Council remands hotel‑to‑housing text amendment to Planning Commission after public debate

Hilton Head Island’s Town Council on Feb. 4 remanded a proposed text amendment that would allow adaptive reuse conversions of existing hotels and motels into multifamily housing back to the Planning Commission for further review and revisions.

The application, submitted by Blue Hour Housing and presented by applicant representative Chris Breen, proposed a stand‑alone LMO section to allow conversion of existing hotel guest rooms to dwelling units on a one‑to‑one basis in specified zoning districts and to set minimum unit sizes (micro efficiency, studio, one‑, two‑ and three‑bedroom sizes). The proposal included a 1:1 guest‑room to dwelling‑unit conversion ratio, parking at one space per former guest room, a 6% cap on interior communal space and a 10% cap on exterior common space, and a requirement that a portion of units be occupied by workers employed on the island (the applicant later proposed moving that requirement from 25% to 75%). The applicant said the amendment would enable conversion of underperforming hotels into workforce housing with minimal town subsidy.

Planning staff presented their own priority LMO amendments and said the staff had concerns about minimum standards, neighborhood impacts, density and unit sizes; the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Jan. 15 and voted to recommend denial while urging staff and the applicant to work toward a joint solution. Dozens of members of the public spoke at the council meeting; commenters raised concerns about the applicant’s experience and financial track record, occupancy and management controls, potential for increased crime or overcrowding, the small unit sizes proposed, parking, and whether the conversions would meet town workforce‑housing standards.

During council debate two motions were considered. Councilmember Steve Alfred moved to remand the application to the Planning Commission for further review; Councilmember Patsy Bryson seconded the remand motion. Earlier, Councilmember Tammy Becker moved to deny the applicant’s text amendment as submitted; that amendment was put to a vote and failed on a 3–4 tally. After further discussion the remand motion passed 4–3.

Why it matters: the proposal raises zoning and housing policy questions about density, livability (minimum unit sizes and communal space), workforce housing compliance and how to vet private‑sector proposals for adaptive reuse. Council’s remand instructs Planning Commission and staff to continue work on appropriate standards and safeguards before the proposal returns to council.