Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Management Open Space topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission postpones open-space and pathways changes for further staff edits
Summary
After a staff presentation and public comment, the Beaufort County Planning Commission declined to approve a priority amendment clarifying “common open space” and requiring pathways in major subdivisions, voting instead to postpone and ask staff to return with targeted, objective edits on March 19.
Missy Lueck, the town’s director of planning, outlined a priority amendment to the Land Management Ordinance that would recast the definition of "common open space," remove detention ponds and natural water bodies from that definition, and require pathways and improved connectivity in new major subdivisions.
Lueck said the changes are intended to address community concerns observed in recent developments — excessive tree clearing, linear layouts and inadequate usable open space — and to prioritize accessible, connected, environmentally sensitive common open spaces. She described proposed standards that would require at least 75% of common open space to be arranged in areas at least 15 feet in any direction and at least 50% to be in one contiguous area, with design that preserves specimen and significant trees. The amendment would also make pathway connectivity a requirement unless sidewalks are demonstrated to be more appropriate.
Resident Chester Williams urged the commission to reduce discretion in the ordinance and to add objective criteria. "Don't vest a lot of discretion in the official," Williams said, arguing that phrases such as "other means approved by the official" should be tightened and that any owners-association rules referenced should be recorded at the Beaufort County courthouse so property owners have constructive notice.
Commissioners discussed whether moving the priority amendment forward as written risked leaving ambiguity that would undermine the stated goals. Commissioner DuBois moved to approve the amendment as submitted; the motion, seconded by Commissioner Whaley, failed on the roll/voice vote (recorded in the meeting as 4 in favor, 1 opposed). Several commissioners said the staff-identified drafting errors and commenters' suggestions should be addressed before a final recommendation.
Rather than approve the item, the commission voted 5 to 0 to postpone final action and asked staff to return on March 19 with a concise list of specific changes identified in the meeting and with proposed corrected text. Lueck told commissioners staff could prepare revised language and run it by the code amendment team and the commission's code consultant for vetting.
Next steps: staff will prepare targeted edits addressing the struck paragraph that should remain in the text, clearer criteria for what constitutes "reasonable rules and regulations," and other objective clarifications raised by public comment; the commission scheduled consideration of the revised language on March 19.
