Planning staff refines Kiawah Island Beach Overlay proposal; commissioners ask for clearer relief order, landscaping limits

Planning staff presented a draft Beach Overlay District (Ordinance 25-21) at the commission's February meeting, saying the proposal is meant to protect the integrity and natural function of Kiawah Island's beach and dune system while balancing private property rights and preserving the island's character.

The overlay creates two seaward buffer zones: buffer zone A, the most seaward and restrictive area where "there'd be no structures allowed in this particular area," and buffer zone B, which allows limited improvements subject to height and improved-area limits. "Improved areas within buffer zone B shall not exceed 20% for purposes of application," planning staff said, noting that improved areas include physical site alterations such as paving, hardscape and structures rather than soft landscaping.

Why it matters: the overlay would apply to parcels measured from the state baseline and capture properties within 150 feet of that baseline. Staff said the map and baseline are intended to give the town the ability to apply resiliency measures across the beachfront and to ensure dune and maritime-forest habitat receive additional protections.

Key provisions and tests - Two buffer zones: zone A — a "no touch" zone intended for dune recovery and habitat protection; zone B — a regulated area for limited outdoor features (decks, pools) with height and improved-area caps. "This really focuses on, 1, protecting the integrity and natural function of the beach and dune system," planning staff said. - Nonconforming structures: structures that were legally permitted before the overlay would become legally nonconforming and generally could remain; unpermitted (illegal) features would not gain the same rebuilding rights if destroyed. - Administrative relief: staff outlined four criteria that must be met for a property to be eligible for administrative relief from the planning director, including having less than a half acre of highlands on the parcel; an updated survey showing jurisdictional lines; buffer zone A reaching the buildable area; and combined impact of zones A and B equaling at least 30% of the defined building area. If all criteria are met, staff said the planning director could allow a modest increase in coverage in zone B (staff referenced a 10% additional allowance under those conditions).

Commissioners' questions and requested refinements Commissioners pressed staff to clarify the order and burden of proof for relief (for example, whether a property owner must first accept a reduced front setback before seeking additional encroachment into zone B), to tighten landscaping and grading language so turf and large-scale at-grade landscaping cannot undermine dune integrity, and to spell out enforcement tools (photographic pre-/post-construction documentation, grading and landscape plans, and withholding certificates of occupancy for violations). Several commissioners said buffer zone A should remain effectively off-limits to construction and that any relief should be limited to zone B and only after other options are proven inadequate.

Mapping, scope and exemptions Staff explained the overlay boundary is intended to capture all oceanfront properties within approximately 150 feet of the baseline; however, the commission asked for clearer public-facing graphics and map simplification. Staff also said the draft will reference the town's recently adopted 2025 tree and landscape preservation standards and that the proposed ordinance will include language preserving certain golf-course exemptions where appropriate; staff said any exemptions or cross-references will be shown as redlines in the next draft.

Next steps Planning staff said they will adjust ordinance language based on the discussion — clarifying the relief sequence, tightening what is allowed in zone B (particularly landscaping), and adding wording on review and enforcement — and bring a redlined ordinance back for a formal recommendation. Commissioners agreed to aim to vote on the item at their March meeting and, if recommended, forward it to town council.

Notes: The discussion involved specific numeric thresholds (150-foot overlay boundary; 20% improved area in zone B; administrative-relief triggers including a 30% combined impact metric and referenced 10% additional allowance in zone B under relief). Where commissioners used geographic names or parcel counts during the discussion, staff described those as approximate (for example, staff said about "30 out of 45" lots in one section would meet the first threshold), and commissioners asked staff to verify those figures with parcel surveys before final adoption.