Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Beach Shade Devices topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears competing views on beach shade devices as safety concerns surface
Summary
Council members, beach patrol and business owners debated whether wind‑driven Shibumi‑style shades impede lifesaving visibility or represent a manageable beach amenity; safety committee favored restrictions (6–1), but council directed further study and possible zoning/placement rules rather than an immediate ban.
Dane Barnes, co‑founder of Shibumi, told the council the lightweight, wind‑driven Shibumi shade is a popular, four‑pound beach shade carried and used across the Eastern Seaboard and on Kiawah Island. Barnes said drone photos and side‑by‑side comparisons show that replacing multiple umbrellas with a single Shibumi can leave beach sightlines equal or improved and that public‑safety officials in other towns have called the device a safety success.
Opposing that view, members of the town's safety committee, beach patrol staff and Barrier Island Beach Service described operational problems they attribute to the proliferation of tall, clustered shading devices. Beach patrol explained its roving‑patrol model and said that on busy days the units depend on clear sightlines to locate people in distress. Committee chair Council Member Boerner said six committee members voted to disallow Shibumis at the committee level, with one dissenting vote, and noted the committee considered intermediate solutions such as exclusion zones at boardwalks or placement limits.
Trevor Cirillo of Barrier Island Beach Service said rentals and concentrated clusters of the devices near boardwalks can create congested 30–50‑yard stretches in front of access points that block patrol sightlines and create customer complaints. Beach patrol staff said they have observed declines in the ability to detect and locate distress calls, and that concentrated groupings of large shades have been reported by lifeguards and patrol crews.
Council members noted several constraints on regulation. The mayor observed that an ordinance cannot single out a specific brand; rules must be device‑neutral and phrased by characteristic (height, footprint, placement) rather than by trademark. Council discussed alternatives that range from structured 'Shibumi zones' and buffer areas to improved signage, cones to mark vehicle lanes, and different patrol vehicle mixes (smaller ATVs plus trucks) to help sightlines and response times.
No ordinance was introduced during the meeting. Instead, council members directed the public safety committee and staff to gather more empirical data, consider narrowly tailored placement rules that treat all shading devices equally, and return recommendations — including enforcement options and proposed wording — to the council for a future reading.
