Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Residential topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends denying proposed residential lot-size changes, urges comprehensive review
Summary
At a July meeting the Town of Awendaw Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of Ordinance 2026-17 (residential lot-size increases), citing map inconsistencies, vested-rights concerns and the need for a comprehensive district review rather than piecemeal changes.
The Town of Awendaw Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of Ordinance 2026-17, a proposed change to several residential zoning districts that would increase minimum lot sizes, saying the council should pursue a comprehensive rewrite instead of piecemeal amendments.
Chair (S1) moved the recommendation, urging the council to review the commission’s earlier district proposals. “I move that we deny this ordinance and that we recommend to the council that they review the plan we previously submitted to them,” the chair said during debate. The motion was approved by voice vote.
Why it matters: Commissioners and public commenters said the ordinance, as drafted, would create unequal treatment between adjacent parcels and could affect property owners who hold final plats granted under earlier rules. John (S3), a resident and commenter, warned of what he called a potential “regulatory taking” for lots that were vested under prior approvals: “the new rules apply, which is the definition of regulatory taking,” he said, citing delays that have stalled building permits.
Commission discussion focused on two central issues: (1) map inconsistencies where adjacent parcels would have different minimums under the draft, and (2) the effect of nonconforming-lot and vesting provisions in the code. Staff (S5) and commissioners referenced section 153.011 (nonconforming uses and structures) and noted longstanding language in the code tied to time-of-adoption protections.
Several commissioners recommended the council consider a consolidated review of all residential districts and possible alternatives such as conservation subdivisions or density-trading mechanisms. One commissioner asked that the commission’s detailed district recommendations be forwarded to the council with notes about technical corrections to the zoning map.
Next steps: The commission instructed staff to include the item on the next meeting agenda and to prepare materials for a broader, comprehensive review of residential districts and zoning maps. The commission recorded its recommendation as a denial with a request that council consider the commission’s comprehensive district suggestions.
