Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bluffton staff presents proposed UDO wetland amendments, including 50-foot buffer and enforcement language
Summary
Town staff reviewed proposed Unified Development Ordinance amendments that would expand wetland-buffer protections and add enforcement language; the first reading is already complete and the ordinance is currently under pending-ordinance doctrine. Residents and developers urged more study and clarification before a second reading.
Staff member Kevin (presenter) summarized proposed amendments to Chapter 23 of the Town of Bluffton Unified Development Ordinance, noting changes to tree conservation language, relocation of a wetlands subsection into the stormwater article, clarifications to impacts and exceptions, and updated definitions. Kevin explained that the revisions include new general requirements, revised buffer language (one proposed approach sets a 50-foot minimum buffer in some cases), and discretion for the UDO administrator to grant exceptions after considering site constraints, reports and mitigation credits.
Kevin said the presentation reflected edits made following the first reading in March and earlier public comment. "We held a 1st reading that was back in March," he said. He also clarified that the UDO administrator "is not doesn't have the authority to, to authorize certifications" (as written in earlier drafts), and that the focus of the current language is on impacts and enforcement rather than on granting certifications.
The ordinance is in a pending-ordinance status following the first reading; legal staff explained that pending-ordinance doctrine can apply interim restrictions while the body considers adoption, but vested rights that existed before first reading are preserved. Council asked staff to provide supporting scientific evidence for the proposed 50-foot width, examples of how the ordinance would apply to existing Army Corps or OCRM permits and to development agreements, and to return with revisions and clarifications.
Why it matters: the amendments change regulatory language and could expand local enforcement where state or federal oversight is limited; they would affect developers and private landowners near wetlands and could create or remove vesting for some projects depending on timing. Council directed staff to gather requested evidence and stakeholder input before a second reading.
