Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planners open workshop on allowing metal carports in Old Town Bluffton; no vote, staff to refine UDO language
Summary
At a workshop, planning staff and commissioners discussed whether to treat metal carports as a separate building type or retain them as 'carriage houses' under the UDO; staff will consult the Historic Preservation Commission and UDO administrator and bring draft language back in November.
The Beaufort County Planning Commission held a workshop to consider a text amendment that would change how metal carports are treated in the Old Town Bluffton Historic District. No votes were taken; the session was an informal discussion to gather feedback before staff drafts formal amendment language.
Staff explained that, under the form‑based Unified Development Ordinance, an accessory building of 122 square feet or greater is classified as a carriage house, and properties are allowed only one carriage house. "So in this particular case... the property owner installed a metal carport… it was installed without going through the process," a staff member said, noting the structure lacks a building permit and exceeds the carriage‑house threshold.
Property owner Steve Fisher addressed commissioners and said the carport on his property protects an RV, boat and golf cart and meets wind‑rating standards. "We did the text amendments… to protect our our RV, our investments," Fisher said, identifying himself and his address and urging the commission to consider amendments that would allow unenclosed protective structures.
Commissioners debated multiple issues that staff said will need clearer language: whether the carriage‑house threshold should remain at 122 square feet, how to define porches and footprints, allowable height for single‑story carports (several commissioners noted 12 feet may be too low for RVs), whether carports should be added as a distinct building type, limits on the number of accessory structures per lot, and detailed material and design requirements (column wraps, roof slope, approved roofing materials) to preserve Old Town character.
Multiple commissioners said they were wary of creating loopholes that would permit conversions of unenclosed carports into larger enclosed structures and urged staff and the Historic Preservation Commission to draft tight, enforceable standards. One commissioner recommended adding a requirement that unenclosed carports have no utilities (no power, no water) and that design treatments be required so the structures read as secondary features.
Staff summarized the next steps: consult the UDO administrator about carriage‑house interpretation, gather Historic Preservation Commission feedback at its Nov. 6 meeting, produce draft amendment language for the planning commission in November, and, if adopted by the commission, forward a recommendation to town council for first reading in January and a public hearing second reading in February.
Because this was a workshop, no formal planning‑commission action was taken; commissioners directed staff to research permit histories, potential grandfathering and specific square‑footage and height limits and to return with recommended language.
