A Very Positive Development

Significant changes are in store for this year's Saint Patrick's Day festivities on Sullivan's Island. For starters, the event will be celebrated on only one day--Tuesday, March 17--from 10 a.m. until dusk. Holding the event on only one day, and only during daylight hours should make an enormous difference. 

In addition, only Dunleavy's will have outside alcohol sales (beer trucks) and only Station 22 1/2 between Middle St. and I'On Avenue will be closed to traffic for the event. SI Police supervision will be increased this year. 

Each restaurant will provide its own security. The popular and successful Childrens' Day Festival will take place in Stith Park on the Saturday before St. Patrick's Day--March 14th--from 10 - Noon. (In previous years, the Children's Day Festival has been held on the same day as the other St. Patrick's Day festivities.)

Only one business has applied for a permit for a street party so far, and the recommendation by the Public Safety Committee was that no more applications be accepted. Individual establishments may have St. Patrick’s Day festivities inside their properties, but the crowd will be limited to the maximum legal occupancy of the buildings, as set by the fire marshall.

 
Town Council will vote on the recommendations at the regular Town Council meeting on Tuesday, January 20.

Although the Public Safety Committee meeting was held at a very inconvenient time for many islanders (4:30on a Tuesday), and had been rescheduled from December 3rd, 20-25 residents attended the meeting. Representatives of Dunleavy's, Home Team, and Poe's were in attendance, and spoke emphatically about getting the mayhem out of the St. Patrick's Day Festivities. They said they want islanders to see them as being sensitive to residents.

The islanders at the meeting reacted positively to the many changes recommended by the Public Safety Committee, and were gratified to see that the restaurant owners had made significant concessions. Only time will tell if this event will return to the low-key festivity that it used to be.

Bravo to the restaurant/bar owners for acceding to the wishes and interests of residents!

Karen and Barbara

sicommunityimpact.com

Long-awaited Public Safety Committee meeting Tuesday at 4:30

Tuesday is your opportunity to let Town Council know how you feel about the St. Patrick's Day celebration on Sullivan's Island, and what changes you would like to see this year, to make sure there is not a repeat of last year's debacle. 

The Sullivan's Island Public Safety Committee meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 13, at 4:30 at the Fire Station on Middle Street. The St. Patrick's Day discussion is the only item on the agenda.

The Fire Station is located at 2050 Middle Street, in front of Town Hall. The meeting will be in the Training Room on the 2nd floor.

The Public Safety Committee originally scheduled the St. Patrick's Day discussion for December 3rd, but at the last minute, announced it was changing the meeting agenda and rescheduling the discussion for January 13th. The large group of attendees at the meeting was clearly disappointed with the delay. But January 13th is now here, and islanders will at long last have their chance to let Town Council know what changes they would like to see for the St. Patrick's Day celebration this year. 

So come to the SI Fire Station on Tuesday afternoon at 4:30 and make your voices heard! 

Karen and Barbara
sicommunityimpact.com

P.S. No one issue on Sullivan's Island has generated more anger and consternation among islanders than the 2014 St. Patrick's Day celebration. Irate islanders filled Town Council meetings in March and April last year to demand that Town Council make changes before the 2015 event. 

Here is the link to a letter to the editor, written last April by former Mayor Carl Smith, describing what went on, based on police reports about the St. Patrick's Day event, and also, what changes could be made to improve the situation going forward: http://bit.ly/1DQIBw.

Pat O'Neil elected Mayor of Sullivan's Island

Congratulations and very best wishes to our new mayor, Pat O'Neil! Here are the numbers: 

Keith Blandford: 31 votes  

Jerry Kaynard: 270 votes

Pat O'Neil: 542 votes

Vote for Sullivan's Island mayor today!

Today is Election Day on Sullivan's Island! If you have not yet voted, go to Sunrise Presbyterian and VOTE! This election is critically important to the future of our historic residential community. Your vote is your voice!

Polls are open until 7:00 tonight. Call your neighbors and make sure they have voted. Or offer to take a neighbor to vote.

Make sure every voice is heard! EVERY VOTE COUNTS!!! 

Former Mayor Carl Smith Endorses Pat O'Neil for Mayor of SI

It is hard to believe that election day on Sullivan's Island is just a few days away--this coming Tuesday, January 6!  In the interest of getting information out to Sullivan's Island voters about the election, SI CI is encouraging islanders to send in comments and candidate endorsements. 
Below is a letter from former council member and Mayor Carl Smith, endorsing Pat O'Neil for mayor:

          A letter to the voters of Sullivan’s Island

When I vote for the next mayor of Sullivan’s Island on January 6^th, 2015, I WILL VOTE FOR COUNCILMAN PAT O’NEIL. I will not vote for Councilman Jerry Kaynard for several reasons, listed below.

In 2007 the town was in the process of hiring and paying consultants a large sum of money to provide a development plan for our Commercial District, I was Mayor at this time and suggested that Councilman Kaynard, might want to recuse himself from taking part in the development plan since he owned commercial property on the Island. 

When he refused it became necessary for me to appear before the South Carolina Ethics Commission in Columbia, who issued a formal advisory opinion on January 16, 2008. In this opinion the commission concluded that Councilman Kaynard should not vote or participate in drafting or amending ordinances that affect the Commercial district. 

Had Councilman Kaynard done the honorable and right thing to begin with, the Ethics Commission opinion would not have been needed. As Mayor, I did not want the town to spend its money on a plan only to have it challenged and rejected due to a conflict of interest on the part of one of the council members.

During the mayoral public forum, Councilman Kaynard talked about the need for transparency in government. Yet, it was he who engineered the amendment to our ordinances that changed a process that required three readings and ratification (usually a two to three month process) to a process that can create or amend an ordinance in seven days. 

If transparency is important to councilman Kaynard, then why shortcut a process that limits public review. What was his motivation for this?

For the past several years Councilman Kaynard has received what amounts to an $8,000.00 to $10,000.00 a year income from the town by way of paid Health insurance benefits, the same afforded town employees. He has made no overture to repay the town and in effect, his actions have cost the taxpayers from $8,000.00 to $10,000.00 each year. During the mayoral public forum Councilman Kaynard told us he did not receive any compensation from the town.  

 In my 26 years on the town council we always rejected the idea of any income. Instead, we took pride in just serving the Island selflessly.

I have always believed in community service, not community self-service.

Please join me and VOTE FOR PAT O’NEIL, our next mayor, on January 6^th.

Respectfully yours,

Carl Smith 
                               

                                 



                                                                                                                       

Conservationist vs. Conservationist-In-Name-Only (CINO)

The SI mayoral election is now less than a week away! Election Day is next Tuesday, January 6. In the interest of getting information out to Sullivan's Island voters about this critically important election, SI CI is encouraging islanders to send in comments and candidate endorsements. Below is a letter from islander Norman Khoury. Norman chairs the Sullivan's Islanders Group, a group of islanders whose focus is conservation and preservation on Sullivan's Island. Here is the letter:
                      
There is a world of difference between a true conservationist and a CINO. Among those running for mayor of Sullivan's Island, let's see if we can tell the difference.

A true conservationist can always see the value in conserving the ever vanishing green spaces of our city and towns. The CINO might espouse conservation as long as it doesn't affect his personal self-interest or occur in his own backyard.

A true conservationist will be in favor of protecting our town owned protected maritime land. He would support a plan that included input from all interested town residents. He would base his decisions on science and the advice of experts. The CINO would always support as much cutting and vegetation clearing as possible. He might support conserving some of the maritime land in front of the school and Fort Moultrie, but the remainder of the maritime land between station 16 and 28 he would consider expendable.

A CINO conservationist would be in favor of "protecting" only three "priority" trees in the protected land that are larger that 16 inches in diameter. Whose "priority" is this? The true conservationist would know that there are 16+ species of trees that are of value in the land and that clear cutting these would do irreparable harm to the wildlife present there.

Most importantly, a true conservationist can recognize the unique treasure we have on this
Island, a maritime environment that is as much to be enjoyed as it is a place from which to learn and from which our children can gain an appreciation of nature close to their homes. The CINO, despite his rhetoric about conservation, acts as if the forest is a nuisance and will exaggerate any negative aspects to argue for ridding the forest of trees.

Everyone claims to be a "conservationist" at election time because they realize how  important this topic is to the residents of our wonderful island.

Look at the candidates' records and it will be easy to tell the true conservationist from the conservationist-in-name-only (CINO). True compromise is possible only when it is constructed
by a true conservationist and that person is Pat O'Neil.

 INTEGRITY - EXPERIENCE - LEADERSHIP

You can learn more about Pat's experience and those issues he hope to address, if elected, on his website. You can also call (843-670-9266) or email Pat if you wish to discuss the issues (oneilp@sullivansisland-sc.com). 

Sincerely, 

Norman Khoury (normankhoury@comcast.net)

The Sullivan's Islanders Group 
www.sullivansislanders.org

Right man for the job?

The time is getting close! The Sullivan's Island mayoral election is just two weeks away--January 6. In the interest of getting information out to Sullivan's Island voters about this critically important election, SI CI is encouraging islanders to send in comments and candidate endorsements. Posted below is a comment from islander Ad Ingle: 

I think that Jerry Kaynard is not the right man to be the mayor (although he has worked and planned for it for a long time) because of his large amount of property holdings in the Middle Street Area (Downtown SI). I think that there will be too many incidences of 'conflict of interest' that will come up.

Addison Ingle

Coming to a park near you?

While few SI residents seem to question the need to build a new Town Hall, many are concerned about design particulars: the 48' height of the building, the overall size and scale of the facility (especially as related to the adjacent Fire Station), the loss of public parking places, sewer issues, the planned Performance Lawn (amphitheater), and the cutting of trees in the park to accommodate the Town Hall project.

And that is not all that Town Council wants to do at the park! As we learned at the Town Council meeting on December 16, Town Council is also considering a long list of so-called park enhancements, including an in-ground slide down the face of the mound (visible from Middle St.), a maintenance plan for the bamboo forest (???), and terracing of the mound. (The full list is attached.) Does that all say "amphitheater" to you? Could lighting be far behind? 

And that's still not all!  We also learned at the Council meeting that Town Council wants to renovate the Island Club to the tune of about $100,000 (!!!), complete with cathedral ceilings. We learned there has even been some discussion of moving the Island Club to the park, although no one at the meeting could say where exactly where it would go. 

And there's even more! To go along with all of these new recreation facilities, Town Council plans to increase Town staff by hiring an events coordinator. 

And how does Town Council plan to pay for all of this? Through even more increases in fees and taxes. Question for readers: For whom is Town Council doing this? According to the Comprehensive Plan, the biggest population increase on SI has been in the 55-74 year-old age group--up a whopping 66% in recent years. The 25-54 year-old age group has actually declined by 28%. The number of children on SI has declined by 13%. Overall,  population growth on SI is projected to be less than 2% for the next 15 years. So how many residents would be sliding down the in-ground slide?

Clearly, the new Town Hall project will have a major impact on Sullivan’s Island residents—financially and aesthetically—for generations to come. And all of the proposed enhancements will undoubtedly generate more traffic and more congestion from visitors to Sullivan's Island. 

So why is Town Council exempting the new Town Hall and the park enhancements from the normal design review process? Town Council has said on several occasions that it is putting itself in charge of design review for the Town Hall project because the site is not zoned. But is that reasoning in line with state law and Sullivan’s Island ordinances? 

Take a look at a document posted on the Town of SI website. The document reflects state law and outlines a specific process municipalities are required to follow when reviewing a public project such as a Town Hall or other municipal facility. As stated on pages 13 & 14 (attached), public projects must be submitted for review to  the Planning Commission and no new street, structure, utility, square, park or other public way, grounds, open space or public buildings for any use, whether publicly or privately owned, may be constructed or authorized in the geographic area within the jurisdiction of the planning commission until the location, character and extent of such activities have been submitted to the local planning commission. (S.C. Code § 6-29-540). 

That's a pretty comprehensive list--and a pretty comprehensive review process! The law would certainly seem to apply to the new Town Hall, as well as the park enhancements and the Island Club renovations. 

Also take a look at the attached article written by attorney Bradford Wyche in the Southeastern Environmental Law Journal.* Mr. Wyche states on page 5 (attached) that there are many places in South Carolina in which land is not zoned. He notes, however, that local zoning ordinances apply to public projects, regardless of whether a site is zoned.  The purpose of the state law is not to stop a Town Council from building a particular project, but to make the public aware that the project may be starting and to give the public the opportunity to decide whether to become involved politically and try to have the project stopped or modified. 

So the fact that the site for the new Town Hall is not zoned would not appear to be an appropriate reason for Town Council to put itself in charge of design review for the project.

Yes, SI needs a new Town Hall. And some residents may even want a slide down the face of the mound, a performance lawn in the park, $100,000 of renovations to the Island Club, and an events coordinator to manage all of the recreational activities. And they may even want to pay higher taxes and fees to fund it.

But shouldn't it be done the right way? As one council member pointed out at the Town Council meeting in November, there are different functions for Sullivan’s Island’s boards and commissions, set by state law.  So true!

Town Council should make sure all of the boards and commissions on Sullivan’s Island function as state law intends.  And also make sure that islanders are provided the inclusive, participatory review process intended by state law and repeatedly promised to us by Town Council.

Karen and Barbara

sicommunityimpact.com

Proposed Improvements to Stith Park

Planning Commission Review of Public Project

Southeastern Environmental Law Journal, pg 5

*Bradford W. Wyche, An Overview of Land Use Regulation in South Carolina, 11 Southeastern Envtl. L.J. 183, 192-193 (2003)

Letter from SI voter: Desperately Seeking Leadership

Our goal at SI Community Impact is to get information out to islanders about what is happening on Sullivan's Island and the impact of it all on the entire community.  To that end, we have encouraged islanders to send us letters and other information to post on SI CI. Our hope is that SI CI can become a forum for islanders to communicate with each other about significant issues in the community. 

SI CI does not plan to endorse a candidate for mayor, but we are happy to post letters and candidate endorsements sent to us by other islanders. Particularly as we enter the last weeks of this critically important mayoral race, we encourage islanders to write letters about the candidates and issues of concern to you. 

Below is a thoughtful letter from islander Ed Allen, endorsing Pat O'Neil for Mayor of Sullivan's Island. 

Karen and Barbara

sicommunityimpact.com

Here is Ed's letter:

At the December 3rd  town hall meeting to meet the mayoral candidates, Jerry Kaynard's sudden "man of the people" comment that he would like to have a town hall meeting for every issue was completely opposite to his track record. 

This is the man who fought tooth and nail to prevent a good faith petition for referendum (the ultimate town hall), and stated in an open council meeting that there was "a presumed majority" on that controversial issue when clearly there was not. He also once condescended at a Town Council meeting to point out that the council was allowing citizens to speak on a controversial issue at a time when it was not required to do so. The issues here aren't important, but rather the lack of real regard for an opposing view.

Conversely, from the time he took office on council, Pat O'Neil has regularly provided me (and I'm sure many others) with email updates on town matters and public safety issues, and solicited my opinion. He's the only council member that has ever done that. 

He has always been open and willing to not just hear but actually consider my opinion. At the December 3 public forum, Pat had the humility, without prompting, to openly state he wished he could  take back his vote to accelerate the process for passing ordinances. 

That is leadership, and what this town desperately needs. It doesn't matter how many meetings someone has sat in or with whom, it's how well one represents constituents that measures leadership.

I am encouraging all SI Community Impact readers to please vote for Pat and begin the process of restoring the trust in Council that only Pat was willing to admit does not exist. We are all neighbors and we want a Mayor and a Town Council that will really welcome and value our thoughts on what is in the best interests of this special place we love.

Edwin H. Allen - 956 Osceola Avenue - Sullivan's Island,
 SC 29482 - 843.883.8109

What to do about coyotes?

To read the P&C this past week, one would think that Sullivan's Island residents are cowering in fear of salivating, 3-inch-fanged, packs of coyotes. We do have coyotes on our island. So do Mount Pleasant, Isle of Palms, and all of the other towns and cities in our area. 

There may well be more we all can do to effectively manage the coyote population. But are some politicians resorting to scare tactics to alarm island residents? Is this coyote issue being intentionally exaggerated? Could it possibly have anything to do with the upcoming mayoral election?

In spite of little or no communication to the public, the meeting of the SI Public Safety Committee on December 3 was well-attended by islanders. Perhaps we can thank the word of mouth among neighbors and the highly-viewed website, Sullivan's Island Community Impact. The agenda was packed with important issues: coyotes, the logistical operations of the upcoming Polar Bear Swim, and the St. Patrick's Day Festivities (which we islanders affectionately call The Nightmare on Middle Street).

The size of the audience was particularly noteworthy, considering the meeting was scheduled for 3:30 in the afternoon, when many working residents can't attend. Scheduling should be at the convenience of the people. Let's start having these meetings when everyone has the opportunity to participate!

Chair Chauncey Clark announced at the beginning of the meeting that the agenda had been changed and there would be no discussion about the St. Patrick's Day debacle until January 13.  The large audience was clearly disappointed and frustrated with the change in the agenda. One islander had even changed her flight plans to attend the meeting!

The coyote issue is significant. And islanders deserve to know the facts about them in our community. Mayoral candidate Jerry Kaynard spoke up and said that residents have called him about sensing an increase in danger to their children and pets. He stated that one caller "heard" a pack of coyotes on Halloween night while the children were Trick or Treating. Another resident stated that one coyote sits on the opposite side of her 5' fence, and she is in fear of the coyote scaling her fence and attacking her dogs. Another islander said that he saw a coyote on his beach path, and he was afraid of an encounter.

The Public Safety Committee needs to let the Public Safety officers do their jobs. Police Chief Danny Howard stated that there have been NO encounters with a coyote for over a year. He stated that no dogs have been attacked, although there have been some missing cats. He has 5 night-vision cameras placed in strategic spots on the island, and, upon their review, there appears to be no significant increase in the coyote population. Chief Howard offered to place a camera in the vicinity of any islander requesting one.

As was also discussed, there is a petition going around that was signed by 34 residents who support increasing the height of fences from 5' to 7'. (Thirty-four signers constitute less than 3% of the SI population.)  The idea was resoundingly negated by the crowd at the meeting. Chauncey Clark stated that request would have to go through the SI Planning Commission because it would require an ordinance change.

Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed when committee member Pat O'Neil introduced a motion that was originated by Chief Howard. This motion was to lower the threshold for contacting SI Police in case of a coyote encounter. Residents are encouraged to call 843.743.7200 to report a sighting. Call 911 for an emergency. If a coyote is located on a resident's property, and it appears to be threatening or standing its ground, that resident may take whatever means possible to ensure his safety, and the safety of his family and pets.

It is a wise decision to let our Public Safety officials do their jobs. That's what we pay them to do. They have good advice, effective tracking equipment, and are always around when you need them. It is foolish and harmful for island politicians to frighten our citizens with no facts to support that fear.

Lastly, a committee of residents and experts is being formed by islander, Andy McFarland, and committee member, Mary Jane Watson. The survey committee's job will be to examine the facts and issues of coyotes existing in our coastal region and how their existence should play out in our community. If you would like to participate in the creation of this survey, please contact either Andy or Mary Jane.

The Public Committee absolutely DID NOT vote to recommend a proposal to Town Council to increase fence heights on SI. So why would the P&C report that it did? According to a story by reporter Prentiss Findlay, the Public Safety Committee recommended a proposal to increase fence heights to SI Town Council and Council will be voting on the proposal at its December 16th meeting. What!?!

The Public Safety Committee did not even take a vote on increasing fence heights, much less recommend the proposal to Town Council.  Is Chair Chauncey Clark aware that proposal will be on the Town Council's agenda? How did that happen? What about the requirement that such a proposal would have to first go through the Planning Commission? Contact Chauncey at crclark4si@gmail.com and find out how this proposal wound up on Town Council's agenda!

The Polar Bear Swim was minimally discussed. It will be on January 1st, beginning at Noon and the Plunge will take place at 1 pm. It was suggested that the restaurant owners should take on more of the responsibility for security and sanity. 

The audience overwhelmingly supported no outside alcohol beverages, and no beer trucks.It was reported that the Polar Bear Plunge does not reach the dangerous levels of behavior as witnessed on Saint Patrick's Day. Insisting on tighter controls now will diminish that from ever happening.

Stay tuned...

Coyotes, St. Patrick's Day and Managed Parking

There is a critically important meeting of the Sullivan's Island Public Safety Committee on Wednesday, December 3,
at 3:30.  The meeting will be held at SI Town Hall on Middle Street.

On the agenda are three extremely controversial issues that impact 
all SI residents: Coyotes, St. Patrick's Day, and Managed Parking. So why schedule a meeting at a time that is decidedly inconvenient for most islanders?

No topic has generated more anger and controversy in the past year than the St. Patrick's Day drunken fiasco. Irate islanders filled Town Hall at Council meetings in March and April to insist that Town Council make substantial changes to the event. Chauncey Clark chairs the Public Safety Committee and promised to meet with residents and commercial district bar owners by the end of the summer to discuss possible changes. (Minutes linked here.) 

Chauncey did manage to meet with the bar owners, but the promised meeting with islanders never materialized. Chauncey said he just couldn't "find the time" to meet with residents. So once again, Town Council is giving the commercial district precedence over residents. 

As to the coyote issue--The last time Town Council took a vote on managing the coyote issue was last January. The vote was unanimous, with all council members in favor. Mayor Perkis noted that he preferred to get more education before the wholesale removal of the coyotes.

According to the minutes of that meeting, all members of Town Council:

1) voted  to adopt a report from  Public Safety Committee; 
2) to ask the Public Safety Committee to provide Council with recommendations on coyote issues; and 
3) to allow the Police Department to hire a trapper as needed. 

Note: It is not clear what the report from the Public Safety Commitee actually recommended, since the report adopted by Town Council was not a written report. In response to an email, Andy Benke stated that there was only a verbal recap from the police chief, who stated that coyote sightings were up from the summer months and that the department will continue to monitor the reports/sightings for signs of aggressive behavior. The Public Safety Committee was to review the coyote policy to see if aggressive behavior was being adequately addressed. 

Now we hear that Jerry Kaynard has told some residents that he will "get rid" of the coyote problem. In addition, there are some islanders who have signed a petition to be allowed to build SEVEN-FOOT privacy fences around their properties to keep these "dangerous" creatures out of their yards. 

Is this going to be recommended at the meeting on Wednesday afternoon, with no further input from islanders? Do a substantial number of islanders actually favor allowing residents to build 7-foot privacy fences all around their homes?  Have islanders been surveyed on this issue?

As to Managed (paid) Parking--Who knows what is really going on with that? Town Council continues to tell islanders that managed parking is a critically important issue, and that SI must make a decision about it before this summer, since IOP is doing that, and SI will be inundated with cars and traffic if we do not follow suit. IOP held a public forum on October 2 to get feedback from IOP residents on the parking issue.  

We discovered that Jery Kaynard and Susan Middaugh attended the IOP forum, but Town Council has chosen not to share with SI residents many of the complex issues involved with managed parking and how SI residents will be impacted when it is implemented. And we also discovered that Town Council is using a traffic plan from 2009 to make decisions for the Summer of 2015 and beyond.(Wouldn't a 5-6-year-old traffic study be somewhat dated? Does that make any sense?)

The Public Safety Committee meeting on December 3rd at 3:30 is an important meeting to attend. Islanders need to show up and speak out. 

Clearly, Chauncey Clark has time to listen to bar owners, but he has no time to meet with residents. He accepts a petition signed by about 25 residents on the coyote issue, but he hasn't the time to assess how other islanders all feel about the coyote presence on the island.

PLEASE TRY TO ATTEND THIS MEETING. IT IS TIME FOR THIS COUNCIL TO LISTEN TO THE RESIDENTS!!!

More unwanted change on Sullivan's Island?

So what is the real reason the SI Planning Commission is reviewing  deed restrictions on the 3-acre lot on Station 19 (aka The Dump) and the vacant lot next to the boat landing? Explanations so far have been confusing at best. 

The Planning Commission told islanders attending the November 10th meeting that it wants to review the deed restrictions in order to come up with a management plan that confirms what can be done with the properties. But the Planning Commission's minutes for October say something different--that the purpose of reviewing deed restrictions is to discuss "potential allowed uses" for the properties. So what is really going on?

And how did this review process start in the first place? Who brought up the issue of reviewing the deed restrictions on these properties? The lots were just protected by the Mount Pleasant Land Conservancy a couple of years ago-- in May of 2012.  And Town Council just approved an update to the Comprehensive Plan this past July, following a year of intensive review by the Planning Commission. Why is PC discussing "potential allowed uses" for these deed-restricted properties so soon after that?

Could this "review" possibly be the first step in a sadly familiar routine by Town Council--a la the coffee shop amendment? Remember that the coffee shop amendment process all started with a supposed need by Town Council to "clean up" and clarify Town ordinances as they applied to eating establishments. And as we all know, the end result was that Town Council approved a controversial zoning change allowing up to four more restaurants (coffee shops) on the island.

Are residents on SI clamoring for changes to these properties? (Is there a survey showing this as a priority for residents?) Has Town Council or the Planning Commission contacted neighboring property owners to let them know that Council is considering potential new uses for the properties and what the impact on the neighborhood would be? 

What is the position of each of the mayoral candidates?  If the candidates do not support potential changes for these properties, each of them should just say so.

Those of us who care about conservation and preservation--and parking, traffic, congestion, and maintaining our quality of life on Sullivan's Island--should probably keep a sharp eye, just to be sure more unwanted change is not in the air...


For more information about what is happening on Sullivan's Island and the impact on the entire SI community, go to sicommunityimpact.com.
                       

Does Town Council have plans for deed-restricted lots?

Why did the Sullivan's Island Planning Commission discuss deed-restricted lots at its meeting last Wednesday?  Does Town Council plan to sell even more Town-owned property? Or is the plan to make more even more property available to visitors for recreation? 

The two parcels under discussion were the 3-acre parcel on Station 19 (aka The Dump), and the half-acre parcel next to the Benke-Lowe boat landing.  These parcels were just added to the Town's protected green space in May of 2012. The event was marked with great fanfare.  

Susan Middaugh wrote at the time in Island Eye that "this welcome event was three years in the making and due to the efforts of many island residents and Town Council members." Susan goes on to suggest saying thanks to Carl Smith, Pat O'Neil, and island residents "who value conservation and preservation of our green spaces."

So what does Town Council have in mind now? Is this going to be just one more thing that will bring more traffic, more congestion, and more parking issues to Sullivan's Island? And just one more thing to be done for the benefit of visitors, at the expense of  Sullivan's Island residents? 

Jerry Kaynard is running for Mayor and says he favors surveys of residents in developing Town priorities. So where is the survey showing that residents are in favor of doing anything different with these properties?

Here is the link to the Planning Commission's most recent Report to Council: http://bit.ly/1xswiUo

Excerpt: Commission will review, at the November meeting, additional information regarding vacant deed restricted lots on the Island, Town ordinance language regarding privately maintained beach access paths and actionable items from the Natural Resources Needs & Goals.

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

For more information on what is happening on Sullivan's Island and the impact on the entire community, go to Sullivan's Island Community Impact.

Upcoming Special Election on SI

Everyone has probably heard the sad news that Sullivan's Island Mayor Mike Perkis passed away on October 7.  Our thoughts are with the Perkis family, and with all who knew Mike as a friend, respected leader and colleague, and fellow islander. Mike's passing leaves a significant void in the Sullivan's Island community. 

Due to this unfortunate circumstance, there will be a special election on Sullivan's Island to fill the office of mayor, as required by state law. The special mayoral election will be held on Tuesday, January 6. The person elected will serve out the remaining 2 and 1/2 years of Mike's term. 

These next couple of months will be filled with thoughts of cooler temperatures, spending more time with family and friends, getting ready for Halloween and Trick or Treaters, planning a Thanksgiving feast, enjoying the excitement of the holidays, and anticipating the arrival of a new year. This year, however, due to the unfortunate circumstances, islanders will also have the added gift of exercising our right to vote.

The person elected as mayor must be an islander who can govern with integrity, fairness, and objectivity. This person must be capable of envisioning an island that speaks to the very soul of our community's history and unique sense of place.This person must be able to lead by recognizing and acting upon the needs and interests of Sullivan's Island residents--first, last, and always.

Be thinking of friends and neighbors who would be good candidates, and encourage them to run. The next few months are critical to the future of our unique island community.

For more information on many issues impacting the SI community, go to sicommunityimpact.com and scroll through. You can also check us out on Facebook, at Sullivan’s Island Community Impact.

So What Happened at the Town Council Meeting?

Sullivan's Island Town Hall was filled to the brim for the September Town Council meeting. The issue for most was the issue of the accreted land. 

Over 30 Sullivan's Island residents signed up to speak to the accreted land issue during the public comment period. Of the 30 who spoke, all but 3 spoke in favor of the compromise position, under which the protected land would be maintained and managed by professional biologists and ecologists, under a management plan developed specifically for the accreted land on Sullivan's Island. 

The accreted land issue is emotional and complicated, and has starkly divided neighbors and friends throughout the SI community ever since the lawsuit was filed 5 years ago. The lawsuit is challenging Town rules for beachfront homeowners who want to cut back trees, shrubs, and other vegetation on public land. The lawsuit is endorsed by the owners of about 118 lots on Sullivan's Island.  Of the total, 64 of the lots are not on the front row of houses closest to the Atlantic Ocean. To put those numbers somewhat in perspective, there are about 1,050 or so households on all of Sullivan's Island. 

A judge has ordered mediation to resolve the lawsuit. As reported by Prentiss Findlay in the Post and Courier, many residents are concerned about the mediation, and would much prefer a jury trial. The concern is that the issue will now be decided out of the public eye. The court-ordered mediation was scheduled for Wednesday, September 17. 

No vote related to the accreted land was taken at the September Town Council meeting.  Town Council did take a vote at the Town Council meeting on May 20. Many islanders attended the May meeting and were surprised and alarmed by the manner in which that vote was handled by several council members. Here are the minutes of that meeting: http://www.sullivansisland-sc.com/Files/Council%20Meeting%20Minutes/Minutes%202014/05202014%20Council%20Minutes.pdf. The discussion regarding the transition zones begins on page 3.

Interestingly, the Post and Courier  article quoted council member Jerry Kaynard as saying that there is no majority opinion one way or the other on SI about how the accreted land situation should be handled. Given the vocal support at the last Town Council meeting for professional management of the land, that is a somewhat curious comment!  The article also noted that the state Department of Natural Resources has said that the forested area of the beach offers protection for the nesting and hatching sea turtles, provides habitat afor nesting and migrating land birds, and supports more than 125 plant species.

The accreted land issue has been much in the news lately. In addition to the Post and Courier article, there was recently a letter to the editor , and a thoughtful article by former Town Council member Penn Hagood.

For information on many other issues impacting the SI community, go to Sullivan's Island Community Impact .