So what happened at the Public Facilities meeting?

Councilman Bachman Smith IV, Chair of the Public Facilities Committee, said at the meeting on July 23rd that providing an additional access trail to SIES through Flag Street was not an option, based on provisions in the school lease, and that the committee should explore other options for bikers and pedestrians to safely get to school.  

Bachman also said it was incumbent upon students to use options currently available to them to get to school safely, such as the sidewalk on Middle Street and the crossing guards already stationed at various points in the area of the school.

The committee plans to discuss the Flag Street issue with the full council at the council workshop on Monday, August 3rd.

The meeting was well-attended by islanders, and there was  lots of good discussion of the issues.  Many thanks to Bachman Smith for an efficient and productive meeting!

Additional access trail for SIES?

Very meaty agenda for the Public Facilities Committee meeting tomorrow (Thursday) morning at 8:30. 

One item involves a letter signed by 22 Sullivan's Island families, requesting that Town Council provide an additional access trail to Sullivan's Island Elementary School through a currently unopened portion of Flag Street.

Are the 22 families who signed the letter aware that opening up this section of Flag Street for access to the school would violate a provision of the school lease? The lease provides for a 70' buffer between the school property and private property located in close proximity to the school.

Attached is a letter in opposition to the proposal from Sullivan's Island resident Ellison Smith, an attorney who has lived on Flag Street for 37 years. Ellison makes a number of excellent points:

•  The 70' buffer specified in the lease creates an expectation of privacy for the affected property owners and cannot be legally penetrated. 

• Opening Flag Street to pedestrian and bike traffic will effectively block access to his property during mornings and afternoons when the school is in session.

• Within the unopened portion of Flag Street are protected massive live oaks and pecan trees.

• CCSD and SCDOT should have considered this issue when the school was being designed, but they did not.

• A much more sensible solution would be for CCSD and SCDOT to extend the sidewalk from SIES to Station 18 along the SCDOT right of way.

• If the proposal to open up Flag Street is adopted by the Town, Ellision states that he will file the appropriate legal challenge to protect his rights.

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

In addition to breaking a promise to SI residents, a decision by Town Council to open up Flag Street to pedestrian and bike traffic would be fraught with very predictable complications and inconveniences for other residents. 

Why would the Flag Street neighborhood not become just another carpool area, potentially allowing an unlimited number of parents to avoid the carpool line on Ion Avenue?  What about the safety issues associated with THAT? What about the congestion and inconvenience for the many residents living in that area of the island?

And let's put the whole school issue in perspective: At last count, about 52 Sullivan's Island families have children at the school. That number represents only 5.5% of the 950 households on Sullivan's Island. (If those figures are too low, SI CI is happy to be corrected.)

So is Town Council going to once again vote to accommodate the wishes of a small group of islanders, much to the detriment of a much larger group, and in the process break a promise made to all residents-- and also take on yet another lawsuit? Stay tuned....

The meeting will be held at Sullivan's Island Town Hall, 2050-B Middle St at 8:30 am. Here is Ellison's letter:

Recreation structure on Marshall Blvd lot?

If you have major concerns about changing SI ordinances to permit a stand-alone recreation structure on a residential lot--you are not alone! Many residents have expressed a great deal of concern and consternation. Below is an excellent letter about the issue from islander Laurie Arthur. 

Dear Members of the Planning Commission, Town Council, Mayor O'Neil, the Ad Hoc Committee and the East Cooper Land Trust:

I respectfully ask each of you to consider these questions:

1. In regard to this specific lot, isn't true that the lot in question has a very tiny footprint, now that the sand we all knew would wash away did just that?

2. What is the footprint of the recreational/storage building in relationship to the true size (minus the now missing sand) of this lot,  less any variances that might have been issued to allow the construction of the existing building?

3. Does the restriction to two parked vehicles in anyway control the size of the vehicle (a party bus?) or the traffic flow picking up and dropping off visitors?

4. What proposals would be in place regarding alcohol?

5. Why are the protections afforded to homeowners regarding number of visitors and occupants  even considered as protections that would pass to the owners of a stand alone recreational structure?

6. Not to stir the pot, but why is a tree house not allowed but this is?

7. And, the most important question of all.... Isn't true that the lot in question would not be left in its "natural undeveloped state?"  Would it not instead now be a lot with 685 sq. feet of a recreational/storage building? What is natural and undeveloped about that?

There is no conservation whatsoever being accomplished by the proposed ordinance changes. This lot is zoned residential and should remain so, with only a single family residence or no other structure on the site.

Sincerely, Laurie Arthur

arthur.laurie@gmail.com

So what happened at the Planning Commission meeting?

The Planning Commission decided not to vote--for now--on whether to recommend changing Sullivan's Island zoning ordinances to allow stand-alone recreation structures on single-family properties. Instead, the Commission decided to appoint an ad hoc committee to meet to discuss the issue further, and report back to the Planning Commission. Another Public Hearing may be scheduled for August.

Below is the link to the Planning Commission report about the issue from its June meeting. A copy of the report is also attached. Note in particular the comments by the East Cooper Land Trust. East Cooper Land Trust is the entity working with Chad Waldorf, one of the owners of 3117 Marshall Boulevard. The owners want to have a conservation easement placed on the lot, remove the single-family home that is there now and construct a recreation structure for their personal use.

Catherine Main, Executive Director of East Cooper Land Trust, spoke in support of the zoning change.  Ms. Main states that she would like to see the Town be lenient with its restrictions to incentivize other Island property owners to follow Mr. Waldorf’s lead. 

Contact Town Council and the Planning Commission and let the members know what you think about this proposed change to Sullivan's Island's zoning code.

http://www.sullivansisland-sc.com/Files/Planning%20Commission/Council%20Reports/2015%20Reports%20to%20Council/Report%20from%20PC%20(6-10-2015%20activity)%20to%20Town%20Council%20for%20its%206-16-2015%20Meeting%20(6-11-2015).pdf

Planning Commission Report to Town Council pg 1

Planning Commission Report to Towm Council, pg 2

Slippery slope away from single family residential on SI?

Is this our future on SI?

Sullivan's Island voters have overwhelmingly voted--over and over and over again--for Sullivan's Island to remain a single-family residential community. And the Sullivan's Island Comprehensive Plan--the plan just updated by Town Council last summer--mandates a single-family residential community on Sullivan's Island.

Current ordinances do not allow for stand-alone accessory structures on a property without a principal structure on the property.

But now a small group of islanders wants Town Council to change that. These islanders want Town Council to allow them to build a stand-alone structure on the beachfront for their personal recreational use. 

Several different families would have an ownership interest in this recreation structure. The structure would have electricity and running water. There would be no principal, single-family structure on the property, as is now required under existing zoning ordinances.  The property in question is located at 3117 Marshall Boulevard. 

According to Town staff, the requested land use change would be significant for the Island and could potentially be a slippery slope for long-term unforeseen problems.

Zoning Administrator Joe Henderson concluded that, should the Town be inclined to allow stand-alone structures and/or other accessory uses on private property as a principal use, the following should be considered: 

1. The proposed land use change does not comply with the language and intent of the Town’s current zoning ordinances. Current zoning ordinances only allow one single-family detached dwelling per lot in the residential district, designed for and occupied exclusively as a residence by one family, either owner or renter occupied. 

2. The proposed land use change does not comport with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 9, Land Use Element, of the Comprehensive Plan defines residential land as “locations intended for occupants to live together as a single housekeeping unit, with one residentially zoned parcel with only one dwelling unit on it.” (5-year Plan was reviewed and approved in 2013-2014). 

3. The proposed land use change would apply to all residentially-zoned properties on the island, whether currently vacant land or lots with an existing residential structure on it. 

4. Below are the are long-term unintended consequences that need to be considered should this land use change be allowed:

•  Parking on the property – how many and how would Town  regulate this?

•   Number of people gathering on the property and how Town would enforce any restrictions?

•  Identify accessory uses allowed on the property and what structures would be allowed: pools, tennis courts, pool cabanas, etc. 

•  How would the property’s use impact the land use, enjoyment, privacy and peace of neighboring residents, currently and long-term? 

• Long-term ownership of the property: potential private beach club or private “amenity center” within a residential block; 

•  Long-term maintenance of property and accessory structures on it 

•  Long-term impact to property values for neighborhood 

• Consideration of burden on Town to police the site for trespassing, noise, littering and other unwanted activity 

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

The Planning Commission is holding a public hearing on Wednesday, July 8 at 6:30 to discuss this very important and precedent-setting issue. Please make every effort to attend!  And let the Planning Commission and Town Council know how you feel about this land use change on Sullivan's Island and the potential long-term consequences for the entire community.

In addition, contact Town Council and find out which of the 7 council members support changing the single-family residential ordinance to accommodate personal recreational structures. Are the positions of the 4 newly elected Town Council members and Mayor Pat O'Neil consistent with the promises made during the very recent mayoral and Town Council elections to protect and preserve the single-family residential nature of the island?
    
                                                     
"Changes occurring in the community should be given careful attention in order to assure that there is not a loss in the character or charm of Sullivan’s Island. It is this ambiance that has drawn people to live here since the 18th Century. The main vision of the comprehensive plan is to preserve the residential character of the Island and the commercial area in a condition very similar to how they currently appear, working to preserve the memory of Sullivan’s Island from the past two centuries." 

Sullivan's Island Comprehensive Plan, pg 106 (see below)