Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Beach Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Seabrook Island committee debates where, when and who should permit beach fires
Summary
At a special EWC meeting, members debated a draft beach ordinance that would allow bonfires under limited conditions, focusing on whether fires should be restricted to wet sand or designated dry-sand locations, who issues permits, and how enforcement would work with St. John's Fire and private landowners.
The Seabrook Island Environmental & Wildlife Committee (EWC) spent the bulk of a special-call meeting debating how a proposed beach ordinance should regulate bonfires, with participants split over whether fires should be allowed below the high-water mark on wet sand or only on designated dry-sand sites away from the dunes.
Chair Pete opened discussion by summarizing the safety committee’s recommendation: “The first thing that they recommended was that the fires be on wet sand and not dry sand,” a move safety advisers said would help keep flames and ash away from dune vegetation.
Why it matters: the choice affects permitting, enforcement and environmental impacts. If fires are allowed on wet sand (below the high-water mark), permitting would be solely a town function; if allowed on dry sand, private property ownership and the Seabrook Property Owners Association (SAPOA) could also affect authorization. Committee members warned that hard-coding specific boardwalk locations into an ordinance risks becoming unenforceable after storms alter the beach and urged an administrative process to designate safe burn locations.
Committee discussion covered key trade-offs. Supporters of wet-sand language stressed simplicity and clearer town jurisdiction; opponents, citing environmental concerns, said wet-sand fires leave a layer of charred wood and debris that can float and reappear with tides. A guest and longtime camper urged more explicit safety and cleanup requirements — calling attention to the draft’s minimum-pit dimensions and the need for tools and water, saying he had noted “a minimum of a 3ft diameter, 12 in deep” pit in the draft and raised the absence of a stated maximum. Members discussed permit mechanisms used in other South Carolina towns — five-gallon buckets on site, limits on permits per day, weekend-only windows, designated areas, automatic denials during drought or state red-flag watches and refundable deposits to incentivize cleanup.
On enforcement, speakers said St. John’s Fire has repeatedly told the committee it is willing to assist with enforcement, but the specifics (who issues permits, who cancels them and who will patrol sites) remain to be negotiated in an intergovernmental agreement (IGA). The committee also proposed that the fire chief retain explicit authority to deny or revoke permits for local hazards such as strong onshore winds, red-flag conditions, and turtle-nesting season.
Other operational details under consideration included limiting the number of permits per night based on available dry-sand area, imposing substantial fines for unpermitted fires (the draft referenced a statutory maximum of $500 but committee members discussed higher effective fines when fees and insurance charges are factored in), and requiring deposit/permit procedures so sites are cleaned or deposits are forfeited.
What’s next: The EWC agreed to refine the draft ordinance language and reconvene jointly with the safety committee and beach patrol to produce a consolidated recommendation for council. Members emphasized getting the ‘‘big picture’’ policy settled first (wet vs. dry sand, limits and enforcement responsibility) and leaving detailed operational rules (exact distances from dunes, signage, time windows) for administrative processes and future drafting.
The discussion closed with the committee signaling readiness to present a revised draft ordinance to town council once they and the safety committee have aligned on key policy choices.
