Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic District Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves preliminary plan for 32 Bruin Road after access and tree‑canopy questions
Summary
The Planning Commission approved a preliminary development plan creating two commercial lots at 32 Bruin Road; discussion centered on a privately owned side road (Barnacle Cut) and whether an access easement should be shown on the plan.
The Bluffton Planning Commission approved a preliminary development plan for 32 Bruin Road, a 1.22‑acre site in the Old Town Historic District that would subdivide the property into two commercial lots and preserve the existing office building.
The applicant, representing ABPAL LLC, proposed Lot 1 to retain the existing office building and a carriage‑house accessory structure (up to 1,200 square feet) and Lot 2 to accommodate a proposed two‑story, roughly 3,000‑square‑foot office/retail shell with an accessory carriage house behind it. The submission demonstrated 45 parking spaces where 29 are required and met a 75% tree canopy requirement, with staff noting the applicant submitted revised materials following Development Review Committee comments.
Public comment and commission discussion focused on Barnacle Cut Lane, a narrow private side road used historically for neighborhood access and shown on master plans. Neighbors and the applicant said Tabby Rhodes (a neighboring master‑planned community) had requested the developer provide an exhibit to close or otherwise manage the Barnacle Cut connection; the applicant said it had provided an exhibit to Tabby Rhodes and would support collaborative submittals but that the road‑closure or master‑plan amendment process would need to be pursued separately by Tabby Rhodes. The developer also offered to show canopy trees on surveys when the application relies on trees on adjacent properties to meet canopy requirements.
Town staff and the commission discussed whether the preliminary plan should show an access easement to preserve interconnectivity. The town attorney and planning staff indicated that if the road connection were effectively removed without recorded easements or rights of way, it could be inconsistent with previously approved master‑plan connectivity and that a condition requiring an access easement to be shown to the property line could be imposed.
A motion to approve the preliminary development plan application carried 4–1. The commission approved the plan as submitted; staff will follow up on suggested documentation such as showing offsite trees on surveys when used for canopy calculations and clarifying whether existing access easements of record exist.
