Proposed Moratorium on Apartments in the City of Charleston

Some James Islanders are asking the City of Charleston to impose a moratorium on new apartments and chain stores on James Island.

County Councilman Joe Qualey has formally called for a moratorium on new apartments in the City of Charleston on both James and Johns Islands.

I am not sure whether he intends to propose such a moratorium on apartments in the unincorporated area, especially along Folly Road.   As a member of County Council, I presume he can do that. The developers gave up on the Lively, probably because County Council was not willing to allow the unusually high density the developer wanted.  Still, the County's version of the Folly Road overlay makes pretty much all of it neighborhood commercial which allows for plenty of apartments.

The Town currently has no vacant parcels zoned for multifamily. While I am not completely sure, I believe that no apartment project has been approved by the Town during any of its four incorporations.    Certainly none have been approved since I was elected Mayor in 2010.   We do have some multifamily units in the Town on parcels zoned for multi-family, but these appear to have all been built when what is today the Town was under Charleston County jurisdiction.

Our zoning does allow apartments to be placed on commercial lots, but the density is limited to four units per acre.    We have not had any applications to include an apartment (or maybe two) along with a business on a commercial lot, however, even if every commercial lot in the Town had the maximum number of apartments it would be very few.

So, a moratorium on apartments in the Town is completely unnecessary, but it probably wouldn't make any difference.   Like I said, there have been no applications for apartments on commercial parcels--at least since 2010.  And there are no lots specifically zoned for multifamily.   Pretty much the entire Town is zoned for single family residential--3 units per acre.

While a moratorium in the unincorporated area and especially in the City of Charleston would have a major effect, my understanding of state law is that moratoriums cannot be a permanent solution.   

I think a better approach is for the County and City to each create an overlay for James Island and apply density rules similar to those of the Town.

Of course, if McCoy's bill in Columbia passes and the Town is reunited, then there won't be any issue with unincorporated areas on James Island.   Such areas will be returned to the Town.

I appreciate that Mayor Tecklenburg had sympathetic words for those attending the City Couuncil Meeting on James Island last night.   I hope that he and the rest of City Council will consider an overlay for James Island that applies what we in the Town believe are more reasonable rules for new development on James Island.

As for "chain stores," I don't favor a blanket restriction on them.   I value the many businesses on James Island that are part of national franchises.   They provide many valuable goods and services to the people of James Island.  They also provide employment.   Of course, I also value the many independent businesses in the Town.  Still, I don't favor blanket discrimination against "chain stores" in the Town nor would I urge such a policy on Charleston County or the City of Charleston.

I plan to ask that the issue of moratoriums on apartments or, better yet, more appropriate density regulations, be discussed at the next intergovernmental council meeting.    The date hasn't been set by our Chairman, Leonard Blank, but I expect it will be in May.

  

Demo at Fort Johnson Rejected by Town BZA

The Town's BZA rejected the request by MUSC to demolish three historic structures at Fort Johnson.

This included what is called the "storage building" which is falling to pieces and a clear health and safety hazard.   MUSC provided substantial documentation of its dilapidated state, including an engineering report.

It also included the "warehouse" building.  While MUSC asserted that it is also a safety hazard and irreparable, they provided no documentation.   The engineering report made no mention of this second building.

Finally, it included  a cistern.   The cistern is not operable.   MUSC provided documentation that it has structural problems, including an engineering report.   No evaluation was made about how the cistern might be saved.  

Councilman Mullinax had suggested that a concrete cap might be used to save it. MUSC's representative said it already had a concrete cap but that it was not safe to stand on.   

The Town had proposed as conditions that MUSC implement the mitigation required by SHPO and also that they maintain the harbor master's house so that it will not fall into disrepair as did the other buildings.

At the BZA meeting, a member of the Board stated that they could either accept demolition of all of the buildings or none.  That was an error.   The BZA could have approved demolition of any or all of the buildings.

The vote was 3 to 2 against approving the demolition.   The conditions were not approved.   The potential agreement to maintain the harbor masters house does not apply.   All of the buildings at the site, including the harbor master's house, appear likely to continue to deteriorate.

Demo by MUSC at Fort Johnson

Some time ago, MUSC proposed demolishing what they call "the President's House," an old cistern, and two accessory buildings.    This is located at end of Fort Johnson Road at what we usually think of as the Department of Natural Resources facility.   MUSC had in mind building a conference center in its place.  

The location provides one of the best views on James Island.    There is a small lawn in front of the house that provides a great view of Fort Sumter, the Ravenel Bridge, and the Charleston Peninsula.   The DNR area is open Monday through Friday from 9 to 5.   I suggest checking it out.

This entire area is in the Town and it is necessary to get a Demolition Permit from the Town before demolishing any building.   Of course, a zoning permit would have been needed to construct the new facility too.   MUSC's architects had been discussing the project with our Planning Director.

As the Town Planning Director discussed these plans with MUSC, she explained that they would need approval from the State Historic Preservation Office (SPHO) before demolishing what looked to be historical buildings.   They did go to SPHO, and SPHO said that these facilities were of historical significance.   MUSC ignored that, and got the state engineer to say they could demolish the buildings, though that letter said they needed to discuss it with their local government.   I ended up on the phone with the President of MUSC and explained that everyone involved, including any firm that did an illegal demolition, would be getting tickets.

Thankfully, that crisis ended.    MUSC agreed that they would only go forward with a demolition after they received a permit.   Plans for a new facility are on hold and the Town, DNR, the College of Charleston, and MUSC are looking to renovate what we like to call, "the Harbor Master's House," so that it is a shared use facility.   This is a multi-million dollar project and would require some contribution of funds by all the entities.  

However, the other buildings are more questionable.   One is falling to pieces.   They say the other has serious problems, but it is still standing.   The cistern looks solid enough, but it has a wooden top and MUSC is worried that someone might climb up there and fall through.

So, MUSC has put on permanent hold any plan to replace the "Harbor Master's House" or demolish it.   But they are proposing to demolish the cistern, and the two other buildings.   They worked with SHPO to develop a mitigation plan.

All of these buildings were given to MUSC by the U.S. government in the fifties.   For many years, the President of MUSC lived in the house that they were given.    However, for many years after that, it was a faculty office.   All of the buildings were likely built in the early twentieth century by the Federal government as part of the quarantine station.   Part of MUSC's mitigation is to pay for more research on the cistern and the buildings.   They will also provide interpretive signage on the site about the quarantine station.    They will carefully document the buildings that are demolished.

They are asking the Town's Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance to demolish these buildings that have historical significance along with the mitigation plan they developed with SHPO.    

I greatly appreciate that MUSC has agreed to follow proper procedure.

Dairy Queen Off Folly

Dairy Queen is proposing to open shop next to Wild Blue Ropes off of Folly Road.   The Folly Road Overlay requires a special exception for fast food restaurants, so they will be appearing at our next BZA meeting.   They are also seeking a variance to remove a 25 inch Hackberry Tree.  This tree is at the back of the lot for the proposed Dairy Queen.   It is along the BI-LO parking lot.  They are asking to remove the tree so that their driveway can be accessed from the BI-LO parking lot.    There is a large laurel oak in the middle of the property which is staying.   Neither of the very large live oak trees on  near  Highland Drive will be removed.

I like Dairy Queen and while I have nothing against Hackberry Trees, access to the BI-LO parking lot is desirable and consistent with the Rethink Folly Road plan.   To me, it seems like losing the Hackberry is better than losing the other trees.

I am commenting on this because I have seen claims that there is a proposal to remove a grand oak tree  on Folly Road for a fast food restaurant.   No live oak tree, grand or otherwise, on Folly Road or anywhere else, is being touched.  As for fast food restaurants, people who don't like them should not eat there.   I think seeking to ban them from Folly Road (or anywhere else in the Town) because you want to force other people to stop patronizing them is wrong.