MINUTES
CITY OF GOOSE CREEK
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2010, 6:30 P.M.
MARGUERITE BROWN MUNICIPAL CENTER
GOOSE CREEK, SOUTH CAROLINA

 

I. Call to Order - Chairman Allen Wall

Chairman Allen Wall called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m.
Present: Joel Arenson, Paul Connerty, Gayla McSwain, Doug Quinn, Jeffrey Smith, Allen Wall, and Barry Washington
Staff Present: Daniel Ben-Yisrael and Sarah Hanson

II. Review of Minutes of November 2, 2010 Meeting

Motion: Mr. Connerty made a motion to accept the minutes as submitted. Mr. Smith seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor; none opposed.

Copies of the revised October minutes had been distributed to the members with a change in reference to a speaker's name.

Motion: Mr. Smith made a motion to accept the minutes as revised. Mr. Quinn seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor; none opposed.

III. Public Hearing - Request to Rezone Property of TMS #243-00-00-049, 303 Hamlet Circle, from Planned Development (PD) to Conservation Open Space (CO)

Mr. Wall stated the City was requesting a change in the zoning of the Crowfield golf course property to protect and continue the current status of the golf course. He then explained the procedures for the Public Hearing. He asked Mr. Ben-Yisrael to present the application and the facts surrounding the request.

Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained that as a result of the Mayor's meetings earlier in the year with residents of The Hamlets the City was initiating the rezoning for the property. City Council, in response to the questions asked at these meetings, decided to request the rezoning in order to preserve the integrity of the golf course and to insure that the property remains a golf course.

Mr. Wall explained that three of the Commissioners were recused from the hearings due to the fact that they reside in The Hamlets. (At the close of the public hearing Ms. McSwain, Mr. Connerty, and Mr. Arenson stated their recusals.) He opened the floor for questions.

Terry Williamson asked how this change would affect the golf course. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated the thinking of City Council is that in the event a future Council should decide to dispose of the property or have the City initiate a change in use, this zoning change would add a layer of protection to the property, as before there could ever be a change in use for the property the City or property owner would have to initiate another zoning change, giving the residents the opportunity to scrutinize the proposal. Mr. Williamson asked if they wanted the property to remain a golf course, was this an advantage, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered yes.

Chuck Pendergast asked if the CO zoning was similar to or identical to the guidelines issued by the forest service, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered he wasn't familiar with those guidelines, so he couldn't answer.

Ms. Stephanie Shealy asked what the process would be, if the zoning was changed, if developers decided they wished to develop the property for a residential use. Mr. Ben-Yisrael read the definition of Conservation Open Space and listed the various uses allowed as stated in the City's Zoning Ordinance. He explained the process and stated that if a project was an allowable use under the zoning, no further hearings, actions, or approvals were needed other than review by the ARB and/or Staff.

There was a question as to the allowed density for single family development. Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered that the zoning is not intended to accommodate residential developments; if someone were to own a single parcel with frontage on a publicly maintained paved road, they could build a home on the parcel. However, the district is not designed to allow for residential subdivisions.

Mr. Berenyi asked what the difference would be with Planned Development, stating there is a very specific plan for this property as a golf course and clubhouse, versus the Conservation Open Space, which allows other unspecified uses, and questioned how that would be more protected. Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained the purpose and design of the PD designation, stating that the City's zoning ordinance allows almost any land use within a PD. Mr. Berenyi asked if there was a specific PD for the golf course. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated that when the City annexed the Crowfield properties, there was no Planned Development Agreement in place, only a development map for the Plantation. This map did show the property as a golf course/golf club.

Ms. Barbara King asked if the current zoning allows for more flexibility and less ability to determine what could be done with the property. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated the City felt the PD designation resulted in there being too many questions as to what the property could be used for, whereas the Conservation Open Space zoning adds an extra layer of protection to the property by requiring the property be rezoned if developed in the future, thus providing more opportunity for scrutiny by the public. Ms. King asked if the City had any intention of selling the property or making any changes, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated the City had no intention of changing the use of the property or of disposing of the property.

Ms. Andrea Abdulla asked if there was an even more restrictive zoning available, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated there was not.

Ms. Laurel Eide stated that at this point the property is still deed restricted for two more years and asked why the zoning should be changed unless the deed restriction could be transferred to the Conservation Open Space zoning. She stated there was a trust issue with the City promising not to make changes, and she wondered why the City wouldn't restrict the use of the property as a golf course for life. Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained the history of the deed restriction which states the property can be used only as a golf course until 2012. City Council is looking beyond that expiration and feels this is a way to protect the property. He stated the deed restriction question is under consideration by City Council at this time.

Ms. Kimberly Skinner asked for clarification if the deed restriction could be placed on the property no matter the zoning, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated that it could.

The question was asked about the fact that there are projects that can be built on a property zoned Conservation Open Space. Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained the uses allowed under the zoning, reiterating that most of the uses are for temporary uses, whereas with the Planned Development zoning, these uses may be permanent. He also clarified the single family residential requirements for the zoning in that it is not intended to accommodate single family residential subdivisions.

Mr. Bud Fleming asked if the zoning recommendation from the Planning Commission can also carry the recommendation that the property be deed restricted. Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered that, in his opinion, the Planning Commission can only recommend the zoning change; City Council would have to address the question concerning deed restriction. He did state that if the Commission wished to make a recommendation they were free to do so. He explained the City Council's process if the Commission should recommend the zoning change and encouraged them to attend or to contact Council or the City Administrator with their questions and concerns.

Mr. Bob King stated that in reference to a prior question, the EPA provided ordinance guidelines and specifications for the use of open space and with that it could therefore not be used as a golf course, so he asked if this was an "end run" to get to the point where it could not be used as a golf course. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated he is unfamiliar with the national guidelines but that this wasn't an end run or another way to discontinue the use of the golf course and reiterated this recommendation was a result from meetings with residents of the Hamlets and was intended to preserve the use of the golf course indefinitely. Mr. King stated that the answer for that would be to restrict the use as a golf course. There was a brief discussion concerning the fact that the land use restrictions for development of the property were a result of the local zoning ordinance.

Mr. Berenyi asked about the Conservation Open Space, stating it wasn't a typical zoning and asked how many other properties were zoned as such. Mr. Wall and Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered that this was a typical zoning, used to restrict use, and that recently other parcels have been rezoned as such to restrict development and stated there are quite a few other properties within the City zoned CO as well. Mr. Ben-Yisrael gave an overview of the City's Zoning Ordinance and the upcoming update to it.

Mr. Tom Volkmar asked who would have the authority to approve conditional uses for the Conservation Open Space properties, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated these would be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals; with Planned Development, all such reviews would come before City Council. Per the Ordinance, some Planned Development uses must come before City Council; for others this isn't required.

Ms. Rachael King asked for clarification concerning the required review, specifically that there are uses if zoned CO that require only Staff review. She asked how that was better, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated it would add another layer of review if something ever happened where someone wanted to use it otherwise.

There were additional questions as to why the City didn't just add the deed restriction and if the restriction would run with the land. There was brief discussion as to the CO zoning requiring additional review and hearings should development be proposed. Mr. Chip Reeves asked about the CO zoning allowing the City to convert the golf course to walking trails. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated the zoning would not prevent that; however, he reiterated that was not the intent of the City.

Ms. Shealey asked why not wait until the deed restriction was no longer in effect to propose the change. Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained that this hearing was a way for Council to initiate the change, to provide citizens the opportunity to voice their questions or concerns, and to have the Planning Commission make a recommendation so Council can make a more informed decision. They may decide not to make a change. They felt that from the response at the town hall meetings they would make the good faith effort to address the concerns stated by down-zoning the golf course, to communicate to the residents that the City intends to preserve the golf course.

Ms. Eide asked why Council wanted to do this now. She stated she thought there were many present who questioned that. Ms. Rachael King asked about the golf course being a liability to the City rather than an asset. She questioned the request for the change prior to the update of the Ordinance when anything could then be added to allow other uses. Mr. Wall stated that the current zoning would allow for that when the restriction ran out. When asked, Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained that the CO zoning allowed for fewer uses than the PD zoning and that the PD zoning may require City Council approval. He stated the deed restriction is stricter than the CO zoning.

Mr. Berenyi questioned the earlier definition of a planned development and the steps needed for changing the development plan. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated Crowfield Plantation is zoned Planned District, but there was never a development agreement in place. The language used when the Plantation was annexed into the City presents questions as to what constitutes a "substantial change," requiring City Council approval.

There was a brief discussion about the golf course falling within The Hamlets' covenants. Ms. Barbara King stated the property was never included in the CPCSA.

Mr. Wall closed the public hearing.

Ms. McSwain, Mr. Connerty, and Mr. Arenson recused themselves.

Mr. Smith asked for confirmation that the Commission could only make a recommendation regarding the zoning and could not make a recommendation concerning a deed restriction. Mr. Ben-Yisrael interjected that the primary consideration is the zoning recommendation. He stated he wished to amend his earlier statement and suggested that perhaps it was in their purview to be able to add to their recommendation a request that City Council put deed restrictions on the property if that is actually their decision.

Mr. Quinn stated that after listening to the public's comments he felt it was incumbent upon the Commission to request additional information and he didn't feel comfortable recommending a zoning change at this time until he could gather more information and ask some questions.

Mr. Wall asked if it was possible to table the issue indefinitely, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered that the Commission must take action and make a recommendation. He stated the Commission can continue the public hearing pending more information but should state the date for the hearing at this meeting.

Motion: Mr. Quinn made the motion to continue the public hearing at the Commission's February 1, 2011, meeting. Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor; none opposed. The motion carried by a 4-0 vote.

Mr. Wall thanked the public for attending. He stated his concern that several mentioned a trust issue with the Commission and the City and stated he would like to hear more about that at a later time. He stated the Commission was independent of City Council, and he would like to hear more from whoever had more information.

IV. Discussion - Land Use Buffers

Mr. Wall asked about the modifications made to the draft. Mr. Ben-Yisrael summarized the additions to the draft.

Motion: Mr. Arenson made a motion to reschedule the discussion until the January meeting due to the length of the public hearing, as he wished to have more time to more fully review the draft in detail. Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
Discussion: Ms. McSwain stated her concern about a lack of specific enforcement language regarding buffer maintenance to allow for permanent enforcement. She asked also about how to include wetland maintenance in the draft.
Vote: All voted in favor; none opposed.

Mr. Wall questioned the need for stating specific tree requirements. Mr. Ben-Yisrael suggested cross referencing the present tree ordinance which lists specific tree species acceptable for use.

V. Comments from the Commission

Mr. Arenson asked if those who were recused from the public hearing had to continue being excluded from the discussion. Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered they would need to recuse themselves from the public hearing in February but if there were general discussions about rezoning polices not specific to this area they could participate; however, they would not be able to be a part of any discussions specific to this application.

Mr. Quinn asked about the status of the demolition of the property on Red Bank Road. Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered that Code Enforcement is not pursuing it at the moment. Mr. Quinn suggested it is a danger, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael suggested he could discuss it with the building inspectors. He stated the property owner has no intention of demolishing it at this time, though he is still intending to continue with the project and is working on the financing. Once financing is secured there are plans to demolish the existing structure.

Mr. Wall asked about Mr. Arenson's request for an action list of ordinances that would need to be changed. Ms. Hanson answered that she was keeping a list. Mr. Arenson responded that his suggestion was for action items recommended by Commissioners during meetings that required action and follow up. He suggested having it available monthly at their meetings.

Mr. Wall asked Mr. Ben-Yisrael if he could arrange a meeting so the Commission could discuss the zoning application. There was discussion about the options available for gathering additional information and from whom. Mr. Connerty suggested meeting with Council could be construed as a conflict of interest, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael concurred and stated all discussions should now be in an open forum and suggested the City Administrator was the appropriate person to be invited to provide testimony. Mr. Quinn asked that there be some process that can be put in place to allow them the opportunity to ask questions and get additional information from Council. Mr. Connerty concurred regarding the questions of conflict of interest and abiding by the open meeting law. Mr. Ben-Yisrael suggested the appropriate person to speak with is the City Administrator, as the directive from City Council to review the zoning came through the City Administrator who was present for workshops and discussions with Council about the request.

Mr. Jim Reese of the audience stated he felt it important that the Planning Commission remain separate and apolitical, relying on Staff rather than City Council for input, thereby avoiding any appearance of not remaining independent, particularly given the stated comments about lack of trust. The Commissioners briefly discussed their intent to always remain independent of Council.

Comments From Staff

Mr. Ben-Yisrael suggested that because of the length of the meeting the scheduled training be rescheduled to the following month. There was brief discussion about completing the training in the time allowed, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael assured them there wouldn't be a problem with postponing the training.

Motion: Mr. Connerty made a motion to reschedule the training to the January meeting. Ms. McSwain seconded the motion.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor; none opposed.

VI. Adjournment

Ms. McSwain made the motion to adjourn. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion. All voted in favor, and the meeting adjourned at or about 8:30 pm.