►
From YouTube: Planning Commission Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 6:00 PM Theodore D. Washington Municipal Building,
Description
Planning Commission
Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 6:00 PM
Theodore D. Washington Municipal Building, 20 Bridge Street, Henry “Emmett” McCracken Jr. Council Chambers
Agenda can be found at: https://bluffton-sc.municodemeetings.com/
B
A
Notice
regarding
adjournment,
the
Planning
Commission
will
not
hear
new
items
after
9
30
unless
authorized
by
a
majority
vote
of
the
commission
members
present
items
which
have
not
been
heard
before
9
30
may
be
continued
onto
the
next
regular
meeting
or
a
special
meeting,
as
determined
by
the
commission
members
notice
regarding
public
comments.
Every
member
of
the
public
who
has
recognized
to
speak
shall
address
the
chairman
and,
in
speaking,
avoid
disrespect
to
commission
staff
or
other
members
of
the
meeting
state.
Your
name
and
address
when
speaking
for
the
record
comments
are
limited
to
three
minutes.
A
All
in
favor
ability
pledge
we
pledge
to
build
a
stronger
and
more
prosperous
Community
by
advocating
for
civil
engagement,
respecting
others
in
their
viewpoints
and
finding
solutions
for
the
betterment
of
the
town
of
Bluffton
may
I
have
an
adoption
of
the
minutes
for
April
the
26th
or
a
motion
for
adoption.
So
I
moved
have
a
second.
D
E
A
What
comments
do
we
have
any
public
comments
that
are
her
items
not
on
the
agenda,
even
though
they
are
for
the
agenda?
Okay
and
we
have
no
old
business
so
straight
to
the
new
business.
Is
the
public
comment
for
first
we'll
hear
from
Dan
and
then
the
applicant
and
then
we'll?
Do
the
public
comments?
Okay,
Dan?
This
is
for
buck,
Walter,
Crossroads
master
plan
and
mimics,
a
request
by
Brian
Whitmore,
Whitman,
James
Kiefer
on
behalf
of
millstone,
venture
approval
of
a
property
owner,
personal
88
LLC
for
approval
of
a
master
plan,
Amendment
application.
F
F
Bluff
Bluffton
Parkway:
this
is
Highway
170
or
okatee
Highway.
This
is
the
existing
Crossroads.
What's
in
The
Crossroads
master
plan
right
now,
it's
highlighted
in
green
north
of
Bluffton
Parkway,
south
of
Bluffton
Parkway,
with
Frontage
on
OKC.
The
request
current
requests
that
we're
talking
about
tonight
is
the
is
this
section
here
that
takes
it
all
the
way
down
to
gibbit
Road.
This
is
the
proposing
to
put
this
into
the
existing
Buckwalter
Crossroads
master
plan.
F
The
applicant
Brian
Whitmer
of
Whitmer
Jones
Kiefer
on
behalf
of
millstone
Ventures
LLC
and
with
the
approval
of
the
property
owner
parcel
8A
LLC
is
requesting
approval
for
an
amendment
to
the
currently
approved
master
plan
for
Buckwalter
Crossroads
to
the
buck.
Walter
PUD
and
more
specifically,
the
amendment
is
to
the
request
to
add
an
additional
21.92
Acres
that
will
includes
16.02
Acres
of
residential
development
and
5.9
Acres
of
commercial
development.
F
They
provided
a
conceptual
site
plan
with
this
application.
It's
important
to
note
that
any
development
on
that
that
would
be
included
on
what's
what's
on
this
conceptual
site
plan
would
go
through
the
development
plan.
Approval
process
it'd
be
coming
back
to
you
for
preliminary
development
plan
and
then
it's
also
within
the
highway
Corridor.
So
you
would
see
it
twice.
F
F
The
subject.
Property
is
within
the
Buckwalter
Commons
land
use
track
of
the
Buckwalter
PUD,
and
within
that
track
it
has
allowed
land
uses
that
include
neighborhood,
that
include
neighborhood
and
Commercial
and
General
commercial
uses
and
single-family
and
multi-family
residential
uses
and
the
neighborhood
and
General
commercial
uses
is
essentially
all
commercial
uses.
F
All
proposed
development
is
subject
to
full
review
and
approval
at
time
of
development
plan
submittal,
that's
what
I
was
referring
to
earlier.
The
subject.
Property
is
within
the
highway
Corridor
overlay
district
and
it
will
require
a
certificate
of
appropriateness,
reviewing
Landscaping
lighting
and
architecture
at
time
of
development
plan.
Submittal,
so
you'll
see
that
as
well
at
time
of
development
plan,
submittal
and
the
subject
properties
shall
conform
to
the
requirements
and
recommendations
of
the
Beaufort.
F
We
had
a
pre-application
meeting
on
December
1
of
2022
and
and
they
made
their
submittal
on
January
24th
2023.
It
was
reviewed
by
DRC
on
March
1st
of
2023.
We
are
here
tonight
to
make
a
recommendation
to
Town
Council
and
then
Town
Council
consideration
for
the
master
plan.
Amendment
the
date
for
that
will
be
determined,
is
yet
to
be
determined
tonight.
F
Your
actions
for
consideration
are
recommend
approval
of
the
application,
as
submitted
by
the
applicant
recommend
approval
of
the
application
with
conditions
or
recommend
denial
of
the
application,
as
submitted
by
the
applicant
Town
staff
recommendation,
is
approval
with
conditions.
Town
staff
finds
that
the
requirements
of
section
393
of
the
Udo
can
be
met
with
the
following
conditions
and
recommends
that
the
Planning
Commission
provide
a
recommendation
of
conditional
approval
to
Town
Council
for
Buckwalter
Crossroads
master
plan
Amendment,
and
we
have
three
recommended
conditions.
F
First,
one
is
a
statement
shall
be
placed
on
the
amended
master
plan
declaring
that
all
development
within
the
Buckwalter
Crossroads
master
plan
shall
conform
to
the
requirements
and
recommendations
of
the
Beaufort.
County
connects
2021,
bicycle
and
pedestrian
plan,
and
essentially
that
plan
provides
for
a
it.
Has
a
recommendation
of
a
of
the
on
the
Northbound
side
of
of
SC
Highway
170
that
that
a
multi-use
path
be
installed?
F
Condition
number
two
is
whether
located
on
or
off
site,
it
shall
be
the
responsibility
of
developers
to
install
a
10
foot,
wide,
concrete
bicycle
and
pedestrian
path
along
SC
Highway,
170
Frontage,
consistent
with
the
requirements
and
recommendations
of
the
Beaufort
County
connects
2021,
bicycle
and
pedestrian
path
in
conjunction
with
an
individual
site.
Development
within
the
Buckwalter
Crossroads
master
plan
in
the
third
and
final
recommendation
from
staff
is
that
site
layouts
for
all
partials
are
subject
to
full
Town
review
and
approval
at
a
time
of
development
plan.
Submittal
and
I
will
just
open
it
up.
F
F
They
are,
and
on
the
other
side
of
170,
is
asphalt.
We
had
actually
met
with
Beaufort
County
transportation
engineering
department.
One
of
the
questions
was
who
would
be
responsible
for
long-term
maintenance
and
what
what
they
had?
Their
engineering
director
recommended
that
it
be
a
that
they
would
if
DLT
does
not
assume
long-term
maintenance
that
Beaufort
County
would
in
Beaufort.
County
would
like
to
see
it
as
a
concrete
path,
rather
than
an
asphalt
path,
because
they
viewed
that
as
easier
long-term
maintenance
and.
G
D
Hello,
I'm
Brian
Whitmer,
with
Whitmer
Jones
Kiefer,
we're
land
planning.
Our
whole
team
is
here.
As
you
can
see,
we
have
the
client
we
have
legal
and
then
we
have
civil
engineering.
I
think
we'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
If
you
have
LinkedIn
did
a
great
job
of
introducing
the
project.
Okay,.
G
H
Welcome
my
name
is
Carol
Crutchfield
I'm,
the
director
of
facilities,
planning
construction
with
the
Beaufort
County
School
District.
If
you
want
my
address,
I'll
give
it
to
you.
I
live
at
4
King
George
Road
in
Bluffton,
South
Carolina
about
a
mile
down
the
road
from
where
this
project
is
but
I
stand
before
you
tonight,
as
a
representative
of
the
administrative
staff
to
discuss
the
development
of
new
residential
housing
project.
That's
on
your
agenda
tonight
in
the
town
of
Bluffton.
Our
educational
system
faces
a
pressing
challenge
out
of
11
schools
in
this
area.
H
A
staggering
six
are
currently
operating
beyond
their
intended
capacity
to
alleviate
the
strain
we
installed
an
additional
eight
classroom
modular
structure
at
pritchardville
elementary
this
past
summer.
This
particular
project
right
now
falls
in
the
pritchardville
elementary
school
zone.
The
school
now
has
a
total
of
18
classrooms
in
Mobile
units.
The
remaining
schools
continue
to
approach
or
exceed
their
programmatic
capacity.
H
Recognizing
the
urgent
need
for
a
solution.
The
board
recently
approved
funding
for
the
design
of
a
new
elementary
school
at
the
May
River
Campus.
This
initiative
aims
to
alleviate
the
overcrowding
at
pritchardville.
However,
there
is
no
funding
at
present
to
build
the
school
So.
Currently,
our
approach
to
tackle
the
issue.
H
Overcrowding
involves
the
installation
of
mobile
classrooms
and
the
reassignment
of
students
from
newly
developed
neighborhoods
like
this
would
be
to
less
congested
schools,
even
if
it
means
traveling
past
a
nearby
school,
and
while
this
strategy
helps
to
some
extent,
it's
important
to
note
that,
as
all
our
schools
continue
to
reach
their
capacity
limits,
the
available
options
for
families
will
gradually
become
less
appealing
than
they
are
at
present
and
I.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration.
Thank
you.
A
Just
for
everyone's
Clarity
tonight,
this
application
is
just
for
the
master
plan:
Amendment,
not
the
uses,
specifically
so
we'll
those
will
be
addressed
just
to
have
a
clarification
for
the
public.
Those
will
be
addressed
when
there
are
further
development
plans
and
you
can
always
come
back.
Okay,
so
do
you
want
to
start
off
with
any
questions
comments
from
insurance.
C
H
C
Sorry
to
interrupt
but
I
I'm,
my
name
is
Walter
Nester
and
I'm.
The
attorney
I'm,
an
attorney
with
burn
foreman
and
we
represent
the
applicant
and
I
have
a
couple
of
comments
and
questions
before
you
start
your
deliberations.
If
that's
all
right,
go
ahead,
all
right,
I'm,
sorry
that
I
didn't
stand
up
earlier,
but
it's
the
staff
comments,
the
staff
recommendations
that
we
have
some
concern
about,
as
Mr
Frazier
pointed
out
when
he
introduced
the
application.
C
C
We
don't
have
is
the
permission
of
anybody
else
in
that
Buckwalter
Crossroads
PUD,
and
so
we
are
concerned
that
the
addition
of
this
statement,
I'm
I'm,
concerned
that
it's
going
to
create
liability
for
our
client.
We
don't
know
how
our
application
can
be
used
to
bind
somebody
else's
property.
Just
like
Mr
Frazier
said
we
had
to
get
permission
from
parcel
8
a
LLC
to
submit
this
application.
Well,.
A
C
C
So
perhaps
there's
a
way
to
change
that
language
to
make
that
statement
something
else.
But
as
it
reads
to
us,
it
causes
us
great
concern
that
those
other
landowners
are
gonna
are
going
to
be
upset
with
us,
because
we
submitted
an
application
and
the
application
is
going
to
result
in
an
amendment
to
them
to
their
master
plan.
That's.
A
E
C
I
Richard
silver
is
Fairmont
oak
Brook
silver
Bruce
in
here
for
the
Planning
Commission,
to
provide
guidance
commission
for
any
legal
issues
that
y'all
may
have
so
the
way
that
this
has
been
treated
in
the
past
with
master
plan
amendments
is
largely
akin
to
a
you
know:
a
text
Amendment
where
an
applicant
who
may
need
a
text
Amendment
for
a
single
property
requests
at
Udo
text
Amendment,
but
that
text
Amendment
would
impact
anything
that
is
impacted
by
the
UDA,
any
sort
of
develop
any
sort
of
development.
It
would
have
that
sort
of
cascading
effect.
I
Not
every
single
property
owner
needs
to
have
signed
off
on
that
text
Amendment.
Otherwise
you
could,
you
know
effectively
effectively
administratively
effectively
prevent
yourself
from
being
able
to
amend
the
Udo
or
amateur
zoning
ordinances,
because
this
is
a
this
is
not
by
right:
the
ability
to
amend
a
master
plan
to
incorporate
new
land.
This
isn't
a
development
that
is
fire
right
permitted.
It
is
opening
itself
up
to
the
conditions
imposed
by
staff
and
by
the
Planning,
Commission
and
ultimately
Town
Council.
I
We
do
think
that
we
do
think
that
it
is
appropriate
to
read
to
consider
these
issues,
but
we
also
understand
or
I
I,
understand
the
extraordinarily
difficult
position
that
Millstone
and
the
applicant
are
in
at
this
point,
because
it
is,
it
is
something
where
I
don't
think
it
was
considered
by
them
when
this
process
began
or
or
they
probably
would
have
gone
the
other
route
and
done
their
own
master
plan.
So
I
certainly
sympathize
with
the
applicant
But.
I
Ultimately,
it
is
within
status
discretion
to
make
make
this
recommendation
Planning
Commission
it's
within
planning
commissions,
discretion
to
consider
it,
and
ultimately
it's
within
towns
council's
consideration
to
impose
such
a
condition.
The
alternative
for
the
applicant
is
to
withdraw
the
application
and
then
the
master
plan,
as
it
exists,
will
stay
in
place
so
I
have
that
addresses
your
questions
and
answers.
E
A
K
K
D
It
is,
we
do
have
a
frontage
road
with
angle
parking
and
part
of
where
we
work
through
with
Town
staff.
Is
that
that
would
be
because
of
the
parking
thing
Street
section
and
just
going
through
a
parking
lot.
So
interconnectivity
is
something
we
wanted
and
we
want
people
to
be
able
to
come
through
this.
It's
not
a
gated,
multi-family
development
and
I
would
say
if,
if
we
weren't
amending
the
master
plan,
that
connection
doesn't
happen
or
doesn't
happen.
D
If
it's,
if
it's
a
standalone-
and
that
was
part
of
one
of
the
things
that
we
thought
was
good,
we
get
that
inner
connectivity,
you
have
access
down
the
gibbit
if
needed,
and
and
that's
really
how
you
want
them
to
live
anyway.
You
want
the
commercial
to
come
into
the
residential
and
get
to
those
uses
without
having
to
use
I.
E
Guess
my
concern
is
this:
is
all
residential
and
it's
got
lots
of
angled
parking.
As
you
say,
I
could
very
easily
see
the
residents
wanting
speed
bumps
to
prevent
traffic
from
going
through
there,
because
I
can
see
it
going
through
there.
Then
you
got
to
make
a
left
by
that
Circle.
To
continue
out
is
that
correct.
D
K
Well,
and
if
you
develop
the
multi-family
prior
to
the
development
of
the
commercial
parcels
you
they
need
to
be
able
to
connect
to
the
Future
development
to
the
north,
which
they
won't
be
in
control
of
because
they
won't
own
those
Parcels
either
so
I'm
I'm
with
delcor
commissioner
delcor.
There
needs
to
be
I
understand
that
you
have
provided
some
ability
to
securely
Serpentine
through
these
multitude
of
properties
that
will
be
developed
at
various
times
to
get
to
give.
K
It
I
think
it's
not
in
keeping
with
the
rest
of
the
master
plan,
as
shown
where
it's
a
much
more
direct
path,
even
if
it
does
Serpentine
a
little
bit
but
I.
Think
what
I'm
at
bare
minimum
wanting
to
see
on
here
is
a
pink
line
that
actually
extends
all
the
way
through
this
property.
To
give
it
road
to
where
you
can
turn
left
and
right,
not
just
right
in
right
out,
because
we
may
not
always
be
here
to
say
hey.
K
A
B
A
We
are
doing
tonight
is
not
that
right,
so
we
have
to
think
about
it.
Understandably,
the
connectivity,
but
they
may
not
come
in
with
this
plan-
I
understand
that
so
we're
not.
We
can't
base
our
ruling
just
on
there's
not
a
pink
line
because
we're
talking
about
amending
a
master
plan.
So,
yes,
we
want
all
of
that
to
happen,
but
we
need
to
be
on
top
of
it
going
forward
what
I'm?
That's?
What
I'm
saying
for.
K
Tonight's
purpose,
right
and
I'm,
not
speaking
to
What,
specifically
drawn
as
they
have
it
in
their
plan.
What
I'm
saying
is
that,
from
a
conceptual
level
for
the
whole
entirety
of
this
master
plan,
there
is
a
frontage
road
that
connects
shown
by
a
pink
line
that
should
continue
through
this
property.
However,
that's
executed
in
the
end,
that's
subject
to
change,
as
this
goes.
K
L
L
And
I'd
like
to
start
off
by
saying
that
we're
actually
proponents
of
the
connectivity
and
of
the
multi-use
path,
it's
great
complement
to
our
use,
and
we
like
it.
We
we
do
other
developments,
you
know
all
over
the
country
and
this
type
of
connectivity
is
something
that
we
commonly
Embrace
for
our
development.
L
So
we
do
want
to
do
it
and
we're
happy
to
construct
it
as
a
time
of
we'll
be
doing
the
multi-family
piece
on
the
of
the
development
so
yeah
and-
and
we
went
through
the
DRC
process
and
discussed
things
like
where
we're
able
to
access
the
state
road,
and
we
got
our.
You
know
traffic
study
done
where
you
know
we're
pretty
Bound
by
scdot's
review
of
the
traffic
study
of
where
all
of
our
entrances
are,
and
everything
and
we've
received
many
good
and
helpful
comments
during
the
DRC
process.
L
Obviously
we
want
that
and
we
want
that
pathway
to
connect
all
the
way
to
Bluffton
Parkway,
just
like
it
shows
in
the
2021
connects
plan
that
would
be
optimal
for
us,
and
you
know,
I
think,
are
the
questions
that
Walter
brought
up.
Regarding
that
comment,
it
kind
of
stems
from
you
know
our
you
know,
I
kind
of
have
a
sorry
I'm
trying
to
find
the
right
words.
L
It
would
be.
It
would,
at
the
time
of
development
approval
for
all
the
future
development
where
that
pathway
goes
and
extends
to
Bluffton
Parkway.
Is
that
something
that
the
planning
staff
and
commission
could
address
with
those
developers
as
those
come
up,
just
as
it
has
been
addressed
with
us
for
for
our
multi-family
development,
because
the
thing
that
makes
us
nervous
about
it
is
making
commitments
on
other
people's
land
unbeknownst
to
them.
That
just
seems
like
a
liability
to
us.
L
Yeah
yeah
and
we
talked
we've
talked
with
Willie
with
word
Edwards
and
Brian
about
you,
know
the
trade-offs
and
the
pros
and
cons
of
new
master
plan
versus
Master
Plan
Amendment,
and
this
just
wasn't
brought
to
our
attention
at
this
point
in
time
as
something
that
should
be
considered,
and
this
comment
we
didn't
receive
until
last
week.
So
that's
why
we're
not
that's?
Why
we're
in
the
position
we're
in
now
yeah?
So
we
would
be,
we
would
love
it
and
it
would.
L
We
would
be
very
supportive
of
it
if,
when
the
future
developments,
you
know
are
brought
before
you
that
this
be
addressed,
because
we
want
that
connectivity,
but
it
would
make
us
much
more
comfortable
and
we'd
appreciate
if
we're
worried
that
somebody
will
say
We'll
point
back
to
our.
You
know:
master
plan
Amendment
and
there
will
be
a
liability,
as
we've
been
advised.
We
have
by
Walter
that
you
know
we
made
a
commitment
on
their
property
unbeknownst
to
them.
So
that's
that's
if
you
would
consider
it
that
way.
L
E
E
I
Frankly,
to
for
a
Planning
Commission
commissioned
potential
liabilities
between
the
owner,
the
current
owners
in
this
Mass,
this
master
plan
and
the
potential
developers
I
think,
is
a
little
outside
of
your
purview.
What
y'all
should
be
doing
is
analyzing
a
criteria.
That's
before
you,
staff
has
made
this
recommendation
based
off
of
a
I
believe
it's
either
resolution
ordinance
adopted
by
Beaufort
County
and
that
has
been
Incorporated
within
the
town
planning
procedures
by
Town
Council.
This
connects
2021
bicycle
and
pedestrian
plan.
I
Obviously
the
2021
bicycle
and
pedestrian
plan
of
of
Buford
County
was
not
in
place
at
the
time
of
the
original
adoption
of
this
master
plan.
So
I.
By
seeking
to
amend
this,
commissioner
I
think
you
are
correct
and
saying
this.
We
can't
effectively
spot
Zone
portions
of
a
master
plan
by
saying,
okay.
Well,
this
is
going
to
be
imposed
on
this
one
particular
property.
Everybody
else
is
going
to
be
essentially
locked
into
what
they
had
previously
approved
when
you
open
the
master
plan.
Again,
this
is
a
planning
document.
It's
a
zoning
document.
I
I
It
will
act
and
again
similar
to
a
text
Amendment
slightly
different,
but
that
is
the
that
is
the
you
know.
My
opinion
on
this
and
I
believe
it
is
been
the
position
of
the
town
in
the
past
as
well,
when
looking
at
master
plan
amendments
I
think
the
last
time
Planning
Commission,
probably
consider
one
similar
would
have
been
somewhere
in
the
new
Riverside
area.
I
I'm
trying
to
remember,
maybe
it
was
midpoint
where
there
was
the
discussion
of
you,
can
either
move
forward
with
the
amendment
or
you
can
keep
your
master
plan
the
way
it
is
we're
not.
You
can
withdraw
your
application,
but
if
you're
going
to
amend,
we
have
the
right
to
look
at
replacing
the
reduction
in
density
or
a
rear.
I
How
the
entrance
to
the
development
is
done,
and
so
again,
I
I
I'm,
sincerely
sympathetic
for
the
developers
in
this
case,
because
they've
obviously
put
in
time
money
and
effort
into
this,
and
unfortunately
this
did
come
up
to
them
at
a
had
a
late
day.
But
ultimately,
it
is
is
part
of
the
planning
directives
provided
by
Town
Council
Beaver
County
and
it
appears
to
have
been
adopted
and
Within
These
conditions
by
staff.
I
G
F
G
L
Adrian
again
so
it
was-
and
this
is
a
little
bit
here
so
I-
haven't
seen
all
the
documents
myself,
but
my
understanding
is
that
it
was
previously
owned
by
a
church
of
some
kind.
Okay
and
Tom
Zinn
bought
it
in
about
2017.
okay,
so
he
bought
it
out.
He
bought
it
and
so
so
the
yeah,
so
they
bought
it
after
the
original
master
plan
was
okay.
G
Thank
you
that
that
helps
the
the
question.
I
keep
asking
myself
and
I've
been
asking
myself
for
the
past
three
days
since
reviewing
this
packet
What
in
in
Dan
I,
don't
know
if
you
have
Insight
in
this
I
know
I'm
putting
you
on
the
spot.
What
is
the
benefit
to
the
town?
We
as
a
planning
commissioner,
supposed
to
consider
what
is
the
benefits
of
the
Town?
What
is
the
benefit
to
the
town
if
any
of
wrapping
this
into
the
adjacent
master
plan
and.
F
F
M
I
F
G
And
that's
and
that's
the
struggle
I'm.
Having
personally
is,
is
I,
don't
see
a
benefit,
I,
don't
see
a
drawback
necessarily
other
than
what
I'm
about
to
say.
I,
don't
see
a
benefit
to
the
town
of
of
amending
this
into
a
master
plan.
I
do
see
benefits
to
the
town.
If
and
and
don't
throw
things
at
me,
especially
you
Walter
of
it
being
its
own
master
plan,
because
we
can
focus
more
on
that,
then,
when
it's
wrapped
into
something
we
can
deal
with
the
sidewalks
and
not
impact
other
people,
we
can
deal
with.
G
I
mean
there.
There
are
traffic
issues
and
I
know:
there's
been
a
traffic
plan
done,
but
there
are
traffic
issues
that
if
the
uses
that
are
drawn
on
this
map,
which
we're
not
considering
those
uses
tonight
right
come
to
fruition.
There's
a
lot
more
discussion,
that's
going
to
have
to
happen
that
I'm
having
a
I
hate
to
say
it,
but
I'm
having
a
challenge
with
with
amending
the
other
master
plan
and
then
in
the
side
of
my
thought,
process.
G
F
If
we
burden
the
developer
with
building
the
past,
do
we
burden
them
with
the
long-term
maintenance
of
it
and,
and
they
said
no,
we
we
would
maintain
it
long
term
and
I
think
they
would
maintain
it,
maintain
it
long
term,
even
if
you
amended
the
condition
to
not
say
concrete,
I
mean,
but
that's
where
we
stand
with
it.
The
reason
that's
in
there
is
if
Town
Council
had
rejected
the
the
connects
plan
and
said
we
don't
want
to
adopt
it
as
a
municipality.
G
I
To
Sir
Mr
Nester,
making
sure
that
I'm
still
laid
this
to
the
commission
because
it
may
not
have
been
clear
so
far
that
there
are
multiple
owners,
not
just
the
you
know.
We've
discussed
the
master
plan
as
if
it's
a
single
owner,
yeah,
that's
all
of
the
property
within
there,
but
there
are
multiple,
multiple
folks,
some
of
whom
are
acutely
aware
of
what
is
going
on
here
tonight
and
others
who
may
not
be
so
despite
the
the
notices
out
to
the
public.
K
Ignorance
of
standing
policies
is
not
an
excuse.
Ignorance,
not
paying
attention
to
public
notice
of
what's
going
on
on
your
properties,
is
not
an
excuse
either.
That
being
said,
and
I
am
a
huge
advocate
for
sidewalks
and
I,
think
with
the
rate
of
growth
and
development
happening
around
here,
I
think
the
developers
should
bear
burden
a
portion
of
the
burden
of
a
lot
of
these
Capital
Improvements.
K
That
being
said,
I'm
also
sensitive
to
the
requirements
that
are
imposed
upon
a
developer
in
the
process
and
going
into
that
process.
Knowing
what
to
expect
one
of
the
questions
that
I'm
looking
at
is
in
the
connects
plan,
what
would
it's
an
internal
policy?
It
sounds
like
it
was
an
internal
discussion
between
the
staff
and
Beaufort
County
imposing
that
burden
on
the
developer.
How
would
a
developer
know
that
that
would
be
imposed
upon
them
by
reading
the
connects
plan.
H
F
F
No
there
there
isn't
it's
called
out
as
an
intermediate
project
from
to
be
built
within
six
to
ten
years
and
in
fact,
the
back
of
the
planned
lists,
funding
sources
that
could
be
used
to
to
get
all
of
the
recommendations.
And
you
know
this
is
county-wide
projects
that
they're
showing
and
it
lists
funding
sources
in
the
back.
It
breaks
down
individual
paths
and
segments
of
paths
by
short-term,
medium-term
and
long
term
zero
to
five
six
to
ten
and
then
10
and
Beyond
I
think,
and
we
see
it
as
an
opportunity.
F
I
mean
this
is
very
similar
to
to
someone
coming
in
wanting
to
do
a
commercial
development
on
an
undeveloped
property
and
they've
got
a
sidewalk
hitting
them
on
both
sides
of
their
property
lines.
We
would,
we
would
say,
You're
Building
the
sidewalk,
with
your
commercial
development,
signed
it
into
the
existing
sidewalks
I.
Don't
see,
I'm
surprised
that
this
is
such
a
big
bone
of
contention.
Actually
but
I
guess.
The
argument
is
they're
not
arguing.
Well,
Millstone
is
not
arguing
putting
in
the
path
at
all.
F
They
said
they
would
do
it,
but
the
the
concern
is
that
your
your
burdening
the
the
existing
master
plan
future
developers
with
having
to
put
in
a
path
if
this
is
approved.
Staff
is
perfectly
comfortable
with
that
recommendation.
You
know,
but
that
doesn't
mean
that
you
guys
need
to
carry
that
recommendation
forward
to
Town
Council.
E
E
F
I
Just
show
you
you've
got
a
couple
of
different
issues
that
have
been
raised.
There
was
discussion
of
an
easement
and
that
that's
perhaps
a
little
bit
again
sticking
to
the
criteria,
and
then
you
give
back
to
the
critics.
I
think
the
very
first
first
one
that
John
is
looking
at
the
conference
of
Miami.
I
So
I
think
that
is
where
you're
getting
the
introduction
to
the
Beaver
County
connect
plan,
making
sure
that
it's
this
application
is
consistent
with
the
adopted
comprehensive
plan
and
because
of
that
staff
has
made
that
recommendation
to
Planning
Commission
as
a
condition.
Ultimately,
planning
commission's
recommendation
to
Town
Council
can
include
the
conditions
referenced
by
staff.
It
can
include
no
conditions,
it
can
be
a
recommendation
of
denial.
It
is
within
y'all's.
Purview
is
within
the
Ulster
station
to
make
the
decisions
that
you
deem
appropriate,
provided
that
you
are
following
your
criteria.
A
N
As
I'm
of
the
opinion
that
it's
our
responsibility
to
include
this
in
a
master
plan,
whether
it's
a
new
plan
or
an
amended
plan,
and
so
to
me,
if
the
applicant
wants
to
withdraw
their
application
because
they
don't
want
this
to
be
part
of
the
amended
master
plan,
then
that's
that
their
decision.
But
if
we're
going
to
approve
an
amended
master
plan,
I
think
that
we
need
to
include
this
because
it's
explicitly
part
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
which
is
our
major
review
criteria.
N
C
That's
doing
this
to
make
it
clear
that
this
is
a
requirement
that
the
town
is
going
to
require
all
future
development
within
this
Buckwalter
Crossings
to
conform
to
Beaufort,
County
connects
2021
and-
and
that
provides
us
with
just
a
little
bit
of
cover
that
our
application
didn't
trigger
it.
But
what
town
and
the
Planning
Commission
recommended
in
Town
Council,
perhaps
will
approve,
is
a
notice.
That's
now
existing
in
the
master
plan
and
that
notice
warns
future
developers
that
they
are
going
to
be
required
to
do
something.
I
C
So
the
the
change
to
to
number
one
would
be
a
statement
shall
be
placed
and
I'll
tell
you
when
the
changes,
the
statement
shall
be
placed
on
the
amended
master
plan,
declaring
that
and
then
insert
the
town
shall
require
then
pick
up
again.
All
development
within
Buckwalter
Crossroads
master
plan
conform,
eliminate
the
word
shall
conform
to
the
requirements
and
recommendations
of
the
Beaufort
County
connects
2021,
bicycle
and
pedestrian
plan.
What
we're
changing
is
simply
inserting
the
town
shall
require
that
all
development.
G
N
J
I
have
one
and
I,
and
one
thing
I
want
to
say
and
I've
heard
it
tonight
over
and
over
and
over
again
is
as
much
a
surprise
to
you
that
we
that
you
saw
it
and
then
we
saw
it,
but
this
is
how
it
is
going
to
be
meaning.
I
understand
where
you
are
I
mean:
there's
no
doubt
about
it.
That
I
understand
it.
I
don't
want
to
be
in
your
place
to
have
this
forced
upon
you,
but
we're
doing
our
job.
You
have
to
understand.
J
We
just
went
through
months
and
months
of
this
plan
and
because
of
that,
we
want
half
well
I,
think
I'm
going
to
say:
I
want
to
be
responsible
for
saying
that
we
have
to
be
able
to
conform
to
that
and
I
understand
where
you're
at,
and
it's
unfortunate
that
you're
at
this
predicament
right
now
and
you're
learning
this,
but
it
might
be
to
your
best
interest
to
think
about
withdrawing
and
come
back
as
your
own.
All.
G
D
One
thing
I'd
like
to
add
I'd
say
the
statement
that
Walter
Nestor
just
read
would
be
still
requires
that
it's
just
putting
it
on
the
town
and
would
probably
be
far
better
than
us
withdrawing
and
resubmitting
individually.
And
then
you
have
no
language
on
that
adjacent
property,
which
would
be
the
other
option.
You'd
see
this
master
plan
back
just
by
itself,
and
it
wouldn't
really
have
you
wouldn't
have
any
language
to
the
Blackwater
crossword.
I
Perhaps
before
Planning
Commission
makes
decisions
language,
it
may
be
worthwhile
to
ask
staff
whether
they
have
any
objection
to
the
proposed
language,
because,
ultimately,
that
that
statement,
one
was
what
staff
had
proposed
and
if
staff
is
finding,
the
applicants
find
with
a
minor
tweak
that
ultimately
again
is
planning
commission's
decision.
But
yeah
I.
E
F
F
Well,
actually
I
mean
that
asked
me
I.
We,
we
don't
have
a
problem
because
that's
exactly
what
is
going
to
happen,
development
plan
is
going
to
come
in
and
we,
as
the
town
and
town
staff
will
we'll.
Let
them
know
that
that
we
that
installing
the
path
will
be
a
requirement
of
the
development
plan.
Approval.
K
K
I
understand
that
this
is
not
your
responsibility,
you're,
not
even
looking
at
that,
but
you're
opening
up
a
master
plan,
that's
showing
Line
work
that
isn't
consistent
with
what
needs
to
be
there
or
what
can
be
allowed
to
be
there.
We're
not
talking
use,
but
the
type
of
development
in
itself
and
I
also
saw
in
the
paperwork.
K
There
was
a
question
of
doing
warehousing
north
of
Bluffton
Parkway
between
170
and
the
Wetland,
which
again
there
was
a
statement
from
town
staff,
saying,
if
you're
going
to
do
that,
you'd
have
to
update
the
line
work
I'm,
assuming
that
got
dropped
because
you
didn't
want
to
get
into
the
line
work
on
that
piece
of
property.
So
again,
I
Echo.
A
G
G
I
I,
just
personally
I,
don't
see
a
necessarily
a
benefit
to
the
town
other
than
potentially
forcing
the
rest
of
the
master
plan
to
have
that
bike
path,
which
I
think
we
can
do
anyways,
as
the
developments
are
coming
to
us.
I
do
see
a
benefit
and
if
it
has
its
own
master
plan,
we're
able
to
hold
it
a
little
bit
more
accountable
than
if
it's
part
of
another
one
I
could
be
wrong.
G
Feel
like
the
connector
roads
to
the
outside
the
traffic
study,
we
can
take
a
little
bit
better.
Look
at
because
I,
don't
know
if
that
traffic
study
included
the
whole
master
plan
or
if
it
just
included
what
these
proposed
apartments
and
so
on,
have
just
because
we
don't
have
that
before
us,
I'm
very
concerned
about
that,
give
it
Road
intersection
and
how
it
how
all
of
this
development
impacts
it
and
I
feel
like
if
it's
part
of
and
I
I
could
be
wrong.
G
L
Adrian
Dana
Miller
again,
so
it
sounds
kind
of
like
the
direction
we're
headed
here
is
that
we
may
need
to
postpone
this
and
ultimately
consider
withdrawing
and
submitting
this
as
a
new
master
plan
like
that
would
be
a
maybe
a
cleaner
and
preferable.
You
know
request,
you
know
if
we
do
that,
we're
probably
going
to
find
ourselves
here
again.
Four
months
from
now,
you
know
approaching
you
again
with
a
similar
plan
with
new
DRC
comments
and
adjustments
made,
which
of
course,
we're
happy
to
do.
If
that's
what
we'll
have
to
do.
L
It
will
be
very
similar
to
the
consideration
that
you
have
to
make
tonight
about.
Our
plan
is
in
you
know,
it
will
be
similar
use
and
there
will
be
some
adjustments
made,
and
maybe
we
need
to
go
through
that
process
we'll.
You
know
we'll
still
be
agreeable
to
the
connects
plan,
but
it
won't
open
up
the
can
of
worms
with
the
rest
of
the
master
plan,
but
it
in
what
it
did.
That
seems
substantially
similar
to
removing
comment
number
one
and
then
considering
this
in
terms
of
where
we'll
get
to
in
the
end.
L
You
know
just
happen
four
months
earlier,
where,
obviously
there
is
time
and
expenditures
that
we
feel
the
pressure
of,
and
that's
our
business
and
our
responsibility
so
I'm
just
making
the
comment
to
ask
the
commission
to
consider
that,
and
if
the
commission
does
not
con,
you
know
is
not
open
to
removing
comment
number
one
and
allowing
this
to
continue.
Then
I
think
the
best
thing
for
us
to
do
would
be
to
ask
for
kind
of
a
continuance
and.
A
J
N
Lot
of
what
we're
talking
about
between
I
guess,
I'm
still
missing.
The
part
where
looking
at
it
is
an
individual
master
plan,
is
really
much
different
because
the
things
that
you're
talking
about
the
network,
the
road
access,
the
traffic
study-
that's
all
going
to
be
part
of
the
development
plan
review
process
so
I
get
like
is
the
master
plan
not
really
intended
to
be
I
a
general
very
concern.
N
N
J
Mean
I
agree
with
you
and
I
can
see
how
you
might
want
to
look
at
that,
but
I
think
you
hear
the
comments
from
the
developers
themselves
and
I
I
think
they
don't
like
that.
First
comment:
you
know
and
I
can
understand,
I've
been
there
before
actually
and
I,
don't
like
when
some
surprise
comes
upon
you
and
that's
what
you
got
tonight,
Emma
well
within
a
few
weeks
ago.
So
I
think
in
this
case
here.
What
Libby
is
saying:
I
agree
with:
why
should
we
go
that
route,
but
I?
G
J
N
They
did
make
suggested
language
revisions
that
town
staff
was
okay
with,
so,
if
they're
open
to
keeping
that
with
their
revisions,
I
guess
to
not
delay
the
project
if
they
wanted
to
just
wanted
to
throw
out
there
that
I'm
not
sure
why
we're
encouraging
them
to
delay
it.
If
the
end
result
is
going
to
be
that
they
can
amend
the
master
plan
with
the
language
that
they've
offered.
I
Application
that
effectively
incorporates
the
town
as
the
opposing
entity
rather
than
leaving
it
as
a
you
know,
a
directive
that
All
Shall
conform,
but
rather
the
town
shall
require
that
all
conform,
which
is
a
it's
a
slight
change
terminology,
but
I
think
it
ultimately
needs
the
same
objective
and
it
doesn't
diminish
the
the
legality
of
it.
So
I'd
be
I'd,
be
fine
with
the
the
change
from
a
Lincoln
perspective.
G
K
K
Apart
from
looking
at
the
nitty-gritty
of
a
development
plan
review
from
a
conceptual
level,
I
think
you
have
to
because
you're
taking
it
as
an
entity
as
a
whole.
You
can't
just
look
at
the
one
part
and
the
traffic
study
does
really
look
at
this
as
a
single
part.
It's
not
really
looking
at
the
comprehensive
nature
of
the
rest
of
the
development.
It's
not
really
looking
at
wetlands
and
easements
and
what
proposed
like
development
patterns
that
are
being
proposed
here,
which,
like
I,
said.
K
Even
if
you
take
out
the
line
work,
you
still
definitely
got
a
use
here.
That's
inconsistent
with
the
other
planning
documents
that
are
on
on
that
are
approved
and
previously
approved
so
I'm
struggling,
saying
yes
to
something
that
I
can
tell
you
isn't
right,
even
if
it's
just
a
portion
of
it
and
I
know
that
when
it
comes
to
development
plan
review
it
that's
where
it
would
hiccup
I,
don't
want
them.
Saying:
hey!
Well,
Planning
Commission
clearly
approved.
You
know
what
looks
like
a
commercial
development
by
this
standard.
K
K
N
D
D
K
F
F
F
D
D
A
J
I,
like
what
Lydia
said,
I
I
I'm
having
I'm
torn
I,
mean
I.
Am
it's
because
I
I
agree,
but
their
Town
staff
and
Town
Council
is
fine
with
the
change
in
the
language
and
they
are
going
to
be
back
twice
so
they're.
Not
it's
not
like.
This
is
the
final
one
where
wash
my
hands
of
it.
So
I'm
I'm
gonna
go
with
what
Lydia's
recommendation
as
well.
What.
J
N
A
K
I
Think
what
my
recommendation?
Let
me
ask
the
question:
first,
if
I
may
and
then
I'll
get
back
to
that
one.
The
the
peak
lab
discussion
as
well
is
I
assume
that
that
will
be
incorporated
as
one
of
the
conditions
yes
and
that
the
applicant
has
said
that
they're
capable
of
taking
care
of,
but
as
far
as
the
Sandhill
track,
my
recommendation
would
be
not
to
impose
it
as
a
condition,
because
it's
it's,
it
would
be
a
recommendation
with
for
approval
with
conditions,
and
then
that
would
be
one
of
the
conditions.
That's
I
think.
F
I
N
I
moved
to
recommend
a
Town
Council
to
approve
the
application,
with
the
conditions
noted
by
Town
staff
number
two
and
number
three,
as
well
as
a
revised
number
one.
That
says,
a
statement
shall
be
placed
on
the
amended
master
plan,
declaring
that
the
town
shall
require
all
development
within
the
Buckwalter
crossword
Crossroads
master
plan
conform
to
the
requirements
and
recommendations
of
the
Beaufort
County
connects
2021,
bicycle
and
pedestrian
plan
and
with
the
condition
that
the
existing
master
plan,
pink
line
of
roadway
interconnectivity
continues
through
the
new
parcel.
I
M
Thank
you.
We
have
two
sections
of
the
unified
development
ordinance
that
are
proposed
to
be
Amendment
amended.
The
first
one
is
section
317
certificate
of
appropriateness,
the
highway
Corridor
overlay
District,
similar
to
what
we
did
for
the
Kofa
historic
district.
We
are
recommending
language
be
inserted
that
an
approved
final
development
plan
would
be
required
before
the
Planning
Commission
could
review
the
Kofa
Highway
Corridor
overlay,
District
plan.
M
The
purpose
of
that
is
so
that
we
know
that
we
have
a
final
plan
and
that
any
changes
to
that
plan
will
have
already
been
made
and
corrected
before
we
review
the
Kofa.
So
we
don't
have
some
back
and
forth
going
on
and
and
taking
up
a
lot
of
Staff
time
and
time
for
the
applicant.
In
addition,
we
have
section
5.8
making
some
changes
to
the
lot
in
building
standards
and
I
do
have
the
text
amendments
that
I
can
pull
up.
But
let
me
just
briefly
hit
the
bullet
point.
M
Some
of
these
are
housekeeping
items
that
we
need
to
update
some
amendments
that
were
made
previously,
that
there
was
oversight
on
some
particular
table,
for
instance
not
removing
the
live
work
lot
type,
which
we
eliminated
previously
the
light
industrial
district.
We
had
discussion
about
this
related
to
a
development
in
Buck
Island
Road.
M
There
was
concern
that
the
large
lot
height
may
be
inappropriate
because
of
some
setback
and
height
issues,
so
staff
is
recommending
that
the
light
industrial
district
be
removed
from
the
various
large
lot
types,
including
multi-family
and
excuse
and
large
commercial,
and
that
it
be
permitted
within
the
medium
lot
types
multi-family
and
mixed
use.
We
only
have
12
Lots
Within
in
town
that
are
Zone
light
industrial
for
the
most
part
they
exist
within
the
southern
portion
of
Buck
Island
and
on
gothi
Road,
just
north
of
Bluffton
Parkway.
It's
very
unlikely
that
we'll
see
large
development
there.
M
M
M
If
a
decision
is
made
tonight,
the
spider
will
move
forward.
Two
Town
Council
in
July,
all
the
Amendments
that
we've
heard
this
year
will
be
packaged
as
one
and
they
will
move
forward.
July
11th
there
will
be
a
public
hearing
scheduled
on
August,
8th
and
with
that
we
are
making
a
recommendation
that
the
staff
recommendation
be
approved.