Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the River Buffer Variance Buckingham Landing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies variance request for river-buffer adjustments at Buckingham Landing property
Summary
A request to relax river-buffer/revegetation requirements at a Buckingham Landing property was denied after code-enforcement history and staff testimony that revegetation is required; the board voted to deny the variance.
Beaufort County’s zoning board denied a variance request from a Buckingham Landing property owner to relax river-buffer and revegetation requirements. The request followed multiple code-enforcement actions and a criminal citation related to riprap and buffer disturbance.
Attorney Julie Franklin represented the applicant and said the owner’s family bought the property in 1977 and had made repairs to a revetment wall and other measures to preserve specimen live oaks. Franklin invoked Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) in arguing the family’s historical ownership and prior improvements support relief. She said the owner repaired, rather than created, a revetment wall and sought relief to avoid repeated permitting for routine backyard maintenance.
County staff and code enforcement presented a different account. Staff said the property had ongoing violations, including riprap placed in the buffer without permits, and that the county had calculated a required plant-back (revegetation) area and requested a planting plan that had not been submitted. "She has to replant that and take their grass out," staff said. Code enforcement described a criminal conviction in magistrate court related to the river-buffer violation and said the county asked for a plant-back plan.
Board members considered staff findings and the survey record. The county argued there was no demonstrated hardship that would justify special treatment: the buffer rules apply to all properties and staff said an alternative site layout could meet the required 20-foot buffer. A motion to deny the variance passed; the board recorded no votes in opposition to denial.
Staff told the hearing that revegetation and a native-plant plan remain outstanding; code enforcement said further enforcement could follow if the plant-back plan is not completed.
