About The Islander. (St. Simons Island, Ga.) 1972-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 28, 2024)
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.
