Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Flood Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners table proposed floodplain ordinance amendments after island and service concerns
Summary
Chatham County commissioners voted to table amendments to Chapter 24, Article 1 (Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance) after commissioners representing islands and other members raised concerns about a provision barring critical facilities from special flood hazard areas and requested more review and stakeholder input.
The Chatham County Board of Commissioners on Aug. 8 voted to table proposed amendments to the county’s Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (Chapter 24, Article 1) after extended discussion about the effect of a provision that would bar “critical facilities” from being located in mapped special flood hazard areas.
Why it matters: The change would affect where hospitals, nursing homes, emergency operations centers, utilities, and other “critical facilities” can be sited or expanded in unincorporated Chatham County, where substantial portions — including many coastal islands — lie in FEMA-designated flood zones.
County Engineer (identified in the meeting as Miss Cooler) told the board staff had mainly reformatted the ordinance for consistency with other county ordinances, but that a substantive change under consideration was reinstating language prohibiting critical facilities from being located in special flood hazard areas (SFHAs) because the model state/FEMA ordinance includes that restriction. She said the intent was to apply consistent standards and protect county resources.
Several commissioners, particularly those representing island districts, expressed concern that the prohibition is impractical because sizable portions of their districts fall into SFHAs. Commissioner questions included how the rule would affect siting of fire stations, police stations and utilities and whether access roads could remain functional during storms. One commissioner noted the practical reality that “on the islands, you just don't have much choice” about locating facilities outside flood zones and suggested hardening structures instead of an absolute ban.
Staff and engineering noted alternatives: require critical facilities in SFHAs to be flood-proofed (construction standards, elevated equipment), require protective berms (an example cited was Elba Island’s berm) or allow site-specific flood-proofing standards. Staff also said reinstating the prohibition yields no Community Rating System (CRS) benefit but is driven by model ordinance guidance and the county’s interest in protecting its infrastructure and eligibility for certain FEMA reimbursements.
County Manager and several commissioners asked staff to circulate comments previously received from the Home Builders Association and to allow additional review time. The board voted to table the ordinance amendment to permit more stakeholder feedback and edits; Chairman Ellis asked engineering to reissue the proposed text and the public comments for review.
Ending: The motion to table passed on a recorded voice vote. Commissioners asked that island representatives deliver any additional suggested edits to the manager’s office for staff consideration prior to the next reading.
