R. TIMOTHY O’NEILL, Ed.D 138 Oakland Place Buffalo, New York 14222 716.882.7170 [email protected]
June 16, 2015
To Whom It May Concern:
Last April, my wife and I had the very fortunate opportunity of staying with Stephen and Elizabeth Lenes at their home in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina. We prefer the ambiance and intimacy of “B and B’s” and our stay with these wonderful hosts did not disappoint. It was evident that our hosts are community leaders in their own right and made us feel right at home. For example, we were invited to join a home-hosted community dinner at the Lenes home during our stay. We were able to experience both the neighborhood community and the larger community of Charleston in special ways because of the guidance and recommendations of our hosts. They are outstanding ambassadors for the community and because of them we are sure to return to the area.
In addition, we are more interested than ever before in expanding “B and B” opportunities in the Western New York area.
Sincerely,
Tim and Nora O’Neill
Planning
From: Rebecca Bryant
Attn: Town of Mount Pleasant June 16, 2015
First and foremost, I would have loved to be there to say these words in person, but unfortunately I am away on vacation in North Carolina.
This letter is being written on behalf of my friend, Elisabeth Lenes. I have known her for just over 21 years. I will always know how long I have known Mrs. Lenes and her family because they welcomed me into their home when I had nowhere else to go.
In late 1993 I was a single, pregnant 24 year old woman who had no money and no where to live. I literally had a key to a storage unit where my past life was and I had no idea where my future would go. I had no financial support from my family and only emotional support from my mother because of her own financial issues at the time.
My mother did guide me to government services in Charleston, SC that could help me at that time. I was directed to the Lenes family through the Lowcountry Pregnancy Center, where the Lenes family had registered their home as a “Shepherding” home for single moms. I turned out to be their first single mom.
They opened their home to me and my unborn child. I had a cozy room and access to a bathroom. I knew the house rules. I respected her and her small children. I could talk to Mrs. Lenes and learn from her. She is a very calm, patient, dedicated, and spiritual mother. I was so impressed with her. I had never lived in a home like hers, with a family like hers, or a home where people were so dedicated to loving and living in God’s word.
My son, Patrick, was born on February 3, 1994. After his healthy birth, I returned to their home and stayed there until I was lucky enough to get in touch with a friend in the Upstate of South Carolina, who had a living situation that would work out well for Patrick and me. We moved out after about 6 weeks of his birth.
Over the years I stayed in touch with the Lenes family in many ways. I always wanted Patrick to know how lucky he was that this large family, who definitely had plenty on their plate without taking us on, opened their home and hearts to us.
By 2008 I was married to Jonathan Bryant and had 2 more children of our own. Jonathan was lucky and got a wonderful job at Mead WestVaco (MWV) in North Charleston. Patrick was about to start his first semester of 9th grade. We decided that it was important for his future education to start Wando High School on the first day of school. The only way we could make this possible, was with the help (once again), of the Lenes family. My husband was living out of a Courtyard Marriott in Mount Pleasant, but he was traveling
3 internationally quite often and training for this position, so Patrick could not reside with him. It was an unstable condition for a teenager. I was busy selling a home in Spartanburg and dealing with 2 small children.
The Lenes’ provided a roof over my head and nourishing food for my son in I’on for several months. They have sons Patricks around ages, so he road to school with them. They have been nothing but gracious and wonderful friends and hosts to our son and family. I could not be more grateful.
I cannot say where I would be today without the Elisabeth Lenes. To pick someone up when they are at their lowest. When someone in your family suggests that you abort your first child because it’s a "bad timing" or not the ”ideal", conditions. I can remember Elisabeth telling me that "GOD MAKES NO MISTAKES!” I am not perfect, but I am a better person, with a warmer, more compassionate heart because of my time living in her home.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.
Rebecca Bryant
3165 Treadwell St. Mt. Pleasant, SC 29466 Cell# 843-614-9719
4 Planning
From: Dennis P. Coyle
June 16, 2015
Planning Commission Town of Mount Pleasant
Re: I'On Planned Development District Amendment Request ‐ Bed and Breakfast, 109 Ponsbury Road
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
We strongly urge the Planning Commission to deny the above‐referenced application to amend the I'On Planned Development District ("PD") to allow a bed and breakfast ("B & B") to operate at 109 Ponsbury Road in I'On.
The PD has never allowed for the operation of a B & B within the residential areas of the I'On community. To grant such a variance from this restriction will cause substantial harm and damage to the neighboring homes as well as to the entire community.
Everyone who resides in I'On was legally on notice when they purchased their homes that B & Bs are not permitted in I'On's residential areas. Most of us relied on such restrictions when we purchased and built our homes. To permit the requested variance will degrade the character of the neighborhood and will substantially and adversely affect the value of our homes. If you grant one variance, others will assuredly follow to the further detriment of the entire I'On community.
The operation of a commercial establishment such as a B & B in a high density residential area such as I'On will create significant safety hazards. The additional automobile congestion generated by this use will overwhelm the available parking spaces, clogging ingress and egress for both fire and rescue vehicles and for residents' vehicles. For example, 109 Ponsbury has as many as four rooms available for rent but only one off‐street parking space for guests. Vehicular parking and traffic are already a major concern in I'On; B & Bs will only exacerbate the situation as well as create an enforcement nightmare for the Mt. Pleasant police department.
Equally important, the operation of commercial short‐term hospitality businesses in the heart of a quality residential community constitutes a nuisance to the people who live there. These establishments are disruptive, often raucous, and in general deeprive the neighboring residents of the full use and enjoyment of their homes.
Accordingly, we urgently request that the Planning Commission deny the application.
Respectfully, Dennis Coyle Emily Coyle 213 Ponsbury Road Mt. Pleasant 29464
5 Planning
From: Kimberly Kelly Moss
To Whom it May Concern,
I have never written a letter to the city before, but the issue before us is of such great concern to my family and the community in which we live I feel compelled to write. It is my understanding that a number of homeowners in I'On have begun to utilize the services of Air BnB in renting out rooms in their homes, serving food and alcoholic beverages. We are fortunate in that we do not have one of these commercial endeavors next to our home, and this is a commercial endeavor in a residential neighborhood which our Planned Documents do not allow.
Some have stated B&B's are allowed in downtown Charleston so why not here? My response is if I wanted to live on the peninsula, I would. My family chose I'On because of the sense of community, lack of commercialization and presence of families and children. We were under the belief this lifestyle was protected by our Planned Documents which every property owner was given when they purchased in I'On. If someone had an issue with the documents they should not have purchased a home in this community. Furthermore, this effort to change the PD and ask for a variance undermines our community and lifestyle as it is, in my opinion, nothing more than a boarding house. My family would never have purchased a home in I'On if we had known such commercial activity was taking place or allowed. The point being it is not allowed, it is against the law and should not be allowed. This is a residential community and I most strongly urge you to reject this request as our HOA board has already determined it to be an activity in violation of our PD and the property owners of I'On do not want it.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
-- Kimberly Kelly Moss 193 N Shelmore Blvd Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 843.200.2860
6 Planning
From: Patricia
Planning Commission Members:
I have serious concerns about any approval which will allow the proposed Market at Mill Creek Development to move forward at this time. After reading the Impact Statement submitted by the developer a few weeks ago, I am convinced that this development is exactly the wrong development at exactly the wrong time and will greatly exacerbate the existing traffic which exists right now on this daily commuter corridor which the Mayor has often identified as the a critical focus for the Town of Mt Pleasant. 41 right now is reaching and, at some intersections, exceeding its capacity as a two lane road to carry daily, and increasing, commuter AND local traffic, and causing ratings of existing Mt Pleasant intersections to degrade as neighborhoods are built. Only Cambridge Square and Fishermens Village were included in proposed future developments to be considered for this study. The traffic study proves that without a doubt traffic from over the bridge is here now., The BHL report is readable and clear, and even to a 70 year old homeowner with a BA in English, indicates that any significant uptick in traffic volume at the Northern end of 41, will impact every intersection southward to 17, some of which (Rivertowne, Joe Rouse and 17 itself, are already seriously "at risk" for downgrade. When a traffic report contains language that suggests vigilance to avoid further degradation of intersection ratings, that is probably engineering speak for "WARNING, TROUBLE AHEAD". Mitigation of individual intersections south of this development involves taxpayer money potentially expended to correct a problem created by traffic patterns changed by this development (Joe Rouse, Rivertowne). Taxpayer money spent downstream to mitigate what is caused by this development, as proven in the traffic studies), will be nullified when 41 is widened. Do we have money to waste on temporary fixes?
Other than yet another supermarket anchor, and multiple free standing gas pumps, there is so much we do not know about the proposed Development, and no effort was made to involve our neighborhood of Planters Pointe (so directly impacted). In multiple meetings over Cambridge Square, that Developer emphasized how difficult it is to rent commercial space within DW/PW and that rentals are often at below market rates. Will this be a factor in this development? What makes this different, and will a yet another Supermarket as its anchor be enough to make this vibrant? If the gas pumps are the reason for TC approval, what mitigations for the placement of the tanks will avoid both environmental concerns and eventual widening of 41 concerns. Where will the storage tanks be with a 3' water table property near a marsh? Will they be clear of the eventual widening of 41 with the current set back, including planned sidewalks? Six other buildings and an outparcel are planned to be "flexible" and the developer reserves the right to change the size of other buildings as long as the overall size of the development is kept as proposed. But, a McDonalds will significantly change traffic volume, as opposed to an accountant's office. TC zoning allows so much more than commercial to be built. How can any predicition of numbrs of primary trips, or true effect on traffic at this intersection be accurately stated?
Traffic at the new light. and rolling thru intersections South of Planters Pointe is the true thing to consider in approving this project.
* Will this new traffic signal, contain sensors in the road, able to identify peak and off peak turn ins?
* Will the turn signals be synched with the Rivertowne signal, .6 mile away? With Joe Rouse, soon to see the new traffic spun off by the Bessemer Circle?
* 24/7 turning traffic, some of it extremely outsized (boaters, landscapers), requires careful mitigation for safety. Where can we see those North and Southbound plans for the turn lanes?
* What will be the speed limits from the bridge to the Planters Pointe light? How far back will the turn lane from the North extend?
* Will golf carts crossing over from Planters Pointe and Rivertowne be allowed? Will there be any Bikers, Pedestrians? What will happen when that happens?
* Adding a traffic signal at the main entrance to Mill Creek will need mitigation to make sure that towed boat trailers, landscaping vehicles, delivery trucks servicing whatever will fill the proposed small stores on internal driveways inside the entrance. Turning extremely large sized vehicles to use the proposed gas pumps is a concerning thought to those in our 7 Planters Pointe development. A 25' boat on a trailer pulled by an SUV is a daunting sight, turning at your intersection without a widened 41. The change from having constant pass by traffic passing our entrance, to dealing with oversized vehicles navigating across traffic while we exit and enter through our only entrance, can create 'block the box' scenarios. This commercial center is being designed to be high traffic as it will contain - for the present - the last gas station and supermarket closest to the bridge, attractive to boaters and traffic bound home at night for Clements Ferry, (currently without a supermarket). . Mostly, the study proves that if traffic counts now at Planters Pointe/Woods shows a notable uptick for AM/PM rush hours, we cannot deny that we are counting in Mt Pleasant, traffic originating from Over the Bridge. We must insist that the known developments for which the 4 lane bridge and the Clements Ferry expansion to 4 lanes are being planned, be considered in your decision. While we cannot mediate outside our borders, we can acknowledge that the counts being used to approve this study already include vehicles routinely and daily coming from Clements Ferry in the morning and going back at night. This is not outside our borders, and anticipating and including the enormous impact of Wando Village and Cainhoy Plantation must be of concern in making your decision. A Regional Traffic study (CHATS?) might allow our infrastructure to keep pace with what 41 will be expected to carry, since we are receiving that vehicle traffic now. Berkeley County is widening Clements Ferry with a one penny tax, in anticipations of the 9000 acre Cainhoy Plantation. When a four lane CF expansion finally reaches the new bridge exiting in Mt Pleasant, we will be faced with four lanes merging into two on 41. How do we mitigate that challenge to our side of the bridge. Since the traffic study is not Regional, it doesn't factor that future (but known) traffic volume to the counts shown at Planters Pointe/Woods now I believe that NO mitigation is possible that will allow approving this development to be built as planned based on its effect on a close to capacity 41 right now, except the widening of 41 sooner than later. Since that is not in the Developers ability to accomplish, please deny this until a Regional Traffic Study is done.
While I understand that the proposed development is in compliance with both the recent zoning of the site, and is allowed under the Dunes West Master Plan, I see no value to any part of Mt Pleasant BUT Dunes West. You could approve this development to move forward. But, as you are charged with being the Planning Commission for the entire Town and cannot concurrently widen 41, south to 17,which seems to be the only mitigation which resolves the demonstrated negative effect on the intersections flowing South to 17 as proven in the submitted Impact Statement, I hold you to make the right decision, and avoid unnecessary outlay of taxpaper money for interim solutions ,
I ask you to delay, if not deny, approval - at this time - of the Mill Creek Development. Widening of 41 is the only mitigation which should allow you to move forward with this development at this time, supported by the true hardship which would result in downgraded. or "at risk" intersections from Planters Pointe to Route 17 to which Mill Creek would contribute.
I know what I am asking you all to do, and yet I hold you responsible to including in this decision the safety and quality of life for all the homeowners who live along 41, and the daily commuters who use 41 right now, and would not appreciate willfully adding traffic or complexities to the currently over capacity road we face every day.
Respectful of all you do,
Patricia Allan Smokerise section of Planters Pointe 2705 Wild Dogwood Way Mt Pleasant, SC 29466
8 Planning
From: Tuxworth
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Commission,
I write to you to express my thoughts and feelings regarding the potential development of Snee Farm Village. I served on the Snee Farm Community Foundation (SFCF) board of directors from 2010-2013. In that tenure the original sketch plan (April 2011) was circulated for review to the Foundation and residents of Snee Farm. Within that sketch plan there were 3 items that made this potential development somewhat palatable to our residents.
1.) A considerable amount of green space between the development and our existing neighborhood.
2.) Improvement and expansion of the existing pond which would help with storm water flooding issues on Farm Quarter Rd., Plantation Circle and Parkway Drive.
3.) The addition of walking trails in green space areas to be shared by all residents of Snee Farm.
As I review the June 2015 revised sketch plan for Snee Farm Village it has alarmingly deviated from all 3 considerations that was presented in the original agreement.
I would ask the members of the Planning Commission to deny the request of approval for the June 2015 revised sketch plan and further add a condition that the developers and/or owner of the property communicate and work with the SFCF to come to some form of agreement. I no longer serve on the SFCF but I can attest to the fact that hundreds of Snee Farm residents are unhappy with the increasing encroachment of this proposed development. Furthermore, I can also state that the lack of communication between the developer/owner of Snee Farm Village with members of the SFCF has made their commitment to our neighborhood an even more difficult process.
I thank you in advance for your time and consideration in this matter, Jim Tuxworth 1101 Ambling Way
9 Planning
From: Gregory Ewell
Dear Sirs or Madame:
As a homeowner in I'on, I support the I'on Board of Trustee's position on not approving the Subject Application for a B&B at 109 Ponsbury. We bought out house as our soon to be a retirement home, as my wife's parents and brother and family live in Mt. Pleasant. We do not wish to see our peaceful surroundings, which we thought was codified in the Planned Development District when we bought our house, turned into a commercial district and the resulting traffic and parking issues (with the limited parking in I'on) that entails. I fear widespread "if you can't beat them join them" spread of B&Bs by homeowners who decide they might as well "cash in" and lease their FROG or other little used bedrooms. There are already other violators of the PD bolding running B&Bs in I'on and advertising as "Charleston's most progressive neighborhood in I'on" (see house on Robert Mills Circle listed on AIRBNB). I think there is nothing wrong with B&Bs in a mixed commercial/residential district. However, that is not where we chose to live. We also have a fine hotel industry presence in Mt. Pleasant we need to support. Please uphold and enforce our well thought out Planned Development District.
Greg and Jill Ewell 78 Hopetown Road, I'on
10 Planning
From: Michael H Hance PE
To the Planning Commission:
I am writing to request that the Planning Commission deny approval of the Snee Farm Village as proposed and require an impact study before any development is approved by the Town of Mount Pleasant. Some of the concerns and questions are as follows:
1.) Will there be flooding on Parkway and in the homes which border the parking lot? The proposed plan shows the drainage pond will be filled in and moved to near the tennis courts. Will this ensure that property and streets will not flood? 2.) Will emergency vehicles be able to get back to tennis courts as well as all the homes with the on‐street parking which is proposed? 3.) Is there enough parking provided for the new homeowners and guests so the existing and new members of the country club will be able for find parking spaces? 4.) Can all of the oak trees including a Grand Tree be removed for development? 5.) Does building a 3‐story multi‐family 12 unit apartment unit complement and enhance the existing architecture of the space? The front view of the clubhouse will be eliminated and overshadowed by this structure. 6.) Are tennis courts, the parking lot and work sheds allowed to be used as open space to meet the town’s density requirements? 7.) It has been several years since the first proposal to build was submitted and the land was rezoned. What has changed since then? 8.) What kind of demolition will need to be performed? Will we have access to the club facilities during this time? What will be the disruption in the lives of existing homeowners? 9.) Will the proposed retention pond have an impact on Charles Pinckney National Park? 10.) What is the environmental impact due to the loss of over 6 acres of open space? 11.) Does the proposed development meet the covenants of Snee Farm?
There are several homeowners who are very concerned that there has not been an open dialogue about what will be built in our community. These changes could affect our properties and it is important that the city requires the owner to perform due diligence to ensure the safety of existing homeowners. A project this disruptive to the central hub of a longstanding community should be brought to the homeowners for review and input. It should also include an effort to incorporate existing open space and structures.
In closing, I would refer to the purpose of a planned development district as provided by the Town of Mount Pleasant.
“§ 156.305 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS. (A) Purpose of district. The purpose of the Planned Development District is to encourage flexibility in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design, character and quality of new development; to facilitate the provision of streets and utilities; and to preserve the natural and scenic features of open areas.”
I trust the Planning Commission will carefully review what is being proposed and it is my hope that the delicate balance of development and existing open areas is strongly considered. Thank you for taking the time to address these concerns.
Respectfully Yours,
11 Michael H. Hance PE 1133 Club Terrace Mt Pleasant, SC (843) 830‐2150
12 My name is Sam Recinos, and I am writing this on behalf of the Lenes family. I am unable to come and speak on their behalf because I am currently attaining a doctorate in Physical Therapy at Emory University. It has come to my attention that, recently, there has been some concern with the amount of people parking near the Lenes’ house. I have known this family since my sophomore year in high school, almost 6 going on 7 years now. In this time that I have known them, I have never seen their house empty. The Lenes’ have always entertained people, whether it be for dinner, or for social gatherings, or just an afternoon bible/book study. In the last seven years, there has always been a multitude of people coming and going, and never a problem accompanying this. The Lenes’ would be more than happy to accommodate someone if they need parking, if one were to just go and ask. I say this in full confidence because the Lenes family and I are very close. I consider Mr. and Mrs. Lenes as my second set of parents, and was even given a key to their home as a birthday present one year in high school. I am curious as to why the issue is just arising, seeing as though people being over at the Lenes household is not a new thing. I still remember, and should come back and visit to see, the house full of good food smells and people laughing, carrying on, and just enjoying each other’s company. The Lenes’ are social by nature, and that really should not be a bad thing. The house has held so many fond memories of meeting new friends, and having long silly or serious conversations. I have a fond place in my heart reserved for this house, this family, and the way that it is a fixture of social gatherings within my community. The Lenes’ are an outstanding, Godly, and role model family, which is why people like to visit so much. If you have not come over, by their permission, I urge you to sit in on a bible study, or maybe try one of Mrs. Lenes’ famous Sunday dinners. I can talk about it all day, but in the end, you won’t truly grasp how special this place is, until you experience it for yourself. Kelly Cousino
From: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 10:22 AM To: Kelly Cousino Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Proposed Market at Mill Creek on 41 Development
As owners at Egrets Walk subdivision in Dunes West, the proposed development raises a number of issues. Principally, this is a commercial development that would be located in what is essentially a residential area. For example, the back of the proposed development abuts the Egrets Walk subdivision. This raises noise, traffic, security and quality of life questions:
1. What is the height of the buildings? Will the stores all be one level? 2. Will there be a treed buffer zone along Wood Park Drive and the back of the development? This would would be the development's buffer zone, not the existing Egrets Walk buffer zone. 3. What will be the hours of operation of the stores, especially the gas station? Are we talking a 24/7 operation? Would the stores comply with Mount Pleasant's noise ordinances? Would the proposed restaurant have live music? Will there be traffic noise during hours that currently are quiet? 4. The development would bring numerous non-residents near the adjacent residential areas. This raises security issues. Will there be a security fence along the back of the development? 5. Will car headlights be visible from the residential areas during evening hours? If so, this raises quality of life as well as privacy issues. 6. How and when did the zoning for this tract of land change from residential to commercial? Do we really want his section of Hwy.41 to become another Coleman Blvd? 7. Will the Market at Mill Creek development reduce the value of my home?
These are a few of the basic issues the proposed development raises for my wife and me as residents of the Dunes West Egrets Walk community, which currently is a highly desirable, secure, and quiet enclave. Thank you for your consideration.
Gregory and Elizabeth Diercks 272 Fair Sailing Road Egrets Walk
1 Kelly Cousino
From: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 8:31 AM To: Kelly Cousino Subject: Stop Planter's Pointe devlopment
Ladies in Gentlemen,
I encourage you to DELAY any action on the approval of the shopping center/gas station being considered on Highway 41 at Planters Pointe. It is essential that a complete assessment of the impact of development approved for Berkeley County along the Wando river, the proposed development along Park West blvd and the construction that is already underway on Bessemer Road be factored in to future plans.
I urge that there be a moratorium on any development in our area until realistic planning is done and funding secured for improvement of highway 41.
R. Clark Thompson Pignatelli Crescent ______Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/558168bc1a15268bc6722st01vuc
2 Planning
From: Stephen Fiorelli
Please accept our letter regarding 109 Ponsbury Rd.
Regards, Steve and Jeanne Fiorelli
-- Steve Fiorelli Quality Home Services Quality Home Services will be celebrating 48 years in the residential pest control business and we are now also certified and licensed for pest management in schools.
610-583-4738 Direct to Steve [email protected] www.apestfreequalityhome.com
1
Planning
From: dennis laabs
Dear Planning Commission:
I am writing to voice my strong recommendation that B&Bs and other short term rentals NOT be allowed in the I'on Community. As a long time home owner, I am very concerned with the impact that would occur if short term residency was permitted. I'on is a very dense community and additional residents would create serious issues, including problems with traffic flow, parking and overall noise and safety. I strongly recommend you refuse this rezoning request. regards,
Dennis & Jan Laabs 217 Ponsbury Rd 843‐284‐8799
2 Planning
From: Joan M. Zaleski
I am a resident of I’On and live on Ponsbury Road, down the street from the applicants who have applied for a variance to operate a Bed and Breakfast at their home. I am in opposition to their application for the following reasons:
1. We moved to this neighborhood attracted by its concept of the ‘new urbanism’ design. We welcomed living closer to our neighbors, greeting our neighbors on walks around I’On, and joining together for community events. We recognize that there are long term renters in the neighborhood, but they become part of the neighborhood and we know each other, and their dogs, by name, and they are included in all community events. Short term rentals (less than 28 days) are nothing more than operating a boarding house, as people did during the Depression in the 1930’s. Let’s call it what it is. The Lene’s have been operating an illegal boarding house in I’On. 2. We already have a Bed and Breakfast, legally operating as one, in the commercial district of I’On, which is recognized as a commercial business. If people want to stay in I’On, they are welcome to stay there. 3. The ‘new urbanism’ concept promotes a lack of dependence on cars. Each house that was built in I’On was approved by the design committee to provide off street parking for the residents of that house. Doubling, or quadrupling, the number of adults who live in a house, creates a nightmare when their cars need spaces. Extra cars bring parking violations and disturbance to neighbors. 4. The I’On Board of Assembly Trustees has voted to deny the application by the Lene’s. I support their vote.
I urge the Planning Commission to deny the application for this variance. Thank you for your consideration, Joan Zaleski
1 Planning
From: Rick Tifft
Importance: High
Good afternoon,
I would like this letter communicated to the audience at the proceedings tomorrow evening. I unfortunately will not be able to be there but wanted to voice my opinion and perspectives on the issue. Thanks.
Best,
Rick Tifft
11 Richard W. Tifft Jr. Phone: 207-838-0535 E-mail: [email protected]
June 15, 2015
Dear Mount Pleasant Planning Board:
I first of all apologize to the audience, Elisabeth, Steven and Stephanie Jean for not being present for this meeting. I unfortunately have a personal obligation creating the conflict.
I have to be honest and vocalize that I truly do not understand why this meeting is occurring. When you become a homeowner you should not have to ask permission to have guests. It does become an issue IF neighbors are bothered by them and I am specifically talking about instances of noise and unruly behavior. I’m not referring to this situation where individuals don’t approve that the Lennes are opening their home and hearts to paying customers to justify keeping their large home after the kids have moved out.
I have recently relocated my family from Maine to Mount Pleasant and the Lennes family was very important to our decision. We have moved to South Carolina without jobs which as you can imagine is stressful. I have made five trips to the area since January, building my professional network and have stayed with them every time. Elisabeth and Steven’s home is so warm, inviting and really provides a supportive family setting in the absence of my own. I left my family in Maine through multiple snow storms and their kindness made the situation so much easier.
We were considering settling in other communities such as Summerville or North Ashley but the passion and positivity that Elisabeth, Steven and Stephanie Jean shared, swayed us to Mount Pleasant. Elisabeth actually took me on a tour of different neighborhoods and schools really giving me an idea of where we wanted to be and could afford. She didn’t have to do this, but wanted to because of the giving person she is.
Have a told you what a wonderful cook Elisabeth is? As guests of the house we were always welcome to joining the family for dinner. Every Tuesday night the Lennes open their home and prepare an amazing meal inviting whoever wants to come. It could be neighbors, friends, classmates of Stephanie Jean, colleagues or just someone going through a tough time needing company, kindness, a prayer and great conversation.
My point here is to emphasize that when you stay at the Lennes house you are part of the family, not just a guest through ABNB. They provide wonderful and warm accommodations and a very positive outlook on the community and the people that live in it. If their right to continue to welcome guests into their home is taken away, it would be a disservice not only to the family but also to the community of Mount Pleasant.
Kindest Regards,
Rick Tifft 207-838-0535 [email protected] Planning
From: Cathleen Davis
Dear Members of the Commission,
I am an 11 year resident if the I’on community and am writing in support of the position taken by the I’on Assembly Board of Trustees regarding the approval of B&B in I’on at the home of Steven and Elisabeth Lenes. The position is specifically outlined in Bob Davis’s letter of June 9, 2015 to the members of the Planning Commission.
I’on was designed as a purely residential neighborhood with the exception of the areas otherwise designated in the original plan. My major objections are based on the problems of increased traffic, parking, transient residents and decreased property values. These issues will not only be problematic for the neighborhood residents, but also for the Town. More of a police presence will be required to enforce town ordinances, potential difficulties with emergency vehicles reaching their intended destination in a timely manner, and a reduced tax base for the Town as property values fall. I’on was not designed to accommodate such a situation within the residential areas.
I hope for the safety of the residents and the character of the neighborhood you will deny the potion of Steven and Elisabeth Lenes.
Thank you for your consideration.
Cathleen Davis
10 Planning
From: Lydia Engelhardt
We are long term residents of Mount Pleasant. Prior to moving to I'On in 2001, we lived in Hobcaw Point for a number of years. While it was difficult to leave Hobcaw (Bill had built our home there in the early 1970's....so he had watched that neighborhood grow from it's infancy), we were drawn to I'On and it's planners' concepts. We like the fact that our homes are close together, and not separated by large expanses of yards. Parking is very tight....especially on some blocks. We have a single car garage and no other spot for parking on our property. (We would love to own a golf cart for local errands, but don't even have space to park one). So the addition of extra visitors and cars is a major liveability issue for us. There are already times when older dinner guests or out of town visitors are unable to park within a block of our home. And we don't have a driveway to offer them. Short term guests at a bed and breakfast are more likely to be noisy at midnight (they are in holiday mode) and to park in "no parking" areas, etc. Our garage door faces a narrow one way street that is designated a "No Parking" street by the town of Mt Pleasant. We frequently are either blocked into our garage or blocked out of it by workmen who for whatever reason find it easiest to park in such a manner. It is difficult enough as it is to go door‐to‐door during work hours trying to locate the culprit to get him to move his vehicle. We can just imagine ringing doorbells at 11:30 at night in an attempt to locate the owner of a bed and breakfast car parked in front of our garage !!! We are very much against a change in the I'On Planned District Ordinance that would allow bed and breakfasts within the residential areas of the neighborhood. We love our I'On square, with it's Bed and Breakfast, coffee shop, and other commercial ventures...... we certainly don't object to sharing our beautiful neighborhood with others. We love B and B's and sometimes stay in them when we travel. But the thought of changing the development plan at this late date, when parking is already strained, is unwise. Thank you, Lydia Engelhardt and Bill Rambo 48 Rialto Road 884‐8400
9 Planning
From: George Toole
We live across the street from the Bed and Breakfast that is currently operating at 109 Ponsbury Rd in I'ON. We are opposed to this Bed and Breakfast being allowed to operate in the residential section of our neighborhood. Parking is already an issue in I'ON and the guests of the B&B only compound the issue. They are renting 1 - 4 rooms on a daily basis with guests arriving and departing at all times of the day and night. We plan on attending the meeting on Wednesday, June 17 to express our opposition.
Mary Jane and George Toole 130 West Shipyard Rd
8 Planning
From: Valerie Carlsen Cobb
Please consider delaying the decision on upcoming development along 41 until an extensive traffic impact study can be done bearing in mind the below information my husband had emailed the other day....
------Forwarded message ------From: Steve Cobb
Hi Kelly
For what it is worth the idea of building Market at Mill Creek will be devastating in terms of traffic.
It is bad enough now with : School bus traffic Daily accidents on 41 & Clements Ferry Daily accidents on 526 that ties up 41 & Clements Ferry Too many traffic lights that slow down traffic Two lanes of traffic not enough to support what we have now Build out of Daniel Island (Benefitfocus adding more buildings as well as other development) which will only add more people & traffic on these roads
Please let us know what we can do .
Steve Cobb Director of IT Benefitfocus All Your Benefits. One Place. phone: 843-849-7476 ext. 6999 cell: 843-991-5305 fax: 843-849-9485
About Benefitfocus Benefitfocus, Inc. (NASDAQ: BNFT) is a leading provider of cloud-based benefits software solutions for consumers, employers, insurance carriers and brokers. Benefitfocus has served more than 25 million consumers on its platform that consists of an integrated portfolio of products and services enabling clients to more efficiently shop, enroll, manage and exchange benefits information. With a user-friendly interface and consumer- centric design, the Benefitfocus Platform provides one place for consumers to access all their benefits. Benefitfocus solutions support the administration of all types of benefits including core medical, dental and other voluntary benefits plans as well as wellness programs. For more information, visit www.benefitfocus.com.
------Our Legal Fees At Work ------6 This communication and its contents are confidential and may contain protected intellectual property or other information protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient you may not read, copy, distribute or use this information. If you have received this communication or its contents in error, please notify Findly immediately by replying to this message and then delete this communication and its contents from your system.
7 Planning
From: Valerie Cobb
Hi
I understand that Market at Mill Creek development will be voted on this week. We are Planters pointe within rivertowne residents very concerned about the traffic increase. It is already a nightmare traveling 41 to Clements ferry to get to the airport or work as well as traveling 41 to 17 . As further explanation:
I don't know why our subdivision could have been approved with ONLY ONE EXIT but there is a bottleneck getting out of here especially with the additional 62 homes that were approved to be built in our entrance. On 41, 17 and Clements Ferry, there too many traffic lights as it is. During most of the year, there is a tremendous amount of traffic related to school commute and bus stops (which are pretty much every corner). When there is an accident, you are just stuck on 41 and Clements Ferry. Forget about that flight you were trying to catch for work. And God forbid there was an emergency like a hurricane. I don't know how long it would take to get out of here ?
If the town of mount pleasant isn't planning additional routes or widening 41 and Clements ferry then all of these new developments are going to adversely affect the residents already here and not be advantageous to anyone.
I don't know how any of these new proposals could be approved without the town investing infrastructure or requiring these developers who will make mega millions to invest in new/widened roadways. We are already at CAPACITY
Valerie Cobb 2521 ringsted Lane Mt pleasant
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
5 Planning
From: Deborah Bedell
To the Planning Commission:
My husband and I have lived in I’On for almost eight years now, and I write to urge the Planning Commission to DENY the request to amend the I’On PD Ordinance to permit the operation of Bed and Breakfasts in our community. I served as president of the I’On Assembly Board of Trustees for three years. During that time, I became very attuned to neighborhood sentiment on a wide range of issues, and I can assure you, as your correspondence reflects, that there is extremely widespread and strong opposition within the community to the proposed amendment. While I no longer speak for the Board, I fully endorse the letter sent by our current Board president, Bob Davis, on this issue.
As you know, I’On was envisioned by its developers as a mixed‐use community, combining residential, commercial and civic uses all close at hand to each other. However, the commercial areas of I’On are in distinct sectors of the community, accessible to, but separated from, the residential areas. Buyers who purchased here knew where the commercial zones were and consciously decided how near or far from them to select a home. Despite their vision of mixed uses, the developers themselves felt that the operation of bed and breakfasts within the residential areas of the community was inappropriate, and explicitly so provided in the ordinance they developed and the Town approved. This ordinance and its zoning provisions were available to and relied on by all purchasers of property in I’On. Buyers could not have anticipated that with little notice, new commercial ventures would spring up on their residential streets, nor should they have been expected to foresee such an unpleasant eventuality.
I’On was intended to recall the traditional, close‐knit communities of our historic past. Homes are close together, and the community is physically and socially designed to encourage close connections among neighbors, fostering good relationships and community cohesiveness. Our homes are all required to have front porches, to encourage social interactions between residents and passersby. By introducing B&Bs into our neighborhood, we potentially undermine the social foundation of our community. While we welcome visitors, and are not a gated community, it is still disconcerting and disruptive to have frequently‐changing total strangers making appearances on the porch next door, only a few feet away, on a regular basis. And because of the short‐term duration of their stays, those guests do not have the same commitment to community values—and rules—the owners and longer‐term renters would have. Thus, in I’On, short‐term visitors like B&B guests actually are more problematic than they might be in other, differently conceived neighborhoods.
The residents requesting the PD amendment live in an interior residential area with limited parking for residents and occasional visitors and service people. Even under Town parking requirements as delineated by the Commission Staff, they cannot comply with the minimum parking needed in their rear yard. Since they have four rooms available for rent, Town regulations require one or two spaces per room, or a total of four to eight spaces. The requesters have two driveway spaces only; their garage spaces are not available for guest or any other parking. This inability to comply with Town regulations should itself suffice as grounds to deny the request.
The requesters have provided no compelling argument—in fact, have provided no rationale whatsoever—why their proposed amendment should be approved. The I’On community has operated extremely successfully in the years since it was founded under the current PD ordinance. In the absence of significant change in circumstances, which has not happened, there is no good reason to approve a change in the ordinance. In addition, were this request to be approved, it would not apply solely to the requesters, but would open the door to other bed and breakfasts within I’On, some of which, like the current one, are already operating illegally. As a community of valuable homes, I’On provides significant property
3 tax revenues to the Town and County. The presence of multiple B&Bs in the neighborhood would have a detrimental effect on property values and hence on tax revenues as well.
Finally, the requesters in particular have a history of non‐compliance with community rules and property boundaries; as the staff has noted, they started operation of their B&B in violation of the existing ordinance. In fact, despite complaints having been filed, and despite clearly knowing that operating a B&B violates a Town ordinance, the requesters continue at present to operate a B&B in their home, even during the pendency of their request for an amendment. Under the circumstances, this history gives rise to concerns that, were the amendment to be approved, they would continue to fail to comply with appropriate rules, regulations and requirements. In fact, I believe it will be necessary, should the amendment request be denied, that the Town conduct periodic inspections of the property to ensure that B&B operations have ceased entirely thereafter.
Thank you for the time and attention you have given to this matter, which is of significant concern to much of the I’On community. I look forward to attending the public hearing this week.
Sincerely,
Deborah Luth Bedell 179 E Shipyard Road I’On 843.388.5855
4 Planning
From: Pam Bishop
Dear Members of the Planning Committee,
My husband, Bob and I live directly across from the home that has applied for the variance. We know directly what having an illegally operating B & B does to not only our parking situation, but also to our sense of safety and security. My husband and I built our home in the I'on community in 2000 and have lived her ever since. We had previously lived in Cooper Estates, but were drawn to I'on and its concept of smaller lots, porches, open spaces and sidewalks. We loved the idea of a community that had commercial in the front with restaurants and a Bed and Breakfast, but was a bustling residential community in the rest of neighborhood. We knew when we purchased where the residential and commercial lots were and choose our lot based upon our love of the lakes, a corner lot and our desire to be away from the commercial area.
Our area has always had parking issues due to some residents not parking in their driveways, therefore not enough for guests. Now, the parking issue has become significantly increased with even our family not being able to park near our home at times. It is very unnerving to wake up in the the night and hear people beside your home and not residents. It becomes a safety and security factor. The people that are renting these rooms are not family or friends, but people who found it on the internet.
We totally oppose the variance. The running of this means fees to State and Town not collected and other violations. I encourage you to keep the current zoning in place and not to allow variance into our residential neighborhood.
Thank you for your time
Sincerely,
Pam and Bob Bishop 138 West Shipyard Rd Mt Pleasant, SC
1 Planning
From: Phillip Ayers
My name is Phillip Ayers and my wife and I live at 46 Isle of Hope in the I'On neighborhood. We have lived in I'On for 10 years and have seen neighborhood traffic and parking only get worse. We park our cars off street and on our property. Many people do not and adding additional transient vehicles to the mix will only make matters worse,especially for emergency vehicles. Even if all vehicles,parked legally,which doesn't happen, it is still impossible to go in or out of the neighborhood without having to stop and pull over numerous times to allow a vehicle to get by.
Everyone who bought property in I'On was aware of the restrictions on short term rentals and in fact many people bought because of the restriction on short term rental I.e. not wanting our neighborhood to turn into an IOP type vacation beach community.
Please keep the restrictions against shorter rentals in place and legally enforce the current rules.
Phillip & Diane Ayers Sent from my iPad . Phil
2 Kelly Cousino
From: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 10:41 AM To: Kelly Cousino Subject: NO to Market at Mll Creek
To Mt Pleasant Planning Commission:
As a resident in Dunes West, who uses the Rt 41 entrance I am completely against any construction as planned across from the Planters Pointe entrance. If a traffic signal is installed this would back up traffic on Rt 41 even more than already happens. Not long ago a planned gas station at the entrance of Rivertown was voted down. Why would we want a gas station at this location? We have more than enough service stations along Rt 41. This would definitely be a hazard.
Living in this area, we have to plan when we leave our homes and when we return to avoid heavy traffic. I can't tell you how many near miss accidents I have witnessed on this heavily traveled road. We do not need any more shopping or convenience stores in our immediate area.
Respectfully, Kathleen Eovino 1921 Dunes Mill Way Mt Pleasant, SC 29466
Kathy & Mike Eovino New Adventures Travel 843-971-6074
"If not now ... when?"
1 Kelly Cousino
From: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 2:24 PM To: Kelly Cousino Subject: Shopping center on Rt 41 across from Planter's Point
Dear Ms. Cousino, My husband and I vehemently oppose the construction of this shopping center on rt 41. The impact on an already increasing traffic/safety problem would be horrible. A shopping center and gas station of all things would have a negative environmental effect on the lovely marsh and fishing area there. What are people thinking? We already have multiple gas stations in the area ‐ one of which is just down at the corner of 41 and Bessemer Road, another at the corner of 41 and rt 17. There are two big grocery stores within two miles, a cleaners. Liquor store, multiple restaurants, a hair salon, dentist, medical offices, mailing facility. Why would anyone want another shopping center in this location. It's simply not needed and will only create problems for the people who live, work or travel through the area.
Rosemary and Tom Montesi 2813 Oak Manor Drive Dunes West Mt. Pleasant Sent from my iPad
1 Kelly Cousino
From: Don Mohler
As I have stated before with other proposed projects, I'm not against development. I expect there will be a continuous city from Portland, Maine to Miami, Florida in or shortly beyond my lifetime. What I don't want to see is development that is not under control when it can be by the elected and appointed people doing their jobs. PLEASE bring the infrastructure up to date and a bit beyond before you allow any more development on or adjacent to this road. It is only a matter of time before someone is dead that didn't need to be because of the severe traffic tie ups at rush hour which will certainly get worse with development in Berkley County that we have no say about. PLEASE represent the folks that live here now. They elected the current town government to do that.
Sincerely, Don Mohler Voting resident Mount Pleasant, SC
1 Kelly Cousino
From: [email protected] Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 6:45 PM To: Kelly Cousino Subject: Market at Mill Creek
Please pass on our concerns to the planning commission regarding the above mentioned project, (and all the development that will affect Hwy. 41) we are residents of Planters Pointe, but all developments off of 41 will be affected. Highway 41 must be widened before adding any new projects to this area. Have any of these planners and elected officials sat on 41, either morning or evening, or anytime there is an accident or road work, there is only 1 lane each way! I don't know how many residents use that road on a daily basis, but adding hundreds of cars, and trucks, and cars pulling boats, etc is just something I can't believe the planners think is a good idea. Please let them know the concerns we have regarding the safety issues that go along with these problems. Thank you, Dave and Virginia Pirronelli
2 Kelly Cousino
From: DIETMAR MOSER
Planning Commission of Mt Pleasant,
In regarding the proposed Market at Mill Creek development, we will like to raise the voice and share our concerns. We know that is money involved, business, development, but we need to see the future of our town, family and community. We need to remember that Mount Pleasant has more than 300 years after the first Europeans established permanent homes east of the Cooper River, and the Town of Mount Pleasant Historical Commission will like to continue celebrating an exceptional story. We live in a quiet residential area and we wish to encourage an harmonious growth and development, also encouraging civic pride.
We realize that a city or a town is perhaps one of humanity's most complex creation. Never finished, never definitive.The harmony in Mt Pleasant can't be completed if the cost of urban living is paid by the environment. A shopping center located across from the Planter's Pointe main entrance off highway 41(78,000 sq.ft. of retail development plus a gas station), is not will affect the local development. Highway 41 connecting the Charleston region with South Carolina.It needs to be at least Constructed a three way lane Highway. These projects in this moment is consider the stress on the corridor in the future. A traffic light is not the solution, that the town deserved. This communication has the purpose, that the Planning Commission consider the long- term consequences of this added retail and fuel pump traffic (vehicles and boats) at our Planter's Pointe intersection. The balance urban and development of Mt Pleasant can be accomplished through consistent and targeted investment in transport and communication infrastructure. For these reason Mt Pleasant and its leaders need to address the needs not only this part of the town, is a very important part of the region.
Your decisions of the visioning process will impact many people over generations.
With all our respect,
Dietmar and Lupe Moser 3364 Crowell Lane, Mt Pleasant 29466 Planter's Point
3 Kelly Cousino
From: Russell Horres
Dear Planning Commission: Please consider delaying the Market at Mill Creek project till infrastructure is in place.
Mary & Russell Horres 3224 Pignatelli Crescent 843‐849‐5469
Sent from my Fire
4 Kelly Cousino
From: Bob Horan
Dear Ms. Cousino and Members of the Planning Committee, As a homeowner in Planters Pointe and a resident whose life circulates through the northern corridor of Mt. Pleasant, I urge you to conduct a more thorough impact assessment and traffic study of the whole of Hwy 41 before going to a final vote on the Market at Mill Creek development. While I appreciate the traffic study done at the entrance to Planters Pointe produced a recommendation (with which I agree) for the installation of a traffic signal; I'm concerned that it took into consideration only the existing traffic, and not future traffic, brought on by planned residential and commercial development along Hwy 41 and Clements Ferry Road. There doesn't seem to be acknowledgement of the impact of new development given the improbability of the widening of Hwy 41 for several years. With Hwy 41 being one of less than a handful of Hurricane Evacuation routes out of the Charleston area serving the whole of East Cooper, its effectiveness as such, for existing and future residents, should be a primary consideration when planning developments that will feed into it. Moving forward with development along Hwy 41 before its widening sends a clear message that the security and safety of we resident taxpayers is not a priority."
Thank you, Robert Horan
1 Kelly Cousino
From: PAT RILEY
My name is Patricia Riley, I have been a resident of the Heritage Townhomes for close to 4 years. The traffic on Rte 41 has increased DRAMATICALY as have the number of motor vehicle accidents on Highway 41,
The Highway from Rte 17 to Clements Ferry Rd and beyond is so congested now, that a net Market Place would cause further "standstill traffic and motor vehicles accidents. I am sure the MT Pleasant Police have data on the increase in Motor Vehicle accidents over the past 5-10 years.
THE ADDITION OF AN ADDITIONAL SHOPPING CENTER, WITHOUT THE WIDENING OF HIGHWAY 41, IS AN UNCONSCIONABLE DECISION WHICH WILL LEAD TO TRAFFIC STOPPAGE DURING "RUSH HOURS" AS WELL AS ADDITION ACCIDENTS AND DEATHS ON THIS ROAD
DELAY ANY SUCH DECISIONS UNTIL HIGHWAY 41 CAN ACCOMMODATE THE TRAFFIC!
PATRICIA A RILEY 2592 KINGS GATE LANE MT PLEASANT, SC 29466
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented auto matic downlo ad o f this picture from the Internet.
2 Kelly Cousino
From: Paige Lawrence
Dear Ms. Cousino and Members of the Planning Committee,
As a homeowner in north Mt. Pleasant, and a resident whose life circulates through the northern corridor of Mt. Pleasant, I urge you to conduct a more thorough impact assessment and traffic study of the whole of Hwy 41 before going to a final vote on the Market at Mill Creek development.
While I appreciate the traffic study done at the entrance to Planters Pointe produced a recommendation (with which I agree) for the installation of a traffic signal; I'm concerned that it took into consideration only the existing traffic, and not future traffic, brought on by planned residential and commercial development along Hwy 41 and Clements Ferry Road. There doesn't seem to be acknowledgement of the impact of new development given the improbability of the widening of Hwy 41 for several years.
With Hwy 41 being one of less than a handful of Hurricane Evacuation routes out of the Charleston area serving the whole of East Cooper, its effectiveness as such, for existing and future residents, should be a primary consideration when planning developments that will feed into it. Moving forward with development along Hwy 41 before its widening sends a clear message that the security and safety of we resident taxpayers is not a priority.
Without placing the much needed infrastructure to support the high rate of development that is occurring, you as the planning committee jeopardize the safety of the residents you represent. The current rate of new development in Mt. Pleasant cannot be sustained with the infrastructure we currently have in place. To do so will be the demise of Mt. Pleasant. I believe both you and the residents of Mt. Pleasant do not wish for this to happen. Please reconsider a more thorough traffic study that takes a more accurate account of a full day, and not just a few hours.
Sincerely,
Paige Lawrence
1 Kelly Cousino
From: Jamesfcameron
Please consider postponing approval of above until a thorough study of traffic changes on Highway 41 plus all other planned growth in the immediate and surrounding areas that will also complicate traffic on 41. We are very concerned as relatively new residents to the area ( less than a year). Thank you for your serious consideration of fore mentioned concerns. James and JoAnn Cameron 1916 N Smokerise Way
Sent from my iPhone
1 Planning
From: Anita Yantis
I fully support the letter sent to the commission of our Board president Bob Davis, to oppose allowing any B & B's to operate in I'on.
Sincerely,
Anita Yantis 138 N Shelmore Blvd. Mt. Pleasant SC 29464
Sent from my iPad
1 Kelly Cousino
From: DJ Slowek
June 14, 2015
Town of Mount Pleasant Town Council Members Town of Mount Pleasant Planning Commission Members
Re: Highway 41 Commercial Retail Village Adams Development Project Lowes Food Grocery, Retail Buildings & Fuel Station
Dear Planning Commission Members and Town of Mt. Pleasant Town Council Members,
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to comment on the proposed 77,980 SF Commercial Retail Village with twelve (12) position gas station by Adams Development located at the intersection of Highway 41, Wood Park Drive and Planters Pointe Boulevard.
Included with this presentation are several key controversial elements of the proposed commercial retail village that critically impact the livelihood and character of our residential communities along Hwy 41. The commercial retail village as currently planned is not consistent with the desirable characteristics of our residential neighborhoods as outlined in the Town of Mount Pleasant Comprehensive Plan. I believe the impacts of this commercial retail village far outweigh the benefits.
You have the ability to keep the “Pleasant” in Mt. Pleasant . Therefore I respectfully ask that you deny approval of the impact assessment on the condition to eliminate the twelve (12) position gas station and reduce the number of retail out buildings by 50% so as to minimize traffic impacts and environmental impacts associated with the destruction of our natural vegetative trees and buffers.
• The magnitude of this “Commercial Retail Village” with 77,000 SF of retail and twelve (12) position gas station surpasses any existing “Neighborhood Retail Plaza” along Hwy 41, Clemmons Ferry Road or Hwy 17 North with the exception of Oakland Market
• The report grossly understates the traffic impacts for the intersection at the Gates and Planters Pointe subdivisions because it only considers immediate local traffic data starting at the new Wando bridge to Bessemer Road including only portions of Rivertowne Parkway and Dunes West Blvd. The impact assessment needs to consider data on a broader regionalized scale starting across the new Wando bridge in Berkeley County consisting of traffic from Clemmons Ferry at the proposed Cainhoy Plantation and Wando Village developments and extending East to the intersection of Hwy 17 North and Hwy 41.
1 • The report understates the amount of commercial vehicle flow through the Gates or Heritage communities to avoid Hwy 41 traffic.
• The Town of Mt. Pleasant is investing well over four hundred thousand dollars in a regional traffic study for Hwy 41, therefore this impact assessment should mirror the data and impacts based on similar geographic areas and guidelines. • The commercial retail village proposes three (3) full entrances, one on Hwy 41 and two on Wood Park Drive. That indicates 2/3 of the traffic will use the Gates residential entrance on Wood Park Drive as the primary access to the commercial retail village. In comparison to Harris Teeter with one (1) full entrance and one (1) secondary entrance. Publix in Park West only has one (1) full entrance and two (2) secondary entrances. • The report indicates commercial vehicles will use “only” the full entrance along Hwy 41, who will police this policy to eliminate commercial vehicles from accessing the retail village from the residential entrance of the Gates?
• The report indicates a traffic light will increase the level of service at the Gates and Planters Pointe intersection. The light is proposed, not guaranteed to be installed. • The report does not address reducing the speed limit on Hwy 41 from 55 MPH to 45 MPH, how many vehicles will it take to run red lights before an accident, or a pedestrian crossing Hwy 41 gets injured.
• A twelve (12) fueling position gas station within 680 ft of Planters Pointe children's playground, community pool and amenity center. A gas station introduces the element of increased crime. Recent Berkeley County Sheriff Lt. Will Rogers shot at a gas station, Moncks Corners. This week a Goose Creek man was killed at BP gas station, Summerville. A gas station is not keeping the “Pleasant” in Mt. Pleasant. The Kangaroo on Bessemer Road and BP on Hwy 41 were robbed within the last year.
Harmony with Nature (Contradiction to the statement below) • Large vegetated buffers will be provided to preserve the rural landscape and the saltwater marsh. Vegetation/Trees (Contradiction to the above statement) • The entire site is within a flood zone with an elevation of (9 feet). The site will require significant fill to bring finish floor elevations above flood elevation. Therefore most of the existing trees will need to be removed including (11) historic trees. The project proposes a 50 foot wide natural roadside buffer along Hwy 41, however a 100 foot buffer is required per code. This reduction of buffer should not be allowed and is a contradiction to the statements above.
All trees three (3) inches or smaller along Hwy 41 will be removed, and there is no vegetative buffer along Wood Park Drive leaving a clear view from Hwy 41. All trees within the required (100 ft) buffer should be left untouched, natural as the report seems to indicate, however contradicts itself as a result for removal of most, if not all trees and other vegetation.
• Fire Protection: The Town fire department indicates they need more specifics before they can comment on whether or not they can adequately provide fire protection for the commercial retail village.
2
Thank you Sincerely, Dj Slowek Planters Pointe, Mt. Pleasant, SC
3 June 14, 2015
Town of Mount Pleasant Town Council Members Town of Mount Pleasant Planning Commission Members
Re: Highway 41 Commercial Retail Village Adams Development Project Lowes Food Grocery, Retail Buildings & Fuel Station
Dear Planning Commission Members and Town of Mt. Pleasant Town Council Members,
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to comment on the proposed 77,980 SF Commercial Retail Village with twelve (12) position gas station by Adams Development located at the intersection of Highway 41, Wood Park Drive and Planters Pointe Boulevard.
Included with this presentation are several key controversial elements of the proposed commercial retail village that critically impact the livelihood and character of our residential communities along Hwy 41. The commercial retail village as currently planned is not consistent with the desirable characteristics of our residential neighborhoods as outlined in the Town of Mount Pleasant Comprehensive Plan. I believe the impacts of this commercial retail village far outweigh the benefits.
You have the ability to keep the “Pleasant” in Mt. Pleasant . Therefore I respectfully ask that you deny approval of the impact assessment on the condition to eliminate the twelve (12) position gas station and reduce the number of retail out buildings by 50% so as to minimize traffic impacts and environmental impacts associated with the destruction of our natural vegetative trees and buffers.
Thank you
Sincerely, Dj Slowek Planters Pointe, Mt. Pleasant, SC •The magnitude of this “Commercial Retail Village” with 77,000 SF of retail and twelve (12) position gas station surpasses any existing “Neighborhood Retail Plaza” along Hwy 41, Clemmons Ferry Road or Hwy 17 North with the exception of Oakland Market
•The report grossly understates the traffic impacts for the intersection at the Gates and Planters Pointe subdivisions because it only considers immediate local traffic data starting at the new Wando bridge to Bessemer Road including only portions of Rivertowne Parkway and Dunes West Blvd. The impact assessment needs to consider data on a broader regionalized scale starting across the new Wando bridge in Berkeley County consisting of traffic from Clemmons Ferry at the proposed Cainhoy Plantation and Wando Village developments and extending East to the intersection of Hwy 17 North and Hwy 41.
•The report understates the amount of commercial vehicle flow through the Gates or Heritage communities to avoid Hwy 41 traffic.
•The Town of Mt. Pleasant is investing well over four hundred thousand dollars in a regional traffic study for Hwy 41, therefore this impact assessment should mirror the data and impacts based on similar geographic areas and guidelines.
•The commercial retail village proposes three (3) full entrances, one on Hwy 41 and two on Wood Park Drive. That indicates 2/3 of the traffic will use the Gates residential entrance on Wood Park Drive as the primary access to the commercial retail village. In comparison to Harris Teeter with one (1) full entrance and one (1) secondary entrance. Publix in Park West only has one (1) full entrance and two (2) secondary entrances.
•The report indicates commercial vehicles will use “only” the full entrance along Hwy 41, who will police this policy to eliminate commercial vehicles from accessing the retail village from the residential entrance of the Gates?
•The report indicates a traffic light will increase the level of service at the Gates and Planters Pointe intersection. The light is proposed, not guaranteed to be installed.
•The report does not address reducing the speed limit on Hwy 41 from 55 MPH to 45 MPH, how many vehicles will it take to run red lights before an accident, or a pedestrian crossing Hwy 41 gets injured.
•A twelve (12) fueling position gas station within 680 ft of Planters Pointe children's playground, community pool and amenity center. A gas station introduces the element of increased crime. Recent Berkeley County Sheriff Lt. Will Rogers shot at a gas station, Moncks Corners. This week a Goose Creek man was killed at BP gas station, Summerville. A gas station is not keeping the “Pleasant” in Mt. Pleasant. The Kangaroo on Bessemer Road and BP on Hwy 41 were robbed within the last year. Harmony with Nature (Contradiction to the statement below) •Large vegetated buffers will be provided to preserve the rural landscape and the saltwater marsh.
Vegetation/Trees (Contradiction to the above statement) •The entire site is within a flood zone with an elevation of (9 feet). The site will require significant fill to bring finish floor elevations above flood elevation. Therefore most of the existing trees will need to be removed including (11) historic trees.
The project proposes a 50 foot wide natural roadside buffer along Hwy 41, however a 100 foot buffer is required per code. This reduction of buffer should not be allowed and is a contradiction to the statements above.
All trees three (3) inches or smaller along Hwy 41 will be removed, and there is no vegetative buffer along Wood Park Drive leaving a clear view from Hwy 41. All trees within the required (100 ft) buffer should be left untouched, natural as the report seems to indicate, however contradicts itself as a result for removal of most, if not all trees and other vegetation.
•Fire Protection: The Town fire department indicates they need more specifics before they can comment on whether or not they can adequately provide fire protection for the commercial retail village. Proposed twelve (12) fueling position gas station with no landscape buffer shielding it from public view
EXISTING INTERSECTION HIGHWAY 41 / PLANTERS POINTE BLVD AND WOOD PARK DRIVE Proposed twelve (12) fueling position gas station and retail outbuilding with no landscape buffer shielding it from public view
EXISTING GATES COMMUNITY ENTRANCE HWY 41 Proposed twelve (12) fueling position gas station and retail outbuilding with no landscape buffer shielding it from public view
EXISTING GATES COMMUNITY ENTRANCE HWY 41 TYPICAL LOWES GAS STATION Visual Impact: Rear yard landscape buffer is non existent making the entire village and gas station noticeable from the Gates Community
Visual Impact: Front landscape buffer is non existent making the entire Impact Assessment proposes to village and gas station remove all vegetation and bring in fill noticeable from Hwy 41 to raise the grade for flood elevation and Wood Park Drive Visual Impact: Side yard landscape buffer is non existent making the entire village and gas station noticeable from Hwy 41 and Wood Park Drive Planning
From: [email protected] Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 5:43 PM To: Planning Subject: hwy 41
To the representative of the planning commission, I am a resident of Planter's Pointe, Rivertowne and am proud to say that I have lived in our beautiful community for ten years. During that time, I have seen the traffic on hwy. 41 increase dramatically; especially over the past few years. As a transplant from the Washington, D.C. area, I am very aware of the impact that increased construction of housing and apartment complexes has on the aesthetics of the area as well as the traffic flow. I strongly request that you delay the approval of the following projects: Cambridge Square, Dunes West Fishing Village, Wando Village, and Cainhoy Plantation, until a traffic study is completed. Sincerely, Kim Logan
1 Planning
From: [email protected] Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 6:58 PM To: Planning Cc: %[email protected] Subject: I'On Village B&B
I am in full support of allowing B&Bs in this community, where I reside. There is no reason to segregate this neighborhood in Mt. Pleasant from the rules that govern other communities in the city.
Joseph Krainin MD 111 Civitas
2 Planning
From: Jack Lahti
TOMP Planning Board:
We live at 27 Krier Ln in I'ON. We wish to go on record as opposing any revision to the I'ON PD that would allow/encourage short term (30 days or less) rentals in our community. In particular, we feel B&B operations should not be allowed‐‐per the existing PD. Had B&Bs been allowed and had been common in I'ON at the time we moved here eight years ago, we would not have chosen to live here.
Best regards, Jack lahti
3 Planning
From: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 2:30 PM To: Planning Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: bed and breakfast application in I'On
June 13, 2015
To Whom it may concern:
We are definitely opposed to the operation of any Bed and Breakfast in the I'On neighborhood. The application by Steven and Elisabeth Lenes to amend the I'On Planned Development District to allow for a Bed and Breakfast at 109 Ponsbury Road is a violation of the Town's original zoning ordinances in the residential areas of the neighborhood. We did not build our house fifteen years ago thinking that B&Bs would ever be allowed near our home or anywhere else in the community. We expect homeowners to follow the zoning ordinances that are in place.
We want the Town of Mt. Pleasant to deny the application submitted by Steven and Elisabeth Lenes to amend the I'On PD.
Sincerely,
Lynne and John Wilson 13 Eastlake Road, I'On
4 Planning
From: Duval B. Acker
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
We oppose the approval of the current application for a Bed and Breakfast at 109 Ponsbury Road in our neighborhood of I'On for a variety of reasons, such as parking inconvenience for property owners, additional noise during hours when most people sleep, unknown strangers coming in and out on a constant basis, and in general, the commercialization of our residential environment. We are in full support of our neighborhood Home Owners Association in it's opposition of this application, for we have heard from others about the problems they've encountered - examples above - when short-term rentals were happening near their homes.
We would encourage a town-wide minimum stay requirement of at least 30 days to prevent these short term rentals from occurring in other neighborhoods. Neighborhoods are for homes, family members, children, pets and friends to use, to come and go freely and to live in community, but with privacy. We love Mt. Pleasant's neighborhoods and support protecting them in every way possible.
Thank you for understanding our point of view and taking it into account in your decisions.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Acker Duval B. Acker 34 Eastlake Road, I'On, Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 (since February, 2000 at this address)
5 Planning
From: Gail Lauder
I fully support the letter sent to the Commission of our Board president, Bob Davis, to oppose allowing any B & B's to operate in I'On.
Gail S. Lauder 150 N Shelmore Blvd Mt Pleasant
6 Planning
From: John Powers
Dear Planning Commission Members,
I will not be able to attend the hearing for Wednesday, June 17th, 2015. I am writing as a homeowner in I’On to oppose the town and/or neighborhood of I’On to allow Bed and Breakfast Commercial Operations.
Please do not allow any homeowners in I’On to operate their home as a Bed and Breakfast.
Thank you in advance of your vote for your time.
Best regards,
John J. Powers Regional Immunization Sales Director, GSK Vaccines [email protected] Mobile: 770‐722‐1410 gsk.com | Twitter | YouTube | Facebook | Flickr
7 Planning
From: Brad Walbeck
Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing to express my concern about the variance that has been applied for in the I'on subdivision. I believe it will be discussed at this week's Planning Commission meeting.
I purchased my lot in I'on in 1999, and have been a resident since 2001. I plan to remain a resident of I'on for many more decades. I am very much opposed to having a bed and breakfast within our neighborhood. Parking for bed and breakfasts was simply not planned for when I'on was developed. The current parking situation is extremely crowded, and allowing this bed and breakfast would open a huge hole that will only lead to more bed and breakfasts, making the traffic and parking situation even more frustrating than it already is.
I believe that all commercial square footage that was originally allocated to the subdivision has been accounted for.
I strongly ask that you DENY the variance for a bed and breakfast in my neighborhood.
Respectfully,
Brad Walbeck 114 North Shelmore Blvd Mt. Pleasant
8 Planning
From: Sue Campbell
I am a homeowner in Planters Pointe. I am asking that you delay approval of new projects, especially a 78,000 commercial development until a regional traffic study is done. Highway 41 is over capacity at rush hour and very congested at other times. I am seeing more and more accidents on this road.
Please consider the impact of new developments to this area before steps are taken to widen and improve traffic flow from Highway 17 to Clements Ferry and other areas.
Thank you.
Sue Mills Campbell Broker-In-Charge Keller Williams Realty 843-864-3471 [email protected] suesellscharleston.com
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect y our priv acy , Outlook prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect y our priv acy , Outlook prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Find the home of your dreams using our world wide mobile app!!
INSTANT VALUE REPORT CLICK HERE
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect y our priv acy , Outlook prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
"Please compliment me by referring my services to anyone looking to buy or sell a property! Thank you for your business" 9 Kelly Cousino
From: [email protected] Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 10:04 AM To: Kelly Cousino Subject: Hwy 41 Concerns
Dear Ms. Cousino and Members of the Planning Committee,
As a homeowner in Planters Pointe and a resident whose life circulates through the northern corridor of Mt. Pleasant, I urge you to conduct a more thorough impact assessment and traffic study of the whole of Hwy 41 before going to a final vote on the Market at Mill Creek development.
While I appreciate the traffic study done at the entrance to Planters Pointe produced a recommendation (with which I agree) for the installation of a traffic signal; I'm concerned that it took into consideration only the existing traffic, and not future traffic, brought on by planned residential and commercial development along Hwy 41 and Clements Ferry Road. There doesn't seem to be acknowledgement of the impact of new development given the improbability of the widening of Hwy 41 for several years.
With Hwy 41 being one of less than a handful of Hurricane Evacuation routes out of the Charleston area serving the whole of East Cooper, its effectiveness as such, for existing and future residents, should be a primary consideration when planning developments that will feed into it. Moving forward with development along Hwy 41 before its widening sends a clear message that the security and safety of we resident taxpayers is not a priority.
Sincerely, David Woody 2913 Leatherleaf Court Mount Pleasant, SC 29466
1 Kelly Cousino
From: Ryan VanMiddlesworth
Good morning,
I am aware that there is an agenda item (5e) for tonight on "The Market at Mill Creek" (the would-be Dune's West commercial development on Hwy 41). http://www.tompsc.com/DocumentCenter/View/1138
My family currently lives in the Planter's Pointe neighborhood and we regularly have to adjust our commutes to avoid the logjam that occurs every weekday morning and afternoon at multiple choke points on highway 41. In fact, I have to leave for work before 7 AM just to make sure I don't get stuck in traffic for 20 minutes.
As a resident of this area, I would ask that you please consider disallowing any significant commercial development on Hwy 41 (specifically The Market at Mill Creek) until that road is widened to support the anticipated growth in traffic over the next few years.
Thank you for your service to the community.
Sincerely, Ryan VanMiddlesworth 1904 N Smokerise Way
2 Kelly Cousino
From: George Nelson
RE: Council should DELAY allowing the Mill Creek Project Start until funds can be appropriated to widen the Hwy 41 Corridor from Hwy 17 North to Halfway Creek Rd at a minimum.
Immediate approval of this project, with a construction start date prior to widening of the Hwy 41 corridor, will create a hardship at the Planters Pointe entrance and North to Halfway Creek Rd, even with a new traffic light, and cause increasing grid lock to moving south to 17 or North to Moncks Corner or I-526. If Council allows this project to begin simultaneously as the New Wando Bridge construction, there will be non stop traffic problems, currently being demonstrated with the Wando Bridge Project. Hwy 41 is a REGIONAL COMMUTING CORRIDOR, an almost over- capacity road right now. Traffic studies in Mill Creek's Impact Statement show that traffic flowing over the bridge now contributes greatly to AM/PM rush hour volumes and news reports of large scale developments in Berkeley County predict even greater volumes of cars and trucks coming across the new bridge in 2016. A recent zoning change allowed multiple gas pumps in the Mill Creek center, and this will bring truck and boat traffic turning at the Planters Pointe/Woods intersection, now the closest fuel station to the River. How can our Planning Commission approve this development without widening 41, a State Road, now planned for widening around 2019. What mitigations to traffic lights or intersections will make this a good decision for our neighborhood, or the seriously congested road our Mayor calls "our number one priority".
Please consider a postponed Mill Creek Project start date until the roads can be widened to allow for smooth traffic movement during these large projects and create future free flowing resident and transient traffic patterns.
-- Thanks so much,
George B. Nelson 843-991-3052 cell
Sweetbay Produce & Nursery, 1541 Charity Church Road, Huger, SC 29450 843-336-3907 harvest/landline
3 Kelly Cousino
From: Valerie Cobb
Hi
I understand that Market at Mill Creek development will be voted on this week. We are Planters pointe within rivertowne residents very concerned about the traffic increase. It is already a nightmare traveling 41 to Clements ferry to get to the airport or work . God forbid there was an emergency like a hurricane.
If the town of mount pleasant isn't planning additional routes or widening41 and Clements ferry then it's going to adversely affect the residents already here and not be advantageous to anyone
Valerie Cobb 2521 ringsted Lane Mt pleasant
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
4 Kelly Cousino
From: Steve Cobb
Hi Kelly
For what it is worth the idea of building Market at Mill Creek will be devastating in terms of traffic.
It is bad enough now with : School bus traffic Daily accidents on 41 & Clements Ferry Daily accidents on 526 that ties up 41 & Clements Ferry Too many traffic lights that slow down traffic Two lanes of traffic not enough to support what we have now Build out of Daniel Island (Benefitfocus adding more buildings as well as other development) which will only add more people & traffic on these roads
Please let us know what we can do .
Steve Cobb Director of IT Benefitfocus All Your Benefits. One Place. phone: 843-849-7476 ext. 6999 cell: 843-991-5305 fax: 843-849-9485
About Benefitfocus Benefitfocus, Inc. (NASDAQ: BNFT) is a leading provider of cloud-based benefits software solutions for consumers, employers, insurance carriers and brokers. Benefitfocus has served more than 25 million consumers on its platform that consists of an integrated portfolio of products and services enabling clients to more efficiently shop, enroll, manage and exchange benefits information. With a user-friendly interface and consumer- centric design, the Benefitfocus Platform provides one place for consumers to access all their benefits. Benefitfocus solutions support the administration of all types of benefits including core medical, dental and other voluntary benefits plans as well as wellness programs. For more information, visit www.benefitfocus.com.
5 Kelly Cousino
From: theresa horan
Dear Ms. Cousino, As a homeowner in Planters Pointe and a resident whose life circulates through the northern corridors of Mt. Pleasant, I urge you to conduct a more thorough impact assessment and traffic study of the whole of Hwy 41 before going to a final vote on the Market at Mill Creek development.
While I appreciate (and agree with) the traffic study that was done at the entrance to Planters Pointe produced a recommendation for the installation of a traffic signal, I'm concerned that it took into consideration the existing traffic but not future traffic brought on by planned residential and commercial development along Hwy 41 and Clements Ferry Road. Not to mention the unliklihood of the widening of Hwy 41 for several years.
With Hwy 41 being one of less than a handful of Hurricane Evacuation routes out of the Charleston area serving the whole of East Cooper, its effectiveness as such, for existing and future residents, should be a primary consideration when planning developments that will feed into it. Moving forward with development along Hwy 41 before its widening sends a clear message that the security and safety of we resident taxpayers is of no concern.
Thank you for allowing me to express my concern.
Theresa Horan Planter's Pointe resident
6 Kelly Cousino
From: Neal Hudson
Sent from TypeMail I'm for some growth in Mount Pleasant just update the roads accordingly. The roads, 41 specifically, can't handle the traffic we have now. Mount Pleasant is a great town but not known for doing anything right the first time. You have an opportunity to change that. Please do the right things to manage our growth. Don't approve anything unless our infrastructure is updated to handle the extra traffic. (Before the new businesses are built!) Better yet, let the new businesses pay for it. If they won't then let them go elsewhere. We don't need them, they need us. Thank You for your time
7 Planning
From: Gail Young
Hello – I am an I’On resident and I am writing to express my objection to amending the usage of the lot at 109 Ponsbury Road in I’On from residential to business. The owners want to operate a B&B there. I’On is a residential neighborhood and should remain as such to maintain its market values and its desirability as a place to live. Thank you, Gail Young
Gail Young, Realtor, SFR, Carolina One Real Estate 628 Long Point Road Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 843‐814‐9885 – Cell 843‐202‐8806 – Fax 843‐884‐1622 – Main Office [email protected] WWW.CarolinaHomesWithGailYoung.com
10 Planning
From: Janet Cline
June 12, 2015
Planning Commission Town of Mount Pleasant
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
My husband and I live at 56 Robert Mills Circle in the I’On Community. We are in total agreement with the I’On Assembly Board of Trustees that allowing B&B’s and other short‐term weekend rentals in our neighborhood is in violation of the PD as we understood it when we purchased our property. As I write this, there is a weekend/short‐term rental in a home in my neighborhood—one of several at this house. It does create a nuisance with three cars and a houseful of vacationers. Essentially, it is a small business being conducted in a private neighborhood. We certainly feel that this is a detriment to our lifestyle and the privacy of living in the I’On community. We urge the Planning Commission to uphold the zoning ordinances already in place.
Respectfully, Stewart and Janet Cline
9 Planning
From: Nixon
All Members of the Mt. Pleasant P&Z Board,
I am writing this letter to request denial by the Mt. Pleasant P & Z Board of the following request:
"Request to amend the I’On Planned Development District ordinance (Ord. No. 97010, as amended) by adding a Bed & Breakfast as an additional Conditional Use on an approximately 0.08 acre parcel of land located at 109 Ponsbury Road, identified by TMS No. 535-06-00-140, and depicted on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Book DC, Page 595."
My husband and I are residents of I'On and reside at 22 Fernandina Street. We purchased our home in July 2014 after doing much research into the Town of Mt. Pleasant and the I'On Community quality of life. We researched the zoning and PD for I'On and all other covenants and restrictions in I'On. Having done this homework, we felt comfortable in making a sizeable investment in the I'On community to purchase our home. We bought in this community for it's charming residential neighborhoods. We understood and loved the walking convenience of the commercial area designated by the PD in the front corridor of our community and understood that it would not be present in the residential home areas in the back of the neighborhood. It was our understanding that a B&B was not to be allowed in our community on a residential lot as they were not an approved use in our PD making them not allowed. As the PD is a public document available to all purchasers of property in I'On, any and all residents should know the zoning requirements in I'On and need to adhere to the requirements that have been in place prior to their purchase in I'On Needless to say, we were taken by surprise when we realized that we had neighbors in our community renting as a B&B with rooms in their homes and serving food and liquor with no license pr legal authority to operate a B&B in our residential area of I'On. The B&B operated by the applicants has proved to be a nuisance to residents within our I'On community. The location of the B&B is not within I'On's commercial areas but is instead surrounded by beautiful private residences on our Eastlake. To further compound the issue, the ever present problems with parking and traffic in I'On are exacerbated by the B&B operation. With the rental of 4 extra rooms in their home and the addition of 4 extra cars for a home that already requires extra street parking for their own residential use, they have managed to occupy much of the street parking for the residents on West Shipyard and Ponsbury. This makes it very difficult for those residents to have friends and family come and not need to park blocks away from their homes. Next door neighbors have been awakened at night by B&B renters looking for the B&B renter's home and not being able to determine the location of the home. They have had Uber driver's knocking on their doors also looking for B&B occupants and not knowing which house to find them. There are multiple other problems that are reinforcing the reason that a B&B does not belong in our residential neighborhood. Most importantly, this is not the only B&B operating in I'On in violation of the PD. If the town should not deny this applicant the request to amend our PD, we fear that this B&B will set the precedent and become one of many that will detrimentally affect the quality and character of I'On. We are in hopes that the Town of Mt.Pleasant would consider a comparison to Olde Village and the denial of B&B operations to preserve their character by denying the application for 109 Ponsbury Road.
Thank you in advance for your kind considerations, 7
Nance Nixon 22 Fernandina Street Mt. Pleasant, SC [email protected]
8 Planning
From: [email protected] Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 11:45 AM To: Planning; Kelly Cousino Subject: I'On PD Amendment Request-B&B 109 Ponsbury
As residents of I'On, my wife and I strenuously object to the request for an amendment to the I'On PD to permit the operation of a Bed and Breakfast at 109 Ponsbury Road and ask for it to be denied. We moved into our custom built dream retirement home at 167 E. Shipyard Road in April 2000, so are one of the very early residents of I'On. We built this home with the understanding there would never be Bed and Breakfast businesses in the residential area of I'On, so this request is very disturbing. We are very concerned with the idea we would be subject to an array of strangers coming into our community, some arriving at late hours and disturbing the tranquil atmosphere we enjoy, creating additional parking problems in an already scarce parking venue. This Ponsbury location is very close to our home (only two homes between us and them) so we are directly affected by the inconveniences and potential security issues this business would bring. As the requesting residents have already been operating as a B&B in direct violation of the PD restrictions, we already know and have experienced the disruptions created by late arriving overnight customers.
We are also aware of the publicly noticed problems created by the operation of such businesses in residential areas of surrounding coastal communities, disrupting the quality of life for permanent residents, adversely affecting property values, and are concerned those conditions could occur here as well. We understand there are other instances within I'On where residents are illegally operating B&B type businesses, so approval of this request will invariable be closely followed by other such requests. The decisions of this commission on this issue have the potential to adversely affect the quality of life and consequent loss in home values of this magnificent community so we respectfully request the Planning Commission to reject this request. In reviewing the application we see there is no supplemental information submitted to state what the requesting residents claim is their justification for this request, so financial gain appears to be the sole motive. We hope the Commission recognizes this is not a sufficiently legitimate reason for approval given its attendant potential to so negatively affect our lives. Thank you for considering our request.
Edward O. and Helen J. Clem 167 E. Shipyard Road (843) 856-9292 [email protected]
6 Planning
From: Alcala, Cory
Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing to express my views regarding upcoming subject hearing. I will not be available to attend and appreciate this opportunity to post my opinion.
As a property owner in the I’on since 2002, I am fully aware of the issues and challenges pertaining to rules and regulations necessary to maintain harmony in this high‐density neighborhood. However the I’on development is a proven success due to the master planning and regulations imposed by the Town of Mt. Pleasant.
As a neighbor to the property in question seeking approval for a B&B, I respectfully oppose the idea and request.
Parking has always and continues to be a significant challenge. A B&B would only add to traffic, congestion, and chaos on this already busy corner location.
Security has also been a growing concern with house and vehicle break‐in’s. The Mt. Pleasant police department will have records to demonstrate this known fact. The addition of a B&B will only add to unknown and non‐vetted visitors to the I’on, and on a personal note within 50 feet of my property. For this reason alone, I strongly oppose the idea.
Lastly, our home like all others represents a significant personal INVESTMENT. The request for changes to codes and regulations allowing B&B’s to operate in the I’on should by all means be accompanied by an Economic Impact Study. Should the request be granted, this will CERTAINLY negatively impact property values and specifically mine being in extreme close proximity to 109 Pondsbury Road. Changes to the Zoning Codes MUST take into account the effects on property values.
Please DO NOT approve the subject request.
Respectfully,
Cory Alcala 129 West Shipyard Rd
5 Planning
From: David Nixon
Mt Pleasant Planning Board & Town Council,
I am writing to object to the request to amend the I'on Planned Development District (PD) to allow a Bed & Breakfast at the residential home located at 109 Ponsbury in I'On.
My wife and I reside at 22 Fernandina Street in I'On and we purchased our home in July, 2014. Our decision was based on the quality of life offered by Mt Pleasant overall and by I'On specifically. We were particularly impressed with the standards established by I'On's restrictions, covenants and related documents, such as the PD, to ensure that I'On would remain a stable and thriving residential community.
The existence of a B&B operation would have a substantial negative impact on the residential character of I'On. Furthermore, it would establish a precedent that would allow even more B&B operations in the future, setting in motion an irreversible downward spiral in the quality of life within I'On.
I therefore request that the application to amend I'On's Planned Development District to allow a Bed & Breakfast operation at 109 Ponsbury be denied.
Sincerely,
David Nixon 22 Fernandina St Mt Pleasant, SC
4 Planning
From: Deborah Lacombe
Sorry‐there was a typo in my below email. I own 182 N. Shelmore Blvd., Mt Pleasant, SC
From: Deborah Lacombe [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 3:10 PM To: '[email protected]' Cc: 'Deborah Lacombe' Subject: regarding application for5t variance to alloe B&B's to be operated in I'ON, on agenda for June 17, 2015
Hello‐
I own a home at 182 N. Shelmore Blvd, Mt Pleasant, in I ‘On. I am vehemently opposed to allowing the owners on Ponsbury to operate a B&B in I’ON. When I purchased my home, B&B’s were not allowed and I expect that to continue during the time I am a homeowner. This is clearly a residential neighborhood and allowing B&B’s in family residences in I’ON will decrease my property values. Please let my opinion be known before any resolution is decided upon. This issue is on the June 17 agenda. I cam e back to California temporarily due to my mother's illness but still own in I ‘On and plan to return to live there again.
Deborah Lacombe Owner of 182 N. Shelmore Blvd., Mt Pleasant, SC 29464 (949) 616‐0308 [email protected]
You can download the agenda from https://www.tompsc.com/Calendar.aspx?EID=4621&day=17&month=6&year=2015&calType=0
1 Planning
From: Jennifer Cina
Dear Madame or Sir,
This letter is to express our extreme opposition to the proposal for opening a bed and breakfast at 109 Ponsbury Street in the I'on subdivision.
My husband and I were drawn to this award winning neighborhood over seven years ago. The peaceful and desirable neighborhood had already gained its uniqueness, and continues to receive such accolades as:
2001 Platinum Award for Best Smart Growth community in the Nation Recipient of the 7th annual LIFE Magazine Dream House Award I’On Village has appeared inBob Vila’s “Home Again” television
This residential community has drawn not only young families and children, but also empty-nesters and retired couples.
The proposal to grant a bed and breakfast at 109 Ponsbury Street in the I’On subdivision will destroy what has taken years to build and cultivate.
The following problems most certainly will occur if the Planning Commission grants the bed and breakfast to open and operate:
Transient guests will now appear in our neighborhoods creating the fear of safety both for our children and homeowners The existing parking shortage and traffic problems will escalate The coveted accolades and awards will not be won in the future The I’On community will become an ordinary subdivision without the charm of colonial living and peaceful suburban life Property values will most certainly plunge Prospective buyers will not be attracted as readily to just another community
Along with our fellow neighbors and homeowners, I strongly urge you to reject this outrageous consideration of a bed and breakfast to be located in the very heart of our neighborhood.
2
Sincerely Jennifer and Robert Cina
Sent from my iPhone
3 Kelly Cousino
From: Fred White
Dear Ms. Cousino:
I've lived in our lovely I'On community for three years, and I'm horrified at the idea that Mount Pleasant would OK B&Bs for I'On. B&Bs are totally inappropriate to the ambience of I'On. The idea of strangers constantly coming into our community is, of the face of it, both absurd and grotesque. I'On is an idyllic place where our kids are safe and free to wander the neighborhood with no fear at all. If we start authorizing I'On homeowners to rent out their places by the night to total strangers, our kids safety can be guaranteed no more. Such B&Bs would also have a quite negative impact on property values for owners (and tax receipts for Mt. Pleasant!). Finally, there's no place for B&B visitors to park on our streets. It's mind-boggling that we could have current I'On homeowners who are so clueless to community values as to pursue turning their home into a B&B. It would be truly appalling for Mt. Pleasant to go along with this terrible idea.
Sincerely yours,
Fred White 46 Hospitality St. Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
1 Planning
From: jim koenig
Dear Town of Mt Pleasant, This letter is to voice my opposition to the building of homes and apartments in Snee Farm by the country club. This overbuilding will have a negative impact on our community. Sincerely, Janet Koenig Snee Farm resident Sent from my iPad
1 Kelly Cousino
From: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 8:52 PM To: Kelly Cousino Subject: Snee Farm Country Club Building Project
Hello, My name is Evelyn Hutto and my husband and I have lived in Snee Farm for 20 years. Our home backs up to the Golf Course. We are totally against this project as we see no benefit from it to the home owners of Snee Farm. Here are some reasons.
1. When we moved here our yard and street always flooded and finally a few years ago, after the work that was done on the drainage we hardly ever have that problem. We believe that the new plans would put us back where we were several years ago. 2. It would not be a pretty sight to come down the Parkway to see apartments and houses. 3. We think the owner does not care about Snee Farm. Greed and making more money outweighs any concern he says he has for this community. 4. 27 homes may not seem like a lot but it is. An apartment complex is even worse - and then 3 stories.
Please add our names to those who have expressed their concern and have voted against this unattractive intrusion to our community of Snee Farm.
Thank you, Evelyn M. Hutto 1169 Chersonese Round Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Snee Farm [email protected]
Francis C. Hutto 1169 Chersonese Round Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Snee Farm [email protected]
1 Planning
From: Michael Hillyer
Please be advised that I am against this plan, as it will place increased traffic on Parkway Dr. , Farm Quarter and will effect the whole subdivision. Parkway Dr. will become a race track to get to Long Point Rd. as will Farm Quarter and adjacent roads to exit Snee Farm. Drainage will be a problem as it is now, Farm Quarter floods when we get heavy rain along with adjacent roads. Is it really necessary to build on every empty piece of property, just to get more revenue for the city? Then increase the taxes of the on the home owners to support more necessary protection and utilities. More fire protection, more police, more cost for water and sewer, etc.
Michael Hillyer 1227 Parkway Dr. Mount Pleasant, SC. 29464
1 Planning
From: Judy Deas
Good evening, Snee Farm is a lovely community that is safe for children to ride bikes and everyone can enjoy exercising on our roads without worrying about excessive traffic. I am very opposed to Jim Finney's plan to build 27 single family homes and an apartment building at the front of the clubhouse. The result of this plan would negatively impact this peaceful neighborhood that I have lived in since 1988. Please help prevent this development from moving forward.
Sincerely, Judy Deas
1 Planning
From: Nan Brown
No bed and breakfast in I’On. This is a neighborhood. Not a tourist destination.
Thank you Nan Brown 57 Eastlake Road I’On resident
1 Planning
From: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:30 PM To: Planning Cc: Kelly Cousino Subject: Modification of I'On PD
We would like to add our voices to those of many of our neighbors in I'On regarding the request to modify the I'On Planned Development District (PD) to allow a Bed and Breakfast (B&B) to operate at 109 Ponsbury Road. We are strongly opposed to the operation of B&Bs in our neighborhood.
This is a residential neighborhood and the location in question is in an area which is not designed to handle the traffic and parking for a business such as this. The operation of a B&B disrupts the residential nature of the community and is a threat to the security and privacy of the neighbors. The B&B has been operating illegally, and the owners have appropriated the enjoyment of community funded amenities for their own personal business gain.
Further, any such change to the I'On PD would open the door to additional attempts to change the character of the community with even increased disruption and an inevitable decline in property values and quality of life in the neighborhood. I'On has properly designated commercial areas, but the residential areas should be preserved for homeowners and long term rentals.
Dwight and Lindsey Williams 28 Rialto Rd (I'On) Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 (843) 971-5065
2 Planning
From: Dave Niemann
Town of Mount Pleasant,
I have been a resident of I'On since 2003. I am unable to attend the meeting, however I would like to express my opposition to the operation of B&Bs in I'On. We have already experienced too many problems with short-term renters, the developer created problems with the creek club and now the newly developed church/ reception hall in front of I ‘On . People are parking in unmarked spaces, preventing the residents from proper entrance to their own properties. The streets are much safer with residents and their supervised guests only.
When we bought our home, we chose it based upon having residential and commercial areas clearly defined. I think it is unfair to disrupt the integrity of the neighborhood so some people can operate a business at our expense. Please do not allow this to occur.
Sincerely,
Dave Niemann
-- David Niemann Chief Operating Officer
Resolute Properties, LLC 8471 Resolute Way Suite 108 North Charleston, SC 29420
M:843-860-6566
3 Planning
From: Dwain Ray
Please do not approve a change to I’On’s PD allowing short term rentals or B and B businesses. We have a shortage of parking places and homes are close together. It is very important to most I’On residents to maintain our community with full time neighbors and close friendships. We do not want to have a constant flow of strangers who might not care about maintaining a good relationship with neighbors. Already we are having problems with parking and unfriendly short term renters since many people have rented frogs over their garages.
Please help us maintain our life style. Those of us who bought here enjoy being close to our neighbors. But our streets are narrow and our parking is already inadequate. My wife and I have lived here 16 years and love I’On as it is.
A family rented a house one house down from us for a 6 month period. The house had a garage but it was converted to a small house. They arrived with three cars and a golf cart. One car they do not use so they park it out in front of our house for months at a time. If they planned to stay here permanently, they would probably be more concerned about having a good relationship with neighbors.
Thank you for your consideration.
Dwain Ray, 13 Boathouse Close, I’On, Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
4 Planning
From: Susan Brandt
My husband and I are TOTALLY against this! Please put us in the VOTE NO column!
Susan and Peter Brandt 28 Perseverance Street
5 Planning
From: Jaimie Flack
To whom it may concern,
We are new residents in I'on (8/14) and understood and read the HOA documents that we agreed to abide by as an I'on resident. Had we known this could be rezoned a commercial district with B&B's we would not have bought here. There are 740 other homeowners who also received the docs as part of their home purchase who are aware and agreed to abide by laws. How can one homeowner out of 740 change an entire communities documents? This seems a bit self serving.
I'on was not designed nor can we accommodate additional traffic, parking, noise and temporary persons who do not respect or care about our community. B&B's are not in harmony with I'on. To allow B&B's or any short term rentals is in violation of our documents and PD and Lenes request should be denied.
If they want to run a B&B they should move to a location where they are allowed.
Regards,
Jaimie & Bill Flack
6 Planning
From: Cavanaugh, Karyn
I am a resident of I’On living very close to the proposed B&B on Ponsbury Road. Please know that the I’On Board does not speak for me! The concerns expressed in the Board’s letter are overblown. Parking is sometimes an issue but it is an issue with the full time residents who believe that the world revolves around them and that I’On should be a perfect Utopia. A very vocal few feel the need to complain incessantly about every little thing and they do not speak for the majority. A Bed and Breakfast by its very definition implies that the owners are in residence during its operation. This is surely better than people who rent their homes out and are never there to take care of them. The home owners should be allowed to open their residence to guests if they want and are willing to take responsibility for their visitors. I’On is a unique and beautiful community that should be made more available to people outside this non‐diverse, intolerant community, not less. As for property values, values are diminished by these complaining busy bodies. Who wants to live next to Gladys Kravitz? I also own a house on IOP and while visitors can be annoying it’s the price you pay for living somewhere deemed desirable. We are lucky to live in I’On. Locking others out is greedy and selfish. This is not the spirit of I’On. I urge you to accept this application to allow this B&B. Please do not be swayed by the narrow minded villagers with their torches and pitchforks. Thanks for allowing me to provide my input. Sincerely, Karyn Cavanaugh 31 Krier Lane
7
Karyn Cavanaugh, CFA SVP & Market Strategist
Voya Investment Management 230 Park Ave, 14th Floor New York, NY 10169 (Cell) 860‐916‐0371
This e-mail message including any attachments may be legally privileged and confidential under applicable law, and is meant only for the intended recipient(s). If you received this message in error, please reply to the sender, adding "SENT IN ERROR" to the subject line, then delete this message. Thank you.
8 Planning
From: Trish Reydel
Hi,
I am writing because I am unable to attend the meeting about the proposed Bed and Breakfast business in the I'on community. I live on Eastlake Rd and I am against allowing any B&B's in I'on. The neighborhood is densely populated and parking can be a challenge at different times of the day. The additional parking needed and possible noise alone make it an undesirable business. There is also a possibility of the increased need for garbage disposal and storage to cause rodent issues. We enjoy many walking paths and sidewalks throughout I'on. Some of those paths are literally a few feet from porches and patios. Having strangers, with no ties to the community, walking around causes security concerns. I'on was not designed for any Bed and Breakfast businesses to be operated in the community.
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
Trish Reydel 37 Eastlake Rd. Mt. Pleasant, SC
9 Planning
From: John Bigler
Dear Planning Commission:
I am opposed to any amendment of the I'On PD that would permit a B&B (or any short term rental) to be operated in the residential area of I'On. I believe that any short term (less than 28 days) rental creates problems for neighbors due to the noise, risks due to unvetted transients, and excessive parking of vehicles.
I have read the letter from the I'On Board to the Planning Commission regarding this issue, and I am in agreement with that letter.
Please reject the application to amend the I'On PD. Please oppose the operation of B&B's in the residential area of I'On . Also, please oppose any amendment of the PD that would allow the rental of any residence or ADU or portion thereof for rental periods less than 28 days, in the residential area of I'On.
Most sincerely, John Bigler 15 Leeann Lane, I'On Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Cell 908-319-1712 [email protected]
10 Planning
From: Laura Tyson
To the Town of Mount Pleasant Planning Commission:
My husband, Christopher and I purchased a lot in I’on in 2011, 63 Krier Lane, and subsequently built our house. At the time of purchase, we had multiple opportunities where to build a home that we plan on residing in for many years. We decided we wanted to be in a stable, single-family, established neighborhood. Prior to purchase, we carefully looked at the restrictions, covenants and related documents to ensure that the community was what we were looking for. We were not looking for a neighborhood with a transient or seasonal demographic and the vision and standing legal documents for this neighborhood protect us from becoming such a community. A Bed and Breakfast is a business that would be in the middle of a strictly residential portion of I’on and would not be in compliance with the legal documents defining this part of the neighborhood.
Others have communicated concern about parking issues and other issues related with overnight or short-term rentals, i.e., renters not being informed about covenants/rules of living in I’on and the burden this places on other homeowners. We concur with their concerns. We understand that some residents have had to move and have been unable to sell their homes readily and therefore have long-term renters. That is not a problem and we actually are in an area of I’on that has more than one house that is currently rented.
When one purchases in I’on, one is well aware of the restrictions and covenants of the neighborhood that are far more specific than some other neighborhoods, but you purchase with the understanding that you adhere to established legal limits/requirements. The desire of one household to amend documents that affect an established neighborhood is not acceptable. We would ask that the Planning Commission DENY Steven and Elisabeth Lene’s application to amend the I’on Planned Development District that would allow a B&B at their residence.
Respectfully,
Laura S. Tyson [email protected] 63 Krier Lane 207.653.7307
11 Planning
From: mfelix
Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing to oppose the application to allow a B&B to operate at 109 Ponsbury Rd, Mt Pleasant, SC. I am an adjacent neighbor and am located at 113 Ponsbury Rd.
My opposition is two‐fold: 1) a commercial B&B operating within I’On would be damaging in terms of loss of privacy, reduced quality of life, safety concerns, and financial property devaluation. 2) I have concerns regarding the applicants and their intention of working with the neighborhood to make their needs simpatico with their neighbors.
In addressing my first concern, the applicants have been running an AirBNB for months now. — Some parts of I’On have larger plots of land than others. This particular property is in a densely populated area where you can almost reach out and touch the next residence. Not only are our residential walls close, the close proximity of our open front porches make for little private conversation. In an attempt to help shield us from the constant flow of strangers we have had to install privacy shutters on our 1st & 2nd floor porches as well as in the interior of our home. — The applicants also have a 2 car garage and 2 car parking behind their residence. The garage is full to capacity therefore prohibiting any parking in the garage. Additionally, until Mt. Pleasant communicated with the applicants, their driveway was filled with a boat (not permitted in I’On) and potted plants. The applicants parks their 3 cars on the street regularly and 4 cars when their children visit from college vacations. With the AirBNB, they often had an additional 3 cars parking on our streets. This made is difficult for regular residents to park their cars or their guest cars. Since Mount Pleasant communicated with the applicants, 1 of the spaces in the driveway has been used by the applicants or AirBNB guests. —I’On can be confusing and often the guests need assistance in finding the home. This is also true with services provided to the guests: I have experienced UBER confusing my house with my neighbors at night and I had to direct them to the correct address. Having strangers come to your door at night presents not only a safety issue but also creates a troubling scenario. — As tourists will do in enjoying a new locale, the AirBNB guests/strangers come and go at all hours of the night which disturbs the peace and quiet of the typically quiet neighborhood and can take away our sense of safety. — We have only been a resident of I’On for 18 months and we purchased our home here because of the sense of community, warm embracing personality of the neighborhood, beautifully maintained architecture, and sense of safety. Having a B&B operate next door, will clearly effect our investment. Given two equal properties, one without a BNB next door would clearly be the preferred property and likely ours would be considered of lesser value.
My second concern has to do with the Applicants themselves. —I mentioned above that until they were directed otherwise, the applicants did not try to make their AirBNB coexist peacefully with the neighborhood by at least clearing spaces in their driveway. If they felt the parking was impacted by their many guests’ cars, they certainly did not take any action to accommodate the additional parking issues. They have only cleared their driveway and begun using their driveway for personal & guest needs since they were directed to do so. — When they decided that running an AirBNB would be advantageous to them, they didn’t speak to their neighbors to see how they could lessen the impact of doing so. As the Board as mentioned in their letter to you, the Applicants didn’t bother to discuss the issue with the Board either but proceeded to take action directly with the Planning Commission. — As a reflection of their lack of concern and interest in being a productive and considerate member of the community, the appearance of their property has been less than attractive. I believe they are the only residents who regularly hang their laundry over the porch railings or from a bar which hangs on the porches. We have a lovely community garden available to our residents but they instead choose to use their limited backyard to create a chaotic and unattractive garden. As mentioned before, until recently in order to “hide” their boat from view, they surrounded it with extremely unattractive
12 planters on their driveway. Of course, most of this would have been a non‐issue if they installed a privacy fence which would have shielded the neighborhood from their activities. Instead, when we informed them that we would be installing a fence, we were met with a deteriorating relationship and often open hostility. Their lack of consideration and cooperation would clearly be a bad combination for running a business within a community.
In summation, it certainly appears that the Applicants are not interested in working with the I’On community to make their intentions work amiably with the rest of the neighborhood. Their overall behavior is one of self‐centeredness and disregard for the safety, quality of life or financial impact of the families who reside beside them. I only see major conflicts occurring regularly if they are permitted to operate a B&B in this dense neighborhood. Please deny this application not only because the concept is antithetical to what I’On represents but also because in this particular case, the Applicants would cause significant disruption with no regard for those who share this community with them.
Thank you for your consideration.
With kind regards,
Marilyn Felix 113 Ponsbury Rd Mt Pleasant, SC 29464
13 Planning
From: Barbara Cole
Hello,
I am writing to encourage the Town of Mt Pleasant to reject the request of the Lesenes in I’On to approve their B&B. I hear that they have had this in operation for some time, as have at least one other neighbor.
The community of I’On was built to be a sustainable community, one where neighbors knew each other and helped each other. The book A Delicate Balance by Angela Halfacre, previous professor at College of Charleston and now at Fuhrman University, tells the history of the building of such communities as this. The community is organized to be a walking and talking community with small property lots, porches where community members can greet each other, and sidewalks for the use of residents.
I have lived in I’On since June, 2003. My husband and I moved here because it was quiet, gentle, and friendship- inducing. We did not foresee that residents would make it into a tourist attraction and haven. To have more cars parking where there are now too few parking spots, to have more cars traveling North Shelmore, the primary traffic-carrying street of I’On, and to have tourist-generated noise wafting through our windows on those nights when windows can be open were not envisioned by us. To be sure, the Charleston area is generating more and more tourism, but it seems inappropriate for those who have plenty of money (witnessed by the price of real estate in I’On) to be taking advantage of the onslaught of tourists in this area.
I prefer that our quiet, gentle neighborhood be preserved with as little traffic as possible and urge the rejection of any requests from I’On residents to have any short-term rental property here. If people such as the Lesenes wish to run a commercial establishment, they should move to an area where such is permitted.
Thanks for your consideration.
Barbara Cole 81 Hopetown Road
843-388-0249
14 Planning
From: Fred Knox
We live at 117 Jakes Lane and believe that if a B&B were allowed to operate on our street it would negative impact:
1. Parking which is already limited would now be worse because of more people and cars per house. In theory a house with 2 residents could rent our 3 to 6 or 7 bedrooms and add 6 to 14 more people in the B&B house and 4 or 5 more cars. The house next to me is a 7 bedroom house. If there were 14 people and 4 or 5 more cars on the street it would be a disaster. 2. Ion is already a dense community and does not need B&B's to make it worse.
We came to Ion and Mt Pleasant to enjoy what the town offers and the peaceful atmosphere of Ion. Please do not vote to allow B&B’s in Ion
Fred and Darnell Knox
15 Planning
From: Katherine Salmons
To: Town of Mount Pleasant Planning Commission Cc: [email protected]
Re: June 17, 2015 hearing regarding the application of Steven and Elisabeth Lenes to allow for operation of at B&B at their address in I’On
As a 10 year + resident of I’On and one which lives in very close proximity to the Lenes family, I would like to express my opposition to this application to amend I’On’s Planned Development District.
I fully support the position of the I’On Assembly Board of Trustees, as expressed in the letter of June 9th written by its President, Robert L. Davis to the Planning Commission. In my opinion, the operation of B&Bs within I’On will further aggravate parking issues in the neighborhood and may have a detrimental effect upon property values.
Katherine B. Salmons 125 West Shipyard Road Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 [email protected]
16 Planning
From: Fred Knox
We live at 117 Jakes Lane and believe that if a B&B were allowed to operate on our street it would negative impact:
1. Parking which is already limited would now be worse because of more people and cars per house. In theory a house with 2 residents could rent our 3 to 6 or 7 bedrooms and add 6 to 14 more people in the B&B house and 4 or 5 more cars. The house next to me is a 7 bedroom house. If there were 14 people and 4 or 5 more cars on the street it would be a disaster. 2. Ion is already a dense community and does not need B&B's to make it worse.
We came to Ion and Mt Pleasant to enjoy what the town offers and the peaceful atmosphere of Ion. Please do not vote to allow B&B’s in Ion
Fred and Darnell Knox
17 Planning
From: Carrie Niemann
I have been a resident of I'On since 2003. I am unable to attend the meeting, however I would like to express my opposition to the operation of B&Bs in I'On. We have already experienced too many problems with short-term renters on our street. People are parking in unmarked spaces, preventing the residents from proper entrance to their own properties. My husband's new car was hit just two weeks ago causing significant damage with no note left. The streets are much safer with residents and their supervised guests only.
When we bought our home, we chose it based upon having residential and commercial areas clearly defined. I think it is unfair to disrupt the integrity of the neighborhood so some people can operate a business at our expense. Please do not allow this to occur.
Sincerely,
Carrie S. Niemann, DDS 109 Jakes Lane
18 Planning
From: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 11:39 AM To: Planning Cc: [email protected] Subject: B&B
I am adamantly opposed to a B&B, or any other commercial activity, in I’on. I do not believe these homes were built to develop commercial enterprises, and the community should remain entirely residential. I am also opposed to weekend or other short term rentals, if that matters.
Lawrence K. Otto
Sent from Windows Mail
19 Planning
From: David Thompson
Dear Sirs:
My wife and I have been residents of I'On since 2001. 232 Ponsbury Road was a second home until 2008. We purchased 198 N. Shelmore Blvd. in 2008 and moved here as permanent residents.
We both oppose granting a B&B license to any homeowner. Parking is not plentiful now and adding additional cars would make it worse. Besides, the I'On Inn is available to anyone needing temporary lodging. They have parking spots planned for each guest.
I hope the planning committee will oppose granting the license. My contact information is below should you need to contact me.
Mount Pleasant Resident,
David L. Thompson 198 N. Shelmore Blvd. Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Ph‐843‐416‐8050 Fx‐866‐329‐9298 Cell‐843‐847‐0010
Sent from my iPad
20 Planning
From: Marilyn Follmann
Mt. Pleasant Planning Board: We wish to express our firm opposition to permitting Bed and Breakfasts to operate within the I'on community as well as extremely short term rentals (AIR BnB's). Sincerely, Ron and Marilyn Follmann 93 N. Shelmore Blvd.
Sent from my iPhone
21 Planning
From: Craig Richard
To Whom it May Concern,
I have been a resident of the I'On neighborhood since 2003 and I am opposed to modifying I'On's PD to include Bed and Breakfasts at any additional addresses. I have lived in the same home in I'On on Prescient Street for the past twelve years. We currently have one Airbnb, another medium term rental house, and at least two longer term rental houses on our street. I would prefer only 6 month or greater lease terms for any house in a residential neighborhood, but recognize that this is practically difficult. The increase in rental properties has coincided with an increase in crime, disturbances, and parking issues on our street.
During the first 11 years at this address we virtually had no crime on our street. However in the past year I have had a theft from my car, my garage, and an issue with a drunk and disorderly person attempting to break into my car. All of these have been reported to the Mt. Pleasant Police Department (MPPD). I do not think it is a coincidence that this increase in crime is at the same time that the number of short term rentals have increased.
In addition to the crime, rental properties can have a significant impact on parking. I'On is already short on on- street parking and while some of it is our own fault, renters with multiple cars and an unfamiliarity with I'On's unusual parking situation make it much more difficult. I have had to call the MPPD on multiple occasions over the past year for a variety of parking problems.
For the safety and yes, convenience, of current Mt. Pleasant residents I request that the application for modification to the I'On PD not be approved. I am happy to further discuss any of my observations via phone or email.
Thank You, Craig Richard 18 Prescient St. Mt. Pleasant, SC 843-693-2043
22 Planning
From: David
Please do NOT agree to allow any bed and breakfast or short term rental use of residences in I’On. This is a residential development not zoned for hotel use except in the Square. My son has had some awful issues in Brooklyn with his neighbors and Air B & B and other shared user applications. For our quality of life and safety please not not agree to this exception. We did not buy our home in this area with the expectation of this kind of use near us. Thank you.
David and Esther Beckmann 19 McDaniel Lane
I’On
23 Planning
From: Jeff Gillette
We have a B&B operating on Civitas in I'ON with plans to build another one right next to it. Shouldn't this opposition also apply to this business as well? It's being built on a platted residential lot and it's in I'ON.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 11, 2015, at 11:10 AM, I'On Board of Trustees
For those of you who did not hear the discussion at Tuesday night’s HOA Forum, and/or may have had some difficulty opening the email blast that was sent Tuesday prior to the meeting, we are resending that information.
CLICK HERE to view the notice of the Mt. Pleasant Planning Commission Hearing to determine if B&B’s can operate in I’On. It is very important to let the Town know, either via email or your attendance at the meeting, your views on this very important issue.
PLEASE MAKE YOUR OPINION KNOWN.
HOA Board of Trustees
Bob Davis Tom O’Brien Anne Register Tony Woody Lori Feehan Bruce Kinney Chad Besenfelder
This message has been sent to [email protected]
As a subscriber of General Correspondence at I'On, we'll periodically send you an email to help keep you informed. If you wish to discontinue receiving
24 these types of emails, you may opt out by clicking Safe Unsubscribe.
To view our privacy policy, click Privacy Policy.
This message has been sent as a service of AssociationVoice, provider of smart Websites for Associations and Management, 400 S. Colorado Blvd. Ste 790, Denver, CO 80246. AssociationVoice © 2015. All rights reserved.
25 Planning
From: Don Gordon
To: Planning Commission, Town of Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina Re: Application for a Variance to the I'On PD to Allow a Bread and Breakfast
I join an unanimous I'On Board of Trustees and hundreds of residents of the I'On Community in asking the Planning Commission of the Town of Mt. Pleasant to deny the application to amend the I'On PD to allow a B and B to operate at 109 Ponsbury Road.
For reasons outlined by the representative board, which include a long standing compact with the property owners of the community, existing parking problems, noise, and disruption of the daily life of residents, we urge the commission to deny.
I will be out of town for the hearing, but am available by cell for further explanations if required.
Sincerely,
Don Gordon
Donald L. Gordon, PhD 15 Boathouse Close I'On Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 864.414.0048
The% Board% asks% that% the% Planning% Commission% deny% the% application% to% amend% the% I’On%PD%to%allow%for%a%B&B%to%operate%at%109%Ponsbury%Road.
26 Kelly Cousino
From: howard buckner
Gentleman, My name is Howard Buckner and my wife and I reside at 90 W shipyard Road in Ion. We have lived there approximately 2 years. Please accept this as my opposition to the proposed allowance of Bed and Breakfast and/or temporary room or house rentals. To allow this "commercial enterprise" in an otherwise residential neighborhood is completely contrary to the character of the community. On a practical basis, it opens the door for unvetted and unknown individuals who have no other interest in the community to create issues that affect the legal residents such as parking, noise,and the use of common facilities and other infrastructure.reserved and paid for by residents. Who will be responsible for the conduct of these paying guests? Should I expect to see a different person entering or leaving my neighbor's home everyday. The sole purpose of this enterprise is to generate a profit for the individual homeowner. There is no "social benefit" to the community. If they cannot afford to live in Ion without supplementing their income in this matter, that is regrettable but the remedy is to sell the property and move on. Not to burden their neighbors who moved here to live in a residential area. .If they want to operate a hotel, there are many commercial areas where this would be welcome and permissible.. thank you for your consideration, Howard Buckner
1 Kelly Cousino
From: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 11:45 AM To: Kelly Cousino Subject: Fw: B&B
Sent from Windows Mail
From: [email protected] Sent: Thursday , June 11 , 2015 10 : 43 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]
I am adamantly opposed to a B&B, or any other commercial activity, in I’on. I do not believe these homes were built to develop commercial enterprises, and the community should remain entirely residential. I am also opposed to weekend or other short term rentals, if that matters.
Lawrence K. Otto
Sent from Windows Mail
1 Planning
From: Bill Settlemyer
Please provide the attached letter to members of the Planning Commission prior to their meeting on June 17 at which they are scheduled to consider the application of Steven and Elisabeth Lenes to amend the I'On Planned Development District to allow the operation of a Bed & Breakfast at their residence at 109 Ponsbury Road in our neighborhood.
My wife Sarah and I are residents and homeowners in I'On and we strongly oppose the application for the reasons stated in our letter.
Thank you,
Bill Settlemyer 47 Joggling Street Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
(843) 388-7098
1
Kelly Cousino
From: mfelix
Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing to oppose the application to allow a B&B to operate at 109 Ponsbury Rd, Mt Pleasant, SC. I am an adjacent neighbor and am located at 113 Ponsbury Rd.
My opposition is two‐fold: 1) a commercial B&B operating within I’On would be damaging in terms of loss of privacy, reduced quality of life, safety concerns, and financial property devaluation. 2) I have concerns regarding the applicants and their intention of working with the neighborhood to make their needs simpatico with their neighbors.
In addressing my first concern, the applicants have been running an AirBNB for months now. — Some parts of I’On have larger plots of land than others. This particular property is in a densely populated area where you can almost reach out and touch the next residence. Not only are our residential walls close, the close proximity of our open front porches make for little private conversation. In an attempt to help shield us from the constant flow of strangers we have had to install privacy shutters on our 1st & 2nd floor porches as well as in the interior of our home. — The applicants also have a 2 car garage and 2 car parking behind their residence. The garage is full to capacity therefore prohibiting any parking in the garage. Additionally, until Mt. Pleasant communicated with the applicants, their driveway was filled with a boat (not permitted in I’On) and potted plants. The applicants parks their 3 cars on the street regularly and 4 cars when their children visit from college vacations. With the AirBNB, they often had an additional 3 cars parking on our streets. This made is difficult for regular residents to park their cars or their guest cars. Since Mount Pleasant communicated with the applicants, 1 of the spaces in the driveway has been used by the applicants or AirBNB guests. —I’On can be confusing and often the guests need assistance in finding the home. This is also true with services provided to the guests: I have experienced UBER confusing my house with my neighbors at night and I had to direct them to the correct address. Having strangers come to your door at night presents not only a safety issue but also creates a troubling scenario. — As tourists will do in enjoying a new locale, the AirBNB guests/strangers come and go at all hours of the night which disturbs the peace and quiet of the typically quiet neighborhood and can take away our sense of safety. — We have only been a resident of I’On for 18 months and we purchased our home here because of the sense of community, warm embracing personality of the neighborhood, beautifully maintained architecture, and sense of safety. Having a B&B operate next door, will clearly effect our investment. Given two equal properties, one without a BNB next door would clearly be the preferred property and likely ours would be considered of lesser value.
My second concern has to do with the Applicants themselves. —I mentioned above that until they were directed otherwise, the applicants did not try to make their AirBNB coexist peacefully with the neighborhood by at least clearing spaces in their driveway. If they felt the parking was impacted by their many guests’ cars, they certainly did not take any action to accommodate the additional parking issues. They have only cleared their driveway and begun using their driveway for personal & guest needs since they were directed to do so. — When they decided that running an AirBNB would be advantageous to them, they didn’t speak to their neighbors to see how they could lessen the impact of doing so. As the Board as mentioned in their letter to you, the Applicants didn’t bother to discuss the issue with the Board either but proceeded to take action directly with the Planning Commission. — As a reflection of their lack of concern and interest in being a productive and considerate member of the community, the appearance of their property has been less than attractive. I believe they are the only residents who regularly hang their laundry over the porch railings or from a bar which hangs on the porches. We have a lovely community garden available to our residents but they instead choose to use their limited backyard to create a chaotic and unattractive garden. As mentioned before, until recently in order to “hide” their boat from view, they surrounded it with extremely unattractive
1 planters on their driveway. Of course, most of this would have been a non‐issue if they installed a privacy fence which would have shielded the neighborhood from their activities. Instead, when we informed them that we would be installing a fence, we were met with a deteriorating relationship and often open hostility. Their lack of consideration and cooperation would clearly be a bad combination for running a business within a community.
In summation, it certainly appears that the Applicants are not interested in working with the I’On community to make their intentions work amiably with the rest of the neighborhood. Their overall behavior is one of self‐centeredness and disregard for the safety, quality of life or financial impact of the families who reside beside them. I only see major conflicts occurring regularly if they are permitted to operate a B&B in this dense neighborhood. Please deny this application not only because the concept is antithetical to what I’On represents but also because in this particular case, the Applicants would cause significant disruption with no regard for those who share this community with them.
Thank you for your consideration.
With kind regards,
Marilyn Felix 113 Ponsbury Rd Mt Pleasant, SC 29464
2 Planning
From: Rob Wieboldt
To the Planning Commission:
My wife and I live at 4 Perseverance St. in I'On and we want to add our voices to those asking that the Planning Commission reject any attempt to make Bed and Breakfast establishments legal in I'On. The homes here are just too close together and there simply aren't enough parking spaces to accommodate additional guests.
Thanks,
Rob Wieboldt
1 Planning
From: Robert Davis
Attached is a letter written on behalf of the I'On Assembly Board of Trustees that communicates our opposition to the the application filed by Steven and Elisabeth of 109 Ponsbury Road to amend the I'On PD to allow for a Bed & Breakfast to operate at their specific address. Please make sure that this correspondence is placed in the appropriate file so that the Commissioners have the opportunity to review it prior to the scheduled hearing on June 17. Thank you.
Bob Davis President I'On Assembly Board of Trustees
1 June 9, 2015
Planning Commission Town of Mt. Pleasant
Re: I’On Planned Development District Amendment Request - Bed and Breakfast 109 Ponsbury Road
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
I am writing this letter in my capacity as President of the I’On Assembly (“Assembly”) Board of Trustees (“Board”). The Board has carefully reviewed and discussed the above-referenced application to amend the I’On Planned Development District (“PD”) to allow for a bed and breakfast (“B&B”) to operate at 109 Ponsbury Road. We have formally voted to oppose this application.
It is disappointing that the Board must communicate its opposition for the first time in this public hearing. Had the applicants approached the Board prior to their filing, these points could have been made in a different setting. However, that step was not taken and the Board first became aware of this application during a meeting with Town officials in which it was mentioned that the application was pending.
The I’On PD has never allowed for B&Bs to exist within the residential areas of the community. In fact, the Board has been advised by Town officials as well as counsel to the Assembly that operating a B&B from a residential lot in I’On, as the applicants have done, is a violation of the Town’s zoning ordinances due to the fact that B&Bs are not allowed by the PD. Because the PD is a public document, the applicants were on notice when they purchased their property that B&Bs are prohibited by the PD and were legally obligated to abide by that prohibition. Importantly, all other owners in I’On have the right to rely on the terms of the PD and the expectation that B&Bs would not be operated within the community where they live. That is the whole point of zoning ordinances and the public records: to provide purchasers with notice of the permitted and prohibited uses of real estate – notice with which they must comply and upon which they can legally rely.
The B&B operated by the applicants has proved to be a nuisance to other residents within I’On. The location of the B&B is not within I’On’s commercial areas, but is instead surrounded by private residences. The Board has received numerous complaints from homeowners concerning this B&B. As many as four rooms are available for rent on this particular property, yet it has only one off-street parking space for guests.
The issues of parking and traffic are ever-present in I’On. In fact, in a community- wide survey taken within I’On during September 2014, parking was the number one concern of all respondents. The operation of this B&B only exacerbates this concern, with additional automobiles and the accompanying issues of parking and traffic. I’On was not designed to accommodate the traffic and parking volume necessary to operate B&Bs. Had the developer intended to allow the operation of B&Bs in the residential areas, the community could have been designed to accommodate the associated traffic and parking requirements, and the PD would have specified B&Bs as a permitted use.
Importantly, this is not the only resident operating a B&B in I’On in violation of the PD. The Board has recently received numerous complaints about other B&Bs, and is currently in the process of investigating the issue and evaluating its course of action. If the Town agrees to amend the PD, the Board is concerned that this B&B will become one of many. That will detrimentally affect the I’On community.
A comparison to the Olde Village is appropriate. The Olde Village is not subject to a PD due to its age and the manner in which it was developed over time. However, it is subject to a zoning overlay district, which is similar to a PD in the respect that the overlay district was created to promote harmonious development and prohibit certain uses. As a result of the overlay district, B&Bs are prohibited in the Olde Village, and the purpose of that prohibition is to preserve its character. Is the character of I’On any less important?
The Board asks that the Planning Commission deny the application to amend the I’On PD to allow for a B&B to operate at 109 Ponsbury Road.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Davis President I’On Assembly Board of Trustees Planning
From: john shreves
To whom it may concern:
I am a homeowner in I'ON and reside at 131 Ionsborough Street. I am absolutely opposed to any proposed change in I'ON's original PD, that would permit the operation of Bed & Breakfast businesses in I'ON.
The I'ON board has outlined, in their letter on this matter, the negative impact such businesses would have on the resident population. I hope the Planning Commision rules to keep the originnal PD as written & help preserve the residential integrity of the I'ON community.
Very truly yours,
John Shreves
1 Planning
From: [email protected] Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 2:25 PM To: Planning Subject: Planning meeting June 17th
Dear Sirs,
Reference item 2 of Public hearing items notice. Planned Development District Amendment Request, 109 Ponsbury Rd, Ion, 29464.
As a close neighbor, we wish to object to the change of use to bed and breakfast. We live in a residential neighborhood and feel that this kind of business is inappropriate .We do not want Ion to become commercial. Parking is an ongoing issue and this kind of development can only aggravate the situation.
Respectfully,
Stanley and Elaine Cohen 129 Ponsbury Rd, Mount Pleasant, SC 29464. 561-543-1900
FREE Animations for your email Click Here!
1 Planning
From: Bob Wilkes
To whom it may concern,
My name is Bob Wilkes and I live at 126 West Shipyard Road in I'on, diagonal from the Lenes's back driveway.
We have 5 guest and visitor parking spots on West Shipyard for approximately 7 homes. When the Lenes's have 4 guests overnight, plus their 4 vehicles, we have a situation that begs for a remedy, even since they recently opened their driveway to 2 parking spots. They cannot offer all their guests off-street parking, thus preventing the other 6 families from having guests over without walking several blocks.
Our understanding is that I'on prohibits Bed & Breakfast operations in the Planned Development District ordinance, and that it is considered a criminal misdemeanor? We have requested enforcement of this ordinance to no avail, since we have had the Lenes' guests for some time now. They offer food, wine, cooking schools, bridal showers and even reunions without any license for accommodations, food, beverage, alcohol, or business and sales tax. Have they requested conversion of the primary residence county real property tax to the higher 6%?
I strongly oppose this request and would appreciate the Commission rejecting the application, and further requesting enforcement of the existing ordinance.
Thank you for your consideration,
Bob Wilkes
Bob Wilkes President KB Kitchen & Bath Concepts, Inc. www.kbkitchen.com
Offices in Charleston, Charlotte, Columbia, Myrtle Beach, Savannah, Raleigh Serving markets in Atlanta, Jacksonville, Miami, Nashville, and Tampa
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
(Sent from my iPad)
1 Planning
From: Roddrick Wood
Dear Planning Board My name is Rick Wood and I live a few houses away at ( 24 Rialto Rd) from the proposed bed and breakfast. I object to the changed in use for the following reasons; 1. We are already in very short supply of parking in this area and would add to our shortage. 2. This is the residential area of the neighborhood and not apart of the business district approved by the town in the beginning. 3. We only have trash pick up once a week and recycling once every two weeks. This would be a problem. 4. The home owners dues are based on a single family residents. 5. If you allow one B&B then you open the door for more which again will add to the above listed problems. 6. We already have very congested streets and this could impede emergency vehicle access. Thank You for your consideration to my objections.
Sent from my iPad
1 Kelly Cousino
From: Jayne Eastman
Town members , My husband and I live in I'On, at 63 Latitude Lane. We are unable to attend the town meeting in person, but want to register our views. We are very much opposed to allowing a B&B to operate within I'On, or any short term rentals (defined as less than 28 days). As residents, we have an interest in knowing our neighbors for safety and security reasons, minimizing traffic on our streets, including move ins‐move outs, and ensuring that any rules are conducive to the peaceful enjoyment of the neighborhood. These factors contribute to our quality of life as well as support our property values. We feel strongly that a B&B or short term rental situation work against our interests. Thank you, Jayne Eastman William Gangi
Sent from my iPad
1 Planning
From: [email protected] Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 2:26 PM To: Planning Subject: I'on Planned Development District Amendment Request
Greetings, My name is Linda Moser, 117 Ponsbury Road I'on. I am writing to urge the Planning Commission to vote against the request by Steven and Elizabeth Lenes, 109 Ponsbury Road I'on to change the current PD to one that would allow commercial use of their property.
1. We have a Bed and Breakfast in the commercial area, as the Old Village has the Post House. 2, Ponsbury is the second busiest through way in I'on and has a lot of traffic. 3. Ponsbury, from the intersection of West Shipyard to Rialto, consists of single houses backing up to Rialto Road, where the mail boxes are located. Rialto is one way and has consirable traffic from homeowners, mail box pick ups, Fed X, UPS. Thus, we have constant traffic in front of our houses and in the back. 4, The parking spaces on Ponsbury are constantly full. There are only three spaces on Rialto. 5. The Lenes property is on two busy corners, Ponsbury/West Shipyard and Rialto/West Shipyard. 6. There is not enough parking available currently and to introduce a commercial venue would exacerbate this problem, in addition to safety concerns for both vehicles and pedestrians. 7. In the nine years I have lived here, the Lenes have never used their two car garage or parking pads and add their three vehices to street parking, daily. Many residents do this and it is just a fact.
In summary, the Residential area should remain as it was planned originally. It is an award winning residential community sought after for it's unique nature and I would hate to see anything disturb the balance. In addition to the Bed and Breakfast in the commercial area, there are two new hotels almost within walking distance, so community shortage/ need is obviously not a problem. Please vote no to this request.
Sincerely yours, Linda Moser 117 Ponsbury Road
1 Planning
From: Timothy Eble
I reside at 171 E Shipyard Road in the ION subdivision. Signs recently posted at 109 Ponsbury lead me to investigate what was being requested by the property owners. I am strongly opposed to their attempt to turn a house in my otherwise quiet neighborhood into a bed and breakfast. Although the property is zoned residential, the owners of 109 Ponsbury have apparently been operating that house as a business for some period of time in disregard of zoning laws, and the location of the property makes it totally unfit for a business. There is insufficient parking to accommodate transient business customer automobiles at that location. There are children that play in the streets near that location. From my discussions with neighbors, I have already been informed that the coming and going of customers visiting that house has already increased noise and disrupted the evening quiet of the area. Moreover, when I bought my house around the corner twenty years ago, I was relying on the planning documents filed with the a town assuring me this area was, and would remain, residential.
If the owners of the property in question want to run a business, they simply need to buy a house in an area zoned for such an endeavor, and start one. It is not unreasonable on my part to expect the town to honor existing planning documents and enforce existing laws. Thank you for your consideration.
1 Planning
From: Bruce Evenson
As a nearby neighbor of 109 Ponsbury Road, in I'On, please register my opposition to the proposed request to turn the residence at 109 Ponsbury Road into a bed and breakfast business.
There are many reasons for this zoning change NOT to be approved by the Planning Commission, including limited parking and the inappropriate nature of the location in question. The objection I would voice is the dense nature of this completely residential neighborhood where most homes are only several feet from adjoining homes ‐ as is precisely the case of 109 Ponsbury Road.
Thank you for giving consideration to the quality of our neighborhood, to the many children who play on the streets parallel to Ponsbury Road (Rialto Road and Krier Lane), and to the opposition of many residents in I'On. There is already an adequate commercial center in this community and, in my opinion, bed & breakfast or hotel facilities should remain there.
Thank you, Bruce Evenson 34 Krier Lane I'On Mt. Pleasant, SC
Sent from my iPad
1 Planning
From: tommy felix
To whom it may concern, This note is to strongly ask that you DENY the request of the owners of 109 Ponsbury Rd to turn their residence into a bed and breakfast. This is a family neighborhood with houses in very close proximity, with very little parking, and one way streets. Adding a steady stream of transients to this type of community is not beneficial to anyone but the owners of 109 Ponsbury Rd. Allowing this business to operate in the neighborhood would negatively affect the quality of life, the safety of the residents, the property values and set a precedent that is antithetical to the whole concept of I'On as a community. As an adjacent neighbor to 109 Ponsbury, I again strongly urge you to DENY the application to start a bed and breakfast business at 109 Ponsbury Rd in Mt Pleasant, SC.
Thomas Felix 113 Ponsbury Rd Mt Pleasant, SC
1
Kelly Cousino
From: Greg Sidwell
I regret I will not be able to attend Planning Meeting on the 16th. I would like to register the following comments and observations regarding the proposed agenda item for Mill Creek grocery store and retail shops on Highway 41 (the Town’s highest priority for traffic improvement!).
Greg Sidwell
To those on the To line.
Pat Allen of Planters Point called me today very concerned about plans for the Lowe’s grocery store planned for Hwy 41 near the Wando River. The rationale for the addition of 12 gas pumps to the Town Center zoned land is: ‐ It keeps the people towing boats from traversing all the way down Hwy 41 to gas up their boats and therefore alleviates traffic on HWY 41.
Pat’s concerns are: ‐ Increase of turning traffic on Hwy 41 into and out of the site. ‐ Danger posed by gasoline tanker trucks turning in and out of the site ‐ Increased traffic overall ‐ Environmental hazard posed by the gas station ‐ Impact on evacuation operations in event of natural disaster.
I reviewed and highlighted the Impact Assessment (attached) and note: ‐ The traffic study is clear and concise. BIHL engineering has made a very readable report ‐ BUT, the traffic study only addressed the supermarket and gas station…they did not allow for the additional 5 retail stores or the outparcel! It is therefore inaccurate and I believe needs to be redone. ‐ The included traffic study makes some unexplained assumptions. One thing that should be asked at Planning Committee meeting is to ask for explanation of why the assumptions were made and what the results would be if these assumptions were not made. ‐ The included traffic study highlights many Level of Service ‘E’ intersections and some would not be mitigated but are ‘recommended for monitoring by the town (e.g.: Joe rouse Rd and Hwy 41)’. There is no solution proposed. How bad is the impact? Level of Service ‘I’ or something less? ‐ With the water table at 3 feet below surface, how far down would the underground tanks have to be dug (are they underground tanks?) ‐ And what measures will be taken to prevent escape of fuel in the event of flooding (hurricane, astronomical tides). ‐
Greg
1 June 3, 2015
To the members of our Planning Commission and Town Council,
I am writing to you today to ask that you take the necessary time to allow further research to be done on the proposed Mill Creek development off highway 41. I do not believe there is a complete traffic study in place, despite the one that has already been presented, to adequately address future growth along the highway 41 corridor.
Though I am not telling you anything you don't already know, the amount of growth expected for the Cainhoy area alone will be substantial in the coming years. Highway 41 is the only ingress and egress from this section of Berkeley County into the Mt. Pleasant area. With the highway only being one lane in each direction, the approval of the additional shopping and fuel station at Mill Creek will only increase the amount of traffic, including boat traffic, to this stretch of road (between Joe Rouse and the new Wando bridge and marina in particular).
Is there a rush to push this project through so as to accommodate the voting populace of boat-owners that would most benefit by the inclusion of a gas station? The residents of Planter's Pointe, the subdivision most affected by this development, are enjoying the idea of a traffic light at the entrance to Mill Creek and Planter's Pointe, but at what cost? I can only foresee additional traffic along highway 41... including long lines of boaters (every weekend and throughout the summer months)... clogging the entrances to fuel up for a day of boating. Again, at what cost to the residents that are most affected?
I understand that the area nearest the Wando River is under consideration to be filled with sports- related amenities in the near future. That is a great idea, but I can assure you that this will only lead to additional clogging of this artery as parents take their children to sporting events, etc., throughout the school year and summer months. Again, highway 41 is only a two-lane highway...traffic is bad enough as is. What about emergency vehicles' abilities to service residents in a timely manner? A whole other topic... What about the ability to safely evacuate the thousands of families that will use highway 41 during a hurricane? Again,...a whole other topic.
At what point will the Town Administration have a serious conversation with the state regarding the need to widen highway 41? If this has already happened, what were the results? If the "powers that be" are not in favor of widening, what can Town residents do to press the issue with those holding the purse strings to get the widening of 41 on someone's agenda? (Penny sales tax for a year in the Town of Mt. Pleasant to fund the widening? I'd vote for that.)
I would hope that the wheels of progress can slow down a bit regarding this project until further research can be completed on the growth of this area. A rush to push forward with this project is truly not in the best interest of the residents in this area.
Thank you for all that you do to serve the residents of Mt. Pleasant. I know it is a thankless task.
Sincerely, Jill Cragg 2479 Bergeron Way Planter's Pointe subdivision Kelly Cousino
From: Jim PARASKEVA
I would like to express my deep concern regarding future developments in the areas of Dunes West Boulevard, Rivertowne Parkway and Highway 41 and all associated developments that would have an impact on this area. When the Sunoco Service Station was proposed at this intersection, I wrote of my concerns regarding traffic in this area. The traffic volumes currently exceed the capacity of Highway 41. The major concern I have is the fact that over 1500 residential units in the Rivertowne area are served by only one method of ingress/egress. In my mind this is unconscionable. The safety of all the residents in this area is at grave risk in the event of an emergency. Recently, there was a mnor accident on Rivertowne Parkway and traffic was backed up in both directions for over an hour causing huge delays. The other morning, I drove from my home to highway 41 at 7:15 am. It took 35 minutes to get this short distance. I waited within the Rivertowne area for at least 7 light changes before turning on to traffic on 41 that was at a standstill. I do not need to tell you what effect this would have on emergency vehicles in a life and death situation.
I have spent over 25 years in community and land use planning in other states and have never encountered a situation where this would be permitted. In many states and local communities there are strict limits on the length of roadway permitted without a second means of ingress/egress. I would encourage the Town of Mount Pleasant to investigate and implement similar measures to ensure that this situation is not permitted in the future. I would further encourage the Town to investigate the feasibility of creating a second access for the Rivertowne area to protect the residents in the event of an emergency.
I am in favor of the Market at Mill Creek and I feel this would be an overall benefit to the area. But only if the traffic issues that currently exist are resolved. I believe that a moratorium should be placed on all new development in this area until these issues are resolved. Our safety is at risk and should an incident occur, I believe the Town may be liable.
Thank You.
Jim Paraskeva
1 Planning
From: Byron and Sara Andrade
We are completely opposed to more growth on highway 41, especially the gas station across from the entrance of Planters Pointe. Toxic gas stations do not need to be anywhere near residential areas. The toxins they release pose a risk every day, plus the possibility of a fire. The crime in our neighborhood has already gotten worse because of Harris Teeter. Thanks for considering how we feel!
Sara Andrade Young Living Executive #1422675 Scent2Heal.com tinyurl.com/Scent2Heal Facebook.com/Scent2Heal
Disclaimer: Information contained herein is not meant to diagnose or treat any condition. I am not a health care professional, but I am a mom who wants to help equip you to seek out the best options for you and your family. I pray that The Holy Spirit will guide you as you minister to your family. Please continue to consult the health care provider of your choice.
1 Planning
From: VALERIO, MARK J
To the Planning Commission members,
My name is Mark Valerio and I am currently the President of the Planter’s Pointe Homeowners Association. We at Planter’s Pointe do not object to the commercial infrastructure that is being put before you. We are concerned about the addition of a 6 pump gas station that is almost directly across the street from our entrance into Planter’s Pointe. If you are unfamiliar with Planter’s Pointe we only have one way into and out of our subdivision onto Hwy 41 which is directly across the street from the Gates of Dunes West. The Heritage and Gates of Dunes West have two ways in and out of their subdivision and may be less affected by the possibility of an emergency than we are.
I reviewed the emergency guidebook for First Responders for events involving a hazardous material incident (gasoline tanker spill or wreck involving a tanker), and it states that in the event of a large spill evacuate 1,000 feet downwind. In the event of a tank truck fire evacuate1/2 mile in all directions, and consider an initial evacuation of ½ mile in all directions.
With the entrance to the gas station being located quite near our entranceway, and HWY 41 being a two lane roadway, an accident involving a tanker truck or a spill at the gas pumps could literally shut down our entrance into our subdivision, leaving our homeowner’s potentially no way in or out in the event of an emergency.
We would prefer the gas station not be considered as part of this project due to the potential for an emergency incident occurring near our entranceway and the effect it may have on our homeowners.
In the event this is not possible, some concessions could include;
1. Shift the station and build it at OutLot #1 and the entrance way to the gas station would be between OutLot#1 and OutLot #2?
2. Allow tankers to access the new location from the Wando side of the bridge only and/or require offloading of fuel late at night or the early morning to minimize the potential for an accident involving the tanker to occur.
OutLot #1 is approximately 450‐500’ from the main entrance into Planter’s Pointe and in the event of a spill at the station or on HWY 41 our homeowner’s may have a better chance to exit Planter’s Point.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Mark Valerio Planter’s Pointe HOA Board President
1 Planning
From: CYRUS F HIGGS
Mr. Chairman and Members of Planning Commission:
I would like to strongly ask you to reconsider the roads that The Oaks construction companies will use while building The Oaks. Even though there will be two phases to The Oaks, there still needs to be two entrances starting with phase I, not just Harborgate Blvd but Home Farm Rd as well.
I have lived in this neighborhood 21 years. We have a lot of children (two of which are mine) who use those streets to walk, jog, walk their dogs, skateboard, play basketball, and other games. Their friends come over to hang out, thus more kids in the streets. Their safety is our first concern.
Getting out of Harborgate from either entrance is very hard now with all the traffic on Rifle Range Road. If they came out of Home Farm Rd, they would be taking a right turn, thus easier to get out.
As it is, there is too much traffic already on Harborgate Blvd and Main Canal Dr from those living in and visiting Fiddler's Marsh. Those who are not used to the neighborhood and are using Main Canal Dr to get to Fiddlers Marsh get lost, missing their turn onto Two Rivers Dr, so they have to turn around in the cul-de-sac of Main Canal Dr to go back to their correct turn. I can see this being a problem for those who are coming in to work at The Oaks.
Either way, there is enough traffic already on both entrance roads into Harborgate Shores. Even for the long haul, there needs to be two entrances to The Oaks.
Thank you for your serious consideration to this matter.
Think of one thing to be thankful for today! Veronica Higgs 1191 Main Canal Dr Active Voter
1 Planning
From: Jason
I am writing to clarify some issues I have with the Oaks Development on the old Hyndman track behind Harborgate Shores. Harborgate is a family neighborhood with no sidewalks and there is a lot of pedestrian and bike traffic both by young kids and active adults. What are your plans to control construction traffic through our neighborhood? I believe the initial plans had two construction entrances, but it looks like the developer is only going to use the harborgate entrance under the guise that since there are two phases only one entrance needs to be available for phase one. My children and their friends have really enjoyed riding bikes and walking our dogs thorough the neighborhood. I would hope that their safety as well as the well being of our neighborhood is taken into account when issuing permits for this development. Thanks.
Jason Cates 1117 Inlet Cove Ct 843 478‐5898
Sent from my iPhone
1 Planning
From: Jim Owens
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission:
I am writing regarding The Oaks and its relationship to Harborgate Shores and to Home Farm. Please review the attached in that I’m asking you consider placing both entrances in the initial phase (1a) of this project; it was stated at the last meeting that only the entrance on Harborgate Boulevard would be utilized during the first phase and until that phase was built out. This is contradictory to the initial sketch plan which took place in 2014. I spoke in favor of this project a year ago with Kenny Seamon, but at that time both entrances were going to be constructed in the first phase for the purposes of safety and security. I would also ask that you place the Construction Entrance at the location that has the least amount of public impact. Is there sufficient reasoning to burden an existing subdivision with construction traffic along Harborgate Boulevard, where young families with young children fill the streets of Harborgate Boulevard. There are over 325 single family homes that currently use “Harborgate Boulevard” and Main Canal to exit Harborgate Shores onto Rifle Range Road, the access will be much easier for construction traffic to enter and leave Home Farm Road to Ben Sawyer and will not affect as many existing home owners. It is not my intent to shift the construction traffic to Home Farm or to minimize their impact, but to request the use of good judgement in mitigating the challenge of constructing The Oaks Subdivision within the existing subdivision of Harborgate Shores. I hope that this judgement will be undeniably & abundantly clear to protect the safety, security and welfare of the majority of children who live and play (bike, skate, skateboard, throw footballs and baseballs) in the streets adjacent to their homes. Thank you for taking the time to read my request.
Sincerely,
Jim Owens
1197 Island View Drive
-----Original Message----- From: Jim Owens
Thanks Chris, your help is greatly appreciated. Have a good weekend!
Jim
From: Jim Owens [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 8:38 AM To: Chris ONeal; Chris ONeal
1 Cc: James Bagwell Subject: The Oaks
Chris,
I am writing to you to request that you review the attached committee documentation relating to The Oaks and its relationship to Harborgate Shores. A year ago I spoke in favor of this project as submitted with two ingress/egress, one from Harborgate Blvd and one from Home Farm Road. At the last Planning Commission meeting, it was stated that the entrance into Home Farm (Kincannon Drive) would take place in the 2nd phase, this is contradictory to comments a year ago. This is not acceptable to the residents of Harborgate Shores, they have always been a welcoming community with the addition of Fiddlers Marsh and now The Oaks, but it’s unfair to use/abuse the entrance of Harborgate Boulevard as a sole entrance for construction for the first phase. There are young families with young children who fill the streets along Harborgate Boulevard. There are approximately 265 homes in Harborgate, 65 in Fiddlers Marsh and now 53 in The Oaks.
Please make certain that both ingress and egresses are used for the initial phase of The Oaks for the purposes of public safety for the homes built in the first phase and the children and residents of Harborgate Shores.
Sincerely,
Jim Owens
2
STAFF REPORT – REVISED SKETCH PLAN FOR THE OAKS For reference, the Zoning Code and Land Development Regulations are available online. AGENDA ITEM REVISED SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL REQUEST: Request approval of revised Sketch Plan for The Oaks (formerly known as the Hindman Tract), 53 detached single-family residential lots zoned R-2, Low Density Residential District, to be located adjacent to the Harborgate Shores, Fiddlers Marsh, and Home Farm subdivisions on an approximately 18.81 acre parcel of land, identified by TMS No. 532-16- 00-119, and known as Part Tract 3, Kinlocks subdivision, as shown on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Book BD, Page 132.
ANTICIPATED MEETING SCHEDULE Body Meeting Date Action Agenda Item # The Commission approved the request, subject to staff comments and with an Planning Commission 04.22.15 4g. emphasis on tree preservation, by a vote of 8 to 0. Planning & Development n/a Committee of Council n/a n/a
Town Council n/a n/a n/a
REQUEST The current proposal is to approve the Revised Sketch Plan for The Oaks (formerly known as the Hindman Tract), 53 detached single-family residential lots zoned R-2 located on an approximately 18.81 acre parcel of land.
SUBJECT PARCEL(S) Property Owner(s) TMS Number Approximate Acreage JW Homes, LLC 532-16-00-119 18.81 acres Total Acreage 18.81 acres
BACKGROUND INFORMATION Applicant Frances Timmons (Seamon Whiteside) Property Location behind Harborgate Shores, Home Farm, and Fiddlers Marsh Comprehensive Plan Future Low Density Neighborhood Land Use Map Designation Current Zoning R-2, Low Density Residential District
Staff Report – Revised Sketch Plan for The Oaks Page 1 of 3
ADJACENT USES & ZONING North Harborgate Shores (R-2) South marsh East Fiddlers Marsh (R-2) West Home Farm (R-1)
PREVIOUS APPROVALS ASSOCIATED WITH CURRENT REQUEST 10.08.13 Annexation and R-2 zoning Mr. Richardson moved for approval to include the April 23rd Counsel comments that all easements and roads be conveyed 04.23.14 to the town and approval is subject to validity of said Sketch Plan approval (minutes) conveyances, including the April 23rd staff comments and including the March 19th comments excluding item #5. Ms. Richter-Lehrman seconded the motion. All in favor. 07.23.14 Preliminary Plat approval Approved, subject to staff comments. (minutes)
Staff Report – Revised Sketch Plan for The Oaks Page 2 of 3
STAFF COMMENTS 1. Conforms to intended land use – Residentially-zoned property zoned R-2. 2. Lot layout – Lot layout has changed from previously approved plan due to tree evaluation and owner request. 3. Street/sidewalk design – Interconnection between subdivisions is maintained as initially planned. Two new streets are being proposed. Streets meet the Town standard dimensional requirements. Sidewalk shall be installed on one side of the street and link to adjacent residential developments. Recommend extending sidewalk to Island View Drive and Home Farm Road. An internal trail is proposed to enhance accessibility to pond and views of the marsh. 4. Open space – 0.97 acres of open is provided. Open space at the terminus of the cul-de-sac protects the view corridor. Per Special Buffer Ordinance, 33% of the critical line buffer area can be pruned for view corridors. Opening roadway terminus to marsh views is a goal of the Town. 5. SW detention – The pond on the previous Sketch Plan was eliminated to improve the land use and detention was consolidated in the remaining interior ponds. Ponds are visible and accessible to residents. A portion of the property is located within a VE flood zone. Limitations on fill and construction shall be considered during further review. 6. Buffers/landscaping – A critical line buffer shall be provided between the lots and the marsh. This should be labeled and graphically depicted, along with the required 30’ impervious surface setback from the critical line. 7. Sketch Plan Checklist – All checklists items have been provided.
SITE/LANDSCAPE COMMENTS 8. The Kincannon Drive connection to Home Farm Road should be included as part of Phase 1. 9. The pedestrian path at the rear of Lots 23-28 should be located in an easement. 10. It is unclear why Trees 2 (good 17” live oak), 12 (good 21” live oak), 16 (good 19” live oak), and 19 (good 18” live oak) are proposed for removal. These appear to be in rear or side yards that could be worked around with proposed house plans. 11. If the two off-site trees behind Lots 7 and 8 are protected, they should be labeled as such. 12. Show and label mail kiosk. 13. A supplemental staff report addressing minor Site/Landscape comments was provided to the applicant.
Staff Report – Revised Sketch Plan for The Oaks Page 3 of 3 4. Requests g. REVISED SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL REQUEST: Request approval of revised Sketch Plan for The Oaks (formerly known as the Hindman Tract), 53 detached single-family residential lots zoned R-2, Low Density Residential District, to be located adjacent to the Harborgate Shores, Fiddlers Marsh, and Home Farm subdivisions on an approximately 18.81 acre parcel of land, identified by TMS No. 532-16-00-119, and known as Part Tract 3, Kinlocks subdivision, as shown on a plat recorded by the Charleston County RMC Office in Book BD, Page 132.
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROPOSED