Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rental 129 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Short-term rental at 129 Sea Pines: board splits, defers while seeking legal clarity
Summary
A special-use application for a short-term rental at 129 Sea Pines Drive produced a 3–3 split on both denial and approval motions; after staff legal advice and member discussion, the board deferred action until its next meeting to seek counsel and notify neighbors.
The Beaufort County Zoning Board of Appeals did not reach a final decision on a special-use permit request for a short-term rental at 129 Sea Pines Drive after a series of tied votes and procedural confusion.
Attorney Chester Williams, representing John and Lisa Pressman, told the board the property had no restrictive covenants and that the application met the county criteria for a short-term rental. "There are no restrictive covenants at all on this property," Williams said, and he noted county staff recommended approval.
Neighbors urged denial during public comment, citing neighborhood character, turtle protection and quality-of-life concerns. Martin Hupka said repeated exceptions to the residential code would leave "no rule" and urged the board to reject the special-use request. Other residents described incidents they attributed to vacation renters, including bottles and parties on the beach.
During deliberations the board first moved to deny the permit; the vote resulted in a 3–3 split and the motion failed. Members then moved to approve the permit with the turtle-season condition; that motion also tied and failed, leaving the board without a clear affirmative or negative action on the application.
Charles Atkinson, division director of Development Services, told the board that staff’s interpretation is a tie vote causes the motion to fail and, in the case of a failed approval, an application is treated as denied and may be appealed to circuit court. After additional discussion about whether the tie constituted a denial or left the application live, board members decided to defer the matter to the next meeting and obtain legal counsel to clarify the appropriate procedural outcome and notifications to neighbors.
For now, the application remains unresolved and will either be continued on the board’s next agenda or proceed through an appeal process if staff’s interpretation — that a failed approval equals denial — is applied.
