MINUTES
CITY OF GOOSE CREEK
PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2011, 6:30 P.M.
MARGUERITE BROWN MUNICIPAL CENTER
519 N. GOOSE CREEK BLVD.
I. Call to Order -Chairman Alan Wall
Chairman Wall called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m.
Present: Paul Connerty (arrived at the beginning of the LUBO discussion), Gayla McSwain (arrived after roll call), Franklin Moore, Doug Quinn, Jeffrey Smith (arrived just after the opening of the first public hearing), Allen Wall and Barry Washington
Staff Present: Daniel Ben-Yisrael and Sarah Hanson
II. Review of Minutes from September 6, 2011
Motion: Mr. Quinn made a motion to accept the minutes as submitted, and Mr. Moore seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor.
III. Public Hearing - Rezoning of 21+/- Acres at 303 Hamlet Circle from Planned Development (PD) to Conservation Open Space (CO)
Mr. Wall opened the public hearing. He summarized the procedures for the hearing, explaining that their decision is simply a recommendation to City Council.
Mr. Ben-Yisrael summarized the City's request from City Council for the rezoning. He summarized the zoning history of the golf course property, explaining that the approximately 160 acres of the golf course property had been rezoned from PD to CO on April 12, 2011. City Council's intention was to then amend the land use provision within the zoning ordinance for the CO zoning district and subsequently rezone the remaining 21+/- acres to CO. In July 12, 2011, Appendix B of the zoning ordinance was amended to allow for the overnight storage of vehicles and equipment at publicly owned facilities and buildings, both general and recreational in nature, and City Council wishes now to rezone the remaining 21 acres to Conservation Open Space.
Mr. Wall asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak for the proposal.
Mr. Ryan, a Hamlets resident, asked for clarification of the zoning ordinance amendment, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained it was to amend the restriction of parking vehicles and equipment overnight; for the golf course to continue as it is currently, this had to be amended.
Mr. Ryan spoke in favor of the change, stating he felt it would result in it being more difficult for the property to be developed should anything change with its use.
Mr. Wall asked if anyone wished to speak against the issue. There was no one.
Mr. Wall closed the public hearing. He asked if there was any comment from the Commission. There was none. Mr. Wall asked if Staff had a recommendation, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered that Staff requested the favorable recommendation of the proposal as submitted.
Motion: Mr. Quinn made a motion to approve the recommendation to rezone the 21 +/- acres at 303 Hamlet Circle from Planned Development to Conservation Open Space. Mr. Smith seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor.
IV. Public Hearing - Recommendation for Approval of Land Use Buffer Ordinance Amendment
Mr. Wall opened the public hearing. He explained that the Commission had been working on the amendment for months to bring the City into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan that has been recommended and forwarded to City Council. He asked Staff for a summary of the amendment.
Mr. Ben-Yisrael gave a brief overview of the ordinance, explaining it was an effort to expand what was now a part of the zoning ordinance. It speaks to landscaped buffers required for incompatible land uses as well as adding some requirements for landscaped street buffers. He briefly explained some of the specifics of the ordinance as it written as well as the proposed requirements. He stated the Commission met with the Chairperson of the EDAC who shared some of the concerns held by the business community. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated he had forwarded to them the changes made to the ordinance since the previous meeting, having highlighted the changes.
Mr. Ryan asked for clarification of incompatible uses and the proposed size of the buffers, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained some of the proposed specifics. There was brief discussion regarding the Commission's previous conversations regarding the proposed language and how future changes could be made to the ordinance if necessary.
Mr. Wall closed the public hearing.
Motion: Mr. Washington made a motion to accept the LUBO as proposed. Mr. Connerty seconded.
Discussion: Mr. Ben-Yisrael asked for feedback regarding the intent for paragraph M(3) referring to preexisting nonconforming properties. He asked for feedback regarding the conflict with Paragraph A(2), which states a definite time limit for compliance, with the subsequent Paragraph M(3). He stated this was added for the purpose of a compromise between the Commission's wish for a definite time limit and EDAC's request for the ability to compromise in terms of compliance. He stated the Chairperson for EDAC had been invited to the meeting; however, he wasn't able to speak to him directly and wasn't sure why he was unable to attend. He stated he will speak to him following this meeting. He stated he felt EDAC wished for the five year compliance requirement to be eliminated and instead be governed by M(3). He asked for their feedback and recommendations. There was extensive conversation about how to best state the compliance intent.
Ms. McSwain suggested adding the language to (M)3 : properties determined to be . . . as determined by the Zoning Administrator . . . "; however, all such noncompliant properties shall become compliant with this ordinance within five years in accordance with Section A(2) aforementioned". She stated this would result in some type of compliance being accomplished within the five year period.
Mr. Quinn suggested removing M(3) in total. There was additional discussion.
Mr. Ben-Yisrael summarized their wish to require compliance within five years, but if a property owner is unable to meet the letter of the law they will be encouraged to do what they can as determined by the zoning administrator. There was additional discussion about the business having to apply for a variance to the ZBA when unable to be in compliance.
Mr. Connerty restated the Commission's request for the City to communicate with the business community about the amendment, to encourage them, and to work with the businesses in helping them comply.
Mr. Ben-Yisrael suggested that, with the Commission wishing to require preexisting nonconforming businesses to go through the ZBA process, the language be left as proposed, keeping A(2) and M(3).
After further discussion, there was agreement to add the five year compliance requirement language to M(3) as previously suggested by Ms. McSwain.
Motion to Amend: Mr. Washington made a motion to amend his initial motion to accept the change (additional language to M(3)) made to the proposed presentation of the LUBO. Mr. Connerty seconded the motion to amend.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote to Amend the Motion: All voted in favor. The motion was amended.
Vote: All voted in favor.
V. Comments from the Commission
Mr. Connerty apologized for being late to the meeting.
VI. Comments from Staff
Mr. Ben-Yisrael referred to the copy of the proposed decision letter from the Commission regarding the LUBO as discussed at the September meeting and asked that they review that for signature. He also updated them on the Comprehensive Plan, explaining it is scheduled to be heard on City Council's November agenda, as by State law, it must be advertised for a thirty day period. The first reading will be November 8.
Mr. Wall asked about the EDAC Chairperson's previous consent to sign the recommendation letter as well and asked if that was no longer the case. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated he had the opportunity to discuss this again with the EDAC Chair, Mr. Buckner, and since his meeting with the Commission Mr. Buckner had some concern again about the language in the ordinance. Mr. Ben-Yisrael felt as though the addition of M(3) satisfied some of Mr. Buckner's concerns, but Mr. Buckner didn't wish to endorse the amendment to the extent previously discussed.
Mr. Wall asked how the intent of the letter could be made a part of the process. His concern was what would happen to the letter after it was forwarded with the ordinance. Mr. Ben-Yisrael suggested being able to post the information/letter on the website, either as the letter itself or as an explanation of the ordinance. He also suggested including it into the development packet that is given to businesses when they come in with their plans and proposals, plus making it a part of the conversation and culture of the City.
Mr. Connerty expressed his wish that the City be proactive in the educational process - such as including the information in newsletters, the business section of the paper, the public affairs person encouraging the paper to do something periodically, encouraging the business community to embrace it as a positive thing for the City and its growth and development. He asked if Staff could maybe annually brief them on what has been done, as clearly this communication effort was a priority in their recommendation. He stated he felt they had made this commitment to EDAC and felt they should follow through. He also questioned if there was anticipated objection from EDAC to the passing of the ordinance. Mr. Ben-Yisrael answered the draft ordinance will be forwarded to the City Administrator, and it may be forwarded to EDAC for further commentary, specifically since the EDAC chair was not present at this meeting. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated Council may even decide to have a workshop where they can discuss this with both the EDAC and the Commission. Mr. Wall questioned how Council could approve the Comprehensive Plan but turn the amended ordinance down, as this complies with the Plan. Mr. Connerty asked if it was appropriate for the Commission to request a workshop so that it might be a collaborative process rather than an adversarial effort. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated he would pass the request along. There was discussion that the members felt the process had been a joint effort, as they had invited the EDAC to their meetings, waiting an additional month to be able to hear what they wished to say, and two presentations had been made directly to EDAC. It was discussed that much of what had been added to the language was a result of their conversations with EDAC. Mr. Connerty stated he felt it was good public policy to be able to sit down together and talk through the issue.
VII. Adjournment
Mr. Quinn made a motion to adjourn, and Mr. Washington seconded. All voted in favor. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
