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

Recreation sheds (cont'd)

The recreation shed zoning issue rolls on, in spite of much controversy about it and much island-wide opposition from residents. The amendment was on the agenda of the well-attended LUNR (Land Use and Natural Resources) committee meeting on October 8th at 8:30 am.

After some discussion, LUNR decided to put the recreation shed issue on the Workshop agenda for Monday, October 12th, for discussion by the full council. The Workshop will be held at 6:00 pm at the temporary town hall, 2050-B Middle St. 

The three council members serving on LUNR are Rita Langley (Chair), Chauncey Clark, and Mayor Pat O'Neil. The LUNR meeting on Thursday went much the way of the Planning Commission meetings on the recreation shed issue. Once again, many of the specific questions and concerns that have been raised by islanders at meetings and in written correspondence were not presented or addressed. 

Pat O'Neil did mention that a number of islanders were concerned about the fact that Town Council appeared to be planning to change the island-wide zoning code in order to accommodate just a few individuals.  He commented on that issue by saying something to the effect that many changes made by Town Council start with a request by one islander. 

He also mentioned another concern raised by a number of islanders, which is that the Town would lose property tax revenue if houses are removed and replaced by recreation structures. That is definitely true. But in spite of that, and for reasons that have never been fully explained at any of the many meetings on the recreation shed issue, islanders are told that having a recreation shed instead of a single-family home on a property is a good thing for the entire community. 

Councilman Chauncey Clark commented that the neighbors of the property on Marshall Boulevard were supportive of the island-wide zoning change, and that what residents in a surrounding neighborhood support is a very important consideration. Not mentioned were the many property owners in other neighborhoods on Sullivan's Island who do not want to potentially have a recreation shed next door. 

Chauncey joked that because of the erosion occurring on the north end of Sullivan's Island, if Town Council did not hurry up and approve the zoning amendment, the lot in question may not even exist. He did state after the meeting,  in response to a question from an islander, that having a recreation shed on the lot instead of a house would not slow down the rate of erosion.

There has been much correspondence with Town Council from islanders opposing the recreation shed amendment. As always, SI CI is happy to post letters and other information on issues of importance to SI residents. Below is an excellent letter from islander Ad Ingle: 

This letter is for the September 9th meeting of the Planning Committee.  My reaction is to vote against the whole plan. (I know I don't really have a vote!) First of all, I am not sure why the new Zoning Ordinance Amendment for "stand-alone structures" and "recreational uses on residentially zoned properties depends on easements having been established.  But, I guess lawyers know what is best!

The whole idea sounds bad to me.  The small size of the allowed structures coupled with the allowed number of people (24) surprises me. That is really jamming a lot of people into a small space.  All of those people arriving and having only 2 parking spaces would seem to be a possible nuisance to the neighbors.

The main objection which I have is that no sewer facilities will be allowed.  Perhaps that is the blessing in disguise that will kill this whole deal.

Addison Ingle

1719 Atlantic Avenue

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

So make plans to attend the workshop at 6:00 this Monday! If you cannot attend, contact Town Council about the amendment.