MINUTES
CITY OF GOOSE CREEK
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
FEBRUARY 29, 2012, 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 6:31 p.m.
Present: Butch Clift, Larry Monheit (arrived at 6:42), Kevin Smith, Thomas Volkmar, and Robert Williams
Absent: James Fisk and Van Williams
Staff Present: Daniel Ben-Yisrael and Sarah Hanson
II. Review of Minutes from January 26, 2012 Meeting
Motion: Mr. Clift made a motion to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Volkmar 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
Motion: Mr. Clift made a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. Volkmar seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor.
Chairman Williams requested that Staff present the application. Mr. Ben-Yisrael summarized the application, stating that Berkeley Electric Coop and Santee Cooper wished to install a 125 foot communication pole at the substation site in Liberty Hall Plantation. He stated the applicants appeared before the Board in December 2011 with an application for a request for a 140 foot pole, and the application was denied. They were coming back to the Board for a rehearing based on their request to provide additional information and based on the fact there has been a substantial change made to the original application. Their present application was for a pole with a height of 125 feet, a reduction by 15 feet from the original application. The Board was being asked to decide if this is a suitable use for the property. He stated that Staff recommended approval of the application.
Chairman Williams administered the testimony oath to those participating in the presentation.
Mr. Mark Pilgrim presented the application for Santee Cooper. He summarized the need for the communication tower and stated the tower is the most reliable, most efficient, and most cost effective option available to Santee Cooper. He submitted a summary list of the various alternatives for the communication pole. Mr. Pilgrim stated that based on additional review they were able to revise the height of the pole to 125 feet. He suggested the galvanized steel pole could be painted if necessary. Mr. Russell Albright, Mr. Brian Gray, and Mr. Doug Dodson, all of Santee Cooper, explained the reasons they have determined that the pole is the best option for their need for uninterrupted monitoring.
Mr. Volkmar stated that, per the Zoning Ordinance, their review can't be based on the economics of an application, and the Board's concerns have been about the aesthetics of the pole. He stated he felt that lowering the height was a better option. Mr. Clift questioned if Santee Cooper would replace the tower in the future should future technology offer a different option. Mr. Pilgrim stated he couldn't speculate but if they could find something that was just as good, cheaper, more reliable, and less intrusive, he was certain they would consider it. Mr. Clift asked if they would take the pole down in that event, and Mr. Pilgrim stated if they could use a different option they would take the pole down. Mr. Clift asked if they would ever add other equipment to the pole or use it for something in addition to this, and Mr. Pilgrim stated it is a single purpose pole just for this use. Mr. Volkmar explained the Board had the option of placing a condition on any approval, to state an appropriate time frame for review with City Staff to evaluate the status of the pole. Mr. Smith stated he felt the pole does impact the homes that are currently there, and part of their review is to weigh the impact. He stated he felt the stipulation to reevaluate the necessity of the pole was an option.
There was brief discussion about painting the pole and the maintenance challenges with that. There was discussion about the option of a T1 line and the reasons why it was not a good alternative to the communication pole.
Motion: Mr. Clift made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Smith seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor.
Motion: Mr. Clift made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit for as long as it is used for the stated use. Mr. Smith seconded.
Discussion: Mr. Volkmar suggested amending the motion to include the requirement that they review with City Staff annually to determine that the tower is still needed or if technology has changed significantly.
Amended Motion: Mr. Clift made the motion to approve the application for the Conditional Use Permit with the condition that the applicant review annually with City Staff whether the tower is needed or if technology has changed significantly to allow for a better option to suit their monitoring needs. Mr. Smith seconded.
Discussion: Mr. Volkmar remarked he felt this addresses the community's concerns and also addresses that it is an unusual situation as per the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Monheit suggested amending it to include a specific date for the review so that it is reviewed at the same time each year, suggesting that it be reviewed by the last day of February each year.
Amended Motion: Mr. Clift made the motion to approve the application for the Conditional Use Permit for a communications tower at 264 Clayburne Drive in accordance with § 151.171 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Goose Creek, having found that the application satisfies the criteria set forth for Conditional Use Permits as outlined in Section 151.171 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance, with the condition that by the last day of February each year the applicant review with City Staff whether the tower is needed or if technology has changed significantly to allow for a better option to suit their monitoring needs, at which time the communication pole will be removed. Mr. Smith seconded.
Discussion: There was no additional discussion.
Vote: All voted in favor.
IV. Public Hearing - Request for a Variance from the Setback Requirements for Communication Tower at 264 Clayburne Drive
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 requested that Staff present the application. Mr. Ben-Yisrael explained a variance is requested, as the tower's height at 125 feet requires a three hundred foot setback, per the Zoning Ordinance, and Santee Cooper proposes a setback of approximately 241feet. He stated that Staff recommends approval of the request.
Mr. Volkmar asked for the purpose of the setback requirement, and Mr. Ben-Yisrael stated it is primarily for visual impact as well as safety.
Motion: Mr. Clift made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Monheit seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor.
Mr. Volkmar stated he felt this was an unusual situation and that the application met the requirements of the ordinance.
Motion: Mr. Volkmar made a motion to approve the application for a variance from the setback requirements of Annex D of the Zoning Ordinance for the communications tower at 264 Clayburne Drive in accordance with § 151.171 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Goose Creek, having found that the application meets the conditions set forth for a variance as outlined in Section 151.171 of the Zoning Ordinance:
The conditions surrounding the property in question are extraordinary; the conditions surrounding the property in question are unique and do not generally apply to other property in the area; the use of the subject properties may be uncommonly and unreasonably restricted by the strict enforcement of the ordinance; and the granting of the variance would not adversely impact any adjacent property or cause detriment to the public good. Mr. Clift seconded.
Discussion: There was none.
Vote: All voted in favor.
V. Comments from the Board
There were none.
VI. Comments from Staff
There were none.
VII. Adjournment
Motion: Mr. Clift made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Smith seconded.
Vote: All voted in favor.
The meeting ended at or about 7:08 p.m.
