Planning Commission

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7, 2018 MINUTES Present: Joseph Wren, Chair, Roy Neal, Alys Campaigne, DeAudre Gregg, John McNeill, Peter Lehman, Tripp Cuttino, Kathy Smith, Rodly Millet. Staff: Jeff Ulma, David Pagliarini, Lee Cave, Kent Prause, Kevin Mitchell, Michele Canon, Eddie Bernard, Liz Boyles, Allen Nodine, Marissa Poultney, Lynnette Lynes Mr. Wren called the meeting to order at 2:00 pm. 1. General Correspondence and Public Comments Ms. Canon stated that all correspondence was received and distributed to the Commission. Mr. Mickey Seabrook, 732 Chatter Road, expressed concern with some of the tree species being included as protected trees, such as sweetgum, pine, pecan, and Chinese tallow trees. He stated that sweetgum trees attract termites which cause damage to homes and structures in addition to other trees. He stated that the energy the tree expends to produce fruit reduces the ability of the tree to develop strong and resilient fiber that is resistant to disease, rot and pests. He stated that pine trees are better suited to natural forest conditions where they can grow in denser community groups than in urban settings. He stated that extensive damage occurred during Hurricane Hugo as a result of fallen pine trees. He stated that pecan trees are subject to extensive rot and several pests and diseases. He stated that the “Landscape Plants of the Southeast” do not recommend pecan trees “for residential landscaping since green nuts fall all summer littering lawns and patios”. He stated that Wakendaw Lakes subdivision was part of a former pecan farm and several trees have had to be removed due to rot, disease and fallen branches. He stated that Chinese Tallows are an invasive and nuisance species which should never be considered for protection. Mr. Seabrook continued that consideration should be given to overcrowding and possible stunted growth of understory trees by adding two more trees to the Bufferyard B requirements. Further, he suggested that no retroactive application of a 50 foot critical line buffer setback should be considered. He suggested that before the widening of the critical line buffer setback is proposed, a scientific study of soils, vegetation and other factors specific to the Town should be made with  Special Planning Commission February 7, 2018 Page 2 of 10 results showing probable environmental advantages, if any, afforded by additional buffer width. Ms. Betty Niermann, Seamon, Whiteside, and Associates, agreed with Mr. Seabrook that the critical line buffer should not be increased as it would be considered a taking of property. She also asked that the property between the Ravenel Bridge and Ben Sawyer with a 25 foot buffer average and the area near the Ravenel Bridge eastward of the Wando should remain with a minimum setback of 30 feet. She suggested that trees in the wetlands should be allowed to count toward the mitigation requirement and suggested that this could be accomplished with counting wetlands toward the allowed developable land. She also expressed concern with the bufferyard requirements and suggested that requiring a buffer for property next to vacant property a street should be reconsidered and removed from the ordinance. She expressed concern with the 160 inch retention requirement for residential developments as it could mean that a significant reduction in the number of buildable lots. Mr. Jon Popelka, 164 4th Avenue, asked if the critical line buffer would apply to all property or only the newly platted lots. He asked expressed concern with whether there would be applicable dates included. He stated that while the intent might not be to “hurt” the property owners, he has two properties that would be significantly affected by the critical line buffer and essentially make those properties unbuildable. Ms. Angela Jurisi, 152 4th Avenue, expressed concern with the proposed increased critical line buffer and that if there is a storm event and her home is damaged, would they be allowed to rebuild their home or have to comply with the new buffer requirements. She agreed with not including sweetgum and pine trees as protected trees. Mr. Patrick Arnold, Executive Director of the Charleston Homebuilders Association, expressed concern with a special meeting being held as they understood that they could provide input at the next Planning Commission meeting. He expressed concern with pine and non-native species being a protected species because they are a danger to the community, especially because how easily they fall in wet soil and during storm events. He suggested that protecting these trees could mean some properties would be unbuildable. He suggested that there should be input from arborists and tree protection experts prior to implementation.  Special Planning Commission February 7, 2018 Page 3 of 10 Mr. Bob Pickard, Savannah Hwy, agreed with Mr. Arnold that more arborist input should be provided. He suggested that more time is needed to review the changes and provide professional opinion. He agreed with Mr. Popelka that these are significant changes and more input and time should be allowed for this issue. 2. New Business A. Review of zoning code text amendments pertaining to tree and bufferyard requirements. Ms. Canon reviewed staff comments with the Commission (attachments 1 & 2). Ms. Smith asked about the critical line buffer average allowance. Ms. Canon answered that the 35 foot critical line buffer can be averaged with a minimum of 20 feet. She stated that there is a 30 foot impervious surface setback as well. So, while the critical line buffer might be a minimum of 20 feet in some sections, a structure could not be built at the 20 foot buffer line; the impervious setback would restrict the construction of structures to 30 feet from the critical line. Mr. Wren asked if there are any examples in the Old Village area. Mr. Bernard answered in the negative. Ms. Campaigne stated that buffers are important for wildlife, soil erosion, water quality and resilience from flooding. She suggested that the 15 foot and 35 foot critical line buffer setback was established in order to address water quality. She stated that since the setback was established, there has been tremendous development on the waterfront. She stated that from a water quality perspective the need is more imperative as the Town is under the DHEC impaired water body list, not just for Shem Creek but for the Wando area as well. She stated that resilience is another issue. She stated that sea level is projected to rise another 30 feet by 2020. She stated that other municipalities, such as Beaufort, SC, have used critical line buffers as a tool for planning and managing flooding and water quality. She suggested that the intent is to have something in place for future development and redevelopment of land that takes into account the new buffer setback. She suggested that buffer averaging should remain. She suggested that the two gateway districts are no longer needed in this instance because the issue is not density but rather flood risk.  Special Planning Commission February 7, 2018 Page 4 of 10 She suggested that the impervious setback works. She suggested that using an adaptive area action planning tool as is done in Florida could be beneficial. She stated that this would create an overlay with regulations regarding redevelopment to have a more flood-resistant structure. She suggested that this should be further discussed through the Comprehensive Plan update. She suggested that having a 50 foot critical line buffer should be recommended. Mr. Wren asked for clarification on Ms. Campaigne’s recommendation. Ms. Campaigne answered that the critical line buffer setback should be 50 feet for all properties. Ms. Smith stated that the critical line buffer setback was established in 2000 and the reason for using 15 feet and 35 feet was to take into account those properties that were already developed. She suggested that with the increase in population in the Town means there should be some changes to the regulations. She stated that this is currently being accomplished through the Comprehensive Plan update as well. Mr. Neal expressed concern with some of the proposed changes. He suggested that the buffer averaging should be maintained. He suggested that this is secondary to determining an effective date. He expressed concern with significantly changing the critical line buffer setback for existing homes. He stated that the intent is justified, but the Commission should carefully move forward with the recommendations as it could mean significant impact to existing homes. Mr. Pagliarini stated that South Carolina has a vested rights policy. He stated that an effective date can be determined, if desired by the Commission. He stated that another remedy is applying to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) for a variance for certain circumstances. Ms. Smith stated that the current ordinance included an effective date and suggested that this could be recommended as well. Mr. McNeill agreed that an effective date should be determined.  Special Planning Commission February 7, 2018 Page 5 of 10 Mr. Millet agreed that careful consideration should be taken to ensure appropriate language to address these concerns. He suggested that identifying the major concerns might be beneficial going forward. Mr. Neal agreed and suggested that there should be a consensus on how to move forward. Ms. Smith suggested that an effective date would be determined by Town Council and upon approval of the ordinance. Ms. Smith moved for approval of changing the critical line buffer setback to be a 50 foot average buffer setback and be required for all property in the Town with approved final plats, sketch plans, preliminary plats and lots of record as of the effective date of the ordinance should not be subject to the 50 foot buffer setback. Ms. Campaigne seconded the motion. Mr. Wren asked for clarification and if a minimum setback should be determined. Mr. Bernard answered in the affirmative. Ms. Smith withdrew her motion. Ms. Campaigne withdrew her second. Ms. Campaigne suggested that the exemption could be accomplished by updating the current ordinance language. Ms. Smith moved for approval of the critical line buffer setback to be 50 foot average with a minimum 30 foot for all properties in the Town, exempting approved, sketch plans, preliminary plat, final plats and lots of record effective the date the ordinance is signed. Ms. Campaigne seconded the motion. Mr. Neal suggested that requiring a 50 foot critical line buffer setback in areas where the current buffer setback is 15 feet, would be “too much”. Ms. Campaigne stated that the increased buffer would not apply to existing lots, so the amount of property that would be subject to the new setback would be minimal. She suggested that redevelopment and directing future use. She stated that this is being discussed in other coastal towns and areas as well.  Special Planning Commission February 7, 2018 Page 6 of 10 Mr. Wren asked if the impervious setback applies throughout the Town. Ms. Canon answered in the affirmative and stated that if applies in areas where there is a critical line buffer. Mr. McNeill asked for clarification on the effective date. Ms. Lynes read the motion for the Commission. Mr. Prause clarified that an ordinance is effective upon final reading. Mr. Neal asked if the motion would be sufficient to protect existing homes. Mr. Prause stated that according to the motion on the floor, an approved plat would be exempted. Mr. Pagliarini suggested that if an approved plat is updated because of a change to a critical line and the plat is essentially changed it would mean that they would be subject to the new setback requirement. Mr. Prause stated that if the plat changes through a subdivision or combination of lots, then the new setback would apply. Mr. Lehman asked how many lots would be affected. Ms. Canon answered that staff does not have an exact number. Mr. McNeill asked what the anticipated timeline is for the ordinance being approved. Ms. Canon answered that it would have final reading at the April Town Council meeting barring any deferrals or delays. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. Motion passed on a 7 to 2 vote with Ms. Campaigne, Ms. Gregg, Mr. McNeill, Mr. Wren, Ms. Smith, Mr. Lehman, and Mr. Millet in favor; Mr. Neal and Mr. Cuttino opposed. Mr. Bernard asked the Commission on how buffers should be treated in terms of re-planting areas where there previously was no buffer. Ms. Gregg asked if the buffer penalties would apply. Mr. Bernard answered that this would only apply to an illegal removal of plantings in the buffer. Ms. Smith suggested that the examples of nearby buffers should be used when determining the buffer and how it should be planted. Mr. Neal suggested that this should not be regulated by the Commission. Ms. Campaigne agreed.  Special Planning Commission February 7, 2018 Page 7 of 10 Mr. Wren suggested that staff bring back a recommendation for consideration. Ms. Canon reviewed the proposed changes to the tree ordinance with the Commission. Mr. Neal commended staff for their work on this issue. He suggested that pine trees and sweetgums should not be protected. He suggested that the current list could be kept as protected with lowering the caliper to 8 inches. Ms. Smith stated that the intent is to preserve the current tree canopy of the Town. She stated that another issue is drainage and the fact that trees help with property drainage. Ms. Campaigne agreed that careful consideration should be taken when determining what should be protected. She asked if a distinction could be made between protecting pine trees within buffers, etc. Mr. Bernard answered that this is already being accomplished. Ms. Gregg suggested that the natural vegetation should be preserved. Mr. Wren asked for clarification on where pine trees are not protected. Mr. Bernard answered that they are not protected outside of buffer areas. Mr. Wren asked how cumbersome it would be to decrease the caliper that is considered protected. Mr. Bernard answered that it would significantly increase staff review and enforcement. Mr. Millet agreed that careful consideration should be taken, particularly when determining whether to move to protecting 8 inch trees for residential property. Mr. Wren agreed that sweetgum trees should be exempted except in buffer areas. Ms. Campaigne suggested that the public input should be taken into consideration before a recommendation is finalized. Mr. Neal asked if changes to the text amendment could be done after the public hearing. Mr. Pagliarini answered that changes could be made. Ms. Canon  Special Planning Commission February 7, 2018 Page 8 of 10 suggested that a recommendation should be made so that the changes can be made prior to the next meeting. Mr. Neal moved for approval of the tree ordinance as proposed with deletion of protection of pine trees and sweetgum trees. Mr. Cuttino seconded the motion. Mr. Neal stated that the issue of 160 inch tree requirement for developments has not been discussed and suggested that there should be some consideration for exemption for areas near special buffers areas, etc. Ms. Campaigne asked for clarification. Mr. Neal answered that wetlands are not allowed to be counted as part of mitigation. Ms. Smith asked for clarification on the motion. Mr. Neal answered that he wanted more discussion regarding the 160 inch tree requirement before including in the motion. Mr. McNeill suggested that clarification on the 160 inch tree requirement should be determined before a vote on the motion is made. Mr. Neal stated that he is in favor of the 160 inch requirement but suggested that there should be some allowance for special buffer areas and wetlands. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. Motion failed on a 4 to 5 motion with Mr. McNeill, Mr. Lehman, Mr. Neal and Mr. Cuttino in favor; Ms. Campaigne, Ms. Gregg, Mr. Wren, Ms. Smith and Mr. Millet opposed. Mr. Millet suggested that reducing the caliper inch requirement for protected should be considered. Mr. Bernard stated that there was discussion on reducing the protected caliper inch to coincide with the commercial requirement of protection of trees 8 inches or greater. Mr. Wren moved to delete sweetgums as protected except in buffer areas. Mr. Millet seconded the motion. Mr. Millet moved to amend the motion to reduce the caliper inch for protected trees from 16 inches to 13 inches. Ms. Smith seconded the motion.  Special Planning Commission February 7, 2018 Page 9 of 10 Ms. Smith asked if staff is comfortable with the recommendation. Mr. Bernard answered that staff would enforce whatever is approved. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the amendment. Motion failed on a 1 to 8 vote with Mr. Millet in favor; Ms. Campaigne, Ms. Gregg, Mr. McNeill, Mr. Wren, Ms. Smith, Mr. Lehman, Mr. Neal, and Mr. Cuttino opposed. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the original motion. All in favor. Mr. Neal moved for approval of requiring 160 inches of trees per developed acre with provision for a 50% credit for acreage in wetlands, retention ponds, and right-of-ways. Mr. McNeill seconded the motion. Ms. Campaigne asked for clarification on what would apply. Ms. Canon answered that the requirement would apply to all protected trees. Ms. Campaigne suggested that existing trees regardless of the species should be retained as much as possible. Mr. Bernard asked for clarification on the 50% credit for trees in the wetlands, retention ponds, and right-of-ways. He suggested that if this is desired, then wetland, retention pond, and right-of-way acreage should be included in the 160 inch formula. Mr. Neal stated that this motion is based on a recommendation from the public. Mr. Bernard suggested that if a credit is desired for these areas, then they should be included in the 160 inch tree requirement acreage calculation. Mr. Neal answered that this was his intent of the motion. Mr. Wren asked for the motion to be restated. Ms. Lynes restated the motion for the Commission. Mr. McNeill asked if the “developable” language would be removed. Ms. Canon stated that staff could revise the language and bring back to the Commission. Mr. Wren called for a vote on the motion. Motion failed on a 3 to 6 vote with Mr. McNeill, Mr. Neal, and Mr. Cuttino in favor; Ms. Campaigne, Ms. Gregg, Mr. Wren, Ms. Smith, Mr. Lehman, and Mr. Millet opposed.  Special Planning Commission February 7, 2018 Page 10 of 10 Ms. Campaigne suggested that the language should be “tweaked” if the intent is to preserve wooded areas to ensure clarification. Mr. Cuttino asked if the height of the protective fencing would change. Mr. Bernard answered in the negative and stated that it is four feet. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:54 pm. Submitted by, L. Lynes SpPlanComsn02072018