►
Description
City of Charleston Committee on Community Development 4/30/2020
A
C
Thank
You
mr.
chairman
I
would
be
happy
to
and
I
know
that
we're
we're
time
limited
here,
because
we've
got
council
coming
up
at
5:30,
so
I'm
gonna
try
to
be
respectful
that
and
leave
time
for
discussion.
I
do
have
a
few
slides
on
each
of
these
and
I'll
give
you
maybe
just
a
brief
orientation
on
the
ordinances
and
then
we
can
open
for
discussion
if
that
works.
For
you,
mr.
E
C
This
very
first
one.
This
is
the
conservation
development
ordinance
amendment.
This
is
this
is
obviously
something
that
a
lot
of
work
has
gone
into.
This
there's
been
a
significant
revision
process
that
has
been
a
collaboration
between
multiple
departments
in
the
city,
planning,
zoning,
stormwater,
Park
sustainability,
traffic
transportation.
There's
been
a
walking
tour,
a
lot
of
analysis
of
existing
sites,
stakeholder
meetings
with
neighborhood
leaders
and
council
members.
Many
of
you
attended
those
meetings
and
thank
you
for
your
guidance
and
leadership
as
well
as
with
developers
and
engineers.
C
So
it's
been
a
really
robust
process
of
critiquing
what
used
to
be
called
the
cluster
ordinance
and
is
now
as
then
known
as
conservation.
So
the
idea
is
to
take
a
site
and
allocate
the
housing
locations
to
smaller
areas
and
then
reserve
the
best
parts
of
the
site
for
stormwater
and
open
space
so
that
you
have
the
most
ecologically
sensitive
development
possible.
C
That
is
the
intent
behind
this
ordinance
and
that's
what
we
believe
the
new
one
does,
and
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
maybe
just
draw
your
attention
to
this
column
where
it
says
proposed,
and
maybe
if
we
can
just
go
through
this
list
here,
this
is
what
we
propose
to
do.
The
first
is
to
reduce
the
maximum
impervious
surface.
So
that
way
we
have
more
rain
water
percolating
into
the
ground
we've
introduced.
This
is
a
jargon
term,
lig
that
we
all
use
all
the
time.
Low-Impact
development.
C
That
means
pervious
surfaces
that
means
trees
to
absorb
stormwater.
That
means
doing
everything
you
can
to
minimize
runoff.
We
also
have
added
a
pre-application
site
review,
meaning
that
if
a
developer
wants
to
use
this,
they
have
to
come
and
sit
down
before
they
even
submit.
We
talk
through
all
the
the
things
that
they
are
doing
right
and
we
we
look
at
their
hydrology
before
they
design
the
site
layout,
the
very
very
beginning.
This
is
a
major
step
in
the
right
direction.
C
That
I
think
we
should
do
on
every
project
truthfully,
and
this
is
especially
relevant
here.
We
also
have
enhanced
open
space
requirements
that
are
the
most
stringent
in
the
city
for
any
zoning
ordinance
and
we
have
an
enhanced
tree
conservation
requirements
that
emphasize
groups
of
trees
that
can
absorb
stormwater
versus
individual
big
trees,
and
this
is
also
going
to
be
an
item
that
I
think
allows
us
to
have
much
more
sensible
development
in
these
areas.
C
The
last
thing
is
that
we
have
added
provisions
for
affordable
housing
and
accessory
dwelling
units
per
our
conversation
at
the
last
meeting
of
the
community
development
committee.
Now
I
have
the
text
of
the
ordinance
here.
If
we
want
to
bring
up
any
specific
slide
from
the
text
to
discuss
it
and
with
that
I'm
gonna
end,
my
screen
share
and
I
can
take
back
over.
C
If
you
would
like
to
look
at
any
specific
coordinates
page,
the
last
thing
I'll
say
is
that
I
do
have
staff
who've
worked
on
this,
who
I
never
on
the
zoom
call
and
I
believe
mr.
Mapp
fountain
is
joined
us
as
well,
and
that,
if
you
argue
with
us,
thank
you
for
doing
that
at
the
last
minute,
I'm
really
really
glad
you
could
join
us.
So
we
were
prepared
to
answer
questions
and
also
just
to
simply
listen
to
your
input
and
actually
I
did
I
wasn't
totally
forthcoming.
C
We
were
looking
at
making
sure
that
we
have
a
public
hearing,
that's
associated
with
the
conservation
ordinance,
it's
not
purely
a
buy
right
option,
but
that
it
is
something
that
does
receive
public
scrutiny,
because
that
is.
That
is
one
of
the
ways
that
we
want
to
make
sure
that
everyone
does
have
a
chance
to
review
these
as
they
go
forward.
So
we're
looking
at
the
best
ways
to
do
that
right
now.
So
with
that
I
will
open
this
for
discussion
and
and
I
will
in
my
screen
share,
though.
F
A
F
C
Well,
that's
a
good
question.
I'm,
looking
through
the
ordinance
here,
you
know,
the
truth
of
the
matter
is
that
it
does
in
fact
require
it.
I
think
that
might
just
be
a
semantic
difference.
The
open
space
requirements
are
higher
in
this
ordinance
than
any
we
have
ever
had
before.
So
there
is
a
required
extremely
high
level
of
open
space
preservation
and,
as
a
rule
of
thumb,
I,
don't
think
that
we've
ever
had
anything
that
requires
this
level
of
conservation.
C
C
A
E
E
I
came
to
the
region
helmet
for
any
kind
of
affordable
housing
that
would
be
happening
in
Charleston
and,
as
time
has
gone
on
and
circumstances
has
obviously
dictated
I
now
consider
myself
to
be
as
passionate
about
the
environment
and
especially
when
it
comes
to
watershed
protection,
and
all
of
that.
So
this
ordinance
I
think
is
a
sweet
spot
accomplishment
as
far
as
I
can
determine
I
I
was
concerned
originally
about
the
fact
that
we
were
in
including
wetlands
in
the
definition
of
the
50
persona
common
space
that
is
required
by
this
ordinance.
But
mr.
E
fountain
I
talked
me
through
that.
I
appreciate
that
thorough
explanation
and
I
understand
that
my
miss
assumption-
and
maybe
some
of
you
share,
share
this
with
me.
So
that's
why
I'm
trying
to
make
a
point
here
that
I
I
thought
wrongly
that
to
get
a
permit
from
the
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
to
fill
in
wetlands.
It
was
getting
harder
in
recent
years,
but
Mack
told
me
that
it's
actually
for
especially
for
smaller
sites
that
were
probably
looking
at
here,
that
that
the
permit
process
itself
is
not
that
rigorous.
E
It's
not
that
demanding
of
a
wetland,
and
so
if
we,
if
we
would
choose
to
not
allow
wetlands
to
be
included
in
the
common
space
formula,
then
we
would
be
endangering
these
properties
for
having
developers
say
well,
then
I'm
just
going
to
apply
to
fill
in
the
wetlands
and
we
wouldn't
have
any
control
over
that.
So
I
do
feel
like,
though
it's
a
balancing
act,
we're
rolling
the
dice
on
some
level
of
that
this.
E
This
increase
works,
but
I,
but
I
am
supportive
of
the
way
that
the
ordinance
is
written
us,
oh
and
can
I
say
just
say
one
other
thing:
while
I
have
the
floor,
I'm
sorry
I'm,
I
I'm,
also,
you
know
highly
in
favor
the
way
that
the
ordinance
has
essentially
added
voluntary
bonuses
for
density
for
the
affordability.
I
I
continue
to
be
concerned
that
I
know
the
definition.
E
When
you
think
about
I
mean
my
kids
moved
here
in
2016,
they
were
both
public
educators
with
experience
in
their
jobs
and
they
decided
before
they
got
here
that
if
they
each
tried
to
apply
for
a
teaching
position
at
a
current
level
of
experience
and
education,
they
wouldn't
be
able
to
afford
to
live
in
Charleston
with
the
two
teacher
income.
So
I
I
think
that
we
should
be
pricing
our
best
offers-
and
this
really
is
a
bonus
density
type
situation,
to
match
that
the
crux
of
the
salary
ranges
that
we
really
want
to
serve.
E
So
I
guess
I
would
ask
if
there's
any
consideration
that
we
could
say
that
the
Medora
that
the
highest
workforce
price
range
would
end
at
a
hundred
percent
of
AMI
and
I
know
miss
Johnson,
you
know,
or
what
educate
me
about
how
that
changes.
The
pattern
for
other
ordinances
that
we
have,
but
I
would
like
to
hear
about
that.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
C
Before
the
clerk
weighs
in
from
our
standpoint,
we're
not
asking
you
for
a
vote
on
this
today.
If
you
want
to
feel
like
you're
ready
for
one,
that's
that
we
would
accept
that,
but
we're
not
requesting
that
you
vote.
We
were
really
just
looking
forward
to
your
comments,
but
if
you
feel
confident
we'll
take
that
and
I'll
hand
over
general,
because.
A
We
still
have
to
go
through
a
public
hearing
with
this
anyway.
So
that's
why
I'm
warning,
because
so
the
public
could
have
input
on
this.
So
I
don't
know.
If
you
need
a
motion
or
not
Jennifer.
Do
you
think
we
need
a
motion
on
this?
Are
this
a
motion
to
center
public
hearing
I'll,
just
I'll
have
as
information
for
now.
D
G
F
B
So
Johnson
sure,
council,
members
and
the
mayor,
my
recommendation
is
that
we
would
stay
consistent
with
120
percent
of
the
ami,
based
on
any
development
that
we're
about
to
commence
upon.
We
typically
determine
what
target
of
the
affordable
housing
spectrum
we
are
going
to
address,
and
so,
although
we
are
in
difficult
times
right
now,
we
know
that
we
aren't
going
to
stay
here,
and
this
ordinance
goes
on
the
books
and
it
changes
the
ami
that
could
adversely
impact
those
who
are
at
120
unnecessarily.
B
So
my
recommendation
would
be
to
leave
it
at
120
because
we
do
make
the
considerations
reule,
who
in
the
affordability
spectrum
will
be
targeted
in
is
Jacob
indicated
we
attempt
to
meet
with
those
developers
or
at
the
cities
doing
it.
We
determine
early
on
who
could
likely
afford
when
we're
building
a
particular
project
or
about
to
commence
construction
on
a
particular
parcel.
Thank
You.
H
I
had
to
unmute
myself,
okay
Thank
You
mr.
chairman
mr.
Lindsey
I.
Think
it's
a
great
ordinance,
but
how
does
this
apply?
Is
that
primarily
to
single-family
will
discipline
to
multiple
family
or
both,
and
then,
when
it
comes
to
our
single
family,
that's
one
question
and
when
it
comes
out
single-family
zoning
categories
would
this
apply
to
all?
Is
this
something
you
trying
to
treat
people
to
do
from
an
incentive
standpoint?
How
does
this
apply
cross
out
zoning
on
various
categories.
C
C
Okay,
so
you
always
should
should
be
seeing
should
be
seeing
a
screen
here.
Okay,
so
we're
gonna
get
their
definitions
now.
What
this
does
first
of
all
is
it
applies
to
these
base
zonings.
You
can
see
this
section
right
here.
Base
owning
conservation
developments
are
permitted
in
these
zones.
Sr1
sr7
are
rural,
residential
one
or
see
conservation,
so
these
are
mostly.
These
are
all
single
family
categories:
they're,
not
you're,
not
multifamily
categories.
That's
the
the
first
important
component!
Well,.
C
Does
and
that's
what
this
ordinance
is
councilmember.
This
is
this
is
the
cluster
ordinance
and
it
does
allow
it
by
right.
That's
correct!
That's
what
you're
looking
at
now,
what
it
does
do
is
it
allows
this
you,
this
whoa
Wow,
some
joining
of
units
to
be
attached,
single-family
in
row,
house
format,
okay,
good!
C
What
end
and
again
what
I'm
pointing
at
right
here
toward
net
density
is
that
when,
first
of
all
workforce,
if
you
look
at
an
item,
I,
don't
be
workforce
housing
units
meeting
the
conditions,
meaning
that
have
to
be
workforce
housing
shall
not
count
toward
the
net
density,
meaning
that
if
you
want
to
build
five-year
at
40,
you
can
see
build
forty
maxed
and
you
want
to
build
five
units
of
affordable.
That's
fine!
C
H
C
Correct
so
those
are
the
zoning
categories
that
are
relatively
low
density
and
they
are
in
areas
where
you
may
have
conventional,
suburban
subdivisions
and
a
goal
here
with
this
ordinance
is
to
not
build
conventional,
suburban
subdivisions,
but
instead
to
allow
really
creative
site
design.
That
was
the
most
ecological
development
possible,
so
we
create
space
for
stormwater
and
we
create
space
for
tree
preservation.
That
is
the
reason
that
we
targeted
those
zoning
categories,
so
you're
not
going
to
see
cost
subdivisions
in
the
middle
of
downtown
Charleston.
This
is
for
areas
where
you
need
ecological
development,
so.
H
C
I
C
H
J
J
J
Extra
trip
to
the
bza
or
an
extra
trip
to
City
Council,
like
a
putt
approval,
to
have
that
extra
opportunity
for
citizen
input.
The
downside
of
that
is
what
we
have
put
together.
It
is,
is
really
terrific,
and
do
we
want
to
put
another
step
in
there
for
a
developer?
Who
would
who
would
want
to
do
all
this
stuff,
which
we
consider
very
positive,
so
I
just
throw
that
out
to
y'all
for
a
discussion.
A
E
You
yeah
I
would
like
to
converse
about
that
question
to
mayor,
but
I
also
wanted
to
put
on
mr.
Lindsey's
list
to
advise
us
later.
It
wouldn't
stop
me
from
wanting
to
recommend
this
to
the
full
council
and
the
process
to
follow,
but
on
six
of
the
ordinance
under
the
topic.
Of
course,
housing
in
perpetuity
I
ask
these
questions
the
question
of
mr.
Morgan
and
and
this
mr.
E
bird
yesterday,
under
whatever
b3
I,
think
it
is
the
little
three
I
there's
sort
of
a
confusing
paragraph
in
there
about
properties
have
to
remain
in
perpetuity,
but
if
they
do
achieve
their
net
density,
then
they
have
the
right
to
trade.
A
work
force
unit
for
a
full
priced
unit
and
I
just
agree
with
that.
E
First
of
all,
I
think
they
should
know
what
they
want
to
build
from
the
get-go,
but
I
also
think
that
it
makes
in
in
into
the
future
as
we're
all
you
know
getting
used
to
this,
and
then
developers
are
trying
to
interpret
it,
and
you
know
how
everybody
likes
to
optimize
their
profits
over
time
that
this
paragraph
in
particular
might
just
make
it
right
for
some
sort
of
loophole
that
we're
not
thinking
about
now.
So
I
wanted
to
know
what
the
ration
was
for.
E
Having
that
trade-off
opportunity,
why
can't
we
just
say
that
anything,
that's
dedicated
as
work
force,
housing
units
and
that
doesn't
count
against
the
density.
Have
you
know
that
site
come
in
approval
is
always
in
perpetuity
and
leave
it
at
that.
So
I
I,
don't
expect
an
answer
now,
but
I
would
like
to
put
that
question
out
there,
for
you
know,
clarity
and
then
an.
E
E
It's
it's.
It's
a
buy
right
decision
correct
as
long
as
they're
meeting
that
range,
so
we
don't
have
bility
to
say
it's
too
much
for
this
particular
location
or
the
needs
that
we
know
are
needing
to
be
fulfilled
in
the
housing
market.
So
I
I,
don't
need
an
answer
for
that
today
either,
but
I
do
think.
We
should
be
clear
when
we
make
this
vote
as
a
full
council
and
mayor
I.
E
Do
think
that
your
idea
of
having
an
extra
stop
for
the
public
to
weigh
in
prior
to
an
automatic
subdivision
approval,
Planning
Commission,
is
going
the
right
direction.
I,
don't
foresee
the
public
having
less
of
an
interest
in
development,
especially
when
it
comes
to
the
locations
that
we
think
these
conservation
developments
will
be
most
well
used.
E
It's
always
going
to
be
in
watersheds
where
there's
wetlands
or
some
type
of
you
know
natural
water,
drainage
issues
that
I
do
think
the
public
is
going
to
continue
to
be
good
about
so
I
think
I
think
we're
giving
them
a
good
service
by
allowing
that
stuff
I,
don't
have
anything
more
to
say,
I'm
sure
you'll
all
be
glad
about
that.
That's.
H
My
question
is
to
the
mirror,
I
guess,
to
expand
on
your
your
point
about
one
herring
versus
I
heard
it
differently
than
my
colleague
did
out.
You
know
if
they're
going
to
comply
with
these
ordinances.
Why
are
we
going
required
in
to
come
back
for
a
second
public
hearing
on
on
sr1?
If
somebody
has
SR
on
one
now
they
buy
right,
they
can
go
ahead
and
design
it
without
these
requirements
being
a
part
of
it
and
I
think
we
would
like
them
to
design
with
these
this
new
ordinance
being
a
part
of
the
development.
H
J
Again,
I
think
I
just
had
some
maybe
unpleasant,
memories
from
I
forget
which
developments
that
were
over
the
last
couple
of
years,
where
they
were
clustered
and
they
were
moving
forward
because
they
didn't
need
that
extra
meeting
or
scrutiny,
and
we
were
living
too
regret.
It
I
can't
even
recall
which
development
it.
I
J
J
F
F
Think,
if
we
don't
do
a
second
public
hearing
politically
I
think
we
will
have
people
out
there
saying
that
we're
not
really
giving
them
enough
time
to
participate,
etcetera,
etc,
because
that
Central
Park
cluster
folks
have
been
fighting
welcome
for
the
last
year
and
a
half,
maybe
two
years
so
I
do
think
we
have
another
public
here
and
I
think
that
would
ease
the
potential
of
us
having
neighborhood
groups,
etc,
etc.
Saying
that
we
really
didn't
provide
them
with
enough
time
to
weigh
in
so
I
agree
with
the
mayor's
recommendation.
D
A
H
D
J
H
I
did
because
you
know
I
asked
a
question
to
mr.
Lindsey
about
sr6
being
added,
or
maybe
even
sr4,
but
I
wanted
to
he
needed
time
to
get
back
and
respond
back
today.
So
if
we
do
pass
this
motion
without
a
loud
time
in
the
event,
if
another
Sansone
category
could
be
added
on
that,
that's
that's
all
I
want
I,
just
wanted
them
to
the
answer
that
Lindsay.
C
Hasn't
Hannah
yeah
do
able
to
do
a
little
bit
of
research
while
I
was
waiting
here,
and
the
reason
is
that
in
in
we
first
of
all,
we
can
look
on
adding.
We
can
look
at
adding
additional
categories
later,
if
you
like,
but
in
those
categories
as
our
status
r4,
they
have.
The
lot
sizes
are
too
small
and
those
lots
to
qualify.
It's
basically
a
technicality,
that's
the
reason
why,
but
we
can
look
into
additional
additional
categories.
If
you
like.
H
Okay
I
mean
especially
if
you're
looking
at
a
piece
of
property
has
yet
to
be
subdivided.
You
know
you're
dealing
in
a
you
know
a
five
acre
tract
of
something
like
that
Oh
small
infill,
which
is
probably
going
to
happen
in
particular
West
James,
Island
to
lesser
degree,
Johns,
Island,
areas
off
of
the
peninsula.
I
can
see
a
person
going
to
zone
and
category.
For
that
very
reason.
But
anyway,
okay.
A
J
H
A
C
C
C
We've
listened
to
your
input,
as
well
as
additional
input
by
the
mayor
and
I
want
to
draw
draw
your
attention
to
one
specific
item
that
has
been
revised.
The
first.
The
main
thing
here
is
this
matter
of
the
maximum
number
of
occupants
in
each
ad.
You
her
on
your
input
and
mayor's
input
that
has
been
changed
to
two
adults,
which
is
the
lowest
number
in
either
of
our
our
companion
government's
Charleston
County
and
not
close,
not
both
at
higher
numbers.
That
is
the
the
biggest
changes
is
that
we
have
to
adults.
C
We
do
not
regulate
the
number
of
children,
that's
the
biggest
piece
and
then
secondarily,
the
mayor
has
asked
us
specifically
to
look
at
the
matter
of
requiring
affordability
for
for
ad
use,
and
that
is
something
else
that
we
are
also
looking
into,
and
we
would
appreciate
your
input
into
the
affordability
requirement
component
for
accessory
dwelling
units.
So
with
that
I'll
keep
my
introduction
short
and
we
can.
We
can
have
open
discussion.
A
A
E
C
E
B
Previously
I
did
and
I
don't
have
those
with
me,
but
to
Jacobs
I
too
think
we
need
to
include
those
in
there
and
when
we,
when
planning
presented
the
first
time,
we
had
quite
an
extensive
discussion
about
that,
and
so
before
it's
the
council
I'll
be
sure
to
get
that
to
Lindsay
and
his
team
for
consideration
and
inclusion.
I
think
it's
important
that
we
have
it.
J
J
You
know,
and
it's
based
on
income
too,
and
it's
not
a
big
unit,
so
they'd
be
able
to
get
a
fair
rent
if
if
they
were
to
build
a
unit,
but
you
know
I
made
the
point
when
we
talked
about
this
a
few
weeks
ago,
that
ten
years
from
now
20
years
now-
and
we
see
another
escalation
and
real
estate
prices.
Like
we've
seen
over
the
last
ten
years,
we
need
to
try
to
protect
the
affordability
when
we
can
and
I'm
putting
this
in
place
is
the
time
to
do
it
so
I.
J
A
J
A
A
C
You,
council
members,
I'm
just
gonna,
go
back
to
screen
share
here,
so
just
a
brief
introduction
of
this
one
and
then
we'll
move
right
along.
So
this
is
our
affordable
housing
ordinance
amendment
and
what
what
it
does
is
incorporates
provisions
to
allow
the
subdivision
and
development
of
single-family
detached
and
attached
affordable
housing
as
a
conditional
use
within
multiple
base
zoning
districts.
What
that
means
is
that
it
avoids
a
trip
to
the
bza
for
truly
affordable
projects,
and
this
is
really
for
small
projects.
You
know
at
individual
houses
or
townhouses.
C
Now,
when
we
looked
at
does
the
staff
did
a
really
exhaustive
period
of
research,
and
you
can
see
these
blue
stars
on
the
on
a
map
here.
These
are
all
individual
case
studies
that
the
staff
looked
at
that
were,
in
fact
on
sites
that
needed
variances
and
they
were
slowed
down,
adding
time
and
cost
to
the
process.
These
I
believe
were
mostly,
if
not
all,
Gianna's
projects
that
she
developed.
These
are
houses
that
she
developed.
C
So
we
looked
in
total
and
16
different
case
studies
and
these
all
needed
these
all
needed
variances
for
some
purpose,
and
what
this
does
is
it
would
remove
that
variance
process
and
we're
going
to
speed
up
the
deliverer
housing
more
efficiently.
Now
what
it
does
is
it
applies
citywide.
It
adjusts
the
regulatory
law
standards
only
for
affordable
housing
market
rate
does
not
get
any
bonus.
C
It
provides
flexible
standards
for
single-family,
one
family,
detached
dwellings
in
SR,
one
two
and
six,
and
it
provides
flexible
standards
for
one
family
detached
and
attached
in
these
categories,
STR,
which
is
single
into
family
single
to
family
residential.
That's
does
not
mean
short-term
rental
by
the
way
the
DRS
and
dear
to
us,
and
what
it
does
not
do
does
not
change
the
standards
for
all
new
housing.
This
only
applies
to
affordable,
it
does
not
change
the
subdivision
standards
from
market
rate
development
and
it
does
not
require
that
all
new
housing
be
affordable.
C
Just
only
applies
to
products
like
the
one
gianna
builds
that
are
truly
affordable
and
just
a
quick
summary
of
the
revisions.
We
have
eliminated
parking
reductions
before
we
had
reduced
the
the
amount
of
parking
and
on
yellows
input.
We
have
eliminated
that,
so
you
still
have
two
off
street
spaces
required
the
frontage
requirements
for
sr
to
remain
at
forty
feet,
except
for
properties
that
front
streets
within
Maryville.
C
The
third
item
is
that
the
provisions
have
been
added
for
one
family
attached
dwelling
units
townhomes,
which
we
think
is
a
great
thing,
and
the
provisions
to
allow
for
a
traditional
in
Charleston
court
within
D
are
two
and
D
are
two
F,
which
was
a
great
suggestion
from
the
committee.
So
those
are
the
revisions
that
have
been
added
and
then
we
get
into
the
ordinance
text.
If
anyone
would
like
to
go
to
a
specific
page
and
reference
that
so
without
summary,
I
will
stop.
My
screen
share
and
open
it
to
discussion.
H
Thank
you
again,
I
thank
the
staff,
the
mayor
and
the
whole
team.
Pope.
Bringing
this
forward
I
mean
this
new
members
of
council
actually
came
up
as
a
result
of
kind
of
thought
about
some
of
the
areas
it's
been
so
successful
on
the
peninsula,
Anson
bar
French
quarters,
Austin
Village
and
any
places
that
have
Friedmann
cottages.
You
know
today,
if
you
want
to
build
a
freedman
cottage
in
the
city
of
Charleston,
you
can't
do
it.
You
have
to
have
most
of
those
places
were
built
on
small
lots
with
small
street
frontage
frontages.
H
Well,
as
we
go
about
trying
to
create
affordable
housing,
one
of
the
things
you
have
to
do
is
when
a
higher
aspects
is
the
land
cost
down
here
so
high
as
compared
to
Columbia
or
Walter
bar
for
that
man,
and
one
way
to
do
that
is
possible
into
smaller
pieces.
Hopefully
we
have
to
try
to
get
the
private
sector
to
incentivize
to
build,
hopefully,
some
affordable,
housing
for
city
government
and
tax
credit
housing
cannot
beat
up.
All
sauce
will
never
begin
to
build
enough.
What,
if
those
are
the
only
two
sauces?
H
All,
though
we're
doing
great
jobs,
their
private
sector
is
just
you
know,
Lightspeed
a
hit
ahead
of
us,
but
if
we
can
create
some
incentives
where
it
would
make
sense
good
of
private
sector
and
say
well,
for
example,
I
can
get
I,
don't
know
a
hundred
units
out
of
this
piece
of
land
market
rate,
but
I
can
get
120
if
I
include
some
affordable
units.
Just
sell
I
think
the
economies
of
scale
begin
to
come
into
play
to
being
so.
We
had
a
lot
of
talk
on
this
all
last
year.
H
E
I
Yes,
sir
council
member
wearing,
you
can't
see
me
because
my
video
is
not
on
right
now,
but
it
but
a
tear
ran
down
my
cheek
after
hearing
your
comments.
Just
now
you
nailed
it.
That
is
exactly
right.
The
way
we
get
more
affordable
housing
in
the
city
of
Charleston
is
by
targeted
appropriate
regulatory
relief
and
removing
the
barriers
to
getting
these.
I
These
products
on
the
market
and
developers
will
make
affordable
housing
if,
if
it's
viable
to
do
so,
and
when
we
remove
those
obstacles
in
time,
expense
unpredictability
things
of
that
nature,
that's
how
we
accomplish
these
results
so
cannot
be
more
pleased
with
this
and
and
really
everything
that
we
talked
about
today,
everything
we
talked
about
today.
It's
got
a
affordable
housing
component
to
it
and
it's
just
a
great
effort
by
everyone
involved.
So
thank
you.
I
A
E
Member
Jackson
yeah
I
totally
agreed
that
this.
This
is
the
ordinance
that
we've
been
waiting
for
to
accomplish
these
goals.
I
really
appreciate
that
we've
found
the
extra
mile
to
listen.
Mirakl
Ashley,
go
miners,
Neighborhood,
Association
and
respect
their
wishes.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
outing
the
exclusion
for
that
long-standing
community.
I
love,
the
idea
of
the
Charleston
courts,
I
think
for
people
that
didn't
grow
up
here.
That
is
truly
unique.
E
I
mean
I
outside
of
Washington
DC
for
40
years,
and
there
were
little
alleys
all
around
DC,
but
over
time
most
of
them
just
disappeared.
So
I
think
the
fact
that
Charleston
is
still
known
for
its
little
pathways
and
the
fact
that
we
would
facilitate
these
especially
out
the
other
boroughs
would
would
just
be
wonderful.
E
Other
the
West
dashing
neighborhood,
so
I
understand
that
you
can't
subdivide
or
take
advantage
of
this
when
the
lot
sizes
don't
conform
to
what's
on
either
side
of
you,
but
I
don't
understand
the
insert
of
the
last
two
sentences
and
those
two
paragraphs
that
are
under
Section
5.
So
please
talk
to
me
about
line
because
it
sounds
like
we
prevented
on
one
hand,
and
then
we
allow
it
on
the
other.