKING AT INTENSITY, YOU KNOW, LIKE WHETHER, WHETHER IT'S MORE RURAL IN DEVELOPMENT, MORE
[01:15:01]
URBAN, MORE SUBURBAN.AND SO THAT'S WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DOES.
SO WE HAVE THAT IN THE, IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT, SO TH- THOSE ARE MAPPED OUT AREAS LIKE NEIGHBORHOODS, MIXED USE, UM, URBAN MIXED USE, UH, RURAL, YOU KNOW, SO THAT THEY'RE, IT'S KIND OF LIKE A VERY BROAD BASED ZONING ORDINANCE.
AND THAT, THAT PROVIDES THE GUIDANCE.
SO EVERY TIME WE COME FORWARD WITH A MAP AMENDMENT, WE'RE USING THAT AS OUR GUIDE IN, IN TRYING TO DETERMINE IF SOMETHING IS MEETING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
SO THAT WAS JUST ABOUT A LITTLE OVER A MONTH AGO AND JUST AN EXPLANATION OF KIND OF HOW TO EVALUATE THESE ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS TO SEE, OKAY, WHAT IS THE FUTURE LAND USE? WHAT IS ALLOWED IF YOU WERE TO CHANGE SOMETHING AND WHAT FALLS UNDER THAT? AND INTERESTINGLY, WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THIS, BUT IT'S NOT SO MUCH, AS HE SAYS, SAYS THE, THE CHARACTER AND TYPES OF THE LAND USE, WHICH WOULD CHANGE IN THE NEW PROPOSAL, BUT THEY'RE MAINLY LOOKING AT THE INTENSITY, WHICH IS MORE RURAL, URBAN, SUBURBAN.
SO WE'RE LOOKING TO SEE WHETHER WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED, THAT FUTURE LAND USE IS ACTUALLY UNDERNEATH THAT FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION.
SO EVERY TIME THIS IS WHAT THEY LOOK, THIS IS THEIR GUIDE.
AND SO THIS IS, UH, THE ACTUAL FUTURE LAND USE MAP UNDER THE CODE.
YOU'LL LOOK UP THERE AND YOU'LL SEE, UH, ST.
HELENA KIND OF TO THE RIGHT THERE.
YOU TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, THAT LIGHTER GREEN COLOR IS RURAL.
SO THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON MOST OF ST.
AND SO THEN WE GO TO A TABLE AND THE TABLE SAYS ON THE LEFT SIDE, IF THE LAND USE DESIGNATION IS RURAL, THERE ARE FIVE DISTRICTS, FIVE TYPES OF ZONES WHICH FIT WITH UNDER THAT FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF RURAL.
THEY'RE T2R, T2 RURAL LOW, T2 RURAL NEIGHBORHOOD, NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN, RURAL CENTER, OPEN, OR SORRY, RURAL T2RC.
SO IT'S NOT JUST ONE DISTRICT THAT CAN FALL UNDER THE FUTURE LAND USE.
SO A PROPERTY OWNER, WHEN THEY'RE SEEKING REDRESS FROM THEIR GOVERNMENT, CAN ASK FOR ANY OF THOSE THINGS AND THEY'RE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THAT HAS OCCURRED, CONSIDERATION OF AN APPLICATION BASED ON THE FUTURE LAND USE ZONING AND WHETHER THE PROPOSED ZONING FITS WITHIN THAT FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION HAS HAPPENED 39 TIMES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY REZONING APPLICATIONS SINCE 2020.
SO SINCE 2020, THERE HAVE BEEN 39 APPLICATIONS, WHICH THAT'S THE, UM, ANALYSIS WHICH HAS BEEN DONE.
STAFF HAS LOOKED AT THE FUTURE LAND USE AND WHETHER THAT FUTURE LAND USE IS CONSISTENT WITH A FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, THEREFORE BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
SO EVERY TIME WE COME FORWARD WITH A MAP AMENDMENT, WE'RE USING THAT AS OUR GUIDE IN, IN TRYING TO DETERMINE IF SOMETHING IS MEETING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
EVERY TIME THAT'S WHAT THEY CONSIDER TO SEE IF IT MEETS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE ONLY APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN TREATED DIFFERENTLY SINCE 2020 HAVE INVOLVED PINE ISLAND.
EVERY OTHER ONE HAS LOOKED SOLELY AT THE FUTURE ZONING, FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, AND THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN CONSIDERED.
TAKE THAT BACK, IT'S NOW 40, BECAUSE SINCE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THERE'S BEEN ANOTHER ONE AND THAT ONE ALSO HAS BEEN CONSIDERED UNDER THE FUTURE LAND USE.
ALTERNATIVELY, THESE ARE ALL UP ZONINGS FROM THE STANDPOINT WHICH REZONINGS BY THEIR VERY NATURE CHANGE THE USES FROM WHAT'S ALLOWED TO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE CODE.
THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE STANDARDS.
THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE PROCESS IS TO ALLOW INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS TO SEEK REDRESS FROM THEIR GOVERNMENT TO ALLOW THEM TO DO SOMETHING ON THEIR PROPERTY WHICH IS NOT PRESENTLY ALLOWED.
THAT IS A REZONING BY DEFINITION.
AND TO THE EXTENT THAT IT HASN'T HAPPENED HERE, THEN IT RAISES SERIOUS ISSUES FROM THE STANDPOINT OF EQUAL PROTECTION, I BELIEVE THAT YOU SHOULDN'T CONSIDER WHAT'S IN THE STAFF REPORT.
WE'RE GOING TO RUN THROUGH IT.
THERE, THERE'S MORE PROBLEMS THAN JUST THE PROCESS.
BUT WHY WOULD YOU CHANGE IT? IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT IT'S ALWAYS, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN CONSIDERED THIS WAY, BUT NOW WE'RE DOING IT DIFFERENT.
[01:20:01]
IS THE FIRST PAGE OF THE STAFF REPORT.IT CLEARLY SAYS THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE IS RURAL, ACKNOWLEDGING WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT THE DESIGNATION IS RURAL.
THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT, WHAT'S BEING ASKED FOR BY THE APPLICANT IS RURAL.
BUT INSTEAD OF THAT SIMPLE ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON TO WHETHER IT FITS WITHIN THAT, WHAT WE HAVE IS A NEW ANALYSIS, WHICH IS NOT DONE WITH ANY OTHER APPLICATION.
IS THAT A HISTORICAL RE- RECITATION OF HOW THE FORMER OR CURRENT ZONING CAME TO BE.
ALL OF Y'ALL HAVE SEEN A LOT OF REZONING REQUESTS.
SOME HAVE BEEN ON THIS COUNCIL MORE THAN OTHERS AND SEEN MANY MORE.
YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN STAFF COME UP TO YOU AND GIVE A HISTORICAL RECITATION ON THE ZONING DISTRICT THAT EXISTS THAT SOMEBODY'S MOVING OUT OF.
THEY ANALYZE THE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED OR REQUESTED ZONING SO THAT YOU CAN DECIDE WHETHER THAT PROPOSED OR REQUESTED ZONING IS APPROPRIATE UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, I WANT TO POINT THIS OUT.
IT SAYS THE, THIS IS FROM THE REPORT.
IT SAYS THE PLAN OBSERVES THAT THE PRIMARY THREAT TO THE LONG-TERM VIABILITY OF BEAUFORT COUNTY'S GULLAH GEECHEE COMMUNITIES IS LAND DEVELOPMENT.
IMPLEMENTING LAND USE POLICIES THAT CONCENTRATE GROWTH IN URBAN AREAS AND PROTECT RURAL LAND FROM SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT ACTIONS THE COUNTY CAN TAKE TO PROTECT THIS UNIQUE GULLAH GEECHEE HERITAGE.
SO IT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE USES, IT'S ABOUT THE INTENSITY.
AND THAT'S WHAT MR. MERCHANT SAID EARLIER WHEN HE SAID WE'RE MAINLY LOOKING AT INTENSITY, WHETHER IT'S RURAL, SUBURBAN OR URBAN.
BUT THE RATIONALE HERE IS JUST THAT MOVING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CPO WOULD INTRODUCE LAND USES WHICH HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS POSING THE GREATEST THREAT AND CHARACTER TO THE STABILITY OF ISLAND COMMUNITY.
THERE'S GONNA BE DISCUSSION ON THE IDENTIFICATION OF THOSE USES POSING THAT THREAT LATER, BUT THIS IS THE GENERAL STATEMENT.
YOU CANNOT MOVE THOSE SACROSANCT BOUNDARIES OF THE CPO.
WHAT THE CHARACTER OF LAND USE SHOULD BE, THE TYPES OF LAND USE, BUT MAINLY LOOKING AT INTENSITY, YOU KNOW, LIKE WHETHER, WHETHER IT'S MORE RURAL IN DEVELOPMENT, MORE URBAN, MORE SUBURBAN.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DOES.
SO NOT ONLY DID STAFF NOT LOOK OR CONSIDER THIS LIKE ALL THE REST OF THE FUTURE LAND USE, BUT THEY DON'T EVEN DO IT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE IMPORTANT PART WHERE HE SAYS MAINLY LOOKING AT INTENSITY.
THERE'S NO DISCUSSION OVER THE INTENSITY OF THE PROPOSED ZONING.
THERE'S NO DISCUSSION OF THAT.
SO THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TOLD ABOUT CPO.
SO IT BASICALLY APPLIES TO THE HEART OF ST.
HELEN ISLAND WITH EXCEPTION OF THE THREE PUDS THAT EXISTED PRIOR TO ITS ADOPTION IN 1999.
SO MR. MERCHANT'S BEEN PRETTY CONSISTENT ON THAT, THAT YOU CANNOT MOVE THE BOUNDARIES.
THAT'S THE OUTCOME THAT'S BEEN STARTED OUT WITH, IS THAT WHATEVER THE APPLICATION, WHATEVER HAPPENS, YOU CANNOT MOVE THE BOUNDARIES NO MATTER WHAT.
SO, BUT THE QUESTION IS WHY? WHY IS THAT THE CASE? EVEN WITHIN OUR OWN COUNTY, THERE IS A DELINEATED ZONE WHERE BOUNDARIES HAVE BEEN MOVED AND HAVE NOT HAD THE ENTIRE ISLAND ON DEFUSKY.
AND THE PURPOSE OF THAT SAME OVERLAY IS TO PROTECT GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURE.
SO IT'S INTENTIONALLY DELINEATED THERE, BUT ON ST.
HELENA, IT LOOKS LIKE A TODDLER DREW WITH A CRAYON AROUND THE ISLAND.
IT DOESN'T EVEN FOLLOW THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PARCELS.
AND MAYBE YOU SHOULD ASK MR. MERCHANT TO EXPLAIN WHETHER THESE PARCELS WERE EXCLUDED AT THE BEGINNING OR WHETHER THEY'VE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM 1999, BECAUSE DESPITE WHAT HE SAYS, NOT ALL OF ST.
THOSE PARCELS, WHICH ARE NOT FAR FROM THE MOST IMPORTANT HEART OF ST.
HELENA, ARE NOT WITHIN THE CPO.
AT SOME POINT THEY WERE REMOVED.
I, I DON'T KNOW WHEN, BUT THEY'RE NOT IN THERE NOW.
[01:25:02]
AND SO THE POINT IS THAT THE BOUNDARIES CAN BE MOVED.THE BOUNDARIES CAN BE CHANGED.
SO LET'S GET INTO THOSE STANDARDS THAT WE LOOK AT THAT YOU'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH.
AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT.
UM, AND THE ONE THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT THOUGH IS THESE, THESE STANDARDS ARE, ARE JUST THAT.
THEY'RE STANDARDS TO BE CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO MEET EVERY STANDARD.
SOME OF THEM DON'T APPLY DEPENDING ON THE SITUATION.
SOME APPLY MORE IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS.
AND SO THEY'RE ALL TAKEN TOGETHER AND THAT'S, AND YOU WEIGH THOSE, UH, TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT FITS WITHIN, UH, THE COUNCIL'S DECISION ON WHETHER TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE.
WHAT WE GET, THOSE FIRST TWO STANDARDS, THE FIRST, IS IT CONSISTENT WITH AND FURTHERS THE GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS IT IN CONFLICT WITH ANY PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE OR CODE OF ORDINANCES? SO WHAT WE RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THOSE STANDARDS IS THIS HISTORIC RECITATION OF THE CPO.
NOT ANY ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED T2R ZONING AND WHETHER THAT WOULD COMPLY, BUT RATHER BACKWARD LOOKING FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE CPO.
THIS IS WHAT WE WOULD NORMALLY GET ON THE LEFT.
DOES IT FIT WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION? YES.
AND SO IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
DOES IT CONFLICT? NO, IT DOES NOT BECAUSE IT FITS WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION.
PRETTY SIMPLE, PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
BUT THIS IS WHAT WE RECEIVE FOR THESE APPLICATIONS.
USUALLY WHEN MY KIDS ARE TRYING TO TALK ME INTO SOMETHING, THEY TALK A LOT AND THEY SAY A LOT.
IF IT'S STRAIGHTFORWARD, IT'S STRAIGHTFORWARD.
SO STANDARDS FIVE, SIX, AND SEVEN, WE GET, WE JUST GET ONE SENTENCE.
NO, NO ANALYSIS, NO EXPLANATION, JUST THAT IF YOU MOVE THE BOUNDARIES, YOU MOVE THE BOUNDARIES, UNLIKE ANY OTHER ZONING DISTRICT IN THE ENTIRE COUNTY, THIS IS THE ONLY ONE THAT YOU CANNOT MOVE THE BOUNDARIES.
IF YOU MOVE THE BOUNDARIES, IT IS POSED THE GREATEST, GREATEST THREAT TO THE CHARACTER AND STABILITY OF THE COMMUNITY.
NO ANALYSIS AS TO WHETHER THAT IS THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT OR WHAT THE CODE ACTUALLY SAYS, JUST THE LINE.
IF YOU MOVE THE LINE, THAT POSES THE GREATEST THREAT.
THAT IS IN RESPONSE TO, KEEP IN MIND, THAT IS IN RESPONSE TO THE C - A S - ISLAND-WIDE GENERALIZED CONCLUSORY STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO IS IT COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING PROPOSED USES SURROUNDING THE LAND SUBJECT TO THE APPLICATION? THERE'S NO DISCUSSION OF WHAT THE PROPOSED USES OR WHAT THE EXISTING USES ARE ON THE SURROUNDING LAND WOULD NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT NEARBY LANDS, WOULD NOT RESULT IN LOGICAL ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS.
THAT ANSWER IS NOT EVEN IN RESPONSE TO THOSE STANDARDS BECAUSE THERE IS A PREDETERMINED OUTCOME NOT TO MOVE THE LINE.
SO YOU SHOULD KNOW, AND WE'LL SEE IN A MINUTE, BUT THE ONLY SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNER IS AN ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT, IS A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A DENSITY OF ABOUT ONE TO ONE ACRE.
THIS WOULD BE, UNDER OUR PROPOSAL, WOULD BE LESS, SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN THAT.
MR. DUKES, UH, I'M GONNA ASK THAT YOU KINDA MOVE ALONG BECAUSE I DO WANNA GIVE THE OWNER A CHANCE TO COME, UM, AND SPEAK AS WELL.
I, I HAVE - AND WE, WE HAVE TO BE OUT OF THIS ROOM BY A CERTAIN TIME, BUT GO AHEAD.
UH, THERE'S JUST A COUPLE MINUTES HERE.
SO THESE, THESE ARE IMPORTANT BECAUSE THIS GETS EXACTLY TO THE POINT OF THE PREDETERMINED OUTCOME, WHICH IS THAT IT, WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION IS AND WHAT THE REPORT, THE ANALYSIS IS, THINK ABOUT THIS.
WE'RE ASKING FOR T2R, RURAL ZONING, WHICH MUCH OF BEAUFORT COUNTY HAS.
THEY SAY THAT IT'S IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH DEMONSTRATED COMMUNITY NEEDS, RURAL ZONING.
THEY SAY THAT IT WILL LIKELY HAVE ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.
IS THIS COUNCIL GONNA MAKE THE DECISION THAT T2R ZONING ADVERSELY IMPACTS THE ENVIRONMENT? WILL LIKELY RESULT IN INCREASED STRAIN AND STRESS ON PUBLIC FACILITIES? IF T2R RESULTS AND STRAIN AND STRESS ON PUBLIC
[01:30:01]
FACILITIES.AND THAT MEANS EVERY OTHER ZONING IN THE COUNTY IS RESULTING IN THAT.
SO THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
THERE YOU CAN SEE TO THE, ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT PICTURE, YOU CAN SEE THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE LEFT, UM, AND THE DENSITY THAT IS THERE.
AND THEN JUST TO BRING YOU BACK TO THE FACT THAT T2R IMPLEMENTS THE GOALS OF PRESERVING THE RURAL CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY, AND THAT WHEN WE LOOK AT THE PRIMARY THREAT, THE LONG-TERM VIABILITY OF THE COMMUNITY, YOU LOOK TO THESE IMPLEMENTING THESE POLICIES AGAINST GROWTH, WHICH STATE THAT WE WANT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND THAT THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT THE COUNTY CAN DO IS TO ENCOURAGE THAT RURAL DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR IN THIS APPLICATION.
SO I'LL TURN IT OVER NOW TO MR. TROPIANO.
GOOD AFTERNOON-ISH, EVENING-ISH.
IS IT JUST THIS RIGHT BUTTON? THANK YOU.
UM, FIRST I'D LIKE TO THANK ALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS, UM, FOR THEIR PATIENCE.
WE'VE BEEN AT THIS FOR A WHILE NOW.
UM, I THINK MOST OF YOU ARE BEGINNING TO UNDERSTAND WHY.
AS MR. DUKES SAID, THE PROCESSING OF THIS APPLICATION IS JUST BIZARRE WORLD.
A DISPLAY OF PREDETERMINED OUTCOMES, UNEQUAL TREATMENT, THE ONLY THREE OF 40 ARE DIFFERENT.
IT'S A PREDETERM- PREDETERMINED OUTCOME.
MR. MERCHANT EARLIER SAID CPO COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE DEFINITION OF GOLF.
THAT LOOKS LIKE MR. MERCHANT'S HANDWRITING.
YORDAN SAYS HE DID IT WITHOUT STUFF ON THE LEFT.
WE'LL FIGURE THAT OUT LATER, BUT PREDETERMINED OUTCOME.
WHY ARE WE APPROVING A 12 HOLE GOLF COURSE IN A RURAL AREA? PREDETERMINED OUTCOME.
AS MS. BROWN SAID, THERE'S YOUR RV RESORT.
OUR OWN PROPERTIES PAID FOR BY THE TAXPAYER.
GATES, RESTRICTED ACCESS, BIZARRE WORLD, PREDETERMINED OUTCOME.
THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M GONNA TALK ABOUT TONIGHT, TODAY, TODAY, THIS EVENING.
ALL THAT'LL BE ANSWERED AS WELL AS HOW MUCH IT'LL COST THE TAXPAYER LATER.
BUT INSTEAD, AS I'VE BEEN ALLUDING TO FOR THE LAST SIX WEEKS, I WANNA TALK ABOUT PRINCIPLES.
I'VE SAT HERE EACH AND EVERY WEEK, DAY AFTER DAY, AND I'VE WATCHED THE SLOW EROSION OF TRUST IN THIS ROOM AMONGST EACH OTHER.
FAITH IN THE GOVERNMENT'S JUST BEEN GONE.
THE NUMBER ONE CULPRIT, IT'S NOT YOU GUYS.
IT'S, YOU'RE ONLY AS GOOD AS THE INFORMATION THAT YOU GET.
IT'S THE PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT HIDE IN THE SHADOWS, THE ONES THAT DO THINGS AND ACT EXCLUSIVELY IN THEIR OWN SELF-INTEREST.
I'VE EXPERIENCED IT FIRSTHAND RIDING SHOTGUN RIGHT HERE WITH YOU GUYS.
SELF-INTERESTS ARE NOT PRINCIPLES.
I'VE COMMUNICATED AND CONTINUE TO COMMUNICATE THAT WHEN DECISIONS BECOME DIFFICULT, WE SHOULD RETURN TO OUR ETHICAL AND MORAL PRINCIPLES.
MY INTERACTIONS WITH THIS COUNCIL IS A F- FULL UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS A THANKLESS JOB.
UH, I HAVE A DEEP RESPECT FOR WHAT YOU GUYS DO.
I GET IT, BUT TO TREAT OTHERS AS YOU, I WOULD LIKE TO BE TREATED IS A, IS A RULE THAT I ABIDE BY.
I TOO HAVE GUIDING PRINCIPLES INSTILLED IN ME BY FRIENDS, FAMILY, LOVED ONES, NEIGHBORS, MY OWN EXPERIENCES.
AND SO TONIGHT I'M GONNA, THIS AFTERNOON, I'M GONNA TELL YOU GUYS AND THE PUBLIC ABOUT THOSE PRINCIPLES BECAUSE I THINK IT'LL HELP CLEAR EVERYTHING UP.
ALL THE INFORMATION I'M GONNA PRESENT IS PUBLIC.
IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS, LITERALLY YOU CAN STOP ME IN THE MIDDLE OF IT.
I NEVER SPENT MUCH TIME HERE IN BEAUFORT COUNTY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN BACK AND FORTH TO CHARLESTON, ET CETERA.
BUT, UM, WHEN I FOUND THIS PROPERTY, I MADE ONE PHONE CALL TO THE THEN OWNER OF PALMETTO BLUFF.
HE ASKED ME ONE SIMPLE QUESTION WHERE
[01:35:01]
I TOLD HIM BEAUFORT COUNTY.FIVE SECONDS PASSED AND HE BURST OUT LAUGHING.
SO UNDETERRED, I PACKED A BAG, MOVED DOWN AND GOT TO WORK.
SO THOSE PRINCIPLES WERE BASED IN THE INITIAL CURRENT AND DESIRED PLAN, A DEEP UNWAVERING RESPECT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, A LIGHT FOOTPRINT ON THE LAND AND SURROUNDING ECOSYSTEMS AND COMMUNITIES AND A BUSINESS MODEL THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR LONG-TERM COMMITMENT.
SO ALL OF YOU KNOW THAT BECAUSE I SAT WITH YOU AND TOLD YOU IT.
THEY'RE MEMORIALIZED HERE AND THEY REMAIN MY GOAL.
OPERATING WITH ONE GUIDING PRINCIPLE TO ALWAYS GIVE MORE THAN EXPECTED.
THAT'S HOW WE WANTED TO DO IT.
EVERY WEEK SHE COMES UP HERE TALKING ABOUT THIS STUFF.
I DIDN'T KNOW MS. MAJOR WHEN I WAS WRITING THIS STUFF DOWN.
MR. GLOVER, YOUR COMMUNITY NEEDS A LOT.
I COULDN'T SPELL CPO WHEN I WROTE THIS LIST.
WE DISCUSSED THIS, AND MR. GLOVER, THIS ISN'T ME PUTTING YOU ON BLAST AT ALL.
THIS IS ME EXPLAINING HOW CONSISTENCY IS APPLIED.
THE MISSION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT IS RIGHT THERE AT THE BOTTOM OF YOUR LETTERHEAD.
TO USE GOLF AS AN INSTRUMENT TO HELP PRESERVE AND SUPPORT THE CULTURAL HERITAGE OF ST.
HELEN WHILE CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ITS CITIZENS CONSISTENTLY.
UM, THAT'S AN INSERT ON MY LETTERHEAD, BUT I'LL LET YOU GO AHEAD WITH IT.
MY LETTERHEAD STOP AT DISMISSAL AND THAT WAS A MEETING.
THE, THE DOCUMENT YOU PROVIDED WAS FOUR PAGES LONG.
DURING THAT MEETING, NOT THIS MEETING ACTUALLY, ON MARCH 9TH, 2022, YOU TOLD ME THAT I WAS GONNA FACE OPPOSITION.
YOU TOLD ME DIRECTLY FROM WHOM? AND MY RESPONSES WERE, "OKAY, I WON'T NAME THEM TODAY BECAUSE I, I, I RESPECT YOU, BUT I KNEW THAT I WAS GONNA HAVE PROBLEMS BECAUSE YOU TOLD ME.
BUT BY GOD DID I NOT THINK I WAS GONNA HAVE THESE KIND OF PROBLEMS." SINCE YOU'RE DIRECTING THAT TO ME.
ANYTHING TO YOU, I WAS JUST TELLING YOU.
COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS TO HOW THE WHOLE ECOSYSTEM WORKED.
I DID WHAT I WOULD DO IN ANY NORMAL SIT- SITUATION.
TALK TO PEOPLE, FIND COMMON GROUND.
IF THERE'S AN IMPASSE, SO BE IT.
GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS, DELIVER AT THE SAME TIME THAT'S A PRINCIPLE.
I TOURED MULTIPLE LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS AROUND MY PROPERTY, ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS, HISTORY PROFESSORS, ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS, LOCAL COMMUNITY MEMBERS, WHOMEVER, AND I TOLD EVERYONE THE SAME THING THAT WAS ECHOED IN THOSE PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS AND THAT I STILL ECHO TODAY.
IN THE FALL, I MET WITH THE LEADERSHIP OF THE COASTAL CONSERVATION LEAGUE UP IN CHARLESTON WHERE THEY'RE LOCATED.
THE SUMMARY OF THAT MEETING IS AS FOLLOWS.
OUR ORGANIZATION CANNOT BE BLINDLY OPPOSED TO PROGRESS, BUT WE CAN BE OPPOSED TO BLIND PROGRESS.
I UNDERSTOOD THAT AND I RESPECTED THAT AND REACHED OUT TO THE LOCAL AGENTS.
WE HAD, WE MET, HAD CORDIAL AND PROFESSIONAL DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, ORGANIZING PRINCIPLES AND MISSION.
AND THE TRUTH IS, WE LEFT THAT MEETING RESPECTFULLY DISAGREEING ABOUT THE LOCATION, THE PROPOSED USE, ET CETERA.
BUT I WAS GLAD TO HAVE HAD THAT MEETING BECAUSE IT WAS THE RESPECTFUL AND PROFESSIONAL THING TO DO.
AND THE THING I'M MOST PROUD OF IS TO ALWAYS GIVE MORE OF MYSELF THAN IS EXPECTED.
I DON'T NEED A PAT ON THE BACK.
I DON'T NEED ACCOLADES, BUT SOMEONE DID IT FOR ME.
SO TO EVERYONE I MET WITH, I RELAYED A CONSISTENT MESSAGE OF SUSTAINABLE, SMART DEVELOPMENT THAT CREATES ECONOMIC GROWTH, THAT MAXIMIZES THE POTENTIAL OF OUR COMMUNITY, ENTIRELY ALIGNED WITH WHAT I THOUGHT WAS A SMART DEVELOPMENT.
THERE'LL BE MAJOR HARMFUL IMPACTS.
LAND WILL BE LOST FOREVER, DESTROYED.
[01:40:01]
SHOCKED.IT WASN'T, I DIDN'T FEEL BAD PERSONALLY.
I WAS HONEST AND NOTHING WAS BEING PORTRAYED HONESTLY.
THAT'S TWO DAYS LATER AFTER MEETING.
WE HAVE ARTICLES IN THE NEWSPAPER ON THE RIGHT.
WE HAVE MEETINGS AT FRIZELLE AND NOT A SINGLE ELEMENT OF WHAT I HAD DESCRIBED FOR THE PREVIOUS TWO YEARS WAS BEING ECHOED IN THIS NEWSPAPER.
WHY? WELL, YOU JUST RINSE AND REPEAT.
WHAT I DIDN'T KNOW IS WE'RE COMING OFF THE RUN AT BAY POINT WHERE YOU JUST, THE MACHINE'S ALREADY OILED UP, READY TO ROLL, INSERT PINE ISLAND WHERE BAY POINT EXISTS AND THEN BOOM, OFF WE GO.
SAME ACTOR, SAME NARRATIVE, SAME PLAYBOOKS.
ME AND TY WERE THE ONLY ONES THAT HAVE READ THE WHOLE PACK TONIGHT.
IT, I DO IT BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE DON'T.
AND THIS BOOK HERE IS THE MOST INCREDIBLE AND INFURIATING THING AT THE SAME TIME I'VE EVER READ.
IT'S STORIES OF SUCCESSES OF CCNL OVER THE PAST 25 YEARS.
AND CANDIDLY, THEY'VE DONE A HECK OF A JOB.
I SAID IN THE NEWSPAPER, THEY'VE DONE A TREMENDOUS JOB HERE IN SOUTH CAROLINA.
THE INFURIATING PART IS RIGHT THERE ON THE SCREEN.
THEIR GOALS, WHILE NOBLE, SOME OF THEIR TACTICS ARE, IN MY OPINION, DEPLORABLE.
WE CONCLUDED THAT INDIVIDUALS AND COMMUNITIES DO NOT ADOPT AND DISCARD NARRATIVES EASILY OR QUICKLY.
THEY ARE DEEPLY INGRAINED, SUBCONSCIOUS, DURABLE AND INTERWOVEN.
INSTEAD OF INTRODUCING NEW STORIES, AS SOME REFORMERS HAVE SUGGESTED, WE FOUND IT WAS MORE EFFECTIVE TO REFRAME CONSERVATION EFFORTS SO THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH LONG STANDING NARRATIVES.
HELMUT COULD NEVER BE HILTON HEAD.
THERE ARE SEVEN PARCELS THAT ARE 150 ACRES OR BIGGER.
ONE OF THEM IS OWNED BY THE PENN CENTER.
TWO OF THEM HAVE EASEMENTS ON IT.
FIVE OF THE REST ARE FARMLAND.
WE'VE WITNESSED HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE COME IN HERE.
THEY'VE SLOWLY DWINDLED OUT BECAUSE ONE BY ONE, WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS, BUT OUR LOVED ONES, OUR, OUR, OUR ELDERS ARE, ARE SCARED AND CONFUSED AND BEGGING TO STOP SOMETHING THAT CAN'T HAPPEN.
AND THEY HAD THE INFORMATION, BUT THERE'S A SUBCONSCIOUS, DURABLE AND INTERWOVEN INFORMATION SET THAT THEY'RE RELYING UPON IN, IN, IN, IN, AND MADE A DECISION TO PREY ON OUR MOST VULNERABLE.
I THINK ANYONE WOULD TELL YOU THAT.
I HAVE FUN EVERYWHERE, BUT I DO NOT ABIDE BY BULLYING.
THIS COUNCIL STARTED ON JANUARY 3RD.
PRIOR TO THAT, I MET WITH MOST OF YOU.
SIX DAYS LATER, YOU GET WHACKED UPSIDE THE HEAD WITH THE CPO.
AT THAT POINT, THE MISINFORMATION SHEET, MACHINE WAS ROLLING.
ALL THESE SIGNS BEHIND ME, YOU THINK THEY ALL PRINT OUT THE SAME THING AT THE SAME TIME? THEY'RE BEING HANDED OUT STICKERS IN THE HALLWAY.
MR. UM - I'M GONNA CONTINUE, MR. GLOVER.
I UNDERSTAND THERE'S PLANNING COMMISSION AT SIX O'CLOCK, BUT I HAVE SOME INFORMATION THAT I'D LIKE TO RELAY.
GET TO IT THEN, UM, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW YOU'RE NOT INFORMING US ON ANYTHING NEW.
NO, I'M, UH, WE'RE GETTING TO THE NEW PART.
UM, UH, I THINK, UM, AS MR. DUKES SAID, THE RULES WERE CHANGED.
IF NOT, WHY WOULD WE CHANGE THEM? WE ALL KNOW WHY.
IT WAS STATED PUBLICLY BY SEVEN MEMBERS OF THIS COUNCIL TO STOP A SINGLE PROJECT.
WE EVEN TRIED TO NEGOTIATE A PAUSE IN THE MIDDLE OF IT DURING READING TWO.
BUT AS IT WAS ADOPTED, THE QUESTION IS, WHY ARE WE HERE TONIGHT? WELL, TO REMOVE THOSE RULES, BUT ALSO TO TELL THE PUBLIC WHY.
BECAUSE AS MR. DUKES SAID, AND AS MR. MERCHANT REPEATED FIVE TIMES IN HIS STAFF REPORT, AIR QUOTES, "YOU GUYS MADE A PUBLIC POLICY OR HAVE A PUBLIC POLICY BASED UPON LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS.
MOVING THE BOUNDARIES WOULD INTRODUCE LAND USES POSING THE GREATEST THREAT TO THE CHARACTER AND STABILITY OF THE ISLAND COMMUNITY." THOSE ARE THE RULES.
SHOULD PROBABLY AN - ASK SOME QUESTIONS.
"WHAT ARE THOSE LAND USES? WHO IDENTIFIED THEM? HOW WERE THEY IDENTIFIED? HOW DO THEY POSE THE GREATEST THREAT? AND WHERE IS THIS INFORMATION LOCATED? "WELL, WE HAVE SOME
[01:45:01]
INFORMATION HERE ON THE RIGHT.AS MR. MERCHANT SAID, RESORTS, GATED COMMUNITIES AND GOLF COURSES.
IRONICALLY, RESORTS, NOT A DEFINED LAND USE.
GATED COMMUNITY IS NOT A DEFINED LAND USE AND A GOLF COURSE IS, BUT WE CHANGED THE DEFINITION, BUT NEITHER HERE NOR THERE.
BUT WHY ARE THESE PROBLEMATIC? VERY SPECIFIC USES THAT ARE DIRECTLY LINKED TO THE DISPLACEMENT OF GULLAH GEECHEE PEOPLE, TO ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION, TO SKYROCKETING PROPERTY TAXES, AND TO THE LOSS OF CULTURE.
THE ANSWERS, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, THE US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR RUN BY SECRETARY DOUG BERGHAM APPARENTLY SAID THROUGH ITS NATIONAL PARK SERVICE THAT MADE A FEDERAL FINDINGS THAT THESE USES HAVE THOSE HARMS. THAT'S A FEDERAL AGENCY.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND AS A REMINDER, WE'RE IN FEDERAL COURT.
THAT'S THE PUBLIC POLICY THAT BASED UPON FINDINGS IT, MEANING THE COUNTY MEANING YOU, MADE AND ANCHORED IN THOSE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FINDINGS, THOSE ARE THE USE LIMITATIONS.
THIS WAS ADOPTED BY THIS COUNCIL.
SIGNED BY MR. PASSIMIT, SIGNED BY MS. BROCK, 9-2.
THE CPO COMMITTEE WAS TASKED WITH PROVIDING UPDATES TO THE PURPOSE STATEMENT TO ADD MEAT TO THE BONE.
MOST OF YOU WEREN'T AT THOSE MEETINGS.
NONE OF YOU WERE AT THOSE MEETINGS, I DON'T THINK.
MOST OF THE PUBLIC WAS NOT AT THOSE MEETINGS, BUT LET'S HEAR HOW IT CHANGED.
BASED UPON THE PURPOSE STATEMENT ABOVE AND IN PARTICULAR, THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE FINDINGS THAT, "GOLF COURSES, RESORTS, FENCES, BEACHFRONT DEVELOPMENT, BOAT LANDINGS, MARINAS, AND THE COASTAL POPULATION EXPLOSION ARE ALL ENCROACHING UPON AND IN SOME CASES OVERTAKING THESE SAVORY SITES THROUGHOUT THE SOUTHEASTERN COAST AND IN PARTICULAR SOUTH CAROLINA LOW COUNTRY." FOR CONTEXT, THAT'S THAT PORTION OF THE DOCUMENT.
MAKES ALL THE SENSE IN THE WORLD TO PRESERVE RELIGIOUS PLACES.
IN FACT, THE, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY SAYS THAT IT'S OFTEN OF THE GREATEST CONCERN.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THE LANGUAGE OF THIS AND, UM, YOU WANT TO TWEAK IT JUST A LITTLE, GIVE US A TWEAK.
SO NOW WE'RE GONNA TWEAK THAT LANGUAGE.
WE'RE GONNA TWEAK FEDERAL LANGUAGE.
A LITTLE ODD, BUT LET'S SEE WHAT THEY DO.
I WOULD, I WOULD SAY BASED ON THE STATEMENT ABOVE IN PARTICULAR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICES THROUGH ITS LOW COUNTRY GULLAH, UH, EIA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, JUST LIKE THE DOCUMENT, THE COUNTY FINDS THAT TAKE OUT THE QUOTATION MARKS AND LEAVE ALL THAT ABOUT GOLF COURSES.
AND THEN WHEN IT SAID WHEN YOU GET TO IN SOME CASES OVERTAKING, INSTEAD OF THESE SACRED SITES, JUST PUT GULLAH CULTURE.
AND THAT WAY, WHAT YOU DO IS YOU MAKE A COUNTY FINDINGS.
THE COUNTY MAKES THIS FINDING, BUT IT IS BASED ON A FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SA - STATEMENT, SO THERE'S, IT'S NOT WEIGHTED CREDIBILITY TO DO IT, BUT THE COUNTY MAKES ITS OWN FINDINGS.
SO THIS DON'T JUST WANT TO BE SACRED SITES BURIAL SITES.
WE WANNA SAY THE WHOLE CULTURE.
THE CULTURE IS WIPED OUT BY THESE THINGS.
MR. CHAIRMAN - MR. TREPIANI, UH - CAN I, UM, ASK A QUESTION, PLEASE, OF LVL? WELL, I'M GONNA OPEN UP FOR QUESTIONS, UM, IN A FEW MINUTES AS SOON AS HE'S THROUGH.
UH, IS THERE - WELL, I WANNA ASK HIM A QUESTION BEFORE HE'S THROUGH MAYBE THAT HE'LL, SO HE'LL ADDRESS IT.
I'VE HAD A QUESTION FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS.
ONE OF THE THINGS YOU, YOU - AND SAUSAGE, WE'RE MAKING SAUSAGE RIGHT NOW WITH THESE COMMITTEE GROUPS RIGHT HERE.
HOW THE SAUSAGE IS MADE IS EXACTLY THE POINT, MR. GLOVER.
SO A SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP MADE A FINDINGS FOR THIS COUNTY USING, MANIPULATING A FEDERAL DOCUMENT THAT EXPLICITLY SAYS IT CANNOT AND DOES NOT INFRINGE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND MADE IT AND REWROTE IT TO MAKE YOUR FINDINGS TO SAY A CULTURE IS WIPED OUT BY THESE THINGS, GOLF COURSES.
I'VE BEEN UNCOMFORTABLE FOR FIVE YEARS, BUT I AM COMFORTABLE IN SHARING HOW THE SAUSAGE IS MADE BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT.
[01:50:01]
THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT LURK THAT MAKE YOUR GUYS' JOB DIFFICULT.THAT WORD WHERE IT SAYS THESE SACRED SITES, THAT WAS CUT.
IT SAYS OVERTAKING GULLAH EACH.
YEAH, ALL THESE THINGS THROUGHOUT THE SOUTHEASTERN COAST AND IN PARTICULAR SOUTH CAROLINA LOW COUNTRY, IT IS A PUBLIC POLICY OF BEAVER COUNTY PROTECTS AND HELENA ISLAND'S RURAL, HISTORIC, AND CULTURAL HERITAGE BY PROHIBITING THE FOLLOWING USES, WHICH IS NUMBER ONE, RESTRICTED ACCESS TO RESORT THREE.
SO I WON'T PICK ON ANYBODY IN PARTICULAR, BUT AS WE GO THROUGH THE ETHICS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF A COUNCIL MEMBER, OUR DUTY RUNS TO ALL CONSTITUENTS, NOT TO SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS.
AND YOU WERE LIED TO, THE PUBLIC WAS LIED TO.
NONE OF THIS WAS BORN IN FACTS.
IT WASN'T BORN ON REAL DATA OR FEDERAL AUTHORITY.
THE ENTIRE THING WAS MADE UP AND THAT'S HOW IT WENT.
MR. GLOVER, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP.
YOU GUYS COULD HAVE STOPPED, MADE TIME LIMITS AT THE LAST MEETING AND YOU DECIDED NOT TO.
SO I HAVE A FEW MORE SLIDES THAT I'M GONNA NEED TO GET THROUGH AND I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.
THIS - HOW MUCH LONGER DO YOU THINK YOU NEED, SIR? IT...
PLAN COMMISSION DOESN'T STILL SIX O'CLOCK.
WE HAVE TO GET OUT OF THIS ROOM HERE BEFORE SIX O'CLOCK.
AND, UM, I'M BEING COURTEOUS TO YOU AT THIS TIME NOW.
UM - THANK YOU FOR YOUR COURTESY.
AND IT'S GONNA BE AT THE MERCY OF THIS COUNCIL.
UM, YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T HAVE...
FIVE MORE MINUTES? FIVE TO SEVEN MORE MINUTES, YEP.
YOU CAN STEP IN THE HALLWAY AND WATCH THIS.
NOW, UH, UM, ARE WE GONNA HEAR THIS AGAIN ON THE 9TH? OKAY.
NINE OF YOU SIGNED YOUR NAME TO IT.
YOU WERE BULLIED INTO PASSING IT.
YOU'RE BEING BULLIED INTO LITIGATING IT.
THE TAXPAYER'S PUT AT RISK, BUT WE'LL NEED TO WATCH WHAT ROB SAYS.
WHAT HE SAYS IS THE INTEREST IN LAND USES.
YOU SAID - THE GOLF COURSE, WHATEVER, HOWEVER YOU WANNA PHRASE IT, UM, IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF ST.
BASED ON FEDERAL DOCUMENTS, EXCEPT NOT.
MR. MCKELLEN, THAT THE REQUESTED ACTIONS BY THE OWNER OF PINE ISLAND ARE IN FACT INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES ON ST.
HELENA, AND THAT THOSE INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES WOULD BE, IN FACT, DESTRUCTIVE AND EROSIVE TO THE GULLAH CULTURE.
THE POINT OF THIS IS NOT TO PICK ON ANY COUNCIL MEMBER AT ALL.
IT IS WHAT I STARTED OFF WITH SAYING, WHICH IS YOU GUYS ARE ONLY AS GOOD AS THE INFORMATION THAT YOU GET, AND THE INFORMATION THAT YOU GOT WAS GARBAGE.
GOLF COURSE DOESN'T WIPE OUT A CULTURE.
I THINK THE PENN CENTER'S STILL HERE.
A LETTER ON THE RIGHT'S A LITTLE BIT BLOCKED OUT.
CAMPBELL THANKING PEOPLE FOR CONTRIBUTING TO THE GOLF COURSE.
CAMPBELL, EXCUSE ME, HE RETIRED AFTER THIS AND IT DIDN'T CONTINUE ON HAPPENING.
THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF PHOTOS AT THE UNC WILSON LIBRARY.
UH, MR. GLOVER, I THINK YOUR BROTHER PLAYED.
IT'S - WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH GOLF.
TODAY, IN MR. REITZ'S DISTRICT, THE NATIVE ISLAND GOLF CLASSIC, BUT THE MANUFACTURER NARRATIVE CONTINUES.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? DESTROY, FIGHT.
WE DON'T NEED TO DO IT, BUT IF I ASK MS. BROCK TO CLICK ON THAT THING THAT SAYS CLICK, THAT'S YOUR TALKING POINTS.
THOSE ARE YOUR FAST ACTION EMAILS.
THAT'S WHY YOUR INBOXES ARE CLUTTERED AND YOU CAN'T GET THE REST OF YOUR BUSINESS DONE.
EVEN TONIGHT, YOU'RE ABOUT CONSERVE THE PROPERTY, SAVE EVERYTHING.
UH, IT, IT'S JUST, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S NOT ONLY IS IT HARD, BUT I KNOW YOU GUYS RECOGNIZE IT.
THE POINT IS, YOU'RE DOING SOMEONE ELSE'S AGENDA.
FELI - MS. LAMARCA SPOKE ABOUT IT EARLIER.
MY POINT IS, MUCH OF THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN PUT INTO THE PUBLIC SPHERE HAS BEEN VERY ONE-SIDED.
IT'S BEEN MADE VERY SIMPLISTIC BY PATERNALISTIC
[01:55:01]
ORGANIZATIONS.IT, IT'S BEEN VERY SIMPLISTIC TO SAY THAT I...
IT'S BEEN VERY SIMPLISTIC TO SAY THAT NO GATES, NO GOLF.
I DON'T WANT G- GATES, NO GOLF EITHER.
AND WHEN YOU DO, YOUR ADDRESSES GET PUT OUT THERE, YOU GET BLASTED ON THE INTERNET FOR POTENTIALLY CHANGING YOUR MIND AND ENGAGING WITH THE COMMUNITY TO, FOR THE BEST OUTCOME FOR ALL CITIZENS, OR YOU GET YANKED INTO GETTING SCREAMED AND YELLED AT ON THE LEFT LIKE COUNCILMAN CUNNINGHAM DID.
ALL RIGHT, HE MADE A MOTION TO RESCIND.
LET'S JUST DEMOLISH HIS VOICEMAIL.
THIS HAS BEEN A PRODUCT, THIS, WHATEVER THIS BIZARRO SHOOTS AND LADDERS IS, IS, IS...
IT HASN'T BEEN AN EXERCISE IN WANTING A GOLF COURSE.
IT'S HA - IT'S BEEN AN EXERCISE IN EXPLAINING AND WONDERING WHO RUNS THIS PLACE.
I'VE SAT HERE FOR FIVE YEARS AND I'VE WATCHED THIS HAPPEN.
21 MILLION BUCKS IN THE BANK, 23 MILLION BUCKS IN THE BANK, SEVEN MILLION BUCKS IN REVENUE A YEAR, 250 GRAND, $232,000 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MAKES.
$0.00 INVESTED INTO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY.
BUT WE'LL PUT IT ALL OVER THE INTERNET AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO IT.
WE'LL, WE'LL GET OUR OWN GOFUNDMES GOING.
ANY OF THAT TRICKLE DOWN? SORRY.
THE IMPACT ON THE TOP RIGHT THERE, THE TOTAL ASSETS IS $23.7 MILLION, I BELIEVE.
AND THE TOTAL IMPACT, ACCORDING TO, IN THEIR OWN WORDS, THE YARD SIGNS OF 250 YARD SIGNS, $7.2 MILLION OF REVENUE ON THE LEFT SIDE.
IT'S NOT A BAD BUSINESS MODEL, BUT WHAT DOES IT DO FOR THE PEOPLE? FEDERAL COURT.
I WAS ALSO HEAVILY INVOLVED IN DEVELOPING OPPOSITIONAL STRATEGY.
IN ADDITION, I PROVIDED CRITICAL FINANCIALS TO COMMUNITY OUTREACH EFFORTS, AND I'M THE ONE THROWING MONEY AROUND.
WOULDN'T BE COMPLETE WITHOUT A WEBSITE, TWO OF THEM.
AND ENCOURAGE YOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS TO ALLOW THE LAWSUITS TO CONTINUE, TO ALLOW TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO GO OUT THE DOOR FOR SOMETHING THAT YOU DIDN'T WRITE.
ANYONE GET THEIR INVITE FOR LAST WEEKEND? CONSERVATION EASEMENTS DO NOT ADDRESS - UM, I'M SORRY.
THE PREFERRED OUTCOME THAT WE'VE ALL HEARD, I DON'T HAVE TO MANIPULATE THIS LANGUAGE, DOESN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM.
PROPERTY'S NOT FOR SALE, AND IT'S NOT FOR SALE BECAUSE YOU DON'T, IN MY OPINION, PROTECT A CULTURE JUST BY PROTECTING TREES.
YOU INVEST IN PEOPLE, YOUTH, OUR COMMUNITY, PERIOD.
SO WHY ARE WE HERE TONIGHT? BECAUSE A DECISION WAS MADE.
IT WASN'T BASED ON MORALS OR PRINCIPLES.
IT WAS BASED ON SELF-INTEREST.
PURE BUSINESS, DESPITE BEING PROVIDED WITH THE FULL TRUTH.
OUR TEAM STANDS BY THIS DECISION THAT WE MADE.
THAT MAN, COURAGE OF A LION TO TAKE ON THIS JOB.
THE REST OF MY TEAM, WE ALL DECIDED TO PUT OUR HANDS IN BECAUSE IT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY, PERIOD, NOT JUST OURSELVES.
AND WHEN DECISIONS ARE DIFFICULT, WE RETURN TO OUR PRINCIPLES.
[02:00:01]
YOU.I THINK MR. REESE, YOU HAD A QUESTION? WELL, I BELIEVE YOU ANSWERED, AND I THINK MR. DUKES MAY HAVE TOUCHED UPON IT AS WELL.
YOU, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE CPO OF 1999.
I'VE HAD A QUESTION FOR A COUPLE YEARS.
UM, EARLY 23, THIS COUNCIL WAS ASKED TO STRENGTHEN THAT CPO.
I THINK YOU TOUCHED UPON THAT IN MAYBE YOUR TALK, MR. DUKES, I DON'T KNOW.
HOW, HOW IS IT WITH THE CPO THAT WAS IN EXISTENCE IN 99, THERE WERE FOUR NEW MEMBERS EARLY 23 WITH THIS COUNCIL AND WE WERE ASKED TO STRENGTHEN THE CPO THAT EXISTED IN 99 AFTER YOU PURCHASED THE PROPERTY.
I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION AS WELL ONCE WHOEVER WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THAT.
I THINK, I THINK, I THINK YOUR QUESTION, UH, WAS PERTAINING TO UH, ON WHAT HAPPENED IN 1999 AND THEN IN 1923.
IN 20- 2023, WHEN THE, UM, IT WAS NOT CHANGING, IT WAS CLARIFYING THE CPO, UM, AS IT RELATES TO, UM, THE LANGUAGE.
I DON'T THINK MR. TRAPIANO IS GONNA ADDRESS THAT.
YOU WANNA ADDRESS THAT FOR MR. REESE? WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE, UH, UM, THE INSTRUCTION GIVEN TO THE CPO TO CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS IT RELATES TO, RELATED TO THE, UH, GOLF COURSE? UM - YEAH, IF YOU HAVE THE MIC ON, HE DOESN'T...
MOTION MADE BY THE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE.
OH, WAIT, LET ME FIND IT HERE.
LET ME FINISH SO I CAN GIVE YOU THE MICROPHONE.
IS THAT ALL RIGHT? NO, NO, NO.
IT'S, IT'S IN THE STAFF REPORT, MR. UM - YEAH, I THINK WE HAVE A QUOTE, UH, WE HAVE A QUOTATION OF THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE BY THE...
IT WAS NOT THE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE.
IT WAS THE LAND USE AND, AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE.
AND THAT IS WHAT STAFF AND THE CPO COMMITTEE, UH, SPENT THE NEXT COUPLE MONTHS WORKING ON.
THERE WERE FIVE CPO COMMITTEE MEETINGS.
A LOT OF MEAT WAS ADDED TO THE BONE.
THE LOGISTICS BEHIND WHY, WHAT, AND HOW.
WE JUST HEARD SOME OF THE TAPE.
UM, UH, I THINK MR. MERCHANT AND I MAY HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS ON THAT, WHICH I THINK WAS THE POINT OF MR. GLOVER INVITING HIM UP HERE.
TOTALLY UNDERSTOOD AND OUT OF RESPECT FOR, UM, THE PROCESS.
I, I, I WON'T NECESSARILY DIVE INTO IT, BUT WHAT I WILL DO IS SAY EXACTLY WHAT WE HAD THE ARGUMENT AT THE BEGINNING ABOUT MOVING THIS FORWARD WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION IS 100% ALLOWABLE BY THE ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER.
CHAPTER FOUR REQUIRES THAT THERE ARE MINUTES IN A REPORT.
CHAPTER THREE SAYS YOU CAN REPORT A MATTER WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION.
GIVEN THE FACT WE LITERALLY ARE HAVING SOMEWHAT OF A LEGAL ARGUMENT HERE AT THE MICROPHONE, I JUST INTRODUCED TO THE FACT, IN MY OPINION, THAT YOU DIDN'T MAKE THE ACTUAL FINDINGS.
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU GUYS MOVE IT FORWARD FOR CONSIDERATION AND GET LEGAL ADVICE WITHOUT MAKING AND/OR TAKING A POSITION AS IT WOULD BE THE PRUDENT THING TO DO.
BUT, UM, THAT'S THE POINT, IS THERE IS A TON MORE INFORMATION TO THIS.
THAT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.
AND AS I SAID - THANK YOU FOR ADVISING US.
ANY MORE QUESTION AT THIS TIME? JUST ONE LAST QUESTION.
UM, MAYBE PROCEDURE-WISE, I'M NOT UP ON ALL THE ROBERTS RULES, BUT MR. DUKES, WHEN YOU STARTED, BEFORE YOU STARTED, MR. HULBERT CAME UP TO YOU AND MAYBE IT WAS YOUR MOTIVE TO GET THIS OUT.
BUT MR. HULBERT ASKED YOU OR SAID SOMETHING TO YOU IN A SESSION THAT I, I BELIEVE IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THIS LIVE SESSION.
I THINK ANYTHING THAT IS SPOKEN SHOULD, EVERYBODY SHOULD HEAR IT.
NOW, IS IT FAIR TO ASK YOU WHAT THAT WAS OR DOES THAT NOT MAKE SENSE? I THINK IT'S FAIR TO ASK, UH, OUR ATTORNEY IF HE WANTS THAT SHARED, I THINK.
I DON'T, I'M NOT - IT WAS A PRIVATE, IT WAS A PRIVATE CONVERSATION BETWEEN TWO LAWYERS.
LISTEN, IF THAT'S THE CASE AND THAT'S ALLOWED IN A CHAMBER, I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD EVER BE DONE THAT WAY.
THESE PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW EVERYTHING THAT WE DO WHEN IN A LIVE SESSION.
IN MY OPINION, I COULD BE WRONG.
IT WAS JUST A GENERAL COMMENT ABOUT.
[02:05:01]
I APPRECIATE THAT.MR. MR. MCELLEN, UM, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR AT THIS TIME.
I THINK YOU SAID YOU WANNA MAKE SOME COMMENTS.
I WAS JUST GONNA ADD SOME COMMENTS BEFORE THE VOTE.
UM, THE, UH, BEAUFORT COUNTY CULTURAL PROTECTION OVERLAY ORDINANCE WAS ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED ON APRIL 26TH OF 1999 TO SAFEGUARD THE RURAL CHARACTER AND THE GULLAH GEECHEE CULTURE ON ST.
THE CULTURAL PROTECTION OVERLAY ORDINANCE IS CONSIDERED THE RULE OF LAW WITHIN THIS JURISDICTION.
IN THE UNITED STATES, LOCAL ORDINANCES PASSED BY A COUNTY COUNCIL OR A CITY GOVERNMENT ARE LEGALLY BINDING STATUTES THAT CARRY THE FULL FORCE OF LAW WITHIN THAT SPECIFIC COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY.
ANYONE DEVELOPING LAND OR OPERATING A BUSINESS WITHIN THE DESIGNATED CPO ZONES MUST LEGALLY COMPLY WITH ITS RESTRICTIONS, AND VIOLATIONS CAN RESULT IN CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS, FINES, OR LEGAL INJUNCTIONS.
BECAUSE THE CPO WAS ADOPTED INTO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, IT SERVES AS THE GOVERNING FRAMEWORK FOR ALL ZONING LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS ON ST.
COUNTY STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSIONS ARE LEGALLY BOUND TO ENFORCE ITS TERMS, SUCH AS TO STRICT PROHIBITION ON GOLF COURSES AND GATED COMMUNITIES, MEANING THEY CANNOT ARBITRARILY GRANT EXCEPTIONS OUTSIDE OF THE ESTABLISHED LEGAL AMENDMENT PROCESS.
NOW, LAND DEVELOPERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.
A CORE TENANT OF THE RULE OF LAW IS THAT LAWS MUST BE APPLIED FAIRLY AND ALLOW FOR LEGAL RESOURCE.
LAND OWNERS AND DEVELOPERS WHO DISAGREE WITH HOW THE CPO RESTRICTS THEIR PROPERTY HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO CHALLENGE IT.
THAT'S WHY DEVELOPERS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FILE LAWSUITS OR APPEAL DECISIONS TO THE CIRCUIT COURT.
THE COURTS ULTIMATELY DETERMINE WHETHER THE COUNTY'S ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE ALIGNS WITH STATE LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND THAT'S IMPORTANT.
UNDER THE LEGAL DOCTRINE OF HOME RULE, SOUTH CAROLINA GRANTS COUNTIES THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE LOCAL LAND USE TO PROTECT HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES.
HOWEVER, LOCAL ORDINANCES ARE ALWAYS SUBORDINATE TO STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS.
NO STATE COURT HAS RULED THAT THIS ORDINANCE VIOLATES A STATE STATUTE OR IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
ORDINANCES CAN BE STRUCK DOWN OR FORCED TO CHANGE.
THUS FAR, NO COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION HAS SAID THAT THIS ORDINANCE VIOLATES A STATE STATUTE OR IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
IT IS THE RULE OF LAW IN BEAUFORT COUNTY.
IF YOU VOTE YES TO OVERTURN THIS PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION, YOU ARE VOTING AGAINST THE RULE OF LAW.
IF YOU VOTE NO, YOU ARE UPHOLDING THE RULE OF LAW.
THE DECISION IS ENTIRELY YOURS.
MR. CUNNINGHAM, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
UM, ONE, UM, TO ANSWER PART OF TOM'S QUESTION BECAUSE HE DIDN'T GET ANSWERED EARLIER, THAT WAS PUT FORWARD BY THE CURRENT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AT THE TIME ERIC GREENWAY BROUGHT THAT AND ASKED US TO PAUSE THAT VOTE.
SO WE ALL KNOW THAT YOU CAN GO BACK AND WATCH THE CONVERSATIONS IN COUNTY CHAMBERS.
THAT HAPPENED IN, I BELIEVE, NOVEMBER BEFORE THE CPO EVEN STARTED MEETING, JUST SO EVERYONE'S AWARE OF THAT.
UH, TWO, UM, MR. MCKELLEN, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU IF WE DID NOT CHANGE THE RULES ILLEGALLY, AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE PROBLEM COMES INTO.
SO I KNOW WE'RE GONNA HEAR MORE OF THIS PRESENTATION.
I WISH WE COULD HAVE HEARD THE ENTIRE PRESENTATION TODAY SO WE DIDN'T HAVE TO HEAR IT ALL OVER AGAIN ON MONDAY WHEN WE HAVE THAT MEETING.
UM, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GONNA GET TO HEAR THIS TWICE NOW.
UM, I WILL LEAVE IT ON THAT BECAUSE I'M SURE WE WILL HAVE A LOT MORE DISCUSSIONS WHEN THIS GOES TO COUNTY COUNCIL.
UM, MR. DUKES, YOU GONNA SUMMARIZE OR - NO, NO, NO.
I JUST WANTED TO VERY CLEARLY CLARIFY WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR.
THIS IS NOT A REQUEST TO OVERTURN THE CPO.
THIS IS SIMPLY A REQUEST PURSUANT TO, PURSUANT TO THE CODE, WHICH IS A LAWFUL REQUEST TO REMOVE A PIECE OF PROPERTY FROM THAT ZONING DESIGNATION.
SO ALL, THAT'S COMPLETELY LEGAL.
EVERYTHING WE'RE ASKING TO DO IS FINE.
IF YOU VOTE, UH, TO ALLOW THIS TO OCCUR, YOU ARE NOT BREAKING THE LAW.
UM, THE QUESTION IS ON THE FLOOR RIGHT
[02:10:01]
NOW, UM, WHICH IS THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF, UH, 502 ACRES, UH, ON DATA, UH, ON DE LAMO ROAD, UH, WHICH WOULD REMOVE THAT ACREAGE OUT OF THE CULTURAL PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT.I HAVE TO READ THE REZONING REQUEST - YES, SIR, YOU DO.
AS TO WHY WE WOULD EITHER GRANT OR DENY.
AND HERE'S WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY.
I MOVE THAT WE DENY THE REQUEST FOR THE REZONING OF THE FOLLOWING RE - FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
ONE, IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE CODE AND THE PURPOSES OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE.
TWO, IT IS IN CONFLICT WITH PROVISIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND/OR CODE OF ORDINANCE.
THREE, IT DOES NOT ADDRESS A DE- DES - DEMONSTRATED COMMUNITY NEED.
FOUR, IT IS NOT REQUIRED BY CHANGE CONDITIONS.
FIVE, IT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING AND PROPOSED USE OF LAND SURROUNDING THIS LAND.
SIX, IT WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT NEARBY LAND.
SEVEN, WOULD NOT RESULT IN LOGICAL AND ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS.
EIGHT, IT WOULD RESULT IN ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.
AND FINALLY, NINE, IT WOULD NOT RESULT IN DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ADEQUATELY SERVED BY PUBLIC FACILITIES.
IT'S PROBABLY A MOTION AND SECOND IT.
UH, CALLING FOR THE VOTE AT THIS TIME.
UM, JUST TO BE CLEAR, A YES VOTE WOULD BE SUPPORTING TO DENY, CORRECT? YEAH, I WAS JUST GONNA ASK THAT, LOGAN.
MR. CHAIRMAN, COULD YOU CLARIFY FOR US WHAT THE YES AND NO VOTES WOULD DO? UH, THE YES VOTE WILL, UM, UH, DENY THE RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE THE 502 ACRES FROM THE CULTURAL PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT.
THE MOTION IS TO DENY THE REQUEST.
YES SUPPORTS THE MOTION TO DENY NO REJECTS THE MOTION TO DENY.
BEFORE WE MOVE ANY FURTHER, UM, MR...
OH, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO, SO IF YOU'RE VOTING YES, IT WILL DO WHAT? DENY THE REQUEST OF - VOTING YES OR NO.
JUST THINK OF THE, THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
VOTE TO DENY THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT.
SO IF YOU VOTE TO DENY THE MO - THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT, RAISE YOUR HAND.
IF YOU'RE NOT IN FAVOR OF DENYING IT, THEN DON'T RAISE YOUR HAND.
I THINK WE WILL DO A ROLL CALL, UM, BECAUSE - COULD EVERYBODY USE THEIR MICROPHONES? I CAN'T HEAR A LOT OF THE DISCUSSION.
WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL, BUT IS, IS MY MIC ON? YES, SIR.
YEAH, WE WILL DO A ROLL CALL BECAUSE IT'S BEING REQUESTED.
OKAY, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOUR VOTE IS WHAT YOU WANNA DO.
SO IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION ON THE VOTE RIGHT NOW, GO AHEAD AND ASK THE QUESTION.
SO A YES VOTE IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE, UH, ZONING BOARD'S REJECTION OF THE REQUEST TO REMOVE THE CPO? YES.
UH, SARAH, COULD WE HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE AT THIS TIME? YES, SIR.
SORRY, I'M JUST LETTING THE NOISE GO BY.
COUNCIL MEMBER CUNNINGHAM? NO.
COMMITTEE VICE CHAIR MCELLAN? YES.
THE MOTION TO DENY PASSES 6-3.
UM, THIS WILL NOW BE FORWARD TO COUNCIL FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION ON NOVEMBER 9TH, 6:00, UM, 6:00.