Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission tables 121 Burnt Church Road plan after neighbors and commissioners raise traffic, buffer and stormwater concerns
Summary
The Bluffton Planning Commission on an unspecified date tabled a preliminary plan for a commercial building at 121 Burnt Church Road after residents and commissioners raised objections over setbacks, a retention pond close to homes, the proposed drive‑through’s traffic impact and missing landscape buffers; the applicant agreed to revise the plan and meet neighbors.
The Town of Bluffton Planning Commission voted to table a preliminary development plan for 121 Burnt Church Road after neighbors and commissioners pushed for design changes aimed at reducing traffic and protecting adjacent homes.
Neighbors from the nearby Fern Lakes subdivision told the commission the proposal — a 4,464‑square‑foot commercial building with a drive‑through and associated parking and stormwater infrastructure — would encroach on required buffers and threaten property values. Mary Murphy Guerrera said the plan “does not meet the town of Bluffton ordinances” and asked the commission to deny the project. Sandy Badoski and others told commissioners the site sits along a dangerous stretch of Burnt Church Road that lacks sidewalks and would be made less safe by increased drive‑through traffic.
Staff told the commission the preliminary site plan did not conform with multiple Unified Development Ordinance requirements, notably the highway corridor overlay buffer and an additional 10‑foot building setback measured off required buffers. Dan Rowe, speaking for town staff, flagged missing 8‑foot foundation plantings and said staff did not recommend approval as submitted; he outlined three conditions staff would expect before final approval, including foundation planting, the 10‑foot setback and the residential vegetated buffer along the eastern and northern boundaries.
Commissioners pressed the applicant on vehicle queuing, pedestrian access and stormwater. One commissioner said the current layout “is going to back up on Birch Church Road, and we’re gonna have issues,” and asked whether a traffic assessment had been prepared; staff said a short traffic assessment could be requested and might trigger a full traffic‑impact analysis. Several commissioners said the plan as drawn packed too much onto the lot and urged reconsidering the building footprint and the drive‑through.
The property owner, Jack McCasian, told the commission he had driven in for the meeting and said he was willing to work with neighbors. McCasian said the owner could remove the drive‑through if that would address stacking and safety concerns: “We can eliminate the drive thru. We can take that out completely on my end as the owner of the property.”
After discussion, the applicant asked to table the item to work with staff and neighbors. The commission agreed and moved to table the plan, directing staff to confirm revised materials before any subsequent approvals and suggesting the applicant meet with neighbors and return with a redesign that addresses drive‑through queuing, buffer setbacks, sidewalk access and stormwater configuration.
Next steps: the applicant requested tabling and will resubmit revised plans for staff review and return to the commission for further consideration. The commission discussed the possibility of a follow‑up meeting between commissioners, staff and the applicant before the item returns to a public hearing.
