Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee votes to deny rezoning for Island Park Place medical‑wellness proposal; 6‑2 with one conflict
Summary
The Planning & Public Works Committee voted to disapprove an application to rezone two parcels (TMS 203‑48 and 203‑53) from R‑4 to PB‑190 for the Island Park Place Medical and Wellness Village; the committee vote is to forward denial to full council Tuesday.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Planning & Public Works Committee voted to disapprove a rezoning application for two parcels proposed as the Island Park Place Medical & Wellness Village.
County planning staff described the application — which requested rezoning of TMS numbers 203, parcels 48 and 53 from R‑4 to PB‑190 — summarized outreach materials the applicant provided (a public‑outreach timeline, a map, and a letter of support from MUSC Health) and reported public input counts showing substantially more opposition than support at the Planning Commission and public hearing stages.
After brief remarks from council members, Council member Mister Boykin moved to disapprove the application. The motion was seconded and the committee took a roll‑call vote: Boykin, Darby, Honeycutt, Kabrowski, Middleton and Sass voted in favor of the motion to disapprove (6 ayes); Pryor and Worman voted against the motion (2 nays); one member recorded a conflict of interest and did not vote. The chair reported the motion passed with six ayes, two nays and one conflict/abstention. Under committee rules the denial will go forward to a full County Council meeting on Tuesday for final consideration.
Planning staff noted that the record includes comment counts by date: prior to the Planning Commission meeting (Nov. 18, 2024) opposition comments numbered 321 with 8 in support; at the Dec. 10 public hearing there were 43 opposition comments and one general comment; and additional comments arrived between Dec. 10 and February 26 and up to the day of the committee meeting. The staff presentation and packet include the detailed public‑input counts and the applicant’s outreach documentation.
Ending
The committee’s disapproval is a formal committee recommendation that will be considered by the full council. Committee members and staff said the packet contains the public‑input records and that the item will appear on Tuesday’s council agenda for final action.

