►
From YouTube: Planning Commission Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 6:00 PM Theodore D. Washington Municipal Building,
Description
. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. NOTICE REGARDING ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission will not hear new items after 9:30 p.m. unless authorized by a majority
vote of the Commission Members present. Items which have not been heard before 9:30 p.m. may
be continued to the next regular meeting or a special meeting date as determined by the
Commission Members.
IV. NOTICE REGARDING PUBLIC COMMENTS*
Every member of the public who is recognized to speak shall address the Chairman and in
speaking, avoid disrespect to Commission, Staff, or other members of the Meeting. State your
name and address when speaking for the record. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3)
MINUTES.
V. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
VI. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
1. February 22, 2023 Minutes
VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA*
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
IX. NEW BUSINESS
1. Proposed Prioritization of Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program Projects: A request
by the Town of Bluffton for recommendation of approval to Town Council of the FY2024
Capital Improvement Program. (Staff - Kim Washok-Jones)
2. Unified Development Ordinance Amendments (Public Hearing): Amendments to the Town of
Bluffton’s Municipal Code of Ordinances, Chapter 23, Unified Development Ordinance,
Relating to Contributing Resources and Development Standards in Old Town Bluffton Historic
Town of Bluffton, SC Planning Commission Agenda March 22, 2023
District, including Article 3 – Application Process, Sec. 3.18, Certificate of Appropriateness-
Historic District; Sec. 3.19, Site Feature-Historic District Permit; and, Sec. 3.25, Designation of
Contributing Resources; Article 5 – Design Standards, Sec. 5.15, Old Town Bluffton Historic
District; and, Article 9 – Definitions and Interpretations, Sec. 9.2, Defined Terms and Sec. 9.3,
Interpretation of Dimensional Standards. (Staff - Charlotte Moore)
X. DISCUSSION
XI. ADJOURNMENT
B
A
A
C
C
C
A
E
Through
the
evening
and
good
to
see
you
all
again,
some
of
you
are
new.
It's
great
to
meet
you.
I
am
Kim
washok
Jones
I'm,
the
director
of
projects
and
Watershed
resilience
for
the
town
of
Bluffton
each
year.
I
come
before
you,
because
we
request
that
you
prioritize
and
recommend
to
council
for
their
consideration:
New
Capital
Improvement
program
projects
for
the
upcoming
fiscal
year,
so
that
they
can
be
allocated
appropriately
within
the
funding
cycle.
So
that's
what
I'm
here
to
request
of
you
this
evening,
her
legal
South,
Carolina
law.
E
During
the
background
of
all
of
this,
we
recognize
that
there's
a
number
of
ongoing
projects,
so
in
your
attachments,
you'll
notice
that
we
have
broken
out
attachment,
one
by
three
pages
that
either
the
the
first
page
spanning
multiple
years.
The
projects
that
will
be
completed
during
FY
23
or
substantially
completed
the
new
ones
that
are
proposed
and
have
been
previously
ranked
and
adopted
by
Council
for
prioritization.
And
then
we
have
some
new
ones
for
you
to
take
a
look
at
you'll.
F
E
See
page
three
goes
beyond
not
only
fiscal
year
2024,
but
into
future
fiscal
years
for
those
projects
that
you
make
that
designate
as
a
priority
too.
That
means
that
they
will
be
pushed
out
in
funding
for
fiscal
year.
So
that's
why
you're
getting
that
five-year
fiscal
overview,
and
we
just
went
through
all
of
this-
they
are
not
in
rank
order.
They
should
not
be
placed
in
rank
order.
It's
just
they're
all
a
priority
and
depending
upon
funding,
if
we
get
grants,
we'll
address
it
to
you
if
an
appropriate
Grant
comes
up
within
time
period.
E
E
What
we
have
are
the
ongoing
36
35
36
projects
that
we
have
draw
your
attention
to
number
33
and
number
34..
Previously,
all
other
projects
have
been
prioritized.
These
are
the
only
two
new
ones
that
we
are
bringing
forward
for
prioritization
for
your
consideration.
This
evening,
and
that
is
town
wide
wayfinding
signage,
this
is
one
that
has
been
out
there
coming
from
the
Strategic
plan
for
a
while
staff
is
proposing
to
make
that
a
number
two
priority,
and
also
the
new
Riverside
Village
Park.
E
We
are
proposing
that
to
be
a
number
one
priority.
This
is
the
project
that
actually
is
across
the
street
from
the
new
Riverside
Barn
project
and
it's
a
public-private
partnership.
One
of
the
agreements
is
that
the
town
will
construct
a
playground
out
there
by
the
end
of
December
2024.
That's
staff's
recommendation
that
it
is
a
number
one
priority
within
the
next
fiscal
year,
a.
E
This
is
a
different
playground.
This
is
another
playground.
This
is
on
the
parcel
across
the
street
from
the
new
Riverside
barn,
but
thank
you
I
appreciate
that
I
do
believe.
The
new
Riverside
Barn
project
is
going
to
be
a
really
cool
playground
too.
This
one
might
be
a
little
bit
more
traditional
than
the
one
we're
proposing
at
new
Riverside
Park,
as
we
indicated
early
on
again.
E
The
inset
map
is
the
number
of
improvements
in
the
historic
district,
but
we
do
have
them
all
throughout
our
town
and
so
number
34
would
be
that
new
playground
that
we're
proposing
note
that
not
all
projects
due
to
math
and
constraints
may
be
seen
on
this
map.
So
that
note
is
on
there,
but
I
just
want
to
point
that
out
or
something.
That's
hey,
that's
missing
from
this
other
list!
That's
why
we're
working
within
what
all
we
can
get
on
the
list
here.
E
Criteria
for
you
to
base
foundation
on,
however,
from
the
government
Finance
Association
recommendations
from
1996.
These
are
some
suggestions
for
what
you
should
take
into
your
consideration
of
prioritization
of
these
two
projects.
They
are
also
what
staff
is
used
in
our
recommendation
for
your
consideration.
E
E
Is
no
data
sheet
for
this
one
you'll
notice
that
the
number
two
priority
this
is
for
those
who
may
not
be
familiar
with
what
those
skids
are
in
the
in
the
historic
district
across
the
coast
there
used
to
be
pedestrian
foot
bridges,
that
spanned
one
side
to
the
other,
and
that's
so
you
didn't
have
to
go
all
the
way
up
and
around
clearly
there's
no
longer
exist.
There
had
been
some
recommendations
and
discussions
a
number
of
years
ago
for
the
town
to
go
ahead
and
investigate
reconstructing
those.
E
D
E
G
E
All
right
so
for
the
New,
River,
linear
Trail,
and
you
can
see
we
we're
currently
working
on
that.
That's
been
previously
prioritized
and
has
received
funding
that
that
is
essentially
a
Rails
to
Trails
program,
an
old
rail
bed
that
is
a
currently
unimproved
pedestrian
pathway,
linear
trail
that
leads
down
to
the
New
River.
What
we're
proposing
and
I
have
in
in
process
right
now
are
designs
of
a
rustic
bathroom
out
there,
as
well
as
eventually
some
Trailhead
parking
improvements,
so
that
folks
can
get
there
a
little
more
safely.
E
H
E
So
affordable
housing
is
an
initiative,
obviously
coming
out
of
the
Strategic
plan.
This
is
also
reflective
of
us
entering
into
the
public
private
partnership
for
the
piece
of
property
off
May
River
Road,
that
contract
is
still
being
negotiated
and
that
scope
is
still
being
laid
out
on
and
the
role
that
the
town
will
play
in
that
does
that
help
yeah
okay,.
H
E
G
A
F
Foreign
good
evening,
so
the
Amendments
we
have
before
you
tonight
relate
to
procedures
and
standards
for
Old,
Town,
Bluffton,
historic
district,
and
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
go
through
the
PowerPoint
look
at
the
highlights
of
the
things
that
we
think
that
you
should
be
aware
of
and
I'd
be
glad
to
go
through
the
text.
If
there's
anything
that
comes
up,
if
you
want
to
focus
in
on
that,
but
let
me
start
so.
Have
you
ever
seen
this
before.
F
Historic
preservation,
so
we
have
taken
it
before
them
just
to
get
comments
and
they
seem
to
be
fine
with
it.
So
there
are
a
couple
of
process
related
sections
of
the
ordinance
that
we
want
to
update,
include
certificate
of
appropriateness,
historic
district
and
the
designation
of
a
contributing
resource.
Basically,
those
are
the
historic
buildings
and
two
of
our
coves
within
Old
Town.
F
We
had
a
84
total
the
design
standards
within
Old,
Town,
Bluffton,
historic
district
there's,
some
formatting
we're
correcting
some
typos,
and
we
also
wanted
to
correct
the
front,
build
2
zone
for
a
couple
of
zoning
districts.
I'll
talk
about
that
and
then
we
want
to
correct
on
a
square
footage
discrepancy
between
our
sheds
and
our
Carriage
Houses.
So
there's
a
gap
right
now
in
the
ordinance
we'd
like
to
fix
that,
and
then
we
also
want
to
include
some
revisions
and
new
definitions.
F
So
the
first
process
item
that
we
want
to
correct
or
update,
would
be
the
certificate
of
appropriateness.
So
anytime,
there's
new
construction
within
Old
Town,
an
alteration
addition
to
a
building,
a
relocation
of
a
structure
or
demolition,
a
Kofa
would
be
required.
So
there
are
some
items
here
that
I
want
to
talk
about
what
we've
done.
We
are
making
distinctions
between
our
non-contributing
structures
and
our
contributing
structures
and
we're
also
preparing
guidelines
to
supplement
our
ordinance
so
anytime.
F
We're
also
including
a
provision
in
here
that
a
final
development
plan
for
a
non-residential
or
multi-family
would
have
to
be
approved
before
we
could
approve
the
Kofa,
and
that
prevents
this
from
kind
of
going
back
and
forth
that
there's
an
adjustment
to
the
plan
that
we
don't
have
to
adjust.
The
Kofa
and
I
think
that'll
be
a
time
saving
for
staff,
and
it
may
also
be
a
financial
saving
for
the
develop
for
the
property
owner
compliance
with
Article
5,
the
design
standards.
F
That
would
remain
we're
also
including
a
provision
here
that
there
be
a
compatible
visual
relationship.
So
it's
not
just
the
development
standards
and
the
design
standards
that
would
apply,
but
if,
for
example,
and
I'm
just
thinking
off
the
top
of
my
head,
if
we
had
a
street
where
all
of
the
buildings
were
set
20
feet
back,
someone
couldn't
automatically
just
plot
the
building
down
five
feet
from
the
right
away,
even
though
the
the
district,
the
standards
of
the
district,
might
allow
that.
F
So
this
gives
the
preservation
commission
a
little
bit
of
teeth
to
make
certain
that
we're
maintaining
the
traditional
development
pattern
of
Old
Town
and
that's
been
a
little
bit
problematic,
I
think
in
the
past
few
years,
and
then
we
are
keeping
the
compliance
with
the
application
manual,
so
that
would
apply
to
new
construction
and
alterations,
and
in
addition
to
that,
if
it's
a
contributing
structure,
then
the
criteria
six
through
nine
would
also
apply.
We
want
to
make
certain
that
our
architectural
features,
historic
features,
are
preserved.
F
We
want
to
be
able
to
have
the
ability
to
make
certain
that
the
relocation
is
done
very
close
by
to
the
original
site
it
may
not
be,
but
being
able
to
have
this
Criterion
in
there
would
be
helpful
and
that
also
the
placement
in
the
new
location
will
be
very
similar
to
its
original
location.
So
we
think
these
criteria
will
be
very
helpful
and
they
are
similar
to
what
you
might
find
in
other
communities.
F
Relocation
of
structures-
we've
had
a
few
of
these
recently,
not
a
few
couple
recently,
and
we
have
an
informal
process
right
now
for
relocation.
I
think
it's
created
a
little
bit
of
confusion
about
what
criteria
apply
and
how
do
we
go
about
this
and
we
think
adding
this
into
the
ordinance
would
be
very
helpful
to
relocate
a
building.
There
would
have
to
be
an
extraordinary
circumstance
and
it
could
be
anything
but
that
that
would
allow
the
preservation
commission
to
determine
whether
or
not
it's
appropriate,
ideally,
the
building.
F
You
know
we
want
to
see
that
building
relocated
on
the
same
site,
if
possible
or
very
close
by.
We
are
requiring
an
engineering
report
to
determine
if
the
building
is
safe
to
move.
Ideally,
it
should
be
moved
fully
intact
or
if
it
can't
be
impartially
intact
and
then
disassembled,
and
so
we
want
an
engineer
to
be
able
to
tell
us.
You
know
what
would
be
possible
for
that
relocation
site.
F
F
F
Again,
we
want
an
engineering
report
to
determine
whether
or
not
the
building
is
just
not
salvageable,
and
would
you
you
know,
do
anything
possible
to
try
to
preserve
it.
There
is
the
ability
to
have
180
days
stay,
and
that
would
allow
time
for
possibly
other
groups
to
maybe
assist
with
finding
a
new
location
or
maybe
purchasing
the
building.
So
there's
that
provision
it's
already
in
the
current
Udo
and
we
are
keeping
that
the
the
process.
F
Again,
we
can
place
conditions
on
it
to
try
to
stay
Salvage,
any
historic
components
that
might
be
possible,
and
so
we
think
beefing,
our
demolition
standards
up
a
little
bit
more
would
be
very
helpful.
We've
we've
had
some
difficulty
the
past
few
years
with
those
so
I
want
to
switch
over
to
accessory
structures
to
get
away
from
the
process.
F
I
did
mention
earlier
that
we
are
making
an
adjustment
to
the
contributing
resource
section
as
well
right
now
we
don't
have
the
ability
to
de-list
a
structure
from
being
a
contributing
resource,
we've
kind
of
done
that
informally.
So
we
want
to
have
a
process.
Basically,
it's
applying
the
same
standards
as
if
you
want
to
nominate
a
structure
to
be
contributing
we're
using
that
same
criteria
to
consider
de-listing.
F
So
we've
we've
had
a
couple
of
experiences
since
I've
been
here
where
people
have
wanted
to
do
that
and
we've
done
it
informally
and
that
would
be
Town
Council.
It's
gone
through
Town
Council
previously,
so
let
me
switch
over
to
accessory
structures.
As
I
mentioned,
we
have
a
little
Gap
in
our
square
footage
requirements,
so
Garden
structures
and
carriage
house
building
types
are
accessory
structures,
Garden
structures
right
now
are
small
accessory
buildings.
They
can
be
sheds,
they
can
be
walls
and
fences.
So
it's
anything
less
than
120
square
feet.
F
It
does
not
require
a
building
permit
and
it
goes
through.
The
site
feature
permit,
not
the
Kofa,
and
then
we
have
carriage
house
building
types
that
range
from
anywhere
from
200
square
feet
to
1200
square
feet.
So
to
make
an
adjustment
to
that
Gap.
We
are
suggesting
that
the
size
range
for
Carriage
Houses,
be
121
square
feet
minimum
and
then
everything
beneath
that
would
become
a
shed,
not
a
garden
structure
and
I
think
that
nomenclature
has
been
a
little
bit
confusing
the
garden
structure.
The
new
definition
for
that
would
be
anything
that's
unenclosed.
F
F
F
The
shed
120
square
feet
or
less
are
the
small
and
medium
utility
sheds
that
you
see
there
and
then
the
larger
shed
would
fall
under
the
carriage
house
building
type
and
just
to
give
you
a
little
picture
there
on
the
left
and
the
accessory
dwelling
unit
would
be
a
carriage
house
building
and
then
the
shed
would
be
shed.
So
just
to
give
you
a
sense
of
what
I'm
talking
about
other
changes
that
we
are
proposing,
that
my
title
is
incorrect.
There
I
apologize
for
that.
F
Moment
the
carriage
house
building
type
and
and
for
all
of
our
design
districts
within
Old
Town.
We
want
to
change
the
text
and
the
Carriage
House
portion
of
it
to
make
a
reference
to
the
carriage
house
building
type,
that's
farther
back
in
the
udl,
and
then
we
want
to
make
changes
to
the
size
range
again
121
square
feet.
We
are
changing
nodes
to
the
word
characteristics
and
then
changing
some
other
related
things
here,
for
example,
it
states
it's
very
small
here
that
Carriage
Houses
have
to
be
placed
behind
a
primary
structure.
F
F
F
Presented
make
amendments
to
what's
shown
or
denied,
and
then
the
next
steps
to
this
would
be
going
to
Town,
Council
and
I.
Believe
we
made
an
adjustment
this
afternoon
that
this
will
go
to
Town
Council
in
June
for
our
first
reading.
I
think
it's
still
a
little
bit
up
in
the
air
right
now,
but
it's
May
or
June
that'll
have
its
first
reading
and
with
that
here
is
the
proposed
motion
glad
to
take
any
questions.
D
Clarifications
so
many
questions
now,
I
just
had
one
question,
actually
just
a
quick
question:
you
do
admin.
Is
it
still
Heather?
It
is
okay
and
I
know
we're
focusing
in
on
historic
district
in
the
salon,
but
please
please
please,
as
soon
as
we
can
address
the
issue
in
the
Udo
that
created
that
apartment
building
on
Buck
Island.
Can
you
get
something
in
front
of
us
next.
I
I
I
Tumble
of
jumble
of
thoughts
that
then
spill
out
of
that.
If
what,
if
the
tree
had
been
up
front,
but
there
was
one
back
behind
it
like
pushing
and
pulling
at
that
setback
being
having
some
flexibility
in
that,
so
that
we
can
protect
trees
would
be
something
that
I
would
be
interested
to
fold
that
language
into
our
setbacks.
It
pertains
to
Old
Town
because
we
do
have
a
lot
of
trees
and
maybe
that's
in
there,
and
you
can
speak
to
that
and
then
maybe
a
non-issue
so.
A
I
C
F
That
would
it
would
have
to
go
through
sorry,
I'm
thinking
off
the
top
of
my
head,
the
criteria
that
we
apply
for
a
contributing
resource.
In
that
case,
it
probably
would
not
be
categorized
contributing,
usually
it's
Associated
a
tree
would
might
be
associated
with
an
event
like
the
secession
Oak
sure
I
mean,
in
that
case
yeah
that
I
think
that
would
qualify
to
be
contributing,
but.
I
With
the
setback,
changes
that
are
being
recommended
in
here,
is
there
an
option
for
the
Udo
administrator
to
waive
specific
setback
requirements
to
allow
for
variations
so
like,
for
instance,
like
the
May
River
Montessori,
which
had
the
trees
behind
which
I
do
value
and
appreciate
that
they
worked
around
those
if
they
had
been
pushed,
but
they
had
to
push
that
building
further
back.
They
might
have
compromised
those
trees
and
they
weren't
required
to
keep
them.
They
could
have
just
taken
them
out
and
mitigated
for
them.
I
J
Duncan
I
do
think
that
we
have
the
you
can
prom
you
can
craft
language
in
the
Udo
to
protect,
to
protect
this
in
order
to
protect
specimentaries
in
the
event
that
specimen
tree
creates
an
additional
setback.
I
know
in
the
past
having
attended
some
bza
meetings
that
that's
one
of
the
reasons
that
you'll
hear
staff
recommend
that
a
variance
be
requested
there's
a
specimen
tree
that
is
creating
a
setback
issue,
so
you
could
yeah.
So
you
can
relocate
that
structure
and
reconfigure
it.
J
Obviously,
if
it's
a
situation
that
continues
to
present
itself
with
these
specimen
trees,
which
is
sounds
like
may
be
the
case
rather
than
requiring
applicants
go
through
even
more
costly
process
and
time
consuming
process
of
areas.
It
may
be
something
that
staff
should
consider
looking
into
so
I've
taken
some
notes
and
I'll
be
sure
to
relay
those
I'm
sure,
Charlotte
and
Carrie
will
as
well
that.
I
I
I
know
I'm
working
on
it,
but
I
wondered
if
we
had
some
nuisance
language
that
we
could
reference
because
I
think
potentially
things
being
used
as
a
workshop.
Potentially
this
could
be
wood
shop.
This
could
you
know
you're
listening
to
somebody
saw
at
two
o'clock
in
the
morning
because
they
decided
to
go
build
whatever,
which.
I
I
I
mean
I
had
a
neighbor
that
was
running
a
small
business
out
of
his
garage,
repairing
motorcycles,
which
meant
I,
listened
to
motorcycles
all
day
long,
and
then
he
would
come,
have
a
big
semi
and
load
them
up
and
take
them
out.
This
was
a
nuisance
to
me
not,
but
it
was
gone
found.
Something
I
could
do
something
about
in
my
neighborhood,
but
it's
perfectly
allowed,
but
it's
still
a
nuisance.
Maybe.
J
B
J
Provide
some
sort
of
clarity
and
some
defining
defining
lines
there.
Obviously,
though,
there's
a
problem,
private
nuisance,
public
nuisance,
there's
all
sorts
of
different
different
issues
at
play
here,
whether
it's
a
dispute
between
two
neighbors
that
the
town
doesn't
want
to
get
involved
in
versus
whether
this
is
a
an
issue
when
you're
having
the
flexibility
in
our
form-based
code
and
the
flexibility
in
the
Udo
being
used
to
circumvent
the
true
intent
of
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish
here.
J
J
There
are
obviously
I
mean
it.
It
pencil
zoning
zoning
District,
but
for
the
vast
majority
of
the
vast
majority
of
the
Town
London
is
within
eud
and
the
meds
have
their
own
set
of
covenants.
Certain
rules,
the
government
as
for
the
Udo,
which
is
largely
limited
to
the
historic
districts
and
the
historic
district,
had
Beyond.
J
I
I
Restaurant,
which
you
can
and
cannot
do
and
that
that
that
really
does
fully
address
it
like
you,
can't
have
it
conditioned
or
you
can't
have
it
conditioned
or
if
the
outdoor
shower
like.
What's
what
does
enclosed
mean
like?
Does
that
mean
as
long
as
I've
got
if
I
have
a
fence
structure,
but
there's
no
insulation
but
I've
got
a.
H
I
Over
it,
where
where's
the
line
get
drawn
about,
what
I
can
and
cannot
do
when
it
pertains
to
those
kinds
of
uses,
because
I
can
make
it
a
square
certain
square
footage,
and
if
it's
you
know,
I
can
make
a
small
outdoor,
restroom
and
I
can
insulate
it.
But
then
it's
still
it's
not
it's
more
than
a
garden
structure
and
it
still
might
not
meet
your
shed.
Even
your
shed
requirements
it
could.
A
A
H
Mean
well,
are
we
saying
that
the
garden
a
garden
structure
is
if
there
are
not
actual
walls
enclosing
it,
but
it
can
have
a
roof.
So
then
a
pavilion,
it
would
be
a
garden
structure,
but
a
shed
is
something
that
has
actual
walls
going
up
to
the
roof
and
not
a
fence.
A
fence
in
a
gazebo
would
still
be
a
garden
structure.
If
you
fetished
an
outdoor
shower,
that's
open
air,
but
do
you
know
what
I
mean
do
we
need.
I
J
These
two
definitions,
they're
going
to
classified
success,
restructure
and
one
is
closed.
One
is
not
and
they're
for
the
shed
it's
limited
to
120
square
feet
per
a
lot.
So
just
again,
it's
difficult
to
do
my
hypothetical
play,
commissioner
Duncan,
with
the
presuming
in
the
closed
Western
facility
or
enclosed
Channel
facility.
It
might
be
one
of
your
three
sheds
because
it
is
an
enclosed
accessory
structure.
It
is
the
Gazebo
which
again
sheds
one
story.
J
I
Right
but
I
could
I
mean
I
can
go
out
and
design
an
outdoor
restroom,
that's
surrounded
by
a
fence
that
doesn't
have
walls
but
does
have
a
roof
call
it
a
pavilion
with
a
fence
and
detach
it
from
the
building,
make
it
10
or
9
by
12
and
I,
even
10
by
12
and
I
have
checked
all
those
boxes
and
it's
an
outdoor.
Now
it's
a
garden
structure
so
like,
and
maybe
that's
fine,
maybe
we're.
Okay
with
that
I'm.
F
A
H
I
think
it's
a
fair
point
on
the
roof,
though
like
do
we
really
want
someone
to
be
able
to
have
like
a
carport
and
a
pavilion
and
I
mean
like
do
we
want
people
to
have
25
root
structures
on
their
lot?
Do
we
not
care
I?
Don't
it
just
it's
a
question
if
they're
really
still
allowed
to
do
that,
so
yeah.
C
H
C
G
J
D
Garden
structure,
a
garden
structure
should
could
be
an
offense.
It
could
be
an
outdoor
kitchen,
it
could
be.
You
could
have
20
of
those
in
your
yard
and
it
looked
perfectly
fine.
It's
the
it's
the
number.
What
I'm
hearing
if
I'm
saying
it
wrong!
Please
tell
me
what
I'm
hearing
is
wanting
to
limit
the
number
of
roofs
to
no
more
than
three
as.
H
H
I
Should
be
going
through
because
the
vertical
it
is
a
vertical
Improvement,
that's
more
substantial
than
a
roof
or
a
patio
or
a
deck,
or
you
know
other
kind
of
outdoor.
You
know
an
outdoor
kitchen
isn't
necessarily
bad
when
you
go
putting
a
roof
on
it.
Your
neighbor
sees
that
and
it
may
you
know
it's
got
architectural
character.
D
F
A
H
F
A
B
H
I
think
you
can
solve
the
issues
between
the
square
footage
discrepancy
that
we
have
right
now.
That's
your
shed
versus
the
carriage
house,
but
I
think
you
can,
in
that
same
language,
address
having
an
unlimited
number
of
actual
structures
just
because
they're
small.
So
if
it
has
a
roof
on
it,
then
it's
in
the
shed
category,
regardless
of
if
it's
being
used
as
a
shed
or
a
gazebo
or.
J
What
we're
looking
at
is,
it
sounds
like
the
definition
of
is
fine,
because
it
doesn't
deal
with
enclosed
roofed.
Anything
like
that.
It's
the
most
definition
for
garden
structure,
which
is
any
unenclosed
accessory
structure,
because
that
gives
too
much
flexibility
for
creating
these
roof
structures
that
aren't
fully
enclosed.
So
it
would
change
to
any
unenclosed
unroofed
accessory
structure
and.
D
C
H
C
J
So
if
you
go
Charlotte,
if
you
go
up
a
little
bit
to
the
proposed
new
definition,
accessory
structure,
so
accessory
structures
having
fun,
structure
and
structure
is
basically
defined
as
anything
that's
fixed.
It's
a
lot,
a
structure,
that's
clearly
incidental
and
compatible
with
the
principal
building
or
use
located,
including
Carriage,
Houses,
sheds
and
garden
structures,
because
we
have
those
you
know
we
have
the
square
foot.
J
D
D
G
I
I
B
J
J
D
One
word
Kleenex:
what
do
you
think
facial
tissue?
Okay,
when
I
say
shed
you
think
of
a
structure
with
four
walls,
That's
Mike
and
seriously
I'm
thinking
of
it
from
a
practical
sense?
How
do
we
make
it
easier
on
whoever's
dealing
with
this
when
somebody
moves
here
and
decides
that
no
gazebo
is
not
a
you
know
or.
J
And
we're
fine
to
having
whatever
kind
of
Divisions
y'all
would
like
and
I
hope
you
don't
I
hope
you
all
don't
mind
me
just
trying
to
think
through
this
Open
Session
yeah
he'll
treat
me
well.
Everybody
knows
so
now
now,
but
so
in
in
one
way,
because
Garnet
structures
are
Unlimited
in
numbers
and
number
that
you
can
put
on
your
property
under
the
current
iteration
of
the
UDF
and
under
this
proposed
one
it
is
the.
J
A
G
F
J
J
I
I
do
think
that,
as
commissioner
Duncan
kind
of
touched
on
adding
that
roofed
component,
along
with
not
enclosed
to
the
garden
structure,
May
take
care
of
that,
so
that
if
it
has
a
roof
shed,
if
it's
and
then
we
just
have
to
deal
with
gazebo
image
made
as
I
think
it
was.
Commissioner
Paul
pointed
out
final.
We
just
make
a
new
thing
for
gazebos.
J
I
So
you
never
have
to
come
like
do
storm
water
calculations,
so
you
can
keep
filling
up
or
you
just
do
it
without
any.
You
know
you
don't
ask
permission
kind
of
thing.
You
know
it's
just
I
start
getting
really
frightened
by
the
concept
of
the
ways
that
that
can
get
abused
and
then,
like,
like
you,
were
mentioning
the
commercial
commercials
such
a
different
animal
than
residential,
and
we
treat
them
the
same
in
this
and
I'm
having
a
hard
time
with
that
as
well
again.
I
I
understand
them
are
other
guidelines
that
pertain
but
I'm
having
a
hard
time,
understanding
how
those
fold
together
and
how
that
is
implemented
on
different
Lots
throughout,
like
I
almost
want
to
like
do
case
like
I,
want
to
do
like
little
case
studies
of
what
does
it
look
like
here
and
what
does
it
look
like
there?
What
can
you
do
low
capacity
studies?
That's
what
I
want
to
do,
which
I
don't
know
if
that
makes
sense,
but
in.
I
I
A
I
I
H
I
D
I
C
I
C
I
F
Do
want
to
bring
up
one
thing,
I
mentioned
before
and
I
think
it's
important.
Let
me
do
this
quickly.
I
thought
I
had
a
slide
for
it,
and
I
I
may
not
have
saved
it,
but
I
mentioned
the
front.
Bill
shoe
line
is
being
adjusted
in
two
districts,
so
in
the
neighborhood
core
in
the
neighborhood
center,
we
are
recommending
that
we
add
an
additional
five
feet
to
the
minimum
setback.
F
So
if
it
is
five
feet
now,
we
are
proposing
that
the
minimum
be
10
feet
and
this
will
allow
for
the
Landscaping
to
be
placed
in
front
of
the
building.
There's
an
eight
foot
requirement
right
now,
and
so
there's
discrepancy
between
the
current
setback
and
then
that
requirement,
which
will
allow
that
and
I
think
these
setbacks
or
front
build
shoes
are
also
more
appropriate
to
the
traditional
development
pattern.
F
The
promenade's
a
little
bit
different
because
we're
governed
by
their
own
standards.
So
they
will
not
be
affected
by
that
any
future
buildings
in
that
area,
but
for
areas
such
as
along
Calhoun
Street,
these
setbacks
would
be
required
if
they're
approved
so
five
feet
is
not
substantial.
I
think
they're
more
appropriate
for
the
development
pattern
that
we
have.
G
G
D
I,
have
a
I
have
a
little
challenge
with
this
and
I'll
I'm
deferred
a
commission
and
the
staff
on
it,
but
part
of
what
we
did
way
back
in
the
day
was
to
try
and
make
it
so
that
somebody
could
build
on
Catlin
Street
up
to
the
road
like
the
store
was
and
like
what
what's
now
with
pearl.
Is
it
got
built
under
those
guidelines?
And
if
we
do
this,
we're
not
going
to
have
any
more
of
that
up.
Close
the
old
town.
A
C
B
H
Do
have
a
question
too,
when
we
are
I'm
just
always
kind
of
been
curious
about
how
we
got
here
with
the
setbacks,
but
it
seems,
like
all
of
our
setbacks
are
based
on
lot
width
with
no
regard
for
lot
depth
and
so
I'm
only
worried
on
some
of
the
Lots.
We've
allowed
the
subdivisions
to
be
as
small
as
50
feet
wide,
but
I,
don't
I
haven't
seen
my
wrong
if
there's
a
depth,
that's
required
when
we're
doing
subdivision.
H
A
Yeah
but
thinking
about
like
earlier,
we
were
talking
about
the
trees.
I
mean
it's
a
good
point.
Should
there
be
languages
at
staff
level
versus
a
variance
because
then
you're
in
a
hardship
like
that's
a
lot
of
time
and
money
for
somebody,
because
they
can't
build
on
their
lot
now
right,
basically,.
H
I
C
A
H
Existing
ones
and
I'm,
aware
of
lots
that
have
been
recently
subdivided
to
that
are
going
to
have
an
the
setbacks,
are
an
issue
because
they
don't
take
into
account
the
depth
and
even
though
they're
a
large
square
footage
of
lot,
and
they
are
wide
when
you
have
a
40-foot
rear
setback
on
some
of
them
and
whatever
and
they're
just
they
get
very,
very
narrow
and
so
I.
Just
this
can
end
up
being
Case
by
case
is
fine
with
me.
C
J
F
Fairly
small,
so
I
haven't
gone
through
all
of
them
to
determine.
You
know
how
this
might
play
out
and
again
it's
a
case-by-case
basis,
it's
possible
to
pursue
a
variance.
If
there's
a
true
hardship,
then
the
variance
may
be
available
to
the
property
owner.
So
the
areas
that
we're
talking
about
the
two
districts
or
the
neighborhood
core
here,
roughly
the
the
Promenade
area
and
then
South
down,
Calhoun,
Street
and
and
basically
the
Center
The
Heart
of
Old
Town
Bluffton
and
then
a
little
further
along
May
River
Road.
A
But
they're
being
language
in
there,
I
don't
know
legally
speaking,
because
it's
zoning
for
the
variance
stuff
like
with
the
tree
situation,
if
it
was
staff,
so
that
people
don't
have
to
go
through
zoning
board
of
appeals
just
because
of
the
hardship
that
the
town
has
put
on
them.
So
why
would
it
be
fair
for
them
to
I'm
just
playing
double
second?
Why
would
it
be
fair
for
them
to
have
to
pay
to
go
through
a
whole
variance
process,
just
because
the
town
changed.
J
If
it's
something
that
staff
is
interested
in
and
it's
certainly
something
that
we
we
could
look
into
driving
the
imperative
language.
The
issue
with
the
specimen
tree
may
be
a
little
bit
easier
because
it's
it's
a
clearly
defined,
triggering
event
that
can
occur
under
that.
Can
give
you
the
ability
to
give
the
idea
of
administrative,
the
ability
to
movement
versus
trying
to
create
a
defined
lot
type
that
may
trigger
it.
For.
A
J
A
H
J
H
One
more
question
I
have
on
that
too,
though,
is
is
there
in
and
if
somebody
has
a
larger
lot
that
they
want
to
subdivide.
Is
there
anything
in
there
that
allows
us
to
review
that,
because
the
only
thing
I've
seen
so
many
Lots
get
subdivided
based
on?
They
have
to
be
50
feet
wide,
but
knowing
that
we're
changing
some
of
these
front
setbacks
is
somebody
going
to
be
specifically
looking
at
the
buildable
area?
That's
left
to
see
if
it's
reasonable,
when
we're
approving
lot
subdivisions.
H
I
I
Mean
I
think
what
we've
learned
from
the
past
years
of
development
since
the
initiation
of
the
ordinance
I'm,
not
sure
that
that
fully
was
representative
of
where
we
wanted
to
be
that's.
Why
we're
pushing
this
back
five
feet
anyway,
like
I
I,
don't
see
why
we
need
to
force
them
to
be
up
on
the
street.
There's
plenty
of
activity
on
the
street
I'm
not
like
I'm,
just
not
even
worried,
I'm.
G
I
I
I
A
J
We
looked
into
something
is
similar
to
what
a
Hilton
Head
has
with
their
elements,
where
they
allow
some
flexibility
at
the
LMO
administrator
level,
LMO
official
to
provide
a
50
reduction
or
a
50
change
in
the
setback
requirements
or
deviation
from
what
the
setbacks
are.
Perhaps,
with
a
you
know,
appropriate
things
being
shown
to
avoid
going
through
the
bza
that
could.
If
we
can
figure
that
that
out,
you
could
potentially
get
a
little
bit
more
flexibility,
which
is
kind
of
in
line
with
what
you're
all
looking
about.
J
H
H
H
F
H
H
J
A
H
H
J
C
H
G
D
Okay,
because
the
initial
80
structures
we
deemed
it
was
more
important
to
the
town
in
the
history
as
a
whole
to
have
those
stay
because
we
were,
we
were
losing
them.
We
had
people
that
were
neglecting
them
and
they
were
getting
lost.
So
we
came
up
with
that
initial
list
of
82
or
83
structures,
and
you
know
some
of
the
property
owners
weren't
happy
most
were
like
okay,
I
already
knew
it
was.
J
And
I
think
that's
the
point
is
that
their
needs
and
that's
why
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
I
tried
to
address
this
question
was
that
ability
of
the
town
to
be
able
to
designate
a
resource?
That's
contributing
over
the
objection
of
the
property
owner
is
what
is
being
created
by
the
revisions
25.2.
Now
whether
Council
changes
the
application,
the
application
has
changed
to
actually
remove
that
signature
section.
D
G
J
It's
all
it's
been,
it's
been
treated
that
way.
It's
it's
been
on
the
application
of
property
owner
EU,
administrator
or
Town
Council
to
move
forward.
These
applications
I'm
not
familiar
with
how
many
properties,
if
any,
have
gone
through
the
contributing
resource
designation
with
or
upon
application
of
the
property
owner.
The
majority
of
them,
as
commissioner
went
out.
We're
done
through
the
you
know,
this
process
325,
but
at
the
request,
Town
Council,
is
part
of
the
the
survey
that
was
done
of
the
properties
in
the
historic
district.
So
it's
not
it's.
H
F
H
B
D
J
C
D
D
D
D
J
I
B
I
C
I
Structure
contributing
resource-
all
you
need
to
disrepair
was
not
a
reason
actually
to
delist,
because
it's
not
based
off
of
its
the
criteria,
isn't
based
off
of
its
current
condition.
It's
based
off
of
its
historical
reference
to
events
or
persons,
distinctive
character,
quality
types,
so
it's
diminishing
condition,
wouldn't
necessarily
give
it
the
means
to
delist.
It
is
the
way
I'm
that
I'm
reading
that.
So
that
is
why
I'm
that's
what
I'm
asking
about.
A
A
So
therefore
they're
not
doing
it
because
they
can't
afford
to
do
it.
It's
just
too
much
effort.
So
I
think
this
is
trying
to
give
them
a
way
of
being
able
to
assess
the
structures
to
make
sure
like
yeah
it
could
be,
but
this
one
may
not
because
structurally
or
the
materials
are
rotten
like
there
are
a
lot
of
them
that
are
rotten
and
you
cannot
do
anything
with
them,
but
we
still,
you
know
we
have
these
owners
that
are
just
caught
in
a
situation
where
they.
What
do
they
do?
I
I
I
The
way
when
we
back
when
we
were
looking
at
the
contributing
resources,
I
was
saying
the
same
thing
is:
there's
people
that
are
going
to
have.
They
don't
have
the
means
and
resources
to
bring
these
up
to
speed
status
responses.
Time
is
basically
well.
We
can
have
them
Point
them
in
the
right
direction
and
I'm
like,
but.
B
I
I
I
The
condition
of
the
building
the
resource
embodies
the
distinctive
characters.
This
is
the
only
one.
That's
close
enough
and
I
still
think
it's
arguable.
The
resource
embodies
the
distinctive
characteristics
of
a
type
period
or
method
of
construction,
or
represents
the
work
of
a
master
or
possesses
High
autistic
values,
or
represents
a
significant
and
distinguishable
entity
whose
components
lack
individual
distinction
or.
I
Supportive
of
it
just
because
it
falls
into
a
diminished
condition,
because
it
still
may
have
architectural
importance
in
terms
of
how
it
was
designed
it's
just
rotting,
but
if
you
could
bring
it
up
to
speed,
then
you
know
in
terms
of
reconstruct
it
in
the
same
way
it
was
before
within
you
know,
new
piece
of
wood.
You
know
what
I
mean
like
I'm,
just
not
sure
that
it's
no
longer
meeting
that.
H
C
I
I
J
J
H
J
So
the
concern
with
that
length
was
there
was
maybe
a
little
bit
of
language
that
we
were
concerned
about
right
there.
It
made
made
any
decision
of
the
HPC
the
approval
be
mandatory
from
the
HBC
rather
than
advice,
and
so
we
wanted
to
clarify
that
much
like
with
y'all
with
the
video
amendments
you're
making
recommendations,
but.
H
J
They're
saying
their
their
role
is
staying
the
exact
same.
The
concern
was
the
the
way
that
that's
worded,
that
it
Association
may
be
considered
for
contributing
resource
designation
Council
upon
a
recommendation
of
historic
preservation.
Commission
makes
it
sound
like
it's
a
condition
prior
to
being
considered,
so
it
would
have
to
be
a
positive
recommendation
of
HP
C
for
Town
Council
to
consider
it,
and
so
what
we
wanted
to
do
was
keep
the
process
the
exact
same,
but
leave
out
that
language
which
would
seemingly
take
that
power
outage
accounts.
So
the
council.
D
C
H
H
I
guess
the
way
I've
always
interpreted
this,
and
please
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
was
that,
while
you
could
do
commercial
or
mixed
juice
or
residential
projects
in
this
District
that
anything
that
was
not
fronting,
46
in
Brewing
has
to
meet
the
36
inch
Foundation
requirement
it
would
have
to
meet.
Basically,
it
has
to
look
exactly
like
a
house
versus
if
it's
on
those
frontages,
it
still
has
to
be
residential
in
character.
However,
it
can
be
at
grade
and
it
can
be
have
storefront
windows.
H
F
H
F
So
and
I'm
sorry
I'm,
trying
to
think
back
here
in
in
one
there's
mention
here
primarily
residential
in
nature,
doesn't
mean
that
it's
residential
in
use,
but
it's
residential
in
form,
and
so
there
was
a
little
confusion
when
I
read
that
thinking
it
had
to
have
a
residential
component
in
terms
of
use.
Okay,
so
changing
the
word.
H
A
A
H
F
H
D
C
B
I
D
D
I
The
reason
I
part
of
the
reason
I
asked,
that
is,
if
the
criteria,
unless
we've
changed
the
verbiage,
of
the
criteria
that
3.25.3
point
a
if
that
criteria
has
changed
since
the
insemination
and
I
Know
It
lapsed,
and
we
brought
this
back
and
I
think
we
brought
back
with
almost
The
Identical
language
of
what
we
had
originally.
If
that
was
not
a
reason
for
why
something
was
or
was
not
listed
as
a
contributing
resource,
I,
don't
think
it
can
be
used
as
a
reason
why
we're
able
to
de-list
it.
C
I
D
I
A
A
historic
preservationist:
that's
doing
all
this,
that's
his
job!
Yes,
so
he's
in
charge
of
making
sure
each
property.
If
someone
comes
in
with
something
to
validate,
and
so
we
didn't,
we've
never
had
that
yeah
yeah
like
truly,
and
so
we
need
to
catch
ourselves
back
up
in
the
language
of
today,
yeah
I.
A
Goal
and
there's
also
just
as
a
side
on
that
too,
is
you
know
with
their
new
grant
program.
There
are
a
lot
of
restrictions
and
regulations,
and
that
kind
of
helps
it
kind
of
is
in
the
same
realm
as
this,
so
that
Property
Owners
can't
just
do
anything
they
have
to
have
the
the
preservationist
involved.
C
A
I
A
F
We
did
contact
every
property
owner,
let
them
know
be
aware
of
that,
because
they
had
contributing
status
for
their
property,
that
that
there
were
grants
and
other
incentives
available,
and
so
we
had
made
an
effort
to
reach
out
to
let
them
know
and
people
have
been
in
contact
with
Glenn
about
that.
Okay,
okay,.
A
A
D
J
C
H
A
D
J
J
To
recommend
tell
Council,
adopt
I'm
new
to
approve
or
I'd
be
a
motion
to
recommend
approval
with
the
following
amendments
of
the
provision
in
this
attemptible
at
the
CATE
Awards
chapter
23
union
account
staff,
but
the
amendment
the
proposing
amendments
being
as
follows.
In
regards
to
the
Chimney
Cap
to
ensure
that
the
language
states
that
it
will
be
concealed
from
the
road
that
spark.
I
J
J
J
J
You
can
go
ahead
and
get
that
in
the
process
to
get
approved,
have
the
Udo
amended
and
have
those
new
setbacks
Incorporated
at
the
same
time,
rather
than
holding
up
those
amendments,
including
setbacks
from
being
processed,
what
you
can
do
is
tell
staff
that
you
want
to
see
because
y'all
as
a
Planning
Commission
have
the
ability
to
do
this
so
staff.
We
would
like
to
see
proposed
revision,
Studio
Udo,
to
provide
Udo
administrator
flexibility,
and
as
it
really
just,
we
can
do
that
as
two
separate
motions.
So
one
motion
to
approve
with
prove.