ANNEXATION COMMITTEE April 30, 2001

Present:Thomasena Stokes-Marshall, Bobby Utsey, Gary Santos Also:Kruger Smith, Joe Bustos, Bill Van Nort, Ted Power Staff:Mac Burdette, Liz Boyles

Ms. Stokes-Marshall called the meeting to order at 12:50 a.m. 1. Approval of Minutes

Mr. Utsey moved to approve the Minutes from the previous meeting. Mr. Santos seconded the motion. All in favor.

2. Request to Annex TMS 596-16-00-010 Located at 574 Commonwealth Road, Commonwealth II Subdivision

Mr. Burdette stated that this lot was one of the lots where there was a mix up with the roll out containers and was thought to have been annexed. He stated that a few lots were annexed under this same condition at the previous meeting. He stated that a letter was sent to Mr. Roland Windham, Charleston County Administrator, in reference to these annexations and the stipulation that 20 lots could be annexed without compensation, but he has not had a response from Mr. Windham. He stated that first reading of these properties is on hold until Mr. Windham provides a response.

Mr. Santos moved to approve staff's recommendation and annex 574 Commonwealth Road in the Commonwealth II subdivision. Mr. Utsey seconded the motion. All in favor.

3. Request to Annex TMS 559-02-00-079, a 3.24 Acre Tract of Land, Located at 1236 Mathis Ferry Road

Ms. Boyles stated that this was a single-family residence between the Wakendaw subdivision and Point Pleasant. She stated that the proposal is to remove the existing dwelling, install a public street and infrastructure, and subdivide the property into 5-7 lots. She stated that property must petition for annexation in order to receive sewer service.

Mr. Utsey asked who owns the property. Ms. Boyles answered that the owner was Byron Smith. Mr. Utsey asked if this was the property that was accessed through a dirt road. Ms. Boyles answered in the affirmative and stated that it has been for sale for approximately the past year.

Ms. Stokes-Marshall asked how many homes could be built on the property. Ms. Boyles answered that a definitive plan has not been submitted. She stated that under the R-1 zoning, approximately 5-7 homes could be built on the property, depending on the layout.

Mr. Santos asked what was staff's recommendation. Mr. Burdette answered that it would go toward the seemingly developing policy on not annexing residential property.

Mr. Utsey suggested that there should be consistency and stated that with the current position that residential property should not be annexed, he would be in favor of not annexing this property at this time.

Mr. Santos suggested that each property should be on a case-by-case basis. He stated that if staff is not opposed to the annexation, then he would be in favor of annexing the property.

Ms. Boyles stated that if this property were not annexed, the property could receive sewer service and develop under the County guidelines. Mr. Santos stated that if this was the case, there would be an impact on the Town roads, but the properties would not pay for that impact.

Mr. Power suggested that this was being reviewed on a case-by-case basis and expressed agreement with Mr. Utsey on not annexing the property. He asked if the developer has submitted plans for development. Ms. Boyles answered in the negative and stated that there was preliminary discussion with Mr. Prause to develop the property as previously stated. Mr. Power suggested that there should be consistency and suggested that continued exceptions to a perceived policy could impact the permit allocation program.

Mr. Santos stated that there is currently an abundance of permits and suggested that if the developer is willing to apply for a permit under the permit allocation system, then the property should be annexed. He stated that if not annexed, the property could be developed under the County guidelines, not to Town standards, and would impact the Town road system without paying for that impact.

Mr. Power asked who would provide fire protection. Mr. Burdette answered that if not annexed the property would be in the East Cooper Fire District. Mr. Power asked if the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) provide for stricter building codes. Mr. Burdette answered that the building code for the structure is similar to the Town's building code. Ms. Boyles stated that the property is currently zoned RSL, but if annexed would come under a R-1 zoning. She stated that the way the County Comprehensive Plan is written, within a suburban area, density could be between 2 and 4 units per acre.

Mr. Utsey stated that he would not be in favor of annexing this property without a plan of how it would be developed. Mr. Burdette suggested that the property would be developed as residential.

Mr. Santos asked if the Town would have control of how the property is developed if annexed into the Town. Mr. Burdette answered that there would be control to some extent. He stated that it is zoned residential. Mr. Smith suggested that the property could be rezoned commercial. Mr. Burdette stated that the property was currently zoned residential, but the County could rezone the property commercial.

Mr. Bustos asked if this property were annexed would it eliminate one "donut hole" in the Town. Mr. Burdette answered in the affirmative and stated that the property is surrounded by property in the Town. Mr. Bustos stated that there is a distinct difference between this property and a large tract of land on the outskirts of the Town requesting annexation.

Mr. Smith stated that he agrees with Mr. Bustos and Mr. Smith in that donut holes are a different situation and suggested that the issue treating each request for annexation separately should be addressed. He suggested that restricting any annexation would limit the growth of the Town, when the Town should grow. He stated that there should be annexation in order to have better control of what occurs in the growth boundaries of the Town.

Mr. Van Nort agreed that this annexation was a different situation from a large tract of land and suggested that this was an area that should be annexed in order to have control of how the property is developed. He suggested that the property is not large enough to require an impact assessment.

Mr. Utsey moved to defer this issue until a sketch plan or some type of documentation from the developer on how the property would be developed.

Mr. Santos stated that he was ready for this request to move forward and stated that he would be in favor of annexation. He stated that there would not be any further impact on fire or police protection because it is already being provided by the Town through the East Cooper Special District. He suggested that this was an opportunity to close a donut hole and have those individuals that would impact the road system to share in the cost of maintaining those roads.

Mr. Burdette stated that this request for annexation would appear on the Town Council agenda whether recommended for annexation or recommended for denial of annexation. He stated that Town Council would make a final decision on the annexation.

Motion failed due to lack of a second.

Mr. Santos moved to approve annexation per staff's recommendation and presentation. Ms. Stokes-Marshall seconded the motion.

Ms. Stokes-Marshall stated that each request for annexation is reviewed and considered on a case-by- case basis. She stated that this is a smaller parcel than a larger piece of property and if annexed, the Town would have control over the development of the property.

Ms. Stokes-Marshall called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried on a 2 to 1 vote with Mr. Utsey being opposed.

4. Request to Annex a .32 Acre Portion of TMS 532-04- 00-004 on Chuck Dawley Boulevard

Ms. Boyles stated this was reviewed by the Planning Commission and unanimously recommended approval. She stated that a portion of the property has been previously annexed and this portion was not annexed due to an oversight.

Mr. Santos moved to recommend approval of annexation. Mr. Utsey seconded the motion. All in favor.

5. Request for Bulls Bay Golf Club to Receive Sewer Service Without Annexation

Mr. Santos stated that he was not in favor of this request. He stated that this project would have a lot of impact on the road system, and should therefore pay for that impact.

Mr. Burdette stated that the Bulls Bay Golf Club is requesting sewer service without petitioning for annexation, but would be willing to annex if the Committee recommended. He stated that there would be approximately 40 units. He stated that it is a low- density project and appears to be approximately one lot per 3 acres and would most likely be built.

Mr. Burdette stated that this project could be built without public water or sewer, but would be easier due to the septic tank issues. He stated that if this property were proposed for annexation, staff would recommend not annexing this property because it is too far to adequately provide fire and police protection.

Mr. Burdette stated that a similar request was granted to the Hamlin properties.

Mr. Santos asked where the Golf Club was located. Mr. Burdette answered that it was located across from the Kiwi Farm.

Mr. Burdette stated that this is also similar to Paradise Island, where Paradise Island was willing to annex for sewer, but the request was a bad service condition for the Town.

Mr. Santos asked if the Awendaw Fire Department currently services the property. Mr. Burdette answered in the affirmative and stated that if the Town serviced the property, the response time would be approximately 12 Minutes, which would impact the Town's ISO rating. He stated that it would cost the Town to serve this area. Mr. Santos stated that there was preliminary discussion about placing a Town fire truck at an Awendaw station. Mr. Burdette stated that this has been unilaterally discussed, and suggested that the County was not interested in this proposal.

Mr. Utsey asked if Joe Rice was contacted. Mr. Burdette answered that he has spoken with Mr. Rice on this issue and Mr. Rice indicated that he would be willing to annex for sewer if required.

Mr. Stuart Whiteside, Seamon, Whiteside, and Associates stated that the golf course is currently under construction and should be open by this fall. He stated that residential development is not planned for several years. He stated that sewer is necessary because the soil is not conducive for septic tanks. He stated that Mount Pleasant Waterworks has accepted the proposed routing plans for sewer, which are the smallest lines possible.

Ms. Boyles stated that in reference to the extension of sewer lines, the Comprehensive Plan states that lines should not be installed beyond the Urban Growth Boundary Line. Staff would recommend that if they were to be extended, the lines should only be sized to the specific project and not oversize the lines to discourage further development.

Mr. Utsey asked what size lines would be installed. Mr. Whiteside answered that the water main must be large enough for fire protection, but the sewer lines would be approximately 4-inch force main.

Mr. Fred Williams, from Whitehall Terrace, stated that he was present to receive information for requesting annexation.

Mr. Burdette stated that if the Committee desires, a recommendation could be made to Town Council not to impose the sewer use ordinance on this property with the condition that the developer would request the sewer line size appropriate to only service this development.

Ms. Stokes-Marshall referred to the letter stating that in the next four or five years approximately 100 single-family lots were planned for that area. Mr. Whitesides stated that the sewer line would be sufficient for the 100 single-family lots and the golf course.

Mr. Burdette stated that the project could be conditioned with regard to the size of sewer lines in order not to encourage ancillary development by running the sewer line to a new location.

Mr. Smith asked if a sewage treatment package plant could be built there. Mr. Whitesides answered that this could be feasible, but it is a long permitting process.

Ms. Boyles asked what plans have been approved. Mr. Whitesides answered that the county has approved the general layout and the golf course.

Mr. Utsey asked if this golf course has any relationship with any other development in that area. Mr. Whitesides answered in the negative. Mr. Utsey asked if there was a relationship with the See Wee Preserve. Mr. Whitesides answered in the negative and stated that there could be some negotiations in the future. He stated that to date they are two distinct pieces of property.

Mr. Utsey moved to deny annexation for this property with the recommendation that the sewer line be a 4- inch line. Mr. Santos seconded the motion.

Mr. Smith suggested that annexation was not requested. Mr. Utsey stated that in order to receive sewer service, a petition for annexation must be made. Mr. Burdette stated that it was a matter of semantics. He stated that with the Hamlin properties, they did not desire to petition for annexation, but this was necessary in order to qualify for a grant. He stated that the Committee voted to relieve the Hamlin properties of the obligation to petition for annexation in order to receive sewer.

Mr. Smith asked if the same procedure should be taken for this issue. Mr. Burdette answered that it could be handled either way.

Mr. Utsey asked if a sewer line is run to this property, could other properties hook into the sewer line. Ms. Boyles answered that additional lines could be run to the sewer line if there was sufficient capacity for those additional lines. Mr. Burdette stated that Mount Pleasant would have to approve the additional hook ups.

Mr. Smith asked if it would be the purview of Mount Pleasant Waterworks to install sewer lines. Mr. Utsey answered that this was the reason for the caveat in the motion. Mr. Smith suggested that the sewer line to the property could be restricted, but this would not prevent Mount Pleasant Waterworks from installing whatever size sewer main they desire.

Mr. Whitesides stated that Mount Pleasant Waterworks has ensured him that there are no plans for sewer line extension in that area.

Mr. Burdette asked if a letter from the applicant could be submitted agreeing that if the sewer use ordinance were not pursued, that the sewer line would be restricted to only the size necessary to service 100 single family lots and have no other tie- ins. Mr. Whitesides suggested that this could be accomplished.

Mr. Utsey repeated his motion to deny annexation with the caveat that there is only a 4-inch sewer line to service the property.

Mr. Santos suggested that the letter of agreement should be received prior to making a decision on this issue. Mr. Whitesides agreed that this should be accomplished. He stated that depending on the design a larger sewer line might be necessary due to engineering specifications. He stated that the intent is to only provide sewer service for their project. Mr. Burdette suggested that the letter should be received prior to the Town Council meeting on May 8, 2001.

Mr. Whitesides stated that there are several alternatives for installing the sewer line and suggested that the best option would be keep the line internal as much as possible.

Mr. Utsey moved to amend his motion to recommend to Town Council to deny annexation and have the developer provide a letter stating the intent to use a 4 inch sewer line to service only the property with an internal line. Mr. Santos seconded the amended motion.

Mr. Whitesides stated that a portion of the line would have to be along US 17 in order to tie into the sewer main, which is approximately 300 feet. He stated that the lines would stay internal as much as possible.

Ms. Stokes-Marshall called for a vote on the motion. All in favor.

The Committee amended the agenda to hear a request for information on annexation from Mr. Fred Williams of Whitehall Terrace.

6. Request for Information on Annexation from Mr. Fred Williams of Whitehall Terrace

Mr. Williams stated that he was present in order to receive information on annexing into the Town.

Ms. Stokes-Marshall stated that approximately two years ago, Mr. Porcher approached her in reference to annexing into the Town. She stated that in speaking with the Annexation Chairperson at that time, Mr. Bobby Utsey, a meeting was scheduled with the residents to offer information on annexation of their properties. She stated that staff, Mr. Utsey, Mr. Power, herself and approximately 15 residents attended the meeting.

Mr. Utsey stated that at this meeting the annexation procedure was provided to Mr. Porcher.

Mr. Williams stated that Mr. Porcher is no longer a member of the Whitehall Terrace community and stated that he was the Chairperson for the community.

Mr. Smith suggested that Mr. Williams meet with Mr. Burdette and Mr. Prause for information on annexation. Mr. Smith stated that there are county issues involved as well.

Mr. Utsey suggested that Mr. Williams should have a preliminary meeting with Mr. Prause.

Mr. Burdette stated that Mr. Porcher was contacted several times in reference to annexation, but Mr. Porcher never responded.

Mr. Smith stated that the sentiment was to annex Whitehall Terrace, but there were several obstacles that prevented this from occurring at that time.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.



Submitted by, L. Lynes AnnexComm04302001