Recreation sheds on the agenda this Tuesday

According to the posted Town Council agenda, there will be a first reading of the controversial recreation shed amendment at the regular Town Council meeting on Tuesday, October 20th. The meeting begins at 6 pm.

There is much island-wide opposition to the precedent-setting zoning change. Since June, many residents have voiced serious concerns at meetings and written letters to Council. But so far, none of that seems to have changed the trajectory of the amendment. 

Below is a thoughtful letter sent to Town Council by islander Laurie Arthur. Laurie ends her letter with an interesting question: Should changes to the Master Plan require a referendum?

Dear Mr. Mayor and Council,

I have just attended the meeting of Planning and Zoning, held September 9. I would like to commend the Members of Planning and Zoning as well as the Town's officials for the effort they have invested amending this ordinance.

However, I strongly feel it would be a mistake to adopt this amendment. Although the changes would apply island wide, I would like to clarify my arguments using the proposed structure on 3117 Marshall as an example.

1. Retreat from the Beach: This was stated as one of the motives to amend the existing ordinance. As I write this, a new home is being built on Marshall. Can anyone really argue that allowing a recreational structure at 3117 Marshall will begin a stampede of property owners, begging for a conservation easement and the right to have a pergola and storage shed, rather than a home?

2. Safety from storm damage: Homes are better built than a recreational structure. What wind or wave-driven damage can650 sq. feet of combined recreational 'structure plus storage cause? Is it more probable that this structure will collapse in storm surge and high winds than a home?

3. Size of structure allowed: The house at 3117 Marshall received variances. If the present lot (true high ground and without the variances received for a home) were covered with a recreational structure, would not the footprint would be immense?

4. Conservation easements are good things: Always? What is being conserved at 3117 Marshall if a large recreational structure covers the vast majority of high ground?

The Town and it's citizens worked very hard to write the Master Plan. This amendment is not a "tweak. It is an allowance for a third type of zoning, that offers no benefit to the public. It neither conserves the land to allow the public to bask in its natural beauty nor does offer the public access to the land. 

I believe strongly in property rights.If the owner of 3117 has the legal right to build a home on that lot, fine. If he chooses not to, then that is his choice. It is not up to the Town to adjust it's Master Plan to accommodate a property owner's whim to use that property for a non-conforming use.

Finally, I would like the Council to consider two ideas.

Some communities ( Carmel, California for example) require someone petitioning for a variance to illustrate that variance using snow fences and tape. The public can then visualize what the impact a variance would have. Should Sullivan's adopt this?

Should changes in the Master Plan require a referendum?

Respectfully,

Laurie Arthur
2850 Middle Street
Sullivans's Island, SC 29482

                                     ==================================

The Town Council meeting will be held at the temporary Town Hall, 2050-B Middle St. There is still time to contact Town Council if you have concerns about the amendment.

Hope to see you at the meeting this Tuesday!

Barbara Spell

SI Community Impact