Summerville council gives first reading to changes for bed-and-breakfast rules after heated public comments

The Summerville Town Council gave first reading to proposed amendments to the town’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) that would change rules for homestay bed-and-breakfast operations, after more than an hour of public comment and council debate.

Councilwoman Tiffany Johnson Wilson moved to give first reading to amendments that would allow a professional innkeeper to be hired and permit up to seven guest rooms in a bed-and-breakfast; the motion passed on first reading with one councilmember recorded in opposition. Council members directed town staff to refine the B&B language and return with revisions ahead of second reading.

The vote followed an extended public-comment period in which B&B owners and long-time residents presented sharply different views. Chelsea Bozek, a local resident at 102 Hughes Street and owner of one of Summerville’s early conditional-use licensed short-term rentals, told council: "The UDO was put in place to ensure that Summerville grows responsibly, fairly, and with the input from its residents. It should not be bent to suit special interests." Bozek said she was concerned that proposed changes would reward property owners who had operated without permits and would undermine fair enforcement.

Owners and operators countered that downtown B&Bs are struggling. Justin Duncan, who identified himself as the operator of Magnolia Inn at 115 South Magnolia Street, said thousands of stays at local inns support downtown businesses and generate tax revenue: "These stays have contributed to countless amounts of revenue for our downtown businesses." He and other B&B supporters said rising insurance and taxes, alleged harassment from neighbors and regulatory uncertainty have driven several B&Bs onto the market.

Long-time residents urged caution and strict compliance with state law. Bertie Crosby and Peter Gorman both referenced state statutes and the South Carolina Bed and Breakfast Act; Gorman told council he believed a local owner had repeatedly operated without permits and estimated gross revenue and unpaid local taxes tied to those operations. Crosby urged council to deny amendments that she said would conflict with state law requiring owner occupancy and would permit LLC ownership that could sidestep residency rules.

Council discussion focused on several legal and policy points raised by public speakers: whether state law requires owner-occupancy for a B&B and how municipal rules should treat LLC ownership; the effect any local change would have on short-term rental rules elsewhere in the UDO; whether increasing allowed rooms to seven was consistent with the town’s intent for B&Bs; and how past code-enforcement actions had been handled. Council members asked staff and the town attorney to clarify statutory requirements and how changes might interact with short-term rental provisions.

Town administrator Scott Slatten confirmed staff would limit the requested research to the bed-and-breakfast portion of the lodging section of the UDO, and council voted to give first reading to the current draft while directing staff to return with clarifications and proposed edits prior to second reading.

The first-reading action does not adopt the ordinance; council must approve a second reading at a future meeting before changes take effect. Councilmembers emphasized they would continue fact-finding and legal review before making final decisions.

Ending — Councilmembers said they expect staff to bring a refined draft and legal opinions on state bed-and-breakfast statutes and owner-occupancy before the next reading. The town also agreed that any changes to the B&B rules should avoid unintended consequences for short-term rentals elsewhere in the UDO.