Public Services Committee

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE Monday, July 31, 2017 (August Committee Meeting) 1:30 p.m. Municipal Complex, Committee Meeting Room, 3rd Floor 100 Ann Edwards Lane Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 MINUTES Present: Will Haynie, Chair; Joe Bustos, Jim Owens Staff: Marcy Cotov, Eric DeMoura, Christiane Farrell, Jody Peele Also Present: Rick Karkowski Mr. Haynie called the meeting to order at 1:56 p.m. 1. Approval of Minutes from Insert date of prior meeting Mr. Haynie called for a motion to approve the minutes from the May 1, 2017 meeting. Mr. Owens so moved; seconded by Mr. Bustos; motion carried unanimously. 2. Public Comments None 3. Continued discussion regarding the findings of the Old Village Drainage Study [Please see slide on following page]  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 2 of 39 Mr. Haynie commented that the Committee had decided, based on the study presented at the Special Public Services Committee Meeting on July 25, 2017, to draw conclusions today and choose a course of action to recommend to Council. At this time, Mr. Haynie turned the meeting over to the staff. Mrs. Farrrell informed the Committee that she would begin the presentation by covering questions that had arisen at the meeting last week regarding zoning and moratorium matters.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 3 of 39 Mrs. Farrell referred to the above slide and stated that it had generated questions regarding type of development in the entire study area, the number and type of permits being issued and what this meant in terms of building coverage and zoning related matters. Mrs. Farrell explained that the color coding shown, illustrates how many new permits were issued for the categories listed.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 4 of 39 Mrs. Farrell noted that this slide indicates that the vast majority of construction permits involve additions and renovations (shown in orange). She further explained that the red were new construction, the yellow were the auxiliary dwelling units (ADU’s), the green were accessory structures and the white were swimming pools.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 5 of 39 Mrs. Farrell stated that the Temporary Moratorium applied only to the Pilot Study Areas, which were identified as Royall Avenue and Edwards Park Basin. She further explained that there are approximately 900 properties that either fall entirely or partially within these two basins.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 6 of 39 Mrs. Farrell clarified that there is a Maximum Building Coverage that applies to residential properties throughout the Town of Mount Pleasant.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 7 of 39 Mrs. Farrell stated that impervious surface only applies in the Old Village Historic District. She explained that an ordinance revision addressing this issue was put into effect approximately ten years ago. Mrs. Farrell commented that the impervious surface requirement in the Old Village is easier to regulate due to having to be approved by the Old Village Historic District Commission; thus, there is a way to monitor and to know what amount of impervious surface the resident has. Mrs. Farrell added that the Building Coverage Maximums are reviewed when building permit applications are received. Mrs. Cotov then addressed Potential Funding Sources.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 8 of 39 Mrs. Cotov stated that possible funding sources would include another SRF (State Revolving Fund) or a Federal Emergency Management Assistance (FEMA) Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant. Mrs. Cotov explained that these funding sources require a great deal of resources, time, people and money to gather the application information, and once that process is completed, there is no guarantee that the funds would be awarded. Mrs. Cotov further added that if Council decided to pursue this process, these funding sources, ( state or federal), could be explored in the future. Mrs. Cotov commented that the Stormwater Fees, as authorized by Chapter 52, speaks about the system, as a whole, being for the betterment of everyone.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 9 of 39 Mrs. Cotov informed the Committee that a Master Bond Ordinance would be brought forward to the next Finance Committee Meeting. She stated that this would allow Stormwater Fees to be used for more than one type of bond. Mrs. Cotov stated that in the Bond Council, that the State had recommended this Master Bond Ordinance, which would allow different borrowings against the Stormwater Fee if that was desired, as long as the revenue exceeds any expenditure by 115 percent. Mr. Haynie asked Mrs. Cotov for clarification of the total revenue for Stormwater Fees. Mrs. Cotov answered that the net revenue figure would be 2.1 million dollars, after subtracting the $600,000.00 for the SRF Loan. She added that of that amount, approximately 1.1 milllion dollars was used for staff.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 10 of 39 Mrs. Cotov stated that there would be approximately one million dollars per year for pipe repair and rehabilitation, studies and other items. Mrs. Cotov explained that the funds used for the Fund Balance Policy are funds that are unassigned and undedicated as of June 30th each year.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 11 of 39 Mrs. Cotov stated that the Municipal Facilities and Equipment Impact Fee does incorporate Stormwater; however, she explained that caution is needed with regards to use of this fund as it is not to be used to improve existing capital improvements, but it does allow for growth that is impacting the system. Mrs. Cotov added that the four impact fee revenues that no longer exist are: General Government, Public Service, Sanitation and Police. She stated that these are all included in this fee and would generate approximately $712,000.00, which is expected to go up in January 2018, based on the impact fees increasing. Mrs. Cotov explained that the above figure for Millage is the amount that was based on the 2018 fiscal year budget. She further added that this figure would be adjusted based on actual June 30th numbers. Mrs. Cotov stated that the 8 percent capacity figure would be approximately 34 million dollars which would reach the capacity for debt service.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 12 of 39 Mrs. Cotov related that the interest rates shown are directly driven by rating, and rating is impacted by the amount of debt. She added that more debt may result in a better interest rate, but it will impact other debt that may be taken on in the future. Mrs. Cotov explained that the interest rates shown are conservative, but still illustrate the cost of an annual repayment. Mr. Bustos asked Mrs. Cotov if the amount shown earlier of 1.2 million dollars for pipe repair and rehabilitation was designated for this district or across the town. Mrs. Cotov replied that it was for the entire town. She clarified that the $480,000.00 presented at Bids and Purchases Committee is part of the 1.2 million dollars to be used Town wide.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 13 of 39 Mr. Peele took over the presentation and informed the Committee that Rick Karkowski with Thomas and Hutton Engineering firm, was present at the meeting today to answer questions if necessary.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 14 of 39 Mr. Peele stated that the study involved a lot of fact finding and sharing of information. He further explained that in order to prioritize 27 basins, a scoring system was developed to rank each basin from the most problematic to the least problematic. Mr. Peele stated that all 27 basins were scored in eight different categories to determine a specific score and rank as shown above.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 15 of 39 Mr. Peele noted that the above Basin Prioritization summary shows the total score and overall ranking for each basin.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 16 of 39 Mr. Peele stated that the graph to the right indicates that Royall Avenue Basin received the highest score for the most problematic basin, followed by Edwards Park Basin.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 17 of 39 Mr. Peele noted that this slide shows the 27 basins that were included in the study.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 18 of 39 Mr. Peele informed the Committee that a pilot study was performed after the ranking of the drainage basins on the two most critical basins, Royall Avenue and Edwards Park. Mr. Peele stated that, as a result of this pilot study, it was determined that 30 percent of the Edwards Park Basin is nonfunctional and 21 percent of the Royall Avenue Basin is nonfunctional. Mr. Peele noted that the highlighted area shown above again exhibits the two most problematic basins, Royall Avenue and Edwards Park.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 19 of 39 Mr. Peele noted that the estimated cost to address drainage issues in all 27 basins was $25,017,376.00, with the total amounts for Edwards Park Basin and Royall Avenue Basin highlighted above. Mr. Haynie asked Mrs. Farrell if the current moratorium that was passed by Council only applied to these two basins, Edwards Park and Royall Avenue. Mrs. Farrell answered in the affirmative. Mr. Haynie asked how the addresses and parcels included in these two basins were determined.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 20 of 39 Mrs. Farrell explained that even if one small portion of a piece of property was within one of these basins, it would be in the pilot study area; and thus, would be affected by the moratorium. She further explained that some streets were split, citing Pitt Street as an example. One side of the street is included in the moratorium and one side is not. Mr. Karkowski stated that by analysis of the topographic data and the information that was obtained for the drainage system, the study determined what areas contributed to each basin. Mr. Karkowski further added that by using the Town’s parcel data, they were able to identify down to the parcel level what was draining through which basins. Mr. Haynie asked for confirmation that, based on the engineering overlay resulting from the study, it showed that the moratorium is based on where water goes and is not arbitrary or discriminatory. Mr. Karkowski replied in the affirmative. Mr. Bustos commented that he believed the two areas that need to be addressed are: funding to start this process and consulting with an engineering company to design and initiate this project. Mr. Bustos stated he felt that after the current 60 day moratorium ends in September, there should be some modification to the moratorium to include the entire area which would preclude approving the subdivisions of lots. Mr. Bustos used an example of buying two lots and turning that property into three houses.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 21 of 39 Mr. Bustos also stated that modifications could also be made to allow residents to make additions, such as building a bedroom or a porch. Mr. Haynie asked about new construction as it pertains to this issue. Mr. Bustos replied if a resident tears down a house, then builds a house, there would be more impervious surface, even though there was existing impervious surface there. He further reiterated the subdivisions of lots as being the main problem. Mr. Bustos asked that a recommendation be made to Town Council for a request for quotes to determine the actions and costs needed for this project. He expressed his desire to have a motion put forth that would direct staff to move forward with this process. Mr. Bustos inquired if movement of water lines and sewer lines was factored into the Opinion of Probable Cost. Mr. Karkowski replied in the affirmative. He further explained that the actual pipe improvement cost to put pipe into the ground was a fraction of the amount required compared to the number of utilities, roads and driveways that would have to be torn up and replaced, which he described as the majority of costs on retrofit projects. Mr. Haynie stated that a recommendation needs to be made to full Council at the upcoming meeting with regards to the moratorium, concerning time and application of the moratorium. He also requested assistance from staff in developing guidelines for a motion that would involve a moratorium on subdivisions of lots.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 22 of 39 Mr. Haynie additionally commented that it should be determined whether the moratorium would apply to ADU’s within these two areas. Mr. Haynie suggested beginning to craft a motion based on what would be done about the moratorium and asked for input from staff and members of the public regarding this topic. Mr. Owens asked if it was possible to take all of the basins in phases and to approach as a large scale project under one bond or funding source that is appropriated. Mr. DeMoura replied that when the design firm starts to ascertain how significant the cost will be, then further discussions regarding phasing may be warranted. Mr. Owens asked if the process is at a point where funds could be generated for the design of the project. Mr. DeMoura answered in the affirmative and said that if that was Committee’s and Council’s wish, the plan would be to reprioritize some of the capital money and bring the recommendation to support that effort. Mr. Haynie referred to the Residential Construction Permits slide shown earlier in this meeting which illustrated types of permit applications. Mr. Bustos stated the need for ADU’s to be explored in terms of lot coverage. He further added that he felt the moratorium would need to be expanded to other areas.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 23 of 39 Mrs. Farrell clarified that the Residential Construction Permits showed the entire study area and not the pilot study area. Mr. Haynie asked if the permits for an ADU for new construction as well as the permits for an ADU for existing construction were reflected in this slide. Mrs. Farrell answered that it would be two separate permits, but the slide does show all ADU permits. She further added that an ADU could also be built within a home, and not be a separate structure. Mr. Haynie inquired as to the percentage of remodeling that is labeled as new construction. Mrs. Farrell replied that it is 50 percent and is based on a value, including the value of the home and the value of the construction costs. Mr. Haynie stated that there are many substantial renovations that are very much the same as new construction. Mr. Haynie stated that it was his desire for the Committee to decide what recommendations would be made to full Council regarding the status of the moratorium. Mr. Owens added that he also thought going forward with this process, bringing forth a project that includes all of the basins at an estimated cost of 25 million dollars, that it would also need to be determined when to relax the moratorium standards that are currently in place.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 24 of 39 Mr. Stewart Hulett, 1 Darlington Lane, Mount Pleasant, SC, stated that he felt that the moratorium should be expanded to all areas that are impacted, and not to just the two basins that are in the detailed study. He further added that his home is impacted due to the development surrounding his residence, specifically of ADU’s, which has resulted in flooding of his interior lot. Mr. Hulett stated that his request would be to extend the ADU element and the lot subdivision element to the entire study area until there is a plan in place for the drainage issues. Mr. Karkowski clarified that many of the projects required multiple permits, such as an ADU, an expansion and a pool at one house. He explained that if there were several permits, they were combined into a majority permit. Mr. Karkowski stated that this was done so as not to over count the amount of development. He noted that the Residential Construction Permits chart reflected this process. Mr. Karkowski stated that the yellow ADU designation is a pure ADU expansion, whereas the orange may be an addition and an ADU or just purely an addition. Mr. Bustos stated that he felt the expansion of the moratorium should cover the entire study area, but needs to be specific, such as no ADU’s and no subdivision of lots. Mr. Bustos asked if an expansion of this nature could be controlled through Planning if it is specific.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 25 of 39 Mrs. Farrell answered in the affirmative and clarified that what Mr. Bustos referred to was when a lot subdivision results in creating another buildable lot. Mr. Bustos noted that by doing this, homes would be saved that are being flooded. Mr. Owens asked Mr. Karkowski what his initial thoughts would be regarding a design timeline for this project based on the study. Mr. Karkowski stated that this would be a multi-year process, including many facets such as resources for fees, surveyors and engineers; permits; water quality issues; critical area impacts and mitigation process. He estimated a five to ten year timeline. Mr. Owens inquired as to a timeline for the two most critical basins. Mr. Karkowski stated that there was a plan in place for those areas and estimated six months to a year for the design process and 18 to 24 months for permitting. Mr. Sean Barnes, 1418 Barbara Street, Mount Pleasant, SC, asked when Thomas and Hutton saw the increase of flooding in the two most critical areas. Mr. Peele stated that in the presentation that he gave to the Committee on July 25, 2017, it was stated that flooding problems were identified in the Old Village in 1995 and the original list was developed.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 26 of 39 Mr. Peele noted that serious improvements have been made since that time, such as Edwards Park pump station being installed which helped the following streets: Fairmont, King, Bellview and Carr. Mr. Peele commented that there were a few problem areas remaining including Atlantic Street and Freeman Street. Mr. Peele cited further examples of areas that have seen considerable improvements which included: Dovre Basin, Ben Tatum Pond, Middle Street, Simmons Street, Royall Avenue, Williamson Street and McCormick Street. Mr. Peele reiterated that there were some lingering areas with drainage issues that still need to be addressed. Mr. Barnes complimented the Town and expressed appreciation for the work that has been done. He further inquired as to the time the increase was first seen in the Edwards Park and the Royall Avenue Basins. Mr. Haynie asked Mr. Karkowski about the chart that showed the number of service calls over the last few years, adding that 2015 was an anomaly due to the 1000 year rain event. Mr. Karkowski stated that the study examined a snapshot of existing conditions as of 2016. He added that there was no post-dating analysis of the 1970’s, 1980’s or 1990’s. Mr. Karkowski further explained that they were able to project what would happen based upon a continued trend. Mr. Karkowski also referred again to the Building Permits graph, citing the economic factors that prevented an increase in building until 2010.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 27 of 39 Mr. Barnes asked Mr. Karkowski if the study had covered the year 2000 going forward. Mr. Karkowski clarified that the study only analyzed drainage conditions as of 2016. Linda Page, 1458 Short Street, Mount Pleasant, SC, asked how many houses since 1995 have had water intrusion. She referred to Federal Emergency Management Assistance (FEMA) reports that show when citizens call due to hurricane flooding.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 28 of 39 Hillary Repik, Stormwater Division Chief for the Town of Mount Pleasant, stated that the flood reports we receive through FEMA are based upon residents who have flood insurance who make a claim following an event. She further explained that the reports may not be reflective of everyone who floods, as there are some residents who have flood insurance and choose not to make a claim and some residents who do not have flood insurance, but may have flooding. Mrs. Repik noted that the spikes are related; starting with Hurricane Hugo, then in 1994 which also was the start of the initial Stormwater Program, then in 1998 there was additional flooding and in October 2015 there was a spike with several events in the area. Mrs. Repik stated that the flood claims are rain event driven and that the Town has the data only if the citizen notifies the Town or makes an insurance claim. Mrs. Repik also explained that during an average rain event, spikes would be seen through numbers of service calls and on spreadsheets, but staff did not go out to do actual inspections of the structure to verify damage. She further added that calls may be received stating that water is in the resident’s yard or driveway, but that the volume of these calls was not too significant.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 29 of 39 Mr. Karkowski noted that there was one other source of information for flooded structures which was the Service Requests, which were grouped by reported structural flooding, defined as flooding inside a house. Mr. Karkowski stated that all Service Requests were read, a determination was made as to what occurred and then they were categorized. Mrs. Page asked Mrs. Repik what the specific numbers were in 2015 for structures that were flooded. Mrs. Repik cited the following figures: 3 structures reported in which residents called and said they had water in their house; 22, severe, which would be driveway or crawlspace; 27, nuisance; and, 21, maintenance items, such as requesting maintenance for a clogged drain non-specific to structural flooding.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 30 of 39 Mr. Haynie asked about comparisons of 2016 to 2015. Mrs. Repik stated that as far as rainfall records go, the Town had been in a 12 year drought cycle prior to 2014 and have had some of the wettest years on record for the past two years. She added that the National Weather Service had reported in June, 2017, that the Town is eight inches of rainfall above normal. Mrs. Repik commented that the Town was in a very wet trend, but it was unknown if this is the new normal or one of the cycles that occurs approximately every ten years. Mr. Barnes asked if Thomas and Hutton had done previous studies in these areas, and if so, for how many years have they done those studies. Mr. Karkowski stated that Thomas and Hutton had not specifically examined this area for drainage complaints in the past. In order to continue the meeting, Mr. Haynie stated that additional information would be obtained for Mr. Barnes if necessary.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 31 of 39 Mr. Haynie referred to the above graph and asked Mr. Karkowski if the curve shown indicated impervious surface or number of units. Mr. Karkowski answered that the Y axis represented additional impervious area. Mr. Haynie stated to Committee members that the goal was to make a recommendation to Council that makes sense based on the findings of the study. Mr. Haynie added that it was necessary to ensure that the Town’s infrastructure catches up with what the above trend clearly illustrates. Mr. Karkowski emphasized the necessity to catch up to the present situation.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 32 of 39 Mr. Haynie asked for a motion from the Committee members that would involve the subdivisions of lots and ADU’s across the study area and a time limit in order to make a recommendation to full Council. Mr. Bustos made a motion to recommend to full Council that staff issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the design of drainage improvements in the Edwards Park and Royall Avenue Basins; seconded by Mr. Owens. Mr. Owens asked for clarification that the design of the project was part of the RFQ. Mr. Bustos replied in the affirmative. Mr. Haynie asked Mr. DeMoura if the motion was worded sufficiently so that staff would be able to proceed with this process. Mr. DeMoura stated that he understood the motion to request that staff would proceed with an RFQ process for the design of drainage improvements in the Edwards Park and Royall Avenue basins. Mr. Owens concurred with Mr. DeMoura’s statement. Mr. Bustos asked if the motion would refer to only the Edwards Park and Royall Avenue basins or the entire study area. Mr. DeMoura answered that this determination would be made by the Committee.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 33 of 39 Mr. Haynie stated that he thought the process would need to be done in sections, starting with the two worst basins. Mr. DeMoura stated his concern that if the project included the entire study area, construction would be greatly delayed due to the amount of time needed for design and permitting. Mr. Bustos asked if the cost would be approximately eight million dollars as opposed to 25 million dollars for the entire study area. Mr. Haynie answered in the affirmative. Mr. Haynie asked Mr. Owens if he would amend his second of the motion to reflect that the process would be for the two top priority basins. Mr. Owens replied in the affirmative. Mr. DeMoura stated that the decision would be the Committee’s, but that the design could be done for the entire area. Mr. Haynie commented that proceeding with the design for the entire area would take much longer. Mr. Owens agreed with Mr. Haynie’s statement and added that it would take a longer amount of time and an increase in the necessary funds. He further added that he thought it would be easier to resource a phased in approach rather than a lump sum.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 34 of 39 Mr. Haynie asked if there was any further discussion. There was no further discussion. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Haynie stated that the wording for addressing the current moratorium and recommendations to full Council would be discussed. Mr. Bustos made a motion to expand the area for only subdivisions of lots and ADU’s to the entire area and that it is tied to when work is able to be completed based on the RFQ. Mr. Haynie asked Mr. DeMoura how long it would take for the RFQ to come back. Mr. DeMoura answered that the RFQ would be presented to the Bids and Purchases Committee in September. Mr. DeMoura asked Mrs. Cotov to confirm this information. Mrs. Cotov answered in the affirmative. She further added that they can go out for a ten-day proposal to the five on-call engineering firms and Thomas and Hutton, and have it back for the Committee Meeting in September. Mr. Haynie noted that the time for the moratorium could be revisited and moved forward if necessary. Mr. Bustos asked about expansion of the moratorium.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 35 of 39 Mr. Haynie stated that he was referring to the length of time for the moratorium. He further added he would recommend 90 days for the moratorium. Mr. Owens asked for clarification of the motion. Mr. Bustos explained that he was reducing the moratorium to only no subdivisions of lots and no ADU’s. Mr. Haynie asked if the motion would include all of the study area and would be for 90 days forward after the expiration of the current moratorium. Mr. Bustos answered in the affirmative. Mr. Haynie asked Mr. Owens if he would second that motion. Mr. Owens answered in the affirmative and asked for further discussion. Mr. Karkowski stated that he wanted to point out two items for the Committee’s consideration. He noted that the study only looked at residential permits and not commercial permits. He added that some basins are marginally functional, but have an acceptable or livable level of service. Mr. Karkowski further explained that these basins are further down on the list of having issues. He wanted to ensure that the Committee considered that information in order to determine the area the moratorium affected. Mr. Bustos commented that he thought the basins Mr. Karkowski was referring to would get worse if subdivisions of lots and the building of ADU’s  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 36 of 39 continued. He asked Mr. Karkowski if a situation would be acceptable which might involve one house being torn down and rebuilt on that lot. Mr. Karkowski answered that it would depend on what is built back. Mr. Haynie asked if, for the motion, that it would apply to residential construction. Mr. Bustos answered in the affirmative. Mr. Haynie asked Mr. Owens if he would amend his second of the motion. Mr. Owens replied in the affirmative. Elton Carrier, 313 King Street, Mount Pleasant, SC, asked for clarification of the study area. Mr. Haynie stated that the entire study area would be included. Mr. Carrier asked Mr. Karkowski if the area that was recently approved for drainage improvements in front of Moultrie Middle School, was considered as part of this study. Mr. Karkowski stated that it was not included in the study. He added that area was known as the Moultrie Middle Basin and was lower on the list, but would need to be incorporated into the future analysis.  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 37 of 39 Mr. Carrrier asked Mr. Karkowski if this would be part of a new or adjusted study. Mr. Karkowski answered in the affirmative, if Council or staff directed them to do so. Mr. DeMoura stated that a 90-day moratorium would have to be passed by ordinance. He further explained that if Council was supportive, the first reading would be next week and the second reading would be on the September date of the expiration of the original moratorium. Mr. DeMoura stated that he wanted to clarify that the 90 days would then begin at the September Council Meeting. He further added that it would take two readings to pass the ordinance. Mr. Haynie asked for confirmation that there was no gap in this timing. Mr. DeMoura stated that Mr. Haynie was correct. He further explained that he just wanted to clarify that this new moratorium would not begin immediately as it has to go through the ordinance process. He noted that this would coincide with the expiration of the original moratorium. Pat Sullivan, 1002 Plantation Court, Mount Pleasant, SC, expressed concerns regarding issues with taking down a 1,200 square foot home and replacing it with a 3,500 square foot home. Mr. Owens stated that he thought Mrs. Farrell had addressed this issue with regards to lot coverage. He further added that if lot coverage was not  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 38 of 39 exceeded, it would be permissible. He asked Mrs. Farrell if this information was correct. Mrs. Farrell answered in the affirmative. However, she further explained that their footprint would be increased which would make a difference in how they affect drainage. Mr. Haynie asked if two different classes of building permits would be necessary. Mr. DeMoura replied that it would be an issue with any property owner who is taking on the construction and may not be a practical issue to pursue. Mr. Bustos noted that this was the standard across the town and he did not see how this could be changed. Mr. Haynie stated that there was another level of the Old Village Commission having a directive of a 35 percent lot coverage. Mrs. Farrell stated that it was 40 percent impervious surface. Mr. Haynie asked if there was any further discussion. There was no further discussion. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Adjourn  Public Services Committee Minutes July 31, 2017 Page 39 of 39 There being no further business, Chairman Haynie adjourned the meeting at 3:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Jane Leisey August 2, 2017