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)

For the Favored Few

With minimal notice and no fanfare, Sullivan’s Island Town Council voted on June 1st to increase property taxes by 6 mils. That is about $200 per residence each year for the average owner-occupied home.  Property taxes on rental properties will increase even more. At the same meeting, Town Council voted to increase water and sewer fees paid by residents by about 6%. 

Notably, the votes were taken at a special meeting, held AFTER the May 5th election. 

The 6 mil increase in property taxes is a far cry from what was presented to SI residents when the financing of the new Town Hall was publicly discussed a couple of years ago. The minutes of the special meeting on December 13, 2013, show that Town Council stated then that only a 3% millage increase would be required.

When asked in late May about the current shortfall between revenue and expenses, Mayor Pat O'Neil told Island Eye that Town Council needed to look at Town expenditures to see where there were savings. So why does the budget still include $120,000 in additional recreation expenditures? Is this truly a necessary expense that warrants raising taxes on all SI homeowners?

Much of the $120,000 would go toward improving the Island Club building. For those who may not know, the Island Club recently returned its lease to the Town of Sullivan’s Island because of declining membership and an inability to cover its own expenses.

With this vote on the budget, SI Town Council is requiring the vast majority of SI residents who do not use the Island Club in the first place to support it with their tax dollars.

It is well worth noting that both of the council members who actively pushed for increasing recreation expenditures were resoundingly defeated in the May 5th election. What does THAT say about island-wide support for spending more taxpayer dollars on recreation?

The Sullivan's Island community voted overwhelmingly to go in a new direction, first in January with the mayoral race, and again in May with the Town Council election. 

So why is Town Council continuing to divide the island by forcing all residents to pay for items supported by only a favored few?


Town of SI FY 2016 Revenue Projections

Town of SI FY 2016 Expense Projections

Taking a Bite Out of Your Wallet

Have you noticed that the coyote problem has just kinda...gone away? Sightings are more and more rare. Night vision cameras are showing no signs of their presence. Even Edgar Allen Pig is nevermore (sorry).  No sightings and no attacks, but islanders can expect a big, bad bite anyway. Right in their wallets!

The most recent issue of The Island Eye quotes our new mayor, Pat O'Neil, stating that our town's budget is out of balance by $324,154. "We need to look at expenditures to see where there are savings. We need to look at revenues to see where we can increase them. The only one we can raise is property taxes."

Did this Council really look to see where expenditures could be cut? I hope all residents will take a strong look at the 2016 budget. Do you think there are any tax-funded, and unnecessary, expenditures that you could live without? Need to see a copy of the 2016 budget? Please call Ellen Miller, 883.3158, and request a copy. And don't forget to ask for a copy of the building contract between the Town and Hill Construction. 

The Island Club and The Park Foundation are 2 community organizations included for funding in the 2016 budget. They are to receive $120,000 for improvements and enhancements.  That figure represents 30% of the "necessary" $324,154 increase needed to operate our town. Why? 

Historically, both of these organizations were founded on the voluntary participation of islanders to use their own time and talent to achieve community goals. They were never intended to become a liability to the Town and its taxpaying residents. 

By contrast, the popular Battery Gadsden Cultural Center consists of islanders whose passion is preserving Sullivan's Island history, while sponsoring cultural activities in art, music, and education. They neither ask nor receive town money, and their success is noteworthy.

Equally noteworthy is the astounding cost of our new Town Hall. Council Member Chauncey Clark stated, "WE made a decision to build a new town hall, to get a new fire truck, and now WE have to follow through." Huh? WE islanders NEVER had a vote on a new town hall. Only 7 islanders did, and they are our town council members who, once again, denied islanders a voice on the cost, size, and scope of another predictably huge structure. 

The new town hall is projected to dwarf the Fire Station when completed.  What started as a $2.9 million dollar project (see attachment below) has now risen to a $3.9+ million dollar project that Town Council has also somehow exempted from the Town's building and zoning ordinances. Doesn't this sound familiar?

NOTE TO THE READER:  Two SI council members were resoundingly voted off of council in town elections held one month ago. Another council member wisely chose not to seek reelection. Newly elected council members have promised an "Islanders First" agenda. Long overdue and feeling much frustration, islanders want a voice on all significant issues. These new council members, Bachman Smith, Rita Langley, Mark Howard, and Sarah Church must stand with islanders who have placed their trust in the promise of a new direction for Sullivan's Island.

Whiney Coyote (Karen Coste)

Cost Comparison for 3 Town Hall options, July17, 2012

Post and Courier: Incumbents Ousted in Sullivan's Elections

Four fresh faces win seats on Sullivan’s Town Council 

Prentiss Findlay

Sullivan’s Island — The Town Council will have a majority made up of newcomers voted into office Tuesday, according to unofficial results.

The new council members are Bachman Smith IV, Rita Langley, Mark Howard and Sarah Church. Incumbents Jerry Kaynard and Mary Jane Watson lost bids for re-election.

Smith, Langley and Howard were elected to four-year terms. Church won the unexpired two-year-term of Councilman Pat O’Neil who was victorious in a special election for mayor in January.

Voter turnout Tuesday was 42 percent and results will be certified Thursday, said Robie Scott, chairwoman of the island election commission

.

In the race for four-year terms, Smith got 487 votes, Langley 402, Howard 357, Watson 287 and Kaynard 233. For the two-year seat, Church received 397 votes to Dave Spurgin’s 246, Scott said.

“I feel like a lot of the folks on the island were frustrated with a little bit of inertia, a little bit of gridlock,” Smith said.

The Council has seven members including the mayor.

Controversy surrounding the design of the new, much larger elementary school galvanized some folks as far as questions of Council accountability and transparency, he said. “There was a feeling that there needed to be some fresh thinking, some fresh ideas,” Smith said.

Resident Barbara Spell said after she voted that the island needs a comprehensive financial plan to take the politics and emotion out of the decision-making process. “That’s what would unify Sullivan’s Island. We aren’t getting transparency from our council members,” she said.

Tom Proctor, another resident, said he was concerned the town might charge beach visitors for parking. “The beach is everybody’s,” he said.

Issues facing the new Council include how best to manage the island’s maritime forest.

Sullivan’s plans to construct a new Town Hall to replace the one that had to be abandoned because of a mold problem that was making staffers sick. For some time, the island has been working to manage its coyote problem. 

An overhaul of its aging sewer system is planned because of cracks in pipes that let in stormwater which in turn can strain the capacity of the wastewater processing plant. Parking for beachgoers remains an important issue as well as management of the relationship between the commercial district and nearby residents.

O’Neil was in the middle of a four-year Council term when he decided to run for mayor to fill out the rest of the term of the late Mike Perkis who died of pancreatic cancer in October. O’Neil, who defeated Kaynard to win the mayor’s race in January, will serve in the town’s top elected post until May of 2017.

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150505/PC16/150509671/1177/robust-turnout-reported-for-sullivan-x2019-s-island-elections

Dave Spurgin on the Issues: Reeling in haphazard spending

Biggest issue facing Sullivan's Island 

The biggest issue facing the town is the impending financial storm that is quickly bearing down on us. This turmoil was created when we started borrowing large sums of money to pay for projects with absolutely zero plans for how to pay it back.

Let me say this again. In the near future we will be faced with the very real choice of selling more town lots, raising property taxes, or increasing fees across the board—or a combination of all three—to pay back the money we have borrowed.

I have spent hours in recent weeks talking with town staff reviewing town finances. We simply do not generate enough tax revenue to cover any new projects. If our current financial strategies do not change soon, it is just a matter of time before you see your property tax bills increase significantly. The real question then will not be by how much property taxes and fees increase, but how often they increase.

Regardless of how this election turns out, we must immediately implement a comprehensive financial plan that takes into account both long-term and short-term capital needs, and meets our long-term debt obligations. Continuing to spend money on pet projects without thought of how to pay for them must stop.

It would take a minimum increase in the millage rate of 8 points for the next 15 years just to cover our current debt. Not to mention that we will need additional millage rate increases just to balance our budget for cost-of-living allowances each year. We will also need an additional millage rate increase to fund the repairs to the sewer network alone which will increase the millage rate another 7 points. And water bills will stay excessively high through at least 2029.

Some will say that the easiest fix is to simply sell more lots. But do we really want to deplete our asset pool beyond what we already have?

In the last 24 months Town Council has sold 6 lots. In the previous 20 years they sold only 2. It is estimated that we only have 10-14 lots remaining. This is troubling because once the lots are gone, we will have no recourse other than to look to residents to pay for future projects. This will inevitably lead to discussions on raising property taxes, increasing density on the island, and even attempting to pull some of the accreted land out of the trust for lot sales.

I would encourage every resident to call current and prospective councilpersons and ask them about our financial situation. If they cannot give you a succinct answer in three minutes, then I 
question whether they should be on Town Council.

I deeply believe that the people make the best decisions when it comes to government. We just have to step out of the way and let their voices be heard. If given the chance to serve, I will work hard to earn your vote, and more importantly your trust.

Dave Spurgin

Candidate for the 2-year seat on Sullivan's Island Town Council
843-532-2644
davespurgin@yahoo.com

More questions from Island Eye--Candidates respond

The candidates for Sullivan's Island Town Council responded to another set of  interesting questions from Island Eye News. (Note:  Following the election on May 5th, this article was updated to include only responses from the 4 winning candidates.)

This week's questions concern lawsuits, communication with islanders, planning and zoning issues, what each candidate believes is the most important issue facing a new Town Council, and how each would address that issue.  

Prepare To Vote May 5th

By Jennifer Tuohy, Island Eye News Editor

The election to fill over half of the seats on the Sullivan’s Island town council takes place. To help voters choose three candidates to fill 4-year terms and one candidate for a 2-year term, The Island Eye News posed a total of 10 questions on local issues to the six candidates. The responses to the first five questions were printed in the April 10, 2015 issue (view them online here (islandeyenews.com/?p=16290). The remaining five questions are addressed below. Additionally The Island Eye News is sponsoring a public forum at 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, April 29 in the Sullivan’s Island Elementary School. Be sure to come out and take this opportunity to ask the candidates your own questions.

1. What do you feel is the biggest issue facing the Town of Sullivan’s Island today? What do you propose to do to address this issue?

2. Does the number of lawsuits the town is currently involved in (7) concern you about becoming / being involved in town politics? What do you think could be done to help avoid such litigation in future?

3. Issues surround Zoning and Building on the island have prompted litigation for the Town. Is there any part of the Planning and Zoning of the Town you think should be re-examined?

4. Do you believe the Town has always done its best to keep residents’ informed of its plans and provided enough time and opportunity for input? If not, how would you propose to improve communication with residents?

5. Do you have a particular, perhaps more personal objective in mind for your time on Town Council? Such as a project you would like to see finished/started?

Candidates for 2 Year Term: Voters will choose 1

SARAH CHURCH

Biggest issue

Protecting our way of life as a single family residential community is by far our greatest challenge. We are faced with unprecedented growth just across the Ben Sawyer Bridge, which means more traffic, congestion, parking issues, and increased burden on our resources. While we should remain welcome to visitors, we must take measures to protect our small town way of life.

•Strategic Ordinances—With thoughtful examination of our current ordinances and the strategic development of new ones, we can minimize the impact of growth. The development of a comprehensive paid parking plan would help residents who struggle with the rush of visitors to the beach and commercial district. Part of the plan can contain simple measures, such as requiring all 4 tires of a vehicle to be off the pavement (currently not a requirement). If strictly enforced through ticketing, this could generate funds to help cover the expense created by so many day-visitors (rescue staff/equipment, additional trash pick-up, and maintenance on beach access paths).

•Commercial Zone Plan—In addition, we should reexamine our commercial district plan. There are still a few undeveloped lots in this zone—so we must discourage development of any business that would bring in substantial vehicular or foot traffic from off-island. On-site parking should be a requirement of any future establishments.

Essentially, we should look at every aspect of our ordinances to ensure they are adequately adjusted to meet the challenges we face today.

Lawsuits

Sullivan’s Island Town Council has worked through some extremely difficult, controversial issues in recent years. The most important step we can take toward gaining consensus among the residents is to make sure all citizens are informed and involved from the beginning.

Even people who disagree with the final outcome will know their opinions have been thoroughly heard and considered—and in a timely manner. While it is every citizen’s right to sue the Town, I do believe that if we facilitate greater awareness and involvement in all issues—at all stages of decision-making—the number of lawsuits will decrease.

Planning and Zoning

As a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals, I see first-hand how our Town Ordinances are constantly re-examined by the very nature of our government process. When a variance request comes before the BZA, it’s an opportunity to see if that ordinance is effective.

There have been many instances where several requests for variances have led to an ordinance change. For example, limits on driveway width were given some relief after the BZA received multiple variance requests so that residents could safely exit their property.

Specifications for the breezeways connecting attached additions were amended to ensure the additions were not functioning as second homes on a lot, attached by only a long, narrow (and unused) breezeway.

And most recently, the BZA has requested that Town Council further examine the definition of an Accessory Structure after two recent variance requests came before the board requiring us to determine if the structure in question did indeed meet the criteria to be deemed an accessory structure.

Every issue that comes before the BZA, the Planning Commission, or the Design Review Board gives us an opportunity to fine-tune our ordinances to suit our needs as a community.

Communication with residents

There are multiple steps we can take toward improving public input and accessibility of information.

•More Time For Comments—Require a longer waiting period for ordinances to be passed so that the public has time to voice comments and concerns. Hearing concerns shortly before voting is not sufficient.

•Greater Accessibility—Live stream or video tape Town Council meetings, workshops, and committee meetings. Have them accessible on the town website for future reference.

•Require Public Discussions—Require all discussions to be in public, not executive session, if they are not specifically about contracts or personnel.

•Priority Information Section Of Newsletter—Have the SI Town newsletter create a priority information header section. This would contain the most pertinent town issues at the top, including topics of latest SITC meeting that might warrant public input or time sensitive issues.

•Town Council Email—Create one email address that would automatically generate to all SI Town Council members and the Town Administrator.

•Community Surveys—Create more town surveys, such as the one we should see shortly on the paid parking issue.

•Informational Charettes—Host more informational charrettes for all new projects and receive public feedback, such as was recently done with the new Town Hall.

Project to finish/start

There are many projects that have not even been brought to the table for discussion yet that might be of interest:

•Speed Reduction—Consider asking the Department of Transportation to reduce the speed limit on streets other than Middle and Jasper. The current speed limit is 30 mph where not marked otherwise. You don’t have to travel far on these back roads to find a child riding a bike, or a cat running across the street. I would like to see our speed limit reduced to 20 mph or if residents were in agreement, we could follow a trend of many island communities, and go to an unusual number such as 18mph.

•Bike Path Guard Rail—Consider putting a guard rail along the new bike/walking path on the Ben Sawyer Causeway. This is a safety issue that should be addressed promptly. I have heard the Mt. Pleasant mayor is in agreement. One driver glancing at a text message and swerving just a little could have catastrophic consequences. An attractive guard rail just at the edge of the path will barely be visible as the sweetgrass grows.

•Drainage Maintenance—Work with the SCDOT to ensure they are maintaining their storm drains. Just on my block are two catch basins that are completely clogged. It is the SCDOT’s job to maintain their infrastructure and keep them in operational condition and clear of debris.

There are many small steps we can take to improve our daily life here on Sullivan’s Island. I am ready to get to work. I humbly ask for your vote on May 5th.May 

MARK HOWARD

Biggest issue

I believe the single major issue facing the Island is the maintenance of our quality of life. It starts with the Island’s use of its natural resources by both visitors and residents. However, the summer/ tourism season has now stretched into almost year round making the “off season” a very brief period indeed. This is a matter of dealing with our success.

This matter affects every Town Council issue. It is a bedrock concern in negotiations on a parking policy. It should be the overriding concern when reviewing the overall health of and plans for the commercial district. Getting on and off the Island now requires mathematics and traffic reports. I cannot think of any issue that affects Islanders more. The preservation of quality of life has always been a leading consideration and an anchoring tenet of my campaign. We will always best be served when we consider all issues with a quiet, single-family residential community base. It should be our principled starting point when considering all present and future issues.

Lawsuits

The number of current lawsuits has not affected my desire be of service to the island. I do not believe the town is out to hurt any individuals by its actions, but rather most lawsuits are a matter of code /zoning enforcement. It is the town’s policy not to discuss ongoing lawsuits in public. That is a wise policy, which aids in avoiding hurtful personal insinuations. What saddens me the most about lawsuits in general is that people stop talking and lawyers start billing. Another problem is the time involved in settlements. This is unfortunately reflective of the current state of our court systems and bears little resemblance to the issues involved. Regardless of whichever party is successful in a particular lawsuit I hope the base issues are studied with the goal of improvement for all the people. My sense of things is that council could benefit if it allowed more input from citizens on the larger issues. More forums or open meetings on a single issue that attracts larger than usual gatherings of Islanders seeking more information.

Planning and Zoning

Overall I am satisfied with the goals of our zoning and building codes. Whenever a governmental agency tries to codify human activity issues are bound to arise. Some issues are inherent. Take for instance the size of our island lots. Large lots, some stretching from street to street, present issues most municipalities do not have to contend with. Many of our efforts are aimed at just keeping those lots single family only. It becomes more difficult with time and increases in property values. The maintenance of a historical and single family location while initially attractive to many, becomes a personal dream killer when some develop home plans. It is within an atmosphere of preservation that the town is trying to manage most of its zoning ordinances.

I do have some concerns about the recent Commercial Overlay District. The base approach was to limit development. I believe good intentions produced much good work but a review is in order to allow more citizen knowledge and involvement. I would like a review of height, parking minimums and need requirements, along with more historic considerations given to this area. If all that is allowable happens, what have we created and what is its overall effect? The base of my concern is that it warrants more scrutiny and review now, rather than later.

Communication with Residents

As a resident who actively tries to keep up the “doings” at Town Hall I have to report that I am often surprised by some new issue or action by the Council. I do not mean this in that they are purposely trying to get something over on the residences, but rather at times they move without enough citizen input. This can be a difficult line to define. The Council recently has rightly tried to reduce the many and repetitive hours some of their work was requiring. This was a wise and supported effort. However, something has got lost in the streamlining. What is most surprising is that these overlooked items could be major issues and not the day-to-day work most people would be more understanding of.

I strongly support proposals that will help in furthering communication. First, I recommend and hope to vote on the reestablishment of a third reading on town ordinances before passage. This ‘time saving’ measure removing a third reading was inappropriately passed by the last council. Its unintended affect shortens by a month any means for the citizenry to response to a proposed ordinance. This may have been justifiable on daily matters but a new ordinance is not day-to-day business.

Projects to start/finish

I would like to see within a completed term the development of an implemented Accreted Land Management Plan. This plan would allow for the mature and healthy development of this property and take into consideration the concerns of all Islanders, while stopping the hurtful practices that are allowed today. I strongly believe that ‘given its head’ the mature and natural development of this land with proper management procedures will allow satisfactory results for all. Mother Nature’s completed work rarely disappoints.

My concerns also extends to infrastructure management. The sewer plant, not a widely popular subject, merits our attention and concern. There are many directions I can think of that I would love to see the Island take. I look forward to improvements in the landscape beautification of the Island entrance way and signage. Our current look is a bit dated and one’s entrance makes the important first impression. I recommend an updated lighting system within the commercial district that should make for safer passage. I believe in some advances in access to the marsh side of the Island for the public. However, all this in good time within a secure budget.

RITA LANGLEY

Biggest issue

I believe developing a comprehensive parking plan and implementing a management strategy for the accreted land are the two biggest issues facing this Island today. As we all know, parking issues are intensifying due in large part to growth in the surrounding areas and as IOP explores paid parking options. These factors will certainly add more congestion, parking woes, tax our infrastructure, and impact our quality of life. First and foremost I believe we need public input to develop a plan that considers the needs of our residents first.

This dialogue should evaluate paid parking options, limited parking spaces and restrictions on “party buses” that have increased of late. In the end, I believe we can find a solution that is fair, accessible, affordable and efficient.

As for the accreted land, the town has spent considerable money on experts and time soliciting community input. As a member of Town Council, I will advocate for a management plan for the transition zone based on the recommendations that evolved out of this public process and were approved by the LUNR Committee. I believe this is a good neighbor policy that minimizes fire hazard, provides a buffer from unwanted wildlife, and enhances breezes and sight lines.

After completing the tree survey in the entire accreted land, we can move forward with implementing a management plan and a strategy for eliminating invasive species. As public land, owned in trust for all residents, the accreted land provides a great opportunity for us to be good stewards of our Island home for future generations.

Lawsuits

I am not deterred from being a member of council by the number of lawsuits currently pending against the town. Certainly the number of lawsuits is high for the size of our Island and defending them is becoming increasingly costly and time consuming. I believe that sitting down at the table and trying to find a compromise is always the best starting point. Nonetheless, the town has an obligation to defend the laws on the books—many of which we can thank for our quality of life and high property values—and unfortunately, in some cases, litigation is unavoidable. Fortunately, the Town has insurance that covers most of these legal expenses.

Planning and Zoning

As an owner of a historic home, I understand that our building and zoning ordinances can be frustrating and restrictive. But, I also recognize that our unique character and high property values are a direct result of our strict zoning. Having said that, I believe that our ordinances should be seen as fluid documents and reviewed periodically. There is a fine line between protecting the historic and unique character of our island while remaining open to change. For example, we should review and consider revising the types of business currently allowed in our commercial district. Last year, based on Planning Commission’s recommendation, Town Council passed an ordinance that prohibited chain restaurants. This change to existing zoning was a great benefit to our Island.

Communication with residents

I believe that the town is committed to keeping residents informed. However, as I speak with residents on the Island I hear that many feel the town could do a better job of keeping residents up-to-date on current issues. Based on this feedback, I believe there are a number of ways we could improve communication.

For example, I think we should consider extending the time requirements for approving a new ordinance from two meetings to three. This would be a return to an earlier procedure that I believe provided more opportunity for the public to be aware of pending issues. Also, as I have said before, I believe we should stream and record town meetings and make them available on the town website.

Lastly, we are a small enough community that we should consider direct communication with neighbors affected by a particular issue. For example, when the Planning Commission contemplated allowing multi-family housing in my neighborhood, I only found out accidentally when a neighbor happened to attend a planning meeting. This change in zoning would have had a huge impact on my neighborhood and I would have preferred that the town inform me earlier rather than later in the process.

Projects to finish/start

I would like to see the island inventory town owned property and develop a vision and strategy for these parcels. For example, we should consider designating some land to open space, playgrounds and recreation areas. Also, I believe the Island Club is a wonderful community asset. I would like to see the town make improvements to the building and support recreational activities for all ages.

BACHMAN SMITH IV

Biggest issue

Dealing with an aging wastewater treatment plant to provide a long term solution is crucial.

This is likely not one that is at the front of many residents’ minds. Those issues lie in the accreted land and parking, among others. Further, the more people I speak with the more I realize how many issues beyond the three named here are “the most important” to the residents.

Considering I have mentioned three issues each requiring significant funds I might say that capital funding is our biggest issue. I would go even further and say the long view is needed with a thorough study of needed capital improvements in the form of a life cycle evaluation of the Island’s infrastructure in conjunction with a capital reserve funding study. With the many ways to look at this question, and knowing that to some degree all of the issues are connected at the purse strings, I still believe our wastewater treatment facility is at the top of the list.

Lawsuits

My concern is about the number of lawsuits and not about how those lawsuits may impact me if I am given the honor to serve on Town Council. I believe the Town’s administration through its paid employees is in very capable hands. I believe the Town’s administration through its volunteer councils, boards and commissions comes from a well-reasoned and intentioned approach that can use some fresh ideas and thinking.

Unfortunately we live in a litigious society where there are individuals who prefer litigation when they feel slighted or wronged in some way, and those lawsuits cannot be addressed until filed. For the rest, there needs to be more open dialogue where both sides can step out from behind their conviction of what is right and what is wrong, who is right and who is wrong, and how things must be done. I hope to be elected so that I can serve all of the Island’s residents.

As much as I may disagree with someone I must respect a different perspective from my own in order to be the best steward of our Island that I can be. While my own ideas and ideals will inform my decisions I will look to the residents for setting baselines. This inclusive approach to governance is the best way to avoid the litigation that can be avoided.

Planning and Zoning

Just about every appeal, request or variance sought offers insight into that which can be more closely examined. Planning and Zoning are as imperfect as the people who implement them and are as imperfect as the unanticipated future makes them. This does not make them less well thought out. It does beg that Planning and Zoning be reconsidered as times change and unintended consequences manifest themselves.

Two items illustrate my point. First, there is the tree house that many of you are well aware of. I was part of the decision making process at the BZA that resulted in a denial of the appeal allowing the tree house to be finished. I did not like the outcome of that appeal but believe the right decision was made based on the ordinance as written and the laws under which the BZA is charged with its decision making. Not allowing the treehouse to be built as it was/is being built is an unintended and unforeseen consequence of current Zoning.

Second, current Zoning doesn’t allow for structures to be built or even exist on a residential lot without a residence in place. Our Planning and Zoning was established before climate change was considered in any serious manner and certainly before we realized sea levels are rising. If Planning and Zoning were implemented today in some newly formed coastal town these considerations would be front and center. A public policy of measured retreat from the coast should be encouraged. Good public policy in our coastal community should allow a residential lot to be used in some less impactful manner such that a residence does not have to exist in order for some lesser structure to be built.

For either of these situations to serve as a springboard for change we must keep in mind that a text amendment is not as simple as it sounds due to ever-present unintended and unforeseen consequences. This is not to say it can’t be done. I simply stress changes to our Zoning and Planning must be well thought out with the realization that there will always be unintended and unforeseen consequences.

Communication with residents

In 2012 the Council passed an ordinance to eliminate one of three procedural readings needed to enact an ordinance because it “is in the best interest of the Town to expedite the procedure for the passage of Ordinances . . .” (Ordinance 2012-5). In light of apparent inertia gripping the decision making process it seems to me that as well intentioned as this change was it has not always had the desired effect in practice. Going back to the three reading process would add another opportunity for community input.

With the construction of a new Town Hall live video streaming of Town Council meetings can be a reality and should be implemented.

I would caution that if live streaming is implemented there will be failures at times bringing further criticism on the Town for not being transparent enough. With implementation of live streaming should come the understanding that live streaming is not guaranteed and the mere existence of the service does not constitute a right for it to exist or for one’s ability to take advantage of the service.

Improving communication should always be a goal but putting forth a true best effort is not always practical. It is incumbent on those who wish to stay informed to avail themselves of the opportunities presented to be informed.

Projects to finish/start

I do not have a personal objective in mind in the sense this question is being asked. That said as I stated in the very first Island Eye publication that addressed this election, this Island speaks to me. It has given me and my family so much, and I believe I owe it some years of service and will be honored to do so if given the chance.