Commission endorses broad zoning changes: marsh buffer deferred to state, mainland site‑coverage limits removed, traffic-study wording clarified

Planning staff summarized four distinct changes under TA‑26‑2, sponsored by the Board of Commissioners: removing the county's standalone 15‑foot marsh setback so state DNR/EPD buffer rules govern marshfront parcels; removing mainland site‑coverage maximums while leaving island limits in place; replacing references to a 'level 1' traffic impact analysis with a single 'traffic impact study' to be requested at the county engineer's discretion; and expanding development‑plan exemptions for additions to existing commercial sites.

On the marsh buffer, staff said the change defers to the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act and EPD delineations so county setbacks no longer duplicate state authority. On site coverage, staff noted the island (St. Simons and Sea Island) would retain a 60% residential and 75% commercial cap while the mainland would no longer have an overall maximum; the policy intent is to respond to concerns that coverage caps created practical problems for property owners. "So this states is that for residential areas... the mainland would would no longer have a site coverage maximum," staff said.

Commissioners debated whether removing mainland limits but retaining island caps was equitable and raised questions about the environmental and drainage rationale for island limits. Several commissioners pressed staff about definitions and implementation. On traffic‑study language, staff removed the 'level 1' label from the ordinance text and said the county engineer would request a traffic impact study where warranted; consultants noted a typical small 'level 1' trip‑generation memo costs roughly $2,500 while a full traffic study can range much higher depending on counts and scope.

After discussion, Commissioner (speaker 7) offered a modified motion that would: approve the package while applying the site‑coverage removal countywide (both mainland and islands), preserve the development‑plan exemptions as drafted, and specify that a 'level‑1' trip‑generation memo (trip generation memo) by a traffic engineer is the first step and a full study would be required only if that memo recommends additional study. The commission voted in favor of the motion and will forward its recommendation and suggested modifications to the Board of Commissioners for final action.