Proposed Ban on Inflatable Signs

   At our last meeting, Town Council approved on first reading an ordinance adding "inflatable signs" to the list of prohibited signs in our Zoning Ordinance.   The vote was three to two.   I voted against.   Second and final reading is tonight.   I will again oppose this unnecessary change in our zoning ordinance.

   At the last meeting, it was claimed that this provision was needed to prohibit what are called "floater" signs.   These fill with air and then partially deflate and fill again.   Sometimes the sign is designed so it appear to be a sort of "dancing man."

   However, such signs are already prohibited by the Town.   Only certain types of signs are permitted by the Town and these "floaters" are not included.   The Town has required businesses to remove these floaters in the past.    This ordinance is not necessary to prohibit such signs.

    Last year, a temporary Christmas tree lot had a giant Santa.   The Santa was holding a sign.   The Town's Planning Director ordered Santa removed.   The merchant removed the sign, but the Planning Director insisted that giant Santa go too.   Giant Santa was replaced by a smaller Santa. 

    When I first heard about it, I determined that I would not overrule the Planning Director this time, but that in the future, I did not favor a ban on inflatable Christmas decorations.    The Planning Director asked the Planning Commission to consider adding inflatable signs to the list of prohibited signs.    The Planning Commission voted in favor as did the majority of Council at our last meeting.  

    I still do not favor a ban on inflatable Christmas decorations.   But I also don't consider them to be "signs."    I believe this amendment to our ordinance is pointless and unnecessary.

Public Hearing for Special Exception for Fast Food, Convenience Stores, and Gas Stations

    Town Council will have a public hearing on January 19 regarding a change in the Town's Zoning Ordinance so that fast food restaurants, convenience stores, and gas stations will require a Special Exception.

    Most of the Town's commercial district is on Folly Road, and the Folly Road overlay already requires a special exception for a fast food restaurants, convenience stores, and gas stations.   This means that those wanting to open those businesses must ask the Town's Board of Zoning Appeals for a special exception.   The BZA can deny the request or it can allow it with conditions.   These conditions can include limited hours, restrictions on lighting, and extra buffers to protect neighboring homeowners.   This change will make the zoning for the rest of our commercial districts the same.   That is primarily the area near Camp and Dills Bluff, where Town Hall is located, but there is also commercially zoned property near Harborview Road and Fort Johnson Road.

   I think putting this restriction in the Folly Road Overlay District was a mistake so I don't favor extending it to other areas.   I do not favor giving the BZA discretion to prohibit types of businesses so that they can in reality impose ad-hoc restrictions on them.
   
    I understand that 24 hour operations can cause problems for neighboring homeowners.   There are probably other characteristics of these businesses that are problematic.   I would rather that any special exception relate to these specific problems and to a location near residences.   (However, here on James Island, nearly all commercial properties are very near residential properties, so such a requirement is a bit redundant.)

Public Hearing on Mural Regulation

    Town Council will hold a public hearing at its regular meeting on January 19 to regulate murals.

    The Planning Commission voted last month to recommend a change in the Town's Zoning Ordinance that expressly limits murals on buildings to the allowed sign on the building.  In effect, this limits the size of a mural to a certain percent of the building's exterior.  

Table 153.341.C Wall/Facade Signs
Building Length Facing Street	Setback (ft.)	Maximum Size (sq. ft.)

50 feet or less	0 – 99	50
	100 – 399	100
	400 or more	150
More than 50 feet	0 – 99	Bldg. frontage x 1
	100 – 399	Bldg. frontage x 2
	400 or more	Bldg. frontage x 3

   When the James Island VFW on Camp Road notified me that Scott Labaido was going paint a U.S. flag mural on the front of their building, I was very pleased.   I was at the dedication.   I am glad that the James Island VFW is part of the 50 state flag mural project.

     The Planning Commission is recommending that the VFW mural be illegal.   (It could be a bit more than 7 by 14, allowing for their other 4 by 4 sign.) Fortunately, it would be grandfathered in, so the Town would not require the  VFW to paint over their U.S. flag.

      So, it could be worse.   But I don't want to make what the VFH did illegal.

      I will vote no, unless there is some provision to allow for exceptions.
     

Public Hearing for Rezoning Town Hall Site

Town Council will hold a public hearing at its January 19 meeting to rezone the new Town Hall site on Dills Bluff Road. The rezoning will be from residential (RSL) to office residential (OR.)

The rezoning comes before the Town's Planning Commission on January 12 for a recommendation to Council.   First reading on the rezoning ordinance is scheduled for January 19 after the public hearing at the regular Town Council meeting.   The rezoning will be complete after Council passes the ordinance on second reading at its regular meeting on February 16.   Groundbreaking for the new Town Hall is planned for this summer.

The rezoning will impact three parcels.  Currently, the two parcels on Dills Bluff are in the Town and zoned RSL, which is our single family residential district.   The third parcel, on Camp Road, is in the City of Charleston, but that will change at the January 19 meeting with second reading of the Town's ordinance for the boundary adjustment. The City of Charleston has already passed its ordinance for the boundary adjustment.  (Thank you Mayor Tecklenburg and Charleston City Council!)

Government offices are not allowed in RSL, so to move our Town Hall, we must rezone the site.   The least intensive zoning district that allows for government offices is Office Residential.  That zone is intended to serve as a buffer between more intensive commercial uses and residential areas.  A key purpose is to protect the bordering residential area.  The design of buildings in office residential must have a residential character.

First Baptist Church of James Island currently owns the parcel on Dills Bluff that is next to its cemetery.  The Town and Church plan to swap that parcel with an equally sized portion of the parcel that the Town purchased on Camp Road.  The Town and Church plan to jointly develop the parcel on Camp Road as a parking lot.  The Church will effectively expand its existing parking lot on Camp Road by the Landmark Center.  Both portions of the new parking lot will be used by both the Town and the Church.

There are several very beautiful trees on the Town Hall site, including a remarkable Magnolia.  The placement of Town Hall on the site is intended to showcase these trees.   The Town plans to leave large trees lining Dills Bluff Road.  Remarkably, the area where the joint parking lot is to be located has no significant trees--the area is dominated by pines of modest size and lots of poison ivy.   The plan for construction seeks to retain as many trees as possible.   Much of the Town's site will be shady and landscaping tentatively focuses on shade loving flowering shrubs such as azaleas and camellias.

First Baptist Church will remain our most important immediate neighbor.  However, we will also have two neighboring residences.   We intend to protect the residence on Hillman Drive by planting a buffer.   We also plan to maintain a buffer behind the residence on Camp Road that will remain in the City of Charleston.

   

Federal Flood Insurance

The Town is reapplying to participate in the Federal Flood Insurance Program.   The Town already did this in 2008.   At that time, we adopted Charleston County's flood prevention and protection ordinance and signed an intergovernmental agreement for County Building Services to manage flood regulation in the Town.   In 2012, the Town again adopted the County flood prevention and protection ordinance and an intergovernmental agreement for County Building Services to manage flood regulation in the Town.

FEMA has created new flood maps, and there will be public hearings next spring.   FEMA mailed me a letter with draft maps.   The letter stated that according to their records, the Town does not participate in the Federal Flood Insurance Program.  On the advice of Charleston County Building Services, we are submitting a new application.    As required by the application, I have requested that Council approve a resolution of intent to participate in the program.

My opinion is that the Town has never stopped participating in the program.   While I will make that argument, the last thing I want to see happen is for the Federal government to block renewals of existing flood insurance policies and prevent new ones from being written in the Town.   The Town benefits from having Charleston County Building Services manage our program, and I believe we need to follow their advice on this matter.

Town Hall News

The Town has made progress in putting together our site for the new Town Hall.  

The plan is to put together two parcels on Dills Bluff Road and a portion of a parcel on Camp Road.  

The parcel on Camp Road is under City of Charleston jurisdiction.   The two parcels on Dills Bluff are under Town jurisdiction.

The Town owns the .8 acre parcel on the corner of Dills Bluff and Hillman.    When everything is complete, the Town Hall site will be approximately 2 acres and will front on Dills Bluff.

Early in the planning process, I spoke to Mayor Tecklenburg and also City Councilwoman Kathleen Wilson and they were very cooperative regarding a Town Hall that would be partially in City of Charleston jurisdiction.   It is currently zoned residential, which would need to change for us to construct a Town Hall there.   The City planning process involves many steps.  City staff has been supportive and cooperative.

I later asked Mayor Tecklenburg if he would agree to adjust the boundary between the Town and the City of Charleston so that the Town could handle any zoning change and the planning process.    He was agreeable.   This part of James Island is in City Councilwoman Kathleen Wilson's district (who was chair of our James Island Intergovernmental Council last year.)   I asked her as well, and she was agreeable.  

The Town completed the purchase of the Camp Road property in late November.  

I thank Mayor Tecklenburg and Councilwoman Wilson and all the rest of Charleston City Council for their support for this boundary adjustment.   It passed first reading at Charleston City Council last Tuesday.   The Town must also agree to the boundary adjustment and our first reading will be at our regular Town Council meeting next Thursday.    Once both Councils complete their second reading, the boundary will be adjusted.

I anticipate that we will have the entire site assembled early next year and that it will all be under Town jurisdiction.  

 

 

There is no easy way to describe the boundary between the Town and the City of Charleston, and the County GIS used to generate this is not exactly correct according to our survey, but basically, the agreement is to move the boundary to the new dark line and the rose colored City jurisdiction above the line and between Dills Bluff and Camp will become Town jurisdiction.

November 7 Court Hearing on Kernodle Class Action Suit

We were back in court on November 7 fighting Kernodle's class action suit against the Town.  David and Sandi Engelman and Rod Welch signed onto Kernodle's suit as class representatives.    The case is called Engelman v Town of James Island.

The Town and Charleston County requested that Judge Nicholson reconsider his July 7 order.   In that order, the Judge denied Kernodle's motion for summary judgement against the Town and also denied the Town's motion to dismiss.   As a result, absent some reconsideration, the case will go to trial, probably next March.

The Judge's July 7 order also included two surprises.   The Judge added Charleston County as a plaintiff against the Town.   And the Judge imposed an injunction against the Town prohibiting us from spending or crediting any LOST funds that we have or will receive.

The addition of Charleston County as a plaintiff against the Town was a complete surprise to everyone, including Charleston County.   As for the injunction, Kernodle had sought an injunction against the Town on July 22, 2015.   Judge Dennis denied Kernodle's request on September 2, 2015.   Judge Nicholson, in effect, reversed Judge  Dennis' decision.  The only reason Judge Nicholson gave was that Charleston County was not a plaintiff when Judge Dennis denied the injunction sought by Kernodle.

The Town and Charleston County asked the Judge to reconsider.   The injunction appeared to prohibit the County Auditor from placing the Town's property tax credit on the tax bill.   This is because it said that the Town cannot credit any LOST funds that it will receive.  Failure to provide a credit against our own property tax at least equal to the amount of revenue the Town expects to receive this fiscal year from the LOST Property Tax Credit Fund would put the Town in violation of the plain meaning of the LOST statute.  Worse, with no credit, property taxpayers in the Town would have faced a substantial increase in their 2016 property tax bill in October.

Thankfully, on August 17, Judge Nicholson lifted the injunction for the 2016 tax year.   As a result, the October property tax bills included the Town's property tax credit and Town taxpayers didn't have to pay any property taxes to the Town.

After Judge Nicholson added Charleston County as a plaintiff, County attorneys responded to Kernodle's class action suit.   The County agrees with the Town that the case should be dismissed because of provisions of the South Carolina Revenue Procedures Act (RPA.)    That statute prohibits class actions on issues relating to property taxes.   It requires that taxpayers first request a property tax refund from County tax officials.   If there were a dispute (and the Town would dispute it) there is a procedure for adjudication that eventually goes to the South Carolina Supreme Court.   If the taxpayers are determined to be due a refund, the RPA describes how the local governments pay the refunds to the taxpayers.   The RPA expressly states that if a case is brought to circuit court, it must be dismissed.

Judge Nicholson made no decisions at the hearing.  He said he had a lot of studying to do. We must wait.

From the Judge's remarks, it appeared to me that he added Charleston County to the case so that Charleston County could ask to take the money the Town received from LOST and use it to provide a property tax credit to all the taxpayers in the County.   The result would be a one time 3% increase in the County property tax credit.   This would result in a one time decrease in property taxes for all homeowners in the County by 1/2 of one percent.  (The reduction would be proportionally even smaller for vehicles, businesses or rental property.)  From the point of view of those of us in the Town, approximately 98% of the benefit would go to people outside of the Town--for the most part in the City of Charleston, City of North Charleston, and the Town of Mount Pleasant.  

Fortunately, Charleston County's attorneys do not believe this is consistent with the LOST statute and instead argued that Judge Nicholson should dismiss Kernodle's class action suit because of provisions of the RPA.   The County attorneys also explained how the County uses excess revenue it receives from the Property Tax Credit Fund to carry forward credits to the next year.    This is what the Town has been doing with the revenue it received before the Town had a property tax.

There was some discussion of the other municipalities in Charleston County that have no property tax and receive revenue from the Property Tax Credit Fund.   They all spend it on operations.   It seemed to me that the Judge was suggesting that the County add all of them to the suit as defendants so that it could take their money too.  Again, the County Attorneys showed no interest in such a proposal, which would bankrupt some of the small municipalities in the County.

Also, in oral arguments, Kernodle appeared to accept that the Town is now in compliance with the LOST statute regarding all the revenue the Town has received from the LOST Property Tax Credit Fund since July of 2015.   That is, the Town is in compliance with the statute by providing the required credit against its own property tax millage.   At this point, he only appears to be trying to get his hands on the approximately $2.3 million of funds that the Town received in 2012, 2013 and 2014 before we levied a property tax.

I am hopeful that any injunction imposed by Judge Nicholson will only apply to spending the $2.3 million the Town received from the LOST Property Tax Credit Fund some years ago, and not vaguely refer to "LOST Funds" that the Town has or will receive.   I also hope he does not interfere with the Town's policy of carrying forward credits.

Further, I believe that Judge Dennis was correct to deny the injunction last year.  I hope that Judge Nicholson will review the arguments the Town provided to Judge Dennis.   In my opinion, the Town has the legal right to manage its own funds and Kernodle has no right to compel us to sequester funds to pay a possible judgement.  

Finally, I hope that Charleston County's support for our position that the Revenue Procedures Act requires that Kernodle's class action suit be dismissed will be persuasive to the Judge.