[0:08] Good evening, and I would like to welcome you to the Thursday, September 3rd, 2020, 6th meeting of the

[0:14] Plank County Board of Commissioners. I have vast Commissioner of Tosh to Sun if he would lead us.

[0:19] And our invocation in the night and Commissioner Clark if he would lead us in the pledge.

[0:23] So if you'd to stand with us, please.

[0:29] Here, President.

[0:30] Thank you for allowing us to gather and conduct the county business.

[0:34] Thank you for allowing us to live such a wonderful, beautiful place that we have here.

[0:39] Bless these proceedings this evening, and bless each and every one here, all in your son, Jesus, precious Helena on me.

[0:48] Thank you.

[0:49] Thank you.

[0:51] Please.

[0:51] I'll be now in a state of America.

[0:54] And to the Republic for which it stands.

[0:57] One nation in honor of indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

[1:10] Thank you.

[1:13] Mr. Chairman.

[1:14] I move to approve the consent agenda for general business with the acceptance of any issue.

[1:20] Item of the Mr. Bush's to cheat and pull.

[1:23] Okay, book.

[1:25] Do I have a second?

[1:27] Second.

[1:28] All right.

[1:28] I have a motion from Commissioner Rafalsky to approve consent agenda under general business.

[1:34] And a second by Commissioner Swap Booker.

[1:38] Commissioner Booker.

[1:39] You need to discuss it.

[1:41] All in favor please raise your right hand.

[1:43] And that is unanimous.

[1:47] That moves us to our public hearing for alcohol, beverage license.

[1:53] So as I read this, please keep in mind that we are here to be good neighbors and to speak

[2:00] civilly to each other whether we agree with the subject matter or not.

[2:07] So let's keep that in mind.

[2:09] And public hearings were be limited to 30 minutes for each post and side with five minutes

[2:14] allocated to each individual speaker, comments are to be limited to relevant information

[2:19] regarding your position and should avoid being repetitious.

[2:23] And if your group has a spokesperson, please allow that individual to present your group's

[2:27] position in the time allocated.

[2:29] And as always, your cooperation is appreciated.

[2:34] out of number eight is to consider the issues of a 2026 alcoholic beverage license to me.

[2:42] I didn't pronounce that before time.

[2:45] I'll see you look at it at 254 periling road, wrongs with Georgia 31525.

[2:52] The license is to sail beer at a grocery store, not for consumption owned premises.

[2:57] Sunday sales permitted.

[2:58] Mr. Mark News, Juniors, the Licensee, and we have Ms. Kinstal Wibbs.

[3:03] Good evening, Commissioner.

[3:04] Mr. Christy Kinstal, Clean County Licensing and Compliance.

[3:07] The application has gone through our process.

[3:09] The background of the Licensee has been approved by the Police Department.

[3:13] And the Licensee is present tonight as required by the ordinance.

[3:17] All right.

[3:18] Before we open the public hearing commissioners, there anything that you wish to say?

[3:24] All right, this is a public hearing for the

[3:29] If you are want to speak against this alcoholic beverage license, please come forward, state

[3:35] your name for the record,

[3:39] any one to speak in opposition to you.

[3:42] All right, hearing none seeing none will close that portion, any one who wishes to speak

[3:46] in favor of this alcoholic beverage, please come forward, state your name for the record, please.

[3:53] All right, that went quickly.

[3:55] We'll close the public hearing and commissioners will back you.

[4:03] chair in

[4:08] the 2020 six out the hall of the weather license to new tariff.

[4:14] LLC located at 254 periolane, rather than rather Georgia, 315 to 5, licenses to sell

[4:21] bearded grocery store, not for consumption owned premises, Sunday sales are permitted.

[4:27] So you only have to see Martin as junior licensee.

[4:31] All right.

[4:32] We have a motion by commissioner with false gear, a second by commissioner,

[4:34] of sweat to approve this license in the other discussion.

[4:39] All in favor, please raise your right hand.

[4:41] That is unanimous.

[4:45] Item number nine, public hearing for land use.

[4:48] This is ZM-26-16 and it is the Christ Church

[4:54] Frederick of Reson and we have this leaf with us.

[5:00] Good evening, Commissioner Stephanie Lee.

[5:02] Planning and zoning director.

[5:03] So this is, see it.

[5:06] Hi, see you, if you go to the other presentation.

[5:08] Thank you.

[5:12] Great, thank you.

[5:14] And this is as DM 2016, and this is a

[5:16] Reason of several properties owned by Christ Church.

[5:20] And the primary goal of this reasoner

[5:21] Quest is they have three different zoning districts on their properties,

[5:25] three different parcels, and they're seeking to consolidate all of their parcels

[5:29] And you say into one planned development district just so everything is consolidated into one,

[5:36] and it's clear who the what these parcels are used for.

[5:42] So currently they have conservation preservation, one family, residential R12,

[5:47] and there is a portion that isn't a PD district too.

[5:51] So here are their properties. So this is of course the north end of the islands,

[5:54] And it's Steven's Road and Fredericker Road, so just don't worry into this is Fredericker Road here.

[6:01] This is Steven's Road turning off.

[6:04] And in the parcels where the orange stars are located, other ones that are subject to this reason.

[6:08] And this is the common subdivision.

[6:13] And then this comprehensive plan that should, this is North Island.

[6:16] This is on keeping with the comp plan.

[6:19] And then as this is survey of the property.

[6:23] And then this is their master plan that shows what they are planning to do with the properties.

[6:28] And it is, they are, I mean, keeping the, the church religious use and uses that are compatible with the historic use of the property.

[6:41] And then the full plan development and district text is in your packet.

[6:47] But here's just, they do show some permit, the permit uses that are on parcel A and parcel B.

[6:52] or in two here so that they do have a divided into different parcels here and then they also have

[6:57] accessory uses for parcels A&B and then they have more limited uses on the one parcel C.

[7:06] The Iowa's Planning Commission did recommend approval as presented. We did receive some of

[7:11] questions. I think there's one or two public comments that that meeting questions about traffic and

[7:17] access office Stevens Road. There are some questions about that but know what their concerns

[7:21] and expressed with that meeting, and these are your possible actions tonight.

[7:27] And as that carries, I'm Chris Jordan here from Hunter McLean for this application.

[7:31] I'm happy to answer any questions as well.

[7:35] Thank you.

[7:37] Thank you, Ms. Leaf.

[7:38] Well, Commissioner Zimmy, question to comments before we open public hearing.

[7:44] All right, this is a public hearing for ZEM-26-1-6.

[7:48] If anyone is here to speak in opposition, please come forward.

[7:52] state your name for the record please and you'll have five minutes.

[7:56] Anyone to speak in opposition?

[7:59] Moving right along, seeing none will close that portion.

[8:02] Anyone who wishes to speak in favor please come forward and state your name for the record.

[8:07] You'll have five minutes.

[8:10] Good evening, commissioners.

[8:12] I'm Chris Jordan, along with Zach Harris, we represent Christchurch.

[8:15] We're joined tonight by Director Tom Perti, the head of Christchurch, several members

[8:21] of the Christchurch.

[8:22] and I believe a few decans.

[8:25] So I'll be very brief, Ms. Leaf said it well.

[8:27] Tonight is about cleanup.

[8:29] Christchurch owns 24 acres, zone across three parcels

[8:33] right now, all of which are zone differently.

[8:36] And it doesn't make sense.

[8:37] It's not accomplishing any purpose.

[8:39] The church would like and there's hoping to obtain

[8:42] a uniform set of consolidated zoning that applies

[8:46] to the entirety of their property.

[8:50] That's the only reason that we're here tonight.

[8:52] So if the commission has any questions of me, I'm happy to answer them.

[8:56] Otherwise, we appreciate the commission's consideration of our application.

[9:00] All right.

[9:01] Thank you.

[9:02] Anyone else to speak in favor?

[9:05] All right.

[9:06] Seeing none, hearing none will close the public hearing up for

[9:08] ZM-26-16 and commissioners will back to you.

[9:13] Mr. Chairman, I'm not commotion to approve the proposed zoning

[9:18] as request.

[9:20] Second. All right. I'll have a motion by Commissioner Duncan, a second by Commissioner

[9:26] Tostos and I think I heard first. Any other discussion? All in favor, please raise

[9:33] your eye hand. And that is in that sense. Thank you. I don't number 10 is the N-26-17. That

[9:42] is 33-37, Highway 82, Resolve. And we have with us tonight, Mr. Kerry.

[9:50] Good evening,

[9:50] Commissioners, Christopher Carey, senior planner.

[9:53] Before it's night we have a rezoning request at 33-37, highway 80.

[10:00] 2, that's 3337 and 3349. Here's a location. It was right here along the highway 82 corridor.

[10:17] So the request is to resume a 1.9-acre property from force agriculture to highway commercial to allow for future commercial development on parcels 02-00691.

[10:31] and 0 2 dash 0 0 7 6 3.

[10:36] All uses allowed in highway commercial zoning district would be allowed,

[10:40] and the current primary use that is being requested

[10:43] or is being used on the property is major and minor storage.

[10:50] So here's the definitions for minor and major storage as an ordinance.

[10:59] And here's the difference between what is proposed and it's existing for

[11:04] development standards going from a forest, agriculture, mainly residential use to a highway commercial

[11:11] use.

[11:15] And here is a sketch plan of what is out there on the site.

[11:22] The planning commission

[11:23] did recommend unanimous approval of this application.

[11:29] And these are your possible motions.

[11:31] Mr. Salar is available for questioning as well, and that is all for me.

[11:36] All right, thank you, Mr. Carey.

[11:38] Commissioner, can you put the very first one back up?

[11:46] I thought it was on 82.

[11:48] Yes, this is just north of Southern hardware.

[11:54] All right.

[11:55] You need to have a question of comments.

[11:57] Mr. Carey, this is a public hearing for

[12:00] DM-26-1733-37-882 Resolve.

[12:06] Anyone who wishes to speak in opposition, please come forward, state your name, for the record,

[12:12] you'll have five minutes.

[12:15] Anyone to speak in opposition?

[12:19] Hearing none, seeing none will close that portion of the public hearing anyone who wishes

[12:23] to speak in favor of ZM-26-17, please come forward, state your name, for the record.

[12:31] All right.

[12:32] Seeing none, hearing none, well-plosed the public hearing, and commissions were back to you.

[12:39] Mr Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve ZM-26-17-337, how we had it to

[12:48] resound as presented.

[12:52] All right, we have a motion by Commissioner Tawlson, a second by Commissioner Clark, Clark

[12:57] to approve ZM-26-17, any discussion?

[13:02] All in favor please raise your right hand.

[13:04] And that is, you know, thank you.

[13:08] Item number 11 is to consider ZM-26-19,

[13:14] Brails for Duplexes Reson.

[13:16] And again, we have Mr. Kerry with us on this.

[13:20] Mr. Kerry, good evening, commissioners.

[13:22] Tonight, we have a rezoning for Brails for Duplexes.

[13:26] This property is located at 3426 and 3424 rails for Avenue.

[13:34] Here's a location right here in blue.

[13:41] So we have three vacant lots.

[13:44] The request is the res on the two properties, three lots.

[13:49] Three point, three one acres from R61 family residential to plan

[13:54] The intent is to make the existing properties more feasible for residential development.

[14:01] Overall, the setbacks are reduced to allow more space to build on the proposed lots.

[14:07] Similar to adjacent properties located in the city of Brunswick's zoning district.

[14:15] So here is the difference between what is proposed and existing.

[14:19] Overall, the minimum requirements proposed are 4,500 square foot lots with a lot with a 45 feet wide,

[14:28] 15 foot front setbacks, 5 foot side yard setbacks, and a 7 foot rear building setback.

[14:41] And here is your master plan.

[14:43] So, right here we have the three parcels

[14:49] showing on the north parcel a duplex and future

[14:54] development on the bottom parcel

[14:58] and here's the plan of development.

[15:00] Tax that is also on your packet.

[15:06] The Planning Commission did recommend unanimous approval of this application.

[15:12] And these are your possible motions. We do have Kevin Higgins on behalf of the property owners, as their agent available as well.

[15:20] That is often staff.

[15:23] All right. Thank you, Mr. Curie.

[15:26] Commissioners, any thing before we open the public hearing?

[15:31] All right, this is a public hearing for ZM-26-19.

[15:36] Braille for Duplex as reads on anyone who wishes to speak in opposition.

[15:41] Please come forward, state your name for the record.

[15:44] To speak in opposition.

[15:47] Seeing none hearing none, we'll close that portion of those who wish to speak in favor.

[15:53] Please come forward, state your name for the record.

[15:57] All right, moving right along, we'll close the public hearing

[16:00] and commissioners we're back to you.

[16:03] Mr. Chairman, I'm moving to approve ZM-2619 as presented.

[16:09] All right, we have a motion about commission.

[16:12] We'll fall down second by commission of the Booker to approve ZM-2699.

[16:17] Any other discussion?

[16:20] All in favor, please raise your right hand.

[16:22] And that is unanimous.

[16:25] All right, that brings us to item number 12,

[16:27] T-A-2-6-3, subdivision regulation, text amendment,

[16:35] and we have with us to speak about this misleaf coming to the point of the thank you.

[16:43] So, commissioners, this is a amendment to the subdivision regulations, so as you may recall, you all adopted a new

[16:51] regulations that can April 2026 and those went into effect on July 1. And as these went

[16:58] into effect, we became aware of a clarification that needed to be made regarding, regarding

[17:05] the subdivision regulations and subdivisions that are on the island. So throughout the

[17:12] most recent drafts of the subdivision regulations that went through the planning commissions

[17:16] and then which the board, it wasn't tended for all subdivisions on the island to go through

[17:26] the full preliminary plot, construction and playance of applicable final plot process, which

[17:31] is what we now call the major subdivision process, that is still in a administrator process,

[17:35] but it wasn't tended for them to go through that full process, instead of being done purely

[17:40] administratively with the exercise of the visual process, which is now referred to as minor

[17:44] subdivision.

[17:45] So that was the intent, but just the final draft that that came out, there was a need for clarification

[17:52] to make sure it was abundantly clear that that was the intent.

[17:55] So that is what this does, is this does clarify the so-do-do regulations stating that

[18:01] all creation of due loss on State Femin's Island and C. Island need to go to the major

[18:05] so-do vision process.

[18:07] Now, someone's moving a lot line if they're consolidating loss or replanting in another

[18:11] way, where they do not create new loss.

[18:13] They can still go through the minor subdivision process, but any new law creation goes through this process.

[18:20] So that is what this clarification does.

[18:24] And this did go to the mainland and the island's planning commissions.

[18:28] They both voted in favor of recommending this as presented.

[18:34] And I'm happy to answer any questions.

[18:37] You have on this.

[18:38] Commissioner, if any questions from Nizley.

[18:43] All right, we will open the public hearing for

[18:46] T.A. Guys, 26-3, anyone who wishes to speak against the subdivision regulations tax

[18:53] amendment, please come forward, states your name for the record.

[18:59] Anyone to speak in opposition?

[19:02] Seeing none, hearing none, we'll close that portion, anyone who wishes to speak in favor,

[19:06] same thing. All right. Seeing none hearing none, we'll close the public hearing on

[19:13] TA-26-3 and commissions we're back in here.

[19:19] Mr. Chairman, I move to approve TA-26-3

[19:24] as presented. All right, we have a motion about commission. We're falsk it, so

[19:29] about commission or Clark to approve TA-26-3, any other discussion. All in favor, please

[19:36] raise your right hand? That is unanimous. Thank you. I don't number 13 is a zone

[19:43] ordinance tax amendment and this item is being presented for the first

[19:49] reading only and no board action will be taken at this time this evening. So let's

[19:53] leave. Thank you. So this is a amendment to the Zoning ordinance. This was

[19:59] for questions. Bye.

[20:00] Commissioners to make these changes. There's several changes within one, which is basically four different areas that I'll cover. So it's a little bit more lengthy. I'm going to go through each of them one by one if you want to stop at the end of each one and ask questions at that time. You're welcome to where I can just run through all of them, whatever your preferences with the planning commissions we did kind of do a stop and have a little bit discussion after each of the segments.

[20:24] So the first of the four is, is a change to the March buffer ordinance.

[20:31] So for a number of years, you'd prior to the July 1, and these are all changes to what became effective in July 1.

[20:37] But prior to the July 1 ordinance, the county did have a, what we call a development setback from the March.

[20:44] So it was a 15-foot area that was measured from the coastal marshals protection stock boundary and the 15 feet back.

[20:52] And within that 15 foot area, there could be no development.

[20:57] And so what we did in the July 1 drafts, or July 1 ordinance, was kept that 15 foot buffer,

[21:05] but we clarified it a little bit more to be specific about what could and could not happen in that buffer.

[21:10] So that was the only change that we did there.

[21:13] But this request is to remove the 15 foot buffer.

[21:17] And what that would essentially do then is the only buffers setbacks that would be in place

[21:24] with whatever the state of Georgia requires.

[21:27] So, currently the state's environmental protection division has an emiration and sediment

[21:31] control buffer of 25 feet.

[21:34] That does apply to a lot of properties.

[21:37] There are some properties that meet criteria to get exemptions from that.

[21:42] And in those cases, if the state did not require 25 foot buffer, that's where our county

[21:46] one would kick in that we would have a 15-foot buffer.

[21:49] So with this change being made, if there was no state-reparative buffer,

[21:52] then the county would not be requiring a buffer either.

[21:55] And so they only setbacks from the marsh,

[22:00] would be whatever the rear property line might be.

[22:03] So it was really deferring to what the state-reparative

[22:05] would not have an additional, you know, more restrictive

[22:07] buffer in this case.

[22:09] Do you have any questions on this for another next one?

[22:14] We're just basically staying in line with DNR standards.

[22:18] We are, yeah, we just would not have anything more restrictive or additional regulation.

[22:22] Because they already have there's in place, is that correct?

[22:24] That's the environmental protection division of DNR has this in place, correct?

[22:29] Thank you.

[22:30] Yep.

[22:31] Any other questions?

[22:33] Okay.

[22:33] This is a public hearing for TAG-262.

[22:38] Oh, I'm sorry.

[22:39] There are several, yup, there's several other types, yup.

[22:42] That's right, no here.

[22:43] So the next one would be, site coverage on the mainland.

[22:48] So currently, with a new ordinance, we instituted a 60% site coverage.

[22:56] Can we lie to for residential lots?

[22:59] It's 85% site coverage for commercial lots.

[23:02] And that's mainland and islands.

[23:04] What this amendment would do would remove that site coverage requirement.

[23:09] on or site coverage maximum on the mainland.

[23:12] So the island would still have a 60% or 75% for commercial.

[23:17] So 60% residential lots, 75% commercial lots,

[23:21] but the mainland would no longer have that.

[23:23] And what we count into site coverage is basically anything

[23:25] except dirt, dirt, grass and trees.

[23:28] So we count gravel driveways.

[23:30] We count walkways, pools, the footprint of the structures.

[23:33] All that's in site coverage.

[23:34] So this is what this amendment does.

[23:37] And I will note that the mainland planning commission

[23:40] when they reviewed this, they in their recommendation

[23:43] to you all, they did state that they would recommend

[23:48] that this be removed county-wide.

[23:50] So there would not be a slight coverage maximum county-wide

[23:55] at all, so to remove it for islands in mainland.

[23:57] But what's before you with this amendment is just

[23:59] removing out in the mainland?

[24:02] Any questions on that one before I move to the next?

[24:06] So the next one is traffic impact studies and this one was more of a clarification that staff wanted to have done here.

[24:14] So we had some earlier drafts that included a reference to a level one, level one and level two traffic study.

[24:22] So that verbage ended up getting removed from the draft.

[24:25] However, in a couple of spots, the terminology level one traffic study stayed in.

[24:30] So, because that's confusing because we don't have a definition for a level 1 traffic study and it's not a requirement.

[24:36] We just wanted to clean this up to remove any reference to level 1.

[24:40] What this ordinance did with the July 1 revisions was state that the county engineer can request a traffic study upon review of an application.

[24:52] and so that is how we've been operating since July 1st is the County At Venergenier Department

[24:57] will review an application and based on there.

[25:00] There are various forties and review. They'll request a traffic study. It also can come out in a pre-application.

[25:07] So, before an applicant can submit for their, for their development, they have a pre-application

[25:12] with us during that pre-application period, county engineering may request a traffic study at that

[25:17] time, which gives them an opportunity to do that before they apply. So, this is just really a clean

[25:22] on this. I will note that the Mainland Planning Commission did have a change to this. They

[25:29] did want to leave level one traffic study in here. It's basically like a trip generation memo

[25:37] is basically what it is and they want to leave that reference in here and then have language

[25:42] that would state. If the trip generation memo required additional study then the county could

[25:48] repire additional study. So that was what they put in there. And I was going to go back to

[25:55] the site coverage real quick because the island's planning commission didn't have a change

[25:59] I did not mention. So the island planning commissions, recommendation regarding site coverage,

[26:04] they did want to count artificial turf and gravel as 50% of the square footage towards

[26:12] site coverage. So basically if you had gravel or artificial turf on your property, 50% of

[26:17] that only 50% of that could count towards your site coverage

[26:20] and you kind of get a pass on the other 50%.

[26:24] And then they also wanted to exempt accessibility

[26:27] and emergency resilient equipment,

[26:29] like generators and handy capllifts from,

[26:32] or handicap revs from the site coverage calculations.

[26:36] So anything that was used for an emergency purpose,

[26:38] they wanted to exclude from site coverage calculations.

[26:44] with any questions on the traffic impact study and I'll go to that and this is just what

[26:50] the language says now in the code just for your reference. And then this last one is regarding

[26:57] the development plan approval. So what we in the prior code we called site plan approval is

[27:02] a approval process that takes a project to the one of the planning commissions and it's multifamily

[27:09] or commercial development is what goes to that site plan process.

[27:14] The terminology change from site plan to development plan in this new code.

[27:19] And what this, what this amendment does is it will exempt

[27:25] additions or new accessory buildings to an existing commercial site

[27:29] from having to go to the development plan process.

[27:32] So if you've gotten existing commercial site,

[27:34] and you want to expand your building, your business is growing,

[27:37] or you want to add an accessory building onto the property, because it's an arting

[27:42] existing commercial site, then you do not have to do development plan approval process.

[27:47] So you can go straight to applying for your commercial building permit and you do not have

[27:50] to go through a planning commission for a review.

[27:54] So that is what this amendment is and neither of the planning commissions had any changes to

[27:57] this one.

[27:58] Ms. Lee?

[27:59] Yes, sir.

[28:00] Could I ask a question?

[28:00] So, but this does would be, it could be a case where it's multi-family and then someone's doing commercial.

[28:09] So, this does not include any kind of mixed use.

[28:12] So, it really is only commercial, like a purely commercial site.

[28:16] That's a good question.

[28:20] Okay.

[28:21] And that is the end of that overview.

[28:23] And then I already went through with the two planning commissions

[28:28] had their recommendations to you all, and then, as the Chairman said, this is a first reading.

[28:33] This is a public hearing tonight, but you will not take a vote, but we have, we have noticed

[28:38] another public hearing on September 17th, which would be the second reading and the board could take

[28:43] a vote that evening. Thank you. All right.

[28:49] Commissioner, any questions, comments, or will we open the public hearing?

[28:54] So, this is the public hearing.

[28:57] The first public hearing for the zoning ordinance text amendments is there.

[29:03] Anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to these four proposed tweaks to our text.

[29:11] Anyone to speak in opposition?

[29:14] All right.

[29:14] Oh, here we come.

[29:16] If you'll come forward, stay tuned for the record please and you'll have five minutes.

[29:26] So, it's nice to see you all again.

[29:28] Thank you for the opportunity to comment tonight.

[29:31] My name is Kat Montgomery.

[29:33] I'm a St. Simon's resident and also a representative for Coastal Conservation Organization,

[29:39] 100 miles dedicated to protecting Georgia's 100 mile coast through advocacy, education,

[29:45] and community engagement.

[29:46] I appreciate that dollar going to host multiple chances for the public to comment on these changes and I'm very curious to hear your discussions tonight as the planning board discussions.

[30:00] It seemed mostly concerned with creating more relaxed rules for development. Neither board seriously discuss

[30:07] the impacts of stormwater runoff to our shared resources. I'd like to know if any stormwater management

[30:14] experts have been consulted when considering removing the site coverage limits. Managing stormwater

[30:20] is not only about mitigating flooding and controlling drainage, but it's really about maintaining

[30:26] water quality, limiting the amount of impervious surface reduces the amount of sediment and chemicals

[30:33] in stormwater runoff that pollute the water we drink, the water that we swim in, and the water

[30:39] our local seafood comes from. Georgia EPD, the State Environmental Protection Division,

[30:45] created the coastal stormwater supplement, the CSS, which outlines the special care that coastal

[30:55] SS provides comprehensive guidance for stormwater management to protect the coast and its people

[31:01] from the negative impacts of land development and non-point source pollution. We asked that

[31:08] you defer the elimination of site coverage maximums to Mainlandland County until an adequate

[31:13] solution to address stormwater management concerns is created and codified for all residential

[31:20] and commercial properties.

[31:23] Implementing site coverage limits is just one way that you can manage stormwater.

[31:27] You could take suggestions from the coastal stormwater supplement plan of which there are

[31:32] many.

[31:32] It's a long document, y'all.

[31:33] 1,500 pages.

[31:35] It includes a model ordinance that you could adopt into the Glen County coast.

[31:40] You could reinstate the 25% open space requirement under the St. Simon Street ordinance

[31:45] and expand it to include all of Glen County.

[31:48] You could adopt a flexible approach to the impervious surface limits such as exempting the accessibility and emergency equipment from side coverage calculations as the island planning commission recommended.

[32:01] 100 miles will submit more detailed comments on the proposed side coverage change and we are happy to connect you with resources on coastal storm water management so you can make an informed decision.

[32:11] Thank you so much for your time.

[32:13] Thank you. Anyone else to speak in opposition? Please come forward. Stay tuned for the record and you'll have a five minute.

[32:26] Good evening. I'm Maggie Vankamp for it because Keeper for Ultima Haw River Keeper organization.

[32:32] A local nonprofit environmental advocacy organization and I appreciate all cats comments that save some of the time for my comments.

[32:40] So, Ditto on, well, she just said about stormwater management, and if I can, can I hand you this to pass down the line there?

[32:54] This is a photo, this is just coincidental, that I was out in the rainstorm on Friday, and got these two buckets of water.

[33:03] One of these is the ultimate hot river where it's flowing up of a floating dock.

[33:09] And the other one is where all the rain is coming off of parking lot down the boat ramp into the river, which one do you think is which?

[33:17] Right? This is why storm water management matters. This is why green space and buffers that are

[33:24] vegetated to stop that rainwater slow it down and stop all this debris, oil, gas, anything that

[33:33] could be running off of those impervious surfaces matters to our waters. Glenn County did a

[33:38] good thing in adding the 15-foot buffer and site limit to the zoning package when you approve

[33:46] those a few months ago. I really don't understand the reason for this reversal now. I would

[33:51] love to hear an explanation of why this is being proposed to take those away. A 15-foot buffer

[33:57] is very minimal but it's better than none and I recall commenting on this during the zoning

[34:03] hearing's previously about asking for an even larger buffer.

[34:08] And I believe Ms. Klief's explanation of why this was being added was,

[34:11] it was to fill gaps where there's no buffer at times,

[34:15] and that the county had noticed that it was necessary to keep those

[34:19] buffers from becoming paid, or other impervious surfaces.

[34:26] And the site coverage limits is my search through the zoning ordinances.

[34:30] I couldn't find any other impervious surface limits.

[34:33] So the way I understand it, if you do this amendment to take out your site coverage, that means any property owner could pay 100% of their property aside from the state-mandated buffers.

[34:47] Do you really want to pay for that?

[34:50] But a parking lot?

[34:52] I mean, that's going to increase the heat that we're experiencing.

[34:55] This has been a miserably hot summer.

[34:57] He's only going to get worse, the less gr...

[35:00] Green that we have covering the Earth, the less tree can it be we have, and flooding is going to get worse.

[35:06] So, I really encourage you to keep the minimum 15 foot buffer to fill those gaps when the state buffers don't apply.

[35:16] It would be great if you even, you know, made it larger to match the minimum 25 foot state buffer.

[35:21] But at least keep the 15, and hold off on removing entirely the site coverage limits until you can look at it and figure out if you need to add some impervious surface limits to an amendment.

[35:37] Or if there's a problem, I don't understand if there's a problem with the site coverage language that's making it difficult to enforce or something like that, but not to just take it away entirely unless I'm wrong.

[35:48] and that there is something that would prevent people from

[35:50] paving 100% of the property.

[35:54] So thank you for considering our input on this.

[35:58] I am unavailable to attend the second public hearing.

[36:01] So my absence that that meaning doesn't mean my comments

[36:04] have changed.

[36:05] So I hope you will treat the comments tonight.

[36:07] Equally is the ones that are earthy to the next meeting.

[36:10] OK, thank you.

[36:12] All right, thank you.

[36:14] All right, anyone else to speak an obstacle?

[36:18] All right, seeing none, hearing none will close that force in any one who wishes to speak

[36:23] in favor.

[36:24] Please, come forward.

[36:25] State your name for the record, please.

[36:29] All right, seeing none, hearing none will close the public hearing.

[36:32] This is the first reading and we will consider it again at our next meeting.

[36:39] No vote will be taken on this matter, this evening.

[36:47] Our next item on our agenda tonight is an appeal, and it's a public hearing for this

[36:52] field and after receiving a verbal report from County staff regarding the appeal, both persons

[36:58] favoring and persons opposing the relief salt by the appeals. I have the opportunity to address

[37:04] the Board of Commissioners. The persons favoring the relief salt by the appeals shall be

[37:09] invited to speak for followed by persons opposed to the relief salt by the appeal. Each side

[37:16] shall have a total of 30 minutes total to address the Board of Commissioners. Upon request

[37:21] make two and approve by the Board of Commissions, prior to speaking, any individual may speak

[37:27] for up to 15 minutes.

[37:29] All other speakers shall be limited to no more than five minutes unless permitted additional

[37:33] time by the Board of Commissions.

[37:35] Any allowance of additional time shall not extend the overall 30-minute time limit per side,

[37:41] unless more time is granted by the Board of Commissions to permit a more complete discussion

[37:46] of the issue.

[37:46] Any rebuttal shall be allowed only within the overall time constraints set out here in.

[37:53] So that brings us to out of number 14, appeal the Board of Appeals decision on

[38:00] ZV-26-15-732 Ocean Boulevard, St. Sam's Island.

[38:08] Ms. Carroll.

[38:09] Good afternoon, Nisi Carroll, a Glen County plan in its own.

[38:12] This is an appeal of the Board of Appeals decision on

[38:15] CV-2615, 4.732, Ocean Boulevard, SSA.

[38:21] Just a quick note.

[38:22] The first variant is our government by the previous zoning

[38:25] ordinance, and this current variant is governed

[38:28] by the new ordinance, which became effect of July 1, of 2026.

[38:34] Just a brief overview.

[38:36] The original home was built in 1924,

[38:38] which made it in existing legal and not-performing structure,

[38:41] more specifically the front porch,

[38:43] which faces 9th Street.

[38:47] On November 13th, 2025, the Board of Appeals approve ZV 2541 with the vote for zero with

[38:54] chair Whitman being absent to bring an existing non-conforming structure into compliance, the front and right side

[39:00] setbacks. At that time, the home orders proposed modifications to the existing kitchen in addition

[39:05] of one bedroom and one bath. While the Board approved the request, site coverage concerns

[39:10] remain unresolved, which is the second variance.

[39:14] To maintain a streamlined and timely process with the contractor staff did allow our

[39:19] revisions to the original plans to keep the process moving forward until the Board of

[39:26] Appeals took action on the second variance.

[39:31] Prior to the February 12, 2026 meeting a site, visit reveals significant project changes

[39:36] via what was publicly noticed as a result of the primary

[39:39] approval, CB2541, the first one, was called into question

[39:44] and newly submitted materials required additional staff

[39:47] review.

[39:49] At that same meeting, the board of appeals

[39:54] voted to defer the second various to the undertermant date.

[40:00] Following the meetings that have conducted a comprehensive review of the newly submitted materials and

[40:04] determined that the previous plea approved variance remained in compliance, which about the existing

[40:11] knock-off form structure into compliance, specifically addressing encroachments on the front and right side of

[40:16] At the March 24th, 2026 special call meeting, the BOA did approve the second variance with conditions, and just to note, it was, if the existing walls fronting Ocean Boulevard and 9th Street are demolished, then the variance granted under ZV 2541 and ZV 2549.

[40:40] Shelby Dean, no envoy in any structure on the property,

[40:44] must comply fully with all current zoning and building standards

[40:47] as a new construction.

[40:51] On May 14, 2020, sixth staff determined at a site visit

[40:54] that the structure had been substantially altered

[40:56] from its original approved design and deviated

[40:59] from the BLA's action, which made the first two

[41:02] variances null and void in accordance

[41:04] with the BLA's action.

[41:07] The applicant, builder did not consult the staff,

[41:10] to make a decision to deviate from their proof variants and reconstruct the walls different

[41:17] insas from those previously approved and do not incorporate any structural elements from

[41:21] their original residents. Therefore, the builder inspections department did issue a stop worker

[41:26] from the property. The applicant's specific request tonight is to reduce the front and right

[41:34] you aren't setbacks. This is the location now. This is the survey. This is the survey

[41:43] zoomed in. This was the location for the first variance. This was what was left

[41:54] at the second variance. This is the current site. These are letters, we were

[42:01] letters of support from these citizens.

[42:06] Ethic conducting the public hearing for KZV 2625 on August 13, the BLA of Rinders is

[42:12] decision on the various requested by Lee Swaffer and Applicant and Agent, and home owners

[42:18] the BLA did not have applicants request with the vote 401, voting A on the motion, Eddie Wildsmith,

[42:25] Richard Edgey, Michael Munitelli, and Cliff Woodman,

[42:29] voting name was Agent Barry.

[42:33] These are your possible actions.

[42:36] And these are your possible motions.

[42:40] All right.

[42:41] Exactly.

[42:42] That's it for sad.

[42:44] All right.

[42:45] Commissars any questions, comments, before we open public hearing

[42:48] on this appeal.

[42:52] All right, it's stated in our ordinance,

[42:54] anyone who wishes to speak and favor of granting this appeal

[42:58] of the board of appeals.

[42:59] Please come forward, state your name for the record.

[43:07] Good evening, commissioners.

[43:08] My name is Shannon Sherer and my husband and I own the 1924 Cottage at 732 Ocean Boulevard.

[43:17] First, I sincerely appreciate the time and attention.

[43:20] Excuse me.

[43:21] Could I get you to speak into the mic of the more?

[43:23] Is this better?

[43:24] Yeah.

[43:24] Okay.

[43:27] I sincerely appreciate the time and attention you have given this matter.

[43:30] When we began restoring this little cottage, we never imagined that we would end up standing here.

[43:37] What started as a renovation became a much more extensive restoration simply because of what was uncovered.

[43:45] But the simplest and most important fact remains that the walls and questions are in the same place that they had been since 1924.

[43:55] We didn't move them in inch, we did not expand the existing non-conforming footprint.

[44:02] We repaired and restored those walls in the same place where they have stood for more

[44:06] than a century.

[44:08] Our goal all along has simply been to save this little 1924 St. Simon's Beach Cottage.

[44:15] And throughout this process, our community has shown up for us in a way that we never expected.

[44:21] As of tonight, we have 545 people who have signed a petition supporting our efforts to

[44:28] save and restore this cottage.

[44:30] Many others have taken the time to write to you directly, and we are incredibly grateful.

[44:38] It is acceptable for you tonight.

[44:40] I would like to ask for those that are in support of this to please stand up, is that acceptable?

[44:56] So we just humbly ask for you to provide us a path.

[45:11] All right. Thank you.

[45:19] Anyone else who wish to speak in favor? Please come forward, state your name for the record. I think we've solved the show support. Anyone else to come forward and speak in favor?

[45:31] All right, we'll close that portion of the hearing any one who wishes to speak in opposition

[45:38] to ZV-26-15732, which will come forward in the state of your name for the record.

[45:48] Any one who wishes to speak against?

[45:51] All right.

[45:51] Seeing none hearing none, we'll close the public hearing and commissions we are back to.

[45:56] Chairman, I'd like to move to reverse the denial of case number ZV266.

[46:00] 2, 6, 4, 5 by the Board of Appeals.

[46:10] All right.

[46:10] Have a motion by Commissioner Duncan and a second.

[46:13] I think it was simultaneous from Commissioner Talks to Senate Clark in the other discussion.

[46:21] All in favor of reversing the decision by the Board of Appeals.

[46:26] As presented, please raise your right hand.

[46:29] That is unanimous.

[46:30] Thank you.

[46:39] All right.

[46:39] And that does conclude our regular schedule for this evening with the exception of our public speaker.

[46:46] I'm Ms. Diane Wolven, just coming forward, and you will have five minutes.

[46:55] Ms. Rosen, I am ready.

[46:56] You're going to need to pull the mic right to your mouth please.

[46:59] How's that?

[47:00] Okay.

[47:01] This is all I have to say.

[47:03] So this will be quick.

[47:04] I just want to give you a heads up about something.

[47:08] I live at 115 on Klave Lane in the neighborhood of Sea Palms of West.

[47:16] On the night of September 15th, the IPC will hear a request for rezoning of the property

[47:22] of five, four, four, five and five, four, four, seven, Fredericka Road on St. Simon's Island.

[47:28] It's owned by a company called Reath R-E-A-F, who owns the Sea Palms Resort.

[47:35] You probably are thinking, why is she bringing this up now?

[47:41] The reason I am preemptively addressing this is because I attended the meeting, the IPC

[47:47] meeting on July 23rd, and we all remember what happened that night.

[47:56] Now, that was in regard to the rezoning request for 104 General Ogil Thorpe Road.

[48:01] This new meeting for this new piece of property that is requesting a resound, I intend to attend that meeting and speak of that meeting as well.

[48:15] The company that owns Cpom's resort brief, their goal is to lease that property and have it developed into an extensive entertainment venue which would be adjacent to multiple neighborhoods.

[48:28] If the IPC votes to approve this application, it will be moved forward to you for your consideration.

[48:36] I want you to know that I support the new ordinances, which all worked very hard,

[48:44] and planning and zoning people work very hard for our new ordinances.

[48:49] And the ones for zoning and rezoning,

[48:54] but that's a good thing.

[48:55] It gives us a map to follow.

[49:05] Any house.

[49:06] So I want to thank you for all you do for the county

[49:09] because I know you have a hard job

[49:11] and should be sent up before you.

[49:15] I hope ordinances will be followed.

[49:18] Thank you.

[49:20] All right, thank you, Ms. Waller.

[49:22] All right.

[49:24] Mr. Attorney, any call for executive session.

[49:28] Gentlemen, with that, I am a tensioner motion.

[49:29] Mr. Chairman, motion to adjourn.

[49:31] Second.

[49:32] I have a motion by commissioner with falsky.

[49:35] A second by commissioner, sweat and toss to some.

[49:37] Any other discussion?

[49:39] All in favor, please raise your right hand.

[49:42] All right, we are adjourned.

[49:43] Thank you for coming.

Glynn County Board of Commissioners

Agenda

Transcript