A - Town Council Meetings

MOUNT PLEASANT TOWN COUNCIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. Municipal Complex, Council Chambers 100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 MINUTES Mayor Page called the Town Council Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Council Members Bob Brimmer, Joe Bustos, Elton Carrier, Paul Gawrych, Jim Owens, Gary Santos and Mark Smith were present. I. PRAYER Fire Chief, Herb Williams led Council in prayer. II. PLEDGE Mayor Pro Tempore, Gary Santos, led Council in the Pledge of Allegiance III. COMPLIANCE WITH FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT Mr. Pagliarini certified compliance with the Freedom of Information Act. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Santos moved for approval; seconded by Mr. Owens. All present voted in favor. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS, AWARDS & PRESENTATIONS A. Recognition of 2016 Foster Care Review Board Member of the Year Mr. DeMoura stated that at the request of the family, they would like to defer until the July meeting. B. Alzheimers/Brain Health Proclamation Mayor Page and Town Council presented a proclamation to former mayor, Cheryll Woods-Flowers, Taylor Wilson, Communications Director of the State Association, and Diane Sanchez, who is opening up a memory care facility, Forever Young. Ms. Wilson thanked Mayor and Town Council. Ms. Woods-Flowers stated that she is an appointed volunteer ambassador to Congressman Mark Sanford and spends time in his office, in Washington and Columbia, SC. She stated that her father was diagnosed 14 years ago and she did not know anything about the disease. She stated when a family member has this disease, it affects the entire family. C. Longevity Awards Mayor Page and Town Council recognized Mike Robertson, Principal Planner; Johnny Port, Public Services; and Marlene Mecca, Administrative Services, for 20 years of service to the Town. D. Recognition of Planning and Development Department Building Division Reaccreditation Mr. DeMoura stated that Ms. Farrell will be presenting to Mayor Page and Town Council the award for the reaccreditation of the Planning Department’s Building Division. He stated that he wanted to say publically, that these awards do not happen without the leadership of Ms. Farrell. He stated that everyone is aware of the volume of work that the Planning Department has had to handle over the past several years and continually, Ms. Farrell has made sure that not only has the department been able to handle things and handle them expertly, but has been able to make sure that the department never stops pursuing being better. Ms. Farrell stated that she would like to recognize her staff, because they are the ones who make this happen. She stated in 2013 they received accreditation and were the only municipality in the State of South Carolina to receive building accreditation and are still the only municipality in the South Carolina to be accredited. She stated that there are two counties that are; however, the Town is the leader as Page 2 of 46  they have been. She stated that last year 10,432 permits were issued, which were kitchen remodels, roofing permits, swimming pools, commercial building, new homes, etc. They conducted over 30,000 inspections last year. She stated that this is not what accreditation is about, but about professionalism, public safety, high standards for customer service and professional development, which is what her staff demonstrates. She stated that it takes a great deal of time to put together an application for accreditation; however, you must have the programs and the plans in place first. She stated that the #1 priority is safety. She stated that they take it seriously, professionally and do it well. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE MAY 9, 2017 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING AND THE MAY 2017 FINANCIAL STATEMENT. Mr. Carrier moved for approval; seconded by Mr. Gawrych. All present voted in favor. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PUBLIC STATEMENTS Philip Berlinsky, 210 Haddrell Street stated that he is the President of a Homeowners Association (HOA) over there since 2000. He stated that he would like to comment on a marina that is next door that is developing and expanding. He stated that Wayne Magwood sold the marina next door some time ago to Mr. Bubba Simmons who is a developer. He said that since that time, Mr. Simmons has requested expansion of the docks next door and dry stack, and did get an 85 foot floating dock in addition to what he had previously. He stated that there was some inquiry regarding a 50 room boutique hotel, as well as a beer and wine license. He stated that all of these things are very concerning. He said that the problem they face with DHEC as it relates to the Town of Mount Pleasant is that DHEC has jurisdiction over the water, whereas, the Town of Mount Pleasant had jurisdiction beyond the critical line. He stated that a permit has been submitted to DHEC which would allow for a 26’x52’ pavilion style roof on top of the pier which is a massive roof and does not believe it is proper for the use of a dry stack facility with limited capacity. He added that Mr. Simmons has requested additional expansive floating docks and the issue that we are faced with Page 3 of 46 is that generally, the Town of Mount Pleasant is not put on notice; however, it is different today. He stated that the 24 foot right-of-way is next to his property and the Simmons property. He stated that the Town was put on notice by DHEC to make comment to provide input and it should have happened. He stated that he contacted Mr. DeMoura and he notified him that he had not received notice of this. He feels that Mr. DeMoura would have done something if he had received this notice. He stated that DHEC stated that they sent notification to the Town via email in September of 2016. He stated that we are currently faced with an issue as the time to appeal this permit is tomorrow. He stated that he filed a request for a review public hearing which was denied. He stated that the Town of Mount Pleasant does have the opportunity to do something and work with DHEC and the Army Corp of Engineers because the Town is the abutting landowner that owns the 24 foot parcel. He stated that the Town has the right to make this input. He stated that Mayor Page created a Task Force to do this. He stated that he has submitted the papers to Ms. Santos and will need to be appealed tomorrow. Kevin Cunnane, 3032 River Vista Way, stated that he is here once again to speak about the Town’s fire department. He stated that there are excellent firefighters in the Town and does not want anyone to think that he is making any allegations about a firefighter being inadequate as an individual; this is the not case. He said that he does not want to hurt anyone’s professional feelings. He stated that the problem and issue he continues to speak about is that we do not have enough firefighters in this Town and are not meeting National minimum standards in the Town of Mount Pleasant with the Fire Department. He stated that they are not able to arrive in a reasonable time to get the job done under those standards and this is not just one section of Town, but most sections of Town. He stated that the reason for this is improper staffing. He stated that this is not an assault on the leadership or the firefighters, but reality, an assault on the budget people for not making them a priority over the course of many years. He stated that due to improper staffing, this is putting firefighters in danger as well as civilians. He has looked at it in many different ways and appreciates the Page 4 of 46 Council members who have called him in to meet with the Fire Department and arrived at a simple calculation. He stated that if we take any address in Town, he can do the same calculation. He said the travel distances have changed over time; the time it takes to move has increased and it will increase for the fire apparatuses as well. Mr. Gawrych stated that he has been listening to Mr. Cunnane’s comments for approximately one to two years and is saying the same thing. He stated that he does not know if it is getting anywhere. He stated that what he is hearing is that he is telling the elected body that the Fire Department is improperly staffed to handle suppressing fires within the Town of Mount Pleasant. Mr. Cunnane responded that this is correct. William Hamilton, 32 Sowell Street, stated that he did not realize until this evening that public transit makes fire protection cheaper. He stated that as our roads slow down, we must build more fire stations and hire more firefighters who spend most of their lives doing nothing, because when it is time to do something, they cannot get to the fires, because our traffic is bad with too many vehicles and not enough busses. In November, the Town joined the rest of Charleston County to spent $600 million dollars to improve public transit. He stated that this means this fall, the Town can expect and demand better bus service than it now has. He stated that they have tripled bus riders for Mount Pleasant over seven years, then CARTA cut the routes and riders were then lost. He stated that they are doing a petition regarding Mark Sanford’s bill. He stated of the 118 signatures already received, 36 of them are from Mount Pleasant and only 46 from Charleston and North Charleston combined. He mentioned that there is strong interest in support for public transit in Mount Pleasant. He said that North Charleston is going to receive a big beautiful bus rapid transit system and the Town will be able to connect to this very efficiently across the bridge so there is benefit; however, the Town does need to get better bus service. He stated that there is an important meeting at the old Navy Hospital at 7 p.m. on Thursday and hopes that some will attend. He stated that Congressman Mark Sanford has introduced a bill that would end public Page 5 of 46 transit funding from the United States government. He stated that it is unlikely to pass; however, there are nice Republicans in Connecticut and many other places that support public transit. The Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) needs to give Charleston County $120 million to build the Bus Rapid Transit System from Summerville through North Charleston to Charleston. He stated that the people in the FTA are not going to give that funding to the Congressional District that tried to kill their agency and destroy their jobs when they can give it to a nice Republican in Connecticut who has the president of Citibank riding a train home every day while managing $50 billion in assets. He stated that Mr. Sanford is making a serious strategic mistake and is squandering our political influence on a bill that can only damage our community. He said that he would encourage all elected officials to correct his mistake. Barry Wolff, 1468 Pocahontas Street, stated that this evening Council will be discussing the suspension of the issuance of permits in the Old Village of Mount Pleasant. He stated that he applauds this, but wishes that it had happened earlier. He stated that it is a fact that there are extreme drainage issues all over the Old Village, Old Mount Pleasant, the Indian Village, and on Rifle Range. He stated that part of the problem is zoning. He stated that what the SR2-OD district has brought to the Old Village and the fact that Old Mount Pleasant does not have an HOA (Homeowners Association). He stated that he is not saying he would like an HOA, because there are too many restrictions. He said the downside is that there are fewer restrictions on ADU’s (accessory dwelling units), and the Town does not even include or acknowledge ADU’s when it comes to density in the Town. He said that no matter what, the ADU’s create impervious surface. He stated that on the corner of Pocahontas and McCants, there were two lots that were covered with 2,700 square feet of dwelling of impervious surface. He stated that they were subdivided into three lots and have now at least tripled the impervious surface on that same property. He stated that the first thing they did was dump two loads of dirt on the lot, raising the property and shedding the water. He stated that the Town needs to go out and shoot Page 6 of 46 elevations and look at what is being done to the other neighbors, and it needs to be enforced. George Freeman, 1450 Bowman Road, stated that he would like to clarify something that took place at the last Council meeting when discussing the Sweetgrass Basket Overlay (SBOD). He stated that a citizen was complaining that he was not involved in the creation of the SBOD, and heard nothing about the Task Force. He stated the reason he did not hear about a Task Force is because there was no Task Force for the SBOD. He said that there was one for the Highway 17 corridor, because of the traffic problem in that area and there was an overgrowth in the Town during that time. He stated that the County and the Town coordinated to come up with a way to prevent a bottleneck in the Town from the Isle of Palms Connector to Porchers Bluff, because that area was a disaster during rush hour traffic. He stated that both the County and the Town realized that in the future, there would be an issue with over development in this area; therefore, there was a recommendation presented to the County and the Town and out of those recommendations, there were road suggestions and zoning. He stated that in this area, before the zoning was done, all the houses sat on one house per acre. He stated that when it was changed to three houses per acre it increased the density in the area. He said that the reason why the County and Town decided on three houses per acre is because there was development coming on Rifle Range Road already that was in that area. He said that it was determined that in the future some property owners may want to subdivide their property. He stated that three houses per acre was a reasonable number of homes on one acre that would satisfy everyone since it was being used in that area already. He stated that he wanted to clarify that this was not about the SBOD. He stated that the only reason it is called a SBOD is because this area consisted of the Six Mile and Seven Mile communities which are the areas where the twelve women who were given credit for preserving the Sweetgrass baskets reside. This is how the name of the overlay came about, but everything that is in the SBOD was put in to enhance the quality of life in the Town and make it better, not just to protect the residents in the Six and Seven Mile communities. He stated that today, Page 7 of 46 there is no overdevelopment in this area because of what was done with the Highway 17 Corridor Task Force in 2006. Sean Barnes, 1418 Barbara Street, stated that he has lived in the Indian Village and when the lots were subdivided, that it should be considered new construction and the Town should follow what they do on the other subdivisions. He stated that they should have a retention pond or an underground retention pond. He stated that if there is only a certain amount of square footage and it is tripled, it should be accounted for the extra square footage that was not there previously. He stated that secondly, when the Town refers to the smaller houses and the short term rentals, he has raised a son in the Indian Village and now raising a daughter and it is a community; not a resort or hotel, but a community. He stated that there are people coming and going all the time and did not ask for this. He stated that when the overlay at Coleman, Council had the opportunity to stop what is going on in the Indian Village and still have opportunities. He stated that November is going to change some things and everyone should start figuring out what has been taken from them. He stated that they are not asking for more than what they already have; just what they had before. He asked that Council not destroy what they have, because of something that was done on the front row. He stated that it is the same thing with the medians that are going in on Coleman Boulevard. He asked where Council thinks the people will go when the parking is on the side. He stated that they will begin parking on McCants or Center Streets and bring more traffic into the Indian Village. He asked what is going to be done for those in the Indian Village. He stated that no one cares about those in the Indian Village. Laurence Mahorney, 749 McCants Drive, stated that he is here in reference to a moratorium on building in Old Mount Pleasant. He said that seven months ago, this same issue was passed by Planning and first reading of Council and failed by two votes at second reading, with a motion for a deferral of the vote until Mr. Santos could be present, which was not passed and one member changed his position. He stated that it is because of media attention and an election year that we are Page 8 of 46  discussing this again. He stated that nothing has changed for neighbors here, except a worsening of the situation. He stated that Ms. Burnett’s situation on Freeman’s Street where her home has become unlivable with black mold and runoff. He stated another who is replacing his floor for the second time in Old Mount Pleasant, as well as numerous other complaints of development pushing runoff onto existing neighbors. He asked Council to please remember this part of Town which has either no storm drainage or damaged non-working infrastructure. He stated that two days after Planning passed a resolution to bring this moratorium to a vote last Monday, a building permit was issued for development of 753 McCants, a flood-prone lot directly adjacent to his home. He asked if the Town was willing to accept financial responsibility to homeowners for these decisions. He stated that it may be too late for his family, their property and investment, but this evening, Council has a second chance to protect other residents. Mark Hilton, 640 King Street, stated that he has lived on King Street for the past 17 years and is very proud to live in a community that is so passionate about what happens here. He stated that he has friends on both sides of the moratorium issue. He mentioned that he just purchased a vacant lot behind his home and asked if this means that they cannot build on the vacant lot. He stated that there are others who have submitted permits and are in various stages. He asked what happens to them. He stated that he is a professional engineer and works in the construction industry and this should be based on hard data; reports that indicate these are problem areas before rash knee-jerk decisions are made. He stated that as far as lowering the height of ADU’s, if they are okay with a 20 foot ADU, it has the same runoff as a 25 foot ADU when you are discussing impermeable areas. He stated that this logic does not make sense. He stated that there are a number of facets to this and should all be considered. VIII. PLANNING – Ms. Farrell Planning Committee Minutes Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 46 A. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request from the property owner of a parcel of land located at 529 Mill Street and identified by TMS No. 517-16-00-099, for a waiver from the one year waiting period to reapply for zoning pursuant to Town of Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances 156.031(E)(4). Ms. Farrell stated that this is a Council decision. She stated that this particular application for the same zoning request, for 529 Mill Street was previously not approved and the applicant would like to reapply; however, there is a code section that requires a one year waiting period prior to reapplying. She stated that Council may grant a waiver which is the request this evening. She mentioned that Council has received correspondence through the Clerk of Council from the property owner. She stated that this does not come through a process with Planning Commission or Planning Committee, but directly to Council for consideration. Mr. Smith moved for approval; seconded by Mr. Carrier. Mr. Carrier stated that he has been in contact with the owner and this is deserving of the waiver. He stated that he was misled initially by usage and parking and different things that pertain to this property, which he was not informed adequately about. He said after meeting with the property owner and looking at the property and the benign nature of his request, he feels it is worthy of reconsideration. Mr. Bustos stated that he went to the property Sunday afternoon and stated that this has nothing to do with the property owner; however, that corner is in disarray. He said there are people attempting to launch boats, kayaks, trucks coming down the wrong way to turn around on Mill Street and pick up kayaks. He stated that it is an area waiting for something to happen. He said that he does not have an issue with the property owner reapplying for something, however, for that corner to become Page 10 of 46 anything else other than what it already is, a hard look needs to be taken there. He stated that it is turning out to be a mess. Mr. Smith stated that he would concur with every comment Mr. Bustos made. He stated that he made the motion to support this and made the motion to support this when it came before Council previously. He stated to Mr. Bustos’ point, he would further support this because what was described would be exacerbated if all of the items that are being stored in that garage were to be forced to go away and put on a trailer or trailers, which would be adding to and worsening the problem that Mr. Bustos described. Mr. Haynie asked about the nature of the request for the waiver and what may Council anticipate to come back if this is granted. Ms. Farrell stated that it would be the exact same request from previous, the neighborhood commercial zoning for the underlying district. Mr. Haynie asked when Council voted this item down. Ms. Farrell stated that it originally came before Council in August, 2016 and was deferred for a while, because it was sent to the Shem Creek Task Force for this discussion. Council last saw this in January, 2016 because there was a deferral for that period of time. Mr. Haynie stated that this is when it was voted down and if the waiver is not granted, the property owner may reapply in January, 2018. Mr. Carrier asked if Ms. Farrell would provide some history about who came first here, as far as the location of the commercial activity there. He stated that the property owner has been there a lot longer than the activities and is attempting to legalize his activity and Council needs to at least hear him out with a full disclosure as to what he is doing there. He stated that it is strictly not going to be incumbent on any sort of pressure on that area that there is not already. He stated that it would legalize. He said Page 11 of 46 that he is asking Ms. Farrell to explain the Town’s ordinances as it pertains to what he is doing there now. Ms. Farrell stated that she does not have the staff report since it is a waiver request; however, the storage of the kayaks is not something that would be allowed with a residential zoning district. She said that this property is in the overlay district (urban corridor overlay district), which normally expands uses; however, if the underlying zoning district is residential, you may only have residential uses on the property. She stated that this is the reason for the request for Neighborhood Commercial. She stated that if neighborhood commercial were approved, it could be more expansive than just the use of storage and could be anything that is a permitted use within neighborhood commercial. She said that it could be accommodated on the property and comply with parking. She stated that as she understands, it is Mr. Mowrer’s intent to come back with that request for that one parcel. Mr. Carrier stated that this is for the one parcel only. Ms. Farrell responded in the affirmative. Mr. Carrier stated that when this was initially reviewed, he was looking at both properties and the possibility of Mr. Mowrer converting it to a restaurant with parking requirements and this just cannot happen. He stated that this is why he is asking on his behalf for the relief, for him to resubmit within the year. Mr. Owens asked Ms. Farrell if she is aware if this went to the Shem Creek Task Force and if they provided any information on this issue. Ms. Farrell stated that it did go to them and they did not have any specific recommendation, because they had not yet completed their work when this needed to come back to Council. She stated that there is also a six month timeframe that begins once an application is in front of Town Council. She stated that her recollection is that the Shem Creek Task Force did not have a specific recommendation on this item. Page 12 of 46 Mr. Owens stated that this is in reference to a more than 5,000 square foot lot. Ms. Farrell stated that it is .12 acre. Mr. Owens asked if there is any other commercial around this particular parcel. Ms. Farrell stated that there is the marine use across the street and various businesses throughout this particular area, as well as residential. She stated that this is all part of the overlay. She stated that one side of Mill Street is part of urban corridor and the other side is part of Shem Creek Waterfront overlay. She stated that it is a mixture of some existing residential, as well as some existing commercial. Mr. Owens asked Ms. Farrell if the property on the east side of Mr. Mower’s property on Simmons Street is a house or a business. Ms. Farrell stated that it is an office. Mr. Carrier confirmed that the lot being discussed is .12 acre. Mel Mower, 525 Mill Street, stated that he is very confused. He stated that he has a letter from the director of Planning and Development that says in his case, he does not have a one year waiting period to reapply because the code indicates that the one year waiting period applies in cases where the ruling is negative, and this did not occur in their case. He stated that there was a failed motion, not a negative ruling. He stated that Ms. Farrell confirmed this with Legal Counsel following the last Council meeting. He stated that he is here this evening in an attempt to get this done, not to waive something that was not necessary to be waived. He wanted Council to hear why he wanted to get this rezoned. He directed his statement to Mr. Owens and stated that 90% of the four blocks between Coleman Boulevard, Mill Street, and Simmons Street is commercial. He stated that he has been at his residence for 30 years. He stated that 90% of the residents are gone and it is commercial. He asked why he is being singled out not to obtain a commercial zoning. He stated that he does not Page 13 of 46 understand it. He stated that he is being told he needs to have it rezoned commercially; however, Council makes it so difficult. He said he has been to the Planning Department and they also make it very difficult. He stated that the Zoning Administrator embarrassed him and had to leave his office. He asked if he needed to obtain a real estate lawyer to assist him and would just like Council to tell him what he needs to do. Mayor Page asked if there are Council members that have a question for Mr. Mower. Mr. Santos stated that he would like clarification from Legal Counsel since he made the previous statement. Mr. Pagliarini stated that the ordinance requires that the ruling be negative, and it was discussed with the Planning Department. He stated that their position was that the ruling was negative and that it was not approved. Mr. Santos stated that Legal Counsel is clarifying that the ruling was negative vote, which is why Mr. Mower is back before Council. Mr. Pagliarini stated that he believes that the only way they can reapply within the one year is to receive approval from Town Council. Mr. Santos stated that when this ordinance was put in place, it was for applicants to come back who have made changes. He stated that it was not for the same thing. He stated that he has an issue waiving this item, since Mr. Mower has not made any changes. He stated that this would be his reason for voting against this item. Mr. Haynie stated for clarification, this motion is to approve the waiver. Mr. Carrier, Mr. Gawrych, Mr. Smith and Mayor Page were in favor. Page 14 of 46  Mr. Brimmer, Mr. Bustos, Mr. Haynie, Mr. Owens and Mr. Santos were opposed. Motion fails 5-4. 2. First Reading: An Ordinance providing for the annexation of an approximately 0.99 acre tract of land located at 1271 Hamlin Road, identified by TMS No. 578-00-00-195, and depicted as Lot G on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Book BW, Page 120. (Ord. No. 17030) Mr. Gawrych moved for first reading; seconded by Mr. Smith. All present voted in favor. Mr. DeMoura read FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY. B. OLD BUSINESS 1. Final Reading: An Ordinance providing for the annexation of an approximately 0.788 acre tract of land located at 4275 Highway 17 North, identified by TMS No. 632-00-00-026, and depicted as New Lot 2A on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Plat Book S17, Page 0059. (Ord. No. 17019) Mr. Smith moved for final reading; seconded by Mr. Santos. Ms. Farrell stated that an amendment needs to be made on this item. She said that Charleston County notified the Town that they assigned the wrong address to this property previously; therefore it is necessary that the correct address be reflected as part of the amendment. She stated that the address will be changed from 4275 to 4231. Mr. Gawrych asked if this applies to both items #1 and #2 under Planning Old Business. Ms. Farrell responded in the affirmative. Mr. Smith amended his motion to reflect 4231 as the address for items #1; under Planning Old Business; Mr. Santos amended his second to reflect the same. Mr. Brimmer was opposed. All others present voted in favor. Motion carries 7-1. Page 15 of 46  Mr. DeMoura read FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY. This Ordinance SIGNED, SEALED and DELIVERED this date. 2. Final Reading: An Ordinance to zone NC, Neighborhood Commercial district, an approximately 0.788 acre tract of land located at 4275 Highway 17 North, identified by TMS No. 632-00- 00-026, and depicted as New Lot 2A on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Plat Book S17, Page 0059. (Ord. No. 17020) Mr. Gawrych moved for final reading and to amend to reflect the correct address from 4275 to 4231; seconded by Mr. Smith. Mr. Haynie stated that this is the lock and key company that was discussed at the previous Council meeting. Ms. Farrell responded in the affirmative. Mr. Haynie stated that Council received a very eloquently worded message from a former member of the Planning Commission. Mr. Gawrych stated that they are a current member. Mr. Haynie stated that he agreed with the message and stated that sometimes Council would like to do the right thing for this landowner, which he agrees with; however, it is the wrong thing for all the other property owners. He stated that he has given this a great deal of thought and is still of the same opinion. Mr. Brimmer and Mr. Haynie were opposed. Mr. Bustos, Mr. Carrier, Mr. Gawrych, Mr. Owens, Mr. Santos, Mr. Smith and Mayor Page were in favor. Motion carries 6-3. Mr. DeMoura read FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY. This Ordinance SIGNED, SEALED and DELIVERED this date. 3. Final Reading: An Ordinance providing for the annexation of an approximately 0.342 acre tract of land located at 2157 Annie Laura Lane, identified by TMS No. 558-00-00-451, and depicted as Lot 3B in Boone Hall Tract on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Book DB, Page 811. (Ord. No. 17022) Page 16 of 46  Mr. Gawrych moved to accept the withdrawal; seconded by Mr. Smith. All present voted in favor. 4. Final Reading: An Ordinance to amend Zoning Code Section 156.313 (D) of Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances providing limitations on location, height and number of stories for accessory buildings in the Old Village Historic District. (Ord. No. 17024) Mr. Brimmer moved for approval; seconded by Mr. Santos. Mayor Page stated that the Town has been discussing how these changes affect residents and sometimes the unintended consequences of these changes. She said if a project has already been approved, then that project falls under the previous rule. Ms. Farrell stated that this only pertains to the Old Village Historic District. She stated that any accessory structure (AS), not just ADU’s (accessory dwelling unit), this height will apply. She said that if approval has already been granted from the Old Village Historic District Commission (OVHDC) with a Certificate of Appropriateness, then they are vested under the old height. Mr. Smith stated that with the approval from the OVHDC, is there a timeline. Ms. Farrell stated that it is the same that applies to impact assessments and things that would come to Town Council, they are vested initially for a period of two years. She stated that if this vesting becomes ready to expire, they may go before the OVHDC and not to Council, because the body that made the approval was the OVHDC. She stated that they may go back to OVHDC and request the one year extension and may be done five times, which is exactly the same as the impact assessment. Sean Barnes, 1418 Barbara Street, stated that he has lived in the Indian Village for a very long time and believes that residents should be able to have a building in the back of your house. He stated that it used to be that you could not go further than the peak of your existing primary residence. He stated that this was a Page 17 of 46  great idea and does not know how it changed to where it ended up being two or three stories, because when you have a small house, the ADU just sticks out and allows people to do short term rentals. He stated that if residents are able to build an ADU at the height that you have now, there is nothing wrong with it, because a lot of people have done this. Kevin Cunnane, 3032 River Vista Way, stated that with the ADU’s, this is another example of a firefighting deficiency we have in the Town. He stated you are placing a building behind another building and it will be a delayed time of discovery and searching of a fire, because you cannot use ladder trucks, although he has been told that in the Town of Mount Pleasant, ladder trucks are obsolete, which is absurd. He stated that you would have to carry a ladder back behind a home and have a longer hose stretch with only three firefighters. He stated that anyone who has ever fought fires knows that three people cannot stretch a hose line and will have to wait for another engine company. He stated that this is a start, but things such as sprinklers in ADU’s, which are not that expensive, is something that the Town should be considering. He stated that better egress, the width of the stairs, exit signs, etc. He stated that it may end up being a rooming house, because it may happen one day. All present voted in favor. Mr. DeMoura read FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY. This Ordinance SIGNED, SEALED and DELIVERED this date. 5. Final Reading: An Ordinance to amend Zoning Code Section 156.313 (E) of Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances pertaining to residential parking requirements in the Old Village Historic District. (Ord. No. 17025 Mr. Santos moved for approval; seconded by Mr. Carrier. All present voted in favor. Mr. DeMoura read FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY. This Ordinance SIGNED, SEALED and DELIVERED this date. Page 18 of 46 6. Final Reading: An Ordinance to amend Zoning Code Section 156.430 (A) of Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances regarding Old Village Historic District Commission membership requirements. (Ord. No. 17026) Mr. Brimmer moved for approval; seconded by Mr. Carrier. Mr. Carrier stated that there are certification positions on the Commission and asked if this opens it up to all the other positons. Ms. Farrell stated that the OVHDC does not have certification positions. She stated that there is language that indicates that if the Commission does desire to have some type of expertise such as an architect, that they could request such, and would be done on a contractual type basis. All present voted in favor. Mr. DeMoura read FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY. This Ordinance SIGNED, SEALED and DELIVERED this date. 7. Final Reading: An Ordinance to amend Zoning Code Section 156.162 (N) of Chapter 156 of the Mount Pleasant Code of Ordinances pertaining to prohibited signs to provide for an exemption to certain interactive electronic readerboards. (Ord. No. 17027) Mr. Gawrych moved for final reading; seconded by Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith stated that this ordinance has nothing to do with digital billboards. All present voted in favor. Mr. DeMoura read FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY. This Ordinance SIGNED, SEALED and DELIVERED this date. 8. Final Reading: An Ordinance providing for the annexation of an approximately 1.03 acre tract of land located at 1154 Gregorie Ferry Road, identified by TMS No. 580-00-00-022, and depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Plat Book R, Page 087. (Ord. No. 17015) Page 19 of 46  Ms. Farrell stated that the applicant has requested deferral for an additional month for contractual due diligence. Mr. Smith moved for approval of the deferral of both item #8 and item #9; seconded by Mr. Owens. All present voted in favor. 9. Final Reading: An Ordinance to zone AB-2, Areawide Business-2 District, an approximately 1.03 acre tract of land located at 1154 Gregorie Ferry Road, identified by TMS No. 580-00-00-022, and depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Book R, Page 087. (Ord. No. 17016) [Addressed in item #8] IX. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Accommodations Tax Advisory Committee (No Meeting) Report B. Bids & Purchases Committee The Committee unanimously approved the following recommendations: • Approval to contract with Stantec Consulting Services Inc., in the amount of $1,151,496.78 to perform the design of Billy Swails Boulevard, Phase 4B, pending SCDOT award concurrence. • Approval to contract with Utility Asset Management, Inc. in the amount of $215,032.91 to perform the Wando East and Wando Lakes rehabilitation work for spin casting services. • Approval to contract with Tokio Marine HCC Stop Loss Group per the monthly agreed upon terms to provide health insurance stop loss coverage. Page 20 of 46  • Approval to contract with CDM Smith Inc., in the amount of $399,738.00 to perform the planning work for the comprehensive plan update and long range transportation plan. • Approval of the Memorandum of Understanding for in-contract design and construction of Pitt and Venning Streets utility replacement project, including any subsequent amendments for construction services. • Approval to contract with STV Incorporated in the amount of $429,735.32 to perform design work for the intersection improvements at the Coleman Boulevard/Patriot’s Point Road/Magrath Darby Boulevard Intersection. B. Economic Development Committee (No Meeting) Report C. Education Committee (No Meeting) Report D. Finance Committee (No Meeting) Report F. Fire Committee (No Meeting) Page 21 of 46 G. Human Resources (No Meeting) Report H. Patriots Point Development Authority (PPDA) Mayor Page stated that she did attend the special Joint Bond Committee Hearing in Columbia. She stated approximately 10 Board members entertained Senator Leatherman on the lease and have not moved forward at this time. Mr. Gawrych stated that in reading Mayor Page’s email and then the follow up article in the Post and Courier, the plans of Mr. Bennett have been put on hold until the question of the loan can be resolved. He asked if this is where this currently sits. Mayor Page stated that it is. She stated that the upstate, particularly Senator Peeler and Senator Leatherman are very concerned with the original loan that was $9.2 million and $1 million has been repaid. He stated that the Senators are desiring an amortization that will be shorter than the originally requested amortization. She stated that PPDA requested the 25 year amortization on the repayment of the loan for the repairs of a ship that was sinking that belongs to the State of South Carolina. She stated that PPDA is going to shorten the time of the amortization and take it back to that Committee, in order to go to full Committee and are in hopes that by September, PPDA will hear if Mr. Bennett’s plans will be approved to move forward with a 99 year lease on 30 acres of property. Mr. Gawrych stated that when speaking with the Committee in Columbia, he stated that he has seen Mr. Bennett’s plans which are beautiful; however, he just wonders what those individuals in Columbia are planning for the infrastructure needs on the one road in, one road out at Patriots Points which will require funding. He asked if there was any discussion on this. Page 22 of 46 Mayor Page stated that Senator Paul Campbell is on the side of the project, as is Representative Gilda Cobb-Hunter from Orangeburg and the representatives from Myrtle Beach and Sumter. She stated that there have been no other discussions other than Mr. Bennett and the Town of Mount Pleasant paying for the infrastructure needs. She stated that this Council has made a commitment and asked Mr. Morrison how much of a commitment has been made to PPDA, including the $2 million for the road changes and the conceptual design for Coleman Boulevard. Mr. Morrison stated that $2 million in TIF funds would be the Town’s match on a $3 million MID (municipal improvement district), for an approximate total cost of $5 million to do all the improvements at Patriots Point and Coleman Boulevard. Mayor Page stated that the Town was blessed with a small gas tax increase. Mr. Carrier stated as a follow up to Mr. Gawrych’s question, does the Senate Committee have to approve Mr. Bennett’s program in order to obtain the funds to pay for the Laffey’s repayment. Mayor Page stated that PPDA is tasked with keeping the USS Yorktown and the Laffey afloat, as well as the museum and the interactive components in the museum. She stated that without the lease, there is no long term sustainable program that will keep those ships afloat. She stated that PPDA is in a dilemma and must have approval of the development plans to pay the $8.2 million Laffey loan back, as well as maintain and continue to upgrade those ships. She stated that it is all hinging on the development plans for the future of that museum. Mr. Smith stated that he is a little disappointed that Mayor Page has not mentioned any of the local municipality representatives actively fighting and working hard for the Town on either side in the State. He said that he does not know if they are working behind the scenes, but did not read their names in the paper and have not heard any conversations to lead him to believe this. He asked Page 23 of 46 Council and the Mayor if it would be in the best interest of the Town to have a unified voice with some type of communication that the Mayor may bring on behalf of the Town, asking the representatives to step up and fight hard for this opportunity, or is he alone in his expectations that his state elected officials would work hard on his behalf as a constituent. He stated that he finds this to be an elementary fundamental part of their responsibility. Mr. Gawrych stated that the reason he brought this up was the intent to get a feel from Council that this is coming. He added that he looks forward to what Mr. Bennett wants to do and for the State’s grand scheme that sits in our Town. He stated that at the end of the day, the citizens will say Council voted for it. He would echo the comments on a united front to make it clear that the Town is looking to their hard working colleagues and friends in Columbia to fund the infrastructure, because there is a $660 million dollar bridge with traffic just to get into Mount Pleasant because of the lights on both sides. Mayor Page stated that she will take these sentiments back to the PPDA. She stated that the Authority has been working very hard with the Laffey issue and the first hurdle is repayment of the loan and then they will discuss infrastructure and where that funding will come from. She stated that the challenge is that the Laffey is a wonderful ship, with a fantastic history, and the most dedicated group of volunteers who come to the Town four times a year on their own, although most of them are well up in age, to work and love that ship. She stated that PPDA will get through this and there will be conversations with them all about all the issues. Mr. Santos stated that he has an idea that he had a long time ago that would help, which is to move the Hunley over to the Yorktown. He stated that this would increase tourism and help generate additional revenue that would help bring the other ships up to speed. Mayor Page stated that at the same Joint Bond Committee hearing, it was brought up that there is conversation to bring the Hunley to Page 24 of 46  Mount Pleasant. She stated that the conversation is not serious and was under wraps until the press was present at that meeting and some of the state legislators asked the question. The funding is not attached to the Hunley that was attached during the research phase, so there could be another fantastic museum at the Town of Mount Pleasant. She stated not only would there be Patriots Point, but the Medal of Honor Museum (MOH) and a separate museum to house the Hunley; however, we must be cautious of the cost associated. Mr. Santos stated that when they do move the MOH museum out, it creates a void inside the Yorktown and suggested that the Hunley may fit nicely in there and would not require additional infrastructure to house it. He stated that this is just an opportunity for them to consider. He stated that it is a State treasure and belongs at the Yorktown which is also owned by the State. Mayor Page stated that it would be up to the Hunley Commission. Mr. Gawrych stated that he is asking the Mayor and Chair of the Committee to give some thought to penning a letter so that all of Council many sign it for the Joint Board. Mayor Page stated that they will coordinate a stakeholder meeting very soon and will keep Council abreast of the issue. Mr. Gawrych stated that the topic is infrastructure and infrastructure only. I. Planning Committee Mr. Brimmer stated that following a review and discussion on drainage, the committee discussed a temporary suspension to the issuance of certain building permits within designated areas of the Old Village, Old Mount Pleasant. Designated areas are identified within a report entitled Old Village Drainage Study, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina Pilot Study Map. He stated that the Committee unanimously voted to recommend to Town Council, an Page 25 of 46  ordinance that would suspend the issuance of permits for a specified period of time. He stated that this matter will be addressed during Council New Business. He stated that a report of the same drainage discussion, staff review policies and procedures related to drainage improvements associated with new construction, redevelopments and infilled lots. The review included several recommendations for consideration. The Committee directed staff to draft text amendments for consideration to be reviewed at the August Committee meeting. He stated that staff also reviewed a presentation focusing on aspects of the Town’s tree and buffer ordinances. The Planning Committee agreed to further review and continue discussion regarding possible amendments to the ordinances. Staff also reviewed a potential text amendment regarding tree removal and mitigation for trees affected by pruning for aerial utility lines. Staff is drafting a text amendment for consideration 1. Approval of a temporary suspension on the issuance of permits in areas of the Old Village, Mount Pleasant. (See Council New Business Item XI.A.2) 2. Report J. Police, Legal & Judicial Committee Report K. Public Services Committee (No Meeting) Report L. Recreation Committee 1. Mr. Carrier stated that as part of the accreditation process for Recreation, which is ongoing, a Clemson consultant was tasked Page 26 of 46  to provide a Master Plan and as a part of the accreditation, Council is required to accept this plan. Mr. Carrier puts this in the form of a motion; seconded by Mr. Gawrych. Mr. Smith stated that when this report was given there was affirmation that there was going to be some adjustments from the consultant on seeking out economic development opportunities on the summary that he was in agreement with. He stated that he did not follow up; however, now that action is being taken on this, he asked if this has already been accomplished or to ensure this is accomplished. Mr. DeMoura stated that he does not recall; however, will follow up and ensure this occurs. Mr. Gawrych stated that he would like to add that at the Committee meeting, he along with Mr. Haynie and Mr. Carrier were made clear that the passage of this Master Plan does not mean that Council is locked into constructing buildings or plans and asked Mr. DeMoura to explain. Mr. DeMoura stated that the passage of this Master Plan means that Council is accepting this as a document for the Recreation Department and it provides guidance to Council in making decisions going forward. He stated that it does not commit Council to every detail All present voted in favor. 2. Report • Tuesday, May 2, 9, 16, 30 – The Farmer’s Market was held at the Market Pavilion. • Wednesday, May 3 – The Spring Carnival was held at Alhambra Hall. There were approximately 350 participants. • Saturday, May 13 – MPRD hosted a Local Pitch, Hit and Run Event at the Duffy Fields. There were 30 participants. Page 27 of 46  • Saturday, May 13 – The Palmetto Shootout Tournament for Lacrosse was held at Park West. We had 14 teams participate. • Saturday, May 20 – The State Double Dutch Tournament was held in Sumter, South Carolina. MPRD had 7 single teams and 1 double team participate. We had several 2nd and 3rd place wins. • Saturday, May 20 – MPRD hosted the Pitch, Hit and Run Sectionals at the Duffy Fields. • Saturday, May 20 – MPRD hosted the MPTC Developmental Track Meet at Park West and had over 1000 athletes participate from all over the state. • For the month of May MPRD offered 559 swim lessons. • For the month of May 3,178 youth and 769 adults participated in athletic leagues. • Senior Center current membership is 2,194. • Tennis Center membership is 914. M. Transportation (No Meeting) Report N. Waterworks Commission Report O. Water Supply Committee 1. Reaffirmation to support request for the South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control to require alternatives for a groundwater withdrawal permit submitted by Maguro Enterprises, LLC. (See Council New Business Item XI.A.1.) Page 28 of 46  Pat Sullivan, 1002 Plantation Court, stated that she attended the Planning Committee meeting last week and after the discussion on trees, there was a lengthy discussion on “clear cutting”, which is developers coming in to land that has a number of trees and cut them all down. She stated that this is a huge issue, not just in the north side of Town, but also on Mathis Ferry close to the Armory, there is another development with approximately 10 homes and that property was all trees. She stated that they clear cut that whole area. She stated that there is something the Town is able to do to help developers leave some of the trees in place. 2. Report On June 5th, Mount Pleasant Waterworks held a Public Hearing to present and hear comments on the Fiscal Year 2018 budget and changes to the Cost Recovery Policy, Purchasing Policy and proposed edits to two operating policies. There were no attendees from the public and no comments received regarding the budget or the changes. On Monday June 26th, Commissioners will vote on the Fiscal Year 2018 budget which includes a 5% increase in water and wastewater basic facility charges and volumetric rates and adjustments to various ancillary charges. Impact fees are proposed If approved, the changes will take effect on all bills after June 30, 2017. The annual meeting will be held at the Operations Center at 6:00 p.m. At the Water Supply Committee Meeting this month, the committee heard a presentation from Clay Duffie, General Manager, on the new meter reading system called Automated Metering Infrastructure. The new system will offer improved customer service and improved data for the utility. The new system replaces the current twelve-year-old system and will have many benefits including increased efficiency, more information for customers regarding water use, a reading date closer to the billing date and problem solving Page 29 of 46  capabilities. MPW’s contractor will begin installation in July. During installation, landscaping issues that are a hindrance to the current meter system and the new system will be addressed with homeowners. Over the years, some customers have landscaped and even built on top of and near their water meter making it difficult to read and service. Trees and shrubs have also become overgrown encroaching on the meter. Town Ordinances address the water meter and that it should not have anything but grass around it and should not have anything over it. The Town Ordinances will be communicated with the customers as we work with them to have the best meter reading system that we can which our customers will highly benefit from. X. ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT Planning Commission Vacancy Mayor Page stated that this vacancy will be coming up in August, and the current member is not eligible for reappointment. XI. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. New Business 1. Adoption: A Resolution in support of request for the South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control to require alternatives for a Groundwater Withdrawal Permit submitted by Maguro Enterprises, LLC. (R.17061) Mr. Smith stated that this was discussed in the Water Supply Committee and a Resolution specifically on this motion, was in support of a request for the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control to require an alternative for a ground water withdrawal permit submitted by the Maguro Enterprises. He stated that Council had this Resolution in Page 30 of 46  October, 2016 and this is a reaffirmation of that resolution. He stated that Council’s position remains the same and this is not a position of anti-business, but of being good stewards of our natural resources and for Google to seek out all alternatives that they have available to cool their servers. He stated that we are excited for the elected officials in Berkeley County and the local municipal level to have Google in their community and in the region, but want to ensure they are being good stewards of our natural resources and this is a reaffirmation. Mr. Smith makes this in the form of a motion; seconded by Mr. Owens. All present voted in favor. Mr. DeMoura read the RESOLUTION BY TITLE ONLY. This Resolution SIGNED, SEALED and DELIVERED this date. 2. First Reading: An Ordinance to provide for the temporary suspension of the issuance of certain permits in areas of the Old Village, Mount Pleasant, due to the risk of flooding. (Ord. No. 17031) Mr. Brimmer stated that this was discussed as a 60 day suspension of new permits in order for the study to be presented to Town Council and for Council to review steps moving forward. He stated that permits may still be submitted. Mr. Brimmer put this in the form of a motion; seconded by Mr. Bustos. Mr. Carrier asked if Old Mount Pleasant should be added. He asked if the study includes all of Old Mount Pleasant. Mr. Owens stated that it is anything east of Coleman Boulevard. Mr. Pagliarini stated that the Ordinance itself does, but if this is approved, at final reading, Council may amend the title to make it as comprehensive as Council would like. Mr. Bustos stated that he thought that Council was going to use the pending ordinance doctrine on this. Page 31 of 46 Mayor Page stated that she was unaware of this and did not hear this in the motion. Mr. Pagliarini stated that an amendment to the motion can be made to adopt the pending ordinance doctrine if Mr. Bustos wishes to do so. Mr. Bustos stated that Thomas and Hutton did a study and there are areas in Mount Pleasant that have no drainage, some with failing drainage and some that cannot accommodate. He stated that what has been done is shrink this down to an area that Thomas and Hutton wanted to use as a pilot program to make recommendations on how to resolve this issue. He stated that a pause in this will keep lots from being filled and built up and negate the work that they are doing now and will continue to do in the pilot program to come with a resolution on how to resolve this issue. He stated that he contemplated bringing pictures this evening; however, he believes everyone understands the importance of this. He stated that everyone is aware of the issues behind Cooper Estates and Baytree, as well as Wakendaw and Snee Farm; however, the Town cannot fix all of this at one time. He stated that this is a first step and one that needs to be done, because the Town does not have the infrastructure for the development that is being done. He stated that we are not able to control the rain; however, we are able to control what is being built. He asked Thomas and Hutton if there would be a recommendation on building, inspection and how they are accomplished and received a positive response. He believes that it is important not to create expectations across the Town and fix every drainage problem; however, it needs to begin somewhere. He believes that the area Thomas and Hutton has designated is the pilot area which is east of Coleman, consisting of Old Mount Pleasant and the Old Village. He believes this will aid the effort in deciding what it is the Town needs to do then figure out the funding associated with this. He asked Mr. Page 32 of 46 Brimmer if he would amend his motion to include the pending ordinance doctrine, and he would amend his second. Mr. Brimmer amended his motion to include the pending ordinance doctrine; Mr. Bustos amended his second. Mr. Gawrych asked for clarification on the motion and second. He stated that for anyone that has an application in now, but has not been processed, will it be put on hold. Mr. Pagliarini responded in the affirmative. Mr. Gawrych stated that no matter where you are in the process, as long as you do not have the final stamp, your process stops for at least 60 days. Mr. Pagliarini responded in the affirmative. Mr. Gawrych asked Mr. Bustos, for clarification, that the Thomas and Hutton representative he spoke with stated that they would be providing recommendations regarding future buildings. Mr. Bustos asked Thomas and Hutton specifically if they would come back with recommendations that would include building and he said that they could. Mayor Page stated that it is difficult to have a conversation about something that is so sensitive. She stated that 300 people over the past 20 years have had some type of water intrusion to their home or the garage. She stated that in this climate, if you are working on any project anywhere and the Town stops you for 60 days, you will not get a contractor back and will not get a subcontractor back. She stated that she is very challenged to support this. She stated that the Town has committed $100,000 a year to drainage studies and this issue is going to be a great leadership issue for the Town of Mount Pleasant, because we are going to solve something that is not necessarily the Town’s problem, because the Department of Transportation (DOT) built those roads years ago without infrastructure. She stated that she believes the Town is being a leader on this, but is challenged Page 33 of 46 about all the people who are in the process. She asked Ms. Farrell if she had an idea how many people may be affected by an immediate change in the Town’s policy tonight, that for 60 days is going to cost them thousands of dollars without their knowledge that this decision is being made. Ms. Farrell stated that they did obtain a set of addresses from Thomas and Hutton for all those properties that are within the pilot study area. She stated that it is not the entire area inside of Coleman, but certain areas identified in the report. She stated that staff was able to compare all those addresses to filings that are in the cue. She stated that there are ten permits in the cue and three are ready to be permitted; therefore, there are seven that would be directly affected. She stated that some may be new construction, some may be an addition. Mayor Page stated that she looks forward to real solutions from this and stated that Sean Barnes was correct when he said that these people who want to build on these lots need to really control water, whether underground storage or something else. She stated that Bluffton actually does this with a growth management watershed plan. She stated that the Town can get there, but is very hesitate this evening to make a decision at one public meeting, to suspend the issuance of permits for sixty days. She stated that this is far reaching to citizen’s pocketbooks. Mr. Smith stated that he echoes Mayor Page’s sentiments. He added that he supported this in the Planning Committee tied to comments that were just stated by Mayor Pages’ comments, which is the concrete information study that has been mentioned on several occasions. He stated that he was comfortable with sixty days; however, there was no discussion of a pending ordinance doctrine at that time, which changes this for him for fundamental reasons. He stated that he cannot support this and would plead with his fellow Council members not to include the pending ordinance doctrine. He stated that we are all together on this and would like to remain unified on Page 34 of 46 this and asked Council to consider having this move forward as it came out of the Planning Committee. Mr. Owens stated that sixty days is a very short window in the process of whether or not applicants have submitted, designed and constructed. He asked Ms. Farrell how many homes are ready for permitting. Ms. Farrell stated that there were three applications ready for permitting and stated that they may have already been picked up. She said there are now seven applications. Mr. Owens asked where the seven applications are in the process and have they been submitted. Ms. Farrell stated that it varies, as there were some were brand new, some that comments were provided by Planning and awaiting information back from the applicants. Mr. Owens directed his comments to Councilmen Bustos and Brimmer and stated that one of issues regarding the pending ordinance doctrine is that it will take several months to go through the process and asked if they would consider amending their motion to withdraw the pending ordinance doctrine. He stated that there are applications that are ready to go out the door and asked to at least allow the process to continue with the others that will also take time, but will still remain in the cue. He stated that this is his only concern. Mr. Brimmer stated that good points have been made and he is not here to make life difficult for anyone and believes it is important for this to move through with the support of this Council. He stated that Council recognizes the difficulties that a problematic new home may cause the neighbors and stated that it is a balancing act. He stated that he is willing to withdraw the pending ordinance doctrine from his portion of the motion to move this forward. He asked Mr. Bustos if he was also willing to withdraw his second. Page 35 of 46 Mr. Bustos stated that this is a shame and will create a run on permits. He stated that while this is waiting to be complete, next month for first reading, he suspects that there will be residents running to obtain permits and all the work that has been accomplished has been undone and thinks it is a shame. Mr. Santos stated that this would be a temporary suspension for sixty days and by including the pending ordinance doctrine even if they come in and apply for a permit, it will still take quite some time to go through the process and believes the sixty days would have already expired at that time. Mayor Page stated that perhaps this is for some applicants. She asked Ms. Farrell to go through the typical permitting process. Ms. Farrell stated that much of this depends on the applicant and how responsive they are to comments. She stated that we are discussing two types of permits; new construction which is reviewed by one plan reviewer, and the others are additions and swimming pools, which is reviewed by a different plan reviewer. She stated for new construction, it runs about three to four weeks for permitting, and renovations and additions are running five to six weeks permitting. She stated that consideration needs to be taken for comments that require adjustment and some take longer than others to get their approval and be permitted. Mayor Page asked Mr. Pagliarini if there would be any legal way to allow the ten that have been identified by staff that are in the cue to be exempt from the pending ordinance doctrine. Mr. Pagliarini stated that the proposed language for first reading specifically states issuance of building permits and if Council wishes to amend this to some other standard, then it could be discussed, meaning Council could change that to acceptance of permits. He stated that Council is at first reading and this is the way it came out of Committee. He stated that at first reading, Council could not make the amendment. Page 36 of 46 Mayor Page stated that the amendment could be made in thirty days at final reading. She stated that she appreciates Mr. Bustos’ comments; however, she is trying to assist those applicants who are already in the process. Mr. Bustos asked Ms. Farrell if she can say, with any certainty, how long it would take to finalize the additional seven applicants that are at some form of process. Ms. Farrell stated that she could not because she does have the report and five are pending the plan review comment. She stated that it depends on how complex they are and how responsive the applicants are. She stated that she is unable to estimate. Mayor Page stated that her concern is, of those ten applicants, including the three that have hopefully picked their permits, what notice was given to them individually, that Council was having this meeting tonight. Ms. Farrell stated that Planning did not provide notice. Mayor Page stated that the average homeowner has been trying to get their screened in porch designed and built for a certain period of time. She asked when the Town would be able to reach out and advise them that they must now wait sixty days. Ms. Farrell stated that Planning will do whatever is directed by Council. Mr. Bustos stated that his concern is that while he finds it very regrettable that those seven may have to wait for their permit, the Town has an entire section of Town that has been dealing with flooding and the Town has done very little. He stated that the Town has collected money, but has done very little. He said that he does not care about the State, because they have not done anything and will likely not do anything. He stated that this is the Town of Mount Pleasant and they are Town Council and on one side, there are seven possible permits that may be finished in sixty days and on the other side, there are thousands Page 37 of 46 of residents who are suffering from flooding. He believes that Council owes it to the greater good to do something for them. He added that as regrettable as it is for those seven applicants, he believes that Council needs to consider the thousands who are impacted by flooding and protect their property rights. He said there is water going under residents’ homes and several homes on Atlantic Street. He stated that he commends Public Services for providing sand bags to some residents so under their homes and garages do not flood. He believes that Council needs to fall on the side of the many rather than the few. He stated that although this is a hard thing to say, it is his position. Mayor Page stated that she understands all those that are impacted and it is tragic. She stated that she fully intends to work tirelessly to help address the issues in the Old Village with flooding that has been flooding since incorporated in 1837. Mr. Owens stated that Mr. Bustos makes valid points in reference to the Old Village and the Indian Village and said that the thing that Council needs to remember is that there is a study and although they have submitted preliminary results, they have not provided final results. He stated that Council is unable to do anything about the drainage until that study is finalized and the Town is able to formalize a plan to determine how to combat stormwater going forward. He stated that in the construction process with the permits of seven homes, it will likely take longer than the sixty days between the permitting and the building is complete. He stated that the likelihood of Council not getting the drainage study back in that timeframe is likely. He is hopeful it will be submitted prior to that. Mr. DeMoura stated that staff is planning to receive it at the end of June and will review to ensure it is in order. He stated that shortly thereafter when it is ready, it will be provided to Council immediately to review the report. Page 38 of 46 Mr. Owens asked what the next steps are as soon as the study is complete. He asked if Council would then work on developing a plan on how to address the stormwater issues. Mr. DeMoura responded in the affirmative. Mr. Owens asked how long this will take. Mr. DeMoura stated that it would depend on what the report indicates. He stated that the report could come back and propose several resolutions. Mr. Owens stated that it will be very costly with design. He asked how much is collected on an annual basis for stormwater fees. Mr. DeMoura stated that approximately $2 million is collected annually. Mr. Owens asked if this was for the entire Town. Mr. DeMoura responded in the affirmative and stated that $2 million is divided into maintaining the system, as well as satisfying federal clean water mandates which are hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. He stated that whatever is left over goes to new projects. Mr. Owens clarified that this will be a very time consuming process to get to the point to try to mitigate the stormwater that is present in the Old Village and Indian Village. He said that in reference to the motion which was to remove the pending ordinance doctrine, there is a small window of time between the overall process of receiving the plan, developing a process of how to combat stormwater in the future and move this forward. He stated that there is not much Council is able to do in the sixty day period of time. He asked that the pending ordinance doctrine be removed so that whoever is currently in the cue may continue to move forward without any delays because in the big picture, it will take a much longer period of time. Page 39 of 46 Mayor Page stated that she believes this is why it was unanimous coming out of the Planning Committee and had not heard of the pending ordinance until this evening. Mr. Brimmer stated that Mr. Bustos made valid points. He stated that previous Councils have allowed the Town to get to this point. He stated that it is unfair to put this on the backs of seven to ten individuals. He stated that he is going to withdraw his motion and submit a new motion as it came out of committee. Mr. Bustos stated that he would prefer not to withdraw his second. He stated that the point of this is to allow those conducting the study the time without these few applications in the cue. He stated that while this is regrettable, it seems to be a better cause than getting inaccurate data. He stated that he is not aware how the study is conducted, but if we stop everything as it is and have Thomas and Hutton complete the study, then the pause will be lifted and Council will have to have to come up with some hard recommendations and decisions. He said that no one is attempting to make this permanent. He stated that we do know there is a growing problem that is not getting any better. Mr. Smith asked Mr. DeMoura how much of the budget is spent towards annual infrastructure issues. Mr. DeMoura stated that overall, one third of the Town’s total budget goes towards Capital Infrastructure. Mr. Smith stated that in reference to the study that is being discussed, was this the $100,000 investment. Mr. DeMoura responded in the affirmative. Mr. Smith asked when this funding was allocated in the budget. Mr. DeMoura stated that it was allocated in the prior year. Mr. Smith stated that in the Bids & Purchases Committee, as most recent as the last Committee meeting, approximately $215,000 of new money was just allocated to Wando East and Wando Lakes pipe rehabilitation. He stated that the public needs Page 40 of 46 to look at the actions taken in the past, long before he or his colleagues were in office. He stated that this Town should not be labeled as a “do nothing” Town, because that is factually inaccurate. He stated to hear that the Town has done nothing for this problem in this important area of the Town that dates back to 1837, this Council is actively addressing it. He stated that as Mr. Bustos stated, this will not be fixed overnight. He stated that he learned after the Committee meetings that one of the residential areas was presented as if it were a new issue. He added that this particular flooding issue dates back to over ten years ago. He wants to ensure that facts are presented correctly. He wants to resolve these issues, but will not tolerate this Council labeled as a “do nothing” Council by anyone, because it is factually inaccurate. He asked Council to stay the course and stay united as all Council is in agreement regarding this issue. Mayor Page stated that Mr. Smith is correct and the motion that came out of the Planning Committee was unanimous; however, it appears that Council is not unanimous any longer as it stands. Mr. Haynie asked Legal Counsel that if the pending ordinance doctrine were included, is it legal for the Town to do so. Mr. Pagliarini asked if Mr. Haynie is referring specifically about the pending ordinance doctrine. Mr. Haynie stated that not in a general sense but in this particular case that involves a permitting act. Mr. Pagliarini stated that this is the purpose of the pending ordinance doctrine, which is to prevent, while an ordinance is pending, a flood of applications. He believes this is the stated purpose and that comment specifically relates to the pending ordinance doctrine. Mr. Haynie stated that in his time as a Council member, the pending ordinance doctrine has been used. He stated that when the rains come, his telephone rings and knows that he, as well as Mr. Bustos and Mr. Owens have run out to these homes Page 41 of 46 personally. He added that there are at least eight residents dealing with a flooding issue that is being resolved with a pump that a resident installed at his own expense. He said that he can think of many more than seven people who are affected every time it rains and feels bad for those whose projects may be delayed due to the pending ordinance doctrine. He stated that he is not afraid of including the pending ordinance doctrine. Mayor Page stated that there is a motion and a second to include the pending ordinance doctrine, as it stands. Although Mr. Brimmer was willing to withdraw his motion, Mr. Bustos is not willing to withdraw his second; therefore the motion stands. Mayor Page asked Mr. Brimmer to state his current and amended motion. Mr. Brimmer stated that the motion he put forward is an ordinance to provide for the temporary suspension of the issuance of certain permits in areas of the Old Village, Mount Pleasant, due to the risk of flooding, including the pending ordinance doctrine. Mr. Smith stated that he voted for this at the Planning Committee meeting and wants to support this, but as it is amended, he will not be supporting this based on the amendment. Mr. Owens stated that the original motion did not include the pending ordinance doctrine and it was amended. Mr. Gawrych stated that if you end up on the prevailing side of the motion and are not in favor of it, you are able to make another motion. Mr. Bustos and Mr. Haynie were in favor. Mr. Brimmer, Mr. Carrier, Mr. Gawrych, Mr. Owens, Mr. Santos, Mr. Smith and Mayor Page were opposed. Motion fails. Mr. Brimmer made a motion to approve as it came out of Planning Committee as it is listed in item #2 under New Business; seconded; seconded by Mr. Owens. Page 42 of 46  Mr. Gawrych stated that if this motion is successful he would like to ask staff if they understand what this means for everything that they already have in house and are not to stop working on those permits. Ms. Farrell asked Mr. Pagliarini to affirm that if the motion is successful, Planning Department would not stop, because this would not take effect until final reading; therefore any permits that are complete, Planning Department may continue to issue until final reading. Mr. Pagliarini responded in the affirmative. Mr. DeMoura stated that while this is true, even after final reading, the Planning Department will still accept and process all applications up until the point of issuing the final building permit. Legal Counsel and Ms. Farrell responded in the affirmative. Mr. Bustos asked when second reading would take place. Mr. Pagliarini stated that it would take place at the July Town Council meeting, unless there is a special Town Council Meeting. Mr. Bustos stated that this counts as first reading and July would be second reading; therefore, July and August and into September is when this would be in effect for the sixty days. Mr. Pagliarini responded in the affirmative and stated that this is assuming a positive vote at the July Council meeting. Mr. Brimmer, Mr. Bustos, Mr. Carrier, Mr. Gawrych, Mr. Haynie, Mr. Owens, Mr. Santos, Mr. Smith and Mayor Page were in favor. Motion carries. Mr. DeMoura read FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY. B. Old Business 1. Final Reading: An Ordinance to repeal and replace Section 92.30 of Chapter 92 of the Town of Mount Pleasant Code of Page 43 of 46  Ordinances entitled Fire Prevention pertaining to Residential Burning. (Ord. No. 17028) Mr. Owens moved for approval; seconded by Mr. Smith. All present voted in favor. Mr. DeMoura read FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY. This Ordinance SIGNED, SEALED and DELIVERED this date. 2. Final Reading: An Ordinance to approve of a Lease Agreement with Shem Creek Presbyterian Church, relative to the property located at 302 Pitt Street. (Ord. No. 17029) Mr. Gawrych moved for final reading; seconded by Mr. Carrier. All present voted in favor. Mr. DeMoura read FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY. This Ordinance SIGNED, SEALED and DELIVERED this date. C. Executive Session Mr. Haynie moved to adjourn into executive session; seconded by Mr. Gawrych. Mr. Bustos opposed. All other voted in favor. Motion carries. Council adjourned into executive session at 8:08 p.m. and reconvened at 8:34 p.m. Mayor Page declared Council out of executive session and stated that no votes were taken in executive session. Legal and Contractual 1. Consideration of settlement proposal in civil action number 2016-CP-10-5182 (Ashton Charleston Residential v. Town of Mount Pleasant Mr. Brimmer made a motion to approve the settlement proposal in Civil Action #2016-CP-10-5182 (Ashton Charleston Page 44 of 46  Residential v. Town of Mount Pleasant) as was discussed in executive session; seconded by Mr. Gawrych. Mr. Haynie opposed. All others present voted in favor. Motion carries. 2. Consideration of settlement proposal in civil action number 2017-CP-10-1604 (Seven Seconds, LLC v. Town of Mount Pleasant) Mr. Brimmer made a motion to approve the settlement proposal in civil action number 2017-CP-10-1604 (Seven Seconds, LLC v. Town of Mount Pleasant) as discussed in executive session; seconded by Mr. Gawrych. Mr. Haynie opposed. All others present voted in favor. Motion carries. 3. Consideration of settlement proposal in civil action number 2015-CP-10-3953 (Town of Mount Pleasant v. HBW Investments, LLC) Mr. Santos made a motion to approve the settlement proposal in Civil Action number 2015-CP- 10-3953 (Town of Mount Pleasant v. HBW Investments, LLC) as discussed in executive session; seconded by Mr. Carrier. Mr. Bustos was opposed. All others present voted in favor. Motion carries. 4. Litigation update on civil action number 2015-CP-10-2755 (Middle Street Partners v. Town of Mount Pleasant) Mayor Page stated that no action was taken on item #4. D. Post Executive Session Council may take action upon reconvening from Executive Session Page 45 of 46 XII. ADJOURN There being no further business to discuss, Mayor Page adjourned the meeting at 8:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Ashe June 13, 2017 Page 46 of 46