Saturday, January 23, 2016
We Want Your Business!
I enjoyed the recent article in the JIM about starting a new business on James Island. We at the Town want to encourage the entrepreneurial initiatives of our residents. I was troubled to hear that one aspiring businesswoman felt that she received poor service from the Town, apparently in contrast to a resident of the City of Charleston who was able to open for business the next day. However, researching our records show that at least in this case, the home occupancy permit was provided the very same day the application was submitted. As explained by Town Administrator Ashley Kellahan, we always want to do better, but a zoning permit was not the hold up this time. Planning Director Kristen Crane gave some pointers for obtaining a zoning permit for a business as well. Her focus was not a home occupancy permit but rather the process for opening a new "bricks and mortar" business. That can be more time consuming. I am very committed to encouraging a thriving business community, especially in the Town's central commercial district on Folly Road. While we will continue to work to streamline the process, it takes some time when a business proposal involves the construction of a new building or even extensive renovation. Parking, curb cuts, traffic and building safety are important considerations for any municipality. If a new business is going into a vacant commercial site with few modifications, the process is usually faster, but if there is a significant change in the type of business more review is needed. Currently, the Town takes applications for business licenses and collects the fees and the actual license is sent in the mail. While there is no need to wait until the actual license arrives, we hope that soon we will be able to print business licenses on site and provide them to new businesses immediately. Want to start a home business? Want a great business location on Folly Road? Come on by. The Town is ready to help. We Want Your Business.
Traffic Signals on Harbor View Road
Traffic signals are slated to be included as part of the Harbor View Road Improvement Project. They could begin operating as soon as next September. One signal will be at the corner of Fort Sumter and Harbor View Road. The other will be at Mikell Drive and Harbor View Road.
The former Principal of Stiles Point Elementary, Steve Burger, asked Councilman Leonard Blank to include a signal at Mikell Drive. While a traffic signal at Mikell drive had been part of the plan very early, it had been removed from the plan by 2008. Councilman Blank saw that it was included in the planning process in 2010 or 2011 and it became part of what was called "Plan B." Plan B had been developed at the behest of County Councilman Joe Qualey during the period the Town was closed down. There were public meetings about "Plan A," the original plan, and "Plan B" in the spring of 2012. I was very busy with the Town's incorporation election at the time, but I did attend a meeting at Stiles Point Elementary. "Plan B" had more support among the public and County Council changed the Harbor View Road project consistent with plan "B."
By the time the Harbor View Road project was ready to start, the Town was reincorporated. State law requires that projects on SCDOT roads have approval of a municipality if it crosses its jurisdiction. In the summer of 2014, Town Council approved the project on a very contentious 3-2 vote. At that time, the plan included the two traffic signals.
Recently, County Councilman Qualey has been trying delay the full installation of the traffic signal at Mikell Drive. I know that I have had some residents of the area complain about the traffic signals and I am sure he heard the same. The first step of the process was to be a request from the James Island Town Council to reconsider the traffic signal. Only then would County Council decide whether to pursue this course. If the necessary permissions could be obtained from the State and Federal governments, then it would come back to the Town of James Island and the City of Charleston for final approval.
Town Councilman Blank, who had originally championed this traffic signal at Mikell, was open to this delay. He had spoken with a school crossing guard who doesn't like serve where there is also a traffic signal. Apparently, drivers get confused about whether they should obey the signal or the crossing guard. (You are supposed to stop for the crossing guard and school children, even if the light turns green.) Based upon the request by County Councilman Qualey and my discussions with Town Councilman Blank, I placed the issue on the agenda for the last Town meeting.
Councilman Blank wanted to know if the new principal of Stiles Point still wanted the traffic signal. We contacted Mr. Ard and he believes that having a traffic signal at the corner is in the best interests of the school and the children. With that information, there was no interest on Town Council in trying to change the plan (again) at this late date to delay the installation of the traffic signal. At the last Town Council meeting, no action was taken. The plan for the two traffic signals is moving forward as before--as it has since 2012.
I am frequently stuck in traffic in the morning on Harbor View Road. The reason for the backup is that people stop to allow left turns by those coming in on side streets. Once past the last side street before the bridge, North Shore, the traffic moves steadily. The next tie up is on the Connector, with people stopping at the lights on Calhoun.
I think there is at least a chance that rather than each driver deciding whether to be nice and let people in, if there is traffic control then those wanting to turn left do so during the breaks created by the signals. Rather than the constant stops to let people in, people will go with the light is green. I admit that I am not certain it will help. But it is the only element of the project that has a chance to improve the traffic tie ups in the morning. And that is why I have supported the traffic signals. The timing on modern the traffic signals can be controlled.
Can the traffic lights be set to "flashing" during periods when there is little traffic? Perhaps. The traffic signals will be directly under the control of the City of Charleston, but any major changes would require state approval.
The former Principal of Stiles Point Elementary, Steve Burger, asked Councilman Leonard Blank to include a signal at Mikell Drive. While a traffic signal at Mikell drive had been part of the plan very early, it had been removed from the plan by 2008. Councilman Blank saw that it was included in the planning process in 2010 or 2011 and it became part of what was called "Plan B." Plan B had been developed at the behest of County Councilman Joe Qualey during the period the Town was closed down. There were public meetings about "Plan A," the original plan, and "Plan B" in the spring of 2012. I was very busy with the Town's incorporation election at the time, but I did attend a meeting at Stiles Point Elementary. "Plan B" had more support among the public and County Council changed the Harbor View Road project consistent with plan "B."
By the time the Harbor View Road project was ready to start, the Town was reincorporated. State law requires that projects on SCDOT roads have approval of a municipality if it crosses its jurisdiction. In the summer of 2014, Town Council approved the project on a very contentious 3-2 vote. At that time, the plan included the two traffic signals.
Recently, County Councilman Qualey has been trying delay the full installation of the traffic signal at Mikell Drive. I know that I have had some residents of the area complain about the traffic signals and I am sure he heard the same. The first step of the process was to be a request from the James Island Town Council to reconsider the traffic signal. Only then would County Council decide whether to pursue this course. If the necessary permissions could be obtained from the State and Federal governments, then it would come back to the Town of James Island and the City of Charleston for final approval.
Town Councilman Blank, who had originally championed this traffic signal at Mikell, was open to this delay. He had spoken with a school crossing guard who doesn't like serve where there is also a traffic signal. Apparently, drivers get confused about whether they should obey the signal or the crossing guard. (You are supposed to stop for the crossing guard and school children, even if the light turns green.) Based upon the request by County Councilman Qualey and my discussions with Town Councilman Blank, I placed the issue on the agenda for the last Town meeting.
Councilman Blank wanted to know if the new principal of Stiles Point still wanted the traffic signal. We contacted Mr. Ard and he believes that having a traffic signal at the corner is in the best interests of the school and the children. With that information, there was no interest on Town Council in trying to change the plan (again) at this late date to delay the installation of the traffic signal. At the last Town Council meeting, no action was taken. The plan for the two traffic signals is moving forward as before--as it has since 2012.
I am frequently stuck in traffic in the morning on Harbor View Road. The reason for the backup is that people stop to allow left turns by those coming in on side streets. Once past the last side street before the bridge, North Shore, the traffic moves steadily. The next tie up is on the Connector, with people stopping at the lights on Calhoun.
I think there is at least a chance that rather than each driver deciding whether to be nice and let people in, if there is traffic control then those wanting to turn left do so during the breaks created by the signals. Rather than the constant stops to let people in, people will go with the light is green. I admit that I am not certain it will help. But it is the only element of the project that has a chance to improve the traffic tie ups in the morning. And that is why I have supported the traffic signals. The timing on modern the traffic signals can be controlled.
Can the traffic lights be set to "flashing" during periods when there is little traffic? Perhaps. The traffic signals will be directly under the control of the City of Charleston, but any major changes would require state approval.
"Choosing Sides?" Some Clarifications
I appreciated the article in the JIM about development on James Island. However, I would like to make some clarifications.
The picture is of a development under the jurisdiction of the City of Charleston. It is just north of the location of the 300 unit apartment complex that is proposed for a 10 acre parcel under the jurisdiction of Charleston County. I am not sure what is being built on that parcel.
I think it is better to use the term "jurisdiction" rather than "owned." The City of Charleston owns some parks and fire stations on James Island. The Town owns two parks and we are in the process of purchasing land for Town Hall. However, a very substantial portion of James Island is under the jurisdiction of the Town and a slightly larger portion is under the jurisdiction of the City of Charleston. A small portion of James Island is under the jurisdiction of the City of Folly Beach and a large portion of James Island is unincorporated. Unincorporated means that it not in any municipality. While all of James Island is in Charleston County, the unincorporated portion is solely under the jurisdiction of Charleston County.
The article says that the zoning in "the city" is 3 units per acre. Usually, when James Islanders say "the City," they are referring to the City of Charleston. The term for the Town of James Island is "the Town." The City of Folly Beach is mostly on Folly Island, but it does cross over to James Island a bit, and that is usually described as "Folly Beach" or "Folly." And then, we have "the County." That is the unincorporated portion of James Island.
Nearly all of the jurisdiction of the Town is RSL, which is single family residential. The maximum density allowed is 3 units per acre. Of course, most of the Town is already developed with single family residences. The City of Charleston has more variety in zoning districts on James Island, but a good bit of it is single family residential that allows for a bit more than 5 units per acre. This allows for approximately 60% more homes in a new residential subdivision. To say that zoning in "the city" is three units an acre is confusing.
In "the County," the unincorporated portion of James Island, the residential zoning generally in between the Town and the City. It is 4 units per acre. However, the south portion of the Island, between Fort Johnson and Sol Legare, is a "special management area," with residential zoning consistent with the Town--also 3 units per acre.
Nearly all of what is now the unincorporated area of James Island was in the Town before 2011. (There were about 10 houses that were in the unincorporated area of James Island between 2006 and 2011.) When the Supreme Court ordered the Town dissolved because of the suit by the City of Charleston, everything that had been in the Town was now back to being unincorporated Charleston County. Charleston County put the southern part of James Island into the special management area that maintained the Town's less dense zoning, though most of James Island returned to the County standard 4 units per acre.
When the Town was incorporated for the fourth and final time in 2012, residential areas in the Town returned to the 3 units per acre. Those areas that remain unincorporated in the northern parts of James Island, such as Riverland Terrace, still have a residential zoning of 4 units per acre.
There are some parcels zoned for multifamily in the Town, and they were all developed with apartments many years ago. What about the new apartment complexes opening all the time on James Island? They have been in areas under the jurisdiction of the City of Charleston.
Most of the new single family residences built on James Island have also been in areas under the jurisdiction of the City of Charleston. Since I have been Mayor, the only new residential development approved in an area under Town jurisdiction is the Preserve on Dills Bluff, which will have about 30 homes. A 10 home development off of Fort Johnson Rd, next to Highwood Circle, is moving forward and will likely have final approval soon. Both of these developments have no more than 3 units per acre. And, of course, there have been a few homes built on vacant lots here and there in the Town over the years.
However, there is some area in the Town zoned for commercial or office uses, mostly along Folly Road. The Town's community commercial zone allows for multi-family residences as well as a variety of businesses, but with a density of 4 units per acre. For the typical commercial parcel in the Town, this would allow for an apartment or two along with the business. There have been many new businesses that have opened in the Town on Folly Road and none of them have included any apartments so far.
The area of Folly Road in the Town is mostly been Ellis Creek and Fort Johnson Road. However, there are a good number of parcels under City of Charleston jurisdiction in this area. Going north beyond Ellis Creek, there are a few parcels in unincorporated Charleston County but more and more is in the City of Charleston. Along Maybank, it starts in the City of Charleston at Folly, and then becomes mixed with some in the City but a good bit in the County.
Heading south from Fort Johnson, there are a few businesses and residences in the Town on the Fort Johnson side, but soon it is in "the County" interspersed with parcels under the jurisdiction of "the City." The large apartment complex that recently replaced the junkyard is in an area under City jurisdiction.
What has changed recently is that a new, very large, 300 unit apartment development is proposed for an area under the jurisdiction of "the County" That is, in unincorporated Charleston County. It is on a parcel that was in the Town until 2011. As I have explained before, its zoning has remained community commercial all along. The Town would have allowed 40 apartments on the 10 acres, but because it is now in the County, 120 units would have been allowed, but because of this "mixed use overlay," they can more than double that amount.
Most of the parcels in "the County" heading further south towards Folly have a base zoning of 3 single residential units per acre. While the version of the Folly Road overlay negotiated with the Town, County and City would have kept that, the County's version makes most of it "neighborhood commercial." We will see what happens, but that move by County Council could easily result in all of Folly Road between Fort Johnson and Sol Legare being filled with businesses.
The article in the JIM also discussed annexation into the Town. There is no legal procedure in South Carolina for the owner of parcel in the City of Charleston to "annex" to the Town of James Island. There is a provision in South Carolina law that allows municipalities to agree to readjust their boundaries and this could be used to move people from the City of Charleston to the Town of James Island or vice versa. I think the law would be clearly applicable when these areas are on a boundary between the Town and City.
What South Carolina law clearly lays out is procedures for a municipality to annex parcels that are contiguous (right next to) their current boundary. Again, this does not apply to parcels already in another municipality. The Town of James Island cannot annex territory that is already in the City of Charleston and the City of Charleston cannot annex territory that is already in the Town of James Island. That means that annexation is only possible for the unincorporated portions of James Island--what we call the areas in "the County." In other words, those portions of James Island that are not currently in the Town of James Island, the City of Folly Beach, or the City of Charleston might be annexed to one of those three municipalities.
One of my goals, shared by all members of Town Council, is to "reunite the Town." Because nearly all of the unincorporated area of James Island was in the Town before 2011 (other than about 10 houses,) this means that the Town is seeking to annex everything in "the County." However, when the Town was incorporated in 2012, everything on James Island that was clearly contiguous was already included.
Senator Thurmond and Representative McCoy filed bills in Columbia that would allow the Town to annex unincorporated areas on James Island despite breaks in contiguity. The first bill passed the House in 2014, and a heavily amended version of the bill passed the Senate Judiciary committee but then was blocked from going for a final vote by a hold placed by a single Senator. After the session ended in 2014, we had to start over. The amended version of the bill was refiled by Senator Thurmond in 2015. Representative McCoy filled a different bill in the House in May.. Hearings should be scheduled on it soon. If it passes, it will still have to pass the Senate and be signed by the Governor. If and when that happens, the Town would sponsor a petition drive for registered voters in the unincorporated areas of James Island and after enough signatures are obtained (about 1,000) there would be an election. If the majority of those who were in the Town but are not now want to return, then the Town would be reunited.
If the Town were reunited, then the Town's zoning ordinance would apply to all portions of the Town. If this 300 unit apartment complex continues to go forward, the change in jurisdiction won't stop it. We will welcome the residents of the apartment complex as new residents of the Town. But such a large development would not happen again--at least not without plenty of public notice and a vote by Town Council for a rezoning. Well, and a change in our comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to allow new apartment complexes. However, this will have no impact on the development on the many parcels that are under City of Charleston jurisdiction.
The Town accepts requests for annexation into the Town. If you live on James Island and want to be in the Town, we want to know who you are. When we figure out a way to annex you to the Town, we will certainly let you know.
The picture is of a development under the jurisdiction of the City of Charleston. It is just north of the location of the 300 unit apartment complex that is proposed for a 10 acre parcel under the jurisdiction of Charleston County. I am not sure what is being built on that parcel.
I think it is better to use the term "jurisdiction" rather than "owned." The City of Charleston owns some parks and fire stations on James Island. The Town owns two parks and we are in the process of purchasing land for Town Hall. However, a very substantial portion of James Island is under the jurisdiction of the Town and a slightly larger portion is under the jurisdiction of the City of Charleston. A small portion of James Island is under the jurisdiction of the City of Folly Beach and a large portion of James Island is unincorporated. Unincorporated means that it not in any municipality. While all of James Island is in Charleston County, the unincorporated portion is solely under the jurisdiction of Charleston County.
The article says that the zoning in "the city" is 3 units per acre. Usually, when James Islanders say "the City," they are referring to the City of Charleston. The term for the Town of James Island is "the Town." The City of Folly Beach is mostly on Folly Island, but it does cross over to James Island a bit, and that is usually described as "Folly Beach" or "Folly." And then, we have "the County." That is the unincorporated portion of James Island.
Nearly all of the jurisdiction of the Town is RSL, which is single family residential. The maximum density allowed is 3 units per acre. Of course, most of the Town is already developed with single family residences. The City of Charleston has more variety in zoning districts on James Island, but a good bit of it is single family residential that allows for a bit more than 5 units per acre. This allows for approximately 60% more homes in a new residential subdivision. To say that zoning in "the city" is three units an acre is confusing.
In "the County," the unincorporated portion of James Island, the residential zoning generally in between the Town and the City. It is 4 units per acre. However, the south portion of the Island, between Fort Johnson and Sol Legare, is a "special management area," with residential zoning consistent with the Town--also 3 units per acre.
Nearly all of what is now the unincorporated area of James Island was in the Town before 2011. (There were about 10 houses that were in the unincorporated area of James Island between 2006 and 2011.) When the Supreme Court ordered the Town dissolved because of the suit by the City of Charleston, everything that had been in the Town was now back to being unincorporated Charleston County. Charleston County put the southern part of James Island into the special management area that maintained the Town's less dense zoning, though most of James Island returned to the County standard 4 units per acre.
When the Town was incorporated for the fourth and final time in 2012, residential areas in the Town returned to the 3 units per acre. Those areas that remain unincorporated in the northern parts of James Island, such as Riverland Terrace, still have a residential zoning of 4 units per acre.
There are some parcels zoned for multifamily in the Town, and they were all developed with apartments many years ago. What about the new apartment complexes opening all the time on James Island? They have been in areas under the jurisdiction of the City of Charleston.
Most of the new single family residences built on James Island have also been in areas under the jurisdiction of the City of Charleston. Since I have been Mayor, the only new residential development approved in an area under Town jurisdiction is the Preserve on Dills Bluff, which will have about 30 homes. A 10 home development off of Fort Johnson Rd, next to Highwood Circle, is moving forward and will likely have final approval soon. Both of these developments have no more than 3 units per acre. And, of course, there have been a few homes built on vacant lots here and there in the Town over the years.
However, there is some area in the Town zoned for commercial or office uses, mostly along Folly Road. The Town's community commercial zone allows for multi-family residences as well as a variety of businesses, but with a density of 4 units per acre. For the typical commercial parcel in the Town, this would allow for an apartment or two along with the business. There have been many new businesses that have opened in the Town on Folly Road and none of them have included any apartments so far.
The area of Folly Road in the Town is mostly been Ellis Creek and Fort Johnson Road. However, there are a good number of parcels under City of Charleston jurisdiction in this area. Going north beyond Ellis Creek, there are a few parcels in unincorporated Charleston County but more and more is in the City of Charleston. Along Maybank, it starts in the City of Charleston at Folly, and then becomes mixed with some in the City but a good bit in the County.
Heading south from Fort Johnson, there are a few businesses and residences in the Town on the Fort Johnson side, but soon it is in "the County" interspersed with parcels under the jurisdiction of "the City." The large apartment complex that recently replaced the junkyard is in an area under City jurisdiction.
What has changed recently is that a new, very large, 300 unit apartment development is proposed for an area under the jurisdiction of "the County" That is, in unincorporated Charleston County. It is on a parcel that was in the Town until 2011. As I have explained before, its zoning has remained community commercial all along. The Town would have allowed 40 apartments on the 10 acres, but because it is now in the County, 120 units would have been allowed, but because of this "mixed use overlay," they can more than double that amount.
Most of the parcels in "the County" heading further south towards Folly have a base zoning of 3 single residential units per acre. While the version of the Folly Road overlay negotiated with the Town, County and City would have kept that, the County's version makes most of it "neighborhood commercial." We will see what happens, but that move by County Council could easily result in all of Folly Road between Fort Johnson and Sol Legare being filled with businesses.
The article in the JIM also discussed annexation into the Town. There is no legal procedure in South Carolina for the owner of parcel in the City of Charleston to "annex" to the Town of James Island. There is a provision in South Carolina law that allows municipalities to agree to readjust their boundaries and this could be used to move people from the City of Charleston to the Town of James Island or vice versa. I think the law would be clearly applicable when these areas are on a boundary between the Town and City.
What South Carolina law clearly lays out is procedures for a municipality to annex parcels that are contiguous (right next to) their current boundary. Again, this does not apply to parcels already in another municipality. The Town of James Island cannot annex territory that is already in the City of Charleston and the City of Charleston cannot annex territory that is already in the Town of James Island. That means that annexation is only possible for the unincorporated portions of James Island--what we call the areas in "the County." In other words, those portions of James Island that are not currently in the Town of James Island, the City of Folly Beach, or the City of Charleston might be annexed to one of those three municipalities.
One of my goals, shared by all members of Town Council, is to "reunite the Town." Because nearly all of the unincorporated area of James Island was in the Town before 2011 (other than about 10 houses,) this means that the Town is seeking to annex everything in "the County." However, when the Town was incorporated in 2012, everything on James Island that was clearly contiguous was already included.
Senator Thurmond and Representative McCoy filed bills in Columbia that would allow the Town to annex unincorporated areas on James Island despite breaks in contiguity. The first bill passed the House in 2014, and a heavily amended version of the bill passed the Senate Judiciary committee but then was blocked from going for a final vote by a hold placed by a single Senator. After the session ended in 2014, we had to start over. The amended version of the bill was refiled by Senator Thurmond in 2015. Representative McCoy filled a different bill in the House in May.. Hearings should be scheduled on it soon. If it passes, it will still have to pass the Senate and be signed by the Governor. If and when that happens, the Town would sponsor a petition drive for registered voters in the unincorporated areas of James Island and after enough signatures are obtained (about 1,000) there would be an election. If the majority of those who were in the Town but are not now want to return, then the Town would be reunited.
If the Town were reunited, then the Town's zoning ordinance would apply to all portions of the Town. If this 300 unit apartment complex continues to go forward, the change in jurisdiction won't stop it. We will welcome the residents of the apartment complex as new residents of the Town. But such a large development would not happen again--at least not without plenty of public notice and a vote by Town Council for a rezoning. Well, and a change in our comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to allow new apartment complexes. However, this will have no impact on the development on the many parcels that are under City of Charleston jurisdiction.
The Town accepts requests for annexation into the Town. If you live on James Island and want to be in the Town, we want to know who you are. When we figure out a way to annex you to the Town, we will certainly let you know.
Sunday, January 17, 2016
Central Park and Riverland Drive: A Longstanding Problem
The intersection at Central Park and Riverland Drive has been a serious problem for years. Both Central Park Road and Riverland Drive are owned by the state government, so any improvements to the intersection must be approved by SCDOT. Fortunately, SCDOT sometimes funds safety projects on James Island. (For example, they are funding the new roundabout at Camp and Riverland as a safety project.)
The portion of Riverland Drive running through the intersection at Central Park Road is under City of Charleston jurisdiction as are the parcels on the southeast corner--the storefront currently housing a church. This means that any change in the intersection must also be approved by the City of Charleston.
Up until 2011, the parcel across Riverland from Central Park and the large vacant parcel on the northeast side were in the Town as was Central Park Road. This meant that the Town would have had to approve any improvement to the intersection as well.
After the Town was closed down in 2011, its areas of jurisdiction returned to unincorporated Charleston County. Because this area is separated from the rest of the Town by areas annexed by the City of Charleston, it was not included in 2012. It continues to be under the jurisdiction of Charleston County.
SCDOT proposed a safety project for the Central Park and Riverland Drive intersection. I asked the Town's Public Works Coordinator, and he told me that everything was still moving forward as of the summer. It involved turn lanes and a traffic signal.
Rumor has it that there was an internal dispute at the City of Charleston with the Transportation Department favoring approval but the Planning Department opposing the project because of the impact on grand trees. My understanding is that recently SCDOT cancelled the project.
I will ask that this matter be put on the agenda for the spring meeting of the James Island Intergovernmental Council. The meeting isn't scheduled yet, but it should be in March or April.
James Islanders who favor this project and who live in the City should contact their members of City Council. This would be Councilman Gregory, Councilwoman Wilson, and Councilman Moody. The intersection is in Councilman Gregory's district. Because of the key role of SCDOT, it is important to bring in our State Representatives, especially Senator Thurmond and Representative McCoy whose districts include the intersection. Since a portion of the intersection is in Charleston County, County Council members are also involved. It is in Councilwoman Anna Johnson's district, though County Councilman Joe Qualey has also shown interest in the project.
One of my key goals is for the Town to be reunited, and if we were, it would be the Town that would have responsibility rather that Charleston County. Or more exactly, the Town would be sharing responsibility for this decision with State government and the City of Charleston. The Town had sought improvements for this intersection for many years. I was very happy that it was moving forward. I was shocked and appalled that it has been cancelled.
The portion of Riverland Drive running through the intersection at Central Park Road is under City of Charleston jurisdiction as are the parcels on the southeast corner--the storefront currently housing a church. This means that any change in the intersection must also be approved by the City of Charleston.
Up until 2011, the parcel across Riverland from Central Park and the large vacant parcel on the northeast side were in the Town as was Central Park Road. This meant that the Town would have had to approve any improvement to the intersection as well.
After the Town was closed down in 2011, its areas of jurisdiction returned to unincorporated Charleston County. Because this area is separated from the rest of the Town by areas annexed by the City of Charleston, it was not included in 2012. It continues to be under the jurisdiction of Charleston County.
SCDOT proposed a safety project for the Central Park and Riverland Drive intersection. I asked the Town's Public Works Coordinator, and he told me that everything was still moving forward as of the summer. It involved turn lanes and a traffic signal.
Rumor has it that there was an internal dispute at the City of Charleston with the Transportation Department favoring approval but the Planning Department opposing the project because of the impact on grand trees. My understanding is that recently SCDOT cancelled the project.
I will ask that this matter be put on the agenda for the spring meeting of the James Island Intergovernmental Council. The meeting isn't scheduled yet, but it should be in March or April.
James Islanders who favor this project and who live in the City should contact their members of City Council. This would be Councilman Gregory, Councilwoman Wilson, and Councilman Moody. The intersection is in Councilman Gregory's district. Because of the key role of SCDOT, it is important to bring in our State Representatives, especially Senator Thurmond and Representative McCoy whose districts include the intersection. Since a portion of the intersection is in Charleston County, County Council members are also involved. It is in Councilwoman Anna Johnson's district, though County Councilman Joe Qualey has also shown interest in the project.
One of my key goals is for the Town to be reunited, and if we were, it would be the Town that would have responsibility rather that Charleston County. Or more exactly, the Town would be sharing responsibility for this decision with State government and the City of Charleston. The Town had sought improvements for this intersection for many years. I was very happy that it was moving forward. I was shocked and appalled that it has been cancelled.
Another "Gathering Place" on James Island?
There has been great controversy about the gathering place being developed on Maybank highway near Folly Road. The location has been under City of Charleston jurisdiction for many years and it has also had the City's "Gathering Place" zoning for some time. This made it very difficult to put any limit on the development, though the recent moratorium passed by City Council might help.
The City of Charleston Comprehensive Plan proposes a Gathering Place near the corner of Fort Johnson and Folly Road as well. However, none of the parcels are zoned for Gathering Place. The Fort Johnson side of the intersection is in the Town and as part of the Folly Road overlay, it has an office residential zoning, though a few parcels are zoned neighborhood commercial. The Grimball Road side of Folly is in the City of Charleston and is heavily commercial, including two shopping centers. City Councilwoman Kathleen Wilson has promised me that she would fight any effort to rezone the parcels to gathering place. Even though Gathering Place is in the City's plan, the massive apartment complexes and high rises allowed in a gathering place can only be built if Charleston City Council approves a rezoning.
To my surprise, with little fanfare, Charleston County introduced its own version of "Gathering Place" zoning, though the official name is "Mixed Use Overlay." This overlay can be applied anywhere in the unincorporated area of the County with a commercial zoning. It involves shops and apartments, just like a gathering place. And if 14 percent of the housing is designated as low cost housing, there are no fixed density or height limits. Like the City of Charleston's gathering place zoning, gargantuan apartment complexes can be constructed.
Developers have proposed a project between South Grimball and the Brickhouse Restaurant--not far from where the City of Charleston's plan calls for a Gathering Place. It will include shopping, 330 apartments and two 4 story parking garages.
The parcel was in the Town before 2011, and it has been zoned community commercial for many years. When the Town was incorporated in 2012, this parcel remained in unincorporated Charleston County because it is separated from the Town by areas under City of Charleston jurisdiction.
If the parcel was in the Town, then up to 40 apartments could have been combined with shops on the parcel. Personally, I am very supportive of mixed use development and consider the outmoded concept of completely separated residences, shopping and work undesirable. However, the number of people (and especially cars) that our infrastructure, particularly Folly Road, can support is limited.
Since the parcel is in unincorporated Charleston County, denser development has always been possible than in the Town. With the community commercial zoning, up to 120 apartments could be placed on the parcel.
It is also part of the Folly Road overlay. The version of the Folly Road Overlay negotiated by the City of Charleston, City of Folly Beach, Town of James Island, and Charleston County had this general area zoned residential, with development quite limited--3 single family residential units per acre. Charleston County modified its version of the overlay to make this area neighborhood commercial. If you recollect, this was an initiative of Councilwoman Anna Johnson. However, in both the original Folly Road Overlay and the County's adjusted version, this particular parcel remained community commercial, which as explained above, would allow up to 40 multi-family dwellings in the Town and up to 120 in unincorporated Charleston County.
But that is before the "Mixed Use Overlay" is applied. That is why they can propose 330 apartments. At least 14 percent of the apartments will have to be low and moderate income. (About 45 of them.)
The County's version of Gathering Place, the "Mixed Use Overlay," cannot be applied in any other overlay district unless that other district allows for it. Again, with no fanfare, and certainly with no notification to the Town, the County's version of the Folly Road Overlay was modified to give the County's version of Gathering Place priority.
I believe an investigation of exactly how this change made it through the County Planning Commission and County Council is needed. So far, I have not been able to find anyone who can explain how and when it was passed.
Looking at the County's ordinance authorizing their version of gathering place, it appears that County Council must approve any increase in density beyond what is normally allowed--that is, for this project, almost tripling the amount of apartments usually allowed, from 120 to 330. However, I have heard that "County legal" has determined that it can be approved on a "staff level."
There are many grand trees on the parcel. I walked it a couple of years ago when we looked at it for the site of a Town park. The developers will need a variance to take some of the trees down. Also, the proposed parking garages are so big they will also need a variance. The developers must request the variances from the County Board of Zoning Appeals. There will be a public hearing, which probably will be no earlier than March, and more likely in April.
There will also be at least four public meetings on James Island. It is my understanding that while Councilwoman Anna Johnson wanted all meetings held at James Island Elementary, Councilman Qualey insisted that they be held in various locations. It is likely that at least one of them will be held at James Island Town Hall. Also, at some point, the Town will get a formal "letter of information" regarding the project as required by the Folly Road Overlay District.
While we are only beginning to learn about the County's version of "Gathering Place" and what it will mean for development and traffic on James Island, there is one lesson that is clear. We need to get the Town reunited. If this parcel had been returned to the Town, this massive over-development would not be happening. There are bills in Columbia right now that would provide an opportunity for those who were left out of the Town to join us. If that can be accomplished, we will not face similar surprises in the future.
The City of Charleston Comprehensive Plan proposes a Gathering Place near the corner of Fort Johnson and Folly Road as well. However, none of the parcels are zoned for Gathering Place. The Fort Johnson side of the intersection is in the Town and as part of the Folly Road overlay, it has an office residential zoning, though a few parcels are zoned neighborhood commercial. The Grimball Road side of Folly is in the City of Charleston and is heavily commercial, including two shopping centers. City Councilwoman Kathleen Wilson has promised me that she would fight any effort to rezone the parcels to gathering place. Even though Gathering Place is in the City's plan, the massive apartment complexes and high rises allowed in a gathering place can only be built if Charleston City Council approves a rezoning.
To my surprise, with little fanfare, Charleston County introduced its own version of "Gathering Place" zoning, though the official name is "Mixed Use Overlay." This overlay can be applied anywhere in the unincorporated area of the County with a commercial zoning. It involves shops and apartments, just like a gathering place. And if 14 percent of the housing is designated as low cost housing, there are no fixed density or height limits. Like the City of Charleston's gathering place zoning, gargantuan apartment complexes can be constructed.
Developers have proposed a project between South Grimball and the Brickhouse Restaurant--not far from where the City of Charleston's plan calls for a Gathering Place. It will include shopping, 330 apartments and two 4 story parking garages.
The parcel was in the Town before 2011, and it has been zoned community commercial for many years. When the Town was incorporated in 2012, this parcel remained in unincorporated Charleston County because it is separated from the Town by areas under City of Charleston jurisdiction.
If the parcel was in the Town, then up to 40 apartments could have been combined with shops on the parcel. Personally, I am very supportive of mixed use development and consider the outmoded concept of completely separated residences, shopping and work undesirable. However, the number of people (and especially cars) that our infrastructure, particularly Folly Road, can support is limited.
Since the parcel is in unincorporated Charleston County, denser development has always been possible than in the Town. With the community commercial zoning, up to 120 apartments could be placed on the parcel.
It is also part of the Folly Road overlay. The version of the Folly Road Overlay negotiated by the City of Charleston, City of Folly Beach, Town of James Island, and Charleston County had this general area zoned residential, with development quite limited--3 single family residential units per acre. Charleston County modified its version of the overlay to make this area neighborhood commercial. If you recollect, this was an initiative of Councilwoman Anna Johnson. However, in both the original Folly Road Overlay and the County's adjusted version, this particular parcel remained community commercial, which as explained above, would allow up to 40 multi-family dwellings in the Town and up to 120 in unincorporated Charleston County.
But that is before the "Mixed Use Overlay" is applied. That is why they can propose 330 apartments. At least 14 percent of the apartments will have to be low and moderate income. (About 45 of them.)
The County's version of Gathering Place, the "Mixed Use Overlay," cannot be applied in any other overlay district unless that other district allows for it. Again, with no fanfare, and certainly with no notification to the Town, the County's version of the Folly Road Overlay was modified to give the County's version of Gathering Place priority.
I believe an investigation of exactly how this change made it through the County Planning Commission and County Council is needed. So far, I have not been able to find anyone who can explain how and when it was passed.
Looking at the County's ordinance authorizing their version of gathering place, it appears that County Council must approve any increase in density beyond what is normally allowed--that is, for this project, almost tripling the amount of apartments usually allowed, from 120 to 330. However, I have heard that "County legal" has determined that it can be approved on a "staff level."
There are many grand trees on the parcel. I walked it a couple of years ago when we looked at it for the site of a Town park. The developers will need a variance to take some of the trees down. Also, the proposed parking garages are so big they will also need a variance. The developers must request the variances from the County Board of Zoning Appeals. There will be a public hearing, which probably will be no earlier than March, and more likely in April.
There will also be at least four public meetings on James Island. It is my understanding that while Councilwoman Anna Johnson wanted all meetings held at James Island Elementary, Councilman Qualey insisted that they be held in various locations. It is likely that at least one of them will be held at James Island Town Hall. Also, at some point, the Town will get a formal "letter of information" regarding the project as required by the Folly Road Overlay District.
While we are only beginning to learn about the County's version of "Gathering Place" and what it will mean for development and traffic on James Island, there is one lesson that is clear. We need to get the Town reunited. If this parcel had been returned to the Town, this massive over-development would not be happening. There are bills in Columbia right now that would provide an opportunity for those who were left out of the Town to join us. If that can be accomplished, we will not face similar surprises in the future.
Saturday, January 16, 2016
The JIPSD and Town Hall
There is much that I could say about the Town's effort to locate our new Town Hall on the property owned by the JIPSD on Dills Bluff Road, but there are two matters that I think are important to mention now.
A major problem in the discussions was the JIPSD's insistence that the entire 5.25 acre residential parcel be rezoned before they would sell us any property. The Town had initially asked to purchase the separate 1.27 commercial parcel. When it was made clear that any such sale could only occur after a different, much larger, parcel was rezoned, there was at least the appearance of an offer to bribe the Town to abuse our planning authority. The JIPSD would agree to sell us some property in exchange for the Town agreeing to rezone other property that also belonged to the JIPSD.
From the beginning, the Town Administrator explained to the District Manager that we could not agree to such a quid-pro-quo.
The JIPSD insisted that the negotiations be solely between the Town Administrator and the District Manager. (The JIPSD also wanted the Town Administrator to keep the negotiations secret, but we refused. The Town Administrator and I worked together, though all communications with the JIPSD had to be through her. Town Council was filled in on key issues, including our worries about what appeared to be their demand for a rezoning as a condition for selling us the property.)
Last Saturday, growing tired of the fiction that discussions were solely between the District Manager and the Town Administrator, I wrote all of the Commissioners explaining that the Town could not waive any of our building or zoning regulations in exchange for a promise by the JIPSD to sell property to the Town and that any rezoning would be done solely based upon sound planning principles in accordance with the public good.
The second matter involves the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was on the agenda for the JIPSD regular meeting last Monday. This MOU was not the result of a long process of discussion and negotiation. It was prepared by Trent Kernodle on Thursday, January 7, just a few days before the JIPSD meeting.
It might seem odd that the District Manager had Trent Kernodle prepare the MOU. Kernodle filed a class action suit against the Town. More troubling, he went to court to try to block the Town from spending money on our new Town Hall. Worse, this MOU is supposed to be about the JIPSD selling the Town property for the new Town Hall that Trent Kernodle went to court to block!
Anyway, the Town sent a contract to the JIPSD on Wednesday, January 6. It was prepared by David Bevon, who is Chair of the Town's Planning Commission and a real estate attorney. The District Manager told us that he was going to have Trent Kernodle review it. I was surprised that he would give it to Trent Kernodle, but I was not surprised when I was told that Kernodle had rejected it Thursday morning.
Trent Kernodle offered to prepare a MOU instead and we were told that it had to be sent to the Commissioners by 5:00 PM on that same day. The MOU was first seen by the Town Administrator at 4:30 PM that same afternoon. That gave the Town Administrator only thirty minutes!
But that wasn't really a problem. When the Town Administrator told me that Trent Kernodle would be writing up an MOU and that it had to go out to the Commissioners at five, I told her that we could never review it in such a short time period and that we should agree to send it forward to the Commissioners regardless of what it said. My view was that we would look at it on Friday and over the weekend and if we thought that it could pass Council with appropriate modifications, we would propose changes at the Commission meeting on Monday night. If the final MOU passed by the Commissioners was not acceptable, then I would recommend that Council vote it down and we would go with our alternative site.
One of the more peculiar events of that day was a third hand message I received from Trent Kernodle. (She said that he said that Kernodle said to tell you...) Supposedly, Trent Kernodle said something to the effect, "Tell the Mayor that we have the votes to pass this." It seemed odd to me that Trent Kernodle was speaking for the JIPSD.
I received the MOU Thursday night at about 7:30 and shared it with Council. I told them that it would be on the JIPSD agenda on Monday night and that the Commissioners would likely pass it. (OK I admit it. I believe that Commissioners Waring, Hollingsworth, Wilder, and especially Kay Kernodle follow Trent Kernodle's orders.)
As it turned out, our Town Attorney reviewed the MOU on Friday and was not in favor of Town Council approving it. One key problem was what he saw as the appearance of a quid-pro-quo regarding the rezoning of property the JIPSD would retain. My key concern was that there was no firm date by which the Town would have ownership of any part of the property. Further, the Town Attorney believed that it would be unenforceable, so even a specific date would not be firm. In my view, without an enforceable commitment by the JIPSD to sell the Town at least some property in the near future, the Town should go with its alternative site.
Friday afternoon, the Town Administrator explained to the District Manager that the Town Attorney would advise against Council agreeing to Trent Kernodle's MOU. She suggested that the MOU be pulled from the JIPSD agenda and that they instead just generally approve the plan for a joint campus and the sale of property to the Town. The District Manager said it was too late to modify the agenda.
As I mentioned before, on Saturday I wrote all of the Commissioners. Along with explaining that any quid-pro-quo for a rezoning was out of the question, I explained what it would take for me to recommend to Council that we go forward with the JIPSD site. I said we needed a contract in hand to sell the 1.27 acre commercial parcel for no more than $300,000 with the Town taking possession no later than March 31. Otherwise, I would recommend the alternative location. If the Commissioners provided a contract, then we could continue to discuss the sale of an additional .23 acres to the Town and sharing development costs for a joint campus.
Some months ago, the Town made it clear that if they wanted to propose rezoning their 5.25 acre residential parcel, they should start the application process promptly. The Town would give any application fair consideration. And if they wanted to wait until they were satisfied with the zoning on that parcel to sell us land, then we would talk about land sales after the process was complete. But the Town was not about to make any promises to rezone any property for the JIPSD and especially not in exchange for them promising to sell us land. We pointed out that the Town was looking for alternative sites and if the JIPSD was not ready to sell to us before we found something else, it would be too late.
I went to the JIPSD meeting Monday night with the expectation that the Commissioners would vote against a contract to sell the commercial parcel with no strings attached. I hadn't planned to attend, but I thought that I better be there on the off chance that they wanted to hear directly from me. (I have complete confidence in our Town Administrator.)
While I had no interest in them voting in favor of Trent Kernodle's last minute MOU, I did hold out hope that they would vote to approve the plan for the joint campus and the sale of land to the Town. However, given my email to them last Saturday, I am sure they were aware that it would not be enough for me to recommend to Council that we go forward with the JIPSD site rather than our alternative site.
I was very surprised to find only two Commissioners at their meeting--Commissioner McMillan and Commissioner Brown-Crouch. It was an interesting coincidence that vice-chair Cubby Wilder only came in late--after the others hadn't shown up, so that his arrival would not create a quorum.
I had run into Commissioner Platt just that afternoon at the swearing-in ceremony for Mayor Tecklenburg. Platt told me that he had received my email over the weekend and said that he expected that I hoped for a vote. He told me that JIPSD Commission Chair June Waring had given him permission to leave the meeting early to go to Tecklenburg's inauguration party that evening. I guess I am a bit slow on the uptake, but in hindsight, the stringing together of those two sentences should have suggested that he would be leaving before the vote to sell property to the Town. I suppose he could have just announced at the meeting that he had to go to a party downtown, and a vote would be blocked because of the absence of a quorum. Of course, he just didn't show up to the JIPSD meeting at all.
Late in the afternoon, Commission Chair June Waring had reported problems with her equilibrium, which I think means she was dizzy. My understanding is that she contacted the District Manager. Also, late in the afternoon, Commissioner Kay Kernodle called Commissioner Wilder to say she was sick. I am not sure why she called Commissioner Wilder, rather than Chair Waring or the District Manager. Perhaps she did call Chair Waring first and so knew that Waring would not be attending and then called Commissioner Wilder.
Commissioner Hollingsworth was reported to be out of town in North Carolina because his brother-in-law had died. When Commissioner McMillan went by his house after the meeting was cancelled, Hollingsworth's wife answered the door and said that Commissioner Hollingsworth was in the bathroom right then, but that she had asked him to stay home to keep her company due to the death of her brother. Commissioner Hollingsworth was able to report to work the next day and sell auto parts at O'Reily's.
Perhaps it was all just a "perfect storm" as later claimed by Commissioner Platt.
Frankly, I expected them to show up and vote in favor of Trent Kernodle's MOU and gleefully reject my proposal for a binding contract to promptly sell property to the Town. The Town would have rejected the MOU on our Attorney's advice and we would have gone with the alternative site.
It is only in retrospect that I have come to wonder if they were worried about awkward questions about why it seemed that they were proposing to sell the Town property but only in exchange for a rezoning of their other property.
And also questions about whether they hoped to delay any Town expenditures on the Town Hall, so that more Town funds would be available for Trent Kernodle to grab.
Regardless, a JIPSD run by Commissioners unable to get their act together enough to hold their regular meeting hardly makes them a reliable partner for any kind of joint activity. On Wednesday, most members of Council joined me in giving up on the JIPSD and all agreed to move forward with the alternative site.
A major problem in the discussions was the JIPSD's insistence that the entire 5.25 acre residential parcel be rezoned before they would sell us any property. The Town had initially asked to purchase the separate 1.27 commercial parcel. When it was made clear that any such sale could only occur after a different, much larger, parcel was rezoned, there was at least the appearance of an offer to bribe the Town to abuse our planning authority. The JIPSD would agree to sell us some property in exchange for the Town agreeing to rezone other property that also belonged to the JIPSD.
From the beginning, the Town Administrator explained to the District Manager that we could not agree to such a quid-pro-quo.
The JIPSD insisted that the negotiations be solely between the Town Administrator and the District Manager. (The JIPSD also wanted the Town Administrator to keep the negotiations secret, but we refused. The Town Administrator and I worked together, though all communications with the JIPSD had to be through her. Town Council was filled in on key issues, including our worries about what appeared to be their demand for a rezoning as a condition for selling us the property.)
Last Saturday, growing tired of the fiction that discussions were solely between the District Manager and the Town Administrator, I wrote all of the Commissioners explaining that the Town could not waive any of our building or zoning regulations in exchange for a promise by the JIPSD to sell property to the Town and that any rezoning would be done solely based upon sound planning principles in accordance with the public good.
The second matter involves the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was on the agenda for the JIPSD regular meeting last Monday. This MOU was not the result of a long process of discussion and negotiation. It was prepared by Trent Kernodle on Thursday, January 7, just a few days before the JIPSD meeting.
It might seem odd that the District Manager had Trent Kernodle prepare the MOU. Kernodle filed a class action suit against the Town. More troubling, he went to court to try to block the Town from spending money on our new Town Hall. Worse, this MOU is supposed to be about the JIPSD selling the Town property for the new Town Hall that Trent Kernodle went to court to block!
Anyway, the Town sent a contract to the JIPSD on Wednesday, January 6. It was prepared by David Bevon, who is Chair of the Town's Planning Commission and a real estate attorney. The District Manager told us that he was going to have Trent Kernodle review it. I was surprised that he would give it to Trent Kernodle, but I was not surprised when I was told that Kernodle had rejected it Thursday morning.
Trent Kernodle offered to prepare a MOU instead and we were told that it had to be sent to the Commissioners by 5:00 PM on that same day. The MOU was first seen by the Town Administrator at 4:30 PM that same afternoon. That gave the Town Administrator only thirty minutes!
But that wasn't really a problem. When the Town Administrator told me that Trent Kernodle would be writing up an MOU and that it had to go out to the Commissioners at five, I told her that we could never review it in such a short time period and that we should agree to send it forward to the Commissioners regardless of what it said. My view was that we would look at it on Friday and over the weekend and if we thought that it could pass Council with appropriate modifications, we would propose changes at the Commission meeting on Monday night. If the final MOU passed by the Commissioners was not acceptable, then I would recommend that Council vote it down and we would go with our alternative site.
One of the more peculiar events of that day was a third hand message I received from Trent Kernodle. (She said that he said that Kernodle said to tell you...) Supposedly, Trent Kernodle said something to the effect, "Tell the Mayor that we have the votes to pass this." It seemed odd to me that Trent Kernodle was speaking for the JIPSD.
I received the MOU Thursday night at about 7:30 and shared it with Council. I told them that it would be on the JIPSD agenda on Monday night and that the Commissioners would likely pass it. (OK I admit it. I believe that Commissioners Waring, Hollingsworth, Wilder, and especially Kay Kernodle follow Trent Kernodle's orders.)
As it turned out, our Town Attorney reviewed the MOU on Friday and was not in favor of Town Council approving it. One key problem was what he saw as the appearance of a quid-pro-quo regarding the rezoning of property the JIPSD would retain. My key concern was that there was no firm date by which the Town would have ownership of any part of the property. Further, the Town Attorney believed that it would be unenforceable, so even a specific date would not be firm. In my view, without an enforceable commitment by the JIPSD to sell the Town at least some property in the near future, the Town should go with its alternative site.
Friday afternoon, the Town Administrator explained to the District Manager that the Town Attorney would advise against Council agreeing to Trent Kernodle's MOU. She suggested that the MOU be pulled from the JIPSD agenda and that they instead just generally approve the plan for a joint campus and the sale of property to the Town. The District Manager said it was too late to modify the agenda.
As I mentioned before, on Saturday I wrote all of the Commissioners. Along with explaining that any quid-pro-quo for a rezoning was out of the question, I explained what it would take for me to recommend to Council that we go forward with the JIPSD site. I said we needed a contract in hand to sell the 1.27 acre commercial parcel for no more than $300,000 with the Town taking possession no later than March 31. Otherwise, I would recommend the alternative location. If the Commissioners provided a contract, then we could continue to discuss the sale of an additional .23 acres to the Town and sharing development costs for a joint campus.
Some months ago, the Town made it clear that if they wanted to propose rezoning their 5.25 acre residential parcel, they should start the application process promptly. The Town would give any application fair consideration. And if they wanted to wait until they were satisfied with the zoning on that parcel to sell us land, then we would talk about land sales after the process was complete. But the Town was not about to make any promises to rezone any property for the JIPSD and especially not in exchange for them promising to sell us land. We pointed out that the Town was looking for alternative sites and if the JIPSD was not ready to sell to us before we found something else, it would be too late.
I went to the JIPSD meeting Monday night with the expectation that the Commissioners would vote against a contract to sell the commercial parcel with no strings attached. I hadn't planned to attend, but I thought that I better be there on the off chance that they wanted to hear directly from me. (I have complete confidence in our Town Administrator.)
While I had no interest in them voting in favor of Trent Kernodle's last minute MOU, I did hold out hope that they would vote to approve the plan for the joint campus and the sale of land to the Town. However, given my email to them last Saturday, I am sure they were aware that it would not be enough for me to recommend to Council that we go forward with the JIPSD site rather than our alternative site.
I was very surprised to find only two Commissioners at their meeting--Commissioner McMillan and Commissioner Brown-Crouch. It was an interesting coincidence that vice-chair Cubby Wilder only came in late--after the others hadn't shown up, so that his arrival would not create a quorum.
I had run into Commissioner Platt just that afternoon at the swearing-in ceremony for Mayor Tecklenburg. Platt told me that he had received my email over the weekend and said that he expected that I hoped for a vote. He told me that JIPSD Commission Chair June Waring had given him permission to leave the meeting early to go to Tecklenburg's inauguration party that evening. I guess I am a bit slow on the uptake, but in hindsight, the stringing together of those two sentences should have suggested that he would be leaving before the vote to sell property to the Town. I suppose he could have just announced at the meeting that he had to go to a party downtown, and a vote would be blocked because of the absence of a quorum. Of course, he just didn't show up to the JIPSD meeting at all.
Late in the afternoon, Commission Chair June Waring had reported problems with her equilibrium, which I think means she was dizzy. My understanding is that she contacted the District Manager. Also, late in the afternoon, Commissioner Kay Kernodle called Commissioner Wilder to say she was sick. I am not sure why she called Commissioner Wilder, rather than Chair Waring or the District Manager. Perhaps she did call Chair Waring first and so knew that Waring would not be attending and then called Commissioner Wilder.
Commissioner Hollingsworth was reported to be out of town in North Carolina because his brother-in-law had died. When Commissioner McMillan went by his house after the meeting was cancelled, Hollingsworth's wife answered the door and said that Commissioner Hollingsworth was in the bathroom right then, but that she had asked him to stay home to keep her company due to the death of her brother. Commissioner Hollingsworth was able to report to work the next day and sell auto parts at O'Reily's.
Perhaps it was all just a "perfect storm" as later claimed by Commissioner Platt.
Frankly, I expected them to show up and vote in favor of Trent Kernodle's MOU and gleefully reject my proposal for a binding contract to promptly sell property to the Town. The Town would have rejected the MOU on our Attorney's advice and we would have gone with the alternative site.
It is only in retrospect that I have come to wonder if they were worried about awkward questions about why it seemed that they were proposing to sell the Town property but only in exchange for a rezoning of their other property.
And also questions about whether they hoped to delay any Town expenditures on the Town Hall, so that more Town funds would be available for Trent Kernodle to grab.
Regardless, a JIPSD run by Commissioners unable to get their act together enough to hold their regular meeting hardly makes them a reliable partner for any kind of joint activity. On Wednesday, most members of Council joined me in giving up on the JIPSD and all agreed to move forward with the alternative site.
Thursday, January 14, 2016
New Town Hall Location on Dills Bluff Road.
Town Council met last night and unanimously voted to acquire two properties on Dills Bluff Road for the location of the new Town Hall. The location will be between First Baptist Church's property on the corner of Dills Bluff and Camp and Hillman Road. The addresses for the long vacant properties are 1122 and 1126 Dills Bluff Road. The TMS numbers are 4280300055 and 4280300054.
Council voted 4 to 1 against continuing to pursue the JIPSD property. Councilman Milliken voted in favor.
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
Special Meeting for Town Hall Location
I have called a special meeting of Town Council to choose a location for the new Town Hall. The meeting will be tomorrow, Wednesday, January 13 at 5:00.
Both locations are near the current Town Hall at the corner of Dills Bluff and Camp.
One alternative is 1.5 acres of the JIPSD Dills Bluff property. The JIPSD had a regular meeting last night (Monday, January 11.) A proposal regarding the Dills Bluff property was on the agenda.
The JIPSD had a rough plan developed that showed the new Town Hall on a portion of the property and a JIPSD Administrative building next door. There was a proposed memorandum of agreement between the Town and the JIPSD that included the sale of 1.5 acres to the Town to locate Town Hall and also the development of a joint campus.
However, there was no quorum for the regular JIPSD meeting, so the meeting was cancelled.
Commissioners Brown-Crouch, McMillan, and Wilder were in attendance.
Commissioners Waring, Kernodle, Hollingsworth, and Platt were absent.
I had hoped that the Commissioners would vote to authorize a contract with the Town before our special meeting that would make the JIPSD site competitive with the alternative site in terms of price, certainty, and timeliness. The Town Administrator had disclosed to the JIPSD on Friday that the Town Attorney would advise against adopting the proposed memorandum of agreement that had been sent to us late Thursday afternoon. I wrote the Commissioners on Saturday with an explanation of what I thought it would take for the JIPSD site to be competitive with the alternative.
Unfortunately, the JIPSD Commission failed to hold its regularly scheduled meeting.
I will present the JIPSD location to Council, but at this point it really amounts to nothing more than a continuation of uncertain negotiations.
The alternative site involves the combination of several parcels. Depending on future negotiations, we will have a site between 1.5 and 2 acres. Because of these continuing negotiations, it is not wise to disclose the exact location or an estimate of total cost.
We have reached a deadline on acquiring one of the parcels. That is why I am asking Council for a decision on Wednesday.
Both locations are near the current Town Hall at the corner of Dills Bluff and Camp.
One alternative is 1.5 acres of the JIPSD Dills Bluff property. The JIPSD had a regular meeting last night (Monday, January 11.) A proposal regarding the Dills Bluff property was on the agenda.
The JIPSD had a rough plan developed that showed the new Town Hall on a portion of the property and a JIPSD Administrative building next door. There was a proposed memorandum of agreement between the Town and the JIPSD that included the sale of 1.5 acres to the Town to locate Town Hall and also the development of a joint campus.
However, there was no quorum for the regular JIPSD meeting, so the meeting was cancelled.
Commissioners Brown-Crouch, McMillan, and Wilder were in attendance.
Commissioners Waring, Kernodle, Hollingsworth, and Platt were absent.
I had hoped that the Commissioners would vote to authorize a contract with the Town before our special meeting that would make the JIPSD site competitive with the alternative site in terms of price, certainty, and timeliness. The Town Administrator had disclosed to the JIPSD on Friday that the Town Attorney would advise against adopting the proposed memorandum of agreement that had been sent to us late Thursday afternoon. I wrote the Commissioners on Saturday with an explanation of what I thought it would take for the JIPSD site to be competitive with the alternative.
Unfortunately, the JIPSD Commission failed to hold its regularly scheduled meeting.
I will present the JIPSD location to Council, but at this point it really amounts to nothing more than a continuation of uncertain negotiations.
The alternative site involves the combination of several parcels. Depending on future negotiations, we will have a site between 1.5 and 2 acres. Because of these continuing negotiations, it is not wise to disclose the exact location or an estimate of total cost.
We have reached a deadline on acquiring one of the parcels. That is why I am asking Council for a decision on Wednesday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)