MINUTES
CITY OF GOOSE CREEK
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
DECEMBER 15, 2011, 6:30 P.M.
GOOSE CREEK MUNICIPAL COURTROOM
519 N. GOOSE CREEK BOULEVARD

I. Call To Order - Chairman Williams called the meeting to order at 6:32.

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

II. Review of Minutes from September 27, 2011 Meeting

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

III. Public Hearing - Application for Conditional Use Permit For Communication Tower at 264 Clayburne Drive

Chairman Williams explained the process for the public hearing.

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

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

Chairman Williams asked Staff to present the application summary.

Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained the applicants, Berkeley Electric Cooperative and Santee Cooper, wished to install a communication pole on the Berkeley Electric substation site in Liberty Hall Plantation at 264 Clayburne Drive. The property abuts residential uses on two sides. The proposed communication pole totals approximately 100' in height which fits within the ordinance requirements. The Board is asked to determine whether the pole is a suitable use for the property.

Mr. Mark Pilgrim with Santee Cooper stated the need for the pole is unique in that they have contracted with SCE&G to feed the station, and the tower will monitor the flow off the SCE&G system, so they can monitor the amount of the energy being used.

Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained to the Board that per the zoning ordinance the use of a communication tower can be granted only through a Conditional Use Permit.

Mr. Volkmar questioned Santee Cooper's letter stating that South Carolina code exempts them from having to go through the review and appeals process. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated that the City's view is that this section of the State Code of Ordinances does not apply to the variance or the conditional use process, as it specifically addresses the Comprehensive Plan and the procedure for review of plans after the Plan is adopted. Per this section all structures, including roads, proposed within the City Limits after the adoption of the Plan must go before the Planning Commission to determine if the proposal is in compliance with the land use recommended within the Comprehensive Plan. This is the requirement from which Santee Cooper and BEC would be exempt, not the regulatory approval process that is separate and apart from that review. So it is Staff's determination that they would not be exempt from the ZBA.

There was discussion about the purpose for the tower. Mr. Pilgrim stated it required a line of sight process to communicate with the Carnes tower, enabling instantaneous data. There was discussion about alternative processes rather than the tower. Mr. Pilgrim stated there were other options, but this was the lowest cost option to them. He stated they would not be allowing anyone to collate anything for any other purposes.

Chairman Williams asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to the application. He administered the oath for his testimony.

Mr. Franklin Moore stated he was a resident of Liberty Hall Plantation. He stated there was already a ninety foot (90') tower erected which is about twice the height of a standard light pole; he stated it was very unsightly and was huge at ninety feet. He stated the property owners did not know a substation was going to be built nor the tower erected and asked the Board to keep that in mind, particularly when there are alternatives.

Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained the existing pole referred to by Mr. Moore had been previously installed without the permit process, but since Santee Cooper applied for the Conditional Use Permit and the variance, any enforcement resulting from the erection of the existing pole was staid by virtue of their applications. He stated it was his understanding that this pole was only for temporary use.

Mr. Volkmar asked additional questions regarding the need for the tower in lieu of other options. Mr. Pilgrim stated it was the most cost effective and reliable option. He stated the height was just a result of the line of sight to the next receiver.

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

Chairman Williams asked if there was discussion among the Board. Mr. Volkmar stated he thought there were other options available and felt they could ask for more data. Mr. Van Williams agreed there wasn't enough information available to make a recommendation. Mr. Volkmar stated he didn't feel the applicant's response addressed fully the thirteen criteria of the zoning ordinance.

Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained that the Board was being asked to decide upon the application based on the thirteen criteria (of the zoning ordinance), and Paragraph (14) following the criteria stated "the ZBA shall not grant permission based on the circumstances of the applicant, or on unnecessary hardship." Therefore, he stated the Board is asked to decide on the application based on its own merit and not if there are other acceptable or affordable alternatives. Mr. Smith stated that he felt based on that it does not meet the requirements.

Mr. Ben-Yisrael asked to clarify his statement for the record. He stated he was attempting to clarify his comment; he intended to point out that the application, based on the information provided, should be reviewed on its own merit, and the Board should render a yea or nay decision on that application; the economics driving the proposal should not be a consideration of the Board. He stated the Applicant submitted an application, and the Board needed to review that application; the fact that the Applicant has stated that this is a cost effective option should not be factored into the rendering of the decision, and the Board should not be unduly biased by the statement that it is the most cost effective option.

Motion: Mr. Monheit made a motion to deny the application for the Conditional Use Permit, having found the application does not satisfy the criteria as set forth in Section 151.171(C) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Discussion: Mr. Volkmar requested the motion be amended to reference specifically Sections (7) and (8) of the Ordinance.
Amended Motion: Mr. Monheit amended his motion to deny the application for the Conditional Use Permit, having found the application does not meet the criteria set forth in Section 151.171(C) of the Zoning Ordinance, referencing item (7) and item (8) of the Ordinance.
Amended Second: Mr. Smith seconded the amended motion.
Discussion: There was no further discussion.
Vote: Chairman Williams asked for a roll call vote. Mr. Monheit: yes; Mr. Smith: yes; Mr. Volkmar: yes; Mr. Robert Williams: yes; Mr. Van Williams: yes. The motion to deny the application was approved with a vote of 5-0.

IV. Public Hearing - Request for a Variance from the Setback Requirements for Communication Tower at 264 Clayburne Drive

Chairman Williams stated that based on the fact that the Conditional Use Permit was denied, there was no need to go further. Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated that in light of the fact that the variance request was advertised and the Board was ready to hear the application, because the application for the Conditional Use Permit was denied, the applicant cannot now ask for a variance, and Staff would like to ask the Applicant to withdraw the application for the variance without bias, the statement of which would need to be submitted in writing and forwarded to Staff.

Mr. Pilgrim stated he wished to withdraw the application for a variance without bias and stated he would put the request in writing.

V. Election of Chairperson and Vice Chair for Calendar Year 2012

Motion: Mr. Volkmar made the motion to appoint Mr. Robert Williams Chairman and Mr. Butch Clift as Vice Chairman. Mr. Van Williams seconded the motion.
Vote: All voted in favor.

VI. Adjournment

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

The meeting ended at or about 7:10 p.m.