MINUTES
CITY OF GOOSE CREEK
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
AUGUST 17, 2011, 6:30 P.M.
GOOSE CREEK MUNICIPAL CENTER
519 N. GOOSE CREEK BOULEVARD

I. Call To Order - Chairman Williams called the meeting to order at 6:31.

Present: Butch Clift, James Fisk, Larry Monheit, Kevin Smith, and Thomas Volkmar, Robert Williams, and Van Williams
Staff Present: Daniel Ben-Yisrael and Sarah Hanson

Pledge of Allegiance

II. Review of Minutes from July 14, 2011 Meeting

Motion: Mr. Clift made a motion to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Monheit seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor.

III. Public Hearing - Request for Conditional Use Permit for Multi-Family Use, 95 Bridgetown Road

Chairman Williams administered an oath to all who wished to provide testimony.

Chairman Williams asked Staff to present the application summary. Mr. Ben-Yisrael summarized the property information and stated the application presented was for a 60 unit multifamily project. He stated that the Board continued their July 14 hearing to allow the applicant to submit additional information, and since that time the applicant had submitted all the requested information including a traffic study and assessment information as to the impact on the area. He stated this information had been provided to the Board.

Motion: Mr. Volkmar made a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. Clift seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor.

Chairman Williams opened the Public Hearing.

Chase Northcutt, with RHA Housing, developer of the project, stated they wished to answer all the Board's questions and felt the studies provided would support their application. Zack Bearden of Seamon Whiteside, engineering consultant for the project, presented a power point presentation detailing the specifics of the project. Mr. Mike Ridgeway with SRS Engineering summarized the traffic study prepared for the project. He stated it was completed after an actual traffic count on Monday and Tuesday, having waited until the school year began. He stated he did the count himself, studying the intersection at St. James Avenue, wanting to see if traffic backed up on Bridgetown Road, and he stated he didn't see anything problematic. He spoke about the scale of the project, stating this was a relatively small study because of the limited number of trips. He felt this project would not affect the number of cars which cut through to get to the schools. His studies show that this development will have a minimal impact on the traffic of the area. He explained they counted from 3:00 to 5:00 to take advantage of the school traffic, though if counted later in the day the count could be slightly higher. The projected increase in the morning was 26 trips and 31 in the afternoon. Mr. Monheit asked about the difference in the count from the number of cars for the project. Mr. Ridgeway answered the added cars don't travel at the same time; studies show that typically travel is varied within the various hours, and the number stated are during one hour of peak travel time. Mr. Northcutt stated that their records show, based on their other properties, there will be approximately 84 cars present at this property.

Mr. Bearden submitted information regarding the hardy plank siding proposed as an exterior material and presented the materials and colors for the proposed exteriors. He presented illustrations of the proposed buffering on all sides of the property. He stated an eight foot fence was proposed on the boundary between the primary school. A twenty foot pine buffer will remain, and there is another 25' to the rear of the building. Supplemental plantings will be added. On the west buffer there is a retention pond and an eight foot privacy fence. The north buffer along Bridgetown Road will include an aesthetically pleasing fence such as an "iron-look" fence with supplemental plantings and the existing pines will hopefully remain. On the east side which abuts the vacant Food Lion shopping center property, there are existing pine and existing understory vegetation and foundation plantings as well.

Sarah Neiman, a development consultant for RHA, discussed the appraisal information provided. It was established that a cost analysis was used as a basis for the appraisal, with the comparables used illustrating the proposed project's cost to build per unit was higher than the cost per square foot of the properties having sold in the area and used as comps. She estimated the cost per unit of the project would be approximately $125,000, or $113.00 per square foot. Per the appraisal, it was stated the exterior materials of the proposed project would be superior to those for the comparables, and the amenity center was an additional value.

Mr. Volkmar asked about their plan to maintain the property, and Ms. Neiman answered there would be a licensed third party management company as well as a corporate and regional manager for the management company as well as an on-site manager, a leasing manager, and an onsite maintenance manager. The management company will insure they patrol the area and that the tenants on the lease are the only ones inhabiting the unit. She referred to the application the tenants will fill out and stated their requirement for both credit and criminal background checks. Management will be offering a reduced rental rate to a police officer to live onsite as well.

Mr. Monheit asked if this was considered a low income project, and Ms. Neiman explained the state financing used for the construction and the resulting requirement that rents be reduced for income qualifying tenants. There was much discussion regarding the state's income requirement, the resulting rental rates, and the various types of professions that would qualify for the income restrictions.

Mr. Smith asked about the appraisal method used, stating he felt the information did not speak to how the proposed project would impact the projected values of the surrounding properties and asked if this information would be available from other properties, comparing the values of the properties prior to the construction of the project with the values following the completion of the project. Mr. Northcutt responded he felt the cost approach was a direct approach and the best comparison.

Ms. Neiman briefly summarized the lack of impact on the schools of the area. She also briefly shared additional information from studies regarding the value of multifamily developments to cities and towns as well as misinformation about density breeding crime. She stressed that the design standards would be a good fit with the community as would its residents.

Mr. Bearden mentioned the project will be making new connections with the sidewalks along Bridgetown Road and providing safe access out to St. James Avenue for pedestrians.
Mr. Northcutt stated they were asking for less density that what had been approved for the site and stated the value of having the project in the area. He assured the Board they were committed to the property and running it properly.

Chairman Williams invited anyone present to speak in favor of the proposal.

Ms. Michelle Mack, Executive Director of the Low Country Housing Trust, spoke about the affordable housing projects in the Low Country area and their success in spite of the public opposition. She stated the residents tended to be young professionals and working people.

There were no others wishing to speak in favor.

Chairman Williams then invited anyone present who wished to speak in opposition of the proposal to come forward.

Ms. Barbara King stated she still objected to the project and stated her concerns regarding the fact that this is the second low income project proposed within Crowfield Plantation. She stated the applicant came before the homeowners association the prior evening, and there was no one attending in support of the project. She stated the association did not object to a multifamily development but rather to a project that offered rates so much lower than the rest of the community. She felt it was not compatible with the Crowfield community, and the reason most purchased homes within Crowfield was because of the covenants and restrictions and the resulting conformity to the neighborhood standards. She expressed her concerns that the presentation to the homeowners association varied from the applicant's presentation at this meeting. She was concerned that the tenant signing the lease could meet the criteria of credit and background checks but have others living within the unit that did not. She disagreed with the idea that density does not result in increased crime. She stated there had been three different versions presented at the three meetings she had attended.

James Barfield shared the attendance of the three schools in the area and the number of drop offs per day which he felt would add to the traffic. He stated there were seven exits from properties onto Bridgetown Road. He stated his opinion that they had studied the wrong area for the traffic study. He stated his concern about having additional low income rental units in the area and that there could be residents living there that didn't sign the lease.

David Gould stated his concern that the traffic study ignored the impact on Crowfield Blvd. He disagreed with the appraisal information, as he felt the values were incorrect. He referred to a letter his wife submitted concerning the fact that density would increase the crime factor. He asked about whether this project would be required to pay HOA fees.

Mr. Farrell suggested the project could be built elsewhere in the area rather than in Crowfield because of the impact on their property values.

Debbie Inman, property manager of Bridgetown Place as well as other area developments, stated the proposed rental rates were vastly different from other properties in the same area. She also took exception to the appraiser including a property on Temple Road as a comparable property to Crowfield homes, stating that she managed that property and it was not at all comparable. She asked, if the children were going to walk to school, how were they going to get there?

Mr. Patrick Clukis stated he wanted to see the demographics from the developer's other projects, wished to know if the management group would be as committed to working with the homeowners association, and asked if everyone living in the units would be listed on the lease and how this would be enforced. He stated he didn't feel these questions had been adequately answered and suggested both boards (ZBA and Homeowners) should meet with the developer to get the answers prior to making a decision.

Chairperson Williams asked if Staff wished to summarize their findings, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered he had nothing further.

Chairperson Williams asked the applicant to summarize their application.

Mr. Northcutt stated they had always represented the project as it was presented during the evening's meeting and wished to answer some of the stated concerns. He stated they would abide by the covenants of Crowfield, though their standards could be higher, and would pay the individual homeowner's fees, one fee per each of the 60 units; management could be required to attend the homeowners association meetings; all tenants will be listed on the lease and if they don't abide by the rules they are evicted; they are committed to being a good neighbor in Crowfield. He stated they are required to own the project for twenty years, and they are a nonprofit with a mission for providing affordable housing.

Mr. Volkmar asked about Crowfield's requirements and standards and how they intended to abide by the standards. Mr. Boone explained Crowfield's requirements for leased properties and stated these requirements would be met. He reiterated they would be paying the same fees as the other residents within Crowfield.

Mr. Northcutt stated the meeting with Crowfield was more of an informational meeting, and they did not ask for any type of approval. Because they had just recently been awarded the tax credits they were not to the point of having a complete architectural package together for the Crowfield ARB review but had wanted to present the project to the association.

Mr. Clift asked what would happen if Crowfield would not allow hardy plank. Mr. Northcutt stated they might have to go to all brick, as the State does not allow vinyl.

Mr. Volkmar asked about the mix of professions as stated earlier. He stated this was in reference to Criteria #6 which references the compatibility and consistency of the project with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Northcutt answered he felt the project was compatible.

Ms. Neiman stated there were statements regarding their presentation changing. She explained the presentation had grown due to questions asked at prior meetings. She stated the appraisals, traffic study, and the site plans were all identical; the leasing information was a direct response to the request from the meeting with the homeowners association for additional information.

Mr. Volkmar asked if the lease format presented was required by the State, and Mr. Northcutt responded there were various formats. Mr. Volkmar detailed the specific requirements and tenant checks required by the lease presented.

Chairperson asked the Board if there were additional questions to any of the respondents.

Mr. Van Williams asked for clarification of how they came up with the information regarding the impact on existing property values. Ms. King answered their concern was that because this is a government funded low income project there would be an impact on the surrounding values. Mr. Volkmar stated the criteria the Board must use to consider the application does not include the manner in which a project is funded and stated he did not feel this was relevant information. Ms. King stated she knew this, but this was their objection. She stated she did not feel this project met the standard set for the Crowfield community as it was created and did not feel it was appropriate for the community.

Mr. Northcutt asked to address the financing and explained the tax credit program the state offers. He reiterated there is no government subsidy involved.

Ms. Barbara Bates asked who the owner of the property is, and Mr. Boone answered Tidelands Bank is the owner.

Mr. Clift asked for more details regarding the traffic survey in relation to school traffic. Mr. Ridgeway explained they studied the intersection of Bridgetown and St. James Avenue, as this was their assumption of where the new traffic would go, and he felt it to be a good assumption. He explained the specific reasons for this assumption.

Mr. Barfield stated the study should have studied the school route. Mr. Gould stated the 120 cars generated from the project will result in a lot of new traffic in the general area, and this should be taken into consideration.

Motion: Mr. Monheit made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Volkmar seconded.
Discussion: Mr. Smith referred to the letter sent to the City and asked that everyone have an opportunity to review it. Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained this was a letter from the resident at 100 Bridgetown Road referred to earlier that was not included in the Board's packet, and he wished the Board to be able to read it.

Chairman Williams stated there had been a request for a ten minute recess. The Board was reminded they could not discuss the matter, make any comments, or deliberate during the recess.

Chairman Williams called the meeting back to order and asked for further discussion. There was no further discussion.

Vote: All voted in favor.

Chairman Williams asked the Board for Board discussion.

Mr. Monheit questioned the accuracy of the traffic study and the appraisals. Mr. Volkmar stated the method they used for the traffic study was a recognized and common method used and stated the number of trips to be generated from this project would be less than what could be generated by the currently approved 80 units. He felt the cost based assessment was appropriate, and an 80 unit development might be of less value. He stated he felt there should be conditions added to the conditional use permit. He suggested making the permit conditional upon sharing the leasing documents and having onsite management and maintenance personnel.

Mr. Van Williams stated he felt there was confusion with the public's understanding of the low income tax credit information and its impact on the surrounding values. He also stated the only impact on the school traffic would be the actual students within the new development; he stated he drove through there often, and there was not a significant amount of traffic.

Mr. Volkmar spoke concerning government tax credits and stated he didn't feel it was something that should be considered by the Board.

Mr. Clift asked if this property was a part of the Comprehensive Plan, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated it was. He explained that the Plan has yet to be adopted by City Council. This specific property was designated for either general commercial or residential uses, including multifamily.

Mr. Fisk agreed with Mr. Volkmar and Mr. Williams concerning the traffic study meeting approved criteria and stated he did not feel this project would impact the traffic in the area.

Mr. Smith stated his concern on the subject of the surrounding property values. He stated he knew this was difficult to determine and was why they used the cost analysis; however, he felt the current cost to build a structure was not the factor for the decision of someone purchasing a townhome across the street; It would rather be based on the type of project that exists across the street. He stated he did not feel they provided the necessary data to be able to say this project will not affect the townhomes at Bridgetown Place.

Mr. Volkmar mentioned that the cost analysis was the same used for residential sales. He stated the $113 per square foot was in the ballpark for other surrounding properties.

Motion: Mr. Volkmar made a motion to approve the application, having found the application satisfies the criteria as stated in Section 151.171(C) with the conditions that the condominium documents be shared with the Crowfield Homeowners Association, that management and maintenance personnel are onsite, and that the buffers be maintained as presented at the hearing. Mr. Fisk seconded the motion.
Discussion: Chairperson Williams stated his concern about the path for the children to use in getting to school. Mr. Volkmar stated his deliberation is in context of there being an existing approval for 80 units.
Vote: Chairperson Williams asked for a roll call vote. Mr. Clift: no; Mr. Fisk: yes; Mr. Monheit: no; Mr. Smith: no; Mr. Volkmar: yes; Mr. Van Williams: yes; Mr. Robert Williams: no. The motion did not pass by a vote of 3-4.

Chairman Williams asked that there be a recess prior to hearing the second application.

Chairman Williams called the meeting back to order.

IV. Public Hearing - Request for a Variance from the Required Rear Setback at 102 Horncastle Place

Chairman Williams asked the applicant to present their application. Chris Kennedy explained they wished to build an addition to their home, and one corner of the planned addition is only 20' from the property line, with the required setback being 25'. Mr. Hilton Googe, plan designer for the Kennedys, stated the only neighbor that would be able to see the addition would be the neighbor to the left, and they had provided a letter stating they did not object to the addition. Off the back of the home is a 25' wetlands buffer. He stated that when the home was built, the builder shifted the house to allow it to be set back farther on the lot. He stated the encroachment was only the far back corner, about a 40 sq. ft. triangle. He stated the deck, located on the other side, also encroached; however, the ordinance allows for that because it is constructed as a separate structure.

Mr. Fisk asked the applicant why they were requesting a 16 foot addition, and Mr. Googe stated it was more economical to build out 16', and it allowed for full size rooms within the addition. Mr. Googe stated they assumed they had plenty of room because of the layout of the lot with the wetlands but the size of the yard was deceptive, and then they discovered there was a 25' rear setback requirement.

Mr. Googe stated the only criteria he felt he was unable to address was provision #3 of the ordinance and felt that applied only to new construction. Otherwise, he felt they met the other three provisions for a variance. He stated this wouldn't affect any of the neighbors.

Mr. Fisk asked if there were other homes that were situated similarly in the cul-de-sac, and Mr. Googe answered the house was angled on the lot, thus not allowing for a typical addition onto the back of the house. There was brief discussion about the deck.

Mr. Monheit asked what was located to the right of the house, and Mr. Googe answered a deep street buffer. Mr. Monheit asked what made this lot different from the others on the cul-de-sac. Mr. Googe answered one backed up to the lake and then to the buffer, and the other backs up to Hamlet Circle.

The Board reviewed the letters from each adjacent neighbor. Mr. Fisk asked if the Fosters were to add on to their home, would they run into the same problem, and Mr. Googe answered he wasn't certain. Mr. Fisk said that from reviewing the property on GIS it seemed the Fosters would have the same situation, explaining that one of the criteria requires the circumstances to be extraordinary and exceptional, not applying to other properties in the area. Mr. Googe answered this particular property was screened from other properties, whereas any of the others would be visible to other properties. Mr. Smith stated this was not the intent of the ordinance, it meant that this circumstance wouldn't apply to most other properties within the area. He explained that conditions had to be extraordinary so that this wouldn't apply to other homes in Goose Creek, and he felt there were many more that could be buffered from their neighbors. Mr. Googe stated it isn't common for lots to have an irregular shape, and Mr. Fisk felt most cul-de-sac lots were similar. Mr. Googe stated he felt the angular shape and the fact that the builder pushed it back toward that angle made it out of the ordinary. There was discussion about the fact that the house was located well behind the required front setback. There was discussion that this would make this extraordinary, that the builder located the house beyond the necessary setbacks, and normally the builder does not do that.

Chairman Williams asked if there was anyone present that wished to speak in favor of the application.

Mr. Ronald Howes explained he was on the opposite end of the Kennedys and stated he hoped they would approve the variance. Mr. Volkmar asked if his lot was similar, and Mr. Howes answered it was quite irregular, and he intentionally located his home on a different angle.

Motion: Mr. Volkmar made a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Clift seconded the motion.
Discussion: There was none.

Motion: Mr. Smith made a motion to approve the application for a variance from the rear setback requirements of Annex D of the Zoning Ordinance at 102 Horncastle in accordance with Section 151.171 of the Zoning Ordinance, having found the application meets the conditions set forth for a variance set forth in Section 151.171. Mr. Clift seconded the motion.
Discussion: Mr. Volkmar asked that the variance be granted only to the 44 sq. ft. triangle that encroaches and to require the deck be built as a separate structure. He also asked that it be noted that the reason this is extraordinary is that the lot has natural buffers on both sides and the home was built substantially back from the required front setback.

Motion to Amend: Mr. Smith made a motion to accept the stated amendments to his motion. Mr. Clift seconded the motion to amend.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote to Amend: All voted in favor of amending the motion.

Discussion: There was no further discussion regarding the motion to approve.
Vote: All voted in favor to approve the variance.

V. Adjournment

Motion: Mr. Clift made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Monheit seconded.
Vote: All voted in favor.

The meeting ended at or about 9:28 p.m.