It is hard to know exactly where Town Council is with the controversial recreation shed amendment, even after the September 21st Town Council meeting.
While Mayor Pat O'Neil did acknowledge at the beginning of the meeting that Town Council was aware most of the attendees were there because of the zoning amendment, he then stated that Town Council would not be voting on the amendment that night.
And that was absolutely all that Town Council said about the recreation shed amendment at the meeting. A number of islanders did make comments--both pro and con-- about the amendment during the public comment period, however.
In view of the number of islanders who attended the Town Council meeting because of the amendment, it was truly surprising that the recreation shed issue was not on the agenda at all--even for discussion.
It is possible that Town Council will discuss the amendment at the next Town Council workshop, scheduled for Monday, October 12th at 6:00, and decide then what the next step would be. But again, it is not entirely clear what is going on with the amendment at the moment because Town Council did not discuss the issue at the Town Council meeting.
What has become abundantly clear over the past several months is that the recreation shed amendment has generated much controversy and much correspondence from islanders to Town Council and to the Planning Commission. The many letters and comments in opposition to the amendment generally cite concerns about the precedent-setting nature of an island-wide zoning change, the accommodating of one small group of islanders to the detriment of the rest of the community, and the unexplored consequences to the entire community of allowing stand-alone recreation sheds on what is now a single-family residential island--as affirmed and re-affirmed in the Comprehensive Plan that was updated just last year.
In contrast, the letters from islanders in support of the amendment are primarily from residents living in the neighborhood around the property in question, and generally focus on the benefits to the immediate neighborhood of removing the one house from the one piece of property on Marshall Boulevard.
So for the moment, it appears the discussion of the recreation shed amendment is ongoing. It is essential that islanders continue to send letters to members of Town Council and let them know what you think about the recreation shed issue.
And in the meantime....Read the letter below from islander Mike Walsh to each Town Council member. Mike's letter also ran in the September 11 edition of Island Eye. In his very clever imagined conversation between William Moultrie and Florence O'Sullivan, Mike manages to capture the essence of many of the letters written by islanders who oppose the recreation shed amendment:
A Sullivan’s Island Conversation
Here’s an imagined conversation between two residents of Sullivan’s Island in regard to the proposed zoning change to allow a recreational structure in place of a house at 3117 Marshall Boulevard. Whether it fits more into the fiction or non-fiction category each reader will have to decide for him or herself.
Florence O’Sullivan: So I hear that a group of people want to do away with a house on front beach where the erosion is getting bad and make it into something else. What’s that all about?
William Moultrie: Yep, that’s right. Some nearby homeowners have formed some sort of corporation to own the property, remove the house and turn it into a recreational facility instead. But, they’re not calling it a recreational facility, they’re calling it a “conservation easement”.
O’Sullivan: What’s a conservation easement?
Moultrie: That’s a legal agreement between a property owner, in this case the “corporation” that was formed, and a non-profit conservation organization, namely, the East Cooper Land Trust.
O’Sullivan: So it’s like a donation then.
Moultrie: Not exactly. There is a value to the property and the arrangement is permanent, so there may be a tax deduction available to this group of…hmm…not quite sure what to call them. Let me call them investors. But they do retain certain rights to the use of the property.
O’Sullivan: Like what?
Moultrie: Well, like building a recreational shed, complete with storage room and shower, and using it to entertain friends and family.
O’Sullivan: But any resident of the Island could use this, right?
Moultrie: No way. It would be available only to the owners of the property.
O’Sullivan: So they could hold like another Woodstock or something on the beach?
Moultrie: Well, they say it would be limited to 24 people at a time with only two cars parked on the property, though for the life of me I’m not sure who’s going to enforce that. I’m really not clear on what happens when guest number 25 and 26 shows up.
O’Sullivan: Maybe you could send some of that famous militia of yours to help. But what’s the next step?
Moultrie: The Town has to go along with the whole deal through the Planning Commission and the Town Council.
O’Sullivan: Why wouldn’t they go along with it?
Moultrie: Because this is a residential lot in a residential neighborhood on a residential island. Plus it really goes against the Comprehensive Plan the Town has approved and re-approved over the years that was designed to maintain the current residential character of the island. In addition, essentially the entire current Town Council campaigned on a platform that included maintaining the current make-up of the island.
O’Sullivan: But there would be only one of these easements, sheds, recreational facilities, whatever you want to call it on the island, right?
Moultrie: Au contraire, my friend. If the zoning ordinance is changed it would then apply to whoever else might want to do the same thing. You can’t just do it for one group. Even an official from the East Cooper Land Trust came over and not only urged the Planning Commission to approve this deal, but also encouraged the Town to loosen up and allow more of this type projects to go on.
O’Sullivan: I don’t know. It does seem like something that is done in the name of conservation along with the Land Trust is kinda like motherhood and apple pie.
Moultrie: C’mon, Flo. Get your head out of the 17th century. This is not exactly like someone donating a hundred-acre nature preserve. This is a very small group of people trying to change a very small piece of property into something they can use and enjoy to the exclusion of anyone not on the guest list of 24. It does absolutely nothing for you, me or the vast majority of island residents.
O’Sullivan: Yeah. I see what you mean. Just one last question. You don’t suppose that anyone involved with making a decision on this would be close enough friends with the investors to be on that guest list of 24 do you?
Moultrie: Ahhhh…I really couldn’t say.
O’Sullivan: Hmmm.
(To be continued.)
No comments:
Post a Comment