Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lodging Bnb Udo topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends denying UDO change that would drop owner-occupancy requirement for bed-and-breakfasts
Summary
On Jan. 27 the Summerville Planning Commission recommended denial of a proposed amendment to remove the owner-occupancy requirement for bed-and-breakfasts, after extensive public comment citing state law, neighborhood impacts and enforcement concerns.
The Summerville Planning Commission on Jan. 27 recommended denial of a proposed amendment to the town Unified Development Ordinance that would remove the owner‑occupancy requirement for bed‑and‑breakfasts.
Residents and neighborhood groups told the commission the change would allow commercial operators and absentee ownership that could alter the character of historic residential areas, complicate enforcement and conflict with South Carolina statutes governing residential‑type lodging.
“Removal of the owner occupancy requirement takes out our neighbors and replaces them with paid staff,” said Debbie Tomchick, a resident who spoke during public comment. Multiple speakers cited state law while urging denial. Peter Gorman told the commission the amendment appeared to be “special interest legislation” advanced to accommodate one property owner and warned it would “lower the bar for business operating in a residential district.”
Speakers referenced provisions in state law that define a homestay bed and breakfast as a “residential type lodging facility” in which the innkeeper is also a resident proprietor. Bertie Crosby and others cited South Carolina Code provisions they said require the proprietor to be the owner and to reside at the property; several speakers pointed to South Carolina Title 33, Chapter 44 language about LLCs and to a separate bed‑and‑breakfast statute from 1998.
Planning staff also flagged enforcement challenges. The staff report noted concerns about verifying residency of an innkeeper or manager and said the language as drafted raised practical compliance questions. During discussion, commissioners suggested a broader study, including legal review of state statute interplay and community input, rather than a single‑item amendment.
Commissioners voted to recommend denial. The recommendation will be forwarded to town council for final action.
The record of public comment to the commission included residents who said they had used freedom‑of‑information requests to review internal emails and expressed concern that council members had discussed the proposed changes before formal study. Several speakers asked for a slower, more transparent process and for a citizen advisory review panel to draft any future changes to the lodging rules.
The commission’s recommendation to deny the UDO amendment does not itself change town code; the town council must consider the planning commission’s recommendation and take any final legislative action.
