Name: Sharon E. Lowe
Running for: ASPPPO and CSA
Gate and Gate Policies
Please address the following issues raised regarding the Greenwood gate and gate committee of CSA:
Question: How would you resolve the lane changes (the Weave) and safety concerns?
Answer: I think that there are a number of ways we can help address the concerns of Property Owners
regarding the Greenwood Gate. One of the biggest factors causing long lines is the sale of passes at the
gate. With that issue comes the visitors who jump over to the pass holders line because the right hand
line is so long. Therefore, I believe we should first change the way we sell passes. CSA should be looking
into selling passes on line and, for those people who do not purchase them on line, CSA should use the
drive-thru already set up for people to get reserved passes and have day visitors go through the drivethru to pay for their passes.
Other factors that could help with “the weave” would be better, earlier signage and collapsible traffic
lane barriers to prevent vehicles from changing lanes as they approach the gate.
Question: What solutions do you propose to alleviate delays due to non-resident pass purchases?
Answer: As stated previously, I believe the best way to alleviate delays is to change the way we sell
passes. By not selling passes at the gate, delays should be minimal and allow for the smoother flow of
traffic through the gate. We should also consider designating the left hand lane to be Property Owners
only with all other pass holders going through the right hand lane.
Question: Should control of the gate committee be revised through a residential member majority?
Answer: Residents do need a greater say on issues surrounding the gates and I believe it would make
sense to have greater resident membership on the Gate Committee. The CSA board has 17 members - 9
are residential representatives, 4 represent commercial interests, and the Sea Pines Resort appoints 4. I
believe the Gate Committee should have a similar make-up with the residents having greater
representation.
Question: Should trolley operations be outsourced to a third party operator or transferred to parties
that benefit from the transportation system?
Answer: My understanding is that the initial trolleys were leased and CSA decided to purchase its own
some years later but I was unable to find information about why they made this decision. I believe the
entire trolley system needs to be examined, not just whether CSA continues to operate them. The
current financial reports do no allow for someone to analyze the true cost of the trolleys; we don’t have
information about whether their use helps alleviate traffic in Sea Pines or whether it just serves to allow
more day visitors to use our beaches; and we don’t have information about whether the trolleys help
bring more business to our commercial interests. Without understanding these issues, we cannot make
good decisions on the trolleys. I believe we should look into these and other transportation issues
Property Owners raise to develop a comprehensive plan that meets the needs of Property Owners,
Commercial Interests and the Resort.
ASPPPO Negotiations with the Resort
ASPPPO has the right to withhold from the Resort the Resort’s ability to add additional hotel rooms,
which they are currently seeking. Please address the following:
Question: Should ASPPPO receive payment for the rights it has if ASPPPO supports the additional
hotel rooms sought by the Resort?
Answer: ASPPPO has a very valuable asset in its control over whether the Resort can add hotel rooms at
the Inn at Harbor Town. Without ASPPPO approval, followed by ASPPPO member approval, the Resort
cannot expand the Inn. We understand the Resort wanting to improve its facilities to create a 5 star
Resort, but any expansion should not come at the expense of Sea Pines Property Owners. Therefore, it
is within ASPPPO’s right to ask for and receive payment and other concessions for allowing the Resort to
add the rooms. If payments are made, these funds should only be used in accordance with Property
Owners wishes and should not be used to pay for any items covered by our assessments.
Question: What do you believe are the key components that should be negotiated for ASPPPO to
support the Resort’s request? Provide specifics.
Answer: I believe there are a number of components that ASPPPO should negotiate on behalf of
Property Owners and that Property Owners should have a say in what components should be included.
My understanding is that there has been residential input. Nonetheless, some of the key issues that I
believe should be considered are as follows:
Ensure Property Owner assessments are not increased without considering increasing income
from other sources, including gate fees for day passes and passes provided to contractors and other
Hilton Head Island residents, and Resort and commercial assessments. In 2015, Property Owner
assessments were $6,661,000 or 63% of CSA’s revenue and gate fees were $3,940,000 or 37% of
revenue. The Resort and Commercial interests paid only $414,000, less than 4% of revenues. It is
unconscionable to insist that only Property Owners fees and assessment be increased. While I
understand that gate fees cannot be changed until 2017, they certainly can and should be changed as
soon as possible. With 400,000 and more day visitors, every dollar increase in fees raises at least
$400,000. Raising gate fees for day visitors to $10 would bring in an extra $1.6 million, more than
enough to cover the cost of implementing an on-line purchase system, and enough to cover the extra
wear and tear they do to our roads, paths, and other infrastructure.
Eliminate the Resort’s veto power. Currently, the Resort has the right to veto any referendum
proposed to change Covenants or approve other actions (e.g., funding for disaster relief) that result
from negotiations between the Resort and ASPPPO. A referendum is deemed approved if 75% of the
voters approve of it, EXCEPT that the Resort can veto it. Even if 100% of voters approved the
referendum, the Resort could still veto it.
Eliminate the Resort’s Right of First Refusal. Dating back to 1957, this right to purchase our
properties reduces the value of our homes and adds uncertainty to the sale of any property within Sea
Pines. Rights of First Refusal are not uncommon when gated communities are first being developed.
They give the developer assurance that they can buy properties from someone who defaults to prop up
the value of the rest of their inventory. Typically, however, they only usually last 2 to 3 years. In this
case, the Right of First Refusal has existed for 59 years! I understand that the Resort might want to
update or replace villa properties or even purchase houses abutting its commercial properties to expand
them. But, they should have to do that in a fair and open market, not an uncertain market such as exists
now.
Resolve gate and traffic issues, most of which I discussed previously. In addition to gate issues,
our community is faced with traffic and speed issues. The lighted speed limit signs in some areas are a
great improvement but speed limits on Greenwood Drive need to be reviewed and reduced. We also
need to better control over who parks at the Beach Club – parking is supposed to be only for Property
Owners and guests staying in Sea Pines. We need to ensure that day visitors are not parking in that lot.
A reasonably simple way to make access easier to control would be to issue day passes that are a
different color than guest passes.
Improve controls at Tower Beach to ensure only Participating Property Owners and their guests
use the parking lot and facilities. Under South Carolina and Hilton Head law, all beaches are public up to
the mean high tide line. In addition, the Town of Hilton Head says that their jurisdiction also extends 75
yards beyond mean low tide. While the beach is public, it does not mean that people who use that
beach can use the Tower Beach facilities, yet there is currently nothing to stop them from doing so. We
need to be more proactive in limiting use of the parking lot to Participating Property Owners and we
need to develop ways to prevent non-owners from walking up from the beach to use the facilities. We
also need to ensure that only Participating Property Owners are reserving the facilities.
Fast track the transfer of the Resort owned portion of the Sea Pines Forest Preserve to the Sea
Pines Museum and Forest Preserve Foundation to help ensure that Property Owners have more say in
any changes to the Preserve.
Rebalancing Resort Veto Power and CSA Voting Power
Question: What changes should be made to rebalance the voting power in CSA between
Resort/Commercial and Residential Property Owners? Please provide specifics with regards to the
Resort’s veto rights over referenda and their right of first refusal to purchase residential property.
Answer: The CSA Board has 17 members, 9 of which are elected by Property Owners to serve as their
representatives, giving them a majority of 1 compared to commercial interests and the Resort. These 9
members should explicitly represent the Property Owners and ensure that their concerns, questions,
and issues are adequately represented and factored into decisions the Board makes, in accordance with
the Covenants. I would like to see more interactions between these 9 Board members and the Property
Owners they represent. I also believe that CSA needs to be more transparent, especially as it relates to
budgets and other financial matters.
In regards to the veto right and right of first refusal, I discussed those in response to ASPPPO
negotiations with the Resort on adding hotel rooms. Briefly, I believe both of those rights are an undue
burden on Property Owners and the Covenants should be amended to remove them.
Mission of ASPPPO
Please address the following questions.
Question: What do you see as the future mission of ASPPPO and its relationship with CSA?
Answer: ASPPPO’s purpose is to represent Property Owners in enforcing compliance with the covenants
and for ensuring that the Sea Pines environment is maintained and improved over the years. At its core,
it should be representing the Property Owners’ interests in all matters associated with living in Sea Pines
and should work with CSA to ensure those interests are fairly considered in all matters brought before
CSA. I believe that ASPPPO needs to have more separation from CSA in that it should have its own web
site, its own communication channels with Property Owners, its own assessment payment system, its
own administrative staff and its own agenda – right now, its agenda is reactive (to CSA’s agenda) rather
than proactive. As part of this separation, I also believe that ASPPPO should improve its
communications to Property Owners through the use of email and written communications and should
operate transparently so that all Property Owners can have the information they need.
Notwithstanding making ASPPPO an independent organization, I do believe ASPPPO should continue to
have some representatives on CSA serving solely as Property Owner representatives and looking out for
the best interests of the Property Owners.
Question: Do you support a marketing plan to increase day trippers to influence future residential
property purchases?
Answer: I believe that the marketing plan as presented in 2015 seems to put the interests of day visitors
above those of Property Owners and makes a giant leap in thinking that day trippers are the ones who
purchase properties in Sea Pines or who choose Sea Pines as their next vacation rental. In 2015, there
were about 400,000 day passes sold yet there are no data to support that any of those visitors even
thought about buying in Sea Pines or could afford to buy a house in Sea Pines. Our summers are already
overrun with day visitors so I do not believe attracting more to drive through our community is in the
best interests of current or potential Property Owners. I believe the best course of action for attracting
future residential property purchasers is to work with the Realtor community, as is suggested in the
plan.
Question: What can be done to effect the transfer of the forest preserve from the Resort to the Sea
Pines Forest Foundation?
Answer: As discussed in response to the question about negotiations, I believe that transferring the
Preserve should be negotiated as part of that process. The Resort has been saying for years that it will
transfer it, but no action has been taken. I believe now is the time to do it.
Question: What can be done to reduce the building of larger residential properties for rentals?
Answer: I would like to answer this question in two parts – First, how can we ensure that new
construction and additions to houses are “the right size”? The Architectural Review Board (ARB) does
not have square footage maximum limits but does have set back requirements and has limits on the
footprint of houses to a ratio of 1 square foot of covered area to 4 square feet of lot area on “larger full
lots” and 1 square foot of covered area to 3 square foot of lot area for “smaller full size lots.” It also can
consider volume so that two story living spaces “may be counted (emphasis added)” at double the
square footage for purposes of the ratio. Nevertheless, the ARB allows variances so that these
“requirements” are not always enforced. One way we could make a difference is to make ARB meetings
open to Property Owners, thus providing transparency and giving Property Owners insight into how and
why the ARB makes decisions. Property Owners can also make their voices known to ASPPPO so that
ASPPPO can appoint the right people to represent them on the ARB.
The second part of the question, limiting the number of people in a rental property is a legal question.
Some states have limits on the number of people allowed to live in residential units. Typically, the limit
is 2 per bedroom, plus one additional person. South Carolina does not have such limitations. However,
South Carolina Code, Title 31 “Housing and Redevelopment” Section 31-21-70, Paragraph (L) states
“Nothing in this chapter limits the applicability of any reasonable local, state, or federal restrictions
regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling. Owners and managers of
dwellings may develop and implement reasonable occupancy and safety standards based on factors
such as the number and size of sleeping areas or bedrooms and the overall size of a dwelling unit so long
as the standards do not violate local, state, or federal restrictions. No provision in this chapter regarding
familial status applies to housing for older persons. Nothing in this chapter prohibits the lease
application or similar document from requiring information concerning the number, ages, sex, and
familial relationship of the applicants and the dwelling's intended occupants. The owner or manager
may consider these factors in determining payment of utilities. The application also may require
disclosure by the applicant of the conviction of any intended occupant for violating any laws pertaining
to the illegal manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance as defined by law.” Under this
provision, the Town of Hilton Head could limit the number of occupants in any dwelling. It is not clear
whether Sea Pines Plantation could enact its own limit but I encourage everyone who is concerned
about the number of occupants allowed to speak with your HOA/POA President as well as ASPPPO and
CSA.
Residential Assessments
Please address the following three questions related to annual residential assessments.
Question: Do you believe current assessments are sufficient to maintain a world class residential
community, and if not, what solutions would you propose?
Answer: Sea Pines Property Owners assessments are on par with other Plantations on the Island. In
2015, Property Owner assessments were $6,661,000 or 63% of CSA’s revenues. Gate fees were
$3,940,000 or 37% of revenue. The Resort and Commercial interests paid only $414,000, less than 4% of
revenues. Relying on increases to Property Owner assessments rather than considering other sources is
unfair to Property Owners and could potentially adversely affect home sales in Sea Pines.
Looking at revenue sources also requires us to look at expenditures and whether expenditures can be
reduced. Before an informed decision can be made about the amount of revenues CSA needs to fund
its operations, we need more information about CSA’s expenditures, which the Annual Report does not
provide. Information about the budget process is also sorely lacking. There were large increases in the
2016 budget over the 2015 budget/actual costs. However, there is no justification provided on CSA’s
website to justify or explain those increases. I believe CSA and ASPPPO should do an in-depth look at
sources and uses of revenues and develop a reasonable plan that addresses expenditure needs and any
revenue increases.
Question: Under what circumstances would you support an increase in residential assessments over
the current allowable amounts?
Answer: With Property Owner assessments already providing about 2/3rds of CSA’s revenues, I believe
we should first look to other sources of revenue, in particular, increasing gate fees, not only for Day
Visitors but also for contractors, Island residents, and others. I understand the gate fees cannot be
changed until 2017, but that time is upon us and CSA and ASPPPO should work together to evaluate
increases to those fees. With 400,000 and more day visitors, every dollar increase in fees raises at least
$400,000. Raising gate fees for day visitors to $10 would bring in an extra $1.6 million, more than
enough to cover the cost of implementing an on-line purchase system, and enough to cover the extra
wear and tear they do to our roads, paths, and other infrastructure.
Question: If annual assessments were to be increased over amounts currently allowed under
covenants, would you support a sharing of the increased revenues between CSA and ASPPPO, such
that ASPPPO portion would be available solely for residential amenities?
Answer: This is a great question and deserves study as part of the revenue and expenditure study I
recommended in answer to whether assessments were sufficient to maintain a world class residential
community. One of the difficulties will be identifying all the residential amenities – does it just include
buildings and structures, such as the Tower Beach facilities, or does it also include a share of the
landscaping and other amenities that help make Sea Pines a great place for Property Owners,
Commercial interests, and the Resort?
Outside the Gate
Question: How should ASPPPO or CSA influence town or county actions that impact Sea Pines
residents?
Answer: The Town formed the Circle to Circle Committee in 2015, to develop a vision, incorporating
community input, for the future of the Coligny Circle to Sea Pines Circle over the next 20 years. One
member of the Committee was Paul Crunkleton, a Residential Representative on the CSA Board. This
Committee has finished its work and submitted its final report. I believe that ASPPPO and CSA should
continue to monitor the Town’s progrress on this plan. Also, to the extent there are Town and County
issues affecting the areas around Sea Pines, ASPPPO and CSA should be involved in discussions and
meetings to ensure Sea Pines voices are heard.