Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

Still have it But I'm not Good evening. I'm Sharon Reed, chair of the planning commission, and it is my pleasure to welcome all of you here tonight for our August meeting. Uh before I call the meeting to order, I do want to announce once again that the uh resoning request for East Monagu Avenue has been withdrawn by the applicant until September. This meeting of the planning commission is now called to order. Let me once again um explain the signin sheet. There was a sign-in sheet out there for one of the agenda items. Let me emphasize that this will be a public meeting. It will be a public hearing and you are welcome to speak

regarding this agenda item. Several people did sign in um and you have the opportunity to do that. But once those people have spoken, you are welcome to come in and to come up and and just give us your name and address and you can make your comments. Each person is limited to three minutes. Three minutes each. Do I just stand up and do it? I've never Well, when we call for the public hearing, I'll Yeah, you'll just stand up once your name is called. Well, not right now. Okay.

Once we call for the public hearing, we've got a couple of other things that we need to take care of before we get there. Uh, but you are limited to three minutes each. And we do ask for the sake of time that if someone else expresses what you wish to express the same way, you are welcome to say as the former speaker said or as so and so said, I agree. All right. We are calling this meeting to order and we will begin with consideration of the minutes from the July meeting. Commissioners, are there any corrections to the minutes as presented? Hearing none, we'll take a vote and it'll be a voice vote. All those in favor of approving the minutes from the July meeting as published say I.

I. Those who disapprove say nay. The eyes have it. The minutes are approved as published. The first agenda item now is the it's a public hearing consideration for uh recommendation for proposed resoning amendment to the plan development known as rey on the Ashley not resoning proposed amendment to that plan development. gift report from staff.

This uh request is a proposed amendment to the plan development known as rubbery on the Charleston County TMS 410-000027 revised [Music] in blue and development district. Zoning is the same with amended development document. The existing land use here property outlined in blue highlighted in green is zoned which is plan development district. Surrounding zoning is M1 and O comprehensive plan. Uh the future land use map designates these properties for employment center and suburban residential which supports single family and multifamily residential uses. The proposed amendment to the PD would be consistent with the future land use designation for this property. see here uh both street view and an aerial view. The subject property is currently developed with condominiums uh located in the the four buildings. You can see in that photo adjacent properties uh the parcels to the east zone M1 and are a radio and media center as well as a pharmaceutical manufacturing company. PD amendment proposes to establish new forms of allowable building types including single unit buildings and attached town home style units. The to

establish development standards for the single family and town home units. Both building types may be up to four stories in height and will not exceed the height restriction established for the overall development. Parking will be provided underneath the units. Up to eight single family units would be allowed and up to 14 attached town home units would be allowed. Staff's recommendation is approval as the proposed land uses of the plan development are supported by the comprehensive plan and are compatible with the adjacent uses. Staff is recommending approval of the request to amend the rey on the Ashley PDD.

All right. Thank you. Do any of the commissioners have questions for staff? Is the applicant here? Yes, ma'am. Like to come forward.

Yes. I'm Martin Grahamling with um with Gramling Brothers that is one of the development partners in Rey on the Ashley. Um the the purpose here is is as Tim said just to amend a building the building type so that we instead of building these very large condominium units you get the same number of units and smaller buildings which is in some sense necessary from a commercial perspective just that it's it's very difficult to build those large buildings now but also because we you know we think there's a demand for it and we think that it it fits the site a little better and just to reiterate um the revy on the Ashley um original PD and master D called for 88 units. So, you know, units were always envisioned on these two paths. And this plan actually uh calls for finishing out at 86. So, um 22 new units instead of the 24 that would have been uh allowed. So, in fact, it's a a net reduction in the the density by two units. But in any case, happy to answer any other questions that you may have. Thank you. Do any of the commissioners have questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you.

This is an advertised public hearing. Uh, and we do have some people who have signed up. Again, we ask that you take three minutes. Uh Wendell. Oh, Dub Green. Doug Green and come right there. Um and all this is is this is a original um plan um with the six building shown. Uh second page is the uh new plan with the new buildings shown. The third page is this. Um I'll go to the back. I'm looking. Anyway, my name is Doug Green and my wife and I have been proud to call the Rey home for the last over a decade now. And we bought there because it was a clear and thoughtful plan, one that respected the marsh, provided walking trails, and maintained privacy. We paid a premium for that that certainty. This reszoning or whatever you want to call it, this throws that certainty away. Um, houses will push deep into the lots. You can look specifically at page two. Look at the lot on the far right. The proposed housing goes way up against the marsh, much different than that one small building that's going to be there. If you look to the far left of page two, you have houses, t town town homes that are going to be built almost against

current building two. So erasing privacy, there's no clear answer on pricing potential buyer pool that they're looking to to sell to. And this is going to cause us to have to have two HOAs because those will be totally different buildings with totally different maintenance needs. It will not blend in with our current HOA situation, especially if he does elevators and all 22 is as he's proposed. I will say our community is united. We did a survey. 76% of our people said they were against this. 20 22% said they wanted more information and only one person voted yes. They wanted it resolved. And I will say this, in our master deed, the developer does have the right to change to what he's done. There's a clause in there on page three. At the end of that clause, you will see it says he can do this as long as it doesn't material affect materially affect any owner's interest. This proposal does affect owner's interest. It changes density, walkability, privacy, and the very character of our neighborhood. Let me be really clear here. We're not against him building what he said he was going to build. We're against a plan that breaks the promises, reduces livability, and risk our investment. I'll leave you with these last couple thoughts. Brought it. We bought into the rey on the Ashley. We weren't buying just walls and a roof. We are buying into a promise. A promise of a certain plan, a certain quality of life, a certain protection of our investment. Your choice is really simple tonight. Protect the integrity of the original plan or set a precedent that commitments to homeowners can be erased whenever it's convenient. And I on behalf of a

lot of my neighbors here, I urge you to reject this. Thank you. Uh, let me clarify. I misspoke earlier. This is not a resoning request, right? This is an amendment to their plan, but this is not a resoning request. So, I request you reject this amendment.

Thank you. All right. Um, Wendell Brown. Lendel Brown signed to speak during this public hearing. Uh Charlene Health. Is it Kirsty or Kelsey? Hello. Hi.

I'm Charlene Kery. I live at Realy. I've been there two and a half years and I love it. Uh it's a perfect place for me and my dog. I love my neighbors. I like my community. And as everyone else, when we bought over there, we were given a plat of what was to be. There were two pieces that had not been developed. One would be another building just like the one I live in now. And at the other end, because of area, there would be a half building. In other words, just um eight units instead of 16. And I accepted that, you know, the man owns the property. He needs to get his investment, but he does not need to bring in a whole different showcase of houses. You know, we're comfortable like we are. The roads are fine, and we don't need all these people coming into all these different houses. So, I like it like it is, and I hope you don't change it. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, I'm not sure about the last name. Ido. Is it Marcel?

Close. Close. Marello. Oh, Marello. Okay. Thank you.

Um, and my wife Sheila and our two little kids vacation to Charleston a little over 25 years ago. And on our way home, my wife said, "I will end up there someday." Well, it took us a long time, a lot of work, but in 2013, early 2013, we purchased a condo in building five, which at the time was just a shell. Uh, it took a little over three years to get done. It's uh we end up closing at the end of 2016. Um, call me old school, but when I shake someone's hand, it's a promise count. Obviously, when you purchase uh property like this, you need you need to be more than that. So, we did sign legal papers and on the legal papers we signed, we were moving into a condo development that would end up with six buildings, not 26. Would end up with six elevators, not 26. It would be one building on the far right next to building two, which be a full building. And where we are, building five, close to the 526, smaller area, so it's going to be a half a building there. Only eight condos there, half a building. Now we had the option because after six months it wasn't done. We had the option to leave. We had the option to look somewhere else. The view we have of the marsh, the view we have of the river, the privacy we have, that's exactly what we bought. It's exactly what we wanted to have. So we did with the new amendment where building six was going to be now goes deep into the marsh. It takes away view. It takes away the look seeing the river. It totally takes away the privacy. Those six buildings by themselves, everybody out on their patio has full privacy. Now it's going to be like an apartment complex. You're going to see right

across. you're going to see everybody out outd which I have very big problem with. Um also we've been here eight years the people we've met friends we've made you first start talking it's like where you live right off 526 those condos we're like oh my god they're they're beautiful. Well, some of the friends we've made, we have talked about what the possibility are. And with all the people going up and down 526 looking at that condo development now are going to see a total total different thing. They're going to see a total different thing. Um, again, um, it is amazing. If this passes, I would be very surprised that what you people are actually looking into compared to what we all bought. Dub did mention 76% of our people are totally against it. Well, those 20 plus percent once they get more information and look at it, I'm going to guarantee you 63 out of 64 billion people that are there right now will be against this. So hopefully you will take that tonight.

Next, John. And again, I can't read the John Houston Okay, thank you. Come on. How's everybody tonight?

I just got a few comments um to echo briefly what we've already heard. Mr. Gramling stood up and he said the reason why they wanted to pursue this type of a product on our property was because it was more commercially feasible than building the buildings that are already there. And I'm not sure that should be a reason for y'all to approve this proposed project. I would also like to ask if any of you have been out to the um rey on the national have you been out there to look at the property? Have you been out there to look at the property in relation to this meeting tonight? Yes.

Okay. So then you by looking at the plans you would then see that the density situation is going to change tremendously by going from what would have been one additional 16 unit building to now on that side there would be I think it's 14

buildings. So it's going to change quite a bit. If you look at the position of each of the buildings as they look over the river, they've been positioned so they do not obstruct the view of another building. So echoing what um Mr. Marcelo said now the way this is proposed, these buildings will be constructed where it's going to be obstructing the views of some of the people in the second building and some of the people in the fifth building which was not part of the original plan. So, for all the reasons that we've already heard, I too would ask that y'all deny the request. And hopefully recognizing that all of these people here tonight can't be wrong just for the developer to be right.

Uh, next one. Is it Danny Kennedy? Donnie. Donnie.

Donnie Kennedy. We bought in the Rey in 2012, my wife and I, Ginger. In fact, we've owned two units out there. So, um, we really like the place. When we went there, we were we were taken away by the landscaping, the the atmosphere, and and just really said, "Hey, this would be a place that we would like." It was our second home. We lived in Greensboro, North Carolina. A couple years later, I was like, "Jing, I love it so much down here. We need to move back to Charleston. We were born and raised here. We needed to get back." So, we moved back and everybody said, "Where are you going to build you a house? Where where you I'm like, the Revery is the place we need to be because we love it. Great great landscaping, great views, the river, the dock, great people, a great community and family of people, which is very important to us. And it's heartbreaking to see that we that what we board is going to be changed for all of us. I mean, it's it's and and and I think the main reason that Tim, you recommended this to be approved is is because of cost. And it's not our fault that costs have went through the roof. I'm a builder. I'm a developer. I I build houses and and all. I mean, when I give a man my word, if it cost me money, I'm going to finish his house for it. And and I think the Gremlins are to finish the project out with how with what they started. I mean, not not 164 of us here in here has contributed to the cost of what a building cost today. So, but the prices have gone up. So, yeah, it costs more to build it, but now you're getting $5, $600 a square foot, not $200 a square foot where we bought at back in in 2011 when the economy was down. So, I ask you to take that into consideration. And I don't understand what what what is the benefit to the city of North Charleston to destroy our neighborhood because it's not like we

are a huge development. We we we have one gate. We go in and it's a it's a small development and 24 houses are going to destroy our community. And I just ask you to take that in consider consideration or a rejectment of this amendment and proposal. Thank you. Next is it Joe Alman. Hey everybody, I'm John Alman attorney

and I'm happy to answer any questions that anybody has on any side of this. I think it's important to go ahead and point out, and I appreciate everybody's remarks, this development was always envisioned to have a certain number of units. And I want to uh at least address the misconception that this this application does anything to change the number of units. It's the same number of units. In fact, as Mr. Granling said, it's less units than the original master deed from over 20 years ago. So I think that's an important point. There was always envisioned to be 88 units as part of revery. Now there have been 64 for a moment but from the very first document that was filed it was going to be 88. So what the applicant is is asking for is in fact a decrease. There's no there was always going to be more folks living out there. The intent was always to develop these two paths. Nothing has changed from from the first incarnation of this plan. So, I want to go ahead and dispel that notion that somehow the applicant is asking for more units or there's some addition. There's not. Okay. The second thing that I I want to go ahead and address for everybody in this room because there's a suggestion that there's been some sort of change. The applications from from the documents from over a decade ago, the grapplings told everybody here that they retain discretion regarding plans and specifications and those sort of things. They're delighted to hear from you guys, but that is what the documents if anybody bought in the last decade, that is what their document said. So that's what they're committed to. They want to hear from everybody. That's why they've met with everybody in this room. But I want to make sure that the folks on the commission know that has please. He has the flaw.

But that is what the application is. is essentially asking for which is a recognition of what this project was originally involved which is 88 units. There are 24 that can be built based on the original and this plan calls for even less than that. So it's actually a reduction and I think that's an important fact for everybody to know. It's not that 24 new units that weren't originally intended. It's in fact a less lesser amount than that. I'm happy to answer any questions anybody might have on the commission. Thank you, sir. We don't have any questions. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Um, we need to interject on what? I'm sorry. No. Okay.

Paul, Miss Hall, is it? No, it's not. Show. Oh, yes, ma'am. I'm the applicant for the next project. Oh, okay. Okay. Again, this is a public hearing. So, if there are those of you who did not sign this form, who wish to speak, please come one at a time and come up here and give us your name and address one at a time, please. You're welcome.

I already spoke. Can I speak again? Is there anyone who wishes to come on up and I need your name and My name is Martha Welsh. I'm sorry. Martha Welsh and I live Martha Welsh we l Okay. And I live in building five. So that's 4247 Faber Place Drive, apartment 403. Thank you. You may begin.

Uh first in response to this gentleman, no one has ever met with people who live Reverend Ashley with respect to this project. Want to hear who would say Miss Marsha I would ask that you direct your comments to the commission just because we can't have the public interjection.

Okay. I'm just if someone had was aware I don't want them to speak but it is my understanding and I would have been at any such meeting so I feel quite confident it didn't occur. Uh when you discuss the difference between six buildings and 24 buildings is that how many people have?

Yes. That's an enormous change in the profile of the community. We all bought, as has been said, so I'm just reiterating something. We bought relying on an understanding that there would be no more than six buildings that would accommodate the same number of people as stated in the co in the uh covenants, whatever we call them. Uh so we are not objecting to having more families. We are not objecting right to vote. But we are saying that building what we were promised is what we're asking for. And with respect to this economic viability argument, yes, you know, in 2003 the market was not good. In 2011, the market was not good. But in the last 10 years, the market has been terrific. So this idea that somehow now it's not economically viable. It's just you want to do it now. You could have done it at any time with respect to what we were told we would have and it would have been economically viable. And I would argue it actually still is. It's just they don't want to deal with it. So thank you for listening.

Thank you. Hi, my name is Chuck Shields. Wait, wait, wait. You said Chuck first name is Chuck. C H U C K.

Last name Shields. S H I E L Ds. I live at 4252 Favor Place number 302. The attorney seems to think that 24 buildings and two buildings are the same. They are not. I am an ex developer myself. If I've got 24 garages pointed towards a circle, it obviously changes the atmosphere of the project. I'm not sure we're even talking about residential if we're talking about 24 units that we're totally uh changed from the original eight. And I think that this proposal of town houses versus a condo building completely changes the the nature of the project. Thank you.

Thank you. [Applause]

Okay. Is there someone else who wishes to speak during this public hearing? No. All right. Hearing none. I'm sorry. Was there someone else? Hearing none. This public hearing is now closed. Uh we will entertain a motion. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to deny recommending approval of the request to amend the Rivery Ash Rivery on the Ashley plan development project.

Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded that we deny approval of the proposed amendments to this planned development. Is there discussion?

Discussion. I would like to say I made the motion, but it does sound there's a significant amount of change to that original plan. I understand that it's probably the same amount of units, but it is a different kind of structural formation for those that does impact I think the quality and the character of of the development. And you know, I think I would encourage all the other commissioners to see that, you know, recognizing the quality of life uh and the character um of a neighborhood of a planned development um is is important.

Is there further discussion?

Is there further discussion? Hearing none, we're ready to vote. Mr. Belly, I Mr. Jan, I uh Mr. Griezmann, Mr. Mont. Hi, Mr. Manhanigan. Oops. And Miss Reed.

Hi. So that is 4 to two to deny. This case will next be heard at the September 18th city council for first reading. September 8th 18th September 8th first reading. Uh and then uh public safety on the 18th uh where additional public input made. Okay. So, the next opportunity for public input is September 8th.

8th 11th, September 11th. 11th, I'm sorry. Public safety September 11th at the public first reading and then public safety on the 18th for public input on the 18th. Sorry. Thank you.

Uh would anybody like to leave before we move on? We'll give you some time to do that. Thank you for very much.

Now, you're certainly welcome to stay. Welcome to stay and listen to the rest of the meeting if you wish. Excuse me.

Hey, I'm Julia. I just wanted to thank you for kind words that you seem to really understand and I don't need to move on. All right. The next agenda item is consideration for approval of a preliminary plat and road name approved. Uh the preliminary plat is proposing to subdivide approximately 12.7 acres into 39 single family lots, two new public rights subway, uh Clark Meadow Street and Scupper Street and two HOA lots off of Dearwood Drive. This preliminary plat is in proper order and may be approved at the discretion of the commission contingent upon the following uh items. Approval of detailed drainage road plans by the city engineer and availability of water and sewer. Staff's re recommendation is contingent approval. Okay. Uh you've heard the staff report. Are there any questions from the commissioners for staff? This is not a public hearing. Uh, is there a motion?

Approval. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded that we grant contingent approval of this preliminary plat and road name approval. Is there discussion hearing? None. We're ready to vote. Uh, Mr. Bellamy. Hi, Mr. Jan. Hi, Miss Griezmann. Hi, Mr. Monte. Hi, Mr. Van Hanigan. I miss I

Okay, the next agenda item is consideration for approval of preliminary plat and road name approval. Again, hear the staff report. This is a preliminary plan showing subdivision TMS 478060, parcel 03054 into new HOA parcels and road name approval of Lemon Lime Avenue. The preliminary plan is proposing to subdivide approximately 7.63 63 acres into 74 garden and cluster single family lots, a new private right ofway, Lemon Lime Avenue, and four HOA lots off of Facet Road. This preliminary plan is in proper order and may be approved at the discretion of the commission contingent upon the following approval of detailed drainage and road plans by the city engineer and availability of water and sewer. Uh staff's recommendation is contingent approval. You've heard the staff report. Do you have any questions for the staff?

I was going to say the street name. Yeah, I feel about living lemon lime. Basically, our responsibility is just to verify whether or not it elsewhere. If this is meets safety standards, it hasn't been used elsewhere. Uh, that's kind of what we asked for. It's cute. Yeah, they want it. It's fine. I don't still don't know how I feel about saying, "Oh, I live on living line. I have it." Okay. You be all together different from everybody else. Definitely different. Definitely.

Wouldn't have no problem mistaking in your house. Yeah, it's true. on my street. Okay. Are there any questions for staff? I think I've asked that already, right? Hearing none, we're ready for motion. I move that we accept staff's recommendation. Second,

including the street. It's been moved and seconded that we accept staff's recommendation and grant contingent approval of this preliminary plat and the road name. Approval of the road name. Is there discussion hearing? None. We're ready to vote. Mr. Belling. Hi. Mr. Dwan. Hi. Miss Griezmann. Hi. Mr. Monty. Hi. Mr. Van Hanigan. Hi. M. Hi.

All right. Uh, please have the business take note of the actions uh by council during their July meetings regarding our recommendations. Do any of the commission members have any comments that you wish to make before we adjourn? Anything staff needs to tell us?

Just a reminder that um the comp plan review will be at council this month. uh is Thursday's first reading comment period and on 21st it's public safety and then the 28th she final. So you said there's a city council meeting this Thursday. Yes. Isn't this Thursday also the unveiling of the Yes. The official portrait of the mayor is being unveiled at seven.

The beginning of that'll be the first item on the agenda. So we don't have to stay long. All right. So if there's nothing else to come before this body, this meeting is adjourned.