Landowners and developers clash with environmental groups over Mount Pleasant wetlands rules

Public comment at the Mount Pleasant council meeting featured extended exchanges between property owners and environmental advocates over the proposed wetlands ordinance. Landowners and counsel argued the draft ordinance would expand local jurisdiction to non‑jurisdictional freshwater features and leave owners without adequate administrative recourse; they said the only practical remedy would be expensive litigation. John Cialfi, representing the Manigault and Palmer families, said the Corps of Engineers had issued a jurisdictional determination for 2.82 acres on his client's parcel and urged the council to amend the ordinance to explicitly exempt areas with a formal Corps determination.

Opponents of the landowner position included residents and nonprofit lawyers who argued wetlands are critical storm‑water infrastructure. Andrew Wunderly of Charleston Waterkeeper and Susie Carlson of the Southern Environmental Law Center urged the council to act, with Carlson noting the ecosystem and storm‑protection benefits and urging local action after federal protections narrowed. Several property owners including Joseph and Henry Palmer made emotional appeals about the economic impact the ordinance could have on long-held family land; others — including Park West residents — raised traffic and neighborhood‑character concerns tied to separate PD rezoning proposals. The council balanced these views through amendments that created staff vetting steps, replaced a notarized affidavit with a disclosure, and clarified public‑project exemptions as part of its final ordinance vote.