BZA denies request to convert 125 Shark Key Way into event venue; board adopts staff findings

The Board of Zoning Appeals on Dec. 11 denied a variance request that would have allowed the owners of 125 Shark Key Way to operate outdoor commercial events without direct vehicular access to a designated minor arterial.

Town staff recommended denial, saying the application failed to meet the Land Management Ordinance’s variance criteria and raised public‑safety, traffic and neighborhood‑character concerns. "Staff recommends the BZA deny this application based on the findings and facts and conclusion of law," Senior Planner Michael Connelly told the board.

The variance sought relief from an LMO locational restriction that permits outdoor commercial recreation (other than a water park) only when a site has direct vehicular access to a minor arterial. Connelly told the board the property sits in the Mitchellville District and is covered by corridor and airport overlays; staff concluded there were no "extraordinary and exceptional" conditions specific to the parcel that would justify a variance.

The applicant, represented by attorney Chester Williams, said the absence of minor arterial streets nearby constituted the hardship and pointed to a previously approved application the team said was similar. Williams offered to accept conditions limiting events to no more than 200 attendees. "We think this is an application that ought to be approved," he said, adding that prior approvals and the site’s characteristics supported a variance.

Owner Roy Prescott described multiple events held on the parcel, including a November 2024 gathering he said had about 200 attendees and two subsequent weddings of roughly 45–50 people. Prescott described the property as a 2.13‑acre waterfront lot with limited adjacent development and said he had no record of complaints from prior events. "I think it's a very unique piece of property on Hilton Head Island," he said.

Nearby resident Nadine Chaplin, who identified herself as an adjacent property owner, urged the board to deny the variance. Representing a group of neighbors and historic landowners, Chaplin cited the location on a local street next to a cemetery and warned that granting the variance would invite "congestion, noise, safety, risk directly into our front yards." She said a variance should be granted only for a unique, unavoidable hardship, not for convenience or profit.

Board members asked detailed questions about parking and trip generation during peak events. The applicant’s materials estimated about 80 parking spaces on site while town code minimums calculate to 67; the applicant’s counsel estimated event weekend trips at roughly 134 (67 spaces × 2 arrivals/departures), compared with staff estimates suggesting 202–232 weekend trips for a potential 23‑unit residential development. Staff and several board members said those comparisons did not establish the case‑specific extraordinary conditions required by the LMO.

A board member moved to deny the application and adopt staff’s findings of fact and conclusions of law; the motion was seconded and carried in a roll‑call vote. The roll call recorded the following board members voting "for the motion": Mister Christian; Mister Hackheim; Miss Bayless; Miss Fee; Mister Green; and Mister Fingerhut. The chair announced the motion passed unanimously and the variance was denied.

After the vote the meeting continued through routine items and concluded with adjournment. The denial means the owners may pursue only uses that meet the Mitchellville District’s LMO conditions unless they seek an LMO amendment or otherwise modify the property to meet the specific locational requirement for outdoor commercial recreation.