Newspaper Page Text
Zoning ordinance
Continued from Page 6
are included in the sign ordinance on
page 168; Section 6.2.11 B
• currently traffic studies are only
required when requested by the Coun
ty Engineer; the draft ordinance rec
ommends traffic study requirements
based on thresholds;
• currently private access easement
can serve up to 4 lots; the proposed rec
ommendation is the private easements
can serve up to 6 lots, if lots are 2 acres
or larger;
• currently drainage calculations
are required at construction plan
stage; the proposed recommendation
is to require them at preliminary plat
approval;
• a few years ago the County Com
mission made preliminary plat ap
proval an administrative task; the rec
ommendation is to give that authority
back to the Island Planning Commis
sion; and
• currently wetland delineation con
firmation is not required; this would
change under the proposed ordinance
and would be a requirement.
Leif also shared the comments made
by the public both verbally at the Sep
tember 18 meeting and in writing that
were sent in.
Then she went though some changes
to the Subdivision Regulations, which
included 60% maximum site coverage
in all residential districts.
The Subdivision Regulations also
included a new section regarding
contiguous parcels under common
ownership.
Under the proposed new section,
contiguous parcels where one is less
than 6,000 SF and / or has a lot width
less than 60 feet, and
• the existing house crosses prop
erty line between lots, and
• a building permit is applied for the
existing house, then
• the lots are required to be merged
into one lot.
The subdivision regulations also
deal with separate ‘accessory struc
tures’ that have a full bath and kitchen
and are currently not allowed.
According to Leif, “the administra
tion has interpreted that a ‘mother-in-
law suite’ that is attached to the house
is considered part of the existing house.
It must have a structural connection to
house and be accessible “door to door.”
Under the proposed new regula
tions, an accessory dwelling unit
(ADU) up to 800 sq. ft., may or may
not be connected to principal dwelling,
with one per lot;
• it may have one bedroom, one
bath, and can include a kitchen;
• the property owner can only rent
the principal dwelling or the ADU, not
both;
Leif noted that more discussion
about rental / STR’s is needed, possibly
to create more workforce housing.
Regarding workforce housing, Leif
noted that higher density zoning dis
tricts that allow smaller lot sizes for
detached single family dwellings are
needed, such as Medimn Density Resi
dential (MR).
Currently MR districts require 6,000
sq. ft. lots for a single family dwelling.
The proposed regulations would in
clude 4,000 sq. ft. lots under MR.
After Leifs presentation, Mainland
Planning Commission (MPC) chair
man Neal Boatright opened the dis
cussion asking if that was all the pro
posed changes.
Wayne Neal said, “No it’s just the
highlights.”
“So there’s hundreds of changes,”
Boatright pointed out.
Neal said he wanted to spend the
majority of their time in the joint
meeting on the ordinance to come to a
consensus on a resolution on the draft
document.
“The whole document will then go
to the legal team,” said Neal, “If we get
bogged down on one topic, we can put
it on a sticky note on the easel board
and address it later.”
Island Planning Commission (IPC)
chairman Robert Ussery noted that
they have going through a lot of sce
narios and the more they get into the
document, the more they needed to
compare it to the existing ordinance.
He said a lot of what has changed
has not been in content, but in where it
is located in the document. For exam
ple Ussery noted that the zoning cat
egories are now in a chart as opposed
to just being listed in the ordinance.
“It looks different,” said Ussery,
“but by and large, it’s not too different
from what we had before.”
Neal noted that there will be mis
takes, but it is a living document that
can be amended. “We know things will
be overlooked,” said Neal, “but the doc
ument is not unchangeable. We will
not diminish anyone’s property rights.
That will be in the final draft as well.”
Boatright reminded the group that
former County Commissioner David
O’Quinn, who was a commissioner
several years ago when the comity
began the process to re-write the ordi
nance, said the new ordinance needed
to be user and developer friendly. “It is
not,” he said.
Neal said they wanted people who
use the ordinance to give input and
that hasn’t been done yet, but he did
not want to debate how that would be
done.
MPC member Missy Neu asked if
the ‘tree’s per acre’ analysis was for
newly built residences or for all resi
dences, including existing houses.
Ussery said it was for new
construction.
Neu also had questions about park
ing restrictions for short term rentals,
wondering if the STRs would have to
meet the new parking limits.
Ussery said yes.
Neu pointed out that the STR or
dinance was not clear on parking on
county right of way and said people do
park in the right of way.
Ussery agreed that parking in the
right of way is not allowed but people
do it all the time. He added that park
ing restrictions were based on the
number of bedrooms, which is two
spaces per house, plus one for each
bedroom over four.
The parking / STR discussion went
on a while longer with Neu point
ing out that people had spent money
making decisions based on the ordi
nance and she suggested that STRs be
grandfathered in on the new parking
regulations.
It was noted as an issue that need
ed more discussion.
Next Neu had questions about the
new regulations requiring substan
dard lots of record to be merged.
Ussery said there had been a lot
of discussion about that on the eight-
person ‘Working Group’ that had been
put together which had spent many
hours trying to fix to draft ordinance
that was written by the TSW consult
ing firm the county originally hired for
the job.
Ussery said if you do an addition to
a house that sits on multiple substan
dard lots and crosses lot lines, the lots
must be merged into one.
Neu asked, “Does it apply for any
building permit?”
Ussery said, “Yes.”
Boatright said, “So if you get a
building permit just to change out an
electrical panel, that means you have
to merge your lots. That doesn’t make
sense to me.”
Boatright also commented on the
“deadline” to get the ordinance fixed,
noting that none of them are profes
sional planners. He also noted that
Gloria Burns, a local professional plan
ner had not been given input into the
process.
Neal said, “The target date is not a
deadline, there is a major difference.
There are professionals who are part of
the working group, and we want input
from Ms. Burns.”
Neu asked about homes that were
destroyed by fire or a storm, would
they be able to be re-built.
Neal said, “In the proposed ordi
nance, if that happens, an act of God,
the house can be rebuilt on the same
footprint within five years.”
Note: Section 2.1 B.l (Aug. 8, 2024
draft ordinance) requires that a build
ing permit has been applied for and
issued by Glynn Comity for the repair
or reconstruction of such single-family
dwelling within one (1) year from the
date that it was damaged or destroyed;
and the repair or reconstruction of
such single-family dwelling commenc
es within one (1) year from the date
that it was damaged or destroyed.
He added this is not the last bite at
the apple.
The tree ordinance came up and
Neal said there was an outcry for one
by residents of St. Simons.
Boatright said an arborist will tell
you that many trees on St. Simons are
unhealthy because they are too close
together.
Ussery said they needed to discuss
how many trees were needed to replace
one that is being removed for construc
tion. “We don’t need to replace one tree
with six,” he said.
IPC member Joe Nash asked if trees
had to be replaced if they are knocked
down in a storm.
Neal said not if it was an act of God.
Nash was concerned about new resi
dents being penalized under the new
ordinance.
Neal said, “That’s not the intent. If
we find a problem, we can fix it.”
Ussery said that people were ask
ing him about STRs on St. Simons and
asked what could be done about them.
“They can be intrusive,” he said, “Peo
ple don’t have neighbors anymore. I’d
like to see some recognition here that
STRs can make a mess out of a neigh
borhood. So far we’ve done very little in
that regard.”
October 28, 2024, The Islander, Page 9
Neu said, “If there are problems, the
residents need to report them to the
county. It’s hard to pull back on them
now and cause financial hardship that
will impact people’s long term plans.
We have residents who have four chil
dren that all drive, that’s a potential
for six cars.”
Neal said, “There’s no way to write
a perfect ordinance that will deal with
everything. I’m a property rights advo
cate and we know some neighborhoods
are transitioning to STRs and that’s
not good for the long term, but we don’t
have any high rise apartments or ho
tels on the beach. The STRs filled a
niche market and is the lesser of two
evils. Thank goodness we don’t have
high rises on the St. Simons beach.”
Boatright asked how would the doc
ument be changed if a problem comes
up.
Neal said if something is found that
would damage the homeowner, it need
ed to be brought to the county planning
staff.
Boatright asked if any changes
would have to go to the two planning
commissions, like they do currently.
Neal said, ‘We can try to get it
done expeditiously, but it’s a lengthy
process now. It won’t solve everyone’s
problems, but we do amend ordinances
pretty regularly now.
Agreeing, Ussery cited some ordi
nance amendments that were done
while he has been on the IPC.
Closing out the discussion Neu
asked, “Many folks are numb to this
after going through this draft. Have
you considered a public meeting to ex
plain the changes and have the public
weigh-in before the county commission
votes? Hopefully, both planning com
missions will be voting on the same
document with the same public input.”
Neal said, “That’s a reasonable ex
pectation. It could take more time
if changes are made at the Main
land Planning Commission, and it
then has to go to the Island Planning
Commission.”
Boatright said, “This document
is the most important document for
Glynn County in a long time. We need
to make sure we leave the people in
good shape, and not burden them with
problems in the future. We owe it to
them to get it right.”
Neal said, “I agree 100%.”
After the discussion, Gentry re
viewed the time frame the county
would like to meet to get the new ordi
nance approved:
It is:
• November 1 - complete the Work
ing Group’s edits from the joint plan
ning session;
• November 30 - complete the plan
ning and legal review;
• December 1 - release final draft;
• January - special called meetings
for the MPC and IPC for two public
hearings;
• January - tentative special called
meeting for the County Commission
for adoption.
Items left on the easel board for
more discussion included: parking reg
ulations; short term rentals; merging
substandard lots for renovations and
additions; large tree ordinance miti
gation on St. Simons; and consider a
town hall meeting discussion of the
changes.
