A - Town Council Meetings

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA MOUNT PLEASANT TOWN COUNCIL MOUNT PLEASANT WATERWORKS COMMISSION Special Joint Meeting Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 12:00 p.m. Municipal Complex, Committee Meeting Room 100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 MINUTES Council Members Present: Mayor Will Haynie, Joe Bustos, Kevin Cunnane, Kathy Landing, Jim Owens, Gary Santos and Guang Ming Whitley (Tom O’Rourke and Bob Brimmer were not present) MPW Commission Members Present: Rick Crosby, Chairman, Susan Mellichamp, Vice-Chair, Mac Jenkinson, Secretary and Diane Lauritsen. (John Burn was not present) Staff Present: Eric DeMoura, Town Administrator; Christiane Farrell, Assistant Town Administrator; David Pagliarini, Legal Counsel MPW Staff Present: Clay Duffie, General Manager; David Niesse, Engineering Manager and David Jennings, Legal Counsel I. Call to Order A. Mayor Haynie, Town of Mount Pleasant, called the meeting to order at 12:01 p.m. B. Chairman Crosby, Mount Pleasant Waterworks, called the meeting to order at 12:02 p.m. II. Public Comment Johnny Bevon, 957 Fowler Court, stated that he has personally heard conflicting comments as to how sewer availability works in Mount Pleasant and in unincorporated Charleston County. He also sees an ordinance that requires annexation if sewer service is to be made  available by Mount Pleasant Waterworks. He believes this is a shameful position to take, because a number of residents would like to have sewer service, but do not want to annex into the Town of Mount Pleasant, so they are not able to have sewer service. He said Mayor Haynie advised him last month that it was not a Town policy, that it was strictly Mount Pleasant Waterworks (MPW) policy. He added that MPW said they have nothing to do with it, that it is a Town policy. A few months ago, he saw a land sale from a resident to Mount Pleasant Waterworks and through that process, MPW is extending sewer service to two parcels that are located in unincorporated Charleston County from the same owner. He believes conflicts are all over the place and if MPW or the Town is going to do this, they need to own it and not point fingers at everyone else and should not change the rules. III. Overview of MPW’s Authority as Service Provider Mayor Haynie asked that residents hold their questions until the end of each segment. Mr. Duffie stated that he has been general manager of MPW for almost 30 years. He stated that MPW is here to inform the public about some of the policies and procedures in writing that are definite. Page 2 of 57 Mr. Duffie stated that it is important for the elected officials in both entities to hear and see the policies and procedures and provide guidance soon on how to proceed with provision of service. Mr. Duffie reviewed the agenda with Town Council and MPW Commissioners and the establishment of MPW by the Town. Page 3 of 57 He stated that MPW merged with the Bulls Bay Rural Water Authority on July 3, 1989. He said he would like to review Section 4, #2 under the Covenants and Warranties, in that MPW will provide water and sewer service without discrimination. Page 4 of 57 He stated that when MPW’s merged with Bull’s Bay, their water service area then extended from the Cooper River to the Santee River, excluding the Town of McClellanville and the Town of Awendaw. He said their wastewater service area is shown in the red at the southwestern portion of their service area and MPW provides both water and wastewater service in that area. Mr. Duffie stated that the red area in the previous illustration, is MPW’s designated planning area. MPW is to provide a 20-year plan for water and wastewater service within that designated area, which is designated by the Council of Governments and DHEC (Department of Health and Environmental Control). He stated that he has included excerpts of the 208 Water Quality Plan in Council’s packets that will provide additional information. He said that this is the plan and the policies and procedures in that plan is what MPW follows. Mr. Duffie stated that MPW has a fairly lengthy history of eliminating pollution sources. He said package treatment plants, historically, were run by developers and were run very poorly. He said they often violated their permits. Page 5 of 57 He said septic tanks in the lowcountry, if not properly maintained and constructed, are a potential source of pollution. He said over the past thirty years, MPW has been deliberately expanding their wastewater capacity in their facilities, as well as their gravity collection system to take these package treatments offline. Page 6 of 57 He said they have taken offline eight package treatment plants that were serving approximately 1,900 customers and have eliminated approximately 2,000 septic tanks at a cost of approximately $22 million dollars. Assistant Town Administrator, Christiane Farrell, stated that she would first like to cover some items in the planning process that will ultimately lead to what this meeting is really all about. She stated that Mr. Duffie originally mentioned the Town’s coordination and how we specifically address non-contiguous properties. She stated that in order to set this up, there are a few items that need to be explained in more detail; the Comprehensive Plan, the Town’s coordination with Charleston County and the ordinances relating to annexation and sewer service. Ms. Farrell stated that on the Comprehensive Plan, many know that it is required by the State of South Carolina, it is the Town’s guide that serves for long-range planning. She stated that the Town is currently in the middle of updating the Town’s 10-year Comprehensive Plan. She said there are five-year updates, but this is the long-range planning guide for the entire planning area. Page 7 of 57 Ms. Farrell stated that it is not just the incorporated areas, but also the unincorporated areas that the Town addresses. She reviewed the nine different elements. She said often when the Comprehensive Plan is being discussed, individuals immediately think of a map. She said there is a great deal more involved that the State requires, which are all the elements outlined. She said that some of the goals and strategies that fall within these elements, such as population; what can we do to make Mount Pleasant a life-long community so that our young people do not move away, and people are able to age-in-place within their community. She said our population element is a very diverse and inclusive population. She said another is affordability. She said our natural resources, water quality, green spaces, community facilities and a huge element, which is access to water. She said all of these are considerations within the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and for a large part can feedback into the land use element, but in and of themselves, are very important in the goals and strategies that we have for the Town of Mount Pleasant. Ms. Farrell stated that the next illustration is the future land-use map, the current map which was adopted in 2014. She said that it is a rather large planning area that extends all the way to Steeds Creek Road. Page 8 of 57 She said a majority of what the Town addresses on a day-to-day basis fall more in this particular area of Seewee Road, where their incorporated area ends. She said in 2014, the decision was made to expand the Town’s planning area up to Steed Creek and actually includes portions of Berkeley County. She said the colors on the map represent the various land uses that we have in the Town of Mount Pleasant. She said the vast majority of the property past the Urban Growth boundary-line is going to be rural conservation. She said Awendaw is in the purple, but the vast majority is going to be rural conservation land use designation. She said that Council and Commission are fairly familiar with the land use designations with commercial low density. She said what will be discussed more significantly is the community and conservation which are shown in the yellow colors. Page 9 of 57 Ms. Farrell stated that the next illustration is the Urban Growth Boundary Line map. She stated that this runs down Darryl Creek Trail, crosses US Highway 17 to Theodore Road, which is in the Ten Mile Community. She said everything that falls within the Urban Growth Boundary Line is more urban-suburban type of land uses and densities and the rural conservation is on the opposite side. She said the difference has a great deal to do with density; three units per acre up to the urban corridor area where you can go up into the 16 and 20 units per acre. Outside of the Urban Growth Boundary Line, if you have planned development, you are able to go as low as one to one, but generally speaking, it is one unit per three acres all the way up to one unit per 25 acres. Ms. Farrell stated that coordination with Charleston County is important and the Urban Growth Boundary Line is one example. She Page 10 of 57 stated that she took a quote directly out of the Town 2014 Comprehensive Plan that speaks to how the Town attempts to collaborate in order to make sure and ensure that a lot of the Town’s planning policies, comprehensive plan, goals and strategies match one another or at least are very similar. She stated that they do attempt to collaborate with Charleston County. She said that the Sweetgrass Overlay District is something that everyone is familiar with which was a huge effort years ago to ensure that the Town and Charleston County were on the same page. She said what they were dealing with otherwise, and MPW played a major role in this, is people jurisdiction shopping between the Town and MPW in the discussion of whether sewer would be provided. She said this became a major factor. She said it was in the Town’s best interest to coordinate further with Charleston County, which is what the Town did to attempt to discourage this from happening. She said in 2014, the Town made sure they had the exact same Urban Growth Boundary Line and when the Town expanded their planning area, they made sure that the densities in that extended area, exactly matched those of Charleston County. Page 11 of 57 IV. Town Ordinances Relating to Providing Wastewater Service Ms. Farrell stated that there are a few different sections, but would like to focus on this section, which is 51.092, the Annexation for Sewer Service. She said that the Town does have a requirement that both the Town and MPW are familiar with, that if the property is contiguous, then it needs to annex into the Town of Mount Pleasant. She said that this is when a request is submitted not only for annexation, but often zoning. She said the Town can deny contiguous properties, which does not often happen, but has in the past. She said in this case, Mount Pleasant Water may provide sewer service as is outlined. She said it is the noncontiguous that is the larger portion of the conversation that will take place today. What happens in those particular cases? She said what does happen is that there is a great deal of coordination between the Town of Mount Pleasant and MPW. She said if sewer is extended into the unincorporated areas, then that particular property owner is supposed to record a covenant that upon becoming contiguous, that they will annex into the Town of Mount Pleasant. She said that this does not speak to some of the policies that will be reviewed. Page 12 of 57 V. Town of Mount Pleasant Planning Process Ms. Farrell stated that this is where the policy begins to come into play. She stated that the Town’s Comprehensive Plan recognizes the partnership and relationship that the Town has with MPW, and Charleston County, but especially with MPW when it relates to service delivery for water and sewer. She stated that the intergovernmental cooperation is key. She stated that when MPW receives a request for sewer service, they contact the Town in the form of a letter, which asks the Town two questions. Is the property contiguous; and is it in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the next illustration covers the steps. She stated that the first step is relatively clear. She said the second step, Reviewing the Comprehensive Plan; if the property is not contiguous, the Town will provide MPW with a response regarding whether or not the plan is. She said the Town will consider the density. She stated that the Town will look at all the other elements in the Comprehensive Plan; transportation issues, natural resources, cultural resources and in particular, the land use element. Page 13 of 57 She stated that the Town will consider the density, look at the map to see if it should be three units per acre, or if the development is proposing three units per acre or more, or less. She stated that they will also look at all the other elements in a Comprehensive Plan, such as transportation issues, natural and cultural resources and, in particular, the land use element. Ms. Farrell stated that the majority of the requests that MPW sees for the unincorporated areas are typically community conservation or rural conservation land uses. She said the Town is assessing whether or not something is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and need to look at the descriptions of the land use designations to see whether or not the proposed development plan meets the intent as described in the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that most of them are Community Conservation. Page 14 of 57 Ms. Farrell stated that the majority of the requests that MPW sees for the unincorporated areas are typically community conservation or rural conservation land uses. She said the Town is assessing whether or not something is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and need to look at the descriptions of the land use designations to see whether or not the proposed development plan meets the intent as described in the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that most of them are Community Conservation. She stated that everything should be low density and there should be limited access to our urban services. She stated that in addition to analyzing these development plans for what the density is, what the number is, the color on the map, and looking at those land use descriptions, staff will look further into the various elements of the comprehensive plan to see how a development plan may or may not meet the Town’s other goals. Ms. Farrell added that she took the next illustration from the land use element. Page 15 of 57 She said the first item has been reiterated in the Town’s comprehensive plan again and again and this is something that has been seen for a number of years. She said the proposal that the Town may receive that does not meet that land use description where it does not support what is described, then it moves it to where it is not in compliance with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. She asked if this is protecting the existing residential areas in other portions. She said this is where the natural resources come in. Is the development that is being proposed environmentally sensitive? Is it in a flood plain? Does it encroach into a wetland? What is going on with impervious surfaces? Is there an increase in impervious surface and what is the impact going to be on drainage, stormwater and clean water? She said there is also transportation and added that she can continue putting in the different parts of the comprehensive plan and the things that staff analyzes. She said this is the same thing that Council would do when a rezoning application is received. She said when staff is doing their staff Page 16 of 57  reports for Council, these are the same things that are being done. She said when they receive the plan proposal and the letter from MPW, this is what is accomplished. She said this will ultimately yield whether it does meet the comprehensive plan or does not. She said then, MPW will need to make a determination and they may provide the sewer service or may not. She said the Town has at least provided them with some feedback on the development proposal that has been presented, is in a non-contiguous unincorporated area. VI. MPW Facility Planning Process David Niesse, MPW, stated that he wanted to make sure everyone noted the coordination that does go on between MPW and the Town. He said they communicate on a weekly and sometimes daily basis. He said in particular recently, it has been about providing wastewater service in the northern portion of their service area. He said he would like to review what they use the Town’s comprehensive plan for. He stated that MPW uses the comprehensive plan for their master planning; it is the foundation that they use to build and erect and pay for facilities that they need to support growth. He said MPW Page 17 of 57 collaborates regularly with the Town, most of which is through the 2018 Comprehensive Plan. He said that he would like to thank Ms. Liz Boyles for the opportunity to work with her and would also like to thank Mr. Jeff Ulma as well. He said they use this information to build their master planning and their overall facility needs (treatment facilities, water or wastewater treatment facilities and then their system components). He said he would like to point out that they work in conjunction with the Town of Mount Pleasant using the Comprehensive Plan. He said since there is an update every five years to the comprehensive plan, MPW also updates their utility master plan. He stated that Ms. Farrell mentioned that there are nine elements that go into the comprehensive plan. He said MPW only needs two of these elements; the population and most importantly the land use. Page 18 of 57 He stated that MPW looks at their entire service area and do use the colors on the map shown. He said it may mean a density, a land use, residential, commercial, a hospital, a restaurant and uses such as these. He said there is a flow associated with those land uses, which is what is important to MPW. He said MPW would like to ensure that they have adequate water and wastewater capacity to provide to the community they are serving. Mr. Niesse stated that the next graph indicates that it is a long-term planning effort and MPW is looking out to what they consider build- out and where those ultimate capacities are that MPW needs. He said based on regulations and funding, they need to make sure they know what those final numbers are. Page 19 of 57 He said that he would now like to focus on their system. He said they look at three things; (1) what is being developed right now; and (2) where are those undeveloped properties that will develop in the future; and (3) what are those underdeveloped properties and what additional goals for economic development that the Town has that MPW needs to incorporate in their planning scenarios. He stated that this focuses on what MPW needs out in their system and the extensions for their water mains and wastewater mains. Mr. Niesse stated that the following graph shows what some of the planning looks like; what needs to be done and how they need to be funded and where do those lines need to be placed. Page 20 of 57 He stated that once they have that overall capacity need and know where they need to begin extending lines, there is a dollar amount associated with it. Page 21 of 57 He said they pull all the projects in and put them into their 10-year capital improvements plan. He said they actually go further than 10 years, but 10 years is what they look at from a financial standpoint. He said they are attempting to align these projects to ensure they are meeting the growth patterns; where they are occurring and how quickly are they coming. He said they need to be concurrent with this growth. He said they also need to make sure that they have the financial resources to pay for this growth when a development comes in. He said part of this is how to recover those growth-related project hours. He said this is done through future customers – impact fees. Mr. Niesse stated that Town Council recently went through the process of increasing impact fees and MPW follows a similar process. He said that MPW is exempt from some of what the Town encounters; however, they still need a public CIP Plan, it needs to have projects and costs associated with it. He said it also needs a basis of decisions on how those projects and dollars came about. He stated that they come about from the Comprehensive Plan which is their basis and justification for the ability for MPW to collect and use impact fees to pay for items associated with growth. He stated that he would like to reiterate the importance of a comprehensive plan. He stated that MPW uses this and works with Town staff. He said the comprehensive Page 22 of 57  plan is important to MPW so that they can determine what flows are needed for build out and system extensions and finally to help justify the impact fees that they collect for the future customers to pay for. VII. MPW Policies and Procedures Mr. Niesse stated that Ms. Farrell did a great job discussing Town ordinances and he would like to go over some of MPW’s policies and procedures so that Council understands where some of the underlying differences are that the two entities have as they look at different projects. He stated that he would like to focus on Resolution 05-2011. He stated that MPW adopted the Town ordinances and applied them to both in- town residents and out-of-town residents, to be treated fair and equitable. He said he wanted to point out Policy 3.2 which reiterates what Mr. Duffie mentioned earlier, which provides MPW the authority to be a water and sewer provider. He said they are the federal regulations, state law and the ordinances that allow them to serve both in town and out of town customers. He stated that under 6.4, in all cases of property subdivision, connection to public water and wastewater systems shall be required. He said anyone desiring to connect to the MPW water system must also connect to the Page 23 of 57 wastewater system if reasonably available. He said anyone desiring to connect to MPW’s wastewater system, must also connect to the water system, if reasonably available. He said that this is one of the policies that guide MPW on new development and what services they need to provide and what services they are required to have. He said on 6.3, what he would like to point out is, first the developer must extend water and wastewater systems to the nearest point of adequate capacity, so it is the developer’s responsibility to come to MPW’s system where they have the ability to serve that particular development. He said the other part is that the developer is responsible for the expenses to extend that service. He said they are required to use their funds to tie into MPW’s system to serve their development. MPW does not fund this. He said the last item is that Mount Pleasant Waterworks will generally not provide service to a proposed development that is not in compliance with the Town of Mount Pleasant’s Comprehensive Plan as it may be amended from time to time. He stated that this is what needs to be discussed today. Page 24 of 57 Mr. Niesse stated that when a project comes in to MPW, they receive a letter of intent, which means someone desires to develop a piece of property. He said they review it to determine if it is in the Town or in the County. He said if it is in the County it goes through the ordinance reviews that Ms. Farrell discussed earlier; is it contiguous. If it is contiguous, then it is required to annex into the Town. He said they wait until the Town makes the decision to annex or deny, and then MPW receives notification from the Town. He said if the property is non-contiguous, then it requires the annexation covenant which is administered by Town staff. He said another portion is if the development is compliant with the Town’s comprehensive plan or not. He said MPW receives this notification from the Town and MPW will write to the developer advising them that they comply or are not in compliance. If they are not in compliance, they advise the developer, in writing, that they do not comply with the Town’s comprehensive plan, so they will not be provided with a “letter of availability”, which is what a developer needs in order to go through the planning process at the County. He said at the bottom of the illustration is where there is concern. He said that the bottom box indicates that MPW will generally not provide service that does not comply with the Town’s comprehensive plan. He said once that letter to the developer is written, they are stuck. He said what the developer has been asking for recently is if there is a way for them to appeal that decision, because they feel their development has something to offer the Town of Mount Pleasant or MPW. He said what MPW did in the past for developments such as this is the developer would come back through the Town and Council would determine that it is acceptable for MPW to provide service. He said when MPW received that letter or designation, then the developer would go through the rest of the development process and MPW would provide service. He said recently these have gone directly to the MPW Commissioners, so the Town has not been active in taking any action on some of these requests. He said this puts the Commissioners in a position where they are generally using this, which are the discussion points for today. What does “generally” mean? Does it mean that MPW is providing Page 25 of 57 service to areas that are needed so they do not have to spend money so it is “financial”, or is it that MPW is eliminating septic tanks, because they do not want septic tanks if the development is approved at a lower density, where they will have to go back again and pull off of septic tanks and tie into sewer. He said these are some of the dilemmas, discussions and items that the Commissioners are attempting to determine as they go through this process, for those developments that do not comply. Mr. Niesse stated that he realizes that this last illustration is difficult to see; however, wanted Council to see how many and where the County developments are located. He said they are not all in the northern portion of the service area and are scattered throughout. He said they represent a multitude of different things. Some are simply people wanting service that are in the County and readily available and some are commercial requests, and some are developments of 30 and 40 lot Page 26 of 57 subdivisions. He said there are approximately 32 of these projects that are going through the process that was just reviewed on the last slide and there are approximately 22 of these projects that are either in the annexation or the annexation covenant process, so many are getting caught in one of those two positions. He said there are approximately four that have made it all the way through the process. He said MPW has received three within the last six months that are being caught in the “does not comply with the comprehensive plan”. He said he wanted to touch on MPW’s use of the comprehensive plan and the importance of it for their planning, their service area and the community, how they are funded and the policies that are not part of the ordinance that MPW applies for extending service or allowing people to tie in for service. He said finally, he wanted to provide Council with an idea of what is out there and what MPW is starting to see with some of the county properties and what MPW’s dilemmas are at this time. Mayor Haynie stated that their working understanding of the annexation covenant is, if they get sewer and water and are not contiguous to the Town of Mount Pleasant, the covenant states that they will annex as they do become contiguous. He stated that if there is a developed tract and there are 20 individual homeowners, how is each subdivided lot bound by that annexation covenant and how is it enforced. Mr. Pagliarini stated that the enforceability mechanism in the ordinance is specific to every parcel, meaning that the parcel owner must execute a recordable document. He said the Town, in turn, records it with the County so it is a matter of record and it runs with the land. Mayor Haynie stated that it is a recorded document, so the Town does not run up against the 75% freeholder rule. It is recorded and exercised when it becomes contiguous. Mr. Pagliarini stated that he believes it was changed in 2012 to make sure the Town had something as a matter of record. He said before Page 27 of 57 that time, there were concerns about how it was enforced, which is why the recordability requirements were enacted. Mr. Cunnane stated that this was also for Legal. He heard a while back about annexations in Goose Creek where they follow the utility line to annex a neighborhood, but the utility line is the contiguous portion. Is that possible with these sewer lines so we do not have those properties that are out there in limbo, but if the sewer line can be brought into the Town, then whatever property goes through can be annexed in to contiguity. Mr. Pagliarini stated that using the point of contiguity as an easement, for example an easement held by the Town, that would render it contiguous. He said that he does not know if contiguity is measured by that, but it very well could be. Mr. Cunnane stated that in the new sections out there in the north end of Goose Creek where they are competing with Summerville, it was done through some type of utility and does not know if it was a power line or what, but it seems to him that the Town would not have people in limbo if we could just annex the property of the waterworks and the property that it is connected to. Mr. Pagliarini clarified that to use that as a point of contiguity. He would imagine that is a rational theory. Mr. Jennings stated that there is a State Supreme court case that came out of Berkeley County approximately 15 to 20 years ago. The City of Goose Creek tried to annex Bushy Park by using a narrow strip of land that went through and just off Redbank Road through the Weapons Station to incorporate into the city that massive industrial area. He said the Supreme Court said that they could not do it that way. Also, with a utility easement where MPW obtains easements, that is all they have. He said MPW does not own the underlying property, so their interest in the land is not superior to the property owner. Therefore, if the Town were to attempt an annexation along those lines, MPW would not be an asset in this; it would have to be the property owner. Page 28 of 57 VIII. Higher Density Development in North Area of Mount Pleasant Ms. Farrell stated that she will pick up where Mr. Niesse left off and some of the comments that he made. The example she is going to provide to Council and Commissioners is one of the non-contiguous properties and examples of these properties. She believes that everyone is aware that the vast majority of these requests are happening in the northern portions of the Town and certainly above Long Point Road, as you are heading back up towards the Seewee area. She stated that we are running out of land in the Mount Pleasant planning area, so the development proposals they are seeing are largely in the unincorporated pockets that are extending up towards the bounds of the Town’s planning area. She added that the ones that the Town has recently encountered with MPW have been community conservation, as is the example to follow. She said this is a development proposal off Hamlin Road. She said the property is not contiguous to the Town of Mount Pleasant; however, it is inside the Town’s Urban Growth Boundary Line. Page 29 of 57 She stated that the land use recommendation that the Town has is Community Conservation and they have an equivalent zoning of this. She said for the benefit of MPW, if a property requests annexation (pretending this was contiguous), and not request a zoning, the property would automatically come into the Town with a zoning of Community Conservation. She said Community Conservation is a maximum of three dwelling units per acre and the minimum lot size is 12,500 square feet. The property is in Charleston County at this time and their zoning is Special Management 3, which is also three units per acre. She said as she mentioned earlier, the Town attempts to coordinate with the County. She said their lot size is slightly larger at 14,500 minimum square feet. This particular development proposal was presented to Mount Pleasant Waterworks and also to Charleston County. She said as Mr. Pagliarini was explaining earlier, the County actually requires that there would be some type of proof of coordination in order to obtain sewer service. She said this is what led them to MPW to contact the Town and ask the two questions; (1) is it Page 30 of 57 contiguous, and (2) is it compliant. She said it is not contiguous, so now it is bumped into the compliance. She said the proposed development plan can only be accomplished through rezoning. She said the lot sizes that are shown in the proposed development are a minimum of 5,500 square feet which is 1/3 of what Charleston County requires and half or less of what the Town would require for Community Conservation. She said when looking at this particular development plan, the proposed development plan does not support the intent or purpose of the Community Conservation land use designation. She said it has a great deal to do with the character. Is the development proposal going to maintain the character that is important or has been important to this particular area? She said the proposed development does not support existing land use pattern. She said the development has been bifurcated by Hamlin Road, which is problematic when calling this a Page 31 of 57  neighborhood. Adjacent streets are not connected. She said there are open space considerations, but this type of open space is not considered an open space. She said there were also drainage and stormwater considerations with the increased impervious surfaces. She said that as we began this conversation and the review of her illustrations, the Comprehensive Plan compliance is not just about the number on the colored map. She said the review of this proposed plan did not support the goals of the comprehensive plan. She recognizes that at times MPW and the Town have competing goals. She said another example of something that was actually put in front of the Town, and because it was contiguous, the Town had a proposal a few years ago that was past the Urban Growth Boundary Line and it was eight units per acre and they were permitting as “affordable housing”. She said this is when policy decisions sometimes need to be made with 8 units per acre past the Urban Growth Boundary Line and a promise of Workforce Housing. Which one is it? Ultimately the Town did not support that particular application, but sometimes those are considerations that you have as well; perhaps competing goals within the comprehensive plan. She said in the end, with this particular development, this is where Town staff, upon their review, sent a response back to MPW. MPW did not move forward for the reason that it was found not to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Mr. Crosby stated that it was not in compliance with the County’s comprehensive plan either. Ms. Farrell stated that the density on this proposal is there with the three units per acre, but it did not meet all the other elements and the goals and strategies, which have equal importance. She said in this particular case this is why the Town found this not to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. IX. Issues Mr. Duffie stated that he would like to cover some of the technicalities of some of the other different issues and how they may affect MPW later on. Page 32 of 57 He said the first item may not be as simple as it may seem to be in compliance with this ordinance. He said it requires a contiguous to annex to obtain sewer; however, when that sanction and rezoning are coupled, it can be difficult. He said on the Long Point Road development situation, Council approved their annexation petition, but denied their rezoning. He said they subsequently withdrew their annexation request and said the MPW should provide service, because the rezoning denial was a de-facto annexation denial. He said as most are aware, the Town of Mount Pleasant, MPW and himself, personally, are being sued by the Long Point Road Development. He said he would like to point out that in the Town ordinance, there is no mention of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated on the second item, it is specific to the Town’s plan, but MPW also looks at the property to see if it complies with the County’s plan as well. He said that MPW passed this policy when Carolina Park was attempting to receive approval of their own wastewater treatment in the County, that MPW would generally not provide service if the development Page 33 of 57 does not meet the comprehensive plan. He said MPW passed this ordinance in support of the Town at that time, negotiating with Carolina Park primarily over their commercial densities, not residential. He said Royall Palms was an example of an exception to this rule. They made a proposal that their development would be affordable housing and would also serve all of the existing residents on septic tanks on Dingle Road. He said this went through the Town process through Water Supply Committee and then through Town Council and was approved to provide service to this property because it met certain goals of the Comprehensive Plan, but perhaps not all of them. He does not believe they became affordable houses and went from $150,000 to $300,000 rather quickly. He said that may have been a mistake but nonetheless, there was a process that got them through the approval process. On the third item, as Ms. Farrell and Chairman Crosby mentioned, in the Hamlin Acres case, they did not comply with the Town’s comprehensive plan or the County’s, so MPW denied the Proof Coordination letter that would have gotten them through the County’s process. He said the County has a policy where MPW must provide a Proof of Coordination letter before the County will even review the project. He said they must provide this letter to say whether water or sewer is available and normally MPW will provide service if all the guidelines are met. He said in this case, they will not provide the Proof of Coordination letter if it does not meet the Town’s comprehensive plan. He said if MPW were to provide this letter, there is risk in doing so, especially with the controversial properties. He said MPW certainly does not wish to be at odds with the Town on these issues but would rather work together with the Town and hopefully find reasonable resolutions to some of these differences. On the fourth item, when the Town and the County’s comprehensive plans do not match perfectly, such as a case where the County’s zoning is R4 and the Town’s zoning is R3, they comply with the County’s comprehensive plan, but not with the Town’s. He said the difference in the zoning is two units. He asked Mr. Ulma if he was able to obtain a number of the differences between the Town and the County’s comprehensive plan. Page 34 of 57 Mr. Ulma stated that they looked at a few areas where there is this disparity and if you look at the County’s designation versus the Town’s, the difference in two geographic areas, Four Mile and Ten Mile, is approximately 150 dwelling units. Mr. Duffie clarified that it would be 150 more dwelling units that the County’s plan indicates than the Town’s. Mr. Ulma responded in the affirmative. Mr. Duffie stated that it is obvious to MPW that a solution be that the Town’s comprehensive plan and the County’s comprehensive plan are identical in all areas of density, designations of cultural conservation, rural conservation and all the other goals mentioned earlier in these two areas, which would resolve the issue for MPW. On the fifth item, Mr. Duffie stated that unfortunately, when MPW denies service it forces developments to install septic tanks. He stated that MPW has been very dedicated to their record of elimination of pollution sources and is part of their overall mission and the goal of The Clean Water Act. He said MPW works very hard to eliminate septic tanks, particularly in these sensitive marine environments with high ground water, septic tanks do not work well. He said if they do not provide service, developers will find a way to develop their land and it will be developed on septic tanks if MPW does not provide sewer service. He said this contradicts MPW’s overall environmental mission and is problematic for them. He stated that on the 6th item, they do miss opportunities for developers to extend water and wastewater systems at their expense. As Mr. Niesse mentioned, the developers must run the lines that are in compliance with their overall utility masterplan, the size of the lines, the location of those lines, so that their masterplan is complied with, but they install them at their expense with MPW’s approval. He said in the case of Hamlin Acres, a developer’s sewer line extension was going to be well over $1 million dollars of assets that would come to the Commission, but also more importantly, serve approximately eight properties in that area that were on septic systems, that would then have wastewater service available, should they decide to tie on. Page 35 of 57 Mr. Duffie stated that this is all the parcels out in MPW’s service area that are septic systems. He pointed out one of the popular discussions, which is the Peach Orchard Plaza, which is a donut hole in the county. He said sewer service is immediately available and they are proposing to develop this property on septic. Mayor Haynie asked about the large purple property in the middle of the map and asked if they were all on septic. Mr. Duffie stated that it is Hamlin Farms and is undeveloped. He believes there is a septic tank for a mobile home on that location. He said as mentioned previously, he pointed out the Bee Hive Plantation, which is part of their overall Wastewater Collection System Masterplan. He said they have done a masterplan for their entire service area and how those properties should be served with public utilities. That plan is an $80 million-dollar plan and is not in MPW’s budget. He said it is not what MPW would do in terms of forcing Page 36 of 57 systems out into the County in the undeveloped area. He said they let this happen naturally. As developers come along, they want to develop their property and MPW advises them to extend those lines in compliance with MPW’s masterplan. Mr. Duffie stated that he appreciates the Town offering to help MPW satisfy some of the costs of tying in those residents that are in the Town that want to eliminate their septic tanks and get onto public sewer. He stated that the Town has agreed to help match the impact fee to reduce that cost. He said they are working in the Snowden area, which is part of their secondary area, but Shem Creek obviously is MPW’s primary concern. He said they will hopefully move from Snowden to Shem Creek and help protect the water quality in Shem Creek. Page 37 of 57 Ms. Whitley asked how many people have taken up the offer from MPW. Mr. Duffie said “zero” at this point. He stated that there are 34 homes in the Snowden Phase II project that are ready for bid. At this point, MPW is moving forward with this project and have appropriated funds. He said this will hopefully start later in the fall and will have the lines running in the spring. He said there are approximately 34 in-town residents that qualify for this. He added that MPW did receive a grant to help with some of the connection fees for the low to moderate income families. He said there were seven that qualified and the County’s CDBG fund will help satisfy some of those costs. Mr. DeMoura stated that if a project is being proposed outside of the Town and is not contiguous and it meets the Town’s comprehensive plan, wastewater can be provided. He said it appears to him that the developments could be in the way of receiving that wastewater service rather than the Town’s policies. Page 38 of 57 Mr. Jenkinson stated that he became very involved in the Hamlin Acres tract and said he would like to discuss a few points. He said regarding “character of a neighborhood”, he understands what it means, but also thinks it can hurt a community when these settlement areas do not want to leave it like that. They cannot sell their property and make money like others can. In this case, they could not have services that MPW provides because it did not meet the character that the Town of Mount Pleasant and the Sweetgrass Overlay Districts provided saying they had to keep that rural character. He does not believe it is fair to the people and thinks the Town and MPW need to be very cognizant of this and come up with a different solution to give everyone a fair chance to sell their land if they want to for top dollar. He said this entire community attended their MPW meeting and were almost unanimous in wanting this passed to help their neighborhood be similar to other neighborhoods that are nicer and better and to have the services. He said they were turned down because they did not meet the requirements to keep it a rural character. He said regarding green spaces, his personal opinion is that as long as the lots per acre are met, the density is being kept in line. He said because they had green space and he disagrees with Ms. Farrell’s comments that it was not greenspace, but felt it was good greenspace and had buffers between all the lots and the highway and they were very proud of that for their children and pets being off the highway. He said there were retention ponds which is the trend now with the new stormwater law. He felt that it was a good planned development and was denied because it did not meet all the comprehensive plan requirements. He said there would have been eight houses in addition to the development that would tie onto sewer services and believes there was also room for other properties, because the line going through that area would be a major line and could have been extended further for others to tie onto. He said the travesty of it all is that he understands the developer is now putting in septic tanks in that area, rather than having sewer service. He said it is a travesty to be in our community and not have sewer for all and have it set in their covenants and deed restrictions that they have to annex when need Page 39 of 57 be. He believes that the Town’s growth should be managed by zoning a lot more than land use planning. He said it is a perfect concept, but it does not always work, particularly when we have diverse people living in our area. Dr. Lauritsen stated that she would like to compliment what Mr. Jenkinson said. It was impressive to have so many of the neighbors of this proposed development attend the MPW Commission meeting, not once, but twice to speak in support of it. She said it was an ongoing dialogue between the neighbors and the developer and they wanted more greenspace along the road, so they worked it out to provide that. She said it is very uncommon to have developers offer to tie in neighbors at no cost, so it was an opportunity that should be encouraged. She said Royall Palms was another example of this, because the other residents along Dingle Road would never have tied in if it had not been paid for by the developer, because they are in the County. She thinks the process was halted because the letter could not be provided to the Hamlin Acres developer to move through the process with the County. Further negotiations would surely have taken place to come to an agreement for the Town and County to designate community conservation. She said it is a great concept, but that kind of development in the settlement areas is in part based on low density and no provisional services like water and sewer. She said in order to make the numbers work and make it affordable, we must see higher densities, cluster developments and things that are not traditional in those areas. However, when you have the support of the community it is to everyone’s benefit to really work to get this worked out. Mr. Bustos asked if all the impact fees were going to be waived on that last development. Mr. Duffie clarified if Mr. Bustos was referring to Hamlin Acres. Mr. Bustos responded in the affirmative. Mr. Duffie stated that they were going to pay all the impact fees. Mr. Bustos stated that someone is going to pay the impact fees. He stated that the Town differs because MPW provides water and sewer Page 40 of 57 and does a very good job of this. He said development will follow where water and sewer go, and the Town needs to manage all the rest of the infrastructure. He said MPW does water and sewer and the Town does streets, Fire and Police, sanitation and all the other services. He said although Hamlin Acres is in the county, the Town still gets the traffic, children going to school, as well as people coming in and paying nonresident fees to use recreation facilities. He said MPW is receiving impact fees to provide service and it does not matter who pays them, but the Town has to rely on the taxpayer to make up the difference in what the County residents are not paying, but the Town is still providing. He said if we make a road improvement, we do not ask who is driving on it, because the antiquated agricultural type annexation policies are what is leading to the problems here. He said at one time, they discussed that if there were donut holes in a municipality, the Town would be able to annex those properties into the Town and there would be accessibility to all the same services across the board. He said because of the annexation policies in the State, we have what we have now. He said it is a disincentive to come into the Town and the developers will work this angle every time. He said we need to tighten up the annexation policies of this State. Mr. Crosby stated that he does not disagree with Mr. Bustos’ statement and it is a good idea; however, the problem that MPW is faced with is that the train has already left the station. He said MPW has developments that are coming to them now and would image that the annexation policy, if it was amended, would take some time. Ms. Landing stated that she was going to ask a question regarding a development in the Phillips Community, which is similar to what Ms. Farrell displayed; very large lots with small homes on them. She said it ended up with this neighborhood, Phillips Court, and it is a very attractive neighborhood with a cul-de-sac. She said she understands this is an unincorporated area and asked how this proceeded through, but Hamlin Acres was considered different. She said when Council attended the Municipal Association of South Carolina (MASC) event in Columbia, they were strongly introduced to HB3158, which is the Page 41 of 57 Enclave Bill and this is the bill that would allow Council members to annex in donut holes that have been surrounded by the Town for at least five years, 25 acres or less in size, which would include almost all the donut holes that are in the property of Mount Pleasant. She said that this bill has been dead in Committee for a long time. She said she reached out to the Chair of this Committee and left a message. She said there is a way that is already in place, a mechanism. She added that she met with John Wright who considers himself to be one of the people who speaks very well for many in his community. He pointed out that there are approximately 9,000 residents of all the various settlement communities in Mount Pleasant. Ms. Landing asked Mr. Wright why those residents who live in these donut holes do not wish to annex into the Town and have all the services offered, as well as be able to vote in the Town. Mr. Wright advised Ms. Landing that it is “trust” and they do not trust that they will hear the same thing that is going to be delivered. She wanted to point this out, because she believes we can work on all this together and come to an agreement. She said perhaps we can all push the politicians in Columbia on the Enclave Bill if that is the appropriate avenue. She said it is already there. Ms. Farrell stated that in reference to the question Ms. Landing addressed about a development in the Phillips Community, the development is Nehemiah which developed some time ago. She said this is in the Town and it is a low-income property. Dr. Lauritsen stated that this is how the density worked. She said according to someone she knows in the community, the Phillips Community does not like that development and does not believe that they were invited in on the discussions, so the fact that it is not in keeping with the character of the Phillips Community is the issue. She believes this is the issue in many of the settlement areas, because the new developments that go in are “enclaves”. She said that word describes many of the development patterns, unfortunately. She said going back to the Hamlin Acres example, the intent is something we need to encourage to get people to speak to the existing residents of a Page 42 of 57 community and get something that everyone is happy with and do not build walls and have more in the way of resources than your neighbors, but be a part of the neighborhood. Mr. Owens stated that he would like to thank MPW Commissioners and management for addressing some of the concerns, which is an important and valuable effort to collaborate on a solution. He believes there is a solution and as Ms. Landing mentioned, there is certainly an avenue which can be taken. He said regarding impact fees, in the Hamlin Acres project, the developer was responsible for extending sewer for that site as well and it was one or two miles of pipe and the cost was over $1 million dollars. Mr. Duffie stated that it was $1.3 million. Mr. Owens stated that this would have been turned over to MPW and $1.3 million would have been MPW’s asset and it would have taken everyone else in that development off of septic tanks, which included 8 or 10 other residents along that road. He said it was also his understanding that the developer offered the Town the possibility of providing impact fees on transportation and recreation, so this took some of the revenue away from the Town as well. He knows there is a solution out there and believes collectively that we can come to some sort of terms. He said having this type of dialogue with MPW is certainly a beginning and appreciates them being here. Ms. Whitley stated that perhaps she is misunderstanding this; however, from the example that was provided, it appears that the proposal that was put forth was so far from what the Town’s comprehensive plan states, that it was not even zoned properly in the County and could not be done because of the lot sizes. She stated that what got stymied here was the developer’s choice for this kind of plan. She added that the developer could have put forth a plan that had the appropriate lot sizes and in compliance with the comprehensive plan, then moved forward and obtained sewer and water for the project. She said she does not understand why or how the Town should go so far against their own comprehensive plan to support a development Page 43 of 57 outside of our community that is so out of character for what we want for long term planning. Mr. Cunnane stated that he thinks there is somebody missing at the table. He said he sees Mr. Ascue over there nodding or shaking his head, either way, on different things. He said these communities are not one mind. There are six or eight of them and they all have different agendas and different ideas and different opinions of what their neighborhood should be. Break it down by the lot; one lot might say, “hey, I want to split it into twelve houses”, and one might say, “I don’t want twelve houses anywhere near me”. But, they do not have a seat at the table. It is the Town and the Waterworks. He said to really solve the problem, we have to have everybody together and conduct something that is inclusive of everybody and he does not think there is one solution for it, so you have to include all these settlement communities and there are nice leadership structures there. He said he knows that everybody who lives near Mr. Ascue knows who he is and there are people in all the settlement communities that are leaders in the community and they have their own agendas and their own ideas and their own models of handling this stuff. He does not think we can sit around a table and try and figure it out for them. He believes they need to be at the table. Dr. Lauritsen stated that the affordability issue is really strong and has been in the Phillips Community as they tried to individually develop their lots. She said maybe they are a long way away from it. Mr. Cunnane added that it is also the heir’s property. It is part of the reason why. There are 300 people trying to split a property. To make it feasible to even split it, it has to be dense. All those issues are beyond what we are doing here, but they are integral to it. Ms. Mellichamp stated that it is in our DNA to protect the environment and at this day and time when we have come so far to eliminate discharges and package treatment plants that developers used to build all over the Town when the Town first started growing, and now we are back to where we have this area in the northern part of Town. We see that they are going to develop it one way or the Page 44 of 57 other and it just seems as though we are walking backwards if we allow them to put those people on septic tanks. She said we all need to come up with some kind of solution to work together to keep these developments off septic tanks. Mr. Santos stated that he agrees with his colleague, Council woman Whitley. The developers can do a better job of paying attention to the Town’s comprehensive plan instead of just coming up with their own ideas of what they believe is appropriate. He understands that higher density areas were mentioned. He said they tried that on Coleman Boulevard and everyone can see what happened there. He said people in the election last year, all those who ran last year heard it loud and clear about slowing growth down, improving infrastructure and if we continue to approve these developments that have 8 houses per acre when they are currently zoned for three houses, we are not doing what we told the citizens that we were going to do. He said those were the biggest complaints politicians heard last year when they were running, which was to slow growth. He believes developers need to work closer with the Town and MPW to ensure that they are more in line with the comprehensive plan, instead of the Town changing the comprehensive plan to help the developers. Dr. Lauritsen stated that another issue, which is an issue all over the country is the affordability of housing. She said land costs in Mount Pleasant are very high at this time, so that means there is no such thing as affordable housing unless we do have higher density. Mr. Santos stated that there was some affordable housing land that was zoned at Rifle Range Road and the last administration changed it to R4 and now there are $500,000 homes being built on the property that was originally zoned for affordable housing. He said the Town has been trying to do this, but unfortunately the last administration changed it. He said we are continuing to work this way, so it is not as if the Town is not trying to do this. He said if this Council was in place at that time, we would have affordable housing being built there now. He said there are a good group of Council members and Mayor now who are working closely towards this and would still like to do this. He Page 45 of 57 said he is not able to speak for everyone but believes Council agrees that this is a serious issue in the Town. He said unfortunately, this project was set back when they rezoned that property and let the affordable housing property go. He said we need to regroup and continue moving forward with it. Mayor Haynie asked Council and Commissioners to review the bottom of the Procedures PowerPoint. He stated that it indicates “Town of Mount Pleasant Approval – no”. “Mount Pleasant Waterworks Commission can deny or approve a Letter of Availability”. He stated that the Town of Mount Pleasant does not have ultimate authority over this. He said the Town’s ordinance does not ultimately govern a separate Commission with its own elected Commissioners. He said the Town could deny projects all day, every day and the Commission by providing sewer and water all day, can review a project and approve the Letter of Availability. Thus, Page 46 of 57 his response to the Charleston Board of Zoning Appeals a few nights ago, without the assistance of Legal Counsel, despite being asked for a legal opinion of how this works. He stated that if there was a project at the edge of the marsh where there may be faulty septic tanks, it is a stated goal of the Town to protect our waterways and marshes. He believes many would understand this. He said for the public’s benefit and for the record, the Town does not know of an instance as a Council member or as Mayor, where they have voted to approve or deny a Letter of Availability. He said this is solely the purview of the Mount Pleasant Waterworks Commission. He directed his question to Ms. Farrell. He asked if either the donut holes or the unincorporated areas north of the Town boundary are included in the Town’s Comprehensive Plan planning, so they do have a voice in this, and what about the County’s Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Farrell stated that both the Town’s comprehensive plan has land use recommendations for everything within the Town’s planning area, which was the map that was shown early on in the presentation. She said it would include anything in the unincorporated area, such as Boone Hall Plantation, Ten Mile and even beyond that Urban Growth Boundary Line. She said the County on their comprehensive plan will instead recognize where the municipalities are located and then have land use recommendations on the rest of the properties. She said there may be some discrepancies; however, the Town attempts to stay in line with one another. Mayor Haynie stated that in line with Dr. Lauritsen’s previous comments, he believes everyone understands; however, the difficult portion for all concerned is how to go through the process and ask citizens to spend a year or longer, then vote on it and because some along another street may want to abrogate this, it becomes a very difficult decision. Chairman Crosby stated that the answer to Mayor Haynie’s question is in MPW’s policy. Mayor Haynie responded, “generally”. Page 47 of 57 Chairman Crosby stated that MPW has supported the Town and it has been MPW’s position based on Carolina Park to be in the spirit of working with the Town and MPW follows this provision. He said this has, quite frankly, gotten MPW into trouble. He said the question is: If the Town does not give an opinion, is it a “no” or a “yes”. He asked how MPW continues to proceed here. He said perhaps these are the types of discussions that the Town and MPW must have in order to follow up. He said bringing the County into these discussions, he would like to know what the real differences are in the Town’s comprehensive plan and the County’s comprehensive plan. He advised that he does not know the answer to this. He said we talk about the character and is MPW’s definition of character consistent with the County’s definition. He said this appears to be one of the major issues relative to approval or denial. He said the Commission did not expect to receive answers today; however, did hope to bring everyone together to educate and figure out a logical next step so they are not put here again and again, because each of these developments that come through MPW are different. Mayor Haynie stated that he would like to hear from both Town’s Legal staff and MPW’s Legal staff. He stated on the Procedures illustration it indicates, “MPW generally will not provide service to a proposed development that is not in compliance with Town Comprehensive Plan”. He said if it comes to the Town would it be accomplished through the Water Supply Committee. He stated that if the Water Supply Committee states that they do not want this project done, does this increase the Town’s legal proposal or will it be the same. Mr. Pagliarini stated that the way it is set up is that what existing lawsuits would not have shown is that the perception is, that this is a joint decision. Mayor Haynie asked if this was so whether Council voted on it or not. Mr. Pagliarini responded in the affirmative. He stated that anytime there is an issue where there is a denial, both parties have exposure; however, it is a general answer. He said it is good to hear from MPW’s Page 48 of 57 perspective as to how they are following their policy. He said as they have previously mentioned, this is a policy that they have adopted, and the Town has not codified it. He said the position that MPW is taking is that it is to the Town’s benefit that the Town requires following the comprehensive plan. Mr. Jennings stated that there are two strings; the left side is annexation and in MPW’s policy, which the Town enacted as an ordinance, does not provide for gray areas. He said if a property is contiguous it must annex to obtain sewer service. On the right side, which is the comprehensive plan, he was the one that wrote the “generally“ language. He said what generally means is “more times than not, but not always”. He said that the Town’s Planning Department does not act on the comprehensive plan. He said using Hamlin Acres as an example, they submitted to the County, submitted to the Town’s Planning Department and the Town’s Planning Department told MPW that is does not comply with the comprehensive plan. He said it never came to Town Council. He said based on what MPW heard from the Town’s Planning Department, the Commission discussed the issue and voted not to go forward with this project. Mayor Haynie stated that MPW could have voted to go forward with it. Mr. Jennings stated that MPW could have voted to go forward with this project. Again, this is what “generally” means. He said the Town does not require that MPW follow the comprehensive plan. He said he is talking about this legally and neither he nor Mr. Pagliarini are compensated to provide their respective government’s political advice. He said that both MPW and the Town may do this on their own. He said legally “generally” means just as he recently stated, “more times than not, but not always”. Mayor Haynie stated that on the other side of the chart where it is contiguous, such as in the Long Point Road case. He said the applicant wanted a zoning and a density that did not conform with anything and the way the Town accomplishes this process in their meetings is that Page 49 of 57 they vote to annex the property first and then vote on the zoning, because you cannot zone property that is not in the Town. He said because annexation is required, it does not mean it is “carte blanch” for any zoning or density that is desired. He said this adds to another level of complexity. Mr. Jennings stated that he will say that regarding Mayor Haynie’s comment to the County’s Board of Zoning Appeals, he has received both a verbal transcript of this from opposing Counsel at Long Point, in addition to a transcription of their position being that, “the Mayor said if a Town turns down a zoning request, you can then come to Mount Pleasant and get water and sewer”. He stated that he has suggested that this might be an exaggeration of what Mayor Haynie meant or what the Town’s policy was. Mayor Haynie stated that he would provide the context of the discussion. He stated that he was in attendance to address the Peach Orchard Plaza agenda item and he was asked legal questions that were not on the agenda. A member of the County’s Board of Zoning Adjustments apologized to the Mayor afterwards for having put the Mayor on the spot to give legal opinions. He said he was looking and thinking on the right side of the Procedures chart. Mr. Bustos stated that in reference to the development that was off of Rifle Range Road, if this had been a settlement community and they left their lots the same size as they were and requested water and sewer despite being in the County, he said he would have been inclined to say, “go ahead”, however, this was not the case. He said the end of it was cut up into triple and quadruple the lots. He said they wanted water and sewer, so someone can make some money. Chairman Crosby asked if Mr. Bustos was referring to Hamlin Acres. Mr. Bustos responded in the affirmative. He said it is different. He said if a settlement community states that they would like to be off septic tanks and have water, he understands. He said when it is done to maximize profits, he has an issue with it. He stated that the project at Page 50 of 57 Hamlin was for no other reason than to maximize profits in his opinion. Mr. Crosby stated that their Board would have likely taken a different position, too, had it passed the comprehensive plan with the county. Dr. Lauritsen stated that they needed to obtain the Letter from MPW before they could even negotiate relative to that plan. Mr. Bustos said if it was a settlement community who legitimately wanted water and sewer to get off of septic tanks, he does not believe there is anyone who would deny them this but when it is simply to maximize profits so that they can cut up lots, he will have a problem with it every time. Dr. Lauritsen stated that Mr. Bustos could choose to believe this or not; however, the developer did make it clear that part of the density was to get the funding to be able to tie the neighbors on and pay their impact fees. She said that Mr. Ascue can also speak to this with an example of a development that his son was trying to do in which the density was increased. She said you cannot develop because as Mr. Duffie stated, MPW requires the developer to put in the infrastructure. He said if you are not a developer, but a property owner or only have a few lots, it is not affordable to put in the infrastructure. The numbers do not work. Mr. Bustos stated that this is a separate issue. Mr. Jenkinson stated that this is what is so important, because MPW cannot take their customers/ratepayer’s water bill and utilize that funding to provide others with sewer. Mr. Bustos stated that MPW cannot take taxpayers’ money and create a situation where a developer can maximize his profits. Mr. Jenkinson stated that if no developers were involved and no matter if it is a settlement community or just any community, he does not know many small communities or any that are able to come up with $1.3 million dollars to be able to get sewer lines. He said it is simply too much money for anyone, which is why the developer said Page 51 of 57 that part of his profit would be to supply the free sewer and taps for those people in the community, allowing for others on that road to tie in. He said to him it was a win-win but did not meet all the criteria. However, the ultimate result would have been a huge benefit to that community as a whole. He said otherwise they are now all going on septic. Ms. Whitley stated that there was an argument made about affordability and affordable housing. She believes that higher density does not equal affordable housing. She said as an argument, it does not hold water unless there are the proper covenants and restrictions that require that it be designated for affordable housing, then this would be a factor, as stated by Ms. Farrell, on whether or not it meets the comprehensive plan. She said if a developer wants smaller lot sizes, but was dedicated to providing affordable housing, this would make a difference. Ms. Landing stated that she had a meeting last week with a developer who is trying to determine what to do with a particular property with Joel Evans with the County. Mr. Evans viewed the county’s comprehensive plan and mentioned that he is aware that the Town is in the process of updating their comprehensive plan and the county would like to try to have theirs similar to the Town’s. She stated that the County is waiting to see the Town’s finished comprehensive plan. She stated that Mr. Evans was genuinely interested in making their comprehensive plan close to the Town’s to avoid any confusion. Chairman Crosby stated that hypothetically, there is a development that meets the county’s comprehensive plan and is very close to meeting the Town’s comprehensive plan. Is there any opportunity for gray areas in this particular situation, when they are close? Mayor Haynie stated that MPW will get their impact fees and the Town will get the impact and no fees and no tax base. Dr. Lauritsen stated that this can be said about any development in the county, because the Town does not receive those impact fees and the density is almost immaterial; it is any development in the county. Page 52 of 57 Mr. DeMoura stated that the county does a very good job developing their comprehensive plan, but their plan is very broad-based; it is county-wide. The plan must take into consideration many different elements. He said it would seem to him, but ultimately a decision of the elected body, that the Town’s comprehensive plan is paramount. He said that it is in our planning area that the Town’s comprehensive plan would have to be met first and foremost. With respect to the county, even in front of theirs, because the burden at the end of the day ends up on the citizens of the Town of Mount Pleasant. Mayor Haynie asked Chairman Crosby where they go from this point. Chairman Crosby stated that when this meeting began, he believed that their staff and the county could collaborate and figure out if there is an opportunity to prevent the situation (Hamlin Acres) again and come back with some thoughts and ideas. He said with all due respect, based on what the Town is saying, if the Town is firm in saying that it must meet the Town’s comprehensive plan, or it should be denied, he does not understand how this can all be resolved. He does not know that he has a resolution for this. He said this is the reason why MPW wanted to meet with the Town to figure out the most logical next step. He said he does not know but is open to suggestions. He asked Mr. Duffie if he had any thoughts from the staff’s perspective. Mr. Duffie stated that the Town and County’s comprehensive plan being identical and administered identically would solve MPW’s issues. He said addressing Mr. Bustos’ statement about annexation, if the Town controls the zoning in those areas by virtue of the Town’s annexation of those areas, the problem would be solved. He said land use, density, and the approval process would be controlled by the Town and MPW would be happy to serve, because it will always meet the Town’s plan, because it would be up to the Town to make that choice. He said MPW would be glad to serve if the Town had that control. He said lack of control on the Town’s part is part of the problem, because the Town does not really have control in the county and the County is not represented on Town Council. They are represented on County Council. He said the governing bodies should Page 53 of 57 have some dialogue. He said staff has had this on their agenda for quite some time, because staff sees this coming. He said this is not going to stop. He said as Mr. Niesse pointed out, there are several projects that are in the queue now and there will be more. He said consistency is important. In their Bull’s Bay agreement, MPW stated that they will provide water and sewer without discrimination and they have been consistent, so they are not discriminating. He said there are issues with denial of properties that are counter to MPW’s mission as they mentioned in terms of protecting the environment. Mayor Haynie stated that on the left side of the Procedures slide, it indicates that MPW can proceed with providing service. Mr. Duffie stated that if it annexes, then it is done. Mr. Jennings stated for clarification, on the left side, on the tab above that information, “Annexation completed or denied”. He said if the Town does one or the other, MPW can then proceed. The issue is the withdrawal of annexation – is this a denial and MPW’s position has been that they do not have any discretion on that side, but only on the right side. Mayor Haynie clarified that this would be a voluntary withdrawal. Mr. Jennings responded in the affirmative. Mr. Santos asked if MPW has a representative that has been attending the comprehensive plan review meetings. Mr. DeMoura stated that Mr. David Niesse has been attending. Mr. Santos asked if MPW has been making any suggestions or recommendations. Mr. Duffie stated that basically on infrastructure, land use, zoning and densities, MPW follows the lead of the Town. Mr. Santos said he is referring to MPW submitting their suggestions and recommendations, so they can be reviewed by the comprehensive plan committee. Page 54 of 57 Dr. Lauritsen stated that with respect to the environmental categories that Ms. Farrell listed previously, there was no inclusion of soil type, whether or not the soils actually perk for septic systems. She said there are obviously higher tech septic systems that can work; however, it is an environmental consideration that is not on the Town’s plate. (At 1:47 p.m., the recording system stopped and was unable to be brought back online until 1:51 p.m. Some of Dr. Lauritsen’s comments were not recorded.) Dr. Lauritsen (continued)….opportunities, thereby not encouraging clustering to a larger extent. Mr. Owens stated that he understands both her point and Mr. Jenkinson’s point. He said there are people, particularly in the unincorporated areas of the Town that have been brushing their teeth with bottled water for quite some time and this particular developer (Hamlin Acres) was coming in to provide water and sewer basically at his cost and turn over the takeover rate to MPW that would then become MPW’s asset. He understands MPW providing the water that they are accustomed to providing, which makes all the sense in the world to the unincorporated areas. He said how we get there is something that remains to be disclosed, because he has not heard it yet. He said removing some of the language would eliminate a developer coming to MPW and putting them on the spot by saying, “MPW states that they will generally not provide, but does not say that they will not provide”, and if this is something in conjunction with the Town’s comprehensive plan, the Town makes it clear in a letter to MPW whether the Town will accept the project based on the Town’s comprehensive plan. Chairman Crosby stated that MPW is sensitive to the growth issues as well and correspondingly, they are also exceedingly sensitive to the environmental issues. He said this is where the conflict lies. Dr. Lauritsen stated that from MPW’s standpoint, if they could be clear about what tradeoffs they would like to see in situations of higher Page 55 of 57 density or cluster developments, that there is some benefit in terms of the housing being more affordable or benefits to the neighborhood. MPW has not articulated this. She said her frustration was that they had the developer going through the process and then pulled the rug out from under him. She believes they could have gotten to a better place, but the process unfortunately had roadblocks. Mr. Owens stated that he understands, as there is a black side and a white side and everything worthwhile happens in the gray area. He said they key is finding out where that gray area is to accommodate all of those areas in the donut holes and provide services to them. Ms. Mellichamp stated that if MPW gets to a development like this and are uncertain on what the best course of action is, if they could hear from Council on those same projects, if they could hear the same concerns that MPW is hearing. She said MPW is not defiantly going against what Town Council wishes, but that they have an understanding of the justification to proceed with the project, then it would make it easier for MPW. Mr. Santos stated that it did not come to Council. Mayor Haynie stated that moving forward, the Town will have a conversation internally about what the Town is able to do. He said there was also mention of the County level. Chairman Crosby stated that he spoke with Herb Sass coming in, who has deep interest in this discussion as well. Mr. Sass would like to follow up with meetings with Mayor Haynie, himself and staff as well. He believes the conversation needs to continue and feels this is a great start. He said we do not have all the answers today but thinks that both the Town and MPW need to set up a timeline to figure it out and not let it linger. He said the sooner the process can begin, the better off everyone will be. Mr. Jenkinson stated that Hamlin Acres really got to him, because he thought it was too good for the community, which is why he was so involved. He said MPW primarily goes with what the Town approves without any question. He said Hamlin Acres did meet the density but Page 56 of 57  did not meet the lot size. He said perhaps the comprehensive plan to say that it met the density of three lots per acre, but because it had larger green space it made the lot size smaller. He said there are various ways to look at this. He stated that he would like some leeway. He said they would follow the Town and do what is fair for everyone. Mayor Haynie expressed his appreciation to MPW for helping the Town and sticking with the comprehensive plan. He believes everyone is aware what the debate is and decisions that need to be made going forward. He said we need to work with the county, not only on this but zoning as well, as we have recently seen with other issues. Mr. Owens stated that he wanted to make a point to Mr. Jenkinson that getting to the comprehensive plan and discussing his points of interest, whether we change it or amend it, is something that needs to be discussed with staff. He stated that as Mr. Santos was discussing earlier, trying to incorporate something similar that is of some amenable level of certainty that can provide services to those obscure gray areas. He said if this is what MPW is attempting to do, then it appears to be an amenable solution. He said we need to come to terms and put it in the comprehensive plan. Mr. Jenkinson stated that he does not believe anyone wants density, so he is agreeable. X. Adjourn There being no further business, meeting adjourned at 1:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Ashe November 7, 2018 Page 57 of 57