Council gives first reading to broad DSO updates, tightens temporary-occupancy and permit timing rules

Seabrook Island’s Town Council gave first reading on March 31 to Ordinance 2026-01, a comprehensive package of amendments to the town’s Development Standards Ordinance intended to update definitions, procedures and development controls and to create a planned development zoning option.

The measure, introduced by staff and summarized by planner Tyler, packages housekeeping edits and several policy changes council and the planning commission had reviewed over the last months. ‘‘The package before you this afternoon reflects staff’s recommended text amendments to the DSO,’’ Tyler said in his overview, citing updates to fence and pool rules, short-term rental requirements, temporary signage, appeals procedures and the new planned-development district process.

The ordinance incorporates several planning commission recommendations including (1) referencing open-space requirements to net acreage, (2) adding a two-step plan-development pre-application (staff meeting plus a planning-commission pre-application presentation), (3) requiring deeds that identify current property ownership for map-amendment applications, and (4) preserving a 30-day public-notice period in places staff had proposed shortening notice to 15 days.

Town attorney Mack urged a specific wording change tied to a South Carolina common-law principle known as the pending ordinance doctrine, which can allow a municipality that has given an ordinance first reading to deny permits for uses that would later conflict with the pending regulation. Mack said the ordinance’s text should refer to timelines ‘‘prior to adoption’’ or ‘‘prior to second reading’’ rather than ‘‘prior to consideration by town council’’ so the town could rely on the doctrine when necessary.

Council amended the draft to permit conforming edits so first-reading action would properly interact with the pending-ordinance doctrine and then considered a string of topic-specific revisions discussed during the meeting. On temporary certificates of occupancy — language that previously allowed the zoning administrator broad discretion to issue TCOs when a structure ‘‘shall be occupied safely’’ — council adopted an amendment tying TCO issuance to Charleston County’s building-inspections ‘‘certificate of completion’’ and specifying that a TCO does not permit overnight residential occupancy while that temporary authorization remains in effect.

Council also debated fence and pool provisions. Staff noted temporary chain-link construction fencing is common on the island and recommended a limited allowance for such fencing in specified districts (utility, community facilities and the one agricultural parcel); the council asked staff to consider requiring colored/coated chain-link (dark green or black) or otherwise clarifying removal timing. On pools, staff reiterated that building-code officials determine when a barrier is required and that the ordinance is intended to defer to the Charleston County Building Inspections Department on alternate compliance such as automatic covers or alarms.

Public comments and council questions raised whether bees should be treated as livestock. Staff said USDA classifies managed honey bees as livestock but flagged that a formal change would likely go into a subsequent DSO round; existing beekeeping operations would be treated as legally nonconforming uses under the draft language. Separately, council voted to amend the ordinance language to make clear ‘‘exotic animals’’ are not permitted uses in zoning districts where the draft otherwise allowed certain animal keeping, a change councilmembers said was intended to avoid unintended approvals for zoological or exotic-animal exhibits.

Supporters of the planned-development (PD) tool discussed how PD zoning functions as project-specific text that the town can use to negotiate design standards, phased delivery and public benefits. Staff noted a PD is effectively a form of project-specific zoning that must still be approved by planning commission recommendation and two readings before council.

After amendments were adopted on the record, council voted to approve Ordinance 2026-01 at first reading as amended. The vote advanced the ordinance to subsequent steps, including any additional staff edits, required planning-commission formal recommendation where applicable, and a public hearing and second reading before final adoption.

Council’s next procedural steps: staff will prepare conforming edits requested by the town attorney, incorporate the approved TCO wording, and circulate the revised draft for the planning commission and public hearing process required for future readings.