05/25/2005-Planning & Development Standards-PacketTHE 1OWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Regular Meeting
D" imghfln, CWrma
B
'I�IFOV"
'Moul
AGENDA
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
4:00 PM
Council Chambers
I CALL TO ORDER
If FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT COMPLIANCE
Public notification of this meeting has been published, posted and mailed in compliance with the
Freedom ofInfomnation Act and the Town of Hilton Head Island requirements.
III APPROVAL OF MINUTES — March 23rd and April 27th
IV UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
V NEW BUSINESS
1. LMO Amendments - Amendments to Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Land
Management Ordinance to revise various sections, including: summary table of review
procedures, submission requirements, Use table, public project review requirements, minor
subdivisions, street design standards, stormwater management standards, nonconforming signs,
parking standards and minor miscellaneous corrections. Ben Brown & Patrick Sullivan
2. ZMA050004- Application to amend the Zoning Map within PD- I (Planned Development)
zoning district of Sea Pines Master Plan to allow for subdivision of Lot I A Painted Bunting
Road. This parcel is located at 12 Painted Bunting Road and is further identified as Beaufort
County Tax Map # 19, Parcel 141 (R550 019 000 01410000). Ed Drane
3. ZMA050005- Application to amend the Zoning Map within PD- I (Planned Development)
zoning district of Sea Pines Master Plan to allow for subdivision of Lot 18 Ridgewood Lane.
This parcel is located at 13 Ridgewood Lane and is further identified as Beaufort County Tax
Map #17, Parcel 767 (11550 017 000 0767 0000). Ed Drane
rimuda & Dwd"�t Stesdank CannOWN
May 25, 2005
Page 2
V1 BOARD BUSINESS
VII ADJOURNMENT
Please note that a quorum ofPlanning Commission or Town Council may result in the event that a
majority of their members attend this meeting.
LMO Amendments 2005-1/Part A
Ala,
P&DO 51250
CHAPTER 3 - ARTICLE VI. S 5511 1 VIEW
Sm 16,3.604. Major Subdivision
Submission Requirements
A. Applicatlo Form and Fee. An
applicatio= as published by the
Administrator and appropriate fee as
required by See. 16-3-105.
B. Subdivision PlaL Five black line
prints of a subdivision plat at a scale
of 111=5W or other scale acceptable to
the Administrator, showing:
I . Date (including any revision
This will ensure that the submittedplan Is
dates), name and,location of
accurately reflected by the deed that
the subdivision, name of
accompanies It.
owner, north arrow, graphic
scale and reference meridian.
2. nufort County Tax h1an-and
C. Certification of Owner's Consent.
Notarized certification that the owner
of the land has given consent to the
proposed subdivision.
D. Certification of Title Source.
Certification signed by the surveyor
setting forth the source of title of the
owners of the land subdivided or a
copy of the deed by which the
property was conveyed to the owner.
E. certificate of Title and Reference
PlaL A current certificate of title
referencing the proposed subdivision
plat and if recorded, a copy of the last
plat in the chain of title.
F. open Space and Public Dedication
Narrative. A, detailed narrative
explaining how the subdivision will
meet the open space and public
dedication requirerie , as applicable,
LMO Ameodweets 2005-11Part A
shall include:
I Description of the form of
organization proposed to own
and maintain the open space in
conformance with the
requirements for Property
owners Associations or the
equivalent, as specified in Sec.
16-5-304.
2. Identification of how the open
space and facilities relate to
existing and proposed open
space areas, bikeways and
recreational facilities on Hilton
Head island, as shown in the
Comprehensive Plan, or more
detailed plans adopted by the
Planning Commission such as
neighborhood plans.
3. If dedication is proposed to
exceed the minimum
Town standards, the applicant
should state what bonus
incentive, if any, is being
requested as a result of such
additional dedication.
0. Stmet and Development Names.
Appropriate approvals for all street
and development names as listed in
Article XI of this Chapter.
H. Subdivision in Phases. Whenever
part of a tract is proposed for platting
and it is intended to subdivide
additional parts in the future or
abutting land is in the same
ownershi% a sketch plan for the entire
tract shall be submitted with the plat.
I.'' IlidUlUg ZjjMj proposed landscape
P&DS Sams
2
4'�
v
-I/Part A
LMO Ameadmemb 2005
P&DS MM
3
LMO Ameadmeaft 2005-1/Part A
LMO Amendments 2005 -I/Part A
P&DS 5/25/05
Rua all ;"map. Qvidemal
dm
shigli nmnoup, the manner for such
dedieatinn.
16 2, Otber Items. Any applicable
items as identified in Sec. 16-3-303.
16.3.605. Minor Subdivision
Submission Requirements
is
FSec.
A minor subdivision plat shall be submitted
n 0
with each of the items set forth in Sec. 16 -3 -
604, with the exception of the following:
1 it t
A. Item c., Certification of Ownef s
Consent;
B. Item F., Open space and Public
Dedication narrative; and
C. Item WWWWW*MseII--
H. �L4,ublllfflw
'in
Ta—b H38581
lie Gle Ilig ral'Isse 111 151 passed a bill, H3858, in
see. 16-3-M. Expiration Of APP al
'go ments to
ver
2004 which requires all local governments to
ball follow regulagM
0 ftwo(
do 2)
vestprojectsfor a minimum period of two (2)
VIsting of amiroyals sk. � -
in Sec, 16-3-312
years. This legislation will take effect on July
as get forth
1, 2005 and all local municipalities are
required to adopt this language before that
effective date.
..... ... .. .... ANDARDS
C fi. bill"ISION
HAPTER ARTI
See. 16-5-204. Street Access
I ha;
A. All major subdivisions shall have
ns st
7fte
direct access to a public street that
k
I in ets the standards of See. 16-5404.
e
B. Minor subdivisions shall be permitted
to provide access to lots via a
minimum 20 -foot wide unobstructed
This standard will improve emergency rescue
access easement with an all-weather
responsefor all newly created access
driving surface approved by the Fire
easements.
Chief, Dead end easements shall have
a turn around as required by the latest
LMO dments 2005-1/Part A
en
P&DS Mw
edition of the International Fire Code
as adopted by Town Council. No
access casement shall be permitted to
exceed a maximum traffic volume Of
50 ADT due to the finther subdivision
of lots without upgrading the access to
me6i the design standards of Sec. 16-
5404. Access easements are not
allowed in any wetland buffer required
by See. 16-&204 except for
approximately perpendicular crossings
as approved by the Administrator. A
bridge may be permitted within an
The Fire Department is concerned about the
accern easement an Iona as the driving
accessibility of an access bridge narrower than
east 20 feet wide and
!�nftnmve', Vthe Fire Chiell
20feet wide.
Sec I&S-205. Miscellaneous Standards
A. Applica . bility. Subdivisions shall
comply with all applicable design and
performance standards of this Title.
Setback and buffer standards shall
apply to the perimeter of all
subdivisions. Addifinnnfly, all lots
The Fire Department is concerned about
dividedAr s'nale family detache
emergency egress and the increased likelihood
a s.foot setback
offlre damagefrein structures built less than
alony all internal 2111221ILWW"
gide setback may be reduced to less
5 fe !,mg ag the reg"Itant
e"', ined with the adaacent lot
is at least 10 feet wide and shown on
the nlat to be recorded, Se6ask-and
buor ames may be-empanded withi
W lots if she" en the plat to
be reeeMW. Any question 6
aWisability diall be-detennined by
ow4kiffliftifivater,
tenfeetfrom one another.
6
LMO Amendments 2005-1/Part A
P&DS V25/65
CHAPTER 5 - ARTICLE VIL SETBACKS
See. 16-5-704. Minimum Required Setback Area
The minimum required setback area is set forth in the tables below. Minimum setback distances
are for structures up to 20 feet in hcigh� measured from the minimum elevation required by
FUtWEMA or average pre -development grade where no FIRM/FEMA floor elevation is
established. Structures exceeding this 20 -foot height shall require additional setback according
to the appropriate setback angle set forth below.
A. Adjacent Use Setback. All development shall conform to the following minimum
setback distances and maximum setback angles, except as expressly provided in this
Article.
'Al
rb Usis
"P Y,
ia
Min.
Single Family*
Distance
20,
20'
30'
40'
Max.
7SO
750
600
4SO
Angle
Min.
Multifamily,
Distance
20'
20'
25'
30'
Recreational
Max.
750
750
750
600
Angle
Min.
Institutional,
Distance
30'
25'
20'
20'
Commercial
Max.
600
750
750
750
Angle
Min.
Industrial,
Distance
40'
30'
20'
20'
Utility
Max.
4SO
600
750
750
JAngle
1----L—
I
I
[*NOTE: Single family subdivision exterior boundary only)
Uetback may be
911.122LILL 15 feet wide
AUJILOWL—ne total boundary spthark area shall not be renuired to exceed 20% of
17J
LHO Amendments 2005-1/Part A
P&DS Sa5/05
See. 16-S4106. Required Buffers
A. Adjacent Use Buffers. Buffers for
adjacent uses shall be provided in
accordance with the table below.
CHAPTER 5 - ARTICLE VIII. BUFFERS
watisr,
ounds
B 14iiii"
Single Family
50 feet
plus
25 feet plus
30 feet plus
(Exterior
20 feet*
20 feet
structural
structural
structural
boundary)
elements
elements
elements
Multifamily,
30 feet plus
Recreation
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
25 feet
structural
elements
Water Front
50 feet plus
25 feet plus
30 feet plus
Mixed Use
structural
20 feet
20 feet
structural
structural
elements
elements
elements
Institutional,
25 feet plus
25 feet
plus
Commercial
structural
25 feet
St ructural
20 feet
20 feet
elements
elements
Industrial
30 feet plus
30 feet plus
30 feet
plus
utility
structural
structural
structural
20 feet
20 feet
elements I
elements
elements
[*NOTE: Single family subdivision exterior boundary only)
EMAL' Ions. the entire sinnim family subdivision
MilklGrAL
Anv nnint. The total hnundary huffor a
arlainal narcell,
h
8
LMO Amendments 2005-1/Part A
P&DS 5/25/05
See. 16-54M. Access to Streets (G):
In ss et lona ghall be
e Fire Chief.,
This standard will improve emergency rescue
response for all newly created driveways in
excess 0 15 t ong.
CHAPTER 9 - ARTICLE 11. DEFINITIONS
Hilton Head Island fire apparatus weigh
surface c
approximately 60,000 pounds.
This provides a clear definition of driveway for
or dwellina.
the proposed addition to Section 16-5409.
Single Family SubdivisionI
Boundary: For the purpose of determining
This revision will require a pervious boundary
setbacks and buffers under this Title a single
buffer around all newly created single family
funily subdivision is defined as the perimeter
subdivision, not just major subdivisions.
lot lines of any major subdivision platted after
January 19, 1987
platted after July 5. 2005.
TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND
Planning Department
TO: Planning & Development Standards Committee
VU: Jill Foster. AICP, Deputy Director of Planning
FROM: Teri Lewis, AICP, Manager ofDevelopment Review & Zoning
DATE May 19,2005
SUBJECT: I" Set of Tri -annual LMO Amendments
Proposed Ordinance#: 2005-18
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning & Development Standards Committee forward
the proposed amendments to Chapters 1. 2, 3. 4, 5, 7 and 9 of the Land Management Ordinance to Town
Council with a recommendation for approval.
Summary: The proposed amendments have been divided into two segments, Part A which covers the
proposed amendmentsto the subdivision regulations and Part B which covers everything else including
but not limited to proposed amendments to the public project review regulations, the use table, street
design standards, parking space size and the parking schedule.
The proposed amendments were reviewed by the LMO Committee at their March 23rd and May 0
meetings.. The amendments were also discussed at two workshops, held on April 13" and 1811,
respectively.
The Planning Commission hold a public hearing on Pan A and Part B of the 2005-1 LMO Amendments
on May 18, 2005. They voted unanimously to forward Part A to Town Council with a recommendation
for approval. The Commission also voted unanimously to forward the proposed amendments to Chapters
1, 2,4,,5,7 and 9 of Part B to Town Council with a recommendation for approval. Theyvoted
unanimously to forward the proposed amendments to Chapter 3 of Part B to Town Council with the
suggested misions as described below:
Stafls 001ginal Proposed Language
Sec.' 16-3-1404. Tows Council Action — Amendments to Text of Title 16
A. � The Town Council shall consider the proposed amendment at the earliest reasonable date and shall
consider the report of the Planning Commission in taking action regarding the proposed amendment.
B. The Town Council shall act to approve, approve with modifications, or deny the proposed
amendment. A failed motion is deemed to be
a denial,
C. Final action for amending the text of this Title shall require approval of an ordinance through two
readings by Town Council.
P. 16the piepemd amendment is denWd by Geumail, smah nation shall be by resolution.
6. D. FollowingTovm Council action, the applicant shall be notified of the decision in writing.
Town Government Center One Town Center Court 0 Building C
Hilton Head Island SouthCarolina # 29928
843-341-4681 (FAA) 843-842-8908
LMO Amendments 2005-18
Justilication Memo
PADS 5/25/05
Revision Recommended by the Planning Commission
Planning Commission recommends deleting the language that states, "A failed motion is deemed to be a
denial."
See. 16-3-1404. Town Council Action — Amendments to Text of Tide 16
A. The Town Council shall consider the proposed amendment at the earliest reasonable date and shall
consider the report ofthe Planning Commission in taking action regarding the proposed amendment.
B. The Town Council shall act to approve, approve with modifications, or deny the proposed
amendment.
C. Final action for amending the text ofthis Title shall require approval ofan ordinance through two
remlings by Town Council.
D ifthe prepessil is denied by Gems", sum' nation ohm" 116 bY reselul OR,
D. Following Town Council action, the applicant shall be notified ofthe decision in writing.
Stqrs original Proposed Language
See. 16-3-15N. Town Council Action — Amendments to Zoning Map - Rezoning
A. The Town Council shall consider the proposed amendment at the earliest reasonable date and shall
consider the report ofthe Planning Commission in taking action regarding the proposed amendment.
B. Ifthe proposed amendment is approved by the Town Council, such action shall be by ordinance to
amend the Official Zoning Map. A failed motion ghall be deemed a denial.
a -on-
G. j6dw ramening request is denied by Gown@", mob nation sliall be by r seled
R._Q Following Town Council action, the applicant shall be notified ofthe decision in writing.
Revision Recommended by the Planning Commission
Planning Commission recornmends deleting the language that states, "A failed motion is deemed to be a
denial."
A. The Town Council shall consider the proposed amendment at the earliest reasonable date and shall
consider the report of the Planning Commission in taking action regarding the proposed amendment.
B. I Ifthe proposed amendment is approved by the Town Council, such action shall be by ordinance to
amend the Official Zoning Map.
Gi !Fdw Penning reeluset as denied by Geunsil, stleh wien shall bs by reselu
ID._Q Following Town Council action, the applicant shall be notified ofthe decision in writing.
Stqfs &Jginal Proposed Language
Sec. 16.3-1605. Town Council Action, Planned Unit Development (PUD) Review
A. 'Me TownCoimcil shall consider the, proposed PUD and shall consider the report ofthe Planning
Commission in taking any action.
B. The Town Council shall act to approve, approve with modifications, or deny the proposed PUD.
C Final action for approval ofa P shall require approval of an ordinance through two readings by
. IRS
Town Council.
ID, !F*A prepesed — -a Anin! is denied by Gauneil, sush setien shall be by r8selutiOn-
D. Following Town Council action, the applicant shall be notified ofthe decision in writing.
Town Government Center # One Town Center Court Building C
HillonlicadIstwd SDuthcapolina # 29928
843-341-4681 (W843-842-8908
LMO Amendments 2005-1/Part B
P&DS 5405
CHAPTER I - ARTICLE
L GENERAL
Sec. 16-1-106. Activities Not Comstituting
Development
For purposes of this Tide, the following
activities shall not be considered to be
development, unless otherwise specifically
noted herein. If any of these activities
necessitates the recording of documents or
plats, except for item A, such documents
and plats shall be submitted to the
Administrator for review and stamping
prior to recording. These plats shall only
contain existhig and/or proposed parcel
lines, casement lines and any existing
structures, These plats shall contain a
This will ensure that each owner has
shall be sianed by
approved the proposedplat before it is
be stanived for recotdina purposes,
submitted to the town.
CHAPTER 2 - ARTICLE 11. PLANNING COMMISSION
See. 16-2-205. Powers and Duties
TUe Planning Commission shall pedbrin
die duties and possess the powers as set
forth in this Tide as follows:
A. Prepare and periodically revise
plans and programs for the
development and redevelopment of
its areas as provided in this Tide;
and
B. Prepare and recommend for
adoption to the Town Council as a
means for implementing the plans
and programs in.its area:
C. Review and take action on stmet
names;
D. Review and make Ldgj&Mjk4gQ
-of �onmatibilitv
This language has been changed to
with the
accurately reflect what Is required by the
State Code.
LMO Ameadmemb 2005-1/Part B P&DS SCS/05
LMO Amendments 2005-1/Part B
Alk
Ark
Sec. 16-3-117. Summary Table
of Review Procedures
This table has been changed because the
State Code does not require that PPR's be
Amend the Summary Table of
appealed to the Circuit Court. Staff
Review Procedures to eliminate
recommends that PPR's be appealed to the
the requirement for PPR Is to be
Town Council Instead ofthe Circuit Court.
appealed to the Circuit Court of
Appeals. Add In the requirement
that PPRs can be appealed to
Town Council.
CHAPTER 3 - ARTICLE M. DEVELOPMENT
PLAN REVIEW
See. 16-3-303. Requirements for a
Complete Application
D. Boundary survey plaL One copy
of the boundary survey plat of the
lot of record or portions thereof
which constitute the proposed
development site at a minimum
scale of 1 "=501 or other appropriate
scale acceptable to the
Administrator. Upon such plat shall
3
LMO Amendments 2005-1/Part B
P&DS 54150
appear:
I . Location of primary control
points used in the survey,
with ties to such control
points to which all
dimensions, angles,
bearings, distances, block
numbers and similar data
shall be referred.
2. Computed acreage of the
surveyed tract. Where only a
portion of any tract is
proposed for development
there shall appear on the plat
the acreage to be developed
(except in the case of
subdivisions, where precise
acreages shall be shown) in
addition to the overall tract
acreage.
3. Seal and signature of a
South Carolina registered
land surveyor.
4. Date of survey and date of
any revisions.
I Notation of specific
reference plats, if
applicable.
6. Graphic scale and reference
meridian.
This will ensure that the submittedplat Is
7. Beaufort County Tax Man
accuratelY reYlected by the deed that
and Parcel Number
accompanies it.
F. Site Development plan.
Stqffhas added the Building and Fire
black line prints of a final site plan
Codes Dep,,qme,,t to the Development
or set of plans, at a minimum scale
'�--301
ReviewProcess. This additionalplan is
of 1 or other appropriate scale
neededfor them to participate in he r ew
t evi
acceptable to the Administrator.
0
f new develovment plans,
4
LMO Amesideseets 2005-1/Part B
showing the following.
I . Name of development.
2. Graphic scale and reference
meridian.
3. Beaufort County Tax Mat)
and Parcel Number,
4. Date of drawing and date of
any revisions.
5. Vicinity sketch showing the
general site location and
depicting vehicular access
routes accurately referenced
to the nearest public road.
6. Topographic survey at I -
foot contour intervals, or
other topographic
information acceptable to
the Town Engineer, unless
waived by the Town
Engineer.
P&DS Sasm
This will ensure that the submittedplan Is
accurately reflected by the deed that
accompanies it.
5
I
LMO Amendmemb 2005.1/Port B P&DS SaSM
6
LMO Amendments 2005-1/Part B P&DS Sag/05
the development site-,
including overlay zones.
19. Where applicable, surveyed
delineation of any wetland
area and required buffers or
other delineation of a
natural feature on the site
which is protected or
deflned under provisions of
this Tide.
20. Notation as to FEMA/FIRM
flood zones covering the
site, and proposed first floor
elevation of all buildings.
21. Where applicable, surveyed
delineation of any known
archaeological or historical
resource feature, as defined
by this Title, located on or
contiguous with the
proposed development tract.
22. Fire hydrants and fire lanes
in conformance with
Chapter 5, Article XVI.
23. Location of outside trash
receptacles and/or
enclosures for use by the
building occupants.
See. 164-310i I Expiration of Approval
The General Assembly passed a bill,
H3858, in 2004 which requires all local
plaft diall empire
governments to vest projectsfor a
--sis dw prep -ad dayelepment is
minimum period of two (2) jvars. This
Purseed as so AM below.,
legislation requires municipalities to
change their LMO's and adopt this
A� A vestea right is established for two
language to reflect the new law by July 1,
(2) years uoon the final approval of
2005. The proposed language will meet
a site specific development or
that requirement.
ixtV I days before the expiration
This has been changed again afler
7
LMO Amendments 2005-1/Part 9 P&DS 5/25M
M
the development site,
including overlay zones.
19. Where applicable, surveyed
delineation of any wedand
area and required buffers or
other delineation of a
natural feature on the site
which is protected or
defined under provisions of
this Title.
20. Notation as to FEMA/FIRM
flood zones covering the
site, and proposed first floor
elevation of all buildings.
21. Where applicable, surveyed
delineation of any known
archaeological or historical
resource feature, as deflned
by this Tide, located on or
contiguous with the
proposed development tract.
22. Fire hydrants and fire lanes
in conformance with
Chapter 5, Article XVI.
23. Location of outside trash
receptacles and/or
enclosures for use by the
building occupants.
Sec. 16-3-310. Expiration of Approval
The General Assembly passed a bill,
H3858, in 2004 which requires all local
�A eppwyed development plan shall s*pire
governments to vestprojectsfor a
WOOBBOOP eseddevele"11
minimumperlod of two (2) years. This
pursuid as set fe0h belevh
legislation requires municipalities to
change their LMO's and adopt this
A. A vested right is established for two
language to reflect the new law by July 1,
(2) years upon the final approval of .
2005, The proposed language will meet
that requirement
sixty (60) days before the uniMdga I
This has been changed again afler —i
7
I
affecta dens@
4 Or intenSity oft, es.
8
P&D90SW
consultation with e t-ownaltomey. The
'h Z, a,,
language now more closely resemblies�the
state legislation.
LMO Asessidnents 200-Ifflart B
P&DS 5450
W L In case of projects where more
than one building is to be built the
applicant may submit a series of
building permit applications. IN
fint application must be submitted
within Mg am yeaq from the date
gg Development Plan Approval is
granted. Each subsequent
application must be submitted
within ISO days from the date of
issuance of a Certificate of
Compliance or Certificate of
Occupancy for the previous
building, whichever dWI occur
first. I'he lapse of more than 190
days shall cause the expiration of
die Development Plan Approval.
CHAPTER 3 - ARTICLEML PUBLIC PROJECT REVIEW
See. 16-3-1201. Applicability ad
zii�
The Planning Commission shall review ag
7his language has been changed to
J211M
accurately reflect what Is required by the
a or open
anv use.
Rely or oriv ly owned- and
State Code.
Prep
VF*G*M . - siftff
wfifili-9, for location, character and extent.
or
See. 16-3-1202. Submission
Requhvm�tats
application for public project review
shall include, but not be limited to, die
LAn
following information:
9
LMO Amndmnb 2005-1/Part B
t "Y�o
P&DS 5090
damb 2005-1/Part 9 P&DS 545M
LMO Ann
In o
12
LMO Amendments 2005-1/Part B
0
P&DS 5125W
Sec. 16-3-1404. Town Council Action
State law does not require a dent I al to be
A., The Town Council shall consider
done by resolution.
the proposed amendment at the
earliest reasonable date and shall
Thefalled motion wording is designed to
consider the report of the Planning
clar6 what will happen in the case ofa lie
vote or a lost vote,
Commission in U&ing action
regarding the proposed amendment.
B. 7be Town Council shall act to
approve, approve with
modifications, or deny the proposed
amendment, A failed motion is
be a den*al.
C. Final action for amending die text
of this Tide shall require approval
of an ordinance through two
readings by Town Council.
D. If *A PV8P89@d WISINhaefit
derAed by GOWN"
be by resolefien.
D. Following Town Council action, the
applicant shall be notified of the
decision in writing.
CHAPTER 3 - ARTICLE XV. AMENDMENTS
TO ZONING MAP (REZONING)
See. 16-3-1506. Town Covaell Action
A. The Town Council shall consider
the proposed amendment at the
earliest reasonable date and shall
consider the report of the Planning
Commission in taking action
regarding the proposed amendment.
B. if the proposed amendment is
Thefailed motion wording is designed to
approved by, the Town Council,
clar6 what will happen in the case ofa tie
such action shall be by ordinance to
vote or a lost vote,
amend the Official Zoning Map.
fifled motepA lball be deemed
a
&A"
13
LMO Amendments 2005-1/1art B
G. Naw Mae
Sta,
CAI
Of 4
Is b
1;6 Q Following Town Council action,
the applicant shall be notified of the
decision in writing.
CHAPTER 3 - ARTICLE rq- PLANNE
REVIEV
See. 16.3-1605. Town Council Action
A. The Town Council shall consider
the proposed PUD and shall
consider the report of the Planning Thi
Commission in taking any action. cla
Vol
B. The Town Council shall act to
approve, approve with
modifications, or deny the proposed
PUD.
deemed a Aenis
C. Final action for approval of a PUD StO
shall require approval of,an ofo
ordinam through two readings by Isl
Town Council.
ID. 160M prepesedaffleadme"
d8*44 by GOUNS , Bush salieft OW
be by neeluden,
D. Following Town Council action, the
applicant shall be notified of the
decision in writing.
4',
14
P&DS5450
LMO Amendments 2005-1/Port B
P&DS 5/2%5
Sm 16-3-1606. Expiration of Approval
A. Master Plans approved as part of a
I PD -1 District shall not expire.
This spec#Ies the datefrom which the
B. Mast,, -r Plans within the PD -2,
expiration time period will begin.
Planned Development Overlay
District, shall expire buldM
vestine aindations set forth in Sec.
16-3-310,
CHAPTER 3 - ARTICLE XVII.
PECIAL EXCEPTION REVIEW
See. 16-3-1706. Expiration of Approval
The General Assembly passed a bill,
H3858, In 2004 which requires all local
Vestiniz of approvaht shall follow
governments to vest projectsfor a
reindations as set forth in Sec, 16-3.3 10
minimumperiodoftwo (2) years. Als
legislation will take effect on July 1, 2005
and all local municipalities are required to
adopt this language before that effective
date.
CHAPTER 3 - ARTICLE
XVIIL VARIANCES
See. 16-3-1801. Purpose
Staffisproposing to move the he1j(jht
regulationsfrom Chapter 5 to Chapter 4
A. A variance may be approved by the
Staff is proposing the move because wejeel
Board of Zoning Appeals from the
Chapter 4 Is the logical placefor the height
following sections of this tide:
regulations because they are based on the
1. Height as set fhab in Chapter 4-
zoning districtand Chapter 4 Is Zoning
District Regulations. An effect ofthis
46 2. any design or performance
change is that app�icants will no longer be
standard set forth in Chapter 5.
able to request a iarlancefrom the height
2-r I The requirement to preserve
regulations. Staff Is not opposed to
varlancesfiom the height regulations and
specimm endangered, threatened, rare
or record size trees in Sec. 16-6402-
therefore staffproposes that height be
add0d to the list ofsectionsfrom which a
-3- j The requirement to meet specific
variance maybe be granted.
'widths of buffers in See. 16-6-204.
See. 16-3-1807. Expiration of Approval
The General Assembly passed a bill,
H3858, In 2004 which requires all local
YAsting gfilogrovals shall follow
governments to vestprojectsfora .
as set, forth in qec, 16-3-310
minimum period oftwo(2)years. 77as
legislation will take effect on July 1, 2005
and all local municipalities are required to
15
LMO Ameodments 2005-1/Part B P&DS 05105
adopt this language before that effective
date.
CHAPTER 4
Reorganize Articles 10-15 of this Chapter and move the Height
Regulations from Chapter 5 to Chapter 4
Current Organization:
AFtlele 1 !a Density Standards
AFtlele 12a Speelfie Use StandaFds
AFt'e'e 13, AeeesseFy Uses
A Ftlele 14, TemperaFy Uses
Proposed Organization:
Height Is being moved to Chapter 4
because the height requirements are based
Article Ile Specific Use Standards
on zoning and all other zoning
requirements are located In Chapter 4.
Article
Articles 11 through 15 are being
reorganized in a manner that Is more
nonrary Uses
Article 14a De
WS
intuitive.
CHAFMR 4 - ARTICLE V. COR — CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT
A. The Corridor Overlay District shall
include:
I . The rights-of-way and all
paricels lying in whole or in
450 f
part wi itt of each
side'of the rights-of-way of
awy road designated as a
major . or ramor arterial in
16
LMO Ameadmeaft 2005-1/Part B P&DS5a
WIM
17
'Yj
LMO Amendments 2005-JAPart B P&DS MISM
waive review of the development.
I
CHAPTER 4 - ARTICLE X. USE REGULATIONS
Sec. 16-4-1004. Use Table
Amend the Use Table to change
These uses are appropriatefor the CFB
Indoor Entertainment and Indoor
district and should be encouraged.
Requiring an applicant to go through the
Recreation, from. SE [permitted by
Special Exception process discourages
special exception] to P [permitted
themjrom applyingfor these uses.
by right] within the CFB, Central
Forest Beach zoning district.
Amend the Use Table to allow a
This will allow this use in some portions of
Contractor's Offlce with On -Site
the CC district upon the granting ofa
Storage as SE [permitted by
Special Exception by the B714.
special exception] within the CC,
Commercial Center zoning district.
Amend the Use Table to delete the
Short Term Residential Dwelling
This use is no longer necessary and so is
Units use Mundmithin the Resort
being deletedfrom the Use Table.
Accommodations category] from
the Use Table.
CHAPUR 4 - ARTICLE XI. DENSITY STANDARDS
SCL 1"1106. Impervious Coverage in
PD -1 District
A. Arms with Restricted Access.
Impervious coverage for site
,specific development in areas of the
PUD that have restricted access
shall not cause the overall
impervious coverage for the PUD in
This Is being corrected to accurately reflect
that M4 EILL Zoning District to
the current name of the subject zoning
exceed 45 percent.
district.
CHAPTER 4 - ARTICLE XIL SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS
Sec. 'Y 6-4-1211. Contmctor's Office with
Pn4i& Stoialle,
LMO Amendments 2005-1/1art B P&DS &25/05
Contractoes offices with on-site storage are
allowed in the NC AWLV& districtA
provided the on-site storage and
construction vehicles are screened fiorn the
street and neighboring properties.
This use Is being allowed to the CC,
Commercial Center zoning district by
special exception.
Sm 164 Indoor Entertainment.
Indoor Entertainment uses are permitted
subject to the following standards.
A.. Shall not exceed 10,000 square feet
This Is to claro that the size requirement
in size per a* .
pertains to the site rather than per
building.
B. The site shall not be located within
250 feet of any other indoor
entertainment use.
Sec.16-4-1241 Shopping Center
Shopping centers are permitted subject to
the following standards.
A. All shopping centers shall have
direct access to a major or minor
arterial, as defined in Sec. 16-5.
403.
B. NG& Bihopping centers &V
This is to claro that only new shopping
permitted provided they contain
centers must meet thly requirement. There
.only uses permitted by right or as
are several shopping centers that are
conditional uses within the District.
located in districts which do not allow
C. In the CFB District, shopping
shopping centers (therefore making the
existing shopping centers noncoilforming)
centers not exceWing 50,000 square
but to enforce this I irovislon on
feat shall be permitted subject to
nonconforming shopping centers would In
conditional use review and centers
all likelihood cause them to go out of
not exceeding 100,000 soure feet
business.
shall ty., permitted subj�,.;t to special
exception review.
D. In.the RD District, shopping centers
not exceeding 50,000 square feet
shall be permitted subiect to
19
menb 2005-1/Part B
:LMOAziend P&DS 5/25/05
20
LMO Amendments 2005-lifflart B.
the ffighway C%wity Manual.
E; The road system for residential
subdivisions shall be designed to
serve the needs of the neighborhood
and to discourage use by through
traffic.
Th
P&DS 5405
was originall
y located in the pathway
lards section of the LMO but since It -
r with streets, this is the more
opriate location.
W
LMO Amendments 2005-1/Part D
71&DS 5/25/05
See. 16-5404. Desip Standards by
Street Type
A. Strft t Standards. Ile follovring
standardsihall apply to all sueets.
mum, MOM
'ji
"dw
Lane so
20 ft 4 ft 30 R
culkie-uc 2501
20ft 4 ft 40 ft
Soo
20 ft a ft so ft
Local Access 2,000
22 ft 8 R 0 ft
50 ft
Subcollector 4,000
24 ft 8 ft 60 ft
Collector 6,000
24 ft 10 ft 70 ft
Minor
Arterial 25,000
24 ft loft 70 ft
Major S0,000
Arterial
24 ft 12 lt 120 ft
hammerhead
A may be used place
This is to clar6 the instances when
of a'cul-de-sac if the maximum AT)
am 250 trim or less,
hammerheads are appropriate to use.
A. licad-End Streets. No dead-end
streets shall be permitted except
those classified as a lane or cul-de.
sac above. , All dead end roads
rjUsified as cul-de-sac&JLLU.
404 reaWre the geometric and
as shown in 16,5406 or
1&5407,
It the request of the Fire Marshal, this
[New
_WUdW"l
Section]
section Is being added. Thiswillgive
applicants the alternative ofserving a dead
A.
endstreet with a hammerhead or a cul -de -
minimum length of 60 feet
lenuth gi 120 feet,
sac.
I avA
B
22
LMO Amendments 2005-1/Part B
23
Sam Attachment for Acceptable
Hammerhead Diagrams
See. 16-54M. Street Intersections
rhis simply corrects the number since a
new section Is being added.
See. 16-5-408t Access to Streets
This simply corrects the number since a
new section Is being added.
Sec 16-540& Street Llgbdng
This simply corrects the number since a
---
new section Is being added
Sm 16-54101. Traffic Signs and Street
This simply corrects the number since a
Name Sips
new section Is being added.
See. 16-54141. Street Furniture
This simply corrects the number since a
new section Is being added
See. 16-5414 Street Design end
This simply corrects the number since a
Constmcdon Standards
new section Is being added
Sec. 16-5414 Pathway Standards
Bleyels Safe Onisage Gnsm.
WAYS!$ ash dMiness liffiWe am!!
be u -sad on As VA-R—Atru"An ACRI,
This section was moved to 16-5-402.
CHAPTER 5 - ARTICLE V. STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT STANDARDS
See. 16-5-502. General Standards for
Stormwater Management
no following standards shall pertain to all
stormwater management planning:
A. Each development shall incorporate
stormwater management facilities
sufficient to maintain pre -
development peak discharge rates
across adjacent property lines. In
the cue of redevelopment, the pro -
23
F&DS MW
LMO Asandants 205-Ifflart IS
d elopWent -condition shall be
dgvned . the n&UW state. This
ruirment may be waived 7 a
q 1' au where
to a
swiable means of now into a
ui v I
0 ge point is
7downsucam tidal disc' huge Ii
acce�sil 0 applicant
accessible; or where the 7app
provides & drainage system with
adequate capacity to carry site
flows to an ultimate downstream
tidal discharge point. Except as
noted above, discharge of runoff
into tidal or freshwater wetlands
dWI be limited to pre -development
conditions, unless otherwise
approved by the OCRM.
B. No development shall be
undertaken that can be shown to
appreciably increase the flood
potential within the development,
on adjacent or surrounding lands or
on tidal or freshwater wetlands. If
such potential is in question, the
Town Engineer shall make the final
determination.
C. Development plans may be rejected
by the Town Engineer if they
incorporate structures and facilities
that will demand considerable
maintenance, will be difficult to
maintain, or utilize numerous small
structures if other alternatives are
physically possible.
D. No stormwater discharge shall be
permitted onto beaches. No
stormwater discharge shall be
permitted into tidal or freshwater
wetlands unless filtered by a
approved by the Town
method
Engineer.
E. All drainage plans and calculations
shall be prepared by a professional
---ineer- licensed in the State of
24
LNO Ammidents 200&1/Part B
P&DS Sa"S
South Carolina.
O"Idelo h most recent
qtnrm Water Best Menapement Practices
e Oamen
Ofstorm
This is being added at the request ofthe
Town Engineer.
Sw- 16-5-M. Standards for Impervious
Surface Coverap
A. Permanent on-site water surface
areas shall be considered as
impervious surfaces for purposes of
site hydrologic calculations.
B. Ile maximum impervious surface
site coverage permitted on any
development site shall conform
with the maximum coverage
requirements for each district as
stipulated in Chapter 4, Article XI,
G. I" " BMU, W&W, MMU, G
RD, 06
This Is not currently being done and it has
OM, GG, 116 di"ete,
been determined that it is punitive to the
OfPselting, whodw
jervie , beneath
a Wer
Ais' 1WA629 WWI
requite dw reduedenekhe
ffiffiflas"m if -psi WOMB Site severage
applicant so it Is being deleted.
olipulefeil in G6pisr 4, Amele X-1
by an anseum equal to
ares befts&A dw bmilding�
07 Q In the calculation of
pervious/impervious ratios as
required in Chapter 4, Article X1,
permanent water bodies shall be
considered as impervious surface.
See. 16-5-505. Design Standards
� A. Twenty -Five Year Storm. The 25-
25
LMO Aaandants 20WI/Part B
0
year frequency storm shall be used
in the desip of all drainage
systems and runoff
detentiontretention structures.
B. On-Ske Wendow All
applications for development shall
provide for on-site v&tention (dry
or wet), or percolation of
stomwater sufficient to maintain
pre -development 25 -year fiequency
peak discharges after development
has occurred, or as exempted in
Sec. 16-5-501.
C. Site Area. The site shall be the total
area of developmcn� including
noncontiguous lands if part of a
noncontiguous PUD development
application, and shall be owned in
fee simple or have perpetual cross
easements for drainage purposes, in
accordance with Sec. 16-5-506.
D. Retcatiom of Fint lacb. All
applicants for development will
provide for on-site retention (dry or
wet) or percolation areas for, as a
minimum, one inch of runoff from
on-site impervious surfaces. The
one inch of ninoff from all such
impervious surfaces shall be
dissipated by percolation into the
soil, or evaporation or other
methods of treatment or handling
accepble to the Town Engineer.
For purposes of this section, the
"site" of a development within a
PUD shall be anywhere within the
property boundaries of such PUD.
In a noncontiguous PUD, each
noncontiguous site area shall
separately satisfy stormwater
management requirements of this
Part.
26
]P&DS SaMS
0
0
LMO Amendments 2005-1/Part 8 P&DS 512WS
E. Wention or Percola0m Areas.
112etention (dry or wet) or
percolation areas may utilize on-site
or off-site areas, providing that the
developer seeking off-site relief will
show evidence of an assigned
drainage casemcn� per See. 16-5-
506, bear the total cost of such
improvements and obtain the
approval of the Town Engineer that
such improvements are in the
common good and are of
satisfactory design to cause no
hardship to others utilizing the same
drainageway, on site, upstream or
downstream. If off-site rdetention is
used, the applicant shall provide
appropriate legal documents to
ensure that the off-site *tention
areas and the cross -easements
associated with these rdetention
areas are properly and perpetually
maintained.
CHAPTER 5 - ARTICLE VI. HEIGHT
Section 16-5-601. Maximum Structure Height
Maximum structure heights for each district are set forth in the Table below. No structure
shall exceed the specified height limits unless otherwise allowed in this Article.
. . . . . Die
Ifts
to
';""' � 71,
(bridges over
CON 2S feet navigable waters may
exceed this limitation)
PR 4S ftet 2 stories
RS -2, RS -3, RS -4, RS -S 35 feet
RM -4 35 feet
RM -8 45 feet
RM -12 45 feet
PD -1 1 75 feet 1 5 habitable stories
27
LMO Asendimmlis 2005-1APart 9
0
0
P&MISMSM
SMU, MMU - Residential
45 feet
3 habitable stories/1
level parking
SMU, MMU - Non Residential
3S feet
2 habitable storlesli
level parking
SMU, MMU Mixed Use
45 feet
3 habitable stories / I
level parking
CF5 - Located greater than 600 feet from
the upland boundary of the beach as
45 feet
3 habitable storles/1
defined In Sec. 8-1-112 of the Municipal
level parking
Code.
CFB - Located within 600 feet of the upland
S habitable stories/1
boundary of the beach as defined In Sec. 8-
75 feet
level parking
1-112 of the Municipal Code.
WMU, RD
75 feet
5 habitable stories /I
level parking
OL, NC, OM, CC, IL - Residential
�3S feet
2 habitable stories /I
level parking
OL, NC, IL - Nonresidential
3S feet
2 stories
OM, CC - Nonresidential
4S feet
3 stories
Tlw FHOD took she place
AN
See
u ide lVi iiii
d,91,4at
ofthis overlay district.
AHZ
See Sec. 10-4-
403
See
CDR
underlying
district
This simply adds this
FBNCOQ
und@rIving
overlay district to the
JU= I
height table.
This simply adds this
511111
FFNCOQ
und@rIving
overlay district to the
W=
height table.
This simply adds this
&A
underlying
overlay district to she
Q=
height table.
I
See
PD -2
I
underlying
district
28
LMO Aniesdotents 205-1/Part B
P&DS SON
CHAPTERS ITICLE M PLANNED UNIT LOPMENTST
Sw. 1( 5.%6. Noncondpoul Planned Unit
Development
C. Location of NoncontlPons PUD. Rezoning nis has been amended to allow the
for noncontiguous PUDS shall be allowable
under the applicable regulations of this Title
SMUand MMU dair-1-0
for nOncOnfiguOus PUDs-
from the OL, OM, CC, WMIJ- qMU- MMU
and RD base zoning districts.
CHAPTER 5 - ARTICLE X11 N5
ADING STANDARDS
Sec. 164�1204. Parking Space Size
A. The size of a standard parking space for one
This is the size that is used by
vehicle shall be a rectangular area having
Beaufort County.
dimensions of not less thart 40 2 feet by 18
This Is being changed as a result of
feet.
the change in minimum space size.
B. For those parking spaces that adjoin a median
at the end of a parking bay or adjoin a median
separating parking spaces in a row of parking,
the width of the parking space shall be
expanded to 44. IQ feet.
�-'
This is being cha nged to give
applicants a greater opportunity to
C. Top.8-s- opme other Vegetation, 1--P—
-- �ii - the minber oF muss fF8YW@d
use compact spaces.
paces at a 2 sta aid snaces-I Untold
IMLX&I�L (given that the total provided
meets or exceeds the minimum requirements
of this Title) may be designed for use by
compact automobiles, subject to approval by
the Administrator. Compact spaces shall be 9
feet by 15 feet and clearly marked as a
compact space. For those parking spaces that
It. — 0 .. kin bav or
adjoin a median at c c 0 - 0
adjoin a median separating parking spaces in
a row of parking, the width of the puking
space shall be expanded to 10 feet.
29
0
LMO Ameodnents 2005-1/Part B
P&DS 05/05
See. 16.5-1208. Schedule of Required
Off -Street Parklaig
The following table describes the minimum
number of off-street parking spaces
required by land use.
Changes to the parking table as shown below will be discussed In detail at the LMO
Committee meeting, These changes are being made as result ofstudies of existing
parking lots and new parking datafrom the Urban Land Institute. Examples will also be
V"C"ersey"
siptift Un
Group Living
Assissed Living
Facility
LU spom per dwellinit unit
Sl=ly'
2 spaces per unit
Single Family,
Ddachcd
Len than 4,000 sq. ft.
2 Spam Per unit
4.000 sq. ft. & above
LAWazuwwa i space for every NWWmd 1,250 sq. fl.
Multifamily
I bodmGm
1.40 speces per unit
Household Living
2 bodmont
1.70 spaces per unit
3 bedroom
2.00 spaces pet unit
gonw-pm
RUWIMW
COMM"
1.50 sphm per unit
Manufac ured
Housing=
2 spaces per unit
FobiltantlCivic
Avistion/Surrace
Passenger Terminal
1.0 ewe per 200 sq. 0. per grow floor am
community Service
1.0 space per 40D sq. ft. of firm floor area
Day Cam
1.9 ewe pet 1040"Pleyed,
colleges
10 spun per classroom
Schools, Public or
Private
Educational Facilities
Elementary
2 spun per classmom
Junior High
5 spoons per classmorn
High Schooll0ther
School
10 spun per classroom
Government Facilities
Fire Station
4 spaces furesch bay, plus I space foreach 200 square fed efoflke am
30
0
LMO Amendmenits 2005-1/1'art B P&DS 5/25/05
UNCOIJIM
4wile, UN
.;: I
Other
I space for each 200 $Qum feet OfOMCIC area
Hospi
2 spaces per b4 Plus I space Per 200 sq— feel "I'Offic"
bial, I spsmilms "lid"m "im .... QAAM
Islas
R:LL W
Religious Institutions
-
I space for each 3 mats In the Milin aUMbIY
I space for every 3 bods, hued on die designed rnaxbru capacity of the
institutions
Other Institutions
building
I -pace ror every 225 94uuc fed OfanY UMWW Office and 009 space for
Cemetery
every 500 square feet ofmaintimanim fiscilitki.
LULAW1111
I
I'Arks and Open
—
Arm
pmkrwo#Awbew
sells
Commercial
IV= for each too square fed ofgmu floor am and any outdoor dining
With Drive-7bru
art"
With Seating, High
IspaceroreachI00 squarcisdot'grossnooramandanyould"
Turnover
dining areas
Bating Establishments
With Scating, Low
I space lbreach IOD squin red ofgross floor an and any outdoor
Turnover
dining aress;
I space for each 100 SqUiLre fed 0fV055 floor Art& and any outdoor dining
Without Seating
areas
Indoor Rocreallont
Indoor Recration
I space for every 3 persons that the fisellitics am designed to socominodidel
when fully utilized, plus I space per 200 square fed orgross four am
Entertainment
Indoor Entertainment
used for omen or similar activities
I space for every 3 persons that the fiscilltics are designed to acco=
Amusement PsAs
when fully utillud, plus I space per 200 square feet ofgross floor area
used for office or similar activities
Driving Range, Free
I space for each driving tee
Standing
4 spaces for each green, plus 50 percent ofthe requirenuents for any other
Oubilaor Recreation/
aoircourse
associated use, except in planned residential. resort, or commercial
developments which have otherwise adequate provisions for Pa"F
Entertainment
Milij
1W.If
111111GAWL119111
Stadium
I space for each 4 spectator mats
I space for every 3 persons that the facilities am designed to accommodate
Other Outdoor
when tally utilized. plus I space per 200 square fed ofgmss floor am
Recreation
used for office or similar activities
Health Services
I space for each 225 square fed ofgmu floor area
Excipt Hospitals
Me
Real Estate
I space for each 2M square feet ofgron floor am
Sales/Rental
Other Offices
I space for each 2M square feet orross; four am
31
0
0
NE
LMO Amendments 2005-1/1art B
P&DS 5/25/05
Un calligary
Resort Accommodation
I space for each mom to be noted P11105 percent ofthoother uses
Bed and Breakfast jasociatet! with the r�tablishmext
central Reception or I goo for each 225 aqua a fed ort— a -
Check -in Facility
Divisible Dwelling Add 0,5 spacca per lock." mom:Q the rcquM spaces for the
Unit multilionully U.0
I space for each room to be remod plus 75 percent ofthe other Uses
Hotel or Motel anceigind with the establishment
I space for each room to be rented plan 7s percent orthe other uses
Ina associated with the establishment
RV Park I's spaces per unit
sho*4"
UNA
4-� lo loss
24wmom ON
;4811fes"s
Retail Sales and Service
Adult Entertainment I spwe for each 100 square feet Ofgms fim area
or Financial I space for each 225 square fed ofgmn floor
Institution
Bicycle Rental (with I space f" every 200 square feet Of9r0ss flO0r ANS
outdoor storage)
I space 'K&,,,McAd In.1,tWOF"%YfVQt1iffl
for each ' '= L
additional Pa. d If,- umber offacililks
DancnStudlo I space for every 200 square fixl OfIV051 BOOr m
Convenience Store I space for every 200 square feet OfV013 floor am
Department of I $pace for every 2W jU square fees of gross floor ares
Discount Store
I space for each 4 seats In the chapel or Parlor, Plus I space for each 200
Funcral Home square fed ofofficc am
Furniture Store I space for every 2W LM square fed Ofg= floor 00
7HKdw., Point,
Glen, Wallpaper, or I $pace for every 2W IM square fed Of9ross floor 111"
Carptislose
Health Club or Spa I space for every 200 squarc fed ofgross floor no
Kennel, Boarding I space for each 225 square feet org— noor
Landscape Nursery I space for every 200 squamm feet Of 111053 floor
Liquor Store I space for every 200 square feet ofgmss floor am
Nightclub or Bar I space for each 4go 2g square feet ofp- floor a=
(finestanding)
Open Air Sales I space for every 200 square fed of FOSS 11001 are's
Shopping Center I space for every 3W JU square feet ofgmu floor an
Souvenir of T -Shirt I space for every 200 square fed of'SION floor ares
Store
S.P...*.. I space for every 200 square fed 01`910611 floor Am
32
LMO Amemilments 2005-111'art B P&DS 5/25/05
UN Callipary,
�'spiciftum
Veterinary Hospital
I space for each 225 square feet ofgmss floor an
Watercraft Sales,
Rental Or Service
I space for every 200 square feet ofgrm floor area
Other Retail Sales or
Service
I space for every NO a square feet ofgross floor am
Auto Rental
(OF bay, = am sq� fair Altomm 0
11111111111111112"
Auto Repair
2 spaces for etch service bay, plus I Ike each 200 square Ices ol'office or
waiting area
Auto Sales
Vehicle Sales and Services
Ga" Uas
fop ank ww" ba*V6 448F 01611100 1411M AM 96901WOF
%'A 1 01 —
Taxicab Service
spened laf suh Um" bay, plus I a= for each 200 square fed of
office or waiting am
Towing Service
aximse fePnob mwv"Itsyrishis-1 1M foreach 200 square feet of
oMce or waiting am
Truck or Trailer
Rental
llaweo far Ush mvies bsy7; ii I W& for each 200 sq. Fect of
office or waiting no
spaces per wash unit rot automatic wash, plus 5 spaces per wash bay for
manuAl wash Note: Off-street vehicle stacking spaces my be used to
satisfy the requirement, Ifthe plan Is acceptable to the Administrator.
ladmilriel
contractoes onnice
IspweIb=hU0j sq=fcdorofficcoradminisirativewa,plw4
Allpily
with On-site Storage
40" . F!1�116F NaIN OF P"
for 0001% 1.800 mquers fear 9$ - ----- ----
Light Industrial Services
Other Light Industrial
Service
hF11 Pills I space
me
Manufacturing and
Production
other Manufacturing
and Production
OPT� ref:a�199 dqw"�& dfefifla� of N& I. M016. Was. P IN
----- ----- -- - —ky Was, pow I space
& " U=;hW'j"_sqU_U_ C fCCI Of 111110AF 410 �l� 0
Moving and Storage
OF Afllljv� OF �Am War ffidlvs ares, pliffil 1
IPUC
2,500 sq. r.:t
Warehouse and Freight
Movement
I space foresch no= square fed ofaffin� of adn Ws&��&
Pills 1610111 NIF11111 609 1111KI FOIIGFIIIABBF&slassp!�!!"H
I Space In Wffilhkamh 41 -.0, pha;
Varehousing
..F. F W1.1
Waste Related Service
-Pky area. plus
spoes hF NOW2,11GO square Ad A;2"4mr stamp a
33
LMO A�dnemb 2005-1/Part B
P&DS 5125M
A. Permanent off-street parking shall
not exceed 105 percent of the
minimum number of spaces Pervious parking is betterfor the
required for the approved land use,
except as provided below. AU environment. Ifsomeone wants to build
jaljIjd_jM= more parking than the Town's data
I with pervioUl indicates that they need, the parking should
materialf, be constructed ofa material that is not
detrimental to Me environment.
B.
eatirm establishments sluill not
C. For specific uses not scheduled
above, the Admivistrator shall
apply the unit of measurement set
forth in the above schedule which is
deemed to be most similar to the
proposed use.
34
*W:fOrCV'h"0jM qT
wboleswe Sales
wholimic Bui�
4-W fop .00 We"M 94M
AMMARKIN
Wbolmde BusWw
with A= RCUII
I
odwr
PtIVAUclub
I spm for evay 200 sqwe fed ofFm flm on
Muin
I opwo pa 200 squam fed ofewWW Rw spwo aM OW for Uomp
Wwa4Mwted Fadikka
fackla. Idu I acry 3 %" slip, ptu I spwc for aery 5 ofdry
olhawwa-o"Sw
1
USN"S
A. Permanent off-street parking shall
not exceed 105 percent of the
minimum number of spaces Pervious parking is betterfor the
required for the approved land use,
except as provided below. AU environment. Ifsomeone wants to build
jaljIjd_jM= more parking than the Town's data
I with pervioUl indicates that they need, the parking should
materialf, be constructed ofa material that is not
detrimental to Me environment.
B.
eatirm establishments sluill not
C. For specific uses not scheduled
above, the Admivistrator shall
apply the unit of measurement set
forth in the above schedule which is
deemed to be most similar to the
proposed use.
34
LMO Amendments 2005-1/Part B
P&DS 512SM
Sec. 16-5-1211. Fillt Vehicles
Mls section Is being added to address
parkingfor uses that have a number of
vehicles in theirfleet such as tairicab
services and truck rentalfacilities.
but not
icab service. auto
service
Daces or_a
sufficiprit area for vt
20
of the anolicability of this section
B. allocated to yeWcle storage
may Und to satisfy the area
nor shall any portion of any o
satisfy the area reoui
vehicle storaue,
CHAPTER 5 - ARTICLE
�511. SIGN STANDARDS
See. 16-5-1304. Prohibited Signs
Except as may be hereinafter specifically
permitted, it shall be unlawfid after
September 20, 1993 for any person to erect,
place or use within the Town, when visible
�om any public way, any of the following
signs:
A. Off -premises signs except special
event signs, directional signs,
This Is being added to allow public park
2WgjL2ULjjM and outdoor
signs, where absolutely necessary, to be
stadium advertising signs as
located in an off -premises location.
described elsewhere in this Article.
CHAPTER 7 - ARTICLE IV. OTHER NQNCOXFORMITIES
35
LMO Amendments 2005-1/Part B
See. 16-740. Nonconforming sips
4. All offpremise, 99mmenial,
mWfitensnt; dime" signs Asib!
P&DSSr.SM
The State Assembly Is proposing new
legislation which, ifthe Town required a
sign to be removed, wouldforce the Town
e
to reimburse the sign ownerfor both the
frent my wMrW Feadway must be
cost of the sign and anyfuture revenues the
removed by My 2, 1999 January 1.
04 date reallife the
removal of any such off premise
AIRLaMMAHM&AMARMM"
street or nathway construction or
sign might have generated.
CHAPTER 9 - ARTICLE
IL DEFINITIONS
Section 16-9-201. Defined Terms
sne.,
This provides a clear dey7nitionfor a bike
lane which Is differentftom a pathway.
comr,fell the develoome t of property
This has been added based on the changes
grAcific deveignmeMwan r nha--zed
adopted by the State Legislature in 2004.
pf Laws Tide 6 Chanter 29 Article 11
&tign 1510 A tan
2nd Tlt� and Mn MIMe
a tion 16-3-3WA
0
TOWN OF MLTON HEAD ISLAND
Planning Department
TO: Stephen 0. Riley, AlCP, Town Manager
VIA: Charles F. Cousins, AlCP, Planning Director
VIA: Teti B. Lewis, AICP, Manager ofDovelopmat Review & Zoning 1k,
FROM: Edwin B. Drone, AIA, AICP, Urban Designer _90
DATE May t6,2004
SUBJECT: ZMA050004
Recommendation: Staff recommends that Town Council approve this application for a Zoning
Map Amendment. The Planning Commission met on May 4, 2005 and voted to unanimously
recommend Town Council approve this application. The Planning Commission made their
decision after hearing a report by Staff, a presentation from the applicant and comments fiorn the
public.
Svmmary: An application horn Chester C. Williams., agrnt'for Frederick & Wilma Watkins, to
amend the Zoning Map within the PD -1 (Plasmed Development Mixed Use) zoning district in the
Sea Pines Master Plan by convening Lot IA Painted Bunting Road Subdivision into two lots.
The parcel is located at 12 Painted Bunting Road and is further identified as Parcel 141 on
Beaufort County Tax Map #19.
Background: This application is for de -consolidating Lot IA Painted Buhting Road subdivision
back into two separate lots. Lot I A was purchased by the Watkins in September of 2004 along
with an agreement with the Sea Pines Company to obtain an additional dwelling unit fiom the
residential dwelling unit cap in order to change the lot back into two lots. The revised
subdivision plat shows that there were two lots when it was recorded in 1964. These two lots
were consolidated in 1975 into one lot. This was the configuration when the Town adopted the
Sea Pines Master Plan as part of its official Zoning Map. Therefore a Zoning Map Amendment
approval is necessary in order to change Lot I A back into the original Lot I A and Lot I B. See
the applicant's exWbits for copies of these plats.
rown Government Center # am Town Center Court # Building C
Hilton Head Island SouthCaroftna # 29928
843-341-4681 (FAX)843-842-8908
Zoning
Existint Land Use
Norlb
PD -1 — Roadway
Pointed Bunting
South
Atlantic Omn
N/A
Ent
PD -1 — Single family
I Single family
West
PD -1 —Open §Me
I Beach Access
rown Government Center # am Town Center Court # Building C
Hilton Head Island SouthCaroftna # 29928
843-341-4681 (FAX)843-842-8908
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND
ORDINANCE NO. 2005- PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 2005-15
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 4 OF TITLE 16, -THE LAND
MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE- (LM% OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF
THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA, BY
AMENDING SECTION 164-102, THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP,
SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP WITHIN THE PD -11
(PLANNED DEVELOPMENT MIXED USE) ZONING DISTRICT IN THE SEA
PINES MASTER PLAN TO DECONSOLIDATE LOT IA PAINTED BUNTING
SUBDIVISION INTO TWO LOTS CONSISTENTwiTHTHEORIGINAL
SUBDIVISION PLAT; AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on July 21, 1998, the Town CDuncil did amend Tide 16 of die Municipal
Code of the Town of Hilton Head Island by enacting a revised Land Management Ordinance
(LMO); ant,
WHEREAS, the Town Council now finds that, upon further review, it is in the public
interest that the Sea Pines Master Plan be amended to deconsolidate lot IA Painted Bunting
Subdivision into two lots consistent with the original subdivision plat; and
WHEREAS, this zoning change would be compatible with surrounding land uses and
neighborhood character, would not br, detrimental to the public health, safety and welfkre, and,
fwther, would be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 4, 2005, at which
time a presentation was made by staff and the applicant after which an opportunity was given for the
public to comment on the rezoning request; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after consideration of the staff report, applicant's
presentation, public comments, and the criteria set forth in Section 16-3-1505 of die LMO,
subsequently vote6 at that meeting to recommend to Town Council that the rezoning request be
approved;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED AND ORDAINED BY THE TOWN
COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND, SC; AND IT IS ORDAINED BY
SAID AUTHORITY OF COUNCIL:
Section 1. Amendmen 71at the official zoning map of the Town of Hilton Head bland, as
referenced by Section 16-4-102 of the Land Management Ordinance, be, and the same hereby
amended to deconsolidate lot IA Painted Bunting Subdivision into two lots consistent with the
original subdivision plat.
Seediss I Swerob If any section. Onse, sentence or portion of ft Onlhmw is for my
reason held mvand or unconstitutional by any court of compdalt junsdictlon, such pXtion " be
doemed a separate, distinct and ind*mdent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity
Ofthe rtmaining portions thereot
See" 3 Effective This Ortlinance dWi be effective upon its adoption by the Town
Council ofthe Tmm offfilton Head Island, South Carolina.
PAWED, "PROVED, AM ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL FOR THE TOWN OF
HILTON HEAD ISLAND ON THIS -DAY OF _ 2005.
Thomas D. Peeples, Mayor
BetsyMostelleriTowrXierk
Public Hearing: May4,2005
Fkst Reading: June 7,205
SecondIttruling:
0
01
TOWN OF HLION HEAD ISLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MASTER APPLICATION FORM
ONE TOWN CMUCotaT FMTON MAD ISLIND, SC "M 0 IM3-3414HI - 0 PAX $4344241M
Pkm7YFEorPAWlegjWy
NAME OF DEVELOPMENT ResubdIvislon of consolidated Lot IA Pointed Bun** Rood SL6dMWm, Sea Pines
STREETADDREss Painted Bunting Road
ZONING DISTRICT PD -1 Sea Pines OVERLAY OISTRICT
TAX DISTRICL 550 MAP 19 PARCEL (S)__141
LANDOWNER APPLICANT
X�mw� A. Watkins and Same as Land Owner AGENT
WOrm B. Watkins Ch@5W C. Willimm. Ema.
Law Office of C. Willerm, LLC
8191 Vj Dod Dff" South R!�N= L,
m;l =OH "080 Post Omm B�x
M Hilton Head 15101d, SC 2993MO28
216-301-0221
TELON"
PAX AP13-842-54112
Flnn0CCWLow.nvt
A CHECK-IN CONFERENCE IS REQUIRED FOR THESE ITEMS. SEE LMO 16-3-104 FOR
MORE INFORMATION. ATTACH THE NECESSARY SUPPLEMENTAL FORM(S).
APPEAL *
DEVELOPMENT PL "14 REVIEW
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
SPECIAL EXCEPT70N
SUBDIVISION -
= VARIANCE *
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
PUBLIC PROJECT
SIGN PERMIT
TREE APPROVAL
WETLAND ALTERATION
TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION ON THIS APPLICA71ON AND ALL
ADD17IONAL DOCUMENTATION IS TRUE, FACTUAL AND COMPLETE. I HEREBY AGREE TO ABIDE
BY ALL CONDITIONS OF ANY APPROVALS GRANTED BY THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND.
I UNDERSTAND THAT SUCH CONDITIONS SHALL APPLY To THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ONLY AND
ARE A RIGHT OR OBLIGATION TRANSFERABLE BY SALE.
March 18,2005
SIGNATURE ester C. W1111ams, Esq. DATE —
01253-001
DATE RECEIVED.-_gl9jo6 FOR OFFICLAL USE ONLY
ACCEPITI) BY: me 4—" 9
MASTER TRACKING NUMBER:ZM A(3
MEN
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORM
TOWN OF MTON EEAD ISIAM
THISFORMAIUSTBEACCOMANIEDBYA AMSTER APPLICATIONFORM
Pkm TYPE or PRDrr leglMy
NAME OF DEvELopmENT. ResubdIvislon of Consdideted Lot IA Pointed Bunting Road SubdMsW, Sea Plrws
CURREN7 ZONING DISTTUCr: PD -1 Sea Pines
PDA Sea Pines
ZONING DISIlUCr BEING REQUESTED'
THE FoLLowiNa, ITEMS MUST BE ATrAcHED FOR Tms APPLICATION TIO BE cOmPlzm. SEE
LMO SECTION 16-3-1502 FOR MORE INFORMATION.
NARRATIVE ADDRESSING REASONS FOR REZONING AND HOW THE
REQUEST MEETS THE CRITERIA OF 16-3-1505 See Attachment 1.
A BOUNDARY MAP OF suBjEcr PROPERTY PREPARED AND SEALED BY A
REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. A REPRODUCIBLE COPY OF 119S MAP, NO
0
LARGER THAN III' X Ir', MUST ALSO BE SUBM[rrrED. SeeAttachment2.
r7x A COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE SOLICITING COMMENTS FROM ANY PROPERTY
OWNERS ASOCIAIION PER 116-31-1502-A.3. SeeAttachment3.
r7X CERTIFICATION OF OWNER'S CONSENT. See Attachment 4.
CCwuw0l
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
DAII! . RECEIVED: S AD/* 42 10
Arrpvmn Av. EA 1\ M A QTFR TR A ry Tmr. WT TURFIR
TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND
Planning Depariment
j Application for 1,alve Map Ameadmest—ZMA050004
0
APPLICATION SUMMARY
PARCEL DATA
An application fiorn Chester C.
Existing Zoning District & Densit
Williams., agent for Frederick
PD -1, Planned Development Mixed Use
& Wilma Watkins, to amend
One single finnily dwelling unit
the Zoning Map within the PD-
I (Plarmed Development
EMsed Zoning District & Donsi
Mixed Use) zoning district in
PD -1, Planned Development Mixed Use
the Sea Pines Master Plan by
Two single family dwelling units
conveding, Loi IA Painted
Section 16-3-1505 of the Land
Bunting Road Suklivision into
Apglicable 0verljX District(
two lots. The parcel is located
none
at 12 Painted Bunting Road
written findings provided in this
and is further identified as
Planned Unit Develgpment (PUD
Parcel 141 on Beaufort County
Sea Pines
Tax Map #19.
The Planning Commission voted to
PUD Tract 0 & Land Use Desiguation
recommended that Town Council
Lot IA Painted Bunting Road Subdivision
REVIEW & RECOMMENDATION(S)
DATE RECOMMENDATION
Town Government Center 0 One Town Center Court 0 BuildingC
Hilton Read Island # SouthCarolina # 29928
843-341-4681 0 IFAX)843-842-8908
Planning Staff
April 25,2005
Staff recommends APPROVAL of
this Application for Zoning Map
Amendment based on analysis of
the Review Criteria outlined in
Section 16-3-1505 of the Land
Management Ordinance aml the
written findings provided in this
staff report.
Planning Commission
May4,2005
The Planning Commission voted to
recommended that Town Council
approve the Zoning Map
Amendment.
Planning & Development Standards
Comm ttee
I Town Council - First Reading
I Town Council – Second Reading
Town Government Center 0 One Town Center Court 0 BuildingC
Hilton Read Island # SouthCarolina # 29928
843-341-4681 0 IFAX)843-842-8908
ZMAISM
Pop 2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This application is for cle-consolidating Lot I A Painted Bunting Road subdivision back into two separate
lots. Lot I A was purchased by the Watkins in September of 1994. An agreement was obtained in 1985
fiom the Sea Pines Company to obtain an additional dwelling unit from the residential dwelling unit cap
in order to change the lot back into two lots. Ile revised subdivision plat shows that there were two lots
when it was recorded in 1964. Then two lots were consolidated in 1975 into one lot. This was the
configuration when the Town adopted the Sea Pines Mater Plan as part of its official Zoning Map.
Therefore a Zoning Map Amendment approval is necessary in order to change Lot IA back into die
original Lot IA and Iet IB. See the applicant's exhibits for copies of thew plats.
ANALYSIS OF REQUIRED FINDINGS
Article XV of Chapter 3 in the Town of Hilton Head Island Land Management Ordinance outlines review
criteria by which both staff and the Planning Commission must evaluate proposals to amend the Officisl
Zoning Map. Stairs recommendation and written findings are based on analysis of the criteria listed in
LMO Section 16-3-1505. Please refer to the applicant's well researched and written Attachment I to the
application for additional information on the criteria.
(A) Consistency (or lack thereq)) with the Comprehensive Plan;
Finding. This zoning map amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, it is
supported by the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Land Use Element suggests that the Town should provide for compatible development with an
appropriate balance of land uses that do not adversely impact the natural resources, residential
neighborhoods and the overall character of the island. Goal IA states that this can be accomplished by
directing development in those areas that already have in place, or have agreements, to provide the
appropriate infrastructure capacity. The Painted Bunting Road Subdivision already has all the required
infisstructure therefore the de -consolidation of Lot I A complies with this goal.
Goal 2A suggests that density caps for the PUD's remain at or below existing levels. The de-
consolidation of Lot I A will not increase the dwelling unit cap for Sea Pines. The owner will acquire a
unit ftom the Sea Pines Company from their remaining undesignated residential dwelling units. Therefore
the de-consoliclation of Lot I A complies with this goal.
(B) Compatibility with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and with the
character of the neighborhood,
Finding. This proposed rezoning application is compatible with the uses of nearby property and the
chanter of the neighborhood. The use of the property is not changed by this zoning map amendment and
the cle-consoliclation of Lot IA will result in the size of the lots being more compatible with the other lots
in the neighborhood.
Town Government Center # One Town Center Court # BuildingC
Hilton Head Island SouthCarofina # 29928
843-341-4681 (FAX)843-842-8908
ZMAIMM
P*p3
(C) Suitability of the propen), affected by the amendmentfor uses permitted by the distrid dot would
be made applicable by theproposed amendment,
Finding. no subject site is suitable for residential development similar to other residential lots in the
neighborhood. As stated in (B) above the size of the new lots will allow for construction of homes of 8
size closer to existing homes.
(D) Suitability of she property affected by the amendmentfor uses permitted by the distrid applicable
to theproperly at the time of the pmposed amendment,
Finding. The existing zoning classification of PD -1 will not change a a result of this zoning map
amendment. The amendment will only return Lot lAa to its original configutration of two lots. TU
subject parcel is within the Sea Pines Master Plan which will not change as a mult of this zoning map
amendment.
(E) Marketability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the dirtrict
applicable to the property at the time ofshepropased amendment,
Finding. Tlds property's marketability will not change substantially if this zoning map amendment is
approved. The area is almost fully developed and an additional lot in the area should be very marketable.
(F) Availability of sewer, water and storm water facilities generally suitable and adequate for the
proposed use.
Finding. Sewer and water are connected to the property. Ile master drainage plan tor the subdivision
has adequate capacity for the two lots.
PREPARED BY:
CP
Edwin I Drane, AIA, P
Urban Designer
DATE:
REVIEWED BY:
Tai B. Lewis, AICP
Manager dfDavelopment Review & Zoning
DATE:
2"0"" Government Center 0 one Town Center Court # Building C
Hilion1leadisland SnthCardina # 29928
843-341-4681 (FAM843-842-8908
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND, SC
COUNTY OF BEAUFORT ZMAOSM_
ATTACHMENT I
TO THE ZONING M" AMEENDMEENT APPLICATION
OF FREDERICK A. WATKINS AND WILMA B. WATKINS
REGARDING LOT IA PAINTED BUNTING ROAD SUBDIVISION,
SEA PINES PLANTATION
This Attachment I is part of the Zoning Map Amendment Application (this
"Application) of Frederick A. Watkins and Wilma B. Watkins (Collectively, the "Appilcanf),
and is submitted by the Applicant to the Planning Commission of the Town of Hilton Head
Island (the "Town') to address the zoning map amendment criteria set forth in § 16-3-1505 of the
Town's Land Management Ordinance (the "LMO'). This Application seeks approval to amend
the official zoning map of the Town by amending the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan (the "Sea
Pines Master Plan) so as to change the permifted density on Consolidated Lot IA of Painted
Bunting Road SubcVvision on Painted Bunting Road in Sea Pines Plantaflon.
1. NARRATIVE — INTRODUCTION
The Applicant is the owner of the 1.172 acre tract of land designated as Lot IA of Painted
Bunting Road Subdivision in Sea Pines Plantation ("Consolidated Lot I A')'. Consolidated Lot
I A is designated in the Beaufort County Property Tax Records as TMS District 550, Map 19,
Parcel 141. The 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan shows Consolidated Lot JA as one lot designated
for single family residential use2. The Applicant is now seeking to amend the 1984 Sea Pines
The Applicant acquired Consolidated Lot ]A by way of die deed recorded on September 19, 1994 in Beaufort
County Record Book 731 at Page 192 1, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
See the Town's records on the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan and the accompanying text.
Final
X:WM%alcnts%Acdvet0l253-001 WaWna�200-03-1 8 ZMA Application Nanative,cloc
Master Plan and accompanying text so as to allow for the resubdivision of Consolidated Lot IA .
back into two single flunily residential lots.
IL NARRATIVE —BACKGROUND
A. PAINTED BUNTING ROAD SUBDIVISION
Painted Bunting Road Subdivision was originally. platted by Sea pines plantation
Company in May, 1963, and that original subdivision plat was recorded in the Beaufort County
Courthouse on May 30,1963 in Plat Book 13 at Page 92. The original subdivision plat was
revised in January, 1964 to include additional lots in the subdivision, and that revised plat was
recorded on January 27, 1964 in Beaufort County Plat Book 14 at Page 9. Copies of the original
subdivision plat recorded in Plat Book 13 it Page 92 and the 1964 revision to the subdivision
plat recorded in Plat Book 14 at Page 9 are attached hereto as Exhibits B and C, respectively. As
one can see from a cursory review of the 1964 revision to the Painted Bun ting Road Subdivision
pla4 it added fourteen new lots to the subdivision, including the lots designated as Lot I -A and
as Lot I -B ("Original Lot IA" and "Original Lot 113", respectively), both of which are shown as
separate, distinct single family residential lots.
The Painted Bunting Road Subdivision plat was again revised on December 2,
1975 to show the consolidation of Original Lot I A and Original Lot I B into one larger single
family residential lot, J. e., Consolidated Lot IA. That revised plat was recorded on December 3,
1975 in the Beaufort County Plat Book 24 at Page 60. A copy of that plat is attached hereto as
Exhibit D. This plat shows Consolidated Lot IA as one lot, with a dashed line in the location of
the former boundary line between Original Lot IA and Original Lot I B, designating them as
"Formerly Lot I -A" and as "FormeAy Lot 1 -13".
B. CONSOLIDATED LOT 1A
Subsequent to the consolidation of Original Lot I A and Original Lot 113, on May
28,1995, the owner of Consolidated Lot IA entered into a Lot Subdivision Agreement and
Declaration of Covenant with Sea Pines Plantation Company, which was recorded in Beaufort
ILF1W
02005 che"a C. Willim, LLC 2
X*-TM%ai4rft%"VeX01253-001 W&Wm%2005.03.182UAAR-jkatioRN&Mtimdgc
0
County Deed Book 452 at Page 1439 (the "Lot Subdivision Agreement). A copy of the Lot
Subdivision Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit E. The Lot Subdivision Agreement, which
predates the Town's incorporation of the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan into the LMO, clearly
provides for the resubdivision of Consolidated Lot I A back into two separate single family
residential lots in a manner that did not result in an increase in the residential density cap
imposed on Sea Pines Plantation by applicable restrictive covenants, and contains the approval
and consent of Sea Pines Plantation Company to that resubdivision.
Based on the position taken by the Town Planning Staff in situations s!milar to the
Applicant's desire to resubdivide Consolidated Lot IA, the Applicant is now seeking to amaW
the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan and accompanying text so as to allow for the resubdivision of
Consolidated Lot IA back into two separate single family residential lots, pursuant to the Lot
Subdivision Agreements. Sea Pines Company, Inc.4 has approved the Applicant's proposed
resubdivision of Consolidated Lot I A ns shown on the plat that is attached hereto as Exhibit F, as
evidenced by the copy of the March 11, 2005 letter from Michael E. Lawrence to die Applicant
that is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
There are no infrastructure impnivements necessary in order to complete the
resubdivision of Consolidated Lt- I A back into its two single family residential lots, and the
Tesubdivision will not result in an increase in the overall residential density cap under the Sea
Pines Master Plan, as there are already two Sea Pines Residential Density Units allocated to and
available for use on Consolidated Lot I A.
C. THE 1984 SEA PINES MASTER PIAN
3Tbeconditions; for the resubdivision of Consolidated Lot IA set forth in dw Lot Subdivision Agreemilthavil
beenmet in 1996 &previous owner ofConsolidated Lot IA conveyed Lot 32 in Otter Road Subdivision in Sea
Pines to Sea Pines Plantation Company, resulting in one Sea Pines Residential Density Unit available for use on and
allocated to Consolidated Lot IA in addition to the previously existing Sea Pines Residential Density Unit an
Consolidated Lot IA. nat deed is recorded in Beaufort County Deed Book 452 at Ilap 1435. In otber words, them
am currently two Sea Pines Residential Density Units allocated to and available for use on Consolidated Lot IA. In
addition, on October 28, 1988, the as= previous owner ofConsolklated Lot IA end Sea Pines Plantation Company
e hre limitations in that agreement. Iliat
modified the Lot Subdivision Agreement to ternove and cancel th t
Modification to Agreement is recorded in Beaufort County Deed Book 513 at Pop 1412.
4 Sea Pines Company, Inc. is a subsidiary of Sea Pines Associates, Inc., the current owner of Set Pines
Plantation and the successor to Sea Pines Plantation Company.
3
Find
am camw C. Wallilfts, Uc
X.NDsmT1knft\AWw\0l 253-001 WaWWM-03-18 ZMA Applicatim Numdw.doc
Throughout the history of the development of Sea Pines Plantation, Sea Pines Plantation
Company and its successors have maintained a master plan for the developmeitt of the
community. By some estimations, there are probably over 50 different versions of the Sea Pines
Master Plan dating back to the late 1950's.
The Town was incorporated in 1983 and thereafter enacted the original version of the
LMO in 1987. Among other things, the LMO established zoning districts within die Town,
including the district that is now known as the PD -I Planned Development Mixed Use District.
The purpose of the PD- I District is to recognize the existence within the Town of certain unique
mixed use Planned Unit Developments (PLID's) which am greater than 250 acres in size.
Generally, these PUD's, which include Sea Pines Plantation, Hilton Head Plantation, Pahnetito
Dunes Resort, and the other major PUDs on Hilton Head Island, have served to establish die
special character of Hilton Head Island as a quality resort and residential community, and it is
the LMO's intent in establishing the PD- I District to allow the continuation of well-planned
development within these areass.
The various PUD master plans and associated text, as approved and, when
applicable, as amended by the Town, establish general permitted uses and maximum am
densities for the PUD's, except as may be modified by the overlay of a specific district other than
the PD -I Districtii. With respect to Sea Pines Plantation in particular, the approved master plan
and associated text is the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan.
Under the interpretation of the LMO and the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan currently held
by the Towii Planning Staff, the zoning restrictions applicable to Consolidated Lot IA limit its
use to only one single family residence, because it is shown as one lot on the 1984 Sea Pines
Master Plan. The Applicant is proposing to resubdivide Consolidated Lot I A so it m ay be used
for two single family residences in a manner that will not increase the overall residential density
undert I he 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan. As will be more fully explained below, the Applicant
believes that the approval of this Application and the resulting residential development on
Consolidated Lot I A after it is resubdivided will not result in any increased impact on the
Town's i nfrastructure and environment. To that end, the Applicant is now seeking to amend the
5 See LMO § 164-209(A).
6 SeeLMO§164-209(D).
OM Cheider C. William, LVC
VDA&AClicnWActin\01253-001 WaWns'2005-03-1 I ZMA Application Nanative.doc
4
0
084 Sea Pines Master Plan so as to change the permitted density on Consolidated Lot IA from
one residential dwelling unit to two residential dwelling units.
Notwithstanding the interpretation of the LMO and the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan
currently held by the Town Planning Staff, there have been several instances in the past where
the Town has approved the resubdivision of consolidated lots shown on the 1984 Sea Pines
Master Plan without requiring an amendment to the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan as a
precondition to the subdivision. Specifically, the Applicant can point to (1) the consolidation of
Lots I and 4 of Royal Tern Road Subdivision and their resubdivision back into two lots in 1989;
(2) the consolidation of Lots 3, 4 and 5 of Baynard Cove Subdivision Phase 2 and their
resubdivision back into three lots in 1989; and (3) die consolidation of Lots 2, 3 and 4 of Fairway
Block 3 1, Sea Pines Golf Fairway Residential Area, on the ocean side of North Sea Pines Drive
and their subsequent resubdivision back into.three lots in 1991.
III. NARRATIVE — CURRENT AND PROPOSED PERMITTED USE AND DENSITY'
Under LMO §§ 164-209(D) and 16-5-904(A)(1), the permitted use and maximum density
for Consolidated Lot IA is established by the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan and the accompanying
text. As currently interpreted by the Town Planning Staff, the 1994 Sea Pines Master Plan
specifies that Consolidated Lot IA may be used for only one residential dwelling unit. The
Applicant is seeking to change the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan so that Consolidated Lot I A can
be used for up to two residential dwelling units.
Again, it is important to note that the requested change to the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan
will not result in any increase in the overall residential density cap applied to Sea Pines
Plantation under the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan. Rather, the requested change will only allow
the construction of an additional residential dwelling unit on the resubdivided Consolidated Lot
IA, instead of in some other location within Sea Pines Plantation.
IV. NARRATIVE — REZONING CRITERIA
LMO § 16-3-1505 sets forth the criteria which the Planning Commission is to address in
making a recommendation to the Town Council on this rezoning request, as follows:
LFirAl 5
02oo5a=tcrcwaiwm,uc
X%Dw&TfiwU�Mve%01253-WJ W&tWm%200"3-18 ZMA Appliuden NumtkAoc
A. Consistency (or lack thereof) with the Comprehensive plan.
W
The Natural Resources Vision of the Comprehensive Plan directs the Town to
protect Hilton Head Island's diverse natural resources, which are pivotal to the economic
well being of the community and the high quality of life on the Island. The Applicant is
seeking to amend the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan in a manner that will merely once again
allow on Consolidated Lot IA that which was originally allowed, i. e., the development
of two single family residential dwelling units. As a practical matter, no new residential
lot will be created, as the original subdivision plot for Painted Bunting Road Subdivision
shows Consolidated Lot I A in its original configuration as Original Lot IA and Original
Lot IB. Further, this Application will not increase the overall residential density cap
under die 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan. The Applicant's pmposed amendment of the Sea
Pines Master Plan will help maintain residential development within an area of Sea Pines
Plantation that has been intended for residential development for over 40 yam. In
compliance with Goal IB of the Natural Resources Element of the Comprehensive
Plan 7, the resubdivision of Consolidated Lot I A back into two residential lots and the
construction of two new single family residences will have to meet all of the current
LMO requirements for natural resources protection.
The Community Facilities Vision of the Comprehensive Plan is for the Town to
provide facilities for the residents and visitors of Hilton Head Island which are
maintained at the highest levels of service and efficiency consistent with facilities of a
world class community. The two single family residential lots that will result from the
approval of this Application will have access to the many facilities available in Sea Pines
Plantation. Further, all infrastructure required for single family residential development
on Consolidated Lot I A, including water and sewer, electric, telephone, and cable service
and roadways, is already in place in Painted Bunting Road Subdivision and in Sea Pines
Plantation. Again, as there will be no increase in the overall residential density cap under
the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan, there will be no overall increase in demand on the
community's infrastructure as a result of the approval of this Application.
The Land Use Vision of the Comprehensive Plan seeks a high quality of life by
planning for population growth, public and private development and redevelopment and
the proper distribution, location, and intensity of land uses with adequate levels of
See the Marelt 16, 2004 Hilton Head Island Comprebensive Plan, at Page 48.
CM ChoderC. Willim, LLC
XNDdAC1iwU%"Ye%01253-0D1 WatkirksNMS-03-18 ZMA ApplimflonNumfive.doe
0
6
services while maintai and protecting
mmg the natural resources, residential
neighborhoods and overall character of the Town. Some of the land use goals which
foster this vision are development in areas which have in place appropriate filikestructure
capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner, maintenance
of existing master plan density caps, encouragement of redevelopment, and maintenam
of existing residential areas, and all of which are furthered by this Application.
More specifically, Goal 1A of the Land Use Eleaseet of the Comprehensive
Piano requires the direction of development in area which have in place appropriate
inftsbucture capacity to accommodate growth in an envirownratelly acceptable manner.
This goal is met by this Application, in that Sea Pines Plantation in general, and the am
around Consolidated Lot IA in particular, already have in place roadways, stonn
drainage systems, and water and sewer and other utility service lines, allowing for liarther
development or redevelopment in an am of the Town which already has in place the
infivshucture necessary to support the planned development.
In addition, Goal 2A of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Piano
suggests that master plan caps should be held at or below current levels to ensure that the
intent of the PUDs is not compromised. Such is the case with this Application: tile
approval of this Application will not result in an increase in the overall density cap under
the 1994 Sea Pines Master Plan.
Goals 4B and 4C of the Lend Use Element of the Comprehensive Planlo, which
encourage redevelopment, will be ftirthered by the approval of this Application, as one of
the results of that opproval will be the redevelopment of the one single family residence
that is currently on Consolidated Lot I A as two new homes, one on each of the two
resulting lots.
Finally, Goal 4F of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan" is to
maintain existing residential areas. The approval of this Application will do exactly that.
'Seethe March 16,2904 Hilton Head Island Comprehensive Plan, at Page 148,
Again, IN the March 16, 2004 Hilton Head Island Comprehensive Plan, at Page 148,
"See the March 16,2004 Hilton Head IslandComprehensive plan, at page 15o.
"Again, we the March 16,2004 Hilton Head island CtimprehensivePIM at Page 150.
FhW 7
C=CbvtWC.Wfl1k=.U.0
XW@W\akM%"ve%01253-Wl WitkirA\2005-03-IBZMAAppikationNwmiw.doe
The Applicant believes the approval of this Application and die resulting
resubdivision of Consolidated Lot IA is consistent with and in conformanorl with the
foregoing visions and goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, Given the history of
Consolidated Lot I A, the existing infrastructure facilities in the am of Consolidated Lot
IA, and the residential nature of the Pointed Bunting Road SuNfivision, the winibdivision
of Consolidated Lot I A will not have an adverse effect on the natural resources in the
ma or on the existing residential neighborhoods in the area.
B. Compatibility with the present zoning and conforming us" of nearby
r.roperty and with the character of the neighborhood.
The current use allowed on Consolidated Lot I A is single family residential, and
that use will remain so upon the approval of this Application. All of the nearby
properties are either single family residential, the adjacent Tower Beach Pad4 or die
adjacent beach of the Atlantic Ocean, and the character of the neighborhood is clearly
single family residential. Because Consolidated Lot IIA is located in a single family
residential subdivision within Sea Pines Plantation, the present and future use on
Consolidated Lot I A is and will be wholly compatible with present zoning, as single
family residential development is the primary land use under the 1984 Sea Pines Master
Plan in general and in the neighborhood of Consolidated Lot IA in particular. The
various properties that are immediately adjacent to or in the neighborhood of
Consolidated Lot IA are all located in the PD -1 Sea Pines Zoning District.
Given the mixed use requirement of the PD -1 Zoning District� and the locatiob of
Consolidated Lot I A within the Sea Pines Master Plan area, it seems the continued use of
Consolidated Lot I A for single fan-dly residential use is compatible with the present
zoning and uses of nearby properties and with the character of the neighborhood.
C. Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses
permitted by the district that would be made applicable by the praposed'
amendment.
The rezoning requested by this Application will not result in a change in the
applicable zoning district for Consolidated Lot I A, as the zoning district will remain the
FM
02WS Chaw C. William, LLC
'-,VDaslakm�Actin%01253-ODIWatWns\2005-03.18ZMAApplic&tWNwudve.doc
existing PD -I Sea Pines District. Further, if this Application is approved sis presented,
the permitted use on Consolidated Lot I A will not change. Considering the mixed use
nature of the PD- I Zoning Districts under the LMO, and the past history of use for single
family residential purposes, the Applicant believes that Consolidated Lot IA is well
suited for single family residential development.
D. Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for am
permitted by the district applicable to the property at the time of the
proposed amendment
Again, the change to the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan requested by this
Application will not result in any change in the zoning district applicable to Consolidated
Lot IA. Instead, the permitted use for Consolidated Lot IA will remain as is, and the
density for Consolidated Lot I A under the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan will increase from
one residential dwelling unit to two residential dwelling units. Consolidated Lot IA has
long been designated for single family residential use under the 1984 Sea Pines Master
Plan, and was originally designated for two dwelling units when Painted Bunting Road
Subdivision was first platted. Therefore, the Applicant believes that Consolidated Lot I
is well suited for the use and density that will be made applicable to it if this Application
is approved.
E. Marketability of the property effected by the amendment for via
permitted by the district applicable to the property at the time of the
proposed amendment.
As mentioned above, the permitted use on Consolidated Lot I A will be remain as
is, and the applicable density will increase by one residential dwelling unit if this
Application is approved". Clearly, the marketability of Consolidated Lot IA will be
greater if it can be resubdivided into two single family residential lots, instead of
remaining as one lot. In addition, the Applicant believes that the approval of this
Application will not have an adverse effect on the marketability of other properties in the
vicinity.
Again, as rnentioned above, that will be no increase in the overall midentiall density cap ir ler the 1984 Sea
Pines Mager Plan as a restilt of the approval of this Application.
ILFiIW 9
O=5CbuWC,WJ111WW,U.0
X:Wft%ai=UVWdvtNO1253-001 WaddoQ005-03-111 ZMA Apoimllon NUMIMADC
F. Availability of sewer, water and stormwater hellitles generally
suitable for the proposed use.
. South Island Public Service District (the "PSD'� currently provides potable water
and sanitary sewer service to all of Sea Pines Plantation, including the Painted Bunting
Road Subdivision area where Consolidated Lot I A is located. As is the case with respect
to LMO § 16-3-1705(G) and the special exception review criteria, the Applicant believes
that the current availability of adequate water, septic sewer service and storrawater
drairinge facilities in the Sea Pines Plantation area is evidence that such facilities am
availc,ble for the additional residential use which would be permitted on Consolidated Lot
IA ifthis Application is approved.
IV. NARRATIVE —CONCLUSION
The Applicant believes the foregoing narrative demonstrates that this Application is in
conformance with the LMO and the Town's Comprehensive Plan, and meets the criteria set forth
in LMO § 16-3-1505. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully requests that the Planning
Commission (a) consider this Application and the testimony and supporting documentation
which will be entered into the record; (b) find:
I . That this Application and the supporting testimony and documentation establish
that the requested zoning map amendment is consistent with the Town's Comprehensive
Plan; and
2. That this Application and the supporting testimony and documentation establish
that the requested zoning map amendment is consistent with the present zoning and
conforming uses of nearby properties and with the character of the neighborhood around
Consolidated Lot IA; and
3. That this Application and the supporting testimony and documentation establish
that Consolidated Lot I A is suitable for the uses permitted by the zoning district that would
be made applicable to Consolidated Lot I A by the requested zoning map amendment; and
Final 10
02ws amterc. wlllianv� U.0
X-MatalaienteXActiveNG1253-001 Watkim\200"3-18 ZMA Application Nartrative.doc
4. That this Application and the supporting testimony and documentation establish
that Consolidated Lot I A is also suitable for the uses permitted by the zoning district that is
currently applicable to Consolidated Lot IA; and
establish
5. 11at this Application and the supporting testimony and documentation
thatthe marketability ofConsolidated Lot IA for uses perinitted by the zoning districtillAt is
currently applicable to Consolidated Lot I A will be increased by the approval oftbe
requested zoning map amendment, and
6. That this Application and the supporting test "iny and documentatiOlk establish
that sewer, water and stormwater facilities generally suitable and adequate for the proposed
use of Consolidated Lot IA under the requested zoning map amendment am available to
Consolidated Lot I A;
imil (c) rec�nmmend to the Town Council that they approve this Application.
Respectfully submitted on behalfofthc Applicant this 18'h day ofMarch, 2005.
Chester C. William, Esquire
Law office ofChoster C. Williams, LLC
Suite 108A Sapelo Building
21 Office Park Road
Post Office Box 6028
Hilton Head Island, SC 29938-6028
843-842-54il
843.942-5412 (fax)
Fimi@CCWLaw.net
Find
C2M5ctMWC.Wi1uUMLLC
x.wmUkm%""\01253-001 W&Wns\2005-03.1 B ZMA Appiketion Nwadmdoc
34108
Ex�h`� `.f
9510-3
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA )
I;Fp
..,r..PFAL ESTATE
COUNTY OF BEAUFORT WAUFMCOUMSC
-61E WRESS SHOr"N um vooll w1:11
V
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRES STA
1�111!10EUiTim 111-NXIM111-y'llft: state Under irea U&C
$-4P2 I=. -
THAT TRUST COMPANY or narwxy, OR ITS succEssm, TRusTu or
THE HOBART CLAY JOHNSON CHARITABLE REMAINDER UNITRUST DATED
DECEMBER 28, IL993 Ithe "Grantor"), in the state aforesaid, for and
in consideration of the sum of Ten and 00/100 ($20-00) Dollars and,
other valuable consideration to It in hand paid at and before the
sealing of these presents by FREDERICK A. WATKINS AND WILMA B.
WATRING, 7788 LiTcorziLD DRivz, KGTOR, ou 44060 (the "Grantees"),
in the state aforesaid, the receipt of which I ", acknowledged, has
granted, bargain::Ilsold and releas:d,t:nd.by theme presents does
grant, bargain, and release un o e aid Grantees, as joint
tenants with rights of survivorship, and not as tenants in commIgn,
their heirs�and assigns, forever, in fee simple* the follow
described property,.to-wits 9
ALL that certhein piece,, parcel or lot of land, with
improvement 8 t reont situAte, lying and being on Hilton
He d Island, Beaufort County, South Carolina, shown and
I de:ignated an Consolidated
Lot 41A of Painted Bunting
Subdivision of Sea Pines Plantation; a
aid property having
dimensions, metes and bounds as shown on the plat thereof
recorded in the Office of the RMC for -Beaufort Count
South Carolina, In Plat Book 24 at Page 60, and
conveyed subject to all easements an shown thereon.
THE within property is conveyed subject to all applicable
covenants, conditions, terms, etc. of record including,
but not limited top those shown in the R14C Of4lee for
Beaufort
County, South Carolina in Deed Book 447 at Page i
486 and in Deed Book 515 at Page 1412.
This being the samejproperty conveyed to the 61rantor by
i deed of Hobart C. ohnson dated December 28, 1993 and
gcorded January 3, 1994 in Deed Book 675 at Pdge 1392
1 said RMIC Office.
BEACH ACT DISCLOSURE:
The setback line is 19.47 landward feet to 10.96 landward
feet. from the seaward property line, the base line is
0.53 seaward feet to 9.04 seaward feet from toe seaward
;!I I't if ;I
1922
property line. The velocity none, as established by the
Federal Emergency Management Act, In located
approximately 160 seaward toot in relation- to the
property. The seaward corners of habitable structures
upon thin property, If any, are located 263.6 landward
toot to 151.84 landward foot from the line, which corners
are located Z2055247.50 N100563.51 and E2055311.24
H100537.70. under the South Carolina Plane Coordinate
Systam. The property has an annual erosion rate of O/A j,g �t
to S/A feet per year, according to the seat recently
adopted erosion rates of the South Carolina 'Coastal
Council# SCCC Reference Point 1403# Annual Erosion Rate
S/A, and 1406 Annual Erosion Rate S/A were used to
established SCCC lines.
'Boing TfF District 650, Map 19, Parcel 241.
This dead was. prepared in the law offices of Novik
scarminach, P.A., Post Office Drawer 14, Hilton Read ;J
Island, SC. 29938, by Herbert L. Novitr Esquire.
TOGETHER with all and singular the rights, memboks,o
hereditamento and appurtenances to the said promises bolcnging� ol'
in anywine incident at appertaining.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, all and singular, the said promises
before mentioned unto the Grantees, an joint tenants with rights
of survivorship, and not an tenants in common, their heirs and
assigns, forever.
AND the Grantor does hereby bind itself and its successors and
assigns to warrant and forever defend all and singular the said
promises unto the Grantees, their heirs and assigns, against
themselves and their heirs and assigns and all persons whomsoever
lawfully claiming or to claim the same#' or any part thereof.
-2-
1923
WITNESS the hand and seal of the Grantor this day of
Septem /A* 9
bar, 1994, in the Two Hundred Nineteenth year of the
Sovereignty and Independence of the United States 'of America.
WITNESSESs TRUST COMPAW JEZNTMTF CM
ITS SUCCRSSORy TNUSTU. Or WE
HOSK91' CLAY JOB WIN
REMAI*DZR UNITROBT DATZD
DECZXBZk 28, 1993
Bys
inon-nck"ry wi 88)
t A ts '._Lou
Att
notary)
STATE OF KENTUCKY
PROBATE
COUNTY OF Tik,
'BEFORE HE personally appeared
and ads oath that s/he saw the 4�t rantor-sign, se-aT
and, an the� Ir and deed, deliver the within document, and that
s/he, with 51 MAI. L. CAII witnessed the
execution tT_er_e_o1.
L
(aignaturp-or non-n�pry witness)
SWORN to before me this
day of September, 1994.
-(SEAL)
Mary P311c For Kentue4y
MY Commission expires: 21141q2
-3-
101 SOurit SCA PINK
Vat of
WAY
....... ...... Rol Exhibit B
to Ito to It. Im
04 to to
""Vor
via,
Ng
------------ ASA&LA-
PLAT Sllowl"
PAINTIED BUNTING ftO-AD
LOTS I TNodu U11011111 A
p ONTIO.r.01
89A P"1191111 I PLANTATI' an
.116TOR 0940
Eihibit C
..........
See
as
it
to
Is t -0
.0
to
IN
Z.
0 CARg.amrs or TIC.
. ....... 21
Illy, C.H.C.16
10 UT
1.4 —NOTCS —
.. ....... 0- ALL CORMARS
A
A
3
PLA� i"Ovillis
-OF- PA1.190 SUNTIMM hGAD
mal"11.001
PINES PLANTATION
"ILTON MEAN INLAND 10VTM CANOLINA
T.Moull" pal AMC
1.1 IT 1.: 1-8 SPIN Ill
mm.. "Teo GUNTINS 48.9
11111 mg PL.? : u A 9PRAS,g 0 9 8 A PLOT @Avg* A'. is
G4ALC 1"- 000' IIATI JAN. 1964
L
P. 0
.1 spill
ik
Exhibit* D
0 Olf
140
14
mar
70 r- *�c
CS /PL.A
75
EithibitE. 14-52 -? -"
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. L SREE _NT AND
C
COUNTY OF BEAUFORT NA.T
THIS A14REEHENT, made Rind entered into this 7 9 day of
M11Y. 1995, between SEA PINES PLANTATION COHPANY-,-Jts
successors or as.igns, (the "COMPbW), and WILLIAM B. XLEE,
on . , hi 0 successors or ago g n 3, (the "Owner") .
W I T N E S S E T I! 1 1 143,9
"t—HEAS, the. Owner in the titleholder of record of the
following described real property :to witl
ALL that cartainiplacet parcel or lot of land
2, tuatc, lying and be ng an Hilton Head Island, in
0 OvU fort County, South Carolina, . shown and designated as
Lot 1A of Fainted Bunting subdivision, Sea Pines
P lantations said property having dimensions, metes and
bounds at shown on the Plat thereof recorded In Pla t
Book 24 at Page 60, in the Office.of the Clork-of t -
Cour
of Beaufort County, South Carolina (here and
horcinbafare referred to ao*tho "Proparti").'
WMEREASt void Property was conveyed to.'tfie*Owner and'ic,
Currently hold subject to all conditions, r'survations, and
restrictions contained in the Declaration of t a sea Pines
h
Pl:htation Company# recorded in Deed Dock 273 at Page 4V in
th 0 f fice of the Clark of Court of Baaufort�Countyj South
Carolina (the "Declarations') I and
WHEREAS, such Property was formed by the c6noolldo tion',
of two previously subdivided lots 0 to Wit' Lots 176 and in of
t he Painted Bunting Subdivision of Sea Pines Plantatic, h'
i -nsolidation pursuant to a lettor-of
1.1 an Plantation Company dated February 5, 1976 (the'
"A6therization Lotter") 1 and
WHEnEASt said recorded Declarations reserve.to th
Company the right to relplat any on* or more lots
create a modified build nq lot or lots, cald'm6diiied
building lot or lot thereafter to be she god onc: - (1)' gin. 9
Community Service Assassmenty and
WHEREAS, the Company has declined to permit such'.'
re-subdiVision except in special cacao where approprinta'as
determined by the Company In its sole discretion....
WHEREAS, the Owner has sought pormissio� to Is- . subdivide'
the Property based on the special circumstances outlined
belowt and
WHEREAS, In accordance with the -Sea Pines Plantation
Covenants of Septombor, 1974, recorded in Deed, Dock .224 tit
Pago 1036t the company has coverkanted t hot no more than '
dwelling unite lexclucive of hotel rooms) sholl be parmitt.2"
within Son Pines Plantation.
HOW, TIJERCFO;tE, in consideration of the : mu�tual
covenants, agreements and undertakings heroin contained the
parties mutually agree as fallowal
I. That the above "whereas" cl craby
ounce Oro
incorporated herein as if restated.
EXHIBIT "All
2.
Colitingitit UOO, compliance with the conditions and
Obligations of the Ownaw contained horain, the
COIaPanY hereby appr6von'the subdivinion of the
Property into two (2) lots to be known as Lute IA
and IS, of the Painted Bunting Subdivision, sea
Pines Plantation. The lots shall Cecil be used only
for tho'construction of one 41) detached
144o
single-family dwelling. .
3.
Prior to tb* subdivision of the Property, tile owner
must acquire a plattod residential lot within $0,
Pines Plantation, which Is free of tiny 40.,ticturas
or other development# the location of which shall
be subject to the Company's prior approval, nuch
"PPrOval not to be unreasonably withhold. Late
contiguous to*cpen space or road intersections, or
lots capable of being consolidated with a
contiguous lot or lots# will be given pritforanco by
the Company. At such time that owner notified
company in writing that he is prepared to acquire
each a lot# Company shall provide to owner a list
of lots which would be acceptable to Company.
4.
simultaneously with the acquisition nf the lot
refewcad in Paragraph 3 above, tho owner will
conve (or cause to be conveyed) such lot to the
company, free and clear of all lions and other
encumbrances# as partial conoidaration og the
mutual covenants, agroamentm and undertakings of
thin A�roamont. Within airoasonablo period
tharea ter, the Company w 11 Congo the lot to be
dedicated to open space, consolidated with tin
adjacent lot# or otherwise he restricted It, its Use
in a fashion other than construction of a dwelling
unit; provided that the Company may substitute
another lot or dwelling unit right if the other lot
or dwelling unit right in subjected to the Same
restriction Is in use, so that there is no Fiat
increase in the number of permitted dwelling u1sits
within the Plantation.
S.
The Owner will pay all costs incurr ad by Owner and
Company (or its successors in interest) resulting
from this Agreement* including# but not Jim tod to#'
those costs, if required# related h!ng in
to any c
the Son Pines Plantation Proliminary-Mastor Plan,
re-pl 11 tting and recording, all other closing coats#
and C.mprny staff time related to this transaction
(with such time to be billed at intra-COMPanY
rates). All such costs shall be paid within seven
(7) days of notice by company.
6.
The Owner will indemnify and hold the Company
harmless from any claims or legal action which silly
occur an a direct or indLract result of the within
described subdivision, including boarinj -he cost
of any defense of himmalf and/or the Company, its
cuccessors in interest# or their employees or
agents.
7.
The owner agroon on behalf of himself, his heirs
and assigns* forever, that the sold lots# IA and
Ille will not be concolifiatcJ or their boundary
lince.changedt except with thu.writton consent of
the Company in its sold discretion.
B.
in ractignition of tile oxintinv dnvalc�ad utate of.
what will become Lots 1A and ID, name y the
encroachment on Lot ID of a portion of the house.
currently built on Lot lAl an wall no a'
- 2 .-
1441
froosianding swimming pool an Lot IBt the Owner
' that within 90 days from �*ho recording of
h'o:.
t!.Q. bdivi.i.., the ancruachmant of the house nn
Lot 10 will be removed so an to CcnfnM to the
notback standards of the $as Pines Architectural
ReVieW Board as they then exiat, and the owimming
Ml on Lot IS will either be removed# or
untograted into a nester plan for a now dwelling
nit on Lot 20, the plans gar which must be
approved by the Sea Pines Architectural Review
Board in that 90 -day Period* with construction to
r a
begin no later than one yea fter the recording of
the sbbdLvision plot.
9. The Owner will pay to th Comps6y or its ftsiqn:�
p Lor to the Subdivision recording, the amount f
S'V2,353 00 r:proment ng :otroactive Community
Sarvic; As, a oments for one unimproved lot GInce
the date of the Authorivation Letter -
10, This Agreement Will remain In effect for a period
of five years from th d n I
art %grain
0 ot* of thin Agree"
the subdivision and all conditions not I h
have not occurred within that time, the Agreement
shall terminate.
11. This Agreement shall be recorded in the office of
the Clark of Court got Beaufort county, and upon
recordation chall be a covenant running with the.
property, and shall be binding upon any fututs..
owner of the property# as it said owner had
executed thin Agreement hims@lf-
IN WITNrSS WHICRzor' the undersigned has set his hind:and
affixed him goal so of the day and the y0mr.first above.
written,
r ERI
WITNESSES:
W9THESSCS: SEA FIRS PLANTATION COMPANY
-ell
ran to 0
exacu IV* Vice president'.
"oe"
ATTC Ts
y
�M.IUAAO-.. ;,to t rota.e
4-1� L
STATE Or SOUTH CAROLINA
COCIIITY PROBATE
or BEAUFORT
PERSONALLY appeared before me rAllkpffj�'-
who an oath, says that (s)h *saw the w t 'ffiM,1A1
InkrA .1— — sign s:Al and deliver the within .,Lttan
late —that Whe with
d th:nd SA "1-'4 A
witness& execution thereof.
a
SWORN to before me this & day
of 1witness)
Notary VuSlic fori
MY Commission expires: —dvlly—
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
PROBATE
COUNTY or BEAUFORT
PERSONALLY appeared before me
who a th, says that Whe saw d's watnxn named Sea. in". 7:: X,
oa
Plant t by its Executive Vies President, Donald,
A. '.Art.1dc'C:m,'P'nny seal and deliver the within written:.
instrums 'andt, through its Assistant Secretary, Samuel 8..'i
nt'
Epperson, attes the same, and that Mhk�.
witnessed the execution thereof.
SWORN to before me this day. -
11068
of "0"',
Notary Public gor:
ire *y OMMInkm Lions
kiy, Commission axp $I'
et 992
a.:
01056
Dan
4
0
Exhijbit FLOT 7
V6— - - W�-,
—Min mmwmmvw�%�W�
L3 I &W I ME I
LOT 8
0 m
L
'904b V"
mum$" %cow up _j,
r (46. 09NO
LIM,. a
jZ,
-r T- DSTWZ, MAPS, PAM-141(PAMM
spWm -10
QAA&T OF A SMIM Or KA PM RAMIM
Iwmv— DRAlk P's
.. ,r. . "
RM GUAWOU Fo�.' mm
n room r. If. IL PA& an
lNommm"TWIROW r w ow mmm"W4
LOT I -A
LOT 1-8 LOT 1
&W At wm-WvAw1fiwww�
"M asm Ar. 00
I A sma
W 00 WWAWN —Q WW""
BOUNDARY RESUBONISION AND
REACHFMITIIANAG13 AUSUMVCF.'
--NuzgmmL- LOT IA. PAINED M*M ROAD,
SFA PM KAWATION, HILTON WAD ISIM
BFAUFOWSOUMCAROUNA
PRITARED FOW FPMCK A, WATKINS A
WLMAB.WATOB
DAYE: MM Wm: r -w
N MUG?
r ----
H W44 11 1
MS. lgrd Urd S..y, LLC.
v1Q 0)
.0=
PC Mr=rnO =owl
TIC OCEAN FWWOSIN one i -W3
ATLAN
Exhibit G.
Mr *-� 6
SnPjr9&'QS0rt 'I
March 17,2005
Mr. and Mrs. Fredrick A. Watkins
8191 Kingwood Drive, South
Mentor, OH 44060
Re: Re-subdivislon of Combined Lot I -A, Painted Bunting S/D, Sea Pines Pla
ritation
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Walkins:
We have reviewed the documentation your attorney, Herbert C. Novit, has provided for the
above Property as it Pertains to the re -subdivision of the above lot. This 8 u
your request, SS You now want Permission to divide this lot into two lots. wa ndertaken at
The records your attorney provided Indicate that the owner of this Property and Sea Pines
Plantation Company, Inc., In 1985 entered Into a Lot, Subd slon Agreement arid
Declaration Of Covenant to allow the division of this property InMto two lots. You have
represented lost this property was originally master Planned as two lots. Purs4ant to the
procedures Involved In these matters, Lot 32, Otter Road Subdivision In . 0
Plantation with its attendant bulldlng/denslty r tea Pines
Ight was conveyed to Sea Pines Phwation
Company with appropriate covenants to prohibit future building on that lot. The deeds,
agreements, modifications, etc., all appear of record In the RMC office, Beaufort County.
Thus ' all procedures and requirements for this combined lot's divislon/re-subdMalon have
been appropriately followed and have been met
You have now'requested our approval, based upon the relevant documents In this matter,
to divide this combined lot Into two lots, each having 95 frontal feet as shown by a su
Of Son Island Land Survey, LLC, dated March 12,2005. Way
This letter Is to nOtNY You that our review of the relevant documen You have provided
In this matter Indicates that all required Procedures of Sea Pines Ctoam"Opneny, Inc. have been
met and we have no objection to and approve the re-divislon of Combined Lot I -A, as
above captioned, Into the two lots depicted upon the within mentioned survey/plat. As
noted On the $28/85 agreement, the owners of said lots must remove all I rov me
within the lot setbacks from the recording of the new Subdivision plat to c mp 8 nts
setback,standards of the Sea Pines ARB., Including the swimming pool. Onform to the
7be sea pin
es Resort - 32 Greenwood Drive post Oflice Box 7000 - Hilton H --
1843) 785-3333 - TOR Free 800-9254653 *Fax (843) 842-1475 - www ead IsIsM, sc 29939
-mptnes,com
F"o— molt,
m ifull",
I-- LW TAM -,rlw;o
Mp"
Attachipent 2LOT 7
1411
A21OLL
V LOT 8
m
m
0-
04 04
NO 04
M - r somms: MUM
PROPMAKA-1.1"AL(MAL)
AOMM112A 14 PAM MK=rMD
r DMMMO, MW.19, PARCM-141(PAMM
vaXaMm? THOMMMMIld"MRAY
UPTO t7 SAURMaWAYMN-10
mrom PLAY
0=1 w A m" w ou FWS "MIAINX
pomm WwMW no
iount
"I"N"w"Man"
m §LMNW Stu=
, Mwx
IL VAL NO
WNW
LOT 11-13 LOT I -A LOT I
0,430 At Q514 At
Q. M.W� WWO
BOUNDARY RESUBDIVISION AND
BECHMMUMAGEMENTACTSU11MOR,
LOT 1A, PAINTED BUNTM ROAD.
SEA PINES PLANrATioN, HLMN Hm Mm
BEAUFORT. SOM CAROUNA
PREPARED FM-.FRMCK A WATIM &
VVIIJIA B, WATM
DATE: MM MR: V-0
N JW"Is'
MSNWNWLWW
I '=, "
P.o.1m2i5KwMHmdmw4, Tim"m
44)M*MCwAWmHWMwA8CnM. FNP"M=f 11
E4Mt I � ' I
ATLANTIC OCEAN ME No: . wm ft f-im
M." =01,
0001 grom LM
m ILLA
=
WIMP.
tna,
21111131%
I-- LW TAM -,rlw;o
Mp"
Attachipent 2LOT 7
1411
A21OLL
V LOT 8
m
m
0-
04 04
NO 04
M - r somms: MUM
PROPMAKA-1.1"AL(MAL)
AOMM112A 14 PAM MK=rMD
r DMMMO, MW.19, PARCM-141(PAMM
vaXaMm? THOMMMMIld"MRAY
UPTO t7 SAURMaWAYMN-10
mrom PLAY
0=1 w A m" w ou FWS "MIAINX
pomm WwMW no
iount
"I"N"w"Man"
m §LMNW Stu=
, Mwx
IL VAL NO
WNW
LOT 11-13 LOT I -A LOT I
0,430 At Q514 At
Q. M.W� WWO
BOUNDARY RESUBDIVISION AND
BECHMMUMAGEMENTACTSU11MOR,
LOT 1A, PAINTED BUNTM ROAD.
SEA PINES PLANrATioN, HLMN Hm Mm
BEAUFORT. SOM CAROUNA
PREPARED FM-.FRMCK A WATIM &
VVIIJIA B, WATM
DATE: MM MR: V-0
N JW"Is'
MSNWNWLWW
I '=, "
P.o.1m2i5KwMHmdmw4, Tim"m
44)M*MCwAWmHWMwA8CnM. FNP"M=f 11
E4Mt I � ' I
ATLANTIC OCEAN ME No: . wm ft f-im
LAWOFFICEOF
CHESTER C. WILLIAMS, LLC
Suits A108 Sapalo 6WIdIM
21 0111ce Park Rom
Pad 011ias Boa Wn
Hillon Hetal blestd, SC 20931IMill
Talleptione(843)842-Ull
Talift,043) 842-5412
EMON
March 18, 2005
Mr. Word Kift
Exacutilve Vice President
Community Services Associsica, Inc. Aftachment 3
175 Greenwood Drive
Hilton Had Island, SC 29928
RE: Resubdivililon ofLot I A Pointed Buntletill Road Subdivision (12 Painted Bunting Rotall S'N' Pines
—Our File No. 01253-001
Dear Ward:
As you am aware from our conversallon earlieIr this wftk, We represent Frederick A. Watkins and Wiling
B. Watkins, the owner ofthe above property. We are today filing on behalfofour client an application for a saninill
map amendment to the Sea Pines Master Plan to change the permitted demily on the above Property hm one
residential dwelling unit to two residential dwelling units. A copy ofthat application is enclosed. As you am also
aware, a Prior owner ofthe property entered Into an NVeenwnt with Sea PI mpony in
ofthe property. Sea Pines Company, Inc. has approved the mubdivlson on" Co 'In"Ortherstrub" n
agreement. fthe Property in accordance with that
Section 16-3-1502(AX3) ofthe Land Management Ordinance ofthe Town ofHilton Had is
an *PlkW for a razoning or muW plan amendment to solich written comments from land retiukas
owners' -a Isthms regarding the requested amendment. This letter is for pwpos OPP""'asa Property
that C, and we would encounip
Community Services Associates, Inc. to direct any comments it my have regarding our client's proposed
amendment to the Sea Pines Mater Plan to Charles F. Cousins, Al&, the Town's Director oflDevelopomp, at Ong
Town Ccfter Cour� Hilton Head Island. South Carolina 2"28, within Iou"can dsYs OfYOur moelp! ofd& letter.
Ofc0m, we will be more than happy to discuss this matter fiffthef with
CSA at your respective convenience, you or any other repreagnmalve of
We trust You will let us know Ifyou have any questions or comments regarding this if
0iorwhe be ofasslown. MOW or we may
With beat mlitanis, we am
Very Truly Yours,
LAW OFFICE Op CHESTER C, WILLIAMS, LLC
Chester C. William
CCWJm
cc: A&. and Mrs. Frederick A. Watkins
Herbert L. NoA Es"Im
Russell P. Patterson Esquire
AS Chaft F. Cousins, ZCp
TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND
Planning Department
TO: Stephen G. Riley, AICP, Town Manager
VIA: Owles F. Cousins, AICP, Planning Director
VIA: Ted B. Lewis, AICP, Manager ofDevelopment Review & Zoning fv.-
EWf%PA* Edwin B. Dranc, AIA, AICP, Urban Designer -jift
DATE May 16,2004
SUBJECT: ZMA050005
Recommendation: Staff recommends that Town Council approve this application for a Zoning
Map Amendment. The Planning Commission met on May 4, 2005 and voted to unanimously
recommend Town Council approve this application. The Planning Commission made their
decision after hearing a report by Staff, a presentation from the applicant and comments from the
public.
Summary. An application from Chester C. Williams., agent for SMA Partners, LLC, to amend
the Zoning Map within the PD -1 (Planned Development Mixed Use) zoning district in the Sea
Pines Master Plan by converting Lot 18 Spanish Moss Road Subdivision into two lots. The
pamel is located at 13 Ridgewood Lane and is finther identified as Parcel 767 on Beaufort
County Tax Map #17.
Background: This application is for de -consolidating Lot 18 of the Spanish Moss Road.
subdivision back into two separate lots. Lot 18 was purchased by SMA Partners, LLC, in
November of 2004 along with an agreement with the Sea Pines Company to obtain an additional
dwellitig unit from the residential dwelling unit cap in order to change the lot back into two lots.
The original subdivision plot shows that them were two lots when it was recorded in 197 1.
Then two lots wem consolidated in 1975 into one lot. This was the configuration when the
Town adopted the Sea Pines Master Plan as pad of its official Zoning Map. Theirefore a Zoning
Map Amendment approval is necessary in order to change Lot 18 back into the original Lot 18
ts for copies of these plats.
and Lot 19. See the applicant's exhibi
Town Gowmmmg Center # One Town Center Court Building C
Hillon Head island # SouthCarolina # 29928
843-3411-4681 0 (FdW843-842-8908
Exhting Land Use
North
PD -1 - Open Space
LaRoon
S�ath
PD -1 -Roadway
RidgewaW lane
Ent
PD -1 - Open Space
Lagoon
-West
PD -1 - Sinitic ismilv
Sinstle Family
Town Gowmmmg Center # One Town Center Court Building C
Hillon Head island # SouthCarolina # 29928
843-3411-4681 0 (FdW843-842-8908
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF HELTON HEAD ISLAND
ORDINANCE NO. 2005- PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 2005-16
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 4 OF TITLE 16, -11EE LAND
MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE- (LMO), OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF
THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA, BY
AMENDING SECTION 164-102, THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP,
SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP WITHIN THE PD -I
(PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AUXED USE) ZONING DISTRICT IN THE SEA
PINES MASTER PLAN TO DECONSOLIDATE LOT 18 SPANISH MOSS
ROAD SUBDIVISION INTO TWO LOTS CONSISTENT WITH THE
ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT; AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY
AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on July 21, 1998, the Town Council did amend Tide 16 of the Municipal
Code of the Town of Hilton Head bland by enacting a revised Land Management Ordinance
(LMO); and
WHEREAS, the Town Council now finds thA upon finther review, it is in the public
interest that the Sea Pines Master Plan be amended to deconsolidate lot 18 Spanish Moss Road
Subdivision into two lots consistent with the original subdivision plat; and
WHEREAS, this zoning change would be compatible with surrounding land uses and
neighborhood character, would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfive, and,
fiuther, would be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 4, 2005, at which
time a presentation was made by staff and the applicant after which an opportunity was given for.the
public to comment on the rezoning request; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after consideration of the staff report, applicant's
presentation, public comments, and the criteria set forth in Section 16-3-1505 of the LMO,
subsequently voted at that meeting to recommend to Town Council dud the rezoning request be
approved;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED AND ORDAINED BY THE TOWN
COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND, SC; AND IT IS ORDAINED BY
SAID AUTHORITY OF COUNCIL:
Section 1. Amendment That the official zoning map of the Town of Hilton Head Island, as
referenced by Section 16-4-102 of the Land Management Ordinance, be, and the same hereby
amended to deconsolidate lot 18 Spanish Moss Road Subdivision into two lots consistent with,the
original subdivision plat.
An application fiom Chester C.
Existing Zoning District & Densiky
Williams., agent for SMA
PD -1, Planned Development Mixed Use
Partners, LLC, to amend the
One single family dwelling unit
Zoning Map within the PD -1
(Planned Development Mixed
Propgsed Zoning District & Density
Use) zoning district in the Sea
PD -1, Planned Development Mixed Use
Pines Master Plan by
Two single family dwelling units
converting Lot 18 Spanish
Moss, Road Subdivision into
Applicable Overlay District(s)
two lots- The parcel is located
none
at 13 Ridgewood Lane and is
fiuther identifled as Parcel 767
Planned Unit Develgpment (PUD)
on Beaufort County Tax Map
Sea Pines
#17.
Planning Commission
PUD Tract # & Land Use Designation
Lot 18 Spanish Moss Road Subdivision
REVIEW & RECOMMENDATION(S)
Town Government
Center 0 One Tom Center Court 0 BuildlngC
H11104 Head Island 0 SoulkCarolina 0 29928
843-341-4681 # (FO843-842-8908
DATE
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Staff
April 25,2005
Staff recommends APPROVAL of
this Application for Zoning Map
Amendment based on analysis of
the Review Criteria outlined in
Section 16-3-1505 of the Land'
Management 0Tdinance and the
written flndings provided in this
staff report.
Planning Commission
May4,2005
The Planning Commission
recommended that Town Council
approve the Zoning Map
Amendment.
Planning & Development Standards
Committee
=To-;; Council - First Readinit
LTown Council — Second Reading
Town Government
Center 0 One Tom Center Court 0 BuildlngC
H11104 Head Island 0 SoulkCarolina 0 29928
843-341-4681 # (FO843-842-8908
Page 2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This application is for de -consolidating Lot 18 of the Spanish Moss Road subdivision back I into two
seTanate lots. Lot 18 was purchased by SMA Partners, LLC, in November of 2004 along with an
agreement with the Sea Pines Company to obtain an additional dwelling unit from the residential dwelling
unit cap in order to change the lot back into two lots. The original subdivision plat shows that there were
two lots when it was recorded in 1971. These two lots were consolidated in 1975 into one lot. This was
the configuration when the Town adopted the Sea Pines Mater Plan as part of its official Zoning Map..
Therefore a Zoning Map Amendment approval is necessary in order to change Lot 18 back into the
original Lot 18 and Lot 19. See the applicant's exhibits for copies ofthese plats.
ANALYSIS OF REQUIRED FINDINGS
Article XV of Chapter 3 in the Town of Hilton Head Island Land Management Ordinance outlines review
criteria by which both staff and the Planning Commission must evaluate proposals to amend the Official
Zoning Map. Staffs recommendation and written findings are based on analysis of the criteria listed in
LMO Section 16-3-1505. Please refer to the applicant's well researched and written Attachment I to the
application for additional information on the criteria.
(A) Consistency (or lack thereofi with the Comprehensive Plan;
Finding. Ibis zoning map amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, it is
supported by the Land Use Element ofthe Comprehensive Plan.
The Land Use Element suggests that the Town should provide for compatible development with an
appropriate balance of land uses that do not adversely impact the natural resources, residential
neighborhoods and the overall character of the island. Goal I A states that this can be accomplished by
directing development in those areas that already have in place, or have agreements, to provide the
appropriate infi=tructure capacity. The Spanish Moss Road Subdivision already has all the required
infrastructure therefore the de-consoliclation of Lot 18 complies with this goal.
Goal 2A suggests that density caps for the PUD's remain at or below existing levels. The de-
consolidation of Lot 18 will not increase the dwelling unit cap for Sea Pines. The owner will acquire a
unit from the Sea Pines Company fiam their remaining undesignated residential dwelling units. Therefore
the cle-consolidation of Lot 18 complies with this goal.
(B) Compatibility with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and with the
character ofthe neighborhood,
:Finding. This proposed rezoning application is compatible with the uses of nearby property and the
character ofthe neighborhood. The use of the property is not changed by this zoning map amendment and
the de -consolidation of Lot 18 will result in the size of the lots being more compatible with the other lots
in the neighborhood.
Tmm Government center 0 One Town Center court Building c
Hilton fie4d1sland 0 Southcorolina # 29928
843-341-4661 (FAA) 843-842-8908
ZMAIMM
Pap 3
(C) Suitability of theproperty affectedby the amendmentfor usespermittedby thedistrict that'would
be made applicable by the proposed amendment,
' Finding. The subject site is suitable for residential development similar to other residential lots in die
�eigl�rhood. As stated in (B) above the size of the new lots will allow for construction of homes of a"
:size closer to existing homes.
(2)) Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the district applicable
to thepropertyat the time of theproposedamendment,
Finding. The existing zoning classification of PD -1 will not change as a result of this zoning . map
amendment. The amendment will only return Lot 18 to its original configuration of two lots. The subject,
parcel is within the Sea Pines Master Plan which will not change as a It of g
r.esu this zonin map
amendment.
(E) Marketability of the property affected by the amendment for uses permitted by the district
applicableto theproperlyat the time of theproposed amendment,
Finding. This prope*'s marketability will not change substantially if this zoning map amendment is
approved. The area is almost fidly developed and vacant property in the area should be very marketable.
(F) Availability of sewer, water and storm water facilities generally suitable and adequate for the
proposed use.
Finding. Sewer and water are connected to the property. The master drainage plan f6r the subdivision
has adequate capacity for the two lots.
PREPAREDBY:
Edwin B. Drane, AIA, AICP
Urban Designer.
DATE:
REVIEWED BY:
Teri B. Lewis, AICP
M of Development Review & Zoning
DATE:
Town GOVOrnment Center 0 One Tmm Center Court o BuildinSC
Hilton lleadIsland Southcorolina 0 29928
843-341-4681 (FAM843-842-89M F
TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND PLANNING DEPARTNENr
MASTER APPLICATION FORM
ONEMWNCENTM(X=T 0 HILTON HEAD ISLAND, SC "M 0 $43-341401 0 VAX 6434424M
Pkm TYPE orPRINT Ir4ft
NAME OF DEVEL Pkw
STREET ADDRESS__13 Rklvwood Lane
ZONING DISTRICT PDA see Pirms OVERLAY DISTRICT -
TAX Disnucr-!E-- mm� PARCEL (s)
LANDOWNER APPLICANT AGENT
Some as Land Ownw Ch"W C. WMems, Esq.
SMA PwMm, LLC L8wOMo@dChwWC.WftM.LLC
=015w W. 8224 Post Woo BOX 6028
Hftn=IW@nd, SC 20038 Mon Hmd WwWl, SC 290354028
aff tr
843- 843-842 5411
Tujv� 843-642-5412
VAX FkmoCCWLow.nft
A CHECK-IN CONFERENCE 18 REQUIRED FOR THESE ITEMS. SEE LMO 18-3-104 FOR
MORE INFORMATION. ATTACH THE NECESSARY SUPPLEMENTAL FOPM(S).
APPEAL ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW* DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC PROJECT
SPECIAL EXCEPTION* SIGN PERMIT
SUBDIVISION TREE APPROVAL
VARIANCE wEILANDALTERATIoN
To THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION ON THIS APPLICATION AND ALL
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS TRUE, FACTUAL AND COMPLETE. I HEREBY AGREE TO ABIDE
BY ALL CONDITIONS OF ANY APPROVALS GRANTED BY THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND.
I UNDERSTAND THAT SUCH CONDITIONS SHALL APPLY TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ONLY AND
ARE A RIGHT OR OBLIGATION TRANSFERABLE BY SALE.
guM.-- March 18, 2005
SIGNATURE Chester C. Williams, Esq. DATE
01224-M
FOR OMCIAL USE ONLY
DATE RECEIVED: 7m: 4'.e�v F�j
-165 MASTER TRACKING NUMBER: ZM A050005
ACCEPTEDBY:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORM
TOWN OF IMTON HEAD ISLAM
THIS FORM MUSTBE ACCOM"IED BYA AMMER APPLIC477ONFORAJ
PbMrimorpRINrlosimy
NAME OFI)EVELOPhIENT: Resubdivision of ConsoNsted Lot 18 Spanish Mon Road Subdivisim, Son Pkm
CURRENT ZONING DISTIUCT: PD -1 Sin Pines
ZONING DISTRICT BEING REQUESTED- PD -1 Sea Pines
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS MUST BE ATTACHED FOR TMS APPLICATION TO BE COMPLETE. SEE
LMO SECTION 16.3-1502 FOR MORE INFORMATION.
NARRATIVE ADDRESSING REASONS FOR REZONING AND HOW THE
REQUEST MEETS THE CRITERIA OF 16-3-1505 SggAftachmenti.'
A BOUNDARY MAP OF SUBJECT PROPERTY PREPARED AND SEALED BY A
REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOPL A REPRODUCIBLE COPY OF IMS MAP, No
IARGER THAN I I" X 17", MUST ALSO BE SUBMITTED. SeeAttachment2.
A COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE SOLICITING COMMENTS FROM ANY PROPERTY
OWNERS ASOCIATION PER 16-3-1502-A.3. See Attachment 3.
CERTIFICATION OF OWNER'S CONSENT. See Attachment 4..
CCWLsw0l224-W6
FOR OFF7CLAL USE ONLY
FIDATE RECEIVED
TME: -4:430
ArrFPlFflRV,,., MAQTPRTRArvpjnWlTMAVR-
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND6 SC
COUNTY OF BEAUFORT. ZMA 05W_
ATTACHMENT 1
TO THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION
OF SMA PARTNERS, LLC
REGARDING LOT 19 SPANISH MOSS ROAD SUBDIVISION,
SEA PINES PLANTATION
This Attachment I is part of the Zoning Map Amendment Application (this
"Application) of SMA Partners, LLC (the "Applicant), and is subtrdtted by theApplicaut to
the PlAnning Commission of the Town of Hilton Head Island (the "Town") to address the zoning
map amendment criteria set forth in §16-3-1505 of the Town's Land Managernent OrdWnce
(the %MV). This Application seeks approval to amend the official zoning map of
the Town by
amending the 1994 Sea Pines Master Plan (the "Sea Pines Master Plan") so a to chop the
permitted density on Consolidated Lot 18 of Spanish Mon Road Subdivision on Ridgewood
Law in Sea Pines Plantation.
NARRATIVE —INTRODUCTION
The Applicant is the owner of the 0.645 acre tract of land designated as Let 18 of Spanish
Moss Road Subdivision in Sea Pines Plantation ("Consolidated Lot IS")'. Consolidated Let 18
is designated in the Beaufort County Property Tax Records as TMS District 550, Mop 17, Parcel
767. The 1984 See Pines Master Plan shows Consolidated Lot 18 as one lot designated fbr
single family residential use2. The Applicant is now seeking to amend the 1994 Sea Pines
The Applicant acquired Consolidated Lot 18 by way of die deed recorded on Decanber 6,2004 in Beedort
Cotntty Record Book 2062 stP&Xe 1106, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3 See the Town's records on the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan and the accotripanying text
FhW
020D3ChW"C.WUK&mLLC
X'.WMVkntl&AcdvMll24-006SMARUDWMM"-IBZMAApplicgdonNumfive.doe
Master Plan and accompanying text so as to allow for the resubdivision of Consolidated Lot 18
back into its original configuration oftwo single family residential lots.
IL NARRATIVE —BACKGROUND
A. SPANISH MOSS ROAD SUBDIVISION
Spanish Moss Road Subdivision was originally platted by Sea Pines Plantation Company
on December 14,1970, and that original subdivision plat was recorded in On Beaufort County
Courthouse on March 17, 1971 in Plat Book IS at Page 195. The original subdivision plat was
revised on April 5, 1971 and recorded on April 15, 1971 in Beaufort County Plat Book IS at
Page 204. Copies ofthe original recorded subdivision plat in Plat Book 18 at Page 195 and the
revision to the subdivision plat in Plat Book 18 at Page 204 are attached hereto as Exhibits B and
C, respectively. As one can see from a cursory review ofthese plats, they both clearly show Lot
IS and Loot 19 of Spanish Moss Road Subdivision ("Original Lot 18" and "Original Lot 19",
respectively) as separate, distinct single family residential lots.
The Spanish Moss Road Subdivision plat was again revised on December 3, 1975 to
show the consolidation ofOriginal Lot 18 and Original Lot 19 into one larger single family
residential lo� I e., Consolidated Lot 18. That revised plat was recorded in the Beaufort County
Plat Book 24 at Page 65. A copy ofthat plat is attached hereto as Exhibit D. This plat shows
Consolidated Loot 18 as one lot, with a dashed lint in the location of the finmer boundary line
between Original Lot 18 and Original Lot 19, designating them as "Formerly Lot 18" and as
"Forrmly Lot 19".
Ile Spanish Moss Road Subdivision plat was revised yet again
in 1976 to show the
consolidation ofwhat were originally Lot 31 and Lot 32 into one larger single family residential
Io4 and that revised plat was recorded in Beaufort County Plat Book 24 at Page 147. A copy of
that revised plat is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 711is last revision to the Spanish Moss Road
Subdivision plat still shows Consolidated Lot 18 as one lot, in the same configuration as that
shown on the plat recorded in Plat Book 24 at Page 65.
2
C=1ChetWC,W11tWmjLC
XADft1C1Wft%ACdV@WV124-006 SMA RoWng\2005-03-18 MA ANIICWm NffMdva.&c
B. CONSOLMATED 1AYr 18
In connection with the consolidation of Original Lot 18 and Original Lot 19, on October
1, 1991 the owners of those lots at the time entered into a Lot Consolidation Agreement and
Declaration of Covenant with Sea Pines Plantation Company, which was recorded in Be�ufbrt
County Deed Book 333 at Page 2091 (the "Lot Consolidation Agreement!). A copy of the Lot
Consolidation Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit F. The Lot Consolidation Agreement,
which . predates not only the establishment of the Town but also the 1984 Sea Pines MasW Plan
i tself and the Town's incorporation of the 1994 Sea Pines Masw Plan into the LMO, clearly
acknowledges that Consolidated Lot 18 can be resubdivided with the approval of Sea Pines
Plantation Company, provided that the owner of the property at the time pay, retroactive from
the date of the consolidation, a separate Community Service Assessment for each lot resulting
from the resubdivision.
ne Applicant has an agreement in place with Sea Pines Company, Inc.3 by which Sea
Pines Company, Inc. will transfer one Sea Pines Residential Dwelling Unit to the Applicant and
will also approve the resubdivision of Consolidated Lot 18 back into its original configuration as
Original Lot 18 and Original Lot 19. Copies of the documents evidencing that agreement are
attached hereto as Exhibits G and H. Those documents am currently being held in escrow
pending the Town's approval of the resubdivision of Consolidated Lot I B.
On February 23, 2005, the Applicant submitted a minor subdivision application (die
"Minor Subdivision Application) to the Town seeking to resubdivide Consolidated Lot 19 back
into its original configuration as Original Lot IS and Original Lot 19. A copy of die subdivision
plot submitted to the Town as part of the Minor Subdivision Application, which shows
Consolidated Lot 18 resubdivided back into its original configuration as Original Lot 18 and
Original Lot 19 is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. In a March 8, 2005 letter to the undersigned,
Chester C. Williams, agent for the Applicant, the Town Planning Staff, by Teri B. Lewis,
Manager of Development Review and Zoning, refused to process the Minor Subdivision
Application on that grounds that "... since [Consolidated, Lot 18] was shown as one lot on the
approved 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan, the lot cannot be subdivided without going through the
3 Sea Pines Cornpany, inr. is a subsidiary ofSes Pines Associates, Inc., the current ownerafSes Pines
Plantation and the Buccessorto Sea Pines PlantationCornpanY.
L Fiw 3
X-.To\ak*MWVO%01224.006SMARcwning\200W.18ZKAAppkgdwNumtive.doc
zoning map amendment process to amend the approved master plan."
The Applicant has filed an appeal with the Town's Board of Zoning Appeals (the "BZA")
regaiding the Town Staffs decision to refuse to process the Minor Subdivision Applicatiom This
Applicant's appeal should be heard by the BZA at its meeting currently scheduled for April 25,
20055.
Pending a decision on its appeal by the BZA, and in cia" that appeml is unsuccessful, the
Applicant is now seeking to amend the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan and accompanying text so as
to allow for the resubdivision of Consolidated Lot 18 back into its original configuration as
Original Lot 18 and Original Lot 19, pursuant to the Lot Consolidation Agreement, I and the
Minor Subdivision Application.
Them are no infrastructure improvements necessary in order to complete the
resubdivision of Consolidated Lot 18 back into its original configuration as Original Lot I a and
original Lot 19, and the resubdivision will not result in an increase in the overall residential
density cap under the Sea Pines Master Plan'i.
C. THE 1994 SEA PINES MASTER PLAN
Throughout the history of the development of Sea Pines Plantation, Sea Pines Plantation
Company and its successors have maintained a master plan for the development ofthc
community. By some estimations, them are probably over 50 different versions ofthe Sea Pines
Master Plan dating back to the late 1950's.
4 William h stuchad hado u Exhibit J.
A copy orthe March 8, 2005 letter ftom Ms. Lewis to Mi
5 Ifthe Applicanes appeal to the 13ZA is Iluccessfial, then the BZA should onler do Town Staffto pmcm the
ment that the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan firin be Amended to
Minor Subdivision Application without the requke piobably be withdrawn by
show Consolidated Lot 18 as two scPAnde lots. Ifthat owns, then this Application will
the Applicant.
ne Sea Pines Residential Density Unit to be transfaffed ftom sea pines Company, Inc. to dw Appellant is
by Sea Pines Company. Inc. dot remain
one of several unallocated Sea Pines Residential Density Units claimed
available for use or allocation to specific parcels In Sea Pines Plantation within the overall residential density cap
established by the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan.
find
CM ChWx C WON=, U -C
X..V)O\CIJW j\Acflvv\01 224 006 SMA Rewning\2005-03. 18 zmA Applicadon Nsmdve.doc
0 .
4
0
The Town was incorporated in 1983 and thereafter enacted the original version of the
LMO in 1987. Among other things, the LMO established zoning districts within the Town,
including the district that is now known as the PD. I Planned Development Mixed Use DistricL
The Purpose ofthe PD. I District is to recognize the existence within the Town ofoertain unique
mixed use Planned Unit Developments (PUD's) which am greater than 250 acres in size.
Generally, these PUD's, which include Sea Pines Plantation, Hilton Head Plantation, Palmetto
Dunes Resort, and the other major PUDs on Hilton Head Island, have served to establish the
spec: . ial character of Hilton Head Island as a quality resort and residential community. and it is
the LMO's intent in establishing the PD -1 District to allow the continuation ofwell-plann . ed
development within these areas7.
The various PUD master plans and associated text, as approved and, when
applicable, as amended by the Town, establish general pernAted uses and maximum area
densities for the PUD's, except as may be modified by the overlay of a specific district Other than
the PD -1 District'. With respect to Sea Pines Plantation in particular, the approved master Plan
and associated text is the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan.
Under die interpretation of the LMO and the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan cuffrAdy held
by the Town Plannmg Staff, the vining restrictions applicable to Consolidated Lot 18 limit its
use to only one single family residence, because it is shown as one lot on the 1994,1-,ka Pines
Master Plan. The Applicant is proposing to resubdivide Consolidated Lot IS so it may be used
a manner that will not in ase the overall residential density
for two single family residences in cre
under the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan. As will be more fidly explained below, the Applicant
believes that the approval ofthis Application and the resulting residential development on
impact on the Town's
Consolidated Lot 18 after it is resubdivided will not result in any increased
k&asuucture and environment. To that end, the Applicant is now seeking to arnend the 1994
Sea Pines Master Plan so as to change the permitted density on Consolidated Lot 18 from one
residential dwelling unit to two residential dwelling units.
and the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan
Notwithstanding the interpretation of the LMO
have been several instances in th past where
currently held by the Town Planning Staff, them
7 See LMO 1164-209(A).
See LMO §164-2W).
FW
C20DS CbMW C. WHIM LLC App1k8dfflNN"dVO-6X
X..%D"Vwn&AWYt%O1 224-006 SMA RaWps)2005-03-1 8 ZKA
the Town has approved the resubdivision of consolidated lots shown on the 1994 Sea Pines
Master Plan without requiring an amendment to the 1994 Sea Pines Master Pin as a
precondition to the subdivision. Specifically, the Applicant can point to (1) the consolidation of
Lots I and 4 of Royal Tern Road Subdivision and their resubdivision back into two lots in 1989;
(2) the consolidation of Lots 3, 4 and 5 of Baynard Cove Subdivision Phase 2 and their
resubdivision back into three lots in 1989; and (3) the consolidation of Lots 2, 3 and 4 of Fairway
Block 31, Sea Pines Golf Fairway Residential Area, on die ocean side of North Sea Pines Drive
and their subsequent.resubdivision back into dim lots in 199 1.
111. NARRATIVE — CURRENT AND PROPOSED PERMITTED USE AND DENSITY
Under LMO §§16-4-209(D) and 16-5-904(A)(1), the pemnitted use and maximum density
for Consolidated Lot 18 is established by the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan and the accompanying
text. As currently interpreted by the Town Planning Staft the 1984 Sea Pines Mod" Plan
specifies that Consolidated Lot 18 may be used for only one residential dwelling unit. The
Applicant is seeking to change the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan so that Consolidated Lot 18 can
be used for up to two residential dwelling units.
Again, it is important to note that die requested change to the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan
will not result in any increase in the overall residential density cap applied to Sea Pines
Plantation under the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan. Rather, the requested change will only allow
the construction of an additional residential dwelling unit on the resubdivided Consolidated Lot
18, instead of mi some other location within Sea Pines Plantation.
IV. NARRATIVE — REZONING CRITERIA
LMO § 16.3-1505 sets forth the criteria which the Planning Commission is to address in
making a recommendation to the Town Council on this rezoning request, as follows:
A. Consistency (or lack thereof) with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Naturel Resources Vision of the Comprehensive Plan directs the
Town to protect Hilton Head Island's diverse naftual resources, which am pivotal to the
Rid 6
C2005 Ono a Willim. LLC
XT0%a1enWAWv@W1224406 SMA Rem�fit=5-03-18 VAA APPIkWW Narmdve.doc
A14
economic well being of the community and the high quality of lifle on the Island. The
Applicant is seeking to amend the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan in a manner that will
merely once again allow on Consolidated Lot 18 that which was originally allowed, L e.,
the development oftwo single family residential dwelling units. As a practical matter, no
new residential lot will be created, as the original subdivision plat for Spanish Moss Road
Subdivision shows Consolidated Lot 18 in its original configuration as Original Lot 18
and Original Lot 19. Further, this Application will not incMase the overall residential
density cap under the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan. Ito Applicant's proposed amendment
of the Sea Pines Master Plan will help maintain residential development within an area of
Sea Pines Plantation that has been intended for residential development , for almost 35
years. In compliance with Goal III of the Natural Resources Element of the
Comprehensive Plan9, the resubdivision of Consolidated Lot IS back into two residential
lots and the construction oftwo new single family residences will have to mad all. of the
current LMO requirements for natural resources protection.
Ile Community Facilities Vision of the Comprehensive Plan is, for the Town to
provide facilities for the residents and visitors of Hilton Head Island which are
maintained at the highest levels of service and efficiency consistent with facilities of a
world class community. The two single family residential lots that 'will result from the
approval of this Application will have access to the many facilities available in Sea Pines
Plantation. Further, all infrastructure required for single family residential development
on Consolidated Lot 18, including water and sewer, electric, telephone; and cable service
and roadways, is already in place in Spanish Moss Road Subdivision and in Sea Pines
Plantation. Again, as there will be no increase in the overall residential density cap under
the 1984 Sea Pines Mester Plan, there will be no overall increase in demand on the
community's infrastructure as a result of the approval of this Application.
The Land Use Vision of the Comprehensive Plan seeks a high quality of life by
planning for population growth, public and private development and redevelopment and
the proper -distribution, location, and intensity of land uses with adequate levels of
services while maintaining and protecting tho natural resources, residential,
neighborhoods and overall character of the Town. Some of the land use goals which
foster this vision are development in area which have in place appropriate infrastructure
capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner, maintenance
See the March 16, 2004 Hilton Head Island Comprehensive Plan, at Page 48.
FW 7
L02(105 CbulerC. Wlftw, I1,C
X-.WOTIWKAAedve%01224-W6SMARcoWngVOOS.03.18ZMAAAIicadonNum6veAm
of existing master plan density caps, encouragement of redevelopment, -and maintenance
of existing residential areas, and all ofwhich v, o furthered by this Application.
More specifically, Goal JA of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive
Plan" requires the direction of development in area which have in place appropriate
infmstructure capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable nuumer.
lbs goal is met by this Application, in that Sea Pines Plantation in general, and the area
around Consolidated Lot 18 in particular, already have in place roadways, storm drainage
systems, and water and sewer and other utility service lines, allowing for finther.
development or redevelopment in an area ofthe Town which already has in place the
infrastructure necessary to support the planned development.
In addition, Goal 2A of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan 11
suggests that master plan caps should be held at or below current levels to enare that the
intent of the PUDs is not compromised. Such is the case with this Application: the
approval ofthis Application will not result in an increase in the overall donsity cap under
the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan.
Goals 48 and 4C of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan", which
encourage redevelopment, will be furthered by the approval of this Application, is one of
the results of that approval will be the redevelopment of the one single family residence
that is currently on Consolidated Lot 18 as two now homes, one on each of the two
resulting lots.
Finally, Goal 0 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan',- is to
maintain existing residential areas. The approval of this Application will do exactly that.
The Applicant believes the approval of this Application and the resulting
resubdivision of Consolidated Lot 18 is consistent with and in conformance with the
foregoing visions and goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Given the history of
See the March 16,2004 Hilton Head Island Comprehensive Plan, at Page 148.
Again, we the March 16,2004 Hilton Head Island Comprehensive Plan, at Page 148.
See the Much 16,2004 Hilton Head Island Comprehensive Plan, at Page 150
13 Again, we the Mamh 16,2004 Hilton Head Island Comprehensive Plan, at Page 150.
ItRW 8
C2003 CbUWC. Will". UC
X-.Qw%clkWWdve%Dl224-M SMA RcmWasUM-03-18 ZMA Aplication NumOve.doc
Consolidated Lot 18, the existing infrastructure facilities in the am of Consolidated W
18, and the residential nature of the Spanish Moss Road Subdivision, die resubdivigion of
Consolidated Lot 18 will not have an adverse effect on the natural resources in the area Or
on the existing residential neighborhoods in the area,
B. Compatibility with the present zoning and conforming uaes of nearby
property and with the character of the neighborhood.
The current use allowed on Consolidated Lot 18 is single f *.,y residential, and
air ,
that use will remain so upon the approval of thisApplication. All,ifthenearby
properties are either single family residential or die adjacent golf course, and the
character of the neighborhood is clearly single family residential. Because Consolidated
Lot 18 is located in a single family residential Subdivision within Sea Pines Plantation,
the present and future use on Consolidated Lot 18 is and will be wholly compatible with
present zoring, as single family residential development is the pripu" land use under the
1984 Sea Pines Master Plan in general and in the neighbo rhood of Consolidated Lot 18 in
particular. The various properties that am immediately adjacent to or in the
neighborhood of Consolidated Lot 18 are all located in the PD- I Sea Pines Zoning
District.
Given the mixed use requirement of the PD -1 Zoning District, and the location of
Consolidated Lot 18 within the Sea Pines Master Plan area, it seems the continued use of
Consolidated Lot 18 for single family residential use is compatible with the present
zoning and uses of nearby properties and with the character of the neighborhood.
C. Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses
pe I rmitted by the district that would be made applicable by the proposed
ameadmenL
The rezoning requested by this Application will not result in a change in the
applicable zoning district for Consolidated Lot 18, as the zoning district will remain the
existing PD -1 Sea Pines District. Further, if this Application is approved as presented,
the PefmitL-' use on Consolidated Lot 18 will not charge. Considering the mixed use
nautre of t I he PD -I Zoning Districts under the LMO, and the past history of use for single
F"
01mchourc.W114m, Ic 9
X:WftXaicnWActivcWA-OD6 SMA Rexoni*M.03.19 ZMA A!.plicadon Nvmdve.doc
family residential purposes, the Applicant believes that Consolidated Lot 18 is well suited
for single family residential development.
D. Suitability of the property affected by the amendment for uses
permitted by the district applicable to the property at the time of the
proposed amendment.
Again, the change to the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan requesteit! by this
Application will not result in any change in the zoning district applicable to Consolidated
Lot 18. Instead, the permitted use for Consolidated Lot 18 will remain as is, and the
density for Consolidated Lot 18 under the 1984 Sea Pines Master Plan win increase fiom
one residential dwelling unit to two residential dwelling units. Consolidated Let 19 has
long been designated for single family residential use under the 1984 Sea Pines Master
Plan, and was originally designated for two dwelling units when Spanish Moss Road
Subdivision was first platted. Therefore, the Applicant believes that Consolidated Lot Is
is well suited for the use and density that will be made applicable to it if this Application
is approved.
E. Marketability of the property effected by the amendment for uses
permitted by the district applicable to the property at the time of the
proposed amendment.
As mentioned above, the permitted use on Consolidated Lot 18 will be remain as
is, and the applicable density will increase by one residential dwelling unit if this
Application is approved". Clearly, the marketability of Consolidated Lot 18 will be
greater if it can be resubdivided into two single family residential lots, instead of
remaiiiing as one lot. In addition, the Applicant believes that the approval of this
Application will not have an adverse effect on the marketability of other properties in the
vicinity,
14
Again, as mentioned above, them will be no increase in the overall residential density cap wider the 1984 Sea
Pines Mager Plan as a witilt of the approval of this Application.
ILReal 10
C2003 Cbeater C. William, LLC
X-U)ft0kW\Ad'vOW' 124-M SNA ItuadnaN2005-03-1 8 ZMA Application Nuative.doe
F. Availability of sewer, water and stormwater facilities generally
suitable for the proposed use.
South Island Public Service District (the "PSY) currently provide potable water
and sanitary sewer service to all of Sea Pines Plantation, including the Spanish Moss
Road Subdivision area where Consolidated Lot 18 is located, As is die can with respect
to LMO §16-3.-1705(0) and the special exception review criteria, the Applicant believes
that die current availability of adequate water, septic sewer servi�e and stbrinwater
drainage facilities in the Sea Pines Plantation area is evidence that such facilities am
available for the additional residential use which would be permitted on,Consolidated Lot
18 if this Application is approved.
IV. NARRATIVE — CONCLUSION
The Applicant believes the foregoing narrative demonstrates that this Application is in
conformance with the LMO and the Town's Comprehensive Plan, and meets the criteria set ford'
in LMO §16-3-1505. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully requests that the Planning
Commission (a) consider this Application and the testimony and supporting documentation
which will be entered into the record; (b) find:
1. That this Application and the supporting testimony and documentation establish
amendment is consistent with the Town's Comprehensive
that the requested zoning map
Plan; and
2. That this Application and the supporting testimony and documentation estab . lish
that the requested zoning map amendment is consistent with the present zoning and
rhood around
conforniing uses of nearby properties and with the character of the neighbo
Consolidated Lot 18; and
3. That this Application and the supporting testimony and documentation establish
that Consolidated Lot 18 is suitable for the uses permitted by the zoning district that would
be made applicable to Consolidated Lot 18 by the requested zoning map amendment; and
ChulcrC Willkno, LIC Wa m do
X.,V)W\Ctiwb\Acdve\01224-M6SMAR=Mft\200543-IBZPAAAPPI dOnNu gve. c
4. That this Application and the supporting testimony and documentation establish
that Consolidated Lot IS is also suitable for the uses permitted by the zo;Ang district that is
currently applicable to Consolidated Lot 18; and
5. "at this Application and the supporting testimony and documentation establish
that the marketability of Consolidated Lot 18 for uses permitted by the zoning district dint is
currently applicable to Con . solidated Lot I Swill be increased by the approval of die
requested zoning map amendment; and
x1cstion and the supporting testimony and documentation establish
6. That this App'
that sewer, water and stormwater f ilities generally suitable and adequate for thi proposed
use of Consolidated Lot 18 under the requested zoning map amendment are available to
Consolidated Lot 18;
and (c) recommend to the Town Council that they approve this Application.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Applicant this 18* day of March, 2005.
Rut&
Chester C. Williams, Esquire
Law Office of Chester C. Williams, LLC
3'
m.c-tloo
oR Exhibit A
im"MWA1JFW01
M
WAN 193"Im
1K=/Y0M MftPl MM
NECMDM FEET 10=
ow*.F" 918.60
a" TO 21171.00
1 rannsr is 2.08M
e"�i�it�"�o ti riivi�itr"i�EllNce
aooaoao
�- VR--
QW
teas ir,.uoan�r
C , 0 to* -,cv,/
R$5&017.000.0767 0000
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
LIVITED WARRANTYDEED
COUNTY OF BEAUFORT
• KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT SUNTRUST BANK, A
GEORGIA BANK We LIGHTHOUSE COMMUNITY BANK hereinafter referred to as
("Grantor") in the state aforesaid, in consideration of the sum of EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTY
FOUR THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FIFTY ($834,650.00) AND N01100 Dollars actual, to
the said Grantor in hand paid at and before the sealing of these presents by SMA Partsw%
LLC, PO Bas 6224, Hiben Had IsknC SC 29939 ("Grants"), in the state aforesaid, the
receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, hu granted, bargained, sold and released and by these
Presents does Want, bargain, sell and relase unto the said SMA Partners, LLC, its successors
and assign, forever, the following described property, to -wit:
ALL clot certain pies, parcel or lot of 104 with improvements thereon, situate,
lying and being on Hilton Head Island, Beaufort County, South Carolina, shown
and designated as Lot Number Eighteen (18) on a plat of Spanish Moss Road
Subdivision of Sea Pima Plantation; said property having dimensions, metes and
Page 1 of 3
Book2062/Page1106 r
bounds and distances as shown on the Plot recorded in Plat Book 24 at Pye 147 •
in the Office of the Regista of Deeds for Beaufort County, South Carolina.
SUBJECT to all eondidons, restricdow and easements as recorded in asW ROD
Office for Beaufort County, South Carolina, and all amendments thereto.
This being the same property conveyed to the Gramm heroin by M"Ws Dod
recorded October 23, 2004 in said ROD Office in Book 2041 at Page 335 in asW
ROD Office for Beaufort County, South Carolina.
This instrument was prepared in the Law Offices of L.aurich A Deeb., P.A., 9 Oak
Forest Road, Suite 200, Bluffton, SC 29910.
TOGETHER with all and singular, the Rights, Members, Hered MMM and
Appurtessnees to the said Premises belonging, or in anywise incident to or oppartainiog.
And the Grantor does hereby bind itself and its successors, administrators, executors and
assigns to warrant and forever defend all and singular the said premises umo the Grantee, its
successors and assigns, against itself and its successors and assigns lawfully claiming or to claim •
the same, or any Part thereof..
• WITNESS Grantor's Herd and Sed this 1 Z day of November. 2004.
WITNESSES: SUNTIR r SANK, A GZMIA BANK ern
UGHYNOUaK COMMUNITY DANK
Byt
(Non• otwy) Witness #1 sagas Neras
Talk:
2b- .. ttk
otuyPublic) Widen #2 signs
STATE OF VIRGINIA )
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
COUNTY OF RICHMOND )
1 HEREBY CERTIFY that on this & day of November, 2004, before me, the
• undersigned Noury rd4lic of the State and County aforesaid, pasonally OPPMW
(name of authorized off cer),ih A (srd, J
(title of authorized omar) for SUNTRUST BANK, A GEORGIA BANK IWO LIGHTHOUSE
COMMUNITY BANK, known to me, or satisfactodly proven, to be the person whose aw it
subscribed to the within Quit Claim Deed on behalf of SUNTRUST BANK, A GEORGIA
BANK W& LIGHTHOUSE COMMUNITY HANK.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereto set my hand and official seal the day and year.'
10 above mentioned.
_(SEAL)
Notary PubHvft Pub'Virginia
My Commiabn Expires:
r.4 nn6TndeQsgtbhw1mTn %3MAh�nAy
Page 3 of 3
•
Book2062/Page1108 i
.� •• rr• • JP •Pt'A •I• / • ' ... tic
F�SA' Exhibit B MaNf
MN
As �
/yq IL 11 1. • O
r •• W.
l• 1• �4
L
I�j' Al
H
� ' � • ! fl '
^SIO
1
�vo
rp�0ve
'{'��„•y�,�,''.:i
r •• W.
l• 1• �4
L
t •
t •
/IIID �� �w
/
l • '•
t•
.,...M,.—,�'� o., �•i` moo'~ EXhlblt C
ro„SEA
1 4
• t[CTIN M
wwtlr
W N � �� 1 AO
t /
=(♦w
wMl
AM Sul
� ♦ s
r r 'I. i � �C�•,
� ITij la .1lll�t. 'l 1.!} i 1
wui
.. � / f n / .r�I ! ••Yi�' �,•ji!7;N'ito tl I _ _•
� / /.. � ' . .vines ! '�.. N •. 'I..�
• ti
at
'rte
j\/`('��/ ♦ ` —Y
'01 � \ • � � 1. � . • � �—may^
t •
t •
•F•A �p /� / ��y w• •L., •/• i
. �..,.;
.L°N,.,.Aw A°,... y •ul�-"� '�x� D -=� ._�� MOff ROA•
Exhibit
[[cnn a
'�t.�'�•� ..6.:3 EEA PMS
PLANTAIM
y l• R1M rla.1M
�• y ~•'/ °I a !e , f� i •,�4y �� ,
0.0
IL • • J� ,p V, ` n
•
i r r • r•.. q1`• e �
lip
�I f,r•� l / / p • ! sa � • �' • �.�. j •'O ,I /1 '/,` +r:a• ;,,yLY.i w:i'+...
• r, �\!�� � � °. • � , i � N,• I' / � /.' as o a. ; .!.'
S
•
..w• _�
-A PLAT OF-
rji.••;'er
-��'+,a,.ew oa.va •• • .li► wTi(/Il/l�V '-
MOSS
!
• _ �r r 40Ao
■ cA M v
{ ' +Exhibit E MAwf
MANTATION
i� „ • � .�' a���dJ 1 -' �n .cwt •w�i..W.www
is • to • O • •. an.w aa..aaa •a_•
c fi.,. i �'�J .• .''�, l�-� �. moo. .,�.
�t , �` �� '' • , �, � i� ti �. -- '�'� ` .e..... as
lyj..
n
14
\ y ,
• r = a1MIh1 , . `as • „� M./ M • • +•�' AT' V ZZ-�-I
UVWMR. .0—
• I YC6W
,A
•&ff
MN—M.' of tad nituaEo,'
al wa
+ en 1t11Eon IMI u1M�,
A6 Wri
lY�y tW
i., ::. Can /auu► Csrolime ohowo sea affil"o
Exhibit F.
,
of Lim
vision, s lin.. sn
)'' ' '." dinsheiono, nan Jrd hands u all" en the list thdreot
„oeeae >n he CIM
rise roti+ at �4Soith e. ilw
et County, er.
of, the Clot% of,cart o
Or KUIH u101.1Nb . 1 ' rol .
,...i ' .,�'olisilir
i•. •':'. ,. ,
'' 1'+ ' '�,' • Nttintly'lea:d sub" to u. w)ditt"I redtNationsi ,IMI t\etfiO-
y � n,y .ah a,`�E►1!/WR,' j .
•�,•„,, t.;�,
•' '
14,7
:pe"pp"y, moerdcicy, _LM
in uN olds Of um clerk of Cane
ard,p cw into WL.'yLydsY °f,
uspomp-molt,
'il.• itiuth CerO 'A (We •Declarduchs•)..1 end
lute 1O11tG1OR� sNo
',�;,.
'
rwu.sene" IocfNch d;
,f rroqulsM "Oenenl�Y
:�;';. :;. ,��y.er ,'�{�•M �belMMn salads ruxennca
, �,,;?:�, ►'
'w: ('"l'% Jule-Ca,pagr•): rrd�Mlld:.
"a•if%'" '
(a) Tor tot 1L. •• l-�s a:
�. :als�ot�
•'''''t•A41L1/L..elerl. I(um "QRIt ).
•1�r�
j.�Y��:.;1
. r
ueq,rioh to npiat stff we or nate Sots :n esdor to etwa . nndl-• •
”. . h•�• 1:I • •�• :•1' aw W& of Fwv.•! Gt'tw ,
�•'1 'I•�'• i'Yr!
a
•yt t.[rr iy�,,.'' :)JE*'i`:M "• fJ is"' :, .,i�:�r:'� to -At
MN—M.' of tad nituaEo,'
al wa
+ en 1t11Eon IMI u1M�,
A6 Wri
lY�y tW
i., ::. Can /auu► Csrolime ohowo sea affil"o
,
of Lim
vision, s lin.. sn
)'' ' '." dinsheiono, nan Jrd hands u all" en the list thdreot
„oeeae >n he CIM
rise roti+ at �4Soith e. ilw
et County, er.
of, the Clot% of,cart o
•1J',,` . ,� : �.' • q¢lW, oald pr'olsreY wiz uentww to we Omer Md it
.
'' 1'+ ' '�,' • Nttintly'lea:d sub" to u. w)ditt"I redtNationsi ,IMI t\etfiO-
•,
;•.'::. , in the WYIeraJen of the lea lieu rLnestion
,,"
•' '
'1 'y'" pssd foots and A&- at rgoi
:pe"pp"y, moerdcicy, _LM
in uN olds Of um clerk of Cane
uspomp-molt,
'il.• itiuth CerO 'A (We •Declarduchs•)..1 end
tee deiutatt CabtY,
'•Y'''`<•. WIg1Lt1r pYcwmt LO said romedfd ooelaretiena, OkMr•
rwu.sene" IocfNch d;
,f rroqulsM "Oenenl�Y
w Say n levies
Up lots u dsscrll ed ato+ro m follows
(a) Tor tot 1L. •• l-�s a:
'
,' •r' ' tdaRA1, Oid n.0.44 ossluseiares ieury to utf, cooky .
. r
ueq,rioh to npiat stff we or nate Sots :n esdor to etwa . nndl-• •
�.
.}:: �• [[ae auildUq lot or iets, edd "tied buildilq lot tp tt*-Iesr
•,
Li' m dww. a,s Ill sLM,ls Cel "tY setglw asneosleet � f .
f
NKK, ul. flans bu SwUld to u. ea -s tar •p�wfa!�an .
.
'I: 'ub yews destslbeed lots L1t9 aro (1) lot.
ti iepue and O"'Iddati
1•�
?Meg '03 07:180M ° P.3 y
►n7, TICK Kgti Ln r:onoldnMion of silo eutaol C941vwu1tt,
;.'• ;.' &Uiuwlto and tooFtWho hvintn 0ontalmd, tho pllrrici Mltwily .
' iy �''�"• �groa wtbllowi
7�r ; "''• r1,: 41l %bot COgWW harab/ 6,9040, 6t Awr'a ntdM* 010 '
M' r{;. ' • op,tolidttlan of .tots 1 AL a d 1 -&L, w teafl partiwLrly deacrl* t '
Aww, Into one ill Int, aaLO tet to bo, MMS 0 let %-P .ypdpEjp_
,home lvldlviaion, W lime F1mt6tliri.
41l itrt th0 flatlr vgeoas on btlolf if htmelf IJa helca
Wd moltro, for0tor, that 00.901/ Wt IjJL will' not pe aubdlvlAad.
jj;: i'' I _"�,'.•,i l' :,o l. its 4oln4ary 1lret dMF4, sxapt wit}. UW WC!Clm jodnwnt at, ,
fit' (It (4.:. Fail. capo,d. Ary luteus a�uSeivldlM shell aau►ca ola;pnxr, is
to r,',1 �: '' hl ' a ant or aasiwn. .tlrxattr pay, rat:o6etive floe tM dotty
'o, 1.Iq' '1 llitrm n� lidstlon, a —A -to taneility forvlrn
Aaiesonmt far rich lot rooultLnQ f— the aublivltllrlli „
111 t1Nt t11a OI rcg-, b9 tha vocutLah Mmol, hrttaty rubles ;
"'�r'taabbw dccrlpW PtroortY to 0-7 AMIANrnL Yd 1dCl..eOOC1ar,!�
'
1'j : "? ;, tied of nights, Iteatrioeiam, falditions, *W., wALCh �pnstitWta '
.t
�� • ' 1,cmwmta nn%inp with cartaln lane& of 190 Piroe 116A tlon cm1!WSr" +.
�r; •'(. )1,'n. ' t; , C1mo,4A1 CWMLAtn, dat/td April 1, 1979, and Lvcrrrded'Ln Dead M*. 224,X.•
�'�,•ae Ila" 172, In the Office of L'A Curk of Court for C4. too. ostia.
lauttt Conidia. 911& Amar upeas that such AnW deQlt 111011 rot Lis
rc � 'Withdrawn cc pedifiod without the wrlttm oonaont of tilt oanpw. Cu
Successors of AmILVW.
lot The p"as hereto opm that the luwda/ona:ef this
r.:
t; ;�,�• faawnit, %M1 tueordatim in the Office of the Cion: 9t coat for
' J6 4lbat Cofty, amU to cormanu a.dm with the lid Rosin
daaerund, ars thereafter to bi+dLM 1[+a'+ &W lot= awiir Of tie' „
prelsrty, ore It stud owrw had atmoutad this Ap mwmntVaealt.
V wnmu iimw, the mftmiVW has set his Ion: and
i !• •'' , 1' • stf emq
his s as of the day and liar brat abort wrktan.
Wi21 Cuml ' SIR "M plMRA7•lCt4,0MCAN1t ,.
j.
,ryt�t
'.l
T 193 07tI
PA'
.6
MA
&tA o. WL%w —d -Aulh—EJULU.
&W•irad.
.. & ; y 0lrnos, dTn, x4l, of .4 his Avi a
s
G.
from
%M Or WAlliMlif
MA
&tA o. WL%w —d -Aulh—EJULU.
&W•irad.
.. & ; y 0lrnos, dTn, x4l, of .4 his Avi a
s
Ot 0 iimci rA
It
t.., PAM=
PMWXLV qV=od &gftM rV'_tan y L. WY16
cm a* oath OftJm am the w1uAn need 89A Im n*i7dlGf.-'
!ti P.—A...
-.6rpm,
by 'hill,ai r
YO seerstla
'Wd.by.
Slma, wA its rxt L*4 dwdi deli sr the WLWA Wwotiit
itrinud WOm011
iiii&thilk J,
..um
tVd
,7
a"
POLMS,
nun
7 -7 --
AT
OnAll OCT" I 3W
WA -
0,
cm.w If.
om V.
0
Exhibit G
• STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) ASSIGNMENT OF
SINGLE FAMILY DENSITY UNIT (Class A)
,COUNTY OF BEAUFORT ) (SMA Partnen — Lot 18 Spanish Maas)
This ASSIGNMENT OF SINGLE FAMILY DENSITY UNIT ("ASSIGNMENT"), is
imtered into this 19 day of November, 2004, by Sea Pines Company, Inc. ("Sas Place'), a
15outh Carolina corporation, and SMA Partners, LLC a South Carolina limited liability company,
1Post Office Box 6224, Hilton Head island, South Carolina 29938-6224 ("Owner').
WHEREAS, that under the Covenants, Restrictions and Affirmative Obligations, etc.,
dated September 7, 1974, recorded in Deed Book 224 at Page 1036 in the Beaufort County
Register of Deeds Office C'1974 Covenants'), the total number of single family Dwelling Units,
as defined under the 1974 Covenants ("Density Unita') that would be pemniited within Sea Pince
Plantation ("Plantation') was limited to 5,890 units, of which no more than 2,100 units could be
villas, c&idominium units, townhouse units, cooperative apartment units or apartment units;
• WHEREAS, in connection with various compilations or lista of the total Density Units
available for specific properties with Sea Pines Plantation, Sea Pines and Community Services
Associates, Inc. ("CSA') have referred to villas, condominium units, townhouse units,
cooperative apartments or apartment units as "Class B" Density Units, and detached residences
and all other categories of use as "Class A" Density Units;
WHEREAS, on or about November 24,1986 the Sea Pines Plantation Company, a South
Carolina corporation ("SPCO"), the original developer of the Plantation, and various related
entities ("Bankrupt Entities') filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code;
WHEREAS, Sea Pines was the successful purchaser at a Court approved sole
("Bankruptey Sale) of substantially all of the operating assets within the Plantation owned by
I
the Baokropt Entities, r_ well as substantially all of the declarant rights, the right to approve the
consolidation and deconsolidation of any lot under the restrictive covenants, and a substantial
number of Density Units;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the terns and conditions of the BaNwptcy Sale, the
Banlvupley Trustee executed that certain Assignment of Rights, dated November 17,1987,
recorded in Dad Book 490 at Page 712, as well as that certain Assignment of Rights dated
January I'A, 1989, recorded in Deed Book 520 at Page 1907, as well as other d#Auments,
whereby the Trustee assigned to Sea Pines said declarant rights, including but expressly not
IimiV,,,d to the exclusive right to approve or disapprove of the subdivision, deconsolidation or
consolidation of any residential lot within the Plantation, and a substantial number of Density
Units, td the exclusive ownership of any Density Units that resulted from past, present or future
lot consolidations, or resulting from the completion of certain development projects, as well as
other assets;
•
WHEREAS, Owner currently owns the property more fully described on Exhibit A
attached hereto C'Property') and Owner desires to purchase and Sea Pines desires to sell one (1)
single Density Unit ( Class A) to be used by Owner in its subdivision of the Property;
WHEREAS, the Owner has requested that Sea Pines sell, transfer and assign to it one (1)
single family, Class A, Density Unit for the exclusive use on the Property;
WHEREAS, upon the tears and conditions set forth herein, and upon the payment by
.Owner to Sea Pines of two hundred and five thousand and eight hundred and twenty-nine
($205,829.00) Dollars and otba•.good and valuable consideration, Sea Pines and Owner agree as
follows:
2
•
1 Whereas Clauses - The above "Whereas" clauses am hereby incorporated herein
as if restated and are hereby made an integral part hereof so that their contents are
a substantive part of this Assigrarnent.
2. Assisrunent of Density Unit - Sea Pines hereby sells, transfa-s and assigns to
Owner one (1) single family, Class A, Density Unit to Owner for the exclusive
purpose of allowing Owner, its successors and assigm6 to construct a single
family dwelling on the Property, and no other property.
3. Warranties by Sea Pines - Sea Pines warrants and represents it holds lawful tide
and possession of the single family, Class A, Density Unit and that amid single
family, Class A, Density Unit is not subject to any mortgage lien, security
interest, judgment lien or similar encumbrance.
4. Use of Density Unit - Owner must use the Denclty Unit on the Property only
•
and on no other property.
S. Architectural App AVOtber Approvals - Any improvements, including
landscaping, sign placement, land clearing, or any alterations on the Property
must be first approved by the Sea Pines Architectural Review Board, or such
other similar organization or group designated by Sea Pines, pursuant to the
applicable covenants and restrictions, including but not limited to said covenants
and restrictions recorded in Deed Book 92 at Page 152 and in Deed Book 100 at
Page 270 in the BeaufortCounty Register of Deeds Office. The owner must also
obtain any other required federal, state or Town of Hilton Head approvals or
permits and comply with all applicable restrictive covenants. By this
3
Assignment, Sea Pines is merely transferring its ownership interest in aid
Density Unit and is not consenting to any change in designated use for the
Property, or modifying, cbrging or altering any applicable restrictive covenant.
6,
GovernLaw - Ibis Assignment shall be governed cod construed in accordance
with the laws of South Carolina.
7.
Modifications - The teens of this Assignment may not be changed, modified,
waived, discharged or terminated orally, but only by an instrument in writing,
signed by each party.
S.
Attorney Fees - In the event of any litigation concerning any claim or proceeding
involving this Assignment, the prevailing party ,hail be entitled to recover
reasonable attorney fees and costs against the non-prevailing party.
9.
Construction of Assignment - Each party acknowledges that it has participated in
the negotiation and drafting of this Assignment. No provision of this Assignment
•'
shall be construed against or interpreted to the disadvantage of any party hereto or
thereto by any court by reason of such party having or being deemed to have,
dictated, prepared, or drafted any Duch provision in the Assignment.
10.
Successors. Heirs and Assiggs - All provisions of this Assignment shall bind and
inure to the benefit of each party's respective heirs, executors, legal
representatives, successors, successors in title, and assigns.
11.
Merger Provision - This Assignment and the Lot De-Consolidation Agreement
executed contemporaneously herewith contain the entire agreement between the
parties with respect to the issues set forth herein. All other discussions,
4
s
• proposals, agreements, or offers are merged into this Assignment and said
Agreement.
12. Severability - In the event that any provision of this Assignment shall be held
invalid or unenforceable by sny court of competent jurisdiction, such holdings
shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision haw
13. Future Subdivision of Prooerw • Sea Pines, as part of the consideration of the sale
of this Density Unit is also granting its consent to the subdivision and
deconsolidation of the Property into two residential lots, ruunely Lots 18 and 19,
Spanish Moss Subdivision.
14. Waiver of Jury Trial - The parties hereto expressly waive any right to
request a jury Mal In connection with any dispute concerning this
• AssignmeaL
SEA PINES COMPANY, INC.
_By#G d
/ Date
Its.. P
OWNER: SMA Partners, LLC
BY: /
David M. Roberts, Member Date
S
•
Proposals, agreements, or offers ore merged into this Assignment and saki • .
Agreement.
12. Severability - in the event that any provision of this Assignment shall be held
Invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holdings
shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof.
13.' Futuro Subdivision of Property - Sea Pines, as part of the consideration of the seek
of this Density Unit is also granting Its consent to the subdivision and
deconsolidation of the Property Into two residential lots, namely Lou Ig and 19,
Spanish Moss Subdivision.
11. Waiver of Jury Trial - The parties hereto expressly waive any right to
request a Jury trial In connection with any dispute concerning this
Assignment.
SEA PINES COMPANY, INC.
9v:
/ Data
Its:
/ Date
OWNER: SMA P ars, LLC
EY: hi%, N / I a
David M. Robsrts, Member Date 1
5
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA )
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
COUNTY OF BEAUFORT )
1, the undersigned Notary Public for the State of South Carolina, do hereby caAfy, that
David M. Roberts, a member of SMA Partners, LLC, Personally appeared before me this
qday ofN—wmmber, 2004, and personally acknowledged de execution of the foregoing
instrument. be&
Notary Public for South Carolina
My Commission Expires: P6
•
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA )
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
COUNTY OF BEAUFORT )
I, the undersigned Notary Public for the State of South Carolina, do hereby certify that
Michael E. Lawrence, an officer of Sea Pines Company, Inc., personally appeared before me this
day of November, 2004, and personally acknowledged the execution of the foregoing
instrument.
Notary Public for South Carolina
My Commission Expires:
Bfim�r/RisielV+eapineddaWry.rdw.myaiy�maiedoej
6
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA )
ACKNOWLEDGMEN'�:'
COUNTY OF BEAUFORT
1, the undersigned Notary Public for the State of South Camlins, do hereby certify diet
David M. Roberts, a member of SMA Partners, LLC, personally appeared before me this
_�_*y of November, 2004, and personally aclatowledged the execution of the f0mr- ins
instrument.
Notary Public for South C4kroW.
My Commission Expires: _
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA )
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
COUNTY OF BPAUFORT
. 1, the undersiped Notary Public for the State of South Carolina, do hereby Certify that
�U' sel E. Lawrence, an officer of Sea Pines Company, Inc., personally appeared before me this
Exhibit H
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA )
LOT DE -CONSOLIDATION AGREEMENT
COUNTY OF BEAUFORT ) (SMA Partners — Lob 18 and 19, Spinals Moss)
This LOT DE -CONSOLIDATION AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT'), is antared
into this -4 day of November, 2004, by Sea Pines Company, Inc. ("Sea Pianos'), a South
Carolina corporation, and SMA Partners, LLC a South Carolina limited liability company, Past
Office Box 6224, Hilton Head Island, South Carolina 29938.6224 ("Owner'),
WHEREAS, under the Class A Residential Covenants recorded in Deed ;cook 128 at
Page 185 in the Beaufort County Register of Deeds Office ("Clara A Covenants'), a amended
and supplemented, is well as other various recorded covenants ofrecord, the original developer
of Sea Pines Plantation ("Plantation's, Sea Pines Plantation Company, a South Carolina
corporation ("SPCO'), held the right to specifically approve the subdivision or consolidation of
any residential lot within Sea Pines Plantation;
WHEREAS, under the Covenants, Restrictions and Affirmative Obligations, etc., dated
September 7,1974, recorded in Deed Book 224 at Page 1036 in the Beaufort County Register of
Deeds Office ("1974 Covenants'), the total number of family dwelling units that would be
permitted within the Plantation was limited to 5,890 units;
WHEREAS, on or about November 24, 1986 SPCO and various related entities
("Bankrupt Entities') filed for relief under Chapter 1 I of the Bankruptcy Code;
WHEREAS, Sea Pines was the successful purchaser at a Court approved ale
("Bankruptcy Sale") of substantially all of the operating assets within the Plantation owned by
the Bankrupt Entities, as well as substantially all of the declarant rights and the right to approve
the consolidation of any lot under the restrictive covenants, at a Bankruptcy Court ordered sale;
•
1
• WHEREAS, pursuant to acid Bankruptcy Sale, the Bankruptcy Tiustee executed that
certain Assignment of Rights, dated November 17, 1987, recorded in Deed Book 490 at Pale
712, a well as that certain Assignment of Rights dated January 12,1989, retarded in Deed Body
520 at Page 1907, whereby the Trustee assigned to Sea Pines said declarant rights, including but
expressly not limited to the exclusive right to approve or disapprove of the subdivision or
consolidation of any residential lot within the Plantation and the exclusive ownership of soy
density unit that resulted from past, present or firture lot consolidations;
WHEREAS, Owner currently owns Lot 18 of Spanish Moss Road Subdivision
("Consolidated Lot'), as reflected on those certain Plats of Spanish Moss Road Subdivision
recorded in Plat Book 24 at Page 68 and in Plat Book 24 at Page 147 in the Beaufort County
Register of Deeds Office ("Property');
WHEREAS, said Consolidated Lot was formerly comprised of two separate lots, namely
SLots 18 and 19 Spanish Moss Road Subdivision, as one of the Owner's predecessor -in -rifle,
with the express permission of Sea Pines or SPCO, has previously consolidated said lots into the
Consolidated Lot in order to avoid paying two separate property owner assessments or for other
reasons; and in exchange for granting permission for said previous lot consolidation, the
Owner's predecessor -in -title agreed that the density unit resulting from the prior lot
consolidation was conveyed or transferred to Sea Pines or SPCO;
WHEREAS, the Owner has requested that Sea Pines consent to the de -consolidation of
subdivision of the Consolidated Lot as required under the Class A Covenants;
WHEREAS, upon the terms and conditions am forth herein, Sea Pines is willing to grant
its written consent;
2
WHEREAS, the Owner has agreed to abide by and adopt the tents and conditions as set
forth herein in exchange for Sea Pines written approval of said Lot subdivision or de.
consolidation;
WHEREAS, for Ten and No/] 00 ($10.00) Dollars and other good and valuable
consideration, the parties agree as follows:
I- Approval of Lit De -Coe �lid_tr+... Sea Pines hereby grants its
written consent to subdivide the Consolidated Lot into two (2) separate lob
pursuant to the survey referred to in Exhibit A ("Survey').
2• Ratification and Consent of G. pines Ownership ern... ..
OIJ&Al Consolidation - The Owner acimowledges, ratifies, consents and agrees
that Sea Pines or SPCO received the density unit resulting from the original
consolidation of the Consolidated Lot by the Owners predecessor -in -titre and that
Sea Pines lawfully owns and possesses same at this time.
3. Density Unit labs For New� - Owner has, pursuant to that certain Assignment
of Single Family Density Unit (Class A) executed contemporaneously hemwith,
obtained from Sea Pines a single-family density unit that will be recognized and
recorded in the density unit count maintained by Sea Pines and Community
Services Associates, Inc. ("CSA'), to be assigned to the new lot resulting from
this de -consolidation and subdivision.
4. Architectural Awroval - Any improvements, including landscaping, sign
placement, land clearing, or tory alterations of the Consolidated Lot, now or after
the de -consolidation and subdivision approved heroin, must be fust approved by
•
3
• the Sea Pines Architectural Review Board, or such other similar organization or
group designated by Sea Pines, pursuant to the Class A Covenants.
S Recording Suter gy/kssesmxnfs . IFU Owner shall be responsible for recording
the Survey (Exhibit A) which shall also be Sled with CSA, if it is not h.* of
record. The Owner shall thereafter pay any and all assessments billed by CSA for
the newly created two lots.
6. Dovemina r M - This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance
with the laws of South Carolina.
7. Madifications - The terms of this Agreement 'my not be changed, modified,'
waived, discharged or terminated orally, but only by an instrument in writing,
signed by each party.
8. Attorney Fees - In the event of any litigation concerning any claim or proceeding
involvius this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover.
reasonable attorney fees and costs against the non -prevailing party.
9. Construction of Agreement - Each party acknowledges that it has participated in
the negotiation and drafting of this Agreement. No provision of this Agreement
shall be construed against or interpreted to the disadvantage of any party hereto or
thereto by any court by reason of such party having or being deemed to have
structured, dictated, or drafted any provision in the Agreement.
10. Successors. Heirs and Assimas -All provisions of this Agreement shall bind and
inure to the benefit of each party's respective heirs, executors, legal
representatives, successors, successors in title, and assigns.
4
II. Merger Provision - This Agreement and the Assignment of Single Family Density
Unit (Class A) executed contemporaneously he contain the entire
•
agreement between the parties with respect to the issues ad forth heroin. All
other discussions, proposah, agreements, or offers are merged into this
Agreement and said Assig tment.
12. Severability - In the event that any provision of this Agreement shall be held
invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holdings
shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof
13. Waiver of Jury Trial - The parties hereto expressly waive any right to
request a jury trial In connection with any dispute concerning this
Agreement, or the de -consolidation or subdivision of the Consolidated Lot.
SEA PINES COMPANY, INC.
X02.1/ Its: D,es:ec.' f"
•
OWNER: SMA Partners LLC
BY:
David M. Roberts, Member
5
• -
11. Mise ger Provision - 711s Agreement and the Assignment of Single Family Density
Unit (Class A) executed contemporaneously herewith contain the endre
agreement between the parties with respect to the issues act forth heroin. All
other discussions, proposals, agreements, or offer aro merged into this
Agreement and void Assignment.
12. Severabillnf -In the event that any provision of this Agreement shall be held
invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holdings
shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof.
13. Waiver of Jury Trial - The parties hereto expressly waive say right to
request a jury Mol In connection with any dispute concerning this
Agreement, or the de -consolidation or subdivision of the Consolidated Let.
SEA PINES COMPANY, INC.
• _
By
Its:
OWNER: SMA Partne
BY
David M. Roberta, Member
3
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA )
e'
COUNTY OF BEAUFORT ACKNOWLEDGMENT
1, the undersigned Notary Public for the State of South Carolina, do hereby catity that
David M. Roberti, a member of SMA Partners, LLC,•personally
appeared before me this
day of November, and personally acknowledged the execution foregoing
of the Instrument.
Notary Public for South Carolina
My Commission Expires:
•
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA )
COUNTY OF BEAUFORT ACKNOWLEDGMENT
1, the undersigned Notary Public for the State of South Carolins, do hereby certify that
Michael Lawrence. an officer of Sea Pines Company, Inc. personally appeared before me
this day of November, 2004 and personally acknowledged the execution foregoing
of the
Instrument.
Notary Public for Sou!h Carolina
My Commission Expires:
E4 m.Rurellm8PhWJ4emitywM xn§-P&Men.11-0o-0JAoc
6
EXHIBIT A
•
SURVEY
That certain plat of survey entitled "Boundary Resubdivision
Survey of Lots 18 & 19 Spanish Moss Road Subdivision, Sea
Pines Plantation, Hilton Head Island, Beaufort County, South
Carolina" prepared by Sea Island Land Survey, LLC, Ralph O.
Vanadore, SCRLS 7606, dated November 10, 2004 and recorded
in the Office of the Register of Deeds for Beaufort County, South
Carolina in Plat Book _ at Page _.
7
Exhibit I
LAGOON
ojamm
.-""'"' \ LOT 1e 1 it rJ,
m - w.t�. tenor s � I i
• - twrrtrrrt
wrns--- uirwiw.F�rt
-� rI ��i �"���1 i•�I
LAGOON
oror clm
OPEN SPACE
LOT 17\ LOT 19
\ I I 1 n370 Aa I
o. —. .
O .r.wrw.
�/eaMOARvlefwaNsauuNeraf:
•d3
RIDGEWOOD LANE 6W R/W
wlat,ef MAIrNAnanoAo>M�ou�ofl
KAN6p
AQOIOIOE RAY
r
FRmMMGR.A.1Q
11 A RAY 5 SNf.I MOS ROAD
uriwwnt M�r..irtwy
.I`
�wr���-Ilm.ilr
FDAA®� M�YMC1.
A RC1101 p MA Rif PLANTATION
CRAM 12/14A 4 WY M[MMa 7/9/76
_ f[OflblO M WN 21. FACE 147, DATM 7/1606
--MI
• ■.�w....�t..r
.�tMwMwMt1.IMArt :tAwrr.aiMwfa
.
o n: ll M a": r.f►
EM T UR
Y:- M. L MM tif0GA���
.y: GII���
�7
MOMMtIW
�IIMMIIMInM ILO
�AffllfM�IMtM�:OM �
.Mut wlOrtsAC.NR1nM
7E�
�� �
FAEwL�iM:. MrIMwAM�� LIWMNfill
IOf.IrC.ttl�w1Y1111wA10fr
O�11fChfeO�.AWa, FAIIC�itl
µM-l"a ...tt�sttiet�ir rtAaMw
wM.ts..[.O telt wwr.n M...
M O
aft!"m
FILKWO11M! fwd w OMfML: hts•
YM•IMIMIIYIMIMfLIAOEN,W
iMtO..:w■Y 0tlYtI.lg�
ww..wrrrrrr
MISMII'If1.1�RIt:MIO�a1�tiM1
TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND
One Town Center Court, Hilton Head bland, S.C. 29928
(843) 141-4600 Fax (843) 842-7728
httpJ/www.hiltonheadiilandac.gov
•'
�
Exhibit
J
,� a
March 8, 2003
Ka" L l' I
Mr. Cheater C. Williams, LLC
Suite Al 08 Sapelo Building
21 Office Park Road
P.O. Box 6028
wm'w��r�'
oa.oars
Hilton Head Island, SC 29938
w.tsssosww
Dear Chet:
wsw.o.urr
This letter is in reference to your correspondence dated March 3, 2003
Ts.*sww
regarding the subdivision application for Lot 18, Spanish Moss Road. This
application requests that one lot be permitted to be subdivided into two Iota.
Staff has determined that since this lot was shown as one lot on the approved
1984 Sea Pines Master Plan, the lot cannot be subdivided without going
through the zoning map amendment )~.s.4eas to amend the approved master
plan. Once a zoning map amendment is approved to allow two lots where there
once was one, staff' will process the subdivision application.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, you may contact me at 341-
4698.
•
Sincerely,
Teri B. Lewis
Manager of Development Review & Zoning
cc: O wlesCousins
8d Dnm
IE E
MAR I 12005
i
.,
Attachment 2
�
LAGOON
0
AWAZ
ma
v-Inwwr
LOT la
M323 AM
My1
j r,
we
u.r
J
uQ OON
L J � �
_ 1— I
~
OPEN SPACE
LOT 17
LOT 19
6770 AM
�d
s 0
"sO1L "1A1
RIDGEWOOD LANE aW R/W
q A ttAl a sAl�w ran IIOAa
•
Mme u�tvwtwaeaw�tt�lra�
tFAPME/PIAMIA7pt(I�IONti1p�/y�
aM�Alk 7%1y74 u^�iT >rat /pM
MOM tu, DAIM 7/14/7/
'.. KMfallf
uewm�:rrxw"�w
7.
�����
r1�rrR
WAMMOOQIIY,"maw4m ..
PIIHAl1�fOkQI�OOttAtlOp/IlyepN
CaU111;R
' 1Y! AA 1111710M, iGILLI N0. 1�9a
OM�AIa' 110��A1
'. .
.
;�Ayppy�
,�-y� 44
6111: IVNM 4111tf•I
Ong nw, wr:n, ►Ax�m
f���
C ..'�"""•,�WR m mam
O1
i�enWnelane
aaWMll'I4SIrLrWMl�lwr
A. wllwn0yael
le tvr,nsnesa AI/1� '716
161M�70.11�11W1Y14R/r IrM�MI
wma
1VIY:@N= ��l r atwl�arr
LAWOFFICEOF Attachment 3
CHESTER C. WILLIAMS, LLC
SulleA108 Sapab SVArO12
21 OIAoe Parc Road
Post 00108 Box 6028
HBbn Head Istand, SC 299364026 •
TebPhom (813) 812-5111
Telstaz (613) 842-6112 ueo srnenn n otarww cern
EmaB
March 18, 2003
Mr. Ward Khby
Exwutive Vice President
Community 175 Greenwood ices Ad Drive
ista, Inc.
Hilton Had Island, SC 29928
RE: Resubdivision of Consolidated Lot 18, Spanish Moss Road Subdivision
!w Our File No. 01224.006 (13 Ridgewood Lrne)—
DWard:
As you are aware from our conversation earlier this week, we represent SMA Partners, LLC, the owner of
the above property. We arc today filing on behalf of our client In application for a zoning map aneodmrxd to the
1934Se Pines Muter Plan to change the permitted density on the above property from one residential dwelling unit
to two residential dwelling units. A wpy of that application is enclosed. As you we also aware, our efGM has
entered into an agreement with Sea Pines Company, Inc. for the acquisition of a density unit That agreesrnent,i
configuration Lots 8 and 19, areval of Sea Pines being held in escrow pendInc. to the ing of Town,
dated Lot I8 bath into Its orighad
with die pending dna Town9 approval of the subdivision.
Section 16.3.1302(A)(3) ofthe Land Management Ordinance of the Town of Hilton Head Island requires
an applicant for 8 rezoning or muter plan amendment to solicit written comments from appropriate property
owners' associations regarding the requested amendment, This letter is for that purpose, and we would encourage
Community Service Associates, Inc. to direct any comments It may have regarding our client's proposed
amendment to the Sea Pines Muter Plan to Charles F. Cousins, AICD, the Town's Director of Development, at One
Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, South Carolina 29928, within fourteen days of your receipt of this latter.
Of
CSA at our curse, we will be more than happy to discuss this matter further with you or any other representative of
Y respective convenience.
We trust you will let us know if you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, or if we My
otherwise be of eaistance.
With best regruds, we arc
Very Tndy Yours,
LAW OFFICE OF CHESTER C. WILLIAMS, LLC
Chester C. Williams
CCW;jm
w: Mr. David hL Roberts
Mr. Mak A. Statin
Rusreti P. Patteson, Esquire
Chars F. Cousins, NCP
Re: ResubdMslon of Consolidated lot 18 Spanish Moss Road Subdivision, Sea Pines
COPY`
• To: Planning & Development Standards Committee Members
Gentlemen,
This is a courtesy reminder about the Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
presentation by the consultants, Clarion & Associates, that will take place on Tuesday,
June 21", at 3:OOPM in Council Chambers immediately before the regularly scheduled
Town Council meeting. Your packet of materials will arrive by courier later today.
Remaining Town Council members will receive the packets in their mailboxes. Elm
mote that this Oaal packet of materials sapercedes all previously received sstaterials
for the SONthem Beau/OIf CONntY Regional Plan. Please disregard all old materials
at this time. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Utfifeen s. Caron
AJministrativeAssistant
?fie TPlanning O"rtment
•
Enclosed in your packet are the following items that have been prepared and approved by the
Steering Committee established for the Southern Beaufort County regional planning process:
♦
-Common Goals and Objectives for:
1. Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth;
2. Land Use Patterns and Trends;
3. Transportation and Other Public Facilities; and
4. Cost of Growth.
• The Background Reports that support the Common Goals and Objectives:
1. Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth;
2. Land Use Patterns and Trends;
3. Transportation and Other Public Facilities; and
4. Fiscal Constraints and Opportunities to Growth.
The purpose of this meeting with the Planning and Development Standards Committee of Town
Council is to provide the Committee with an overview of the current progress of the Southern
Beaufort County Regional Plan and to receive input from the Committee on the Common Goals
and Objectives before proceeding to the next step in the planning process.
The work program for the Regional Plan recognizes the importance of engaging elected officials
in this planning process because the success of this effort is dependent on the adoption and
eventual implementation of the plan by the three participating local governments — Beaufort
County, the Town of Bluffton, and the Town of Hilton Head Island. Similar meetings will be
hold with the Land Management Subcommittee of County Council on June 20 at 6:00 pm in the
Bluffton Library; and a joint meeting of Bluffton's Council and Planning Commission on lune 21
at 6:00 pm at the Bluffton Library.
It is important for the Town's Planning and Development Standards Committee to review and
provide comments on the Common Goals and Objectives because they are the vision on which
the Southern Regional Plan will be built. The Background Reports provide the supporting
information on which the Goals and Objectives are based. The next step in the planning process
will be to identify strategies and specific tasks to implement the goals and objectives. The first
draft of the final plan is anticipated by the beginning of the new year.
These Goals and Objectives will be presented by the consulting firm of Clarion Associates at the
Planning and Development Standards Committee on June 21 at 3:00 p. m. in Council Chambers.
TOI Planning and Development Standards Committee
From Jill Foster, Deputy Planning Director
CC1 Town Council; Planning Commission
per= June 9,2005
Rai Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
Enclosed in your packet are the following items that have been prepared and approved by the
Steering Committee established for the Southern Beaufort County regional planning process:
♦
-Common Goals and Objectives for:
1. Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth;
2. Land Use Patterns and Trends;
3. Transportation and Other Public Facilities; and
4. Cost of Growth.
• The Background Reports that support the Common Goals and Objectives:
1. Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth;
2. Land Use Patterns and Trends;
3. Transportation and Other Public Facilities; and
4. Fiscal Constraints and Opportunities to Growth.
The purpose of this meeting with the Planning and Development Standards Committee of Town
Council is to provide the Committee with an overview of the current progress of the Southern
Beaufort County Regional Plan and to receive input from the Committee on the Common Goals
and Objectives before proceeding to the next step in the planning process.
The work program for the Regional Plan recognizes the importance of engaging elected officials
in this planning process because the success of this effort is dependent on the adoption and
eventual implementation of the plan by the three participating local governments — Beaufort
County, the Town of Bluffton, and the Town of Hilton Head Island. Similar meetings will be
hold with the Land Management Subcommittee of County Council on June 20 at 6:00 pm in the
Bluffton Library; and a joint meeting of Bluffton's Council and Planning Commission on lune 21
at 6:00 pm at the Bluffton Library.
It is important for the Town's Planning and Development Standards Committee to review and
provide comments on the Common Goals and Objectives because they are the vision on which
the Southern Regional Plan will be built. The Background Reports provide the supporting
information on which the Goals and Objectives are based. The next step in the planning process
will be to identify strategies and specific tasks to implement the goals and objectives. The first
draft of the final plan is anticipated by the beginning of the new year.
These Goals and Objectives will be presented by the consulting firm of Clarion Associates at the
Planning and Development Standards Committee on June 21 at 3:00 p. m. in Council Chambers.
• SOUTHERN BEAUFORT COUNTY REGIONAL PLAN
DRAFT COMMON GOALS FOR
STEERING COMMITTEE CONSDERATION
NATURAL ASSETS AND NATURAL CONSTRAINTS TO GROWTH -
The following deft Common Goals have been developed for consideration by the Steering
Committee and are Intended to serve as the foundation for he Southern Beaufort County
Regional Plan. These draft Common Goals will be reviewed by the Steering Committee to
reach consensus on each particular issue. They are based upon and Informed by the
Important and reround levant context for decision•makinwhich provide the gg about heeCo Common G als. elected officials with
Generally, for all topics, he Common Goals serve three primary purposes:
• To establish a set of guiding principles for planning and growth management in
Southern Beaufort County, upon which the county and the towns of Bluffton and Hilton
Head Island can agree;
• To provide a policy foundation for the development of specific implementation tools;
and
• • To ultimately set the stage for "success crtteris" for evaluating the progress achieved
In implementing the plan through Objectives for each Common Goal.
Once the Steering Committee has approved the Common Goals for each of the four topics, the
Clarion team will begin researching and evaluating a wide range of alternative implementation
strategies and actions for achieving the Common Goals.
1
NATURAL ASSETS AND NATURAL CONSTRAINTS
TO GROWTH •
Guiding Principles
1. Southern Beaufort County is blessed with a distinctive acid diverse array of natural
features that are Important ecological, aesthetic, recreational, economic, and educational
assets. The natural environment plays an Important role In supporting local cultures and
In driving the regional economy. As the region grows, the highest emphasis must be
placed on protecting the region's natural assets.
2. Because environmental protection has the potential to Impact the location and quality of
future development, great care must be taken to coordinate environmental protection
with other aspects of the regional planning process, including land use and the provision
of roads and other public facilities.
3. The following environmental features are the most regionally significant types of natural
assets in Southern Beaufort County and are worthy of muki-jurisdictional protection.
These features are referred to as the area's "key natural assets" in the Common Goals
and Objectives below and should be the primary focus of the Southern Beaufort County
Regional Plan:
a. Sall Marshes, Coastal Waters, and Marine Resources;
b. Open Space;
c. Trees, Forests, and Wildlife; •
d. Beaches and Dunes; and
e. Freshwater Wetlands.
Common Goals and Objectives
General Common Owls for All Natural Assets
A) Common Goal 1: Cooperative Planning. Beaufort County, Bluffton, and Hilton Head
Island (the "Participating Local Governments") will work cooperatively to maximize
protections for the key natural assets that make Southern Beaufort County unique, while
still accommodating and encouraging preferred types of new development and
redevelopment
B) Common Goal 2: Identification and Monitoring. The Participating Local
Governments will work cooperatively and with federal, state, and nongovernmental
partners to Improve and coordinate the Identification and monitoring of the region's key
natural assets.
C) Common Goal 3: Balance of Regulatory and Non•regulstory. Programs. The
Participating Local Governments will develop both regulatory and non -regulatory
programa to protect the region's key natural assets. For all types of natural resource
protection, local governments will rely on acquisition, incentives, and partnershiPs with
non-governmental organizations to supplement regulatory efforts.
2 �.
• D) Common Goal 4: Implementation. The Participating Local Governments will work
cooperatively to further Implementation of the various and future federal, state, and
nongovernmental plans and studies that have been and will be completed regarding the
key natural assets.
E) Common Goal 5: Jasper County. Jasper County is home to many rare and unique
natural assets in addition to those found in Beaufort County. In order to coordinate
natural asset protection between Jasper and Beaufort counties, and because
development in Jasper County has the potential to affect the key natural assets Iri
Beaufort County, the Participating Local Governments will strive to include Jasper
County and the City of Hardesville in planning for and protecting natural assets to the
greatest extent possible.
F) Common" Goal 6: Education. The Participating Local Governments will work
cooperatively and individually to develop education programs aimed at Informing local
residents about the value of the region's key natural assets to the local environment,
economy, and quality of life.
Common Goal 7: Sall Marshes, Coastal Waters, and Marine Resources
Sell marshes, coastal waters, and marine resources are natural assets worthy of regional
protection because of their Importance to the quality of life and economic base of the region.
The Participating Local Governments will cooperate and continue to emphasize the regional
protection of ask marshes, coastal waters, and marine resources.
A) Objective 7.1: Development Limitations near Salt Marshes and Coastal Waters,
The Participating Local Governments will:
o Adopt overlay districts as recommended in the SAMP to prohibit certain land
uses near salt marshes and coastal waters; and
o Assess the adequacy of existing critical line setback and buffer requirements for
development near salt marshes and coastal waters, aggressively enforce the
requirements, and ensure that relief from critical line buffer standards is uniform.
B) Objective 7.2: Controlling Stormwater Quantity and Quality. The Participating Local
Governments will:
o Establish uniform minimum water quantity limitations for upland stormwater
runoff, in order to prevent flooding of downstream properties;
o Establish uniform minimum water quality standards for upland stormwater runoff,
In order to protect against the specific pollutants that are most likely to affect
water quality and the health of local shellfish beds; and
o Work cooperatively to establish new regional programs to maintain and enforce
strict water quality standards to protect salt marshes and coastal waters (e.g.,
uniform standards for treatment of boat wastes at marinas, standards for marina
siting, etc.).
o Establish a structure to coordinate water quality monitoring activities In Southern
Beaufort County.
C) Objecilve 7.3: Managing On -Lot Septic Systems. The Particinating Local
Governments will work cooperatively and with the state to develop a unified set of septic
system standards and a clear, effective way of monitoring enforcement of the standards.
The Participating Local Governments will work actively to convert Individual septic
•
3
i
systems to puW.Je, systems, focusing on the worst offenders and most sensitive natural
•
areas.
D) Objective 7.4: Regulate Stormwater Management on a Watershed Bssis. The
Participating Local Governments will regulate stormwater management on a v.? rshed
basis
Common Goal 8: Open Space
Open space areas that are permanently protected from development are Important natural
assets worthy of regional protection because they provide public access to water and natural
amenities, protect wildlife habitat, relieve congestion, are Important to local cultures, and
contribute generally to the regional quality of life and economic base. The Participating Local
Governments will cooperate and continue to emphasize protection of public and private open
space.
A) Objective 8.1: Land Development Ordinance Requirements. Additions to the public
and private open space systems (or fees In -lieu) will be viewed as a normal part of the
land development process In all jurisdictions. Protection of open space will be Integrated
with all land -use decision-making in Southern Beaufort County.
B) Objective 8.2: Coordination of Public and Private Open Space. Participating Local
Governments will work cooperatively to ensure that additions to the public and private
open space systems are complementary and coordinated to the greatest extent
possible.
C) Objective 8.3: Regional Open Space Funding. Participating Local Governments will
establish one or more reliable and permanent sources of new funding for regional open
•
space preservation to support existing local government and non-profit programs, such
as the Beaufort County Rural and Critical Lands Preservation Program. The
Participating Local Governments will lobby the state legislature to extend the ability to.
levy a real estate transfer fee to the entire Southern Beaufort County region (whereas
now the fee may be levied only by Hilton Head Island).
D) Objective 8.4: Regional Open Space Goals. Future regional open space protection
will focus on establishing a network of open space areas that fulfill multiple objectives
and that cross jurisdictional lines.
Common Goal 9: Trees, Forests, and Wildlife
Trees, forests, and native vegetation are natural assets worthy of regional protection because of
their Importance in providing shade and reducing air pollution, providing habitat for wildlife,
serving as aesthetic amenities, and contributing to the economic base of the region. The
Participating Local Governments will cooperate and continue to emphasize protection of trees,
forests, and wildlife habitat during the land development process.
A) Objective 9.1: Uniform Minimum Protection Standards. The Participating Local
Governments will establish uniform minimum standards to protect trees, forests, native
vegetation, and wildlife habitat. However, the particular standards established in each
community will be tailored to achieve the unique vision, goals, and character desired by
each community.
4
• B) ObJective 9.2: Protect Range of Forest and Vegetation Types. The Participating
Local Governments will cooperate to Identify and protect a broad range of native forest "
types in Southern Beaufort County.
C) Objective 9.3: Integration with Other Types of Natural Resource Protection.
Protection of forests, trees, and native vegetation will be viewed as a normal part of the
land development process in all jurisdictions, and will be Integrated with protection of
other types of natural and scenic resources.
Common Goal 10: Beaches end Dunes
Beaches and dunes are natural assets worthy of regional protection because of their Importance
to local quality of life and the regional tourism Industry, and their value as natural storm barriers.
The Participating Local Governments will cooperate and continue to emphasize protection of
beaches and dunes in the region.
A) Objective 10.1: Maximize Public Such Access During Redevelopment. Hilton
Head Island and Beaufort County should exercise their authority to purchase public
access when reviewing development plans on beachfront properties, in order to gain as
much public beach access as possible when property is being redeveloped.
B) Objective 10.2: Uniform Minimum Dune Setback Requirements. The Participating
Local Governments will establish uniform minimum setback requirements from dunes,
beyond those required by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management.
Common Goal 11: Freshwater Wetlands
Freshwater wetlands are natural assets worthy of regional protection because of their
• importance in the natural stormwater drainage system and as habitat for plants and animals.
The Participating Local Governments will cooperate and continue to emphasize protection of
freshwater wetlands.
A) Objective 11.1: Protection of isolated Freshwater Wetlands. The Participating Local
Governments will adopt uniform minimum standards regulating the Identification and
protection of isolated freshwater ("non -jurisdictional ") wetlands.
B) Objective 11.2: Possible State Wetlands Legislation. Participating Local
Governments should communicate to state legislators their strong concerns that local
governments in South Carolina should retain the right to have local wetlands regulations
that are more stringent than any state regulations.
•
ppr
• SOUTHERN BEAUFORT COUNTY REGIONAL PLAN
DRAFT COMMON GOALS FOR
STEERING COMMITTEE CONSDERATION
-- LAND USE PATTERNS AND TRENDS
The following draft Common Goals have been developed for consideration by the
Steering Commiltee and are Intended to serve as the foundation for the Southern
Beaufort County Regional Plan. These draft Common Goals will be reviewed by the
Steering Committee to reach consensus on each particular issue. They are based upon
and Informed by the Background Reports, which provide the Steering Committee, public,
and elected officials with Important and relevant context for decision-making about the
Common Goals.
Generally, for all topics, the common Goals serve three primary purposes:
• To establish a set of guiding principles for planning and growth management In
Southern Beaufort County, upon which the county and the towns of Bluffton and
Hilton Head Island can agree;
To provide a policy foundation for the development of specific Implementation
• tools; and
• To ultimately set the stage for "success criteds" for evaluating the progress
achieved in Implementing the plan through Objectives for each Common Goal.
Once the Steering Committee has approved the Common Goals for each of the four
topics, the Clarion team will begin researching and evaluating a wide range of alternative
Implementation strategies and actions for achieving the Common Goals.
•,; t
LAND USE PATTERNS AND TRENDS
Introduction
Land use is a challenging issue to analyze and plan for at a regional level. First, it is a
broad topic that intersects with virtually all other aspects of planning. Among others, it
has major implications for natural assets, public facilities (especially transportation), and
fiscal conditions. Second, land use is primarily a local government function, and the
preservation of local land use autonomy Is Important to local governments; regional
approaches to land use must be crafted with this reality in mind,
The challenge for the Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Is to identify regional
land use approaches the Participating Local Governments agree are Important and
necessary, but do not Impinge on the autonomy of local land use and zoning decision-
making. It is with this challenge in mind that the following framework is suggested for
the Land Use Common Goals and Objectives for the Southern Beaufort County Regional
Plan. Similar to what was done with the Natural Assets Common Goals, we begin with a
series of Guiding Principles that identify relevant background and frame the regional
land use Issues. These principles are followed by a series of broad Common Goals for
regional land use. The Common Goals are supported by a series of Objectives
designed to establish benchmarks for the accomplishment of the Common Goals.
Since there is a substantial interrelationship between land use Issues and other
elements of the plan, many of the land use Common Goals and Objectives will overlap
and reinforce parallel Common Goals and Objectives for other elements of the plan.
•
Guiding Principles
1. Southern Beaufort County has grown dramatically over the past decade and
continued growth is anticipated, probably at a rapid pace. While it is debatable
exactly how long the ultimate "build -out" might take, the region should expect Its
remaining developable lands to be essentially built out within the next 20 to 25
years.
2. The Participating Local Governments will accommodate anticipated growth.
They will take maximum advantage of the benefits and opportunities of growth,
while preserving key natural assets and open space and minimizing the negative
impacts of growth.
3. The Participating Local Governments respect the local autonomy and land use
and zoning responsibilities of local governments to address site-specific land use
decisions in their communities. The Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
focuses on regional land use issues that affect the quality of life in the region that
no single Participating Local Government can individually address and manage.
4. The location and amount of land uses in Southern Beaufort County are largely
determined; since the vast majority of land is committed through previous
development approvals made by the Participating Local Governments. However,
the following dimensions of land use are of regional Importance and are stili
•
2
• subject to influence through this regional planning process. Therefore, the Land
Use element of the regional plan will address the following Issues:
a. Development Quality — focusing on the design and aesthetic quality of new
development and redevelopment;
b. Land Use Relationships — promoting a positive relationship of land uses to
each other, Including connections, pedestriandriendliness, and the
encouragement of a mix of uses and higher -density development at Identified
nodes;
c. Land Uss and Public Service / Facilities Linkage — coordinating the timing
and relationship of development with the provision of public services and
facilities;
d. Open Space — encouraging the protection and preservation of open space
where it exists in the region; and
e. Regional Planning Information Systems — implementing a regional system
to monitor and measure progress in achieving regional land use goals.
•
Common Goals and Objectives
Common Goal 1: Future Land Use Planning Coordination
Future land use planning will be coordinated between the county and the towns of
Bluffton and Hilton Head Island (the "Participating Local Governments").
s. objective 1.1 Bluffton Growth Area. The Participating Local Governments
will prioritize and work cooperatively to prepare a joint land use plan for the
Bluffton Growth Area that addresses the pattern of land use, density and
Intensity of development and redevelopment, environmental protection, the
relationship of land use to public facilities, and fiscal Impacts.
b. Objective 1.2 Jasper County. The Participating Local Governments will
engage In coordinated regional planning with Jasper County in the areas of
future land use, public facilities (especially transportation and the planned
new port), and environmental protection (especially associated with the New
River and 0katie River watersheds).
c. objective 1.3 Coordinated Reviews. The Participating Local Governments
will develop and Implement joint review of major development proposals and
annexations prior to their approvals.
d. Objective 1.4 Planning for Community Preservation Districts. The
county and Bluffton will engage in joint planning for the Bluffton and
Pritchardville Community Preservation Districts as identified in the Beaufort
County Comprehensive Plan.
e. objective 1.5 Baseline Standards for Planned Unit Developments and
Development Agreements. The Participating Local Governments will work
cooperatively to establish minimum standards for Planned Unit Developments
and Development Agreements that will serve as a guide in the review and
approval of development. These standards will establish minimum
3
requirements for open space, the provision of public facilities,
•
interconnectivity, mixed land uses, and environmental protection.
Common Goal 2: Development Guslity and Character
The region will maintain a strong community aesthetic that includes the protection of
scenic view corridors and regional commercial travel corridors, in order to promote and
protect the economic well-being of Southam Beaufort Countyan supplement the high
quality of master planned areas. Preserved scenic corridors and well-designed travel
corridors will maintain a positive Image of the region through a high quality of
development that promotes a strong sense of regional and individual community
character. Joint planning among jurisdictions is necessary to identify desired quality and
character of new development along key corridors and in other key locations.
a. Objective 2.1 Joint Corridor Planning. The Participating Local
Governments will engage in joint planning of highway corridors that are within
multiple jurisdictions, such as Highway 46, U.S. 278, and SC 170.
b. Objective 2.2 Regional Travel Corridors. The Participating Local
Governments will establish coordinated review, administratlon, and
enforcement of development to maintain a strong community aesthetic and
function along the following regional travel corridors: U.S. 278, SC 170,
Suckwalter Parkway, Bluffton Parkway, Burnt Church Road, and Bluffton
Road.
c. Objective 2.3 Regional Scenic Corridors. The Participating Local
Governments will establish coordinated review, administration, and
enforcement of development to maintain the views and images of the low
•
country created along the following regional scenic corridors: the May River
Highway and the Okatle Highway.
d. Objective 2.4 Individual Community Identities. The Participating Local
Governments are encouraged to Individually adopt additional design and
aesthetic standards unique to their communities to strengthen community
Identity. The Participating Local Governments will work together to Identify,
document and protect historic, & hasological and cultural resources in
Southern Beaufort County.
e. Objective 2.5 Urban and Suburban Distinctions. The Participating Local
Governments will work cooperatively to plan for transitions between newly
developing suburban areas and the traditional areas of Bluffton, such as
through gateway planning at key points of entry.
Common Oal 3: Land Use Relationships
The Participating Local Governments will have livable and sustainable neighborhoods
and communities with compatible land uses, mixed-use development, pedestrian and
transportation connections, and Integrated open spaces.
a. Objective 3.1 Mixed Uwe, To the maximum extent practicable, future land
use will occur in locations and with a mix of land uses designed to promote
efficient transportation networks and provision of public services. Desirable
mixed land uses will promote strong focal points of diverse living, working,
4
• shopping, cultural, and recreational activities; will relieve traffic pressure by
providing opportunities for multiple purpose vehicular trips; and will relieve
development pressures on open space and key natural assets.
b. Objective 3.2 Connectivity. The Participating Local Governments will
establish coordinated minimum land use design principles to promote better
connections between land uses and master planned communities, both
vehicular connections that offer alternative travel routes and pedestrian
connections that offer non -vehicular travel opportunities.
c. Objective 3.3 Economic Development. Locations will be planned for uses
that further regional economic development goals that are developed through
future economic development planning efforts.
d. Objective 3.4 EfNclent Provision of Public Services and Facilities. Land
uses will occur In a geographic pattern that allows for public services and
facilities to be provided in an efficient manner.
Common Goal 4: Land UN and Public Service and Facilities Linkage
Development will be coordinated with the planning for and provision of public services
and facilities for transportation, water and sewer facilities, schools, and others, as
addressed through goals and objectives in the Transportation and Other Public Facilities
element of this regional plan.
Common Goal 5: Regional Planning Information Systeme
• Southern Beaufort County will be served by a centralized regional information system
that monitors and tracks planned land uses; provides ongoing population and
employment forecasts; measures and predicts regional Impacts of growth; and is
integrated with other regional models such as environmental and transportation models.
a. Objective 6.2. Demographic Model. A regional demographic model of
existing and forecasted population, Including permanent and seasonal
population, will be maintained through a multi -jurisdictional effort.
b. Objective 5.3. Land Use Model. A regional land use model will monitor
remaining growth capacity relative to population forecasts along with the
collective regional Impacts of the land use plans of the Participating Local
Governments.
c. Objective 5.4. Local Planning Coordination. Local comprehensive and
land use planning efforts will be compatible and consistent with the regional
forecasting and land use models.
Common Goal 6. Planned Population.' Southern Beaufort County needs to be
prepared to accommodate, based on approved development agreements, an
approximate doubling of permanent population over the next 20-25 years, with an
' NOTE: The Committee Is tentatively Interested in rate of growth controls, subject to further
discussion In connection with the fiscal component of the regional plan, and subject to further
discussions about the legality and feasibility of such controls.
•
5
. SOUTHERN BEAUFORT COUNTY REGIONAL PLAN
DRAFT COMMON GOALS FOR
STEERING COMMITTEE CONSDERATION
JRANSPORTATION PARKS AND RECREATION, AND SCHOOLS
The following draft Common Goals have been developed for consideration by the
Steering Committee and are Intended to serve as the foundation for the Souther
Beaufort County Regional Pian. These draft Common Goals will be reviewed by the
Steering Committee to reach consensus on each particular Issue. They are based upon
and informed by the Background lieporls, which provide the Steering Committee, public,
and elected officials with Important and relevant context for decision-making about the
Common Goals.
Generally, for all topics, the Common Goals serve three primary purposes:
• To establish a set of guiding principles for planning and growth management in
Souther Beaufort County, upon which the County and the Towns of Bluffton and
Hilton Head Island can agree;
• To provide a policy foundation for the development of specific Implementation
• tools; and
•. To ultimately set the stage for "success crltsrle" for evaluating the progress -
achieved in implementing the plan through Objectives for each Common Goal.
Once the Steering Committee has approved the Common Goals for each of the four
topics, the Clarion team will begin researching and evaluating a wide range of alterative
Implementation strategies and actions for achieving the Common Goals.
TRANSPORTATION
•
Introduction
The Regional Road Network In Southern Beaufort County is made up of approximately
183 miles of principal arterials (US 278 and SC 170), minor arterials (SC 46 and the
Bluffton Parkway), and major collector roads (Buckwalter Parkway, Simmonsville Road,
Bruin Road, Burnt Church Road, and Pope Avenue).
1. The Participating Local Governments have decided as a matter of policy that In
order to maintain a minimum quality of life in the region, conditions on the
Regional Road Network should not fall below LOS "D".
2. The Regional Road Network is interrelated. New growth and development
occurring In one Participating Local Government Impacts traffic conditions on the
Regional Road Network in other Participating Local Governments.
3. Today the Regional Road Network is confronted by a significant road deficiency.
Portions of US 278 are failing with traffic volumes far exceeding capacity on the
segments between SC 46 and the bridges to Hilton Head Island. Estimates
indicate it will cost approximately 31 million dollars to make the needed road
capital Improvements to correct these existing deficiencies.
4. Foreseeing these potential problems, over the past five years, staff and elected
officials from the three Participating Local Governments along with SCDOT have
Initiated efforts to provide more Interjurisdictional communication and
coordination on regional transportation planning.
•
5. Conditions on the Regional Road Network at "build -out" are expected to
deteriorate much further. It is expected nearly the entire stretch of US 278, SC
170 between SC 46 and SC 462, and SC 46 from the Jasper County line to Buck
Island Road will be overcapacity. Estimates indicate it will cost approximately
222 million dollars to implement current plans for road capital improvements to
address these needs. However, even if the additional capital road Improvements
Identified In existing plane are constructed on the Regional Road Network totaling
222 million dollars, a number of roads will still operate below LOS "D." They
Include the following facilities:
a. Hilton Head Island
1. US 278 — WIIIiam Hilton Parkway (4 -lane divided)
ii. US 278 Business — William Hilton Parkway (4 -lane divided)
b. Greater Bluffton Area
1. SC 46 — May River Road (SC 170 to Buck Island Road)
IL SC 120 — Bruin Road -
Ill. SC 170 — Okatie Highway (SC 46 to US 278)
It appears the congestion problem may be particularly significant on Hilton Head
Island on US 278 - William Hilton Parkway, the only road providing ingress and
egress to the Island, and on US 278 Business — William Hilton Parkway. Thus,
2
• even if current plans are fully implemented, there could'*011 be road deficiencies
In the future, based on forecasted growth.
8. it is estimated that road capital Improvements could be made to the facilities that
would still operate below LOS "D," after the 222 million dollars of Improvements
are made, to bring them up to LOS "D." However, the Participating Local
Governments have not Initiated plans to address these additional road
congestion problems for one of several reasons:
a. The local governments where the facilities are located have raised
concerns that additional "road widening," which is required to make
the improvements, would have a deleterious affect on the character of
the community.
b. The additional deficiencies might be addressed through traffic
demand management practices or other transportation planning
options (For example, the Town of Hilton Head Island has been
purchasing land with development potential in strategic locations to
reduce future demand on transportation facilities.)
7. No matter how the Participating Local Governments address transportation
capital Improvements needs at "Buildout," under existing fiscal arrangements,
there Is a substantial shortfall or "gap" between existing and future road capital
Improvement needs on the Regional Road Network and the revenue that can be
generated to fund those Improvements. For the Identified improvements that
• ` need to be made, the funding gap Is approximately 185 million dollars.
8. Due to the size of the funding gap, and the desires of the Participating Local
Governments not to make capital road Improvements on the Regional Road
Network that is out of character with the region, it Is Important that other policies
to reduce vehicle miles traveled on the Regional Road Network be implemented.
Guiding Principles
The interrelated nature of the Regional Road Network, the magnitude of road funding
needs, and the other challenges facing the provision of roads in the region means the
Participating Local Governments cannot solve these challenges Individually, but must
work cooperatively to:
1. Establish standardized methods to measure needs and monitor road conditions
on the Regional Road Network.
2. Plan for the future deficiencies and future road capital Improvement needs on the
Regional Road Network.
3. Address the funding "gap" so existing deficiencies are corrected and future road
capital improvement needs are met on the Regional Road Network.
4. Develop and Implement a coordinated set of policies to decrease the amount of
vehicle miles of travel on the Regional Road Network through a stronger
•
3
emphasis on methods to reduce vehicle miles of travel or demand on roads, such
as:
a. Public transportation;
b. A mufti -use pathways and trails program; and
c. Other planning and growth management tools (access management
standards, traffic Impact ordinances, connectivity standards, Incentives to
encourage mixed use development, Incentives to encourage higher
density development at nodes that relieve US 278, intelligent
transportation systems, land acquisition programs, and rate of growth
regulations).
5. Develop and implement a coordinated policy to ensure development In one
Participating Local Government does not have an adverse Impact on the
Regional Road Network in another Participating Local Government.
6. Maintain the desired character of the region through a coordinated set of policy
decisions related to the appropriate size of roads that are acceptable to be bulk
(to maintain desired community character), and corridor district overlay
regulations that protect and enhance the scenic quality of the region's roadways.
7. Support Land Use and Trends GoRl 3.
B. Coordinate transportation and land use policy with Jasper County.
r.
4
•
Common Goals and Objectives
Common Goal 1: Coordination of Transportation Planning.
Transportation planning will be coordinated between Beaufort County and the towns of
Bluffton and Hilton Head Island (the "Participating Local Governments"), and Jasper
County and its municipalities.
a. Objective 1.1 Level of Service Standard. To ensure a minimum quality
of life, the Participating Local Governments will adopt a level of service
standard on the Regional Road Network of LOS "D." To Improve road
conditions on the Regional Road Network, all the Participating Local
Governments will evaluate adopting a LOS based on peak hour
conditions.
Comment: Before adopting this LOS standard, the Participating Local
Governments need to consider the Implications of this policy on road facilities
that might require additional widening to maintain LOS "D. "
b. Objective 1.2 Formalize Regional Transportation Planning. The
Participating Local Governments will formalize through an
Intergovernmental Agreement a coordinated regional transportation
process that coordinates transportation planning with land use planning
and forecasts, and addresses: data collection, monitoring, modeling,
planning, and funding Issues related to the Regional Road Network.
C. Objective 1.3 Jasper County. The Participating Local Governments will
engage in coordinated regional transportation planning with Jasper
County and Its municipalities.
d. Objective 1.4 Coordinated Reviews. The Participating Local
Governments will develop and Implement joint review of major
development proposals prior to their approvals to ensure the proposal
does not have an adverse Impact on the Regional Road Network.
Common Goal 2: Funding Transportation Needs on Regional Road Network.
The Participating Local Governments will work cooperatively with the state and federal
governments to develop a strategy to fund existing and future transportation capital
Improvements needs on the Regional Road Network to maintain the adopted LOS
standard in a way that is environmentally and context sensitive, so that the Images and
character of the Participating Local Governments is maintained, to the maximum extent
practicable.
a. Objective 2.1 Joint Funding. Because of the relationship between new
growth and development and lts impact on the Regional Road Network,
the Participating Local Governments, to the maximum extent practicable,
will establish funding arrangements in which the Participating Local
Governments jointly fund the needed capital transportation projects on
the Regional Road Network.
b. Objective 2.2 Funding Options. The sources of funding considered by
the Participating Local Governments will Include but not be limited to:
road impact fees; Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
funds, the optional sales tax, toll roads, tax Increment financing,
S
assessment districts, and ROW dedication policy.
C. Objective 2.3 Priority on Funding Existing Deficiencies on US 278.
In developing a coordinated road Improvement plan and funding strategy
for the Regional Road Network, priority will be given to first planning for
and funding the existing deficiencies on US 278.
d. Objective 2.4 New Development Pays Pro Rats Share. As a general
matter of policy, new growth and development will bear a proportionate
share of the cost of the provision of new road capital improvements
required by such development on the Regional Road Network.
Common Goal 3: Coordinated Policies to Reduce Vehicle Mlles Traveled (VMT).
The Participating Local Governments will work cooperatively to develop strategies to
reduce VMTs on the Regional Road Network.
a. Objective 3.1 Public Transportation. The Participating Local Governments
will place an emphasis on the expansion of public transportation as an
alternative means of transportation in the region (e.g., van pooling, ride
sharing, buses, para -transit, ferry service and similar initiatives).
b. Objective 3.2 Multi -Use Trail System. The Participating Local
Governments will coordinate and place additional emphasis on expansion
and Implementation of a multi -use trail system through the Hilton Head
Comprehensive Plan,
the Southern Beaufort Greenway Plan, and the
Beaufort County Trails and Blueways Master Plan.
c. Objective 3.3 Access Management Standards. The Participating Local
Governments will coordinate access management standards to improve the
efficiency of the Regional Road Network, especially along shared corridors.
Those standards will address signal spacing, signal timing and control,
driveway spacing, driveway design, deceleration lanes, shared driveway
access, frontage roads, and connectivity standards.
d. Objective 3.4 Intelligent Transportation Systems. The Participating Local
Governments will adopt a, program to ensure the establishment of an
Intelligent Transportation System for the entire Regional Road Network.
e. Objective 3.5 Land Use Policies. The Participating Local Governments,
where appropriate, will adopt land use policies, such as regulations to
encourage mixed use development at higher intensity nodes that result In
reduced VMTs on the Regional Road Network, more pronounced connectivity
standards, and adequate public facility standards. In addition, the
Participating Local Governments will further evaluate and consider, where
Appropriate, rate of growth regulations.
f. Objective 3.6 Land Acquisition. The Participating Local Governments will
coordinate their efforts to identify and purchase land in order to remove It
•
6
from potential development. This is a growth management tool that can
reduce future transportation demand and be coordinated with other goals and
objectives to protect open space and environmentally sensitive lands.
Common Goal 4: Context Sensitive Design on Major Road Corridors.
The Participating Local Governments will work cooperatively to maintain and enhance
regional commercial travel corridors and scenic corridors to promote a positive Image of
the region, and to protect regional character and quality of life, environmental quality,
and aesthetics.
a. Objective 4.1 Regional Trawl Corridors. As provided in the Land Use
Goals, the Participating Local Governments will establish coordinated review,
administration, and enforcement of development to maintain a strong
community aesthetic and function along -the-following regional travel
corridors: US 278, Buckwalter Parkway, Bluffton Parkway, Burnt Church
Road, Bluffton Road, William Hilton Parkway, and the Cross Island Parkway.
b. Objective 4.2 Regional Scenic Corridors. As provided in the Land Use
Goals, the Participating Local Governments will establish coordinated review,
administration, and enforcement of development to maintain the views and
Images of the Lowcountry created along the following regional scenic
corridors: SC 46 (May River Highway) and SC 170 (Okatie Highway).
c. Objective 4.3 Open Space Network. The Participating Local Governments
will adopt standards to protect the network of open spaces, discussed in the
Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth Report, including
Innovative road construction techniques to link wildlife habitat and preserve
wetlands.
r,
,r
PARKS AND RECREATION
•
Introduction
The Regional Park Network in Southern Beaufort County consists of those public parks
that serve a regional active and passive recreational need. The Regional Park Network
consists of both park sand and park facilities.
1. The Participating Local Governments in the region have decided that to maintain
a minimum quality of life in the region, the Regional Park Network should not fall
below the following LOS standards,
a. Hllton Head Island
12.2 acres of land per 1,000 residents
$722 of park and recreation facilities per capita'
b. Bluffton and unincorporated Beaufort County
13,0 acres of land per 1,000 residents
$722 of park and recreation facilities per capita
.2. The Regional Park Network is interrelated. Residents and visitors from one
Participating Local Government use the Regional Park Network in other
Participating Local Government Jurisdictions.
3. It is estimated as new growth and development occurs over the next 20 years,
there will be additional demand for park lands and recreation facilities within the
Regional Park Network.
,
4. It appears that if existing fiscal arrangements continue, there could be a funding
shortfall or revenue gap In the unincorporated County and Bluffton for both park
lands and park facilities within the Regional Park Network,
5, Hilton Head Island's future needs for park facilities within the Regional Park
Network can likely be addressed through Impact fees and other sources of
revenues.
6. In addition to the Regional Park Network, public access to the water is provided
through beach access points (10 on Hilton Head Island and 1 on Daufuskfe
Island) and boat landings (7 owned by Beaufort County).
7. It is estimated that as growth and development occurs over the next 20 years,
there will be an additional demand for public accessto the water as the
availability of lands providing public access will become more expensive.
Park and recreation facilities Include: multi-purpose fields, baseballisoflball fields, soccer/football fields,
txu*eftl courts, tennis courts, pbnio areas, community center buildings, ammming Poole, playground
facilities, restroom facilities, mufti -use trails, and parking facilities.
•
8"
Guiding Principles
Given the interrelated nature of the Regional Park Network, the Participating Local
Governments should work cooperatively to
1. Establish standardized methods to measure needs and monitor conditions within
the Regional Park Network.
2. Plan for future needs within the Regional Park Network.
3. Address the funding "gW to ensure future capital Improvement needs are met
within the Regional Park Network.
Given the Identified need for public access to the water, the Participating Local
Governments should work cooperatively to:
1. Identify future needs for public access to the water.
2. Plan for these future needs.
3. Develop a strategy to fund and acquire additional lands to provide adequate
access to the water to future growth and development..
Common Goals and Objectives
• Common Goal 1: Coordination of Parks and Recreation Planning.
Parke and recreation planning for the Regional Park Network will be coordinated
between Beaufort County and the Towns of Bluffton and Hilton Head Island (the
"Participating Local Governments").
a. objective 1.1 Consistent Nomenclature, The Participating Local
Governments will establish consistent classifications to define the types of
park lands and recreation facilities that make up the Regional Park
Network.
b. Objective 1.2 Uniform Minimum Standards. To ensure a minimum
quality of life, the Participating Local Governments will adopt the following
level of service (LOS) standards for park lands and recreation facilities
within the Regional Park Network:
I. Hilton Head Island:
12.2 acres of land per 1,000 residents
$722 of park and recreation facilities per capita'
2 Park and recreation facilities include: muld•purpose fields, basebalVeollball'fields, wccerflootball fields,
basketball courts, tennis courts, picnic areas, community center buildings, swimming pools, playground
facilities, restroan facilities, mufti -use trails, and parking facilities.
9
IL Bluffton and unincorporated Beaufort County (for the study area) 4
13.0 acres of land per capita
$722 of park and recreation facilities per capita
e, Objective 1.3 Jasper County. The Participating Local Governments will
engage in coordinated regional park planning with Jasper County and Its
municipalities.
Common Gal 2: Regional Park Network Funding.
The Participating Local Governments, where appropriate, will work cooperatively to fund
park land and recreation facility needs within the Regional Park Network,
a, Objective 2.1 Coordinated Funding. The Participating Local
Governments, where appropriate, will work together to Identify funding
arrangements in which the Participating Local Governments coordinate the
funding of park land and park facility needs within the Regional Park
Network.
b. Objective 2.2 Impact Fees. The Participating Loral Governments will
continue to utilize Impact fees to fund recreation facilities.
c. Objective 2.3 Other Revenue Sources. The Participating Local
Governments will use other revenue sources for the acquisition of park
lands.
d. Objective 2.4 Land Acquisition. The Participating Local Governments,
where appropriate, will use land acquisition programs to identify and
purchase land suitable for the Regional Park Network. In addition to
providing additional parks lands, this program will be coordinated with other
goals and objectives to limit development, thereby protecting open space
and environmentally sensitive lands, and reducing future transportation
pressures.
e. Objective 2.5 Maintenance. The Participating Local Governments will
work together to Identify funding arrangements to fund adequate
maintenance of the Regional Park Network.
Common Goal 3: Beach and Water Access Funding.
The Participating Local Governments will work cooperatively to develop a strategy to
Identify the need for, plan for, and fund the acquisition of lands and facilities that provide
public access to the water, Including beach access, boat landings, fishing, and other
water recreation.
a. Objective 3.1 Maximize Existing Opportunities for Public Water
Access. The Participating Local Governments will work cooperatively, to
maximize opportunities to enhance existing public lands to Increase public
access to the water and marsh. Attention shall be given to specific water
access' needs, such as beach access (consistent with The Natural Assets
and Natural Constraints Objective 10. 1), boat landings, and fishing piers.
10 •
• b. Objective 32 Land Acquisition. The Participating Local Governments will
work cooperatively to develop a funding strategy to acquire additional land
and provide facilities to provide public access to the water.
c. ObOdIve 3.3 Public/Priwts Partnerships. The Planning staffs of the
Participating Local Governments will work together to provide incentives
and strategise to encourage private waterfront development to provide
public access to the water.
•
'•. 11
ruesuc scnuors
•
Guiding Principles
The Participating Local Governments will work cooperatively and collaborate with the
School District to eke and locate future public schools in ways that build livable
neighborhoods and provide the region's school ape children educational opportunities.
Common Goals and Objectives
Common Goal 1: Coordlnatlon of Public School Planning.
The Participating Local Governments, to the maximum extent practicable, will work
cooperatively with the School District to locate new public schools In close proximity or
within residential areas so children can walk to school, and the school can be Integrated
Into the fabric of a neighborhood.
- Common Goal 2: Coordinated Public School Funding.
As appropriate, the Participating Local Governments will cooperate with the School
District in supporting School District's efforts to fund future facilities.
Common Goal 9: Building Livable Communities.
The Participating Local Governments will coordinate with the School District to organize
public policy and public Infrastructure commitments so that:
• New public schools are located in close proximity or within residential areas so
children can walk to school; and
• Development standards are established that require a strong pedestrian
orientation In residential areas so when schools are located In close proximity,
pedes danways are available so that children can safely walk to school
•..
12
SOUTHERN BEAUFORT COUNTY REGIONAL PLAN
DRAFT COMMON GOALS FOR
STEERING COMMITTEE CONSDERATION
COSTS OF GROWTH
The following draft Common Goals have been developed for consideration by the
Steering Committee and are Intended to serve as the foundation for the Southern
Beaufort County Regional Plan. These draft Common Goals will be reviewed by the
Steering Committee to reach consensus on each particular Issue. They aro based upon
and Informed by the Background Reports, which provide the Stsedng Committee, public,
and elected officials with Important and relevant context for decision-making about the
Common Goals.
Generally, for all topic, the Common Goals serve three primary purposes:
• To establish a set of guiding principles for planning and growth management in
Southern Beaufort County, upon which the County and the Towns of Bluffton and
Hilton Head Island can agree;
• To provide a policy foundation for the development of specific implementation
tools; and
_ • To ultimately set the stage for "success criteria" for evaluating the progress
achieved In Implementing the plan through Objectives for each Common Qwl.
Once the Steering Committee has approved the Common Goals for each of the four
topics, the Clarion team will begin researching and evaluating a wide range of alternative
Implementation strategies and actions for achieving the Common Goals.
'i
Introduction
I. Southern Beaufort County Favus Major Demande for Now Public
Infrastructure and Services. The new growth expected to occur in Southern
Beaufort County between 2005 and Buildout will create a significant demand for
expanded public infrastructure and services. The Fiscal Opportunities and
Constraints to Growth Background Report focuses cn six specific types of
facilities, including transportation, parks and recreation, school, fire, EMS, and
library facilities. Future capital Infrastructure needs In Southern Beaufort County
for these six facilities are estimated to total $495.64 million, In 2005 dollars.
Approximately 92 percent of the costs will be Incurred to fund roads (51%),
schools (27°/,), and park and recreation facilities (13%). Libraries, fire protection
and EMS facility needs will account for less than 8 percent of the total costs.
(See Figure 1 In the Background Report: Summary of Estimated Capital Needs,
Southern Beaufort County, 2005 -Buildout.)
2. A Funding Gap Exists Between Available Revenues and Capital Needs.
Under current fiscal arrangements, the Participating Local Governments will not
be able to generate sufficient revenue to fund these capital needs. It is estimated
the funding "gap," or the difference between the funds needed versus those that
will be generated, is $366.57 million dollars, in 2005 dollars. Of this amount,
approximately 98 percent of the gap is for roads ($185 million), schools ($135
million), and parks and recreation facilities in the unincorporated county and
Bluffton ($37.8 million). (See Figure 2 In the Background Report: Summary of
Funding "Gap," Southern Beaufort County, 2005 -Buildout.)
a. Transportation, Schools, and Parks/Recreation are Most Pressing
Needs. The facilities where capital Infrastructure funding needs are most
pressing are transportation, schools, and parka and recreation (the latter
only in the unincorporated county and Bluffton). These capital
Infrastructure needs comprise over 92 percent of the costs to serve
Southern Beaufort County. Given either the size of the revenue gap for
these facilities, and/or the institutional arrangements by which they are
being provided, or their interrelated nature, these facilities are regional in
nature, and consequently, the Participating Local Governments should
work collectively and coordinate funding actions for these facilities.
b. Public Safety Facilities Have Adequate Sources of Revenue. Future
capital Infrastructure funding needs for public safety facilities (fire
protection and EMS facilities) can and are being addressed by the
Individual Participating Local Governments or other quasi -governmental
entities. Even though there are small revenue gaps for several of these
facilities, the Individual Participating Local Governments (and other quasi -
governmental entities) have adequate sources of revenue to address
future needs. Because of these institutional arrangements and existing
funding sources, these facilities do not require mufti -jurisdictional regional
action under this plan, and should continue to be funded and managed by
2
0
the Individual Participating Local Governments (and other quasi
governmental entitles).
c. Library Funding Needs are not Regional In Nature. In addition, and
because the funding gap for library facilities is not significant, funding for
library facilities and services, which are provided by Beaufort County on a
countywide basis, does not require mufti -jurisdictional regional action
under this plan, but should continue to be addressed by Beaufort County.
3. Potential Funding Toole to Address the Funding Gap. There are some
potential funding tools authorized under state law the Participating Local
Governments can use to help address the funding "pap" for roads and parks and
recreation facilities (School funding is planned for, managed and Initiated by the
School District). Still other revenue tools are not authorized, but have been used
by other fast-growing Sunbelt communities In other states to fund capital
Infrastructure. They Include the property tax, Impact fees, the capital projects
sales tax, the real estate transfer tax, toll roads, special districts, tax increment
financing, the local option sales tax, the hotel occupancy tax, rental car receipts
tax, and vehicle license fees.
4. Funding Toole Upon Which Regional Planning Effort Should Focus. Based
on a review of possible funding tools and consideration of the potential for the
tool to generate significant revenue, the regional planning effort should focus on
the following tools to address the funding gap for roads and park and recreation
facilities:
a. The Property Tax.
b. Impact Fees.
c. The Capital Project Sales Tax.
d. The Real Estate Transfer Tax.
e. The Local Option Gas Tax.
Other revenue tools might be Identified as the regional planning process
continues.
5. Regional Cooperation will be Required. Because of the size of the funding gap
for road and park and recreation facilities, and their interrelated nature, regional
cooperation will be necessary to successfully address these funding challenges.
The regional, planning process is providing an opportunity to develop a
framework for such cooperation. The Implementation Memo will suggest optional,
specific approaches for multi -jurisdictional cooperation in more detail
Guiding Principles
•
Southern Beaufort County will face a serious funding gap for Its Regional Road Network,
Regional Park Network, and public schools between 2005 and Buildout. Because of the
magnitude of the funding gap for these facilities, their Interrelated nature, and/or the
Institutional arrangements by which they are being funded, the Participating Local
Governments cannot solve the funding challenges for these facilities individually, but
must work cooperatively to:
1. Plan Strategically and Regionally. The Participating Local Governments should
focus strategically on regional approaches to funding the Regional Road Network
and the Regional Park Network, and cooperate and support the School District in
funding public school needs. Regional efforts should focus on a limited range of
tools that are suf.'cient, effective, and practical to address regional problems. The
Participating Local Governments should cooperate and support the School
District in its efforts to plan for the future deficiencies and future capital
Improvement needs for public schools.
2. Develop an Appropriate Mix of Existing and New Funding Toole to Address '
the Funding Gap. Address the funding gap so existing deficiencies are
corrected and future capital Improvement needs are met on the Regional Road
Network and the Regional Park Network. Coordinate with and support the School
District in its efforts to address the funding gap for public schools. Focus on the
use of funding tools that are already authorized, but where appropriate consider
funding tools that require legislative authorization to address these needs. In
addition, selectively Identify those funding tools that are most effective at the
regional level, and are practical to implement.
•
3. Explore Now Institutional Arrangement. Where appropriate, explore new
Institutional arrangements to facilitate multi Jurisdictional cooperation on funding
issues.
Cooperate with Jasper County. Where appropriate, coordinate any revenue funding
strategies for the Regional Road Network and other facilities as applicable with Jasper
County.
4
e Common Goals and Objectives
Common Boal 1: Adequate and Equitable Regional Funding of Public Facilities.
Future public facilNies for Souther Beaufort County will be funded In an equitable
manner to achieve and maintain adequate levels of service through a mix of regional
funding for regional facilities and local funding for local facilities.
Common Goal 2: Focus Efforts of Regional Funding on Transport4tlon, Parka, and
Schools.
The Participating Local Governments will develop regional approaches to funding for
transportation (the Regional Road Network) and parks (the Regional Park Network), and
will support funding for public schools.
Common Goal 3: Coordination of Transportation, Park, and School Planning.
The Participating Local Governments will coordinate transportation and park planning,
and coordinate with and support the School District's planning for public: schools, for the
purpose of addressing future deficiencies and future capital improvement needs.
a. Objective 3.1 Regional Level of Service Standards. The Participating
Local Governments will adopt a level of service standard on the Regional
Road Network consistent with Transportation Objective 1.1, and a level of
service standard for the Regional Park Network consistent with Park
Objective 1.2.
b. Objective 3.2 Local Consistency with Regional Level of Service
• Standards. The Participating Local Governments will Identify existing
deficiencies and future capital improvements meds and their costs,
based on these adopted regional level of service standards and plans and
Implement tools to meet the standards and plant. The Participating Local
Governments will cooperate and support the Spool District in Its efforts
to plan for future deficiencies and future capital Improvement needs for
schools.
C. Objective 3.3 Jasper County. The Participating Local Governments will
engage in coordinated transportation planning with Jasper County and Its
municipalities consistent with Transportation Objective 1.3, addressing
regional transportation facilNies such as US 278, SC 170 and Bluffton
Parkway. The Participating Local Governments will also engage in
coordinated school planning with Jasper County such as the Academy for
Career Excellence.
Common Goal 4: Funding Transportation Needs on Regional Road Network.
The Participating Local Governments will work cooperatively to fund existing and future
transportation capital Improvements needs on the Regional Road Network consistent
with Transportation Common Goal 3.
a. Objective 4.1 Address Regional Road Network Levels of Services.
Each Participating Local Government will address the Regional Road
•
5
Network needs within their communities consistent with regional level of
service standards.
b. Objective 4.2 Funding Strategy. The Participating Local Governments
will develop a strategy to address the funding gap that:
a. Continues to use the existing revenue sources, and considers and
prioritizes the most appropriate revenue sources both from existing
authorized sources, as well as revenue tools that require state
enabling legislation; and
b. Prioritizes funding based on the following factors:
1. Revenue Potential: Whether the tool can generale substantial
sums of monies to fund capital Infrastructure;
IL Geographic Application: Whether the tool can be applied
across the region;
III. Legislative Authorization: Whether the tool requires legislative
authorization;
Iv. Technical/Administrative Ease. The ease of administering the
tool; and
v. Public Acceptability: How residents will accept the tool.
C. Objective 4.3 Funding Focus. The Participating Local Governments will
Initially focus on certain funding tools, including but not limited to:
a. Impact fees;
b. Capital projects sales tax; •
c. Real estate transfer fees; and
d. Local option gas tax.
Common Goal 5: Funding Park Needs on Regional Park Network.
The Participating Local Governments will work cooperatively to fund the gap for the
Regional Park Network.
a. Objective 5.1 Address Regional Park Network Levels of Services.
Each Participating Local Government will address the Regional Park
Network needs within their communities consistent with the level of
service standards established In Parks and Recreation C:',!; :lives 1.2.
b. Objective 5.2 Funding Strategy. Each Participating Local Government
will develop a strategy to address the funding gap that:
a. Continues to use existing revenue sources, and considers and
prioritizes the most appropriate rovenue sources both from existing
authorized sources, as well as revenue tools that require state
enabling legislation; and
b. Prioritizes funding based on the following factors:
6
I. Revenue Potential: Whether the tool can generate substantial
sums of monies to fund capital Infrastructure;
il_ Geographic Application: Whether the tool; can be applied
across the region;
ill Legislative Authorization: Whether the tool requires legislative
authorization;
Iv. TechnicaVAdministrallve Ease. The ease of administering the
tool; and
v. Public Acceptability: How residents will accept the tool.
C. Objective 5.3 Funding Focus. The Participating Local Governments will
Initially focus on certain funding tools, Including but not limited to:
a. Property tax;
b. Impact fees;
c. Capital projects sales tax;
d. Real estate transfer fees; and
Common Goal 8: Open Spam
The Participating Local Governments will recognize the role of open spam preservation
consistent with Natural Assets Common Goal 8 as a tool to help reduce demand for
public facilities, thereby potentially mitigating fiscal pressure.
Common Goal 7: Funding School Needs.
In coordinating with and supporting the School District In its efforts to address the
funding gap for public schools, the Participating Local Governments will establish, where
• appropriate, either Informal or formal Institutional arrangements to coordinate and
support the School District's efforts.
Common Goal 8: New Partnerships for Regional Planning.
The Participating Local Governments will consider establishing new voluntary
partnerships, joint planning efforts, and other formal and informal mechanism$ to
coordinate planning and plan Implementation in Southern Beaufort County and Jasper
County. The Participating Local Governments will consider implementing a permanent
ongoing planning arrangement between Beaufort County, the Town of Bluffton, and the
Town of. Hilton Head, and ultimately with Jasper County and its municpallties. Better -
coordinated joint planning could strengthen local efforts to secure new revenue sources,
plan and pay for infranstrucure Improvements, link transportation and land use, and
protect regionally significant natural and cultural assets.
O _ 7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
3
Section 1: Identification and Inventory of Natural Assets —
4
Salt marshes and Coastal Waters
5
Open Space
7
Beaches and Dunes
7
Trees and Forests
8
Freshwater Wetlands
8
Section 2: Evaluation of Plans and Studies
9
Comprehensive Plans
9
Studies and Reports
11
Section 3: Analysis of the Regulatory Framework
15
Salt marshes and Coastal Waters
16
Open Space
22
Beaches and Dunes
24
•
Trees and Forests
25
Freshwater Wetlands
25
Gaps, Inconsistencies and Limitations of the Regulatory
Framework
26
Section 4: Outstanding Local Examples of Resource Protection
27
Jarvis Creek Community Park
27
Palmetto Bluff
28
Protection of the Okatie Headwaters
29
Section 5: Issues of Regional Consideration
30
Appendix 1 Maps
32
Map l: Natural Assets of Southern Beaufort County
Mep 2: Status of Shellfish Beds
Map 3: Preserved Open Space
Map 4: Concentrations of On-lot S .-ptic Systems
• '''
Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southxn Beaufort County Regional Plan
page 2
INTRODUCTION
What is a natural asset and why is it important to Souther Beaufort
County? Environmental issues often have a polarizing effect in the
political discourse, especially when they are framed in terms of
pitting the interests of plants, animals and natural features against the interests
of humans. In reality, Southern Beaufort County's natural environment is an
integral part of the region's cultural environment and economy. Natural
amenities such as coastal waters, salt marshes, beaches, trees and local
wildlife are what have made this region unique and immensely popular to
outsiders and newcomers. They have essentially driven the economic engine
of growth. In the face of rapid growth, a delicate balance must be struck
between accommodating new development and preserving the very things that
make this region unique.
This.Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth Background Report
focuses on the identification of natural assets of regional importance in
Southern Beaufort County. It includes;
♦ An inventory of these assets, a discussion of their value to the region and
what threats they face.
♦ A summary and evaluation of the natural resources elements of the local
goverment comprehensive plans and the many studies that address local
environmental issues.
♦ A summary of the current regulatory framework at the federal, state and
local level and an evaluation of how well coordinated the current
ordinances and programs are in protecting natural resources and achieving
other resource protection goals.
♦ A summary of outstanding local examples of regional resource protection
among the local governments that can be used as building blocks for
future regional collaboration.
The emphasis in this report is on issues of regional consideration. The final
section will focus on some of the opportunities for better regional cooperation
and joint planning taking into account the analyses of the previous sections.
These issues are meant to be the starting pohat for the setting of goals and
• Naturt: Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 3
implementation strategies by the Steering Committee and the public. The
following is a summary of these regional considerations:
♦ Provide broad-based, inter -disciplinary approaches to natural resource
protection;
♦ Address gaps and inconsistencies in local environmental regulations;
♦ Coordinate water quality monitoring efforts;
♦ Work towards a network of natural area to provide better protection of
valuable habitat types; and
♦ Work toward the reduction and deconcentration of on -lot septic systems.
SECTION 1: IDENTIFICATION AND INVENTORY OF
NATURAL ASSETS
There are five natural assets identified in the report, which are the focus of the
plan. They are the following:
♦ Salt marshes and coastal waters: Salt marshes and coastal waters include
all area that are influenced by tides. These include bays, inlets, tidal
creeks and salt marshes. .
♦ open space: Open space is defined as those areas that are preserved from .
development through ownership or long-term lease by a public or non-
or conservation easement.
profit entity; private
♦ Beaches and dunes: Beaches and dunes are defined as those sandy areas
on the front line between land and the open ocean. Sandy shores along
tidal creeks aro not included in this definition.
♦ Trees and forests: This includes both specimen trees and natural forest
communities. Pine plantations are not included in this definition.
♦ Freshwater wetlands: Freshwater wetlands are defined as areas that are
transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table
is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water.
This definition does not include any tidally influenced areas.
In this section, these natural assets are inventoried and discussed in terms of
their value to the natural environment, the quality of life of local residents,
and the economic health of the region. Tobfe 1 summarizes these natural
assets, providing an inventory of each asset and the possible threats that they
face:
Natural Assets and Nat¢. Constraints to Growth Background Repast
Page 4
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
Table 1: Summary of N;aural Assets
Salt Marshes and Coastal Waters
Southem Beaufort County's salt marshes and coastal waters are central to the
region's sense of place, identity and economy. The estuarine environment is
important to local residents for a number of reasons. The coastal waters and
adjacent marshes provide an aesthetic, recreational and educational resource.
Shrimp, crabs, oysters and many finfish depend on the marshes for all or part
of their lifecycle. Marshes also serve to stabilize the shoreline and help to
absorb floodwaters and storm surges. Finally, the quality of Me created by
the aesthetic and recreational opportunities provided by the salt marshes and
coastal waters are one of the major attractions to tourists as well as those
moving to the region from other parts of the country.
• Natur, l Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 5
The issue of water quality has been at the forefront of local government
initiatives in Southern Beaufort County over the last 10 Years. In 1995, 500
additional acres of shellfish beds were closed in Southern Beaufort County
due to high levels of fecal coliforin bacteria. This event sparked a heightened
awareness of the importance of water quality to the overall health of the
natural resources in the region and led to the creation of die Clean Water Task
Force, which initiated the Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) for
Beaufort County. 'Me SAMP process led to many local programs, policies
and ordinances that address water quality, which are discussed later in this
report.
Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
page 6
0
9
ToW 2: Inventory of co" Wam. Sak monibm Freshwater WethrAU XW UPIAndh In
Southem Beaufort County
Aern 1411111.)
36,496 (55)
".367 (69)
11V 13,955 (22)
(I ?J4.
ToNe 2 above indicates that about ow -half of Southern Beaufort County
(47%) consists ofsalt marshes and coastal waters. In addition to inlets and
bays, there are four major tidal river systems that make up Southern Beaufort
County's waterways: the Colleton/Okatie River System, the May River, the
New River, and Broad Creek. Map I provides a graphic portrayal of the salt
marshes, coastal waters and other natural assets of Southern Beaufort County,
Mic greatest threat to the health of Southern Beaufort County's salt marshes
and coastal waters is pollution from upland runoff and specific discharge
areas. The headwaters of the Okatie River, May River, and Broad Creek are
especially sensitive to pollution from stormwater runoff. Headwaters do not
soullworn"
flush well from the daily tide cycle and therefore retain more pollutants. Ibis
caouWWs suMN marshes V4
ousew a Vociintral
is important to the health of the overall estuarine environment because they
to the room's Nnso of
serve as nurseries for many shellfish species. '17heir shallow, brackish waters
ph—
provide protection from predators.
Clams and oysters are highly sensitive to changes in water quality because
they am filter feeders and, therefore, accumulate pollutants that are present in
the water. As a result, they serve are water quality indicators. South
Carolina's Department of Health and Environniental Control (DHEC)
classifies water bodies and salt marshes based on their intended use for the
harvesting of shellfish (SFH). Map 2 shows the current status of shellfish
beds in Southern Beaufort County.
The issue of water quality has been at the forefront of local government
initiatives in Southern Beaufort County over the last 10 Years. In 1995, 500
additional acres of shellfish beds were closed in Southern Beaufort County
due to high levels of fecal coliforin bacteria. This event sparked a heightened
awareness of the importance of water quality to the overall health of the
natural resources in the region and led to the creation of die Clean Water Task
Force, which initiated the Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) for
Beaufort County. 'Me SAMP process led to many local programs, policies
and ordinances that address water quality, which are discussed later in this
report.
Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
page 6
0
9
Open Space
Preserving open space is important to Protect valuable habitat types, limit
development
in environmentally sensitive Amu. provide public access to
natural amenities and to relieve congestion in intensely developed amas. As
the region continues to become more developed, a logical conclusion is that
open space will become scarcer and more costly to acquire. When Beaufort
saudwn 6"U10"
has Waft 15%
County was largely rural, large tracts of agricultural and forested land
NNW mow odl on
Hftn HoW 1"W mW
Dauft" WOW.
provided de facto public access to waterways, oyster beds, hunting grounds
As kw mos www
SUMAM and
N bwam"
and other amenities of the natural environment. As these large tracts become
subdivided and developed, it becomes more important to set aside am" that
to so ="=
Fraw-d In pwp".
are preserved in perpetuity.
There are essentially two general methods used to preserve open space. One
is die fee simple purchase of a property by a governmental, non-profit or
private entity for the Purpose of preservation. Mw other mechanism is the
conservation casement or purchase of development rights which allows the
property owner to continue to own their property but limits future
development through covenants.
In Southern Beaufort County, currently 14,727 upland acres of land are
Natural Assets and Natural
preserved through these means. 'Mis makes up approximately 15% of the
So uthem Beaufort County Regional Plan page 7
total land am. Map 3 shows the locations of these preserved lands. As
undeveloped land b -tomes scarcer, the cost of acquiring land for open space
increases. Ills fact has made the acquisition of open space for the purpose of
10
preservation a top priority in Southern Beaufort County.
Beaches and Dunes
Southern Beaufort County's beaches and dunes are an important public
resource. They provide the basis of much of the region's successful tourism
industry and are a factor in the region's attractiveness as a place in which to
relocate. A healthy beach and dune system Wso provides a natural storm
barrier protecting life and property for those living Wong die coast,
saudwn 6"U10"
has Waft 15%
Southern Beaufort County has approximately 1% linear miles of beaches,
NNW mow odl on
Hftn HoW 1"W mW
Dauft" WOW.
which are shown on Map 1. Erosion and accretion rates vary on Hilton Head
Island's 12 miles of beaches with generally higher rates of erosion in the
northeast part of the island and in the center where it bulges slightly into the
Atlantic Ocean. Hilton Head Island provides beach renourishment
periodically. In 1997 approximately 2.5 million cubic yards of sand were
added to the central portion of the island's beach with another renourishment
scheduled for 2005. Daufuskie Island's 3% miles of beaches have an average
annual erosion rate of 4 to 5 feet with the southern i.-nd of the Melrose Tract
receiving 10 to I I feet per year. Portions of Daufuskie's beaches were last
renourished in 1998.
Natural Assets and Natural
Constraints to Growth Background Report
So uthem Beaufort County Regional Plan page 7
The greatest threats to Southern Beaufort CmntY's beaches Come from the
challenges Inherent in building permanent suvictum in a shifting n1lb"
environment Barrier islands, such as Hilton Head And DiAlfuskic we very
dynamic environments continually being modified by waves- currents and
winds. Managing this dynamic natural environment with the fixed
environment of man-made structures becomes the primary challenge in
protecting this important public resource.
Trees and Forests
Trees and other vegetation filter the air of pollutants and store large amounts
of carbon that would otherwise help to heat the atmosphere. They shade our
buildings and streets, preventing or ameliorating the formation of urban heat
islands, which in turn can increase our use of electricity and die attendant air
pollution from generating plants. Ibis shading also helps improve local air
quality by preventing the formation of ground level ozone. Trees provide
food, shelter and nesting areas for much of our native wildlife, and help to
soften the look of the built environment. They anchor our soil to help prevent
crosion, and filter stormwater before it enters our surface waters. Trees
produce oxygen for our atmosphere and add dollar value to our properties. For
FaNd U
all of these reasons. communities in Beaufort County rea]17 ed long ago that
0 lomt,
twate we an
Irees were worth protecting.
em to
O"Wort
Cat—Wes sca"ft and
re do
More important than the trees are the forest communities in which they A -
101"" c1l".
Forest types such as maritime forests and natural pint forests we an important
component to Southern Beaufort County's scenic quality and regional
character. Maritime forests are the source of Southern Beaufort County's
signature mature live oaks and sabal palmettos. In 1988, the S.C. Department
of Natural Resources assembled a database. of forest communities based on
infotination from aerial photography. According to this database, in 1988,
Southern Beaufort County had 15,950 acres of natural forest. This does not
include pine plantations.
The threats to Southern Beaufort Count,�,i's forest communities are related
primarily to the rapid pace of developmzitt. All but 10% of the land area of
Southern Beaufort County is committed for future development.
Approximately 58% of Southern Beaufort County's natural forests are
anticipated to be impacted when all currently approved development is built
out.
Freshwater Wetlands
Freshwater wetlands are our natural stormwater drainage systems. They
absorb floodwaters, filter out pollutants and also provide a habitat for many
plants and animals. According to the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI),
there are 13,955 acres of freshwater wetlands in Southern Beaufort County.
This is approximately 15% of the total land area. The locations of these
Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth Background Report page 8
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
wetlands am shown on Map 1. This is in no way an exhaustive inventory of
the region's freshwater wetlands, but provides a general picture of the quantity
and location of freshwater wetlands.
Like open space, the greatest threat to freshwater wetlands is the rapid rate of
growth in Southern Beaufort county, Another threat Is die regulatory
framework for freshwater wedand protection, which is somewhat in a state of
flux. In 2001, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Army Corps of
Engineers no longer had jurisdiction ov", isolated freshwater wetlands. This
left isolated freshwater wetlands unprotcaW in much of the United States.
Mic South Carolina State Legislature is cw rendy working on a bill to address
isolated wetlands. There is concern , howeier, that this bill will not adequately
address wetland protection and will probit -it local governments from enacting
or enforcing their own legislation to pmw.:t isolated wetlands. In the
meantime, the Corps continues to issue welland determination letters on
isolated freshwater wetlands, claiming many as jurisdictional due to their
adjacency to navigable weerways or other jurisdictional waters.
SECTION 2: EVALUATION OF PLANS AND STUDIES
In this section we will first provide a brief overview of the natural resources
elements of the three local comprehensive plans. We will then provide a
summary of the purpose and recommendations of the various local studies and
reports. A significant amount of federal, state and local resources have been
41 devoted, among other things, to charting water quality in local watersheds,
studying the impacts of point source and non -point source pollution and
identifying gaps in the protection of natural habitats and wildlife. TU
recommendations of these studies have led to a number of local programs,
policies and ordinances that address resource Protection.
Comprehensive Plans
BoNfort County., I'lie Beaufort County Comprehensive Plan was originally
adopted in December 1997 and underwent a five-year review in 2002. Ime
Natural Resources Element of the County's Plan recognizes that Beaufort
County has a unique coastal estuarine system that includes extensive fresh and
saltwater wetlands, small tidal creeks, 15 rivers and three major sounds.
These waters and marshes define the sense of place and lifestyle that
characterizes Beaufort and its communities; thcreftim, the overall goal of the
Natural Resources Element is to maintain and protect tho q uality of water
resources throughout the County.
In order to preserve water quality, the Plan directs the County to implement
best management practices (BMPs) for stormwater management and to
require, through local development regulations, a vegetative buffer along all
waterways and tidal creeks to help filter stormwater runoff. Ite Plan also
Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth Background Report page 9
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
N
calls for the County to participate in do development and implementation of
the Beaufort County Special Area Management Plan (SAMP), including
recommendations pemdning to a countywide stormw&W utility.
The Plan's Natural Resources Element also pieces emphasis on conserving
wildlife habitat and open space. The most drantatic changes to the use of land
in Beaufort County have occurred south of the Broad River. Since 1988. the
conversion of tram of undeveloped land in Southern Beaufort County to
suburban and commercial uses has been ongoing in developments such as Sun
City and those along US 278. The Plan's goal to conserve open space has
been implemented through fee acquisitions and purchase of development
rights through the County's Rural and Critical Land Program. Other policies
in the Plan call for the County to improve tree protection stand" and to
protect wetlands and other areas of ecological significance from negative
impacts associated with development.
77W Town ofBlufflon: The Town of Bluffton's Comprehensive Plan was
originally adopted in May 1999, when Bluffton consisted primarily of one
square mile, now called the "Old Town." It is not surprising, then, that the
Natural Resources Element of the Town's Comprehensive Plan emphasizes
two main objectives — protection of the May River and preservation of
Bluffton's tree canopy — because both the May River and the Town's trees
help to define the essential character and ambiance of the Old Town.
'Me Plan emphasizes the importance of the May River as a focal point for the
Town. The River is designated an Outstanding Resource Waterway (ORW) Is
by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
(SCDHEC) with intertidal oyster beds holding great economic and ecological
value for the Town and the State. Ile protection of the May River's scenic
beauty and shellfish bounty is addressed in the Plan through strategies that call
for the Town to develop a May River Basin Study, establish a River
Protection Overlay District, and to develop and adopt stormwater best
management practices (BMPs).
'Me Town's Plan also places a high priority on tree canopy because trees
provide an exceptional accent to the Town's neighborhoods. ne Plan calls
for protection of the tree canopy through vigorous enforcement of the Town's
tree protection ordinance and the initiation of an urban forestry management
plan.
Since the adoption of its Comprehensive Plan, the Town of Bluffton has
experienced dramatic changes in population and land area that will have
potentially major impacts on natural resources. Large tracts of primarily
timberland have been annexed and are now committed to development.
Because of this, the Town's Plan is currently being completely rewritten to
addm,ss and plan for these new areas of development, which will eventually
encompass over 52 square miles. Proposed additions to the Natural Resources
Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 10
0
Element will likely address natural resource and wildlife protection, air
quality, and preservation of forest and wetland resources.
ne rown ofHlbox Had Iskad. no Town of Hilton Head bland's
Comprehensive Plan wits recently reviewed and updated in March 2004. The
Natural Resources Element of the Plan focuses on die fact dug continuing
urban development and population growth is affecting this barder island's
natural resources at an accelerating rate. As a result, the Town of Hilton Head
Island has continued to make protection of natural resources a top priority.
Like Beaufort County and Bluffton, an important pan of this effort for the
Town is the need to prow and improve the water quality of all waterways
and marshes in and around the Island. The Plan calls for the Town to
implement drainage and flood control plans and improvernents, while at the
same time continuing to monitor water quality on the Island to assess the
effectiveness of the Town's policies and regulations. By preventing and
controlling urban runoff, Hilton Head Island should become a model for
coastal environmental protection.
Also like Beaufort County, the Town's Comprehensive Plan calls for the
Town to develop and implement a wildlife protection plan designed to acquire
and link land and aquatic sites for wildlife corridors through property
purchases, leases, casements and other methods. Areas that are contiguous,
forming land corridors ("greenways") and water connectors C'blueways'%
should be given high priority in the Town's land acquisition program.
Linking these will form critically needed naturalized drainage ways and a
0 network of wildlife habitat on the bland.
Studies and Reports
A great body of information and data has been gathered in various federal,
state and local studies and reports. Many of these studies are focused on the
issue of water quality. Baseline assessments of Broad Creek, die Okafie River
and the May River were conducted with the purpose of getting a snapshot of
current conditions of the waterways in which to measure and evaluate. future
water quality monitoring information. The Beaufort County Special Area
Management Plan (SAMP) was conducted to address stormwater and other
sources of water pollution and to identify effective actions to prevent further
degradation of the County's waterways. The final two studies focus on
mapping and identifying valuable wetlands, forest communities and other
habitat types for the purpose of aiding local decision makers in more effective
resource protection.
Baseline Assessments: One of the first major recommendations to come from
the Clean Water Task Force was to perform a baseline assessment for Broad
Creek and the Okatie River. The study, developed by the South Carolina
DNR, OCRM and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), pointed to some general findings that repeat themselves throughout
Natural Asses and Natural Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page I I
many of the other studies performed since the original baseline assessment.
They are as follows:
Shallow water sites such as headwaters exhibit more degraded
characteristics than deeper water.
4 Animal pollution sources am a major contributor to fecal coliform
bacterial levels; and
Excessive stormwater runoff may result in fluctuating salinity levels in
tidal crocks stressing oyster populations.
The study reported that in general, contaminant levels and biotic stress were
less in Broad Creek than anticipated and more in the Okatie River than
anticipated. A similar study was performed for the May River in 2002 and
generally gave that waterway a clean bill of health with the exception of its
small tidal crocks. it is important to mention thew baseline studies because
their recommendations are repeated in one form or another in future studies
and point to some common water quality issues faced in Southern Beaufort
County. These recommendations include:
* Reducing the number of on -lot septic systems and providing programs for
ongoing inspection and maintenance.
* Using Best Management Practices (BMP's) to effectively reduce
stormwater runoff and its accompanying pollutants.
# Continuing to monitor water quality.
* Educating the public on the adverse impacts of animal waste, fertilizers,
insecticides and other household products on nearby waterways.
Beaufort County Special Area Management Plan: Much of the local efforts
and initiatives that address water quality and environmental protection in the
lost rive years are a direct result of the Beaufort County Special Area
Management Plan (SAMP) and its recommendations. The Beaufort County
Clean Water Task Force enlisted the assistance of the OCRM, and received
$1,2 million in funding from die National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) to implement a SAMP for Beaufort County. The
SAMP, initiated in 1999 and spanning 42 months, encompassed a wide range
of topics and activities ranging from more advanced stormwater controls,
wastewater management, water quality monitoring, boating management to
public education and outreach.
Ilm boards and committees with a very diverse regional makeup guided the
SAMP process. The Beaufort SAMP Oversight Committee provided general
oversight, establishing priorities, goals and objectives. The Policy Advisory
Committee served as advisom to the Oversight Committee acting as a
sounding board, especially where municipal policies and ordinances were
concerned. 'Me Board of Technical Advisors provided scientific and
technical advice to the Oversight Committee. The Boards and committees
were made up of a diverse group of people representing local government,
Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth Background Report Pa I Be 12
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
I']L
40
0
private developers, local and stale agencies, non -profits and other interested
parties. The project was staffed by OCRM. Below is a summary of the
individual components of the SAMP and the current implementation status.
# Stormwater Udli The SAMP recognized that stormwater management
was being implemented simply on a site -by -site basis with no regard for
the effects of runoff on the sub -watershed and watershed level. In
September 2001, Beaufort County Council adopted the Stormwater
Management Utility Ordinance establishing a flat fee assessed from
residential and commercial property owners to fund stormwater
improvements throughout the County. Currently Tbomas and Hutton
Engineering Company is drafting the Counrywide Stormwater
Management Master Plan with a project completion date of April 2005.
7be master plan will identify all primary drainage systems in the county
and will determine what current facilities are undersized based on existing
and future development. At that time the Stormwater Utility Board, which
as representation from each of the local governments, will review the
Master Plan and make recommendations to the local governments on
which projects to include in their Capital Improvements Plans.
* Broad Creek Management Plan: 7be Broad Creek Management Plan was
completed and adopted by the Town of Hilton Head Island as an appendix
to their Comprehensive Plan in 2002. 71he Broad Creek Management Plan
is unique in its integration of environmental and recreation concerns along
the highly developed watershed. The plan recommended utilizing Best
Management Practices to reduce pollution loads entering the creek;
limiting the concentration of on -lot septic systems; encouraging the
development of wildlife corridors along the creek, expanding no wake
zones for boating; limiting private dock construction while encouraging
the use of community docks; and continuing to monitor water quality.
0 Okatie River Watershed Management Plan: Ite SAMP called for the
development of watershed based stormwater management plans and the
Okatie River was chosen as a prototype. The goals were to gain an
understanding of present water quality conditions in die Okatie River
watershed, to evaluate the effectiveness of existing stormwater
management practices and improve requirements for new practices, and to
define and effectively manage sensitive headwater arm. 7be plan
recommended utilizing stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP's);
requiring wide, undisturbed buffers at the headwaters; working with Jasper
County to adopt Beaufort County's manual for stormwater BMP's;
limiting septic systems within 200 feet of the critical line; and providing
educational and outreach programs.
0 Develgg treatment standards for bridge runoff- The SAMP addressed the
concern that stormwater runoff from bridges flows directly into the rivers
and marshes without treatment. South Carolina currently has stormwater
treatment requirements for bridges within 1,000 feet of shellfish beds.
Ibis requirement does not apply to other circumstances even if die bridge
crosses outstanding recreational waters or shellfish habitat waters. The
Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 13
SAMP called for the retrofit of die U.S. 278 crossing of the Okatic River
to provide treatmer4ofstormwaw runoff from a 10-year24-hour storm
event. The bridge retrofit has been designed but not constructed.
Develgg a River Quality Oyfflay-District: The SAMP called for the
creation of a River Quality Overlay District Ordinance to address such
concerns such as setbacks, buffers and -ppropriate impervious surface
cover limits to minimize impacts of development to salt water marshes.
Additional protection should be placed on headwaters because of their
increased vulnerability to pollution. Currently, Beaufort County, Hilton
Head Island and Bluffton each have requirements for buffers along the
critical line but none specifically limit uses or impervious surface ratios in
areas near tidal crecks.
6 Map Existing and Potential Land Application Disposal Sites: There are
two ways to dispose of treated wastewater. One method is to have a
centralized direct discharge into a waterway. The other is a decentralized
method of disposing wastewater on land sites. 'Me SAMP called for
mapping available sites for land disposal. This map has been completed
by the Beaufort Jasper Water and Sewer Authonty. The next important
step is to provide a strategy to secure these sites by purchase, easements or
agreements to address future wastewater disposal needs.
Develop a compighensive On -Site Dispgsal System (OSDS) program;
The SAMP recognized that State requirements for on-site septic sygwms
are not adequate for the Lowcountry. State requirements do not account
for the region's high water table and do not control density. These two
factors heighten the risk of degrading water quality. The SAMP calls for
the adoption of more stringent septic system standards and for regular
programs of inspection and maintenance. This component has not yei
been implemented.
# Identify water guality monitoring activities in County: There is a
considerable amount of monitoring of water quality in Southern Beaufort
County at the federal, state and local levels, but no central coordination of
these efforts or dissemination of the information being gathered.
Coordinating monitoring efforts would provide more efficient and
effective use of the collected data, would help to identify specific pollution
sources and track the overall health of the county's waterways.
# County Boating Management Plan: As population increases in Southern
Beaufort County the demand for Wonting will increase and have an impact
on the region's waterways. The Beaufort County Boating Management
Plan was completed in 2002. A summary of this plan and its
recommendations will be provided in the Transportation and Other Public
Facilities Background Report.
# Conduct educational campaigns: Finally, (he SAMP calls for education
and public involvement in furthering water quality goals.
The South Atlantic Bight Land Use-Coared Ecosystem Study (LU -CES):
The LU -CES is focusing in greater detail than the SAMP on the Okatie
headwater watershed and examining how development affects marine
0
0
Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth Background Report is
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 14
F
resources (i.e. surface and ground water, marine sediments; and marine flora
and fauna). Tbo results of this five-year multidisciplinary study should further
• assist planners, decision makers, and community leaders to prioritize and
minimize the effects of development on the estuarine ecosystem. The study
is anticipated to be completed in 2005 at which time the analysis and
dissemination of the results are expected.
Broad and New River Watersheds Wetland Management Project —A New
Approach to Manaatna Freshwater Wetlands: The current regulatory
framework for freshwater wetlands makes no distinction between wetlands of
high ecological value and wetlands that have significant levels of degradation.
In 2001, the OCRM completed a study to develop a process that would
improve the way wetlands are evaluated for their contribution to the Broad
River and New River watersheds. The study area totaled over 500,000 acres
and included all of Southern Beaufort County and parts of Jasper County. in
the study, wetland functions were assessed on a watershed basis and high
priority wetlands were targeted for permanent preservation. The end product
is a GIS database that is design to assist planners and regulators to focus
potential impacts of future development away from sensitive areas.
The SC Gap Analysts Project (SC -GAP): The GAP analysis began in 1996
as a cooperative effort between SC Department of Natural Resources and the
US Fish and Wildlife Service. The objectives of the project were to identify
biodiversity distribution and conservation status throughout the state and to
hopefully provide information on lands and habitats needing protection
• (essentially identifying "gaps' in protection). The end product is a statewide
land cover map and database that identifies habitat types, animal ranges and
preserved public and private lands. While the information from this analysis
is too broad to be effectively used locally, it provides a good base for further,
inere detailed work to be performed at the local level.
SECTION 3: ANALYSIS OF THE REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK
When identifying and inventorying Southern Beaufort County's natural assets
and the challenges posed by future development, it's important to list and
analyze all of the ordinances and programs that address natural resource
protection. An understanding of what has been done to date to protect the
environment will help focus the discussion on where future efforts need to be
placed. Federal, state, and local ordinances and programs are organized below
in terms of which natural asset they address. Many of these ordinances and
programs implement the recommendations of the local comprehensive plans.
Others reflect the recommendations from the Beaufort SAMP. Tables 3, 4, S,
6, and 7 summarize these ordinances and programs based on how they
address the natural assets identified in Section 1.
• Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
page 15
Salt Marshes and Coastal Waters
Them are two general approaches to protecting salt mashes and coastal
waters through the regulatory process. They are:
1. Limiting development in and around salt marshes and coastal waters;
and
2. Controlling die quantity and quality of upland stormwater runoff.
A summary of regulations and programs that address salt marshes and coastal
waters is provided in Table 3.
Limiling development In and around salt marshes and coaxtel waters: The
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) provides
protection to most of Southern Beaufort County's salt marshes and coastal
waters through its ownership of these areas (fee simple title) on behalf of the
state. In those ram cases of king's grant or state grant lands where property
owners hold tide to salt marahr3, development activity is strictly regulated and
limited to water dependent structures, such as docks, marinas, and boat ramps.
Abe OCRM sets a demarcation between upland and state controlled marshiand
or "critical areas" called the critical line.
All three local j wris4keiions limit development adjacent to salt marshes and
coastal waters b y requiring development to be set back and buffered from the
critical line, Th - purpose of this requirement is ultimately to improve water
quality by capturing sediments and pollution from stormwater runoff. The
critical line setbacks and buffers are outlined in Table 3. Of the three local
jurisdictions, Beaufort County is unique in having specific provisions to
modulate the buffer standards. Beaufort County's Zoning and Development
Standards Ordinance has a specific list of conditions that must be met to allow
a modulation with the decision made at the staff level. The modulation
criteria are based on existing lot layouts and the average setback of existing
structures. Waivers from the Bluffton and Hilton Head Island critical line
buffer requirements require a variance where the Zoning Board of Appeals
reviews individual cases at a public hearing based on the applicants proof of a
hardship.
Controlling the quand& and quafi& of upknd stormwater runoff.
Managing Stormwater QuantiLy; Traditionally, stormwater management
has been dealt with in terms of managing the quantity of runoff from a site
in order to avoid flooding downstream properties. OCRM's stormwater
regulations reflect this traditional approach, requiring stormwater to be
detained at pre -development levels in a 10 -year storm event. OCRM's
requirements also control sedimentation, but do not address specific
Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 16
0
M
11
1 0 14
TWO: Summary ofCuffent Planning and Regulatory Framework —Sr., Marshes and Coastal Widers
BEAUFORT COUNTY
TOWN OF BLUFFTON
TOWN OF HILTON
HEADISLAND
OTHER ENTITIES
(stmie, Fedeml, Non -
prom)
Ordinstross
Ordhonces
Ordinarmes
81111110
Crit Line Setback:
Crifical Ung Setback: The
Critical Line Setback; All
Restricted Development of
Beaufort County requires a 60-
buffer for single family houses
single-family uses must have a
Salt Marshes: The OCRM
foot wide critical line buffer for
Is 100 feet and 150 feet for all
20 -foot wide buffer. Muftl-
holds title to most salt
single-family houses and a
other uses, Within the
family and commercial uses
marshes. Development Is
100 -foot setback with a 50 -toot
Palmetto Bluff and Burkwallor
have a sliding scale from 36 to
restricted to water dependent
wide buffer for all other uses.
PUD's, a I 50 -foot buffer Is
60 feet wide based on the use
structures, such as docks,
Suffers are generally required
required at the headwaters of
of pervious paving materials.
marinas, and boat ramps.
to remain undisturbed with a
the May River, Okat!-,) River,
Hilton Head Island has more
provision for a view corridor.
Rose Dhu Creek and Stoney
flexibility In buffer width with
a star Manwoment*
Creek. Bluffton has provisions
both average and minimum
The OCRM's stormwater
Slormwater Manaaament:
for view corridors.
width requirements. There are
regulations manage the
Stormwater systems must be
no specific provisions for view
quarrWy of runoff, requiring
designed for 25 -year storm
Stormwater Manaaament:
corridors.
stormwaier to he detained at
events.
Bluffton uses OCRM's
pro-clevolopment levels In a
standards for pro -development
Stormwater Management:
10 -year storm event. OCRM's
Stornwrater Best Management
levels In a 25 -year storm
Stormwater systems must be
requirements also control
Practices (BMPs): The BMP
event.
designed for 26 -year storm
sedimentation, but do not
Manual has specific
events.
address specific pollutants that
attenuation standards for two
61ormwater Bepj Management
ultimately affect water quality.
types of pollutants — nutrients,
eractices flEIMP's): The Town
Stormw r Best Managemenj
such as phosphorus and fecal
of Bluffton uses the services of
Practices (OMP's): Hilton
coliform bacteria. The BMP
tK9 Beaufort County
Head Island plans to adopt Its
Manual requires that on -she
Eng!neoflng Department In
own manual In the next few
stormwater attenuation meet
roviftting plans and Inspecting
years.
the level of 10% Impervious
oftes. This arrangement
development. This level Is
Insures a more uniform
Programs
lower (7.6%) for fecal coliform
application and enforcement of
Stormwater Utility: See
bacteria.
the stormwater requirements.
description an page 13.
Programs
Programs
Stormwater Utility: See
Stormwater Utility: See
description on page Ia.
description on page 13.
_j
Z
Table 4: Summary of Currew Planning and Regulatory Frarnework — Open Space
BEAUFORT COUNTY
TOWN OF BLUFFTON
TOWN OF HILTON
HEAD ISLAND
OTHER ENTITIES
(state, Fecleral, Non-
profit)
Ordinances
Ordinances
Ordinances
Beaufort County's ZDSO
Bluffton's open space
Hilton Head Island's Land
Federal
requires a percentage of land to
requirements are set forth in
Development Ordinance
U.S. Fish WIldlife Service
be set aside for open space.
their Development Standards
makes dist!nctions between
and
(Plnrkrtay Island National -
Generally the more Intense the
Ordinance. Single-family
open space within residential
Wildlife Refuge)
zoning district, the lower the
subdivisions with more than 10
lots and common open space.
percentage of required open
lots require 10% of the land to
Their requirements for
310110
space. Land must be deeded
be set aside as open space.
common open space require
to a property owner's
For muld-family developments,
the lands to be accessible to
SC Deal, Natural Resources
association or some other
open space requirements
all lots within the development
Heritage Trust Program
mechanism to secure It from
Increase with the density of
and encourage connecting
(Green's Shell Enclosure,
development.
the development. Bluffton's
these spaces to existing town
Joiner Bank, Dawes Island,
large PLID's, Palmetto Bluff,
parks and other amenities
Victorla Bluff)
Programs
the Shults Tract, the
Rural and Critical Lands
Buckwaller Tract and the
Programs
Private and Non -Profit
Program: Through this
Jones Tract have varying set-
LUJAcaulaftion Program:
Beaufort County Open Land
program, Beaufort County has
asides for open space and
Since 1991 the Town has
Ir_qM (Oyster Factory, Lemo
preserved a total of
public park land.
0
spent $120.4 million n1011
Island)
approximately 863 acres of land
parcels totaling 1, 111.72
In Southern Beaufort County at
Progrems
acres. The Town has
Private Conservation
a cost of approximately $21.5
Rural and Critical Lands
calculated that their land
Easements: Barataria Island,
million since 1997. In 2000
Program: Program used to
acquisition program has
Savage Island, Oak Forest
county voters approved a
purchase the Oyster Factory
prevented 4.5 million square
Plantation
referendum that allowed the
and Okatie River East
feet of commercial space,
county to bond $40 million for
property.
1,365 motel rooms, 3,266
Other Private Efforts: Sea
the purchase of rural and critical
'
multi -family and tim"hare
Pines Preserve, Spring Island,
lands. Beaufort County
units, and 26,216 peak hour
Palmetto Bluff
contracted with the Trust for
trips. The main funding
Public Land (TPL) to manage
source is the Real Estate
the program, negotiate with
Transfer Fee.
property owners and assist In
thi� purchase of properties.
Rural and Critical Lands
Program: Program partly
funded the Ford Shell Ring
and Aranda Property
L j
Table 5:
Summary of Current Planning and Regulatory Fralnework Beaches a . nd Dunes
BEAUFORT COUNTY
TO N OF HILTON
TOWN OF BLUFFTON HEAD ISLAND
OTHER ENTITIES
(state, Federal, Non
profit)
1z
Ordintnoes
0202yglilida Dunes shall
Town of stumon has Ordinances
WA (the no beacb6s) 2ML&gI%= Dunes shall
be leveled, breached
state The OCRIVI
22MAMM front setback$
regulates beach
*buellne"
Tat—be leveled, breached
shared or urviermined with the
not
altered or undermIned with the
exception of beach across
by first Identifying a
defined as the crest of the
exception of beach access
boardwalks. Where dunes are
primary oceanfront send dune.
Setbacks from the baseline
boardwalks.
d aged on of the
am res'o t' 0
dun's , be julled when
;y
are set at 40 times the
Beaufort County
requires development to be
"'It. I, d, vein or
redeveloped.
average annual erosion rate or
no less than 2() fait. Hilton
to
setback at least 50 feet from
the crest of the primary clunes.
Butters: Hilton Head island
Head lal and requires
additional restrictions on
development of the dunes and
Public access
requires additional restricuorlu
on development of the dunes
requires a minimum 20400t
buffer from the baseline.
To h Is required for
the been
and requires a minimum 20 -
developments with more than
foot buffer from the baseline.
1,000 feet of frontage. County
has option to purchase beach
access during review of
Town has
option to purchase beach
beaches were last re: -.oudshed
beachfront development.
access during review of
In 1998 by the StalM.
beachfront development.
Programs
Hilton
tead 1prov=1des
H =Island beach
renourlshment periodically. In
1997 approximately 2.5 million
rublc yards of send were
added to the central portion of
the Island's beach with
another renourlshment
scheduled for 2005.
Table& Sununary ol'Current Planning AM Regulatory Framework —Trees and Fomus
BEAUFORT COUNTY
TOWN OF BLUFFTON
TOWN OF HILTON
HEADISLAND
OTHER ENTITIES
(ebb, Fedwal, Non.
prom)
Ordiniences
Individual Tree Proledlono
Ordilronoes
Individual Tr"
Ondhwoces
1111111011110
The ZDSO requires the
Prolectlone
Bluffton's Development
Individual Tree Protection:
Hilton Head Island has similar
Broad wW Now
Watersheds Wetlands
preservation of specimen trm
Standards Ordinance sets
requirements as Bluffton and
MKMmont Project: GIS
and encourages preservation
forth tree protection
Beaufort County In the
database may help focus
of all trees greater than 8
requirements. Bluffton's
preservation of Individual
potential development Impacts
Inches diameter breast height
requirements mirror those of
trees. Hilton Head Island goes
awry from sensitive areas,
(dbh). Removed specimen
Beaufort County. They
much further In the protection
trees must be mitigated by
prohibit the removal of any
of understory tron and
SO Gap Ansivals Prolact:
planting a similar spoecles; with
tree over 8" dbh unless the
shrubs. The Town
Project Includes a stalsoMe
the quantity amounting to the
removal Is consistent with an
encourages the protection of
land cover map and database
total callper Inches of the tree
approved development plan.
native vegetation such as saw
that Identifts habitat types,
removed. Other removed
Mitigation requirements are
palmettos, bays, wax myrtles
animal ranges and preserved
trees must be replaced In kind.
similar to Beaufort County's
and hoilles by restricting under
public and pdvate lande. Map
Where a site does not have
with a fee-In-fieu payment
brushing of bufferi and other
can serve to assist locrl
sufficient room for mitigated
option. Slufflon's PUD's do
landscaped areas.
government In land use
trees, a foo-In-Ilou payment
not allow for the fee-In-Ilou
decisions.
must be made to the
payment option but allow
forestation fund.
greater flexibility In transferring
tree pl&Mlng requirements to
Resource Protection
other parts of the PILID.
Rsouirementas The ZDSO
requires a she capacity
analysis where a survey of a
site delineates whom different
habitat types such as maritime
forests, freshwater wetlands,
and mixed upland forest are.
The amount of each resource
that must be preserved Is
determined by the resource
and the zoning district
11
0
Table7: Summary ofCurrent Planning and Regulatory Frarnework—PreshwaterWetitods
BEAUFORT COUNTY
TOWN -06F BLUFFTON
TOWN OF HILTON
HEADISLAND
OTHER ENTITIES
(state, FadMI, Non -
prom)
Beaufort County's welland
Slut.1ton currently has no local
wetlands regulations.
Ordinances
Hlfton Head Isfand's Land
Fedwal
Clean Water Act, U.S. Army
protection regulations allow fill
for nontidal wetlands less than
Management Ordinance
Corps of Engineers. The
one acre In size and require
requires developers to attempt
to preserve waflands In their
federal governmeM regulates
wellands that are adfacent to
mitigation. Minor fill Is also
allowed In the" wellands In
site design. If werfland
navigable waterways. Isolated
order to r"haps the walland
alteration I proposed, it can
only be peramlitted If the
freshwater wetlands are not
regulated by the federal
boundary to provide a
reasonable building site,
welland Is of low or moderate
value, based on a wedand
government,
providing that Ios& than 10%
or 2 acres (the loner of the
evaluation shoot that equates
Slate
two) Is disturbed. For nontidal
environmental, social and
landscape value of the
The state Is currently drafting
wetlands legislation.
wellands, protection levels
wetland with a numerical
vary by district, ranging from
60-1001%. Only water-
score. Minimization of the
dependent uses are allowed In
alteration In the site design
must then be shown, and
tidal wedands; any activity
mitigation of the altered
requires a $pedal use permit,
an environmental Impact
wetland Is required. Mitigation
assessment and approval by
must be done on-ofte, In-kind
and acre -for -acre. Mitigated
state and federal agencies.
Then regulations also give
wetlands and their required
special proloctlon to bird
buffers must be permanently
protected through restrictive
rookeries and high quality
wetlands.
covenants. As a last resort, a
fee -In -lieu -of program Is
available, but only when all
other options have been
exhaus!ed.
pollutants that ultimately affect water quality. Hilton Head Island,
Blufflon, and Beaufort County have taken further steps to regulate the
quantity and quality of stormwater runoff. Each of the local jurisdictions
require stormwater systems to be designed for 25 -year storm events, thus
further regulating the. quantity of runoff.
Managing Stomwater Quality, In 1998, Beaufort County adopted the
Beaufort County Manual for Stormwater Best Management Practices
(BMP). The manual was revised and updated in 2003. The BMP Manual
has specific attenuation standards for two types of pollutants — nutrients,
such as phosphoms and fecal coliform bacteria. SC Department of
Natural Resources research has indicated that generally when impervious
surfaces exceed 10% of total land cover, there are adverse impacts to the
marsh ecosystem. Therefore, the BMP Manual requires that on-site
stormwater attenuation meet the level of 10% impervious development.
"is level is even lower (7.5%) for fecal coliform bacteria. Ile HMP
manual has been adopted by the Town of Bluffton as well. IU Town of
Bluffton uses the services of the Beaufort County Engineering Department
in reviewing plans and inspecting sites. This arrangement insures a more
uniform application and enforcement of the stormwater requirements,
Hilton Head Island plans to adopt its own manual in the next few years.
Open Space
Local government efforts to preserve open space in Southern Beaufort County
fall within two broad categories:
1. Requiring by ordinance the set aside of open space when land is
developed,
2. Purchasing land andlor conservation easements to protect land from
development.
A summary of regulations and programs that address open space is provided
in Table 4.
Open Space Ordinance Requirements: Beaufort County, the Town of Hilton
Head Island and the Town of Bluffton all have open space requirements as a
component of their zoning requirements. Each of the local governments have
a sliding scale where the required percentage land set aside for open space is
based on the underlying zoning district. All three jurisdictions require land to
be deeded to a property owner's association or some other mechanism to
secure it from development. Hilton Head Island's Land Development
Ordinance makes distinctions between open space within residential lots and
common open space. Their requirements for common open space require the
lands to be accessible to all lots within the development and encourage
connecting these spaces to existing town parks and other amenities. Beaufort
County's open space requirements do not count land within individual
residential properties.
Natural i,.,4sets and Natural Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 22
Land AcqukWox Prosnaxcr: The most effective (and most expensive) way
for local governments to control thr use of land is to own it. Both Beaufort
County and the Town of Hilton Head bland have programs that tarsd
purchasing properties to protect to &rural areas and to take land out of active
development.
0 Beaufort County's Rural and Critical Lands Preservation Prosm: This
program, established by Ordinance in 1999, is an effort to -14rovide a means
by which lands may be protected by fee simple purchase or conservation
easements. Beaufort County contracted with the Trust for Public Land
(TPQ to manage the program, negotiate with property owners and assist
in the purchase of properties. The Rural and Critical Lands Preservation
Board was set up to prioritize properties and make recommendations to
County Council. The Board consists of eleven citizims representing a
cross section of the County and the municipalities. M 2004, the County
adopted a "Greenprint" map to help narrow the geographical areas to
target preservation efforts. Based on citizen input gathered at a number of
public meetings, TPL developed focus area maps to concentrate the
program's money.
# Hilton Head Island's Land Acquisition Proom: Hilton Head Island has a
very aggressive land acquisition program. ne program is primarily
funded by a real estate transfer fee (RETF) unounfing to one quarter of
one percent (.0025) of the purchase price of the transfer of real property.
Hilton Head Island is unique in its ability to use this funding source.
Shortly after the Town enacte4d this fee in 199 1, the State of South
Carolina passed a law rcquAin,; funds generated by this fee to be sent to
the state. Hilton Head Island was fortunate to be "grandfathered" from
this requirement and continues to use the fee. The RETF generates
approximately $3.8 million annually for the town. Hilton Head Island's
integrated approach to land acquisition and its funding is also unique. All
of the potential funding sources, RETF, Beach Preservation Fees,
Stormwater Utility Fees, general funds and grants feed into a matrix that
takes into ivccount all the activities that require land acquisition such as
open space., parks, beach access, public facilities and municipal
stormwater projects. This integrated approach invites inter -disciplinary
solutions to Town needs and maximizes the potential of each of the
funding sources.
Private/Non-Prorit Sector Resource Protection Efforts: The protection of
open space in Southern Beaufort County is not in the exclusive domain of
the public sector.
o Sea Pines Forest Preserve: The concept of preserved open space as a
private amenity was pioneered by Charles Fraser at Sea Pines. The
605-acm Sea Pines Forest Preserve covera an environmentally diverse
area and preserves important habitat types, such as forested canebrakes
and inter -tidal ponds and cultural resources, such as a 3,400 year old
Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southem Beaufort County Regional Plan page 23
shell ring and antebellum era rice dikes. The concept has proven
profitable to Sea Pines and has become a regional attraction.
o Spring bland: Another important local example of private sector
preservation efforts is Spring bland. What was different from the Sea
Pines model is that Spring bland recognized in addition to preserving
natural areas its just as important to effectively manage them. Many
fragile habitat types require such activities as prescribed bums to
effectively protect and propagate key plant species. Therefore a
funding mechanism was set up where I to 1% % of the cost of real
estate transfers goes to the Spring Island Trust and the Lowcountry
Institute who preserve and manage the nature preserve, along with
providing environmental outreach and educadonal programs.
o Palmetto Bluff, Another local example modeled after Spring Island is
Palmetto Bluff, which has set up a funding mechanism and non-profit,
the Palmetto Bluff Conservancy, to manage over 5,000 acres of
preserved land. Palmetto Bluff has also made great efforts to protect
the May River by offering large estate lots and securing conservation
casements at the headwaters.
Beaches and Dunes
The South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) is the primary
legislation that addresses the protection and enhancement of the state's
beaches, Ile OCRM is the state agency charged with enforcement of this
legislation. no C2MA identifies three approaches to managing beaches
rejecting the first and adopting the second and third as policy:
0 providing hard erosion control devices such as bulkheads and groins;
0 renourishing the beach with sand;
0 or requiring development to be adequately set back from the beach.
The OCRM regulates beachfiont setbacks by first identifying a "baseline"
defined as the crest of the primary oceanfront sand dune. Setbacks from the
baseline are set at 40 times the average annual erosion rate or no less than 20
feet. Hilton Head Island requires additional restrictions on development of the
dunes and requires a minimum 20 -foot buffer from the baseline.
Both Beaufort Counkv and the Town of Hilton Head Island have regulations
that supplement the sekback and dune protection requirements of the OCRM
(see Tabk 5). Both locul jurisdictions also have ordinance language that
gives local government the option to purchase beach access when land is
developed or redeveloped. Beaufort County requires public access for
developments with more than 1,000 feet of beach frontage.
Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
page 24
0
Trees and Forests
L,ocal governments in Southern Beaufort County have taken great steps to
preserve significant trees. Ali three local jurisdictions have standard
ordinance language that prohibits do f -moval of trees over 8" in diameter at
brmt height (dbh) unless the removal is consistent with an approved
development plan. Each local jurisdiction classifies certain trees as specimen
am based on the species and size of die tree. During site plan review,
emphasis is placed on designing the site around specimen trees. Where trees
cannot be saved, mitigation is required by planting back the total caliper
inches that were removed or contributing to a reforestation fund. Each local
ordinance also requires measures to ptowt trees during construction. Tabk 6
outlines the tree standards for each of the local jurisdictions.
In addition to saving individual bus, both Hilton Head Island and Beaufort
County require the preservation of plant communities and forest types. Hdtoi
Head Island requires much greater protection of native understory vegetation
by restricting under brushing of buffers and other natural areas while requiring
the replanting of natural plant species in disturbed areas. Beaufort County
-,�qiiircs a site capacity analysis when property is developed. A developer
must provide a survey of the site, which delineates the different forest types
such as maritime forests and mixed upland forest and other natural areas such
as freshwater wetlands. I'lie amount of each forest type that must be
preserved is determined by the value of the resource and the intensity of the
zoning district.
While Beaufort County and Hilton Head Island both provide for some
protection of forested areas, these plant communities are often discovered
only after a survey of the site is performed. What is lacking is a detailed, area
wide database of valuable forest types to assist in a more proactive planning
approach to resource preservation. Once certain forest types are gone, it's
very difficult to replace them, Many important plant species unique to the
coastal south are either slow growing or require a unique set of circumstances
to be propagated.
Freshwater Wetlands
In 2001, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Army Corps of Engineers
only had jurisdiction over freshwater wetlands that adjoined navigable
waterways. This left a gap in the protection of isolated freshwater wetlands,
which, in the absence of state regulations, must be addressed at the local
government level.
Fedeml Welkindr Regukdons: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates
the discharge of dredged or fill material into waterways and wetlands. Filling
wetlands for development falls into this category. Before development can
occur that impacts wetlands, an applicant must demonstrate through a permit
process that they have taken steps to avoid wetland impacts; that potential
Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 25
impacts on wetlands have been minimized; and that compensation is provided
for any remaining unavoidable impacts. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers •
administers and enforces federal wetland regulations. In 2001 the Supreme
Court ruled that Section 404 of the Clean Water Act only applied to navigable
waters, thus leaving the protection of isolated wetlands up to state and local
governments.
Local Wedands Ordinances: With the current condition of federal and state
wetlands protection, the role of local governments is vital to protecting small,
"non jurisdictional" wetlands. Both the Town of Hilton Head Island and
Beaufort County have requirements to protect fresh water wetlands. These
wetland requirements are outlined and compared in Table 7. The Town of
Bluffton is in the process of drafting its own requirements.
Gaps, Inconsistencies and Limitations of the
Regulatory Framework
All three local jurisdictions have made significant efforts to protect natural
resources through local policies and ordinance requirements. There remain,
however, some gaps and inconsistencies in the local regulatory framework
that should be addressed.
Beamfort County Modulation of Critical Une Setbacks and Buffers:
Waivers from the Bluffton and Hilton Head Island critical line setback and •
buffer requirements require a variance where the Zoning Board of Appeals
reviews individual cases at a public hearing based on the applicants proof of a
hardship. Beaufort County's Zoning and Development Standards Ordinance
has a specific list of conditions that must be met to allow a modulation of this
standard with the decision made at the staff level. There is concern that
Beaufort County's modulation process is being used too frequently and
compromising the effectiveness of the s^quirement.
Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP's). Beaufort County and the
Town of Bluffton utilize the Beaufort County BMP Manual. The Town of
Hilton Head Island currently does not have a BMP Manual.
Fragmentation of Open Space: One limiting factor of requiring ordinance
requirements for the set aside of open space is that it often results in small,
fragmented natural areas that may not support viable plant communities or
adequately serve as animal habitats. This method for preserving open space is
more effective for larger tracts.
Forest Protection Requirements: All three local jurisdictions have adequate
tree protection requirements. The Town of Hilton Head Island and Beaufort
County have additional requirements aimed at protecting specific forest types
and plant communities. The Town of Bluffton currently lacks these ordinance
requirements. •
Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 26
Loedl,Freshwuter Weliandr ReguAaffim: Both the Town of Hilton Head
bland and Beaufort County have requirements to protect isolated freshwater
wetlands. Other than what is required from the federal Clean Water Act, the
Town of Bluffton has no additional protections for freshwater wetlands.
Jarper County: While this report primarily focuses on the regulatory
fivnework in Southern Beaufort County, Jasper County shares the Now River
and Okade River watersheds with Beaufort County. Mw two most important
local environmental regulations of regional importance that Jasper County
currently lacks are the Stormwater Management Best Management Practices
and local protection of wetlands.
SECTION 4: OUTSTANDING LOCAL EXAMPLES OF
RESOURCE PROTECTION
The following three examples represent innovative approaches to the
protection of natural resources that may serve as a model for how we should
address these issues on a regional basis in the future. All three examples am
multi -disciplinary in nature using different funding sources and methods to
accomplish similar goals. Jarvis Creek Park is interesting because it
represents one single project accomplishing three different but inter -related
objectives — stormwater management, the preservation of natural resources,
and the provision of a passive park. Palmetto Bluff is important because it
represents one of the best efforts of local government to negotiate and partner
with a private developer to protect natural resources. The preservation of the
Okatie River headwaters is important because it begins to show the value of
using several different methods to accomplish the same goal. It also
represents the efforts of two separate local governments.
Jarvis Creek Community Park
Jarvis Creek Community Park is a 50-scre town owned tract located in the
northeastern part of Hilton Head bland where U.S. 278 (William Hilton
Parkway) intersects with the Cross Island Parkway. Ibis project represents a
very innovative approach to solving a much needed stormwater drainage
problem while protecting water quality, preserving and enhancing the natural
environment, and providing a much needed passive recreation area for the
7mno do& island. As a result, Jarvis Creek Community Park received a Stewardship
&I Jw= 0== Development Award from the South Carolina Department of Natural
Park, Mon HMW WOW Resources (DNR).
IMe project began with a 1995 island wide drainage study that recommended
upgrading the stormwater outfall under US 278 and enlarging the natural
fteshwater creek upstream of tidal Jarvis Creek to reduce periodic flooding in
the Main Street commercial areas and nearby Hilton Head Plantation. The
Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 27
original design for the project involved enlarging the existing fresh water
creek to a 100 -foot wide canal that would drain directly into Jarvis Creek.
That design would have not only destroyed adjacent forested upland habitat
and freshwater wetlands, but would have compromised water quality in Jarvis
Creek.
An alternative drainage plan finally emerged that involved constructing a
borrow pit into which pumps would convey stormwater from the upstream
drainage area. From the lake, water would travel through a 1-wre wedand
littoral shelf at the outfall of the lake, then through a natural forested wedand
and discharge into the headwaters of Jarvis Creek. This approach also
presented the Town with an innovative funding opportunity. 'Me dirt
excavated from the borrow pit was sold to SCDOT for the nearby Cross Island
Parkway and funded construction of Jarvis Creek Park.
During construction, several innovative methods were used to minimize
impact to the natural environment. The four large underground pipes that
conveyed water from the pump station to the lake were carefully aligned to
minimize impact to specimen trees. Also, the entrance road was aligned on
top of the pipes to avoid additional clearance of vegetation. 'Me constructed
wetland at the outfall of the lake incorporated native vegetation ranging from
cypress to pickerelweed.
The final phase of the project involved the transformation of the 50 -acre tract
into a passive park. The Town, who acquired the property in 1997, designed
the tract to be a passive recreational area with walking trails, picnic areas and
a boardwalk through the wetlands. The park's proximity to the public schools
on the island has created opportunities for educational programs,
Palmetto Bluff
Palmetto Bluff was one of the first Development Agreements negotiated by
the Town of Bluffton and has been a tremendous success in the protection of
natural resources through low intensity development, preservation of open
space and good planning. In 1998 the Town of Bluffton annexed the Palmetto
Bluff Tract and overnight was transformed in size from one square mile to
over 34 square miles becoming one of the largest municipalities (in size) in
South Carolina. At the time of annexation Palmetto Bluff was owned by
Union Camp (now part of International Paper). Had Palmetto Bluff developed
at the density of Hilton Head Island, it would have roughly 24,000 dwelling
units. Even at Beaufort County's rural zoning density of one dwelling unit per
dm acres, it would have 6,887 dwelling units. The current development
agreement calls for 4,180 dwelling units and 5,000 upland acres preserved as a
managed forest.
Palmetto Bluff is situated between die May River and the Now River.
Protection of these vital resources is assisted by 150 -foot setback and buffer
Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 28
requirements at die headwaters. Much of die New River is fronted, by the
5,000 -acre forest preserve. In addition to the forest preserve, SW acres of
conservation casement have been acquired at the headwaters of the May River
along with a 10 -lot, low-density subdivision. Palmetto Bluff has set up a
structure similar to Spring Island where real estate transfer fees fund the
managenwnt of these open spaces through the non-profit Pahnetto Bluff
Foundation.
Protection of the Okatle River Headwatem
The protection of the Okatic headwaters is a particularly interesting example
because it demonstrates parallel actions of two local governments achieving
die same goal, 7be Okatie river watershed is experiencing rapid growth and is
vulnerable to die effects of stormwater runoff due to its long, narrow
configuration and poor flushing from tides. The headwaters of the Okatie am
particularly vulnerable. The recommendations of the Okatie River Watershed
7
anagentent Plan (2W2) called for the use of wide riparian buffers and
storinwater BMP's to minimize the impact of future development.
In 2000, the Town of Bluffton annexed the Buckwalter Tract, which is both in
the Okatie and May River watersheds. One of the conditions placed on the
The OkMe FVVW
Buckwalter Tract at the time of annexation was 150 -foot setbacks from the
womwisopwisming
OCRM Critical Line along the Okatie River along with Rose Dhu Creek and
NO wow'm ow's
vuftwmWe to the off of
"
Stoney Creek.
Onmu-tor n nnff Ch h
long, rwmw confipradw
arw P- U" tMM
In addition to generous riparian buffer requirements, Beaufort County's Rural
Was.
and Critical Lands Program has been instrumental in purchasing two crucial
tracts totaling 94 acres. When the Barrel Landing tract was purchased in
2000, it was zoned light industrial and had the potential to yield over 5W,000
square feet of commercial space. Another important tract was purchased in
2W3 along the west side of the Okatie headwaters in the Buckwalter tract,
which had the potential to yield 5W residential units and 15 acres of
commercial land. In addition to these two properties, the purchase of another
piece of land on the east side of the Okatie River is pending the outcome of
the local one -cent sales tax referendum. This purchase would provide a 5W
foot wide, undisturbed buffer to enhance the water quality of the Okatie
headwaters.
SECTION 5: ISSUES OF REGIONAL CONSIDERATION
I
The purpose of the Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth
Background Report is to inform the debate, to provide the Steering Committee
and the general public with the necessary background information with which
to formulate goals and objectives that will eventually lead to specific
implementation strategies.
The final section of this report will focus on what regional considerations
should frame the discussion on how to protect natural assets in the future.
These considerations will be based on an analysis of the recommendaflons of
the local comprehensive plans, the studies and identified gaps in the protection
of natural assets.
Provide Broad based, Inter -disciplinary
approaches to Natural Resource Protection
Hilton Head Island's Land Acquisition program and the Jarvis Creek
Community Park project both demonstrate the benefits of a broad based and
inter -disciplinary approach to preserving open space and protecting the
environment. In Southern Beaufort County there are many methods and
funding mechanisms that can be used to secure open space. These include the
Rural and Critical Lands Program, the Stormwater Utility fund, and open
space preserved through ordinance requirements and development
agreements. 'Mere am even more public needs for open space, These include
preservin$ natural areas, providing public access to water, cc. ation needs,
relieving traffic congestion, stormwater drainage projects and sites for the
land disposal of treated effluent. As open space becomes more scarce and
mom expensive to acquire, it may become necessary to look at more creative
solutions that address multiple objectives.
Address Gaps and Inconsistencies In Local
Environmental Regulations
All three local jurisdictions have made significant efforts to protect natural
resources through local policies and ordinance requirements. There am,
however, some gaps and inconsistencies in the local regulatory framework
that are identified in Seelion 3. Addressing these inconsistencies should be a
priority of the three local governments. In addition, as development spreads
to the west of Southern Beaufort County, it important to work with Jasper
County officials to consider the adoption of stormwater best management
practices and local wetlands regulations.
Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
pop 30
r
Coordinate Water Quality Monitoring Efforts
The Beaufort SAMP indicated that there is a considerable amount of water
quality monitoring in Southern Beaufort County at the federal, state and local
levels, but no central coordination of these efforts or dissemination of the
information being gathered. As Southern Beaufort County becomes more
developed, it is important to pursue more efficient and effective ways to use
the collected data, identify specific pollution sources and track the overall
health of the county's waterways. An institution such the University of South
Carolina New River Campus would be a centralized, un -biased resource for
collecting and analyzing water quality data. Having a good base of locally
collected data would also be Ueneficial in providing more regionally calibrated
stormwater requirements.
Work Towards a Network of Natural Areas
This report has shown that local governments in Southern Beaufort County
have been very aggressive in securing open space and natural areas.
However, Map 3 illustrates that most of these preserved places are discrete
and unconnected. As growth continues to occur, these natural areas will
become more isolated and will not effectively be able to support healthy
wildlife communities. In addition, as land becomes more scarce, it is more
importent to prioritize areas with outstanding natural resources in order to
target future acquisitions of open space.
1bree studies discussed earlier in this report, the Broad and New River
Watersheds Welland Management Project and the Gap Analysis Project
provide a good starting point in developing a regional master plan for
preserving natural areas. This master plan would also assist in the review of
individual developments to make more efficient use of buffers and open space
requirements in connecting natural areas.
Manage On -lot Septi ' c Systems
Many of the studies analyzed in this report point to the problem that
concentrated residential development on private septic systems poses to water
quality. Ue largest concentration of on -lot septic systems is within the
boundaries of Public Service District #1 on Hilton Head Island. "at
Authority is in the process of developing a plan to systematically extend sewer
to all of the development that is currently not served. Ibis report recommends
a more concerted effort to address concentrations of on -lot septic systems
elsewhere in the region, Map 4 indicates areas with concentrations of on -lot
septic systems. One of the recommendations from the Beaufort SAMP called
for requiring more stringent standards for on -lot septic systems. To
implement this recommendation would require a multi -jurisdictional approach
to insure uniformity of standards.
Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 31
APPENDIX 1: MAPS
Map 1: Natural Assets of Southern Beaufort County
N
w
E
R
R
ff
%
V.
�V7
1, tg.", 9- RVII
A4
......... ........
- ............
Southern Beaufort County jRegional Plan
page 32
11
El
MaD 2: Statue aiihellfiah lYPdc in Cnnr6em Ave..G.e n .....
Lj
Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 33
Map 3: Preserved Open Space
111temerva (,IV= space.,,
Swthem Smufort Couillity
JASPER
COUNTY
V
Via"
7,
so
HIsto
WWI,
Wz
P&WI@ft OW
4
J laufuskies"11
Island'
40, Oki
Ambmtto
Bluff
111,nd
Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
_4
page 34
0
4)
Ll
4
J laufuskies"11
Island'
is
Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
_4
page 34
0
4)
Ll
0
Man d- rnnerntnlinne of C)n-int Srntie.Svateme
• Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
ol
Ej
0
Land Use Patterns and Trends
Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
3
Section 1: 1111stary of Modern Development In Southern
Beaufort comfy
4
Bridge to the bland
5
Incorporation of Hilton Head bland
5
Development Spreads to the Mainland
6
The Annexation of palmetto Bluff and the Shults Tract
6
Looking Ahead: Jasper County and the City of Hardeeville
7
Summary
8
&cdon 2: Location, Amount and Growth Rate of Existing
and Future ImW Uses
8
Existing and Future Land Use Inventory and Characteristics
9
Estimating Population at Buildout of Committed Lands
12
Growth Potential of Uncommitted Lands
13
Rate of Growth: Population Trends and Projections
14
Resort and Seasonal Population
15
Summary
16
Section 3: Current Phunshig and Management Efforts
17
Comprehensive Plans
17
Land Management Ordinances
20
Planned Unit Developments (PUD's)
23
Development Agreements
24
Incorporation and Annexation
24
Corridor Overlay Districts/Design Review Boards
26
Examples of Regional Cooperation on Land Use issues
27
Section 4: liand Us* Immus of Regional Consideration
29
Appendix 1: Maps
33
Map 1: Chronology of Large Development Approvals
Map 2: Looking Ahead — Jasper County and Hardeeville
Map 3: Existing Land Use Inventory
Map* Projected Future Land Use
Map 5: Location of Planned Unit Developments
Map 6: Major Bluffton Annexations
Appendix 2: Population Projection Methodology for the
Town of Hilton Head bland
39
Appendix 3: Population Projection Methodology for the
Remainder of Southern Beaufort County
43
Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report
draft: 061&1=5
ip
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
pap 2
INTRODUCTION
n Southern Beaufort County, the issue of land use and land use planning has
been primarily addressed at the local government level. As the region has
become more developed, there has been a trend to gain more local control
over land use issues by incorporation, annexation and the creation of local planning
commissions and departments. While this is not a negative trend, many local land use
decisions have regional implications and require a regional framework to adequately
address the impacts of these decisions. Therefore, the challenge of this Land Use
Patterns and Trends Background Report is to take a step back and look at over -arching
land use decisions that have had an impact on the region as a whole. Land Use is a
very complex issue. Rather than focus on the minutia of minimum lot sizes, setbacks
and use types, it is more important to look at the common land use trends that have
shaped existing and will shape future development patterns. Many of these land use
trends are indirectly responsible for many of the challenges currently facing Southern
Beaufort County.
The purpose of the Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report is to provide an
accurate picture of the current state of development in Southern Beaufort County and
what the region would look like in the future once the current approved developments
aw, built out. Ile components of this report include the following:
* A review and analysis of historic growth patterns and how they have been
influenced and shaped by private developers and government actions.
4 An inventory of existing land use and a projection of future land use. This
information in addition to building permit data and approved development
densities will be used to determine existing population and forecast future
population and growth trends. Both projections of land use and population will be
estimated through the year 2020.
4 A summary of the local comprehensive plans, land management ordinances, and
other local tools used to manage land use.
* A summary of existing cases of where regional coopera tion is affecfing land use
decisions
The Report will conclude by identifying issues that would benefit from regional
cooperation and joint planning. These issues are meant to provide die starting point
for the setting of goals and imnlementation qtratevier hv the Steerina rnmmittpp. and
Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
draft: 0616/2005
page 3
the public. The following is a summary of these issues, as addressed more fully at the
conclusion of this report:
* Coordinate future land use planning between local governments by establishing a
jointly recognized future land use plan.
# Develop jointly recognized baseline standards for planned unit developments
(PUD's) and development agreements for such issues as open space, public
facilities, interconnectivity, mixed land uses, and environmental standards.
* Provide coordinated management and enforcement of corridor standards to reduce
clutter and provide a mom consistent quality of development along the roadways.
* Maintain a mutually shared regional system of collecting, organizing, and
disseminating existing and forecasted land use and population data will be needed.
* Work with Jasper County and the City of Hardeeville to provide consistency in the
areas of future land use, facilities planning, and adoption of environmental
'standards.
# Recognize the relationship between land use and other regional issues such as
natural assets, transportation and public facilities, and the cost of growth
SECTION 1: HISTORY OF MODERN DEVELOPMENT IN
SOUTHERN BEAUFORT COUNTY
Modem development began in Southern Beaufort County with the opening of the
bridge to Hilton Head Island in 1956. Before that time, Southern Beaufort County was
largely rural with the Town of Bluffton consisting of one square mile with scarcely
500 persons. The local economy was driven by agriculture, forestry, and oyster and
shrimp harvesting. Today Southern Beaufort County, whose local economy is based
on tourism, service industries and construction consists of two municipalities, the
Towns of Hilton Head Island and BlAfton, and the unincorporated county with a total
permanent population estimated at 63,7SS. This section will summarize the recent
history of development in Southern Beaufort County with an emphasis on pivotal
events that shaped this transformation from a rural to largely urbanized area. The first
of these events, as described above, is the opening of the bridge to Hilton Head Island,
which brought the island into the 2& century and opened it up for development. The
second event is the incorporation of the Town of Hilton Head Island, which brought
about the tradition of public sector land use planning in Southern Beaufort County,
The third event is the spread of development onto the mnWand. The fourth event is
the annexation of the Shults Tract and Palmetto Bluff b� !zie Town of Bluffton, which
positioned the town as a major player in the development of Southern Beaufort County
and set the stage for future annexations. The final section looks into the future and
analyzes the current conditions in Jasper County and the City of Hardeeville that may
foster the continued westward trend of development. This general westward trend of
development is illustrated in Map I (AppenAv 1), which shows the chronology of the
approval dates for the major developments in Southern Beaufort County.
Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report draft: 06/612005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 4
Bridge to the Island
Before 1956, Hilton Head bland had no land transportation access and was rural and
largely undeveloped. At that time the Hilton Head Company had been in the process
of purchasing many of the large tracts on the island for timbering. Charles Fraser, the
son of one of the principals, set his sights on developing a resort community on the
southern portion of the island that became Sea Pines. The concept of a large master
planned community with amenities such as tennis, golf, and preserved open space
caught on in other large land holdings on the island. By the time the Town
incorporated in 1983, 10 large master -planned communities had been approved
making up approximately 70% of the island. These developments set high standards
for natural resource protection, architectural design and quality recreational facilities.
These developments did, however, put a strain on local traffic because they left little
land for a sufficient road network and provided minimal connectivity between
developments. This traffic issue eventually led to the call for an additional roadway to
relieve congestion off of U.S. 278. This traffic situation was somewhat refieved when
the Cross bland Expressway was completed in 1997.
Incorporation of Hilton Head Island
During the 1970's and the early 1980's Hilton Head Island began to experience more
intense development in the form of hotels, condominiums and commercial
development outside of the master planned communities. At that time, Beaufort
County had only the most basic subdivision and land development regulations, which
did not control land use, density, or aesthetics. Inside the master planned
communities, however, private restrictive covenants controlled architecture,
landscaping, building height and land use. As development spilled outside of the
communities, island residents became concerned with the prospect of intense,
unsightly development. In 1983, island voters approved a referendum incorporating
the Town of Hilton Head Island. At the time of incorporation, the Town had
approximately 15,000 permanent residents and over 500,000 annual visitors. The 10
master planned communities were adopted as planned unit developments (PUD's)
providing a public sector regulatory component to the private communities. One of
the challenges the new town faced was developing regulations that mirrored many of
the pioneering land use controls used within the PUD's. These concepts included
open space requirements, tree preservation, architectural standards and natural
resource protection. In 1987, Hilton Head Island Town Council adopted its fast Land
Management Ordinance.
Land use trends on Hilton Head Island have had an impact on Southern Beaufort
County in many different ways. First and foremost, as a resort community and major
employment center, a tremendous amount of traffic is generated that must travel on
U.S. 278 through Blufflon and unincorporated Beaufort County to reach the island. In
addition, the limited availability and high cost of commercial land has resulted in
many large retail establishments choosing to locate in the Bluffton area creating
additional congestion along the major roadways. Hilton Head Island, however, set
high standards for natural resource protection, architectural design and quality
Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report draft: 06/6/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 5
recreational facilities that were emulated when development spread to other areas in
the region.
Development Spreads to the Mainland
Prior to the initial development of Moss Creek and Rose Hill in the mid 1970's, the
mainland of Southern Beaufort County was largely rural. Bluffton had scarcely 500
people and covered roughly one square mile. While residential and commercial
growth in the Bluffton area had been occurring at a significant pace during the
previous two decades, the most significant event that accelerated the spread of
development onto the mainland was the arrival of DelWebb (Sun City) on over 6,000
acres of pine forest I I miles west of Hilton Head Island. In 1993, Beaufort County
Council approved a 6,385 -unit retirement community that became an anchor for the
western part of the U.S. 278 Corridor. Sun City was followed by Belfair, Engle's
Point, Crescent Plantation, Berkeley Hall, Island West and many other smaller
developments, which brought the prospect of over 5,000 additional approved housing
units to Southern Beaufort County. In 1990, Beaufort County adopted its first zoning
ordinance. In 1994, responding to increasing commercial development pressures,
Beaufort County adopted its first Corridor Overlay District establishing architectural,
landscaping and lighting standards along U.S. 278. The trend for more commercial
development continued and by the end of the decade, the commercial district was
attracting many Hilton Head Island residents to businesses such as Home Depot,
Target and the Outlet Malls.
Moss Creek, Colleton River, Belfair, Berkeley Hall, Rose Hill and other communities
continued the tradition of high quality individual development established on the
Island. However, collective development patterns in the last 20 years along the U.S.
278 corridor in Beaufort County have contributed considerably to the current traffic
congestion experienced on the roadway today. As individual developments were
approved along the corridor, little to no conctideration was given to the need for
interconnectivity between developments er the need for a parallel route to U.S. 278.
As a result, most of the large PUD's, especially on the north side of U.S. 278 are
limited to one access in and out of the community and in some cases limited access to
adjoining commercial areas. This arrangement forces much of the local traffic onto
U.S. 278, adding to congestion problems.
The Annexation of Palmetto Bluff and the Shults Tract
Before 1998, the Town of Bluffton consisted of roughly one square mile. Although
the building boom in full swing at that time was directly impacting the Town, it w
as
largely occurring beyond the Town's jurisdiction. For this reason, the Town began to
look at annexation as a means to possess more local control over future development.
In November 1998, Bluffton annexed Palmetto Bluff (20,660 acres) and the Shults
Tract (620 acres) (See Map 6). Because these tracts were large and undeveloped, a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) accompanied by a Development Agreement was
used to master plan future development and provide the Town with open space,
Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report draft: O&UMS
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page, 6
0
0
0
parkland, environmental controls, and gap funding to assist die Town in providing
services in the interim before significant tax revenues would be generated by the new
developments. The Town's innovative use of the development agreement set the stage
for future annexations. hi 2000, two more large tracts, the Buckwalter Tract (5,600
acres) and the Jones Estate (4,400 acres) annexed into Bluffton, increasing the Town
to over 50 square miles, making it one of the largest municipalities (in area) in South
Carolina. Responding to the need for a parallel roadway to U.S. 278, Bluffton, with
the Shults Tract and Buckwalter Development Agreements and Beaufort County with
the Oaks Development Agreement were able to secure the right-of-way for the
Bluffton Parkway. The Buckwalter Development Agreement also secured the right-
of-way for the Buckwalter Parkway providing another north -south connection from
U.S. 278 to Highway 46.
In addition to land area, the newly annexed tracts provided the potential for substantial
population growth. The Shults Tract, Palmetto Bluff, the Buckwalter Tract and the
Jones Estate were approved by Bluffton for a total of 18,900 housing units. Facing the
prospect of substantial future growth, in October 1999, the Town appointed its first
Planning Commission and shortly thereafter its first Town Manager, In May 2000, the
Town's first Planning Department was formed.
Looking Ahead: Jasper County and the City of
Hardeeville
As vacant land becomes scarcer and more expensive in Beaufort County, development
will likely spread further west into Jasper County. Commercial development has
already begun to get a foothold in Jasper County with the opening of Walmart, the
New River Auto Mail, and the Palmetto Electric Cooperative headquarters in the
vicinity of U.S. 278 and John Smith Road. In addition, University of South Carolina
Beaufort's New River Campus and the proposed campus site for the Technical College
for the Lowcountry are located in the western end of Southern Beaufort County and
provide an institutional anchor that may encourage more development westward.
The City of Hardeeville, located approximately 5 miles west of Sun City, is well
positioned to become a major player in ftiture development west of Beaufort County.
In December 2003, Hardeeville City Council gave first reading to two large
annexations, the Anderson Tract (2,700 acres) and the Morgan Tract (1,40D acres).
Annexation of these two tracts would triple the current size of the city to 11.5 square
miles. These annexations are awaiting second reading and it is likely that Hardeeville
will follow Bluffton's lead and pursue development agreements to insure quality
development and adequate land for future public facilities. (For example, there are
already discussions with the owners of the Anderson Tract about providing the right-
of-way that would accommodate extending the Bluffton Parkway west toward
Interstate 95). Other large tracts, located in the vicinity of Hardeeville include the
Karrh Tract, the Hardeeville Tract and the Argent Tract (which alone encompasses
over 13,000 acres).
Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report draft: 06/6/2005
Soinhern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 7
There are other factors that have the potential to improve the climate for development
in Jasper County. Jasper County is pursuing a new container port facility and business
park on 1,776 acres of dredge spoils on the Savannah River south of Hardeeville. The
Coastal Carolina Medical Center, an 85,000 square -foot, 41 -bed hospital located in
Hardeeville, recently opened in November 2004. Finally, the Jasper County School
District is in the process of building two new campuses, one in Ridgeland and one in
Hardeeville with completion scheduled for 2006. It is anticipated that these new
facilities will help improve the image of the school district, which has been perceived
to be an obstacle to residential development in Jasper County.
Summary
When analyzing recent development trends, one of the common themes encountered
throughout is the popularity and predominance of large, amenity -based, low-density
master planned communities. This phenomenon is generally the result of two factors.
Southern Beaufort County had many large tracts of land that were a result of historic
plantation landholdings and consolidation of parcels by timber companies. These
large parcels facilitated the large-scale nature of the master planned communities. In
addition, Sea Pines set the trend for future developments wishing to capitalize on the
popularity of its quality development, low residential density, natural amenities, open
space and other amenities. Planning of these communities has been primarily a private
sector endeavor with great care given to internal road networks, the delivery of
services, and private covenants ensuring that development standards are high within
the developments. The planned unit development (PUD) has been the preferred
zoning tool to facilitate the development of these communities because it provides
greater site design flexibility. Outside of the master planned communities,
government was faced with the challenge of providing roads, infrastructure, and land
use regulations to connect the rest of the community together. This dynamic is at the
root of many challenges currently facing Southern Beaufort County. For example,
many of the region's current transportation inadequacies are a result of poor
interconnectivity between the master planned communities and insufficient land being
available for an adequate road network.
SECTION 2: LOCATION, AMOUNT AND GROWTH RATE OF
EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USES
7bis section will look at the location, amount and growth rate of existing and future
land uses in Southern Beaufort County. It is based on analyzing past trends and
making projections based on those trends into the future. Ile first part of this section
looks at the location and distribution of land uses. Ile analysis of existing and future
land use then provides the framework on which population projections are based.
Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report draft: 06/6/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 8
0
0
Existing,and Future Land Use Inventory and
Charact- istics
The location aspect of land use relates to the geographic pattern and distribution of
land uses across the region. The land use categories used in this inventory are general
in nature in order to provide an overall picture of development patterns in Southern
Beaufort County. The categories are used in both the existing and the future land use
inventories with the exception of the last two categories.
Figure l: Existing and Future Land Use Categories
red UtM Cnpot�r Deflnftlon
w I + Rs�ide`r�dal All standard single-family and mufti -family developments
RetildsndeVAmenhy: Residential communities with significant recreational
i, amenities such as golf courses, horse stables and/or
i marinas.
I�Si r
', s Nonjreeklsritik Retail, services, offices, other commercial uses, and light
i Industry.
Resort ! Resort communities, hotels, RV parks, and marinas not
associated with residential communities.
Institutional . Municipal buildings, public works, schools, universities
and large churches.
II: I
Parke/Pressrvee/Islende All large municipal and county parks, both publicly and
privately preserved lands, and small Islands with no road
I ' < access.
UrxleV4loptxjti3emi+rural This category only applies to the existing land use map. it
�t
egundevelopedlies to all currently gardless If they are committedfor futusemi-rural and areas
re development.
opme
re
Uncoinmftted This category only applies to the future land use map. It
applies to all undeveloped or semi rural areas that are
currently not slated for future development (In other words
do not have development approvals, like PUD or
subdivisionapproval).
Existing Land Use Inventory: The inventory of existing land uses is based on what is on
the ground today. In large, mull -phased developments, such as the Del Webb (Sun City)
PUD, only the areas that are actually subdivided are shown as existing development.
Future phases of such developments are classified as Undeveloped/Semi-rural. Map 3
(Appendix I) illustrates the distribution of these existing land uses in Southern Beaufort
County. Figure 2 below shows the proportion of each land use compared to the total land
area of Southern Beaufort County.
• Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report draft: 06/6/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 9
Figure 2: Existing Land Use Inventory -
i M and Ut;iq Catapory , z Hilton Headr' t8luffton % Total
Island ac. 1 'Ana' a0i Land
2,733 075 6.9%
ti, ;'ResldtntladA `! 12,713 21 209 34.40%
2,215 6 4.3%
:' 1.0%
176 "a 0.69'e
atCs(I?reserves(Ii1d�;' 1,954 X18 85+1" 18.9%
Urid�Velop�d/9er}iJ•GIr 1,170 f 32,145 33.8%
22.060 P.!, S AB t187°`i 100.0%
+Includes Daufuakie Island, Town of Bluffton and all uninco�poreted areas in the study area
Future Land Use projections. The future land use projections are based on what will
be developed in 2020 given what is currently approved for development through
subdivisions, PUD's and development agreements. Large parcels that have no current
plans for development or have not received development approvals are classified as
Uncommitted. Map 4 (Appendix 1) illustrates the distribution of projected future land
uses in Southern Beaufort County. Figure 3 below shows the proportion of each land
use category compared to the total land area of Southern Beaufort County.
Figure 3: Projected Future Land Uses
ati
Comparison of Existing and projected Land Uses: In comparing the inventory of
existing land uses to projected future land uses, it becomes immediately clear that only
a relatively small percentage of the total land area in Southern Beaufort County
remains uncommitted for future development. In the existing land use inventory,
approximately 34% of the total land area was classified as undeveloped/semi-rural.
Factoring in all areas approved for future development, only 10.9% of the region's
lands remain uncommitted. Figure 4, below, provides a comparison between existing
and projected land uses.
Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report draft: 06/6/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 10
• Figure 4: Comparison of Existing and Projected Land Uses
EXISTING PROJECTED
It is understood that many changes will occur in the next 15 years that will affect what
is depicted on the Future Land Use Map and in the chart above. More parcels will
likely be approved for development through zoning amendments, PUD's and
annexation. Conversely, more parcels will probably be acquired through the Rural and
Critical Lands Program and Hilton Head bland's Land Acquisition Program for
preservation purposes.
Density of Existing and Projected Development. Another important characteristic of
existing and future land use in Southern Beaufort County is that it has been developing
at a fairly low residential density. This is partly due to the prevalence of amenity
based master planned communities. Sea Pines on Hilton Head Island provides a good
example of this. Once commercial lands and saltwater marshes are subtracted from
the total acreage, the residential density of Sea Pines nets at 1.21 dwelling units per
acre. Old Bluffton, the only traditional town center that predates the automobile era
has a residential density of 1.28 dwelling units per acre. This figure, however, will
likely increase as infill projects are developed. This trend of developing at a low
density is likely to continue into the future. For example, the Jones Tract which is
currently undeveloped, is approved for 5,209 dwelling units but has a ressdential
density of only 1.26 dwelling units per acre. Figure 5 below provides the residential
density for a sample of developments in Southern Beaufort County.
Land Use Pattems and Trends Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
Figure 5: Residential Density for a Sample of Developments
;Dlwl�pmpnt _
Total UplandEitisting5Ond ',
Dwelling
,
Residential i ApproYsti
Units Per
Acro&ps•
Acro
—fines
3,872 4001
1.21
='r fjFllp��i efltl
3,296
1.36
1alorr
, f; �� s:�:
Del V ebbb(Sun.
4,295 8;089
1.41
COY
f 1ti I
1,620 1'`180:'i
0.73
„` �'QUGIiirBlter;'
5,230 ,: 8.�865;I
1.31
u;JonesTraot
4,124 , .. fi'20s�';
1.26
QI�I+Blttfittltl `,
254 "' 32'4';
1.28
Palmtitto.Bluff.'
14 260 4"y'80a
0.29
W
-noes not mctuae commerciu acreage or ianas mnuencea oy acres.
Estimating Population at Buildout of Committed
Lands
One of the primary focuses of the S�uthem Beaufort County Regional Plan is to assess
the impact of existing and future development on the provision of infrastructure and
public services. The first step to providing this estimate is to determine the capacity of
the land to support future development. On Hilton Head Island, this estimate is based
on the amount of residential and nonresidential development the Hilton Head Island
Planning Department staff estimates could reasonably be developed on the island,
based on existing development, existing zoning, and redevelopment opportunities. For
the rest of the study area (Bluffton area), this capacity is based on the number of
dwelling units that have been approved for future development through subdivisions,
PUD's and development agreements. Eventually the land's capacity will be used up
with available land becoming more scattered, scarce and expensive to acquire. When
the land's capacity to support more development is depleted, the term "buildout" is
applied.
In considering population growth and development, the population of the study area
was divided into two components: the permanent population and the seasonal/resort
population (made up of short term residents and seasonal residents). Both the
permanent and seasonalfresort population estimates include estimates of Existing
population and Buildout population.
Using the methods described in Appendkes 2 and 3, the Existing (2005) permanent
population of the Bluffton area is estimated at 28,248 and the Existing (2005),
permanent population of Hilton Head Island is estimated at 38,931, for a total of
67,179 in the study area.
Land Use Patterns and
Trends Background Report draft: 06/6/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 12
• On Hilton Head Island, Buildout permanent population is estimated based on the
Existing permanent population plus the number of dwelling units the Hilton Head
Island Planning Department staff estimates could reasonably be developed on the
island, based on existing development, existing zoning, and redevelopment
opportunities — less seasonal and vacant units. Persons per household figures are
applied to the total number of new permanent units to yield Buildout population
estimates for Hilton Head Island. See Figure 6. (See Appendix 2 for a more detailed
discussion of the methods used in the estimates.)
Build -out permanent population for the Bluffton area is estimated based on the
Existing population, plus the number of persons that are estimated to reside in the
approved, yet unbuilt, dwelling units within the study area, less the persons in seasonal
units. Approved, but unbuilt dwelling unit estimates are based on the units in approved
subdivisions, PUD's and development agreements. Persons per household figures are
applied to the total number of new permanent units to yield Buildout population
estimates. See Figure 6. (See Appendix 3 for a more detailed discussion of the
methods used in the estimates.)
The Permanent population at Buildout of the Bluffton area is estimated at 81,513 and
the Permanent population at Buildout of Hilton Head Island is estimated at 53,329, for
a total of 134,842 in the study area. See Figure 6.
Figure 6: Estimates of Existing (2005) Permanent Population and Permanent
0 Population at Buildout
*Includes Daufuakie Island and all unincorporated area*, excludes uncommitted lands described
separately.
These population estimates indicate that an additional 67,663 permanent residents are
expected in Southern Beaufort County based on development that has been approved,
but not yet built. The large majority of these additional residents, about 80%, are
expected to settle in the Bluffton Area. While Hilton Head Island is nearing buildout,
it is anticipated there will be an additional 14,398 permanent residents.
Growth Potential of Uncommitted Lands
As is discussed earlier in the Report, all but 10.9% of the land area of Southern
Beaufort County is either committed to future development or preserved from
development. Almost all of the remaining 10.9% of uncommitted lands (10,784 acres)
• Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report draft: 06/6/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 13
Town of
Uninoodporaied,
Town of
Total;';;.
Bluffton
Hilton Hood
1
Count "
blond
I
Existing
3,359
! 24,8119 !
38,931
ti7,17/
Po . 2005
Buildout
36,035
45,478
53,329:
(Pooilatlon
*Includes Daufuakie Island and all unincorporated area*, excludes uncommitted lands described
separately.
These population estimates indicate that an additional 67,663 permanent residents are
expected in Southern Beaufort County based on development that has been approved,
but not yet built. The large majority of these additional residents, about 80%, are
expected to settle in the Bluffton Area. While Hilton Head Island is nearing buildout,
it is anticipated there will be an additional 14,398 permanent residents.
Growth Potential of Uncommitted Lands
As is discussed earlier in the Report, all but 10.9% of the land area of Southern
Beaufort County is either committed to future development or preserved from
development. Almost all of the remaining 10.9% of uncommitted lands (10,784 acres)
• Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report draft: 06/6/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 13
is located in unincorporated Beaufort County and zoned either Rural or Rural with
Transitional Overlay, which permits a maximum density of 1 dwelling unit per three
acres. More than half of the uncommitted lands are located In the future growth area
for the Town of Bluffton. In considering future population growth in the study area, it
is also important to consider the potential for growth and development on these
uncommitted lands.
Figure 7 below illustrates two future scenarios of population growth on these
uncomn-d( } lands. The first scenario assumes that the uncommitted lands will
develop at their current approved rural density of one dwelling unit (d.u.) per three
acres. The second scenario assumes the land is either rezoned or annexed at a more
typical developed density of 1,11 d.u. per acre. This figure represents an average of
the densities from the sample of developments in Figure 5.
Figure 7: Growth Potential of Uncommitted Lands
Ptoje ted Poptlltillon of. j
Unoommitted Londe
BulldotdPermanent•
Rural Density 1
d.u. per 3 acres , :•
134,842 1
141.528
The population estimates in Figure 7 do not make a distinction between permanent
and seasonal residents or account for land that may be used for non-residential
purposes. The estimates do, however, illustrate that the wmaining uncommitted lands
have the potential to provide a considerable amount of additional growth to Southern
Beaufort County.
Rate of Growth: Population Trends and Projections
The next question considered is when will buildout occur, or at what rate will this
future population growth occur. To do this, two different methods are used for the
study area, reflecting the different growth dynamics of Hilton Head Island and the
remainder of Southern Beaufort County. Because Hilton Head Island is approaching
buildout, the Town's planning staff chose not to apply historic growth rates to
determine future population growth. Instead planning staff assumed that buildout will
occur in 2020, and the estimated future population growth on Hilton Head Island is
allocated proportionately between 2005 and 2020, for five-year periods (2005-2010,
2010-2015, and 2015-2020). The 2020 buildout timeframe was chosen to be
consistent with the Hilton Head Island Comprehensive Plan (adopted in 1999 and
updated in 2004), which planned for a 20 -year buildout scenario.
Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report draft: 06/6/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 14
•_,.
0
For the remainder of Southern Beaufort County, an annually compounded growth rate
of 8.25% is used. This figure is based on the growth rate for the period between 2000
and 2005. The annually compounded growth rate for the five-year period of 2000-
2005 was chosen because it represented a time when the anticipated growth of the
newly annexed areas of the Town of Bluffton began in earnest Much of the future
growth of Southern Beaufort County will occur within the boundaries of the Town of
Bluffton. The annually compounded growth rate of 8.25% also represents the lowest
of each of the historic timeframes shown in Appendlr 3 (Figaro 12). As Southern
Beaufort County becomes more populated, the rate of growth may decline even if the
same number or more residents are added each year. This is because as the population
grows it will take more persons each year to maintain a constant rate of growth. It is
important to understand that this growth rate is being used for forecasting purposes
only based on the assumption that the rate of growth in the past will continue into the
future. Many unforeseen variables can influence future population growth. .
Based on the annual growth rate of 8.25%, the remainder of the committed lands in
Southern Beaufort County will approach buildout during the year 2018. This time
frame closely matches the year 2020 chosen for the Town of Hilton Head Island.
Appendix 2 and 3 provide summaries of the methodology used to determine the rate of
future population growth. Figure 8 provides a summary of projected population
growth in Southern Beaufort County in five-year increments.
Figure 8: Projected Permanent Population Growth on Committed Lands in
Southern Beaufort County
Year.
Town of Unlnoor orated :
Town of
Total
Bluffton So ufort '
Hilton Head
r
Island
2005j;',
3,359,;;y:.
38,931
F",,
12610: '
10,200 :•i ::, 31 `l18'
43 730
,`.:: ,. , " 85'`7,18
2p�5
23,725 08,88T
48,530
Q'10;8a2'
2020x;:`.
47185"" 1 '' 4b 58b",� `
53,329
1'46`098`
*Includes Daufuslde Island and all unincorporated areas
**Thin figure exceeds the buildout projections provided in Figure 6 because buildout is
expected to occur in 2018.
Resort and Seasonal Population
Estimating existing and future permanent population does not tell the full story of the
impact of future growth in Southern Beaufort County. Vacationers and seasonal
residents also have an impact on the region's roadways and other public facilities.
Hilton Head Island is distinguished from the other areas in the region for its large
number of resort accommodations — timeshares, short-term rentals, and hotels. The
remainder of the region has seven additional hotels today and a significant number of
seasonal residents.
t Note that this does not include the uncommitted lands. Depending on how that land is developed, it adds additional
development capacity to this analysis, as discussed above.
Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report draft: 06/6/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 15
Both Existing and Buildout estimates for the Seasonal/Resort population in Hilton
Head Island and the Bluffton area were estimated. A detailed discussion of the
methods used in these estimates are included in Appendix 2 (Hilton Head Island) and
Appendix 3 (Bluffton area). These estimates are outlined in Figure 9 below. These
seasonal population estimates do not represent how many additional seasonal dwellers
and vacationers are in Southern Beaufort County at an; given time. The numbers
represent the region's capacity to support resort and seasonal population.2
The estimates indicate that the Existing seasonalfresort population (Year 2005) for the
study area is 50,653. The seasonal/resort population at Buildout is estimated to be
72,038. See Figure 9.
Figure 9: Existing and Projected Capacity to Support Resort and Seasonal
Population
Year Town of UpInoorpora d Town of ToUI
Bluffton
t� Bo'�er�f�trort, ,`;
Won Head
(Cou a .
Island
>
430 sa, k 3A464;<
50i WT
20 iD
1,546
='. '"' 4'27 '
50,887
I';` `b8'•106;
201$"i
2,335:,.-
6,..3.•1.3
55,036
83;)3t14?
5.527
". • • 7.327
59,184
• Includes Daufuskle Island and all unincorporated areas
Summary
Based solely on the available supply of land in approved developments, Southern
Beaufort County stands to gain 67,663 additional permanent residents. Based on past
population growth trends, the timeframe to reach this number is in the next 15 to 20,
years. The implications of this growth on public facilities needs such as
transportation, recreation, libraries and schools will be explored in the Transportation
and tither Public Facilities Background Report.
Although uncommitted lands make up only 10.9% of the total land area of Southern
Beaufort County, they also have the potential to accommodate over 25,000 additional
residents to the estimated buildout estimate of 134,842 persons. Additionally, and as
is discussed above, the estimated seasonal/resort population at Buildout will also place
additional demands on the region. Figure 10 below summarizes each of the population
estimates provided in this chapter.
2 I should be recognized, however, that during peak times of tho year these seasonal and resort units will be full, or close to
full.
land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report draft: 06/6/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 16
•
Figure 10: Summary of Permanent and Seasonal Population Estimates
• Pennenent �, PKnNttwrtt t111tl Resort and
CommittedtiMionel ., Y T' seasonal
1.
Populellon ;UnoommM�ed r,, Population
Eklntinp (2005)', 87,178 50,853
8ulklo6t S 34,842 260V5 ! 72,038
SECTION 3: CURRENT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
EFFORTS
Comprehensive Plans
In 1994, the State of South Carolina adopted the Local Government Comprehensive
Planning Enabling Act, which required for the first time that all counties and
municipalities regulating land use adopt a Comprehensive Plan. The plan was
required to cover, at a minimum, cultural resources, natural resources, population,
housing, community facilities, economic development and land use issues. It must
provide an inventory and analysis, list needs and goals, and identify implementation
strategies. All three local jurisdictions have adopted comprehensive plans. In this
section the land use elements of the three comprehensive plans will be summarized
and compared.
Beaufort County: The Beaufort County Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1997
and reviewed in 2002. Its Future Land Use Plan establishes a growth management
strategy where future growth is targeted in municipalities and the areas surrounding
them. This growth management strategy is intended to further the following six goals:
♦ Maintain the distinction between rural and developing areas within the County;
• Protect the character and quality of existing communities and ensure that new
development shares the characteristics of diversity and quality of life that makes
Beaufort County unique;
♦ Define and perpetuate an ethic of quality growth;
♦ Foster and manage economic development;
♦ Manage growth through infrastructure investment policies and plans; and
♦ Recognize and accommodate constraints to growth.
As an implementation mechanism for the above listed goals, the County is divided into
three major areas of investment and growth management. These investment areas an;
intended to target new development and public sector investment in areas of the
County that are best positioned to receive them while preserving the rural areas. The
three investment areas are defined below:
Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report draft: 06/6/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 17
♦ Priority Investment Areas: These are areas that will receive priority investment for
funded infrastructure including schools, roads, and also receive
•
publicly parkland,
priority for sewer and water service expansion. Priority investment areas are
located in and around municipalities and developed areas. In Southern Beaufort
County Priority Investment Areas apply to all of the PUD's in the unincorporated
areas of the County, the lands surrounding Old Bluffton and the commercial areas
along U.S. 278.
♦ Transitional Investment Areas: These are areas of the County that will receive
moderate capital investment and/or are likely to become priority investment areas
within a 10 to 15 year horizon. Developers and property owners in these areas can
build higher density development if they fund the cost of bringing infrastructure
and services to the site. These include water and sewer, roads, schools, fun,
emergency services and parks. In Southern Beaufort County, Transitional
Investment Areas apply to the Ulmer properties located east of Bluffton and
originally to parts of the Buckwalter Tract and Palmetto Bluff.
♦ Rural Investment Areas: These are areas that are intended to remain rural for the
foreseeable future and will receive a limited amount of public capital investment
and basic services. Density in Rural Investment Areas is limited to one dwelling
unit per three acres and the extension of public sewer service into rural areas is
restricted. In Southern Beaufort County, Rural Investment Areas apply to
unincorporated areas along S.C. 46, along S.C. 170 north of McGarvey's Comer
and to the Pinckney Colony area.
Beaufort County's Future Land Use Plan is best suited for a region with a traditional
development rings of suburban development and rural
•
pattern of with central places,
areas in between. In reality, development in Southern Beaufort County is spread out
over a large area with no dominant central places. When Beaufort County reviewed its
Comprehensive Plan in 2002, it also became clear that the plan did not anticipate the
rate of growth in Southern Beaufort County or the role that annexation would play in
the growth of the Town of Bluffton. Therefore, it was recognized by the County that
the Comprehensive Plan's growth management strategy may not be suitable for all
areas of Southern Beaufort County and that a new planning approach should be
pursued for the region. This discussion led to the recommendation that Beaufort
County and the two municipalities participate in a regional plan for Southern Beaufort
County with the goal of establishing a shared vision for such matters as the
preservation of open space and the provision of schools, infrastructure, and roads.
Town of Blrf'i'on: Bluffton's Comprehensive Plan, adopted in May 1999 was
prepared shortly after Palmetto Bluff and the Shults Tract had been annexed into the
Town, but prior to the annexations of the Buckwalter and Jones Tracts. The land use
element of the 1999 Comprehensive Plan has three general focus areas, "Old
Bluffton", the newly annexed areas, and regional land use issues.
♦ Old Bluffton: Bluffton's Comprehensive Plan promotes the protection and
enhancement of the "Old Bluffton" area (generally defined as the original one
square mile). The plan called for the adoption of a Village Character Overlay
i
Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report dam: 06/6/2005
page 18
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
District to encourage the preservation of historic structures and to promote
• historically sensitive infill development.
♦ Newly Annexed Areas: When the Town's Comprehensive Plan was adopted,
Palmetto Bluff and the Shultz Tract were recently annexed. Ito plan called for
integrating these areas into the Town's existing fabric as much as possible. The
plan cautioned against newly annexed areas becoming fragmented subdivisions
with no relation to "Old" Bluffton.
4 Regional Land Use Issues: The Plan called for future annexations to include lands
south of US 278 west of SC 170, north of the May River, and east of the
intercoastal waterway (with the exception of the Rose Hill and DelWebb PUD's).
The plan called for close coordination with Beaufort County to insure consistency
with adjoining land uses. The plan also cautioned against the fragmentation of the
Town by encouraging the annexation of "donut holes that is unincorporated areas
surrounded by town lands.
In 2004, the Town produced the Comprehensive Plan Update Internal Assessment
Report and Preliminary Outline, which provides a strategy and schedule of its
comprehensive plan update with completion anticipated in July 2005. The land use
element will be the first element to be addressed in this update. While the draft land
use element is not yet available for review, the internal assessment report provides an
initial summary of what direction the Town might beheaded in. The assessment
report calls for a continuation of the policies promoting mixed land uses and discusses
furthering this goal by incorporating "transect" planning principles. The transect is an
idealized cross-section of development patterns which outlines a natural progression
• from rural to suburban to urban development intensities. Rather than emphasizing
land use control, the transect emphasizes the control of development intensity,
building forms and street layouts and widths. The transect also encourages multi -
centered development.
Town of Hilton Head Island. The Town of Hilton Head Island adopted its first
Comprehensive Plan in 1985 (2 years after the Town's incorporation), later revising it
in 1991. It was rewritten in 1999 to conform to the 1994 South Carolina Planning Act
and most recently updated in 2004. There are generally six land use goals in the
Town's Plan:
4 Insure that future land uses do not adversely impact the environment through
better oversight in the placement of structures in environmentally sensitive
areas and through better stormwater management techniques.
0 Identify an acceptable level of future development that does not overtax the
areas natural environment and infrastructure. This can be done by reducing
overall allowable densities and by continuing to purchase lands that would
adversely impact the island if developed.
• Balance the demand for recreation and the environmental health of the
waterways.:
4 Promote quality infill development and use redevelopment opportunities to
promote more pedestrian friendly retail environments.
4 Provide better emergency preparedness.
Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report draft: 06161=5
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 19
♦ Encourage continual intergovernmental cooperation on regional land use
issues. The land use element specifically calls for the participation in the •
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan.
Hilton Head Island's future land use goals represent those of a more maturely
developed community and therefore address issues of infill development,
redevelopment and the buildout of the island's remaining vacant parcels. The plan
emphasizes the sustainability of the balance of land uses; the balance of human
activity and the natural environment; and the balance between land uses and public
infrastructure and services.
Land Management Ordinances
In this section we will explore the ordinances and current planning tools used by the
three local governments: Rather than providing a detailed comparison of the three sets'
of zoning and development standards ordinances, this section focuses on the common
development tools used throughout the region. The main reason for taking a step back
from the details of the individual zoning districts and their accompanying regulations
is the predominance of the planned unit development (PUD) (further described in the
following section) in Southern Beaufort County over traditional zoning as a tool to
facilitate development. Each PUD is unique with its own density, open space and land
use requirements. As a result, current development patterns have been far more
influenced by PUD's than by the land use, density and other requirements set forth in •
the standard zoning districts. The zoning and development standards ordinances have
been most effective in addressing specific areas, such as Old Bluffton, where control
over lot patterns, site design and architecture are important in preserving the town's
character. Another area where the local ordinances have had significant influence is in
guiding the quality of growth, especially along the commercial corridors by
architectural, landscaping, lighting and signage requirements. Mop S provides an
illustration of the predominance of PUD zoning over traditional zoning in the region.
Beartjorf County. Beaufort County adopted a new Zoning and Development
Standards Ordinance (ZDSO) in 1999, which replaced the County's 1941
Development Standards Ordinance. The ZDSO is intended to implement the Beaufort
County Comprehensive Plan, a two-stage growth management strategy that divides the
County into Rural Service Areas and Priority Investment Areas. The ZDSO
incorporates both zoning regulations (use, lot size, setbacks, etc.) and development
standards (roads, stormwater management, subdivision regulations, etc.) into one
"unified" coda
The purpose of the Rural Service Area is to protect the rural character of the county, a
central goal of the comprehensive plan. Development is limited to a base density of
one unit per three acn.s in order to adequately handle septic systems. Design and
development standards for lot size, open space and landscaping are intended to reflect
the rural character of the County. The rural zoning districts also support traditional
Land Use Patterns and Trepds Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regionel Plan
draft: 0616/2005
page 20
sectors of the local economy such as farming, timbering and fishing, as well as family
• compounds and cottage industries to help families live and work on their land.
In contrast to the Rural Service Areas, the districts within Priority Investment Areas
are currently served, or proposed to be served within five years, by full urban services,
including public water and sewer. These districts include urban, suburban,
commercial and industrial categories. The urban and suburban districts permit a
diverse range of housing types and uses as well as local neighborhood commercial
services. Mixed -uses are also prominent in a number of Planned Unit Developments
approved by Beaufort County.
The Priority Investment Arca also includes Community Preservation districts, which
are intended to preserve and protect existing communities. Within Southern Beaufort
County, there are five CP districts: Pritchardville, Bluffton (unincorporated), Alljoy
Road, Buckingham, and Daufuskie Island. The ZDSO establishes interim standards
for these areas to promote compatible infill development until separate Community
Preservation Plans and accompanying development standards are adopted. The
County expects to complete the Alljoy Road CP Plan within the next several months.
The ZDSO also includes historic and natural resources standards to protect the quality
of the natural and historic environment. New developments are required to conduct a
site capacity analysis, which measures protected resources such as forests, wetlands,
and endangered species habitat on each site to ensure that proposed development does
not exceed the site resource's ability to sustain the development. Archaeological,
® historical and architectural resources are also promoted in a form that is close to their
historic use and character.
Town of Hilton Head Island. The Town of Hilton Head Island's Land Management
Ordinance (LMO) was first adopted in 1987 and has been continually amended. Like
Beaufort County, the LMO combines zoning regulations with design and performance
standards into one unified code.
Zoning districts within the LMO reflect the character of Hilton Head Island as a
quality resort and residential community. Districts are defined for conservation, parks
and recreation, residential areas (ranging from two to 12 units per acre depending on
the district), resort development, commercial areas, light industrial, and
office/institutional uses. Standards are intended to address the provision of adequate
infrastructure and services to accommodate development, while promoting excellence
in design and preservation of the Island's natural resources. The Town -approved
"master plans" for the major Planned Unit Developments on the Island are
incorporated by reference into the LMO. Several "mixed use" districts are also
included for the Stoney community, waterfront and marsh front areas of the island, and
the Central Forest Beach district to recognize these special areas of the Island.
Like Beaufort County's ordinance, the Town's LMO places special emphasis on
natural resource protection. Standards are provided to protect and conserve wetlands,
® Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report draft: 06/6/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 21
provide for the preservation and restoration of wildlife habitat and native vegetation,
promote the protection and stabilization of beaches, and protect the Island's tree cover
The Town of Blufflon: The Town of Bluffton adopted its first zoning ordinance in
1998, with a series of subsequent minor revisions and additions in order to facilitate
the Town's adopted land use policies. Unlike the County and Hilton Head Island,
Bluffton has a separate zoning ordinance and development standards ordinance.
The vast majority of the Town, roughly ninety-five percent (9596), is classi6edag.
Planned Unit Development (PUD) where Concept and Master Plans controf.dw
development pattern. Allowed land uses, maximum density, site developmaG
standards, and development schedules are addressed and negotiated within der
confines of the respective development agreements that govern each tract.
The Town's more traditional zoning districts apply primarily to the original one square
mile or "Old Town". Through the comprehensive planning process, design chareacs,
and other visioning processes the Town has identified basic tenants that are
represented within these zoning districts. These include the need to foster a mixture of
housing types and prices throughout the Old Town, the protection and preservation of
historic structures and districts that contribute to the character and uniqueness of
Bluffton, and the creation of a pedestrian oriented village that contains a mixture of
compatible land uses and services.
The Town's Mixed -Use District (MU) and Village Commercial District (VCD) are
designed for a pedestrian -oriented mixture of small scale commercial and low and
medium density residential development. The size and location of commercial uses
are meant to provide nearby residential areas with convenient shopping and service
facilities, thus fostering a pedestrian -oriented community center that reduces traffic
and parking congestion. Furthermore, the Village Commercial District aims to avoid
the development of strip highway commercial development and discourage large
regional businesses and other land uses that might compromise the historic
commercial character of the District.
Recognizing the importance of preserving the existing Historic District and protecting
it from irresponsible and incompatible development, the Town created the Historic
Preservation Overlay District. The purpose of this District is to promote the
educational, cultural, and general welfare of the public through the preservation,
protection, and enhancement of the old, historic, and/or architecturally -worthy
structures and areas of the Town; to maintain such structures as visible reminders of
the history and cultural heritage of the Town, the State, and Nation. The district is
administered by the Town's Historic Preservation Commission and development is
subject to the standards of the Blufflon Preservation Manual. .
Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
•.
draft: 06/6/2005 O
page 22
Planned Unit Developments (PUD's)
The popularity of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) in southern Beaufort County
goes back to Charles Fraser and Sea Pines. PUD's generally provide for greater
flexibility in site design than traditional zoning and therefore provide a better -suited
framework for the development of master planned communities. PUD's typically
allow for the establishment of overall community density and land use goals without
being bound by rigid lot size and setback standards. This allows for the clustering of
development, the provision of mon: open space and the creation of a mix of land uses.
Each PUD is unique with the land uses, density, and open space requirements
established by a master plan and accompanying ordinance and adopted by the local
governing body. All three local jurisdictions allow for PUD's in their land
management codes.
As discussed above, when Hilton Head Island incorporated in 1983, there were Io
large master planned communities on the island. The Town's first order of business
was to formalize these developments with PUD zoning, thus providing a public sector
regulatory component to the private covenants that controlled the developments.
Hilton Head Island's current land management ordinance allows for two types of
PUD's. The zoning district PD -2 (Planned Development Overlay District) applies to
sites between 5 and 250 acres. The PD -2 district allows flexibility in site layout but
requires density and uses to conform to the underlying zoning districts. The PD -1
(Planned Development District) can be applied to sites totaling over 250 acres. The
PD -1 District is a stand-alone zoning designation with no requirement to conform to
• standards established in the underlying zoning district. The PD -1 district allows
densities and uses to be established in the master plan, which must be approved by
Town Council. Both PD -1 and PD -2 allow for the acreage in a PUD to be non-
contiguous.
Both Beaufort County's and Bluffton's PUD ordinances have no minimum standards
for density, land uses or other requirements. All of these requirements are established
in the Master Plan for each individual PUD. Under Bluffton's PUD ordinance any site
that is at least four (4) contiguous acres is eligible for PUD zoning. All properties that
are developed as a PUD are required to develop a master plan, which is subject to
approval by the Town's Planning Commission and Town Council. Additionally, on
any site that is over two hundred (200) acres the applicant is required to submit a
Concept Plan at the time of rezoning or annexation if PUD Zoning is recommended.
Bluffton's PUD ordinance also has specific requirements for exterior buffers to protect
adjacent property from incompatible uses. PUD's were used extensively in
unincorporated Beaufort County prior to the adoption in 1999 of its current ZDSO,
which initially did not include a provision for PUD's. The rationale for removing the
PUD provision from Beaufort County's toolbox was that its new ZDSO already
provided for clustering, open spaces and mixed-use development in its standard zoning
districts. The ZDSO, however, was amended in December 2003 to add a provision for
PUD's that mirrored Bluffton's ordinance. One difference was that Beaufort County
establishes a two-tiered approach to minimum site area. PUD's in areas designated as
a Rural or Transitional Investment Area must have a minimum site area of 20 acres.
All other areas need only 4 acres
Land Use Pattems and Trends Background Report draft: 06/6/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 23
Development Agreements
In 11993 the South Carolina Local Government Development Agreement Act
established the Development Agreement as a tool to be used by local governments and
developers. The purpose of the development agreement is to provide for more
and orderly growth by allowing developers to "lock in" the existing land
predictable
use: regulations while providinil local government with a projected timeline for
development for better capital (facilities planning. Development Agreements also open
UP a negotiating process between local government and the developer allowing for
such things as affordable housing, design standards, open space, off-site improvements
and public facilities to be requited from the developer.
It is often misunderstood that development agreements supersede local ordinance
requirements. They do not. They merely vest these requirements for the duration of
the agreement. State legislation requires development agreements to conform to local
development standards. That is why they are often used in conjunction with PUD's.
The minimum site area that can be governed by a development agreement is 25 upland
acres. The duration of the agreement is dependent on the size of the land covered by
the agreement. Twenty-five (25)-acre development agreements are limited to a term
of 5 years. Development Agreements totaling over 1,000 acres can be 20 years or
longer.
Development agreements can be amended at any time by the mutual consent of both
parties. Local governments can also amend agreements if they can demonstrate that
if not would
substantial changes have occurred in pertinent conditions that, addressed,
affect health, safety and welfare.
The Town of Bluffton has made extensive use of development agreements. in 1998,
when the Town annexed Palmetto Bluff and the Shults Tract, the Town was able to
use the occasion to secure land for government facilities, parks, open space preserves,
and rights-of-way for the Bluffton Parkway and the Sheridan Park Connector. The
Town also levied administration fees collecting $200,000 at the time of annexation and
$150,000 annually for the next 8 years. This was important to the Town because it
providing "gap funding" for the time between the initial annexation and when
sufficient tax revenues began to be generated by new development. The Palmetto
Blufff/Shults Tract Development Agreement served as a model for subsequent large
annexations, which include the Buckwalter Tract, the Jones Tract, Willow Run,
Verdier Plantation and Kent Estates.
Incorporation and Annexation
Looking at the recent history of development in Southern Beaufort County, both
incorporation and annexation have been used by local municipalities to obtain more
local control over decisions. Hilton Head Island incorporated in 1983 for
this very reason.
Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report draft: 06/6/2005
page 24
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
/ncorporagion: Incorporation is accomplished in, South Carolina by special election
initiated by a petition signed by 15% of the electorate. The state requires the
• following conditions to be met prior to including a referendum on the ballot:
♦ Population density must be at least 300 persons per square mile.
♦ The area to be incorporated must not be within five miles of another municipality
♦ An approved service feasibility study must be filed and approved by the State.
♦ The area to be incorporated must be contiguous.
No areas of Southern Beaufort County now meet these requirements and it is highly
unlikely that any new municipalities will emerge in the future.
Annexadon: Annexation of unincorporated lands has been used frequently in Beaufort
County most extensively by the Town of Bluffton since 1998. South Carolina
provides three methods for which contiguous land can be annexed by a municipality:
♦ 100% freeholder petition: 100% of the property owners petition the municipality
to be annexed.
♦ 75% freeholder petition: 75% of freeholders owning at least 75% of the assessed
property to be annexed petition the municipality
♦ 25% elector petition: 25% of the electors in an area to be annexed petition the
municipality to have the question of annexation put on the ballot. This method
then requires a majority of voters in the area to be annexed to approve the ballot
issue.
tn')nnI_ tha Tnwn of Bhtfftnn adnnted an Annexation and Poliev Procedure Manual
future growth area for the town that includes all property that is bound by Jasper
County, to the west, the New River to the south, the Intercoastal Waterway to the east,
and U.S. 278 to the north. Below is a summary of the major annexations in the Town
of Bluffton. Figure 11 below and Map 6 provide information on major annexations
into the Town of Bluffton.
Figure 11: Major Annexations into the Town of Bluffton
Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
draft: 0616/2005
Page 25
Currently no joint land use plan or formal agreement exists between Beaufort County •
and the Town of Bluffton for land uses and residential densities for Bluffton's future
growth area.
Corridor Overlay Districts/Design Review Boards
Much of the allure of Southern Beaufort County is in the unique blend of the natural
and built environment. This design philosophy behind this blending of nature and
manmade development originated with Charles Fraser, the developer of Sea Pines
Plantation. Mr. Fraser was enamored by the natural beauty of Hilton Head Island and
was horrified at the -irospect of the island being developed in the manner of most
beachfront communities along the Atlantic coast. Mr. Fraser designed Sea Pines
around the natural features of the site. Roads snaked among the live oaks and
palmettos. Houses incorporated earth tones and blended into their environment. Deed
covenants were used to insure that the development of Sea Pines conformed to his
vision. This occurred two decades before zoning regulations were enacted on Hilton
Head Island. When the Town incorporated and adopted its own zoning code, aesthetic
requirements matching those developed in the private communities were an important
consideration. The Corridor Overlay District (COD) was established requiring design
review of all development along the island's main roads and waterfront. The Town
created the Corridor Review Commission, a subcommittee of its Planning
Commission, which was charged with protecting the visual character of the island.
This Commission eventually became a standalone board with architects, landscape
architects and other design professionals reviewing architecture, landscaping, lighting,
and signs for all development in the Corridor Overlay District.
All three local jurisdictions now have Corridor Overlay Districts. Hilton Head Islands
Corridor Overlay District applies both to properties fronting all major roads and to
waterfront and marsh -front properties. The Corridor Overlay Districts of the Town of
Bluffton and Beaufort County apply to all major highways in Southern Beaufort
County. The only discrepancy is that Bluffton's Corridor Overlay District applies to
Buckwalter Parkway and Bluffton Parkway. Beaufort County"s Corridor Overlay
District does not apply to these two roadways. The following is a summary of the
general requirements found in all three ordinances;
• Architecture: All three COD's have architectural standards that require innovative,
high quality design that blends with the natural surroundings and incorporates
Lowcountry elements. Pitched roofs, exposed rafter ends, muted colors and
context sensitive materials are encouraged. Blank building facades and long
unarticulated rooflines are not permitted:
♦ Landscaoine: All three COD's have a requirement for a highway buffer with
specific quantities of plant material required in the buffer. The width varies from
25 feet to 50. Landscaping requirements also include overstory trees in the
parking areas, foundation buffers and requirements to save and work around
existing trees.
Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan draft: 06/6/2005
page 26
♦ ti : Lighting requirements in all three of the COD's aro geared toward
. reducing glare for passing motorists. Fixtures are required to be "cutoff', that is
they are required to direct their light downward so the lighting source cannot be
visible from the highway.
♦ Signage: Monument signs are encouraged by limiting the height and overall size
of highway signs. Internally illuminated signs are prohibited. Signage colors are
required to be muted and signage materials should match those used on the '
building.
These guidelines are outlined within the body of each local land management
ordinance. In 2003, however, the Town of Hilton Head Island took a further step and
published the Hilton Head Island Design Guide. The Town realized that to define
"Island Character" with mere words did not adequately communicate what
architectural and site design qualities the Town was seeking. The purpose of this
design guide is to provide a visual complement to the ordinance language.
Beaufort County and the Town of Hilton Head Island both have appointed boards with
architects, landscape architects and other design professionals to review development
in the Corridor Overlay Districts. The Town of Bluffton Planning Commission
reviews developments within its Corridor Overlay District and issues a certificate of
appropriateness for all applicable projects.
• Examples of Regional Cooperation on Land Use Issues
In Southern Beaufort County, land use planning has been primarily addressed at the
local government level. One of the main reasons that Hilton Head Island incorporated
was to have greater local control over land use issues. When Bluffton consisted of one
square mile with less than 1,000 persons, they utilized the planning services of the
Lowcountry Council of Governments and the Joint Planning Board. As the Town
grew, it created its own planning commission and hired its own planning staff. There
is, however, still a need for a regional framework for land use planning decisions.
ibis section will briefly summarize some of the existing areas where regional
cooperation and coordination are occurring. Some of these relationships are
formalized with appointed boards with multi jurisdictional representation. Other
relationships are informal and consist of the sharing of information and services.
Loweounhy Council of Governments (LCOG): LCOG is a regional planning agency
that assists and supports local governments and encourages regional planning for
Beaufort, Colleton, Hampton and Jasper Counties. LCOG serves several important
functions that have regional land use planning implications. They prioritize projects
for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP); they review all wastewater
improvements for compliance with the 208 Water Quality Management Plan; they
submit grant applications for the HOME Program and the Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) Small Communities Program; they provide solid waste planning
for the a..-egion and they have written many plans and studies focused on such issues as
affordable housing, public transportation and economic development. The LCOG
OLand Use Patterns and Trends Background Report draft: 06161=5
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 27
Board includes representation from Beaufort County and each of the local
municipalities. •
Comprehensive Plan Review Process: The SC Local Government Comprehensive
Planning Enabling Act requires local governments to review their comprehensive
plans 5 years after adoption. Beaufort County was the first to do this In 2002 and held
several meetings with municipal officials and planning staffs on such shared issues as
land use, recreation, and transportation. Comments were included in the final
documents. Hilton Head Island followed a similar procedure and adopted their update
in 2004. The Town of Bluffton is in the early stages of updating their comprehensive
plan and plans to submit each element to other local governments for review and
comment. One common goal resulting from these efforts was the desire to create a
Southem Beaufort County Regional Plan.
Hazard Mitigation Planning: In order to conduct hazard mitigation planning, a
committee was formed consisting of officials from the county and each of the
participating municipalities. Through several meetings, this Hazard Mitigation
Planning Committee developed a countywide Hazard Mitigation Plan. The committee
reviewed the county's vulnerabilities to natural hazards and considered a wide variety
of ways to reduce and prevent potential damage from these hazards. The committee
then worked together to select the most appropriate and feasible mitigation measures
The Beaufort County Affordable Housing Consortium: The Consortium is a
countywide network of housing stakeholders that includes public sector officials,
representatives from non -profits, home builders, bankers, developers, real estate agents •
and interested citizens. They have a governing board with county and municipal
representation and a lead agency, the Lowcountry Community Development
Corporation that provides staffing.
Beaufort County Council Intergovernmental Relations and Economic Development
Committee: This is a subcommittee of Beaufort County Council that is charged with
fostering active communication and collective problem solving between all local
governmental entities in Beaufort County. Their purpose is to develop an information
flow by which items of mutual concern can be openly discussed and ultimately
presented to the local governing bodies of Beaufort County.
Other Boards and Committees: There are several other Boards and Committees with
multi jurisdictional representation that are discussed in greater detail in the other
Background Reports. These include the Rural and Critical Lands Board, the
Stormwater Management Utility Board and the Beaufort County Transportation
Advisory Group.
Planning Stgf'First Friday Sessions: Planning staffs from the regional governmental
jurisdictions have been meeting at least 6 times per year for the past few years to
discuss common planning problems and issues. This also included participation from
LCOG and the municipalities in northern Beaufort County. During the five-year
Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report draft: 06/6/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 28
• review of Beaufort County's Comprehensive Plan, this forum was used to gather
comments and suggestions.
EOC remsentadon during Xurrteane Evacuadon: Governmental staff from the
Towns of Bluffton and Hilton Head Island actively participate in joint efforts with the
County during hurricane evacuation and planning. This includes pro -season planning
efforts for evacuation and recovery; pre -storm daily briefings to effectively coordinate
evacuation timing, staging and logistics; representation in the County EOC to better
coordinate with the Town of Hilton Head Island's BOC staff; critical Town and
County staff re -location to Jasper County during the event; and coordination on re-
entry and recovery efforts.
Shared Soff Services. One of the best informal relationships between Beaufort
County and the Town of Bluffton is the sharing of engineering services. Beaufort
County provides technical review of stormwater management plans, roadway designs
and transportation impact analyses. This benefits the Town of Bluffton because it is
able to utilize the specialized technical expertise of the county's engineering staff and
benefits the region by providing consistent review, inspection and enforcement of
these requirements.
SECTION 4: LAND USE ISSUES OF REGIONAL
• CONSIDERATION
The comparison of the three land use plans and land management ordinances provided
earlier in this report did not yield fundamental differences in the way the three local
governments plan for and regulate land use. The region, however, would benefit from
better coordination of future land uses decisions, especially given that only 10.5% of
the land in Southern Beaufort County remains uncommitted for future development.
This section will focus on some of the opportunities for better regional cooperation
and joint planning. Once again, these issues are meant to be the starting point for the
setting of goals and implementation strategies by the Steering Committee and the
public.
Coordinating Future Land Use Planning
The future land use projections provided in this background report have indicated that
roughly 10,700 acres or 10.9% of the total land area of Southern Beaufort County is
undeveloped or uncommitted for future development. Much of this land is currently in
the county's jurisdiction but located in the future growth area of the Town of Bluffton.
It is therefore essential that both Beaufort County and the Town of Bluffton share the
same vision for the future of these areas. Broad based issues such as density, land use
and environmental standards should be seamless across local government boundaries.
A joint future land use plan for the area within Bluffton's growth boundaries would
provide a benchmark on which future PUD's and annexations could be evaluated. In
Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan draft' 06W=5
page 29
addition to having a jointly adopted land use plan, both jurisdictions would benefit
from coordinated review by local staff of PUD's and annexations prior to their
approvals.
Another opportunity for joint land use planning is in two areas designated by the
county as Community Preservation (CP) Districts located adjoining the Town of
Bluffton that have not yet engaged in local planning efforts. These are the Bluffton
CP and the Pritchardville CP. These Community Preservation plans could be
approached as a joint effort between Beaufort County, the Town of Bluffton and the
residents of the communities.
Baseline Standards for PUD's and Development
Agreements
This background report has indicated that both Planned Unit Developments and
Development Agreements are tools that have been used very prominently in Southern
Beaufort County. Both tools can be very beneficial because they can provide for
greater flexibility and produce standards that exceed those provided in standard zoning
districts. Both tools, however, open up the negotiating process that could result in
decisions being made today that may not adequately address future needs. Base
standards for PUD's and development agreements outlining base requirements for
open space, public facilities, interconnectivity, mixed land uses and environmental
standards could help to provide a more consistent approach to the use of these tools.
The Southern Beaufort County Regional planning process could provide a good forum
to identify these base requirements.
Providing Coordinated Management and Enforcement
of Corridor Standards
All three jurisdictions have similar standards for architecture, landscaping, lighting
and signage along the major highways. Yet, the public perception persists that there is
too much visual clutter along our roadways, especially along U.S. 278. Much of this
clutter is a result of code violations and development that was approved prior to the
adoption of Corridor Overlay District standards. There are several opportunities,
however, for better coordination between local govermnents in reviewing and
enforcing developments within the Corridor Overlay District. Joint coordination of
corridor planning, development review and a more concerted effort to enforce design
standards could help to reduce clutter and provide a more consistent quality of
development along the roadways.
Joint Corridor Planning. There are several highway corridors that have dual
jurisdiction between Beaufort County and the Town of Bluffton that would benefit
from joint planning. One example is Highway 46 between U.S. 278 and the four-way
stop sign in Bluffton serves as one of the gateways to Bluffton. Currently, Beaufort
County requires a 25 -foot wide landscaped buffer along the highway where Bluffton is
Lend Use Pattens and Trends Background Report draft: 06/6/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 30
•
encouraging zero front yard setbacks and pedestrian friendly development. A joint
• corridor plan could help better define this gateway into the town and recommend more
coordinated standards. Other important corridors include Highway 170 and Burnt
Church Road
Joint Revkw and Enforcement: Beaufort County and the Town of Bluffton may
want to explore the possibility of using the same Corridor Review Board to evaluate
development within the Corridor Overlay District in both jurisdictions. Another area
for joint coordination could be to share code enforcement responsibilities for Corridor
standards.
Maintaining Regional Land Use Information
The process of preparing this report has highlighted the lack of current comprehensive
regional land use data. This report was developed only after extensive sharing of
information between the staffs of the three jurisdictions. Up until this time, no one had
tried to assemble this type of data for Southern Beaufort County. For any future
regional planning approach to succeed, a system of collecting, organizing,
maintaining, and disseminating existing and forecasted land use and population data
will be needed.
Looking beyond to Jasper County and the City of
Hardeeville
Development is spreading west into Jasper County and the City of Hardeeville and
there is an immediate need to coordinate planning efforts beyond the boundaries of
Beaufort County. This is already happening with the planning for a western extension
of the Bluffton Parkway. As Southern Beaufort County continues to grow, its
transportation needs will become more interdependent with those of neighboring
counties. Additional coordination is needed in the areas of future land use, facilities
planning and adoption of environmental standards. The Natural Assets and Natural
Constraints to Growth Background Report summarized all of the existing efforts to
address water quality issues in Beaufort County. Many of these efforts need to be
continued beyond the Beaufort County's boundaries. Jasper County shares two .
important watersheds with Southern Beaufort County, the New River and the Okatie
River. The application of stormwater best management practices in Jasper County and
the City of Hardeeville is vital in meeting the region's water quality goals.
Relationship between Land Use and Other Regional
Issues
One of the things that quickly become apparent when analyzing land use is that it
intersects with all of the other topics of this regional planning process, including
natural assets, transportation and public facilities, and cost of growth. It is difficult in
many cases to know where to draw the line between "land use" and other issues. For
• Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report draft: 06/6/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 31
•
2
APPENDIX 1: MAPS
Map 1: Chronology of Large Development Approvals
Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report draft; 06/6/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 33
Map 2: Looking Ahead — Jasper County and the City of Hardeeville
l�f `����y .,�y. tKi Jt��1 �� lgY7. /� '• �� : ���_ .� Ji +1':j
f' r
�-7,:�
,rte• t tt v � tt ! �� t 7 Y,. � Y' ( }; �• ^ '
t j I • MIS
)t
u a,+ tl 'ykr} a � ter• 3 .., a1 .� � ,x.7�F r
ti�'� ".:,�`�ir ,&3}p, '! +.fit 1 > -r , � 4 w� �yyY � �I �rvt' �.�.t' ,,+.r.x •,l_.'.
� 1
i
s ��; f '^ "5V�*_rf�'� 7 �'•!'rlw7F'Y'�.j'4!
17 9! "� ?Ky �� t y�r f 1✓ti N � f {� � �•.", v. . �ioJ? �:: j'mCcc,� �a �� ��
s.f 11: "I tir' ! ��.,,,, t p fa•L -..)t Il' j p % iiYN{i .sl y t• r .. V.,,1
ae .,;t'. r'r•llf� '+!»�J; rfy !_• 't,l.� e. i 4
� fryJ +i� ! 1, i , �� •y,. a 4 1 t .Y p,. Aryl: •''y' •il
� � f � i y y � � � 1 � r r� l a n � `x!t! irtp'�y J ti,4 1 . � i ,,,t r � v i� •.
vi ` '.f want � I 1q � T. i`j. �� r '' ♦k+(
t1+f t �,�!✓ t I 1,j 4l 1 I+ ��� afy ti! 4iANy`'r� c o t rJx +✓:
r� 4 J lti.Jl ', � , + " f i Y :7 �) 1 fiL� •1r'+�.-A N!x t o t�1�
. 11
!�
r yg�..ttyy..,, i s 7s: (-. %� 1 TJ1 rl •,
(f^u5 f <
jix
. ti rx J �k N t +r..1 t.`� f i +• G T� S ,6 !rl ` 1,11 �p.n
Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report draft: 06/6/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 34
r]
r
El
Mal) 3: Existing Land Use Inventory
---------------
i,L''. sr�w• �`�'•�
Southnrn @"ufort CounW Etpion I Plan Ann ;add:
EXImNG LAND USES - GENE ED
t
s
• Land Use Pattems and Trends Background Report
Soudwm Beaufort County Regional Plan
draft: 06/6/2005
page 35
Map 4: Projected Future Land Use
L: m 1 ',Jse Patterns and Trends Background Report draft: 06/6/2005
Sou fain Beaufort County Regional Plan page 36
LJ
I]
!�
G
APPENDIX 2: METHODOLOGY FOR POPULATION
ESTIMATES FOR THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND
General
Hilton Head Island is a 36 square mile barrier island off the southern coast of Beaufort
County, SC. Development on the island began in earnest in the 1960's and continued
at a high rate of growth through the 1990'x. By 2005, it is anticipated that
approximately 90% of the island will have been built on, leaving only about 10% left
to develop.
About 70% of the island is within planned unit developments (PUDs) and is generally
speaking developed at lower densities than the zoning permits on the non-PUD
properties. Therefore, the amount of growth that can be accommodated on the
remaining undeveloped/underdeveloped lands is expected to be higher than the
existing development within the PUDs.
Another noteworthy fact that distinguishes Hilton Head Island from other areas is the
large number of resort accommodations — timeshares, short-term rentAs, hotels, and
seasonal homes. While the island started out as a "retirement community," it has
evolved into a major vacation destination and tourism is the major industry and has a -
significant impact in terms of land use.
Since the island is so close to "buildout" with regard to land use, and because of the
large number of resort accommodations, it was felt that the normal mathematical
formulas used for projecting population would not yield realistic results for the island.
Instead, we based the future population on future land use, taking resort
accommodations into account. Our goal was to project the population of the island in
two components: the permanent population and the resort population (made up of
short term visitors and seasonal residents). The following methodology describes how
the permanent population and seasonal population were estimated.
Permanent Population Estimates
Permanent population estimates were made for the Existing permanent population
(Year 2005) and for Buildout. The following is an explanation of the methodology
used to make these estimates.
Exisdng Pennaneat Populadon: The first is an estimate of the Existing permanent
population (population in April 2005). This was done in the following way.
1. The permanent population for the year 2000 was established for Hilton Head
IIsland from U.S. Census data.
2. Building permit data was used to estimate the number of new permanent residents
that had moved into the area since the 2000 Census. This invc;'aved several steps.
• ls;..' Use Patterns and Trends Background Report draft: 06/61=5
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 39
• Building permit data was gathered on the number of dwellhig units built after S
the 2000 Census through August 2004 3 The dwelling units were categorized
into either owner -occupied (single-family) or renter -occupied (multi -family)
units, and located into census tracts. To ensure the estimate only included
permanent population, a figure for permanent units was estimated by factoring
out the seasonal units, based on the assumption that the new units would
continue to be developed and used into the future based on the existing
proportionate relation of units (seasonal versus permanent) in the 2000 Census.
♦ Next, the number of permanent dwelling units added since the 2000 Census
was multiplied by the persons per household (pph) figure from the 2000
Census, based on wheth the unit was owner -occupied (single-family) or
renter -occupied (multi -family units), to get the permanent population added
since the 2000 Census.° This figure was broken down at the census tract level,
and the pph figure was based on the census tract in which the new unit was
located.
3. The permanent population from the 2000 Census was then added to the permanent
population estimates derived front the building permit data (by census tract) to get
the Existing (2005) Permanent population.
Bultdout Permanent Population: The BuilJout permanent population is based on lite
number of dwelling units the Hilton Head Island Planning Department staff has
estimated could reasonably be developed on the island, based on existing
development, existing zoning, and redevelopmont opportunities. More specifically,
Buildout Permanent population was estimated in the following way.
1. First, Hilton Head Island Planning Department staff estimated the number of
dwelling units that could reasonably be developed on the island, based on existing
development, existing zoning, and redevelopment opportunities. This estimate of
dwelling units was characterized by census tract (CT) and characterized as owner -
occupied (single-family) or renter -occupied (multi -family units).
2. Second, to ensure the estimate only includes permanent population, a permanent
dwelling unit figure was derived for each census tract by factoring out seasonal
units and vacant units, based upon the occupancy data for dwelling units in the
2000 census data for each census tract. Specifically what was done was that a 5 %
vacancy rate was applied, and the same percent of seasonal units in the census tract
in the 2000 census was applied to the estimated now units for the census tract.
3. Third, the number of estimated permanent new units was then multiplied by the
persons per household (pph) figure from the 2000 census tract data where the units
There is an assumed six month lag between the time that building permits are tiled and when the dwelling units are finally
occupied.
Single-family units use the pph figure for single family and multi -family use the pph for multi -family within the census tract
were the units are located.
Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report draft: 0616/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Pian page 40
were located, based on whether the unit was owner -occupied (single-family) or
• renter -occupied (multi -family units) to get the Permanent Buildout population .
Seasonal/Resort Population Estimates
Seasonalfresort population estimates for the Existing Seasonal/Resort Population
(Year 2005) and for Buildout were then made. The following is an explanation of the
methodology used to make these estimates.
F.xisdng SeasomIfflesort Population: The first is an estimate of the Existing
seasonal/resort population (population in April 2005). This was done in the following
way.
I. The seasonal population for the year 2000 was established for Hilton Head Island
from U.S. Census data.
2. The number of existing hotel units on the island was also determined.
3. The number of resort units (timeshares, short term rentals, and villas) that had been
developed since the 2000 census was estimated from building permit data.
4. Seasonal/resort population from the resort units was determined by multiplying
each resort unit by the average party size (3.33) for vacation rental units (primarily
villas). (This is a number provided by the South Carolina Department of Parks,
Recreation, and Tourism.)
5. Seasonal/resort population from the hotel units was determined by multiplying
each unit by the average party size staying in hotel rooms (5.0). (This is a number
provided by the South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism.)
6. Finally, the Existing Seasonal/Resort population was determined by adding the
2000 seasonal population derived from the 2000 census, the seasonal/resort
population estimates derived from the existing hotel units, and the estimates
derived from the resort units built after the 2000 census.
Buildout Seasonal/Resort Populadon
The Buildout seasonalft ort population is based on the seasonal component of the
dwelling units the Hilton Head Island Planning Department staff has estimated could
reasonably be developed on the island, based on existing development, existing
zoning, and redevelopment opportunities. More specifically, Buildout Seasonal/Resort
population was estimated in the following way.
1. The Hilton Head Island planning staff took the estimates of the number of total
dwelling units that could reasonably be developed on the island, based on existing
devel!,y,m+ nt, existing zoning, and redevelopment opportunities. This estimate of
units was divided by census tract.
• Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report draft: 06/6/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 41
2. The seasonal component of these units was determined based on the assumption •
that these new units would continue to be developed and used based on the same
percentage of seasonal versus pernunent units that existed and were shown in the
2000 census, by census tract.
3. Third, the seasonal/resort population for the seasonal component of the estimated
number of new seasonal dwelling units was estimated, by multiplying the number
of new seasonal dwelling units by the average party size (3.33) for vacation rental
units (primarily viilas). (This is a number provided by the South Carolina
Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism.)
4. The Hilton Head Island planning staff took the estimates of the number of hotel
units that could reasonably be developed on the island. These units were divided
by census tract.
5. Fifth, the seasonal/resort population for the hotel units was estimated, by
multiplying each unit by the average party size staying in hotel rooms (5.0). (Ibis
is a number provided by the South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation, and
Tourism.)
6. Sixth and finally, the Buildout Seasonal/Resort population was determined by
adding the seasonallresort population that would occur from the new seasonal units
and the seasonal/resort population estimates derived from the estimated increase in
resort accommodations. •
APPENDIX 3: POPULATION PROJECTION METHODOLOGY
FOR BLUFFTON AREA (REMAINDER OF SOUTHERN
BEAUFORT COUNTY)
General
Having an estimate of Existing and Buildout permanent and Seasonamsort
populations is important to many aspects of the Southern Beaufort County Regional
Plan. These population estimates will provide the basis for forecasting the future
demand for public facilities, such as transportation and recreation. They also provide
the community a sense of the amount of growth and development that will occur in the
future.
As part of this effort, both Existing and Buildout estimates are provided for the
Bluffton area portion of the study area, for both permanent and seasonal residents
Permanent Population Estimates
Permanent population estimates were made for the Existing permanent population
(Year 2005) and for Buildout. The following is an explanation of the methodology
used to make these estimates.
Existing (2005) Permanent Population: The first is an estimate of the Existing
permanent population (population in April 2005). This was done in the following
way.
1. The permanent population for the year 2%100 was established for the study arca
from U.S. Census data.
2. Building permit data was used to estimate the number of new permanent residents
that had moved into the arca since the 2000 Census. This involved several steps.
• Building permit data was gathered on the number of dwelling units built after
the 2000 Census through August 2004. ° To ensure the estimate only included
permanent population, the vacancy rate for each census block group where the
new units are located was applied to the total number of units for which
building permits were issued (factoring out all vacant units including seasonal
dwellings). The assumption was made that the vacancy rate remained constant
to 2005.
o Next, the number of permanent dwelling units added since the 2000 Census
were multiplied by the persons per household (pph) figure from the 2000
Census to get the permanent population added since the 2000 census. This
figure is broken down at the census block group level. This takes into account
There is an assumed six month lag between the time that building permits are filed and when the dwelling units are foully
•occupied.
Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report draft. _ 06/6=5
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 43
0
geographical differences within the Bluffton arca. (For example, the area
located north of U.S. 278 is dominated by developments such as Moss Creek, •
Colleton River, Belfair, Rose Hill, Crescent and Berkeley Hall, which have
more retirement age households and therefore avenge a smaller household size
than developments such as Heritage fakes, Fern Lakes, Lake Linden, and the
Farm which have more younger families with children.)
3. The permanent population from the 2000 Census was then added to the permanent
population estimates derived from the building permit data to get the existing
(2005) permanent population.
rtrnraNgnt populadon at Balldoat for Comadded Lands: The permanent population
at Buildout was `rased on the number of dwelling units that have been approved as part
cf subdivision, PUD, or development agreement approval, but are still unbuilt.
Permanent population at buildout was estimated in the following way:.
1. The number of dwelling units that have been approved as part of subdivision,
PUD, or development agreement, but are still unbuilt, was determined.
2. To ensure the estimate only included permanent population, a permanent dwelling
unit figure was derived, by applying the vacancy rate for the census block group
where the nev, units are located to the total number of unbuilt and approved units
(as is discussed under the estimate for existing permanent population).
3. The number of permanent unbuilt units was then multiplied by the persons per •
household (pph) figure from the 2000 Census to get the permanent population at
buildout. As is discussed above in the section on Existing Permanent population,
this figure is broken down at the census block group level.
Seasonal/Resort Population Estimates
Seasonallresort population estimates for the Existing Seasonal/Resort Population
(Year 2005) and for Buildout were then made. The following is an explanation of the
methodology used to make these estimates.
Bxisdng seasonal/regotY poprrl don: The first is an estimate of the existing
seasonaVresort population (population in April 2005). This was done in the following
way.
I. The number of seasonal dwelling units was established for the study area from the
2000 census data at the census tract level°. Seasonal dwelling units are a subset of
vacant units in the Census data.
6 Them are only two census tracts in the (heater Bluffton Area. One is located north of U.S. 278 and one is located south of
—_L -S_.278. There is a greater PropoNon of seasonal dwelling units north of U S 278
Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report deft: 06/6/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan pie 05
0
2. Second, the number of new seasonal residents that had moved into the area since
the 2000 census was estimated from building permit data This was done by the
following two steps.
♦ The percentage of seasonal to occupied units for each Census tract was
assumed to be constant from the period between Ute 2000 Census and the year
2005. These percentages were applied to the building permits tracked for those
years in their respective census tracts. The resulting number was added to the
2000 Census seasonal dwellings to produce an estimate of the total number of
seasonal dwelling units for the year 2005.
♦ The estimate for the total number of seasonal dwelling 2005was
tract n w
multiplied by the persons per household (pph) figure from
each
the 2010 census.
3. The number of existing (2005) hotel rooms was counted and multiplied by 1.8
persons (This figure represents the mean persons per hotel room according to the
SC Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Tourism. This figure is lower than what was
used for Hilton Head Island to reflect the more business orientation of the hotels in
the Bluffton Arca).
4. The estimated number of seasonal residents for the year 2005 was added to the
estimates of the hotel resort population to produce an estimate of the total number
of seasonal residents for the year 2005.
SeasonaB►esorPpopuladon as Bwtfdout ojUncommided Lands: The seasonaUresott
population at Buildout is based on the seasonal component of the number of dwelling
units that have been approved as part of subdivision, PUD, or development agreement
approval, but are still unbuilt, and estimates for the hotel resort population for the
study area. More specifically, Buildout Seasonal/Resort population was estimated in
the following way:
t of
1. The nor ddeeveloptwielling ent agreement, but are stillhave been unbu'lt w roved as determined vision,
PUD,2. The seasonal component of these approved but unbuilt units was determined based
on the assumption the percentage of seasonal to occupied units derived for each
census tract from the 2000 Census will remain constant.
3. The number of seasonal unbuilt units were then multiplied by the persons per
household (pph) figure from their respective census tract to derive the seasonal
population from the unbuilt units.
4. The number of seasonal hotel resort population was estimated based on an 8.25%
annually compounded growth rate of the existing seasonal hotel resort population
estimated for 2005.
Current) there aro 7 hotels in the stud area totatin 659 rooms.
draft: 066""5
• t and Use Patterns and Trends Background Report page 45
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
5. Finally, the estimated seasonal population from unbuilt units was added to the
estimated number of seasonal hotel residents to estimate the seasonal population at • --
buildout
Calculating the Rate of Growth
Now that population at Buildout (both permanent and seasonal) has been estimated,
the next question to answer is when will Buildout occur. For the Bluffton planning
area, which includes all of Southern Beaufort County with the exception of Hilton
Head Island, an annually compounded growth rate of 8.25% was applied. This is the
annually compounded growth rate for the five-year period of 2000 to 2005. p4pre Il
below shows the historic growth of the Bluffton Planning Area from 1980 to present.
Figure 11: Historic Population Growth of the
Bluffton Planning Area
lhlreu PO ulaNOn
1 F 3,652
7,084
pb00 19,004
28,248
•Based on da U.S. Cenaua
••Eaumate
Mere 12 shows the annually compounded growth rate for selected historic
timeframes. The annually compounded growth rate for the five-year period of 2000- •
2005 was chosen because it represented a time. when the anticipated growth of the
newly annexed areas of the Town of Bluffton began in earnest. Much of the future
growth of Southern Beaufort County will occur within the boundaries of the Town of
Bluffton. The annually compounded growth rate of 8.25% also represents the lowest
of each of the historic timeframes shown in Figure 12. As Southern Beaufort County
becomes more populated, the rate of growth may decline even if the same number or
more residents are added each year. This is because as the population grows it will
tape more persons each year to maintain a constant rate of growth.
Figure 12: Annually Compounded Growth Rate for Selected Historic Timeframes
Annually
'QtCompounded
r;.r.mN Q.OWU Rate -
80, 200Qk 8.80
1 �10.370 2000''
1�.9„s�(i 2005` 9.66
�obo�' siioa; esa
Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report draft: 0616J005 •
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 46
PiSm 13 shows the application of the annually compounded growth nee of 8, i �% to
the year 2020. At this rate of growth, the Buildout estimate permanent population of
81,513 persons is reached during the year 2018.
Figure 13: Projected Population Growth for the Bluffton Planning Area
i 0"1 ,, ji
Popuhallon EWn�
8.26%
(at tt»t umlly
28,248
30,578
33,101
35,832
38,788
� ]r4
•_ Y��i•
,;2011�ti`
1
41,988
45,452
49,202
M.
53,261
`
57,655
62,412
218!
67,561
73,135
12018 ` '
79,168
85,700
2020:''`.'-.
92,770
0
Transportation and Other
Public Facilities Background
Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
•
IMsadaelMa
3
Sesfiass 1: Transportation
S
Existing Regional Road Network
6
Level of Service (LAS) Standard
g
Analysis of Existing Conditions and Future Demand on Road Network
8
Cost to Address Existing and Futuro Deficiencies of Road Network
12
Existing Funding Mechanisms Used for Transportation Projects
17
Addressing Demand Through Alternative Modes of Transportation
21
Tools and Policies to Address Transportation Demand
25
Environmental and Aesthetic Concerns
30
Regional Transportation Planning Framework
31
Section 2: Parks and Ramdon
32
Existing Regional Park Network
S3
Establishing a Level of Service (LOS)
35
Existing and Projected Regional Park Network Needs
37
Existing Sources of Funding
40
Existing Parks Management Framework
43
Summary
43
Public Access to Water
44
Section 4: Public Schools
48
Current and Projected Student Enrollment
48
•
School Capacity vs. Enrollment
50
School Facilities Needs
51
Section S: Lsua of Regional Consideration
53
Transportation
53
Parks and Recreation
53
Public Schools
56
Appendix 1: Maps
57
Appendix 2: Growth Trends on Southern Beaufort County Roads
65
Appeadhr 3: Inventory of Park and Recreation Facilities
67
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
• ;;
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
2
INTRODUCTION
In the Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report we established that
Southern Beaufort County has grown and will continue to grow at a fast pace.
Currently (2005) it is estimated Southern Beaufort County has 67,179
permanent residents. At Buildout, roughly 2020, this number is anticipated to grow
to 134,842 permanent residents. Uncommitted lands (approximately 10.9% of the
study area) have the potential to accommodate another 25,000 residents in addition to
the estimated Buildout population of 134,842 permanent residents. Additionally, and
as is discussed in the Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report, the
estimated seasonal/resort population at Buildout will also place additional demands
on the community facilities in the study area. See Figure 1 below,
Figure 1: Summary of Permanent and Seasonal Population Estimates
Perm hent 'Penn-"nt ofieeort turd
Committed BNtpnrai Seasonal
r I
PopulationUnbdlitMMld Population
Exipd'na (2005) F 6-7,179 50,653
• 9iiik�out
134.842 251875' 72,038
This population growth (both permanent and seasonal) will have significant
implications on the demand and provision of public services and capital
improvements within the region. The purpose of the Transportation and Other Public
Facilities Background Report is to examine this issue with respect to three community
facilities:
♦ Transportation;
♦ Parks and Recreation;
• Public Schools.
In undertaking this evaluation, the acceptable level of service (LOS) for the specific
community facilities was fust determined. Once the LOS was determined, existing
and Buildout population estimates were applied to determine the existing conditions
of the facilities, and then the demand future growth will have on the facilities. In all
instances, the demand from future population growth will require the construction of
new capital improvements if new development is to be accommodated at an
acceptable LOS. The costs for these capital improvements are also identified.
In each section of this report, the various policies and tools that are currently used to
plan, fund and manage the three community facilities is also outlined. The purpose of
• Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 3
this discussion is to determine what is currently being done to address the demand
new growth and development is placing on the need for these community facilities.
In addition, and with respect to transportation, it also overviews alternative modes of
transportation and the opportunities and obstacles of looking beyond private
automobile transportation to move people around the region. This will help framedie
discussion of what additional measures need to be taken amongst the state and the
participating Local Governments in the region to address future demand for
community facilities.
O
•
SECTION 1: TRANSPORTATION
The most visible consequence of Southern Beaufort County's fast rate of growth is
the demand placed on the region's roads. Southern Beaufort County's road network
is already deficient. Portions of U.S. 278 are failing with traffic volumes far
exceeding capacity on the segments between S.C. 46 and the bridges to Hilton Head
Island. It is been estimated $31,010,000 worth of capital improvement projects are
needed simply to address existing needs. This situation will be far worse at Buildout
when it is estimated the entire stretch of U.S. 278 between the Cross Island Parkway
west to the Jasper County line will be over capacity. Various plans and studies have
recommended an additional $222,914,000 in capital improvements to accommodate
population at Buildout. Yet even with the implementation of this extensive list of
capital improvements, it is estimated that 20 miles of roads will still be failing (see
Map 3).
While the needs are substantial (over $250,000,000), if current fiscal conditions do
not change, it appears that over the next 15 years only $68,587,154 is anticipated in
revenues for road capital improvements from SCDOT and local road impact fees.
Tbis will leave an estimated funding shortfail for the planned facilities of over $185
million, with the potential that additional funds might be needed to address at least a
portion of the unplanned needs (the estimated 20 miles of roads that are still failing
after planned improvements are made).
Addressing this significant funding shortfall is a challenge the Participating Local
Governments cannot solve individually. The issue must be addressed on a regional
level, through a broad-based effort of:
♦ Cooperative efforts to plan and fund transportation capital improvements; and
• Cooperative land use initiatives to reduce vehicle miles traveled on the regional
roads through:
1. Use of alternative modes of transportation;
2. Transportation management; and
3. IAnd use and growth management tools.
Because the magnitude of Southern Beaufort County's transportation problem and ire
Nailing shortfall points to the importance of looking beyond capital improvements to
address transportation needs, this background section on transportation goes beyond
simply looking at the existing condition and future capital improvement needs of the
road system. It also overviews alternative modes of transportation and the
opportunities and obstacles of looking beyond private automobile transportation to
movr people around in the region. Also, this section looks at how tools, such as
arrest management techniques, traffic impact analysis ordinances, and intelligent
transportation systems can preserve the capacity of roads thus assuring that the road
network is being used in the most efficient way possible.
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 5
Existing Regional Road Network
Faeedona! Cfass(jicaden: The Regional Road Network for southern Beaufort
County is made up of 183 miles of principal arterial, minor arterials and major
collectors. These classifications for the Regional Ttoad Network have been
established based on the intended user and function of the road.
♦ Principal Arterials: Principal arterials provide mobility for moving vehicles long
distances in an efficient manner. This road serves the highest traffic volumes on
the longest trips, and provides for travel between towns and communities. The
principal arterials in the region consist of US 278 (Fording Island Road, William
Hilton Parkway and the Cross Island Parkway) and SC 170 (Okade Highway).
Fording Island Road is the only principal arterial for east -west travel off of Hilton
Head Island.
♦ Minor Arterials: Minor arterials interconnect and augment the principal arterial
system. This type of road accommodates trips of highest traffic volumes and of
moderate trip length at a slightly lower level of mobility than a principal arterial
(i.e., it offers more access to adjacent land uses). The minor arterials in the
region consist of SC 46 (May River Road and Bluffton Road) and the Bluffton
Parkway, which is partially completed.
♦ Maior Collector: Major collector roads connect arterial roads and local roads,
thus requiring a balance between accessibility and mobility. This type of road
provides land access and traffic circulation between residential neighborhoods
and commercial areas. The major collectors in the region include Buckwalter
Parkway, Simmonsville Road, Bruin Road, Burnt Church Road, Pope Avenue,
and Greenwood Drive.
Figure 2 below provides a summary of Southern Beaufort County's Regional Road
Network.
Figure 2: Existing Regional Road Network
Rt�id Naim; Yr + ' Limits
Fun t lontll Cloii;
got ; ANdltili
Lana*
SC 48i Mqy RheY ,.;
Jasper Co. Line to SC 170 P,tlnolpalrArtetltll :
2
np rk ri
SC 170 to Bruin Road
2
Yho^ is
S 120 `=Biu) Rb�d;r
Burnt Church Rd. to SC
Md)ojI rlsoEtN,
2
46
SCA =i8 011 risR'oad,`P Calhoun St. to US 278
u'sM1 FJArterW TY ^''
2l4
rid,
9C;170 dt►''tt1'' t+;
SC 46 to US 278
PilrtoltStil°ytttttlal;;
2
;. ,100 ' i
liM IttNa ,tN A l %
US 278 to Broad River
Prlifci "` tgit
4
i"x<
UP'278, ,Ft? df y
Jasper Co. Line to
Prirlo(pol %1rteH$I
4
leland F�0111
Macke Creek
i
M278 1iVttf 'Wilton. i
MackaysCreek t0
apish Wells Rd.
PrinoiFial /rlrterlal
4
Spanish Wella Rd. to
Principal Arterial
a
!
Gumtree Rd.
Yeerl,
0
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report •
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 6
•
R r,k r t1 �umn,
J�
'
.al�yif' ia*.;:
4�;.
::,a„ s ,...'i'.
LanM'{
- 1
U8 2 Cross Island Parkway to
Pri 3
4
� �
'VIIN�iin�llltoft ; P Ave.
n,
Islandr yto,�.,,,
w
"= u` ?7es. �P•..1. usi
I';:;
4
«�x,
eI
"
2le !dlh iWm. Hilton Parkway to
Pfl c' °"z
4
%'r �t
�t�s
+i Palmetto Ba Rd.
r•
ts4T
8i2i'=; S t7R1 SC 18 to US 278
11W&W"
2
n :Wh*; r6A
US 278 to Buck Island
'
f >F + + • all :.• Road
<8103urjj► Clfli►dh4« A lloy Rd. to Bruin Rd.
Mo
2
►1�ir
AP<<PBruin Rd. to US 278
P Ar
ladtllr ,
2
'BubkW"wAdlkws +;.' SC 48 to US 278
3
2
;; :•;;nd li,
SC 170 to Burnt Church"
..nPOfRt'T;r�r; Rd.
Mlgt rr'
4
"ctr�i
:rt'rf
US 278 to N. Forest
Malr r ai.
4
+�• + �.
+frtax,Pa +xI Beach Rd.
,n ��i O!- i•` Sea Pines Circle to
Major CollO+blor c ;
4
y,
Greenwood Dr.
50UMO: nCaU10r[ a.ounry cngmwung u P,., nuwo ..c.., .u....,y.....•....0 ...,Y..
ownership of Roads: The majority of roads making up Southern Beaufort County's
Regional Road Network are owned and maintained by the South Carolina Department
of Transportation (SCDOT), with a few exceptions. Buckwalter Parkway and
Bluffton Parkway are County owned and maintained roads. The Town of Bluffton
owns and maintains Calhoun Streit. The Town of Hilton Head Island owns and
maintains approximately (S roads with total mileage of approximately 3.4 miles.
Malphnts Road, which would serve as a major collector, if plans to connect to
Foreman Hill Road are implemented, is currently a privately owned ;utd maintained
road.
Factors that Challenge the Existing Regional Road Network: Along with Southern
Beaufort County's fast pace of growth, three factors place an additional strain on the
Regional Road Network — geography, lack of pLiallel roads due to existing
development, and generally what must be characterized as low density development.
1. Geog aohy: The region is surrounded by large bodies of water (rivers, sounds,
and oceans) and accompanying tidal marshes, swamps and other significant
wetlands, which have become natural barriers to the Regional Road Network.
2. Lack of Parallel Roadways Due to Existing Development: The Land Use Patterns
and Trends Background Report discussed the region's recent development history
and the preference for large master -planned amenity bAsed communities. One of
the consequences of this type of development has been a lack of adequate parallel
roads to alleviate traffic on U.S. 278. In fact, today, there is only one parallel
road contemplated, Bluffton Parkway, and it is only partially complete.
is Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page -I
3. Lo Density Develoom nt/Automobib ace: Generally speaking, the
majority of residential and commercial development that has taken place in the •
region can be categorized as low density. Low-density development has a
tendency to be more automobile dependent with fewer opportunities for transit
and other modes of transportation to serve a significant portion of travel needs.
Geographic constraints to the Regional Road Network coupled with a high
dependency on the automobile have resulted in constraints on the transportation
system.
Level of Service (LOS) Standard
Capacity grid Level of Service (LOS) aro terms used in the analysis of a broad range
of transp;rtadon facilities. Typically, these terns aro utilized in describing the
operation and functionality of roadways and intersections. The capacity can be
defined as "the maximum number of vehicles that a roadway or intersection can
accommodate with reasonable safety during a specified period of time."' Lewl of
Service defines the operational characteristics of roadways and intersections in terms
of quality measures of speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions
and comfort and convenience.
Six LOS letters designate each level of quality vehicular flow, from A to F, with LOS
"A" representing the best operating conditions and LOS "F' the worst. Level of
Service is typically defined for roadway segments in terms of vehicles per day and for
intersections in terms of peak -hour traffic volumes. All three participating local •
governments have adopted a policy that the minimally acceptable LOS on their road
network will be "D". LOS E & F aro indicative that a roadway or intersection
exceeds the maximum reasonable capacity and therefore is failing.
Application of the LOS "D" standard varies among the participating local
governments. Beaufort County and Bluffton has set the LOS "D" standard for the
average annual daily traffic (AADT) of a roadway segment and peak -hour traffic for
intersections. The Town of Hilton Head Island utilizes a LOS "D" standard for peak -
hour traffic volumes collected during the second week of June because of the
increased impact of vacationer traffic.
Analysis of Existing Conditions and Future Demand
on Road Network
This section begins by establishing the existing conditions of Southern Beaufort
County's Regional Road Network and determining where there are deficiencies. The
demand the estimated Buildout population will place on the Regional Road Network
is then forecasted using the TRANPLAN models.
t Highway Cap"hy Manual Transportation Research Board Washington DC. 2000 O
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 8
ExirNng Conditions of Regional Rood Network: Map I and Figure 3 below provide
• a summary of the existing conditions of Southern Beaufort County's Regional Road
Network. US 278 between SC 46 and the bridges to Hilton Head Island is currently
failing, with existing daily volumes exceed,;ng the available capacity creating
congestion, delays, and increased acci&;nt potential. Because of the lack of capacity
on this segment U.S. 279, aiki the lack of an alternative east -west route, daily
occurrences of a±:.gestion spill over and impact other roadways on the network. The
gene. -al i..ror operating conditions of U.S. 278 tends to over -shadow the fact that other
roads on the network have sufficient capacity because US 278 is the only principal
arterial providing east -west travel.
Figure 3: Existing Conditions on Regional Road Network
•
41,x► j ' °
Limits
^!'
4SIV,r
CIW tY Y
e,
'd
Jasper Co. floe to SC 170
,
14500
i:,x
til l Qi k�
8C 46
SC 170 to Buck I. Rcad
I;l
14 500
ti
}R :Buck
t. Rd. to celhoun st.
1.1=:100 . f
t 4500
D+ 7
r
.u>& IIM"WUinr 60d� SC 46 to Burnt Murch Rd.
' 4'EOOr'x'
10900
utft n'Road`
Calhoun St. to US 27e
9`500
22.M
y r c
sc 4e a us
15 500
1
f9C f 7Q _,
us 27e to sc 4e2
A9�000 :`
40 000
FIJOhwayy� .,
SC 462 to Bauer ad.
Berey Rd. to Broad Rlver
1:7 400 %i,'.:
40,000
B
US',278
Japer sols tine ro SC t7o
.18'700'
40000
FordNq "'
SC 170 to804a
34800.`;
40,000
: • D ,°J
Island Rad
SC 4e to Bueklnylwn nd
d0 700;`.
4o o00
F" '
U9 2761 Wei Hikon .I'
Buddnaham Rd. to Spanish web
611,100
55,400
D' ,'<+
, n
Rd.
SoWsh Web Rd. to Ganuee Rd
49,"4861:L11','.
60-000
DC
f4 ri fi ILi un jfyc r iji a la"
Gumma lid. to arch Clly Rd.
Rd.
+Irv,
33' 0
48,000
45 000
Ct
l� 4 hhr t rrr
Beach City Rd. to Folly Field
��
rDi,.tr`r'r�t,+r21 .�r..a�it
BUBIn4o4- '.
Folly Fleld Rd. to Sinalelon Rd.
45,0
51 U8 278 ,
�Wlulam HIIWn P,a6kyr8Y; �
a .
SWI on Rd. to t]ueme Fogy Rd
39`800
45000
,
D i
vZ T h Cueme Folly Rd. to Arrow Rd.
38,300F
45.000
D
Mow Rd. to Sea Pines Gr.
38 700
45 000
D r
U!},278 Palm�1ta(o
pt. Comfort Rd. to Sea Pines Clr.
201900'
45000
B `i '
F' Ua aBa JRd
,r
U827b Crpu I ! Pt. Canton Rd. to Gumtree Rd.
21,200
4p H
,r8474
'ROid oluvlib;
us278 to Buck I. Road
2,700
10900
C,
1
�i t 3;= Bumt Churoh
AIIpy Rd. to arum Rd.
38001 ':
10900
C'
;+ratan-'�MetW�n,t'i,.r:
BrkdnRd. toUS278
P.ukwa r.,
SC 4e to uS 278
3'800 r
30 600
B
,;: g on:pary r
SO 170 to Burnt church Rd.
Na ...
30!6M
B
US 278 to lAMID Pkwy.
33 700 -
40,000
C
&80 - Pope Ave '
Cordlllo Pkwy. to N. Forest each
259110
40,000
B
Dr.
Sousa: Beaufort County Engineenng dept., ninon Head Island cnsd—d,e a.cr..
STransportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 9
Appendix 2 provides charts that illustrate the growth trends in AADT's along •
Southern Beaufort County's roadways from 1999 to 2003. These charts illustrate that
the largest amount of growth in AADT's is on U.S. 278 between SC 46 and the
bridge to Hilton Head Island. AADT's on Hilton Head Island grew at a far slower
pace (l. I%) over the same time period. Examination of these traffic growth patterns
provides key indications of the links and congested areas and the rate at which they
will exceed available capacity. It is anticipated congestion along U.S. 278 will spread
further west as growth and development continues in the region.
Projected Demand and Future Needs of Regional Road Network. In projecting
future conditions on the Regional Road Network, a transportation model
(TRANPLAN) was developed to project Year 2020 AADT volumes. Both Beaufort
County and the Town of Hilton Head Island make use of the TRANPLAN model,
which utilizes Buildout projections based on existing zoning. These Buildout
projections are consistent with the population forecasts provided in The Land Use
Patterns and Trends Background ReporP with the exception that uncommitted,
Rural -zoned parcels were assumed to build out at their approved densities. The
TRANPLAN models are also based on a calibration of 1999 traffic volume utilizing
available socio-economic data (dwelling units, employment, school attendance, etc.)
to develop relationships between various trip productions and trip attractions.
Productions and attractions are assigned across the network based on roadway
capacities, speed limits, number of travel lanes, etc. The result is a modeled
projection of anticipated traffic volumes on the Regional Road Network during the
Buildout year (2020). •
While the two TRANPLAN models are currently the best tools available to forecast
future road conditions, it is important to recognize the differences between the two
models and their possible limitations in accounting for seasonal and peak hour
fluctuations.
♦ Beaufort County: Beaufort County's model, which applies to all of Southern
Beaufort County with the exception of Hilton Head Island, is based upon AADT
volumes. Currently, the only countywide data available for use in the County's
model are SCDOT count stations that provide AADT data. Traffic volumes
fluctuate throughout the year and variations from the AADT can be as great as 20
percent higher or lower. Therefore, analysis of corridor operations that indicate
acceptable traffic conditions may still have capacity constraints during higher
volume days.
♦ Town of Hilton Head Island: The Town's TRANPLAN model is based on
average daily traffic counts during the second week of June, which correlates with
the 45th highest traffic volume day of the year. Because the Town's model
2 Revisions to the County's transportation model were completed in 2003 that included changes to development patterns in
Buekwaltu, Made and other large planned unit developments in greater Bluffton and changes in proposed land development
along US 279 between Buckwalter Parkway and Jasper County (USCB Campus TCL Campus etc)
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report •
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 10
utilizes traffic volumes based on a higher typica: dgy than the average annual day,
• it should provide a higher level of vehicular operations. Since the Town has
significant seasonal fluctuations in traffic volumes because of the tourism
industry, utilizing the average daily traffic counts from the 45'k highest day should
provide better service levels during peak -season periods.
Map 2 and Figure 4 indicate where future road-%leficiencies are anticipated on
Southern Beaufort County's road network at Buildout assuming no additional road
improvements are made.
Figure 4: Projected Conditions on Regional Road Network at Buildout with No Road
Improvements*
Rt 11 `Nana = Undu
Existing Yplre',
Capeelt
�
Ali
,NrprOaLMraaGt70
i42i
14,600
ia�2 'fig`'
7 BC 4f& q�r4PWtir
aCta
r.
euac Rd.ww iunS4
14'000
14,500
;-8120;=-BrtiMAMW` >: eC4#108wntchwehfid
e; / 000.E-+'
fOD00 k`,+ slf:+•,
8C46= I WRoedr,
allimmSr.touar»
tirr';
?2000
:�
,,,-,,t to
scaaue2n
f`
t
^ yi ,.
U827etoe0412
4>';t100
40,000
„f
8C17b' 0(taUt,
Highway , .;,
SC 462 to Balley Rd.
29`b00 ,
40000
C
Bailey Rd. to Broad River
25'000' •
40 000
11111X,':
T17U82711 Fording
,taprtx un.roact7o
000 ::
000
Fr
W 17etoee4/
40,00
Mand Rafoi�_,
W Aul to sudikWon ted.MLVNI
71i'U00
40000
F
U827B-Wm hdton'RnOd�b'h.�
epaMehWON&Rdtoamaee
60,000
Rd!
I � , , � ,�
oumn..Raroeaarceyne.
Oaf10D
46,000
,�'F„� f�
Beady M Rd. to Folly Flew Rd.
44°i10b
45000
D 4r ':
�U8,278�Butlneee.,.
FeeyFw►eearoaNpMtonea
t� II z°
4000
;.� �Fw,,,p
WUIIarn,Hlfton,ParktNay.
etnafetMM10ourneFOWRd.
,`
000
Ft '!
OtweneFWyfidloArrow Rd.
?14Y001 ''
46,000
Fr;ri
Arrow Rd. to Bea fines Cir.
3�'y00
45,000
a ;,
=U8 27 R� plstto "
pt. Comfort Rd. to Sea Pines Gr.
(9,7001
45,000
U8 278"Fara. alend Pt. Comfort Rd. to oranlree Rd.
44'000`
565M
0,2 47 jR mmoneills, us 27e to Buck t. Road
91� i
BSi r I
10,900
D'—
p
S•183 ''BumtC�turch; niyoyRd rosnrntra
4,10000",;!
1011100
B
".i 1 '.',Road ?fi,s BruinRd,rolis278
11000N::
13,600
iD,
aBfrakwaRer:P.arkwa ''f ets4e1ous27e
f
145W
F
:f• iBIU11t00 Pe►k1N9 t: r) SC 170 M Burnt Church Rd.
30000:
30 800
D
US 278 to Cordilio Pkwy.
36'800 ',.,
40000
D
3 90 _ FOpe Ave. '; : C,ordilo Pkwy. to N. Forest Beach
27,700;,x;
40,000
B
,;.; Dr.
:n
Source: neautort county N.rigmeenng Vept., moon Head isiana nngmeenng wept.
*Assumes completion of the Bluffton Parkway between SC 170 and Burnt Church Road.
• Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 11
"Assumes analysis of 8luttton Parkway and 9uckwalter Parkway u separate facilities, however, they
are actually combined for 1.2 miles.
•
Figure 4 indicates that most of Southern Beaufort County's principal and minor
arterials are at LOS E and F at Buildout. In order to accommodate future population
growth, significant road improvements must be made to increase capacity in the
Region's Road Network.
Cost to Address Existing and Future Deficiencies of
Road Network
As established in the previous subsection of this report, significant portions of
Southern Beaufort County's existing Regional Road Network aro currently deficient
with the situation worsening and spreading further west at Buildout. A list of projects
and cost estimates has been compiled by the engineering staffs of Beaufort County
and the Town of Hilton Head Island to address existing and projected deficiencies in
the Regional Road Network.
Projeeb to Address Existing Def7cieneks: Projects to address existing deficiencies
(Figure 5) are derived largely from recommendations from the Beaufort County
Comprehensive Plan and the U.S. 278 Short -Term Needs Study. Based on tests using
the TRANPLAN model, it has been determined that these projects would improve the
LOS along US 278 between SC 46 and Mackays Creek to "Y'. These projects focus
primarily on increasing capacity on US 278 between SC 46 and Mackays Creek. It is
estimated the cost to make these improvements is $31,010,000.
'Projects to Address Defickncks at Buildout: The projects that address deficiencies
at Buildout were also tested using the TRANPLAN model and determined to
maintain a LOS "Won most of the roads in Southern Beaufort County's Regional
Road Network. These projects focus on increasing capacity along roads that were
determined to fail when all approved development is built out, and on providing
additional parallel routes to relieve congestion on the region's principal arterial roads.
The projects and cost estimates (Figure 6) that address future deficiencies on US 278
came from recommendations from the US 278 Long -Term Needs Study (2002). This
study provides two alternatives for addressing these deficiencies. The alternative
adapted by the Beaufort County Transportation Advisory Group (BCTAG) and
Beaufort County Council consists of extending the Bluffton Parkway west to SC 170
and east to intersect with US 278 at Moss Creek. US 278 between Moss Creek and
Hilton Head island (this includes the bridge to Hilton Head Island) would be widened
to 6 lanes. It is estimated future needs will cost $222,914,000.
•
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 12
• e •
r_1
Figure 5 'Costs to ", rew Existing 0eflcierides to Regional RP°� I�ehYtlrk
Recommended Projects
Description
Eat. Cost
uB 27t1 Capedly and Saw lmpraNmmb'
,
Mackays Creek to Slmmomvills Road
Widening to 0 lam with median
{ 101100,000
Access 1114604
MedianCrasoKerCWnyMlWw!w!YCoNoMddbn 5Hyl
;' 164,000:
Intersection Lighting
Lighting at 10 Intersections
100 000
In6iNction IinprovemarMs ;> -
euakwaltei Pkwy Buds p. Forwniui HIM 8 (irhia Rda
;; 1 lr00 Q00
Sub -total
$17,010,000
US 279 Frontage Road and Parol lnWcohnactivMy
I
'• 1 NI17 �
Buds Island to Slmmonsvllle Rad
Parcel Interconnedlvky , Westbury & Planation Bus. Pks.
$ 2,800,000
ShKidarr PankIBWIMon P"to Bkdlton Road (SC 48j
Frontage RO"ltl; South SIOe
2,100000
Burnt Church Road to Foreman Hill Rad
Frontage Road, South Side
2,000,000
Budrirgham PlaMadon to The (iathednps
Parcel IntsmoruncMyBy; South
Sub-total
$ 7,800,000
Olhar AiterW Road tYalagrk Capadq Impmw►mants
:c r Mipe to SC 278 (Includes Intersection imp. on
SC 48 - aAhon Ill May
Widening to 4 lanes with median
s
$5,500,000
River Road
a� t
t
Total Coat to Address EratlnO Dellderw les
$31,010001
►lyuio {: CoeU b AddmW De6dwrclea M 04" PAWMetered! at MN/oU
peoommendedpmjeeu
CWedptlen
lel Coat
U811{,CuPdiiii, As" Mnprviwil�da.
$18,000,000
Widening to S lane with median
81mmorw lle Road to Nie Corms-
70000000
.. ,.
MrkaysCreehlaWlonlieedleWd, ,'
erase waenww io a larree ,
10000000
MCGWVeye Caner to John Smith Rad
Widenlrp to 8 lanes with median
US 278 Frontes Road end Peal lntmmrectNNY
a e
0onrw«dY to BudtvnMr P�"�!Y
fronttrpe,RoW BotAhSide
,.
1.53D,000
,McW�7nat
SerreleY Het to BluBron Fin IDWM Station
frontage Road, North Side
Parol I"lonacti ft, Soo Side
620,000`
ROM HIM b Buck !a pond • ..
Sub tom
If 310/0M
O{rir AiMNI Road NMwork 1:apadly lrirproVwlrKrh
Widening to B lanes withmedian
$18000000
8C 170— mca-mop Comer to SC 462 (ACE)
WWmYgro4Wn4wMhnredWt
r 1{000.400',.
80 170=6C 46 to maGarvep Comer
w/ traffic
Upgrade to31ane at IMeresdtrafficcalmingYv?�
5,000.000
SC 48—BluMton VlBage to SC 170
StmmarvWe Rad ro 8C 170
NewConeWc8a:4 W»aw8h.midien..
BYdllon Param .
liNrBon Partway SO," Church Road to Fomun Hill Rd
Nsw,Conatmllion
:30.000.000'
_ :.
:.Bltdeiih' Padaav Eb=.Fairtwt HW mw to Miduve CnNc'
Now Construction. wMh med4n
Sumow
$92,120.000
.'Y r
txtNiior $toed titilweAc Cspadly r
Bruki Rd Est, Bumf Church Rd. to Buddrgham Plantation
New Con 11 -1 n, 2 lane Connector
$111,11100.000
I' { e00000
BudiaYMrPi". U8278}08C48..
WldeninOto4WNawNhmed4n:
Slmnwwft pond — US 278 to Bluffton Partway
Wkiming to 4lane
1800000
H81 Road Ealedlon
NewConeWdiai-2aanaoaxliUer
Fonrnan
WldeNnO to 4 lane whh median
Brent Church Road US 278 to Bruin Rad
"
Sutt^lelal
a ' �r
Won Had lelarM P'rollicb
; ,$800000
Intereecilen knptaveiirerde : ,
S,1i0g 000
Rad Widsning{7{000
Mewftoide.
Ll
. ; :' •; ^. :n.'lllltFblll _ _. t �� T':r,7!sz'
Total Coat toAd*MBuYdoatDOW"Wee I $229,{14,080
•
•
Figure 7: Projected Road Conditions at Buildout with Road Improvements from
Figures 5 and 6
R4MI+Ha1M Limps
�,Q Fr !,
_
Futtwe
AADT
.�..
LOS
c
Jnpar CO. Une io SC
n°
a e
4 lar�iv, 22,000
Orr ,%'
B
SC 4b May R&er
I +.� ty u�
ac17erosadrLeow 4,
/
E
rt ,
Suck
SI.
rti�
2Illd(Vi. t 14,000
e, �'�'
D
9';1,80 Brulq
eCNroaumft2rrech �Mr,,
1'logo
°
F
46—*l
TI,Calhoun
St. to US 278
As t°
4 fi tl "41. 20,000
' �"
r:"fi r} II rpY. 09N10Ua27e
r., d/t.e:.•l 41000
..
E
8C Q 70 plygra US 278 to SC 482
°� FIIQhWa�r SC 48210 Salley
g' lute dMu,' 47,000
; e8r00A1: i
C
- Rd.
BalleyRd.roBroad
4tl�ili ohl ' i 29000
34it00t.
C
Rhhr
huih d� ;1 25 000
34,�t00,
B
vV7 Japa Co. no ro sc
U8 278 Fordl 170
f1D
all, dW , . 65,000
841000 ;'
D
lulub Road ; sct7orosc4e
pa 46 ro suddnpNm
8 Mne tiW F SQ900
80,p00 '.
D
a
g (tine dW,' : 53,100
t Buddrpham Rd. to
® US 278 Wm ;,, sPweh wells Rd,
Hlkon Parkway ;
8.1. dW +,:
(brltlpe only)" 82,000
84,700
D
d»MNag We& M to
a t7umrrwlkt
6�%aMd/v ' ! 61,000
d3,dopl;
F
aunreft at ro seem
�YRd
BNch Oly Rd. to Folly
1�larrdl 66,400
13,000
F
r`011'rsrrdrtd.ro
4 IVW, 44,600
�1�92789tiglrieee��',
Wl�llm"Hllon �"OA
>
�'l+r►idl� 31,600
+1!,000^
F
a dMgNton Rd to
Fa! Wr OMMFo&Rd
�i1M:dl1l I 31,300
ARM;,
F
x „ a�..naForrrad ro
1,lans'dl1! '+ 641000
�I6t000
F
Anow Rd. to Sea Pines
ar.
.<
41ane;dW, ! 34 700
( ,
46006
US 278 —_ P pmtmo' P1. Comfort Rd. ro sea77
dW
C
an 43 700
PI. Comfort Rd. to
l�aikwat Gumtree Rd,
e
4 Iene dW , 44,000
68,600
C
81mM n4avl�li Us 278 to Buck 1. Road
2 lane/4 ions, < 8,500
10;9gQ/ :I
C
27,840' .
8 163 M+ nit :` Aigoy nal, to Bruin Rd.
Chd►ohl Road
lane undly =:a 11 000
10900 • i
p
Bruin Rd. ro us 278
4�
4 lane ftl 11000
29 300 ;;
0
P so 48 to 27a
4 lane dW `: 18,800
30,800 Y'
D
Bluno ro suint Church
4 lane div ;: 30,000
8.80 —Pope Ave:. 27e to Cordlao
,
30,800
p
Ps
•
4lehti'dhr `; 35,800
X10,000 "
p
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
Page 15
x xMOOgMi Projected
IR�oW INnn Llmlb 3 FtrltNu
r AADT '! LOS
r7 NObOft .+ ao
R t+ a N 4 lu"N fl 27,700 't0,'WP .; B
Source: Beaufort County Engineering Dept., Hilton Head Is. Engineering Dept.
*Assumes analysis of Bluffton Parkway and Buckwaiter Parkway as separate facilities, however, they
aro actually combined for 1.2 miles.
It is important to note that SCDOT is currently considering a different proposal from
a private engineering firm to address long term needs on US 278 that consists of
combining a four-lane limited access expressway with a system of frontage roads and
u-tums. This proposal is still very conceptual with many design and funding details
yet to be worked out. If local government officials have a clear interest in pursuing
this option as the details become more defined, then the projects and cost estimates in
Figure 6 need to be adjusted accordingly.
Addidonal Dr/kiencks not Addressed by Projects in Figures 5 and 6. While
Figure 7 shows how the proposed projects address existing and future deficiencies
and maintain a LOS "D" on many of the roads on the Regional Road Network, even
with the construction of this substantial list of capital road improvements costing
$253,924,000, according to the TRANPLAN model analysis, an additional 8 road
segments making up approximately 20 linear miles of roads on the system will still
operate at LOS "E" and "F' (see Map 3). The reason no additional capital
improvements are listed in Figure 6 to address these deficient road segments is that
no studies have provided recommendations that address these deficiencies, nor have
any additional widenings received endorsement from the three local governments. In
•
fact, Hilton Head Island's Town Council has taken the position to oppose any future
widenings of US 278 (William Hilton Parkway). There is also strong support locally
to designate SC 46 (May River Road) a scenic highway, which would preclude any
additional widenings on that road segment.
In light of the additional deficiencies identified in Figure 7 and the reluctance of the
local governments to pursue additional road widenings on some of these segments,
the Participating Local Governments have several options to consider. They include:
♦ ACc pting a lower LOS on certain roads: This option is best suited to road
segments that are at LOS E at Buildout. These roads segments include SC 46
(May River Road), SC 170 (Okatie Highway) between SC 46 and US 278, Bruin
Road, and several sections of William Hilton Parkway. The application of
improved traffic signal coordination and access management techniques will be
necessary to minimize congestion on these roads.
♦ Identify and fund the necessary road improvements: Additional transportation
engineering studies need to be conducted to determine what types of road
improvements will be necessary to address these additional deficiencies. Because
road widening is probably not an acceptable solution along many of these
•
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 16
segments, other approaches, such as providing parallel roads will need to be
• explored.
♦ Reduce Transportation Demand: This option includes a number of actions that
are currently being utilized by the Participating local Governments, and that
would reduce transportation demand along these roads. These actions include the
following:
1. Purchasing land to remove its development potential;
2. Pursuing alternative modes of transportation;
3. Applying access management techniques such as frontage roads and other
forms of interconnectivity to remove vehicle miles traveled along these
deficient roads; or
4. Considering stronger forms of land use controls, like rate of growth
regulations or adequate public facility regulations that require a higher level of
public facility adequacy before development can proceed.
Existing Funding Mechanisms Used For
Transportation Projects
Over the past half-century or so the principal source of road funding for Southern
Beaufort County as well as all South Carolina local governments was the South
Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) through its Statewide
• Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). In more recent times (the past decade),
as growth in the area grew at dramatic rates, state funding hes not been able to keep
up with the need for new road improvements. Therefore, local governments have had
to be more active in seeking additional funding sources. In 1986, the Town of Hilton
Head Island enacted an Impact Fee Ordinance. Beaufort County followed suit in
1999. On average, today road impact fees generate approximately $1.5 million in
annual revenues for Southern Beaufort County road improvements.
Together, the STB? and road impact fees are currently the primary funding sources for
road-improvevents on the Regional Road Network. If continued in their present
form, however, these existing funding sources will not come close to being able, to
pay for the road improvements needed to meet existing and future demand on the
Regional Road Network. Figure 8 below provides a comparison of the costs of the
needed road improvements outlined in the previous section over the next 15 years and
the anticipated revenues from SCDOT and local road impact fees. While The Fiscal
Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report will provide a more
detailed analysis of revenue projections to determine funding gaps, the following
information is provided to illustrate the magnitude of Southern Beaufort County's
transportation funding shortfall.
• Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 17
Figure 8: Estimated Funding Shortfall to Address Existing and Buildout
Transportation Demand
•
** Includes other Impact Fee projects not addressed in this analysis.
These two primary funding sources are discussed below along with additional
funding sources that have been used historically on a project -by -project basis in
Southern Beaufort County.
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP): As mentioned above, the
STIP is historically the primary funding source for transportation projects in Southern
Beaufort County. STIP funds are allocated through the Federal Transportation
Funding Bill (Previously 1EA-21) and are distributed by the state to the Lowcountry
Council of Governments (LCOG) by a formula based on population. STIP funding to
LCOG (composed of Beaufort, Jasper, Hampton and Colleton Counties) has averaged
around $2 million per year. For future estimates, we make a generous assumption
that Southern Beaufort County would receive 75% of these STB' funds, which over
the next 15 years amounts to $26,250,000. In addition to anticipated future STIP
revenues, there is currently one project from Figure S, the widening of US 278
between Simtionsville Road and the bridge to Hilton Head Island, for which past
STIP funds are obligated. Fifteen (15) million dollars ($7 million from the STIP along
with an additional $8 million from various matching sources) are earmarked for this
project. This is the only remaining project in Southern Beaufort County from
SCDOT's "27 in 7" Program where 27 years of projects were executed in a 7 -year
timeframe with STIP allocations used to pay off bonds. Currently there is no long-
range plan for the expenditure of future STIP funds. The Lowcountry Council of
Governments is currently initiating work on a long-range plan.
Impact Fees: Impact fees are atool authorized by state law that allows local
governments to exact impact fees on new development to fund the cost the local
government will incur to provide capital improvements to accommodate that new
development.
♦ Hilton Head Island's Traffic Impact Fee Program: Hilton Head Island first
enacted its traffic impact fee ordinance in 1986. Currently $62 per vehicle mile
traveled is exacted on new residential and commercial development to fund
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report •
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 18
•
AN
transportation projects on the island whose need is generated by new
development. This amounts to $635 and $815 per dwelling unit depending on the
square footage. Since the program's inception, approximately $10 million in
revenues have been generated. These funds may also be used on Hilton Head
Island for pathways.
♦ Beaufort County's Road Impact Fee Program: In 1999, Beaufort County adopted
an Impact Fee Ordinance that exacts fees on new development for future capital
needs for fire, recreation, libraries and roads. In Southern Beaufort County,
revenues from Beaufort County's road impact fee program are designated to pay
for the widening of S.C. 46 between Bluffton and U.S. 278, the widening of the
Buckwalter Parkway, and the Bluffton Parkway. In the Bluffton/Okatie Area (all
of mainland Southern Beaufort County), $44 is exacted per trip generated ($440
per single family residential unit) for new residential and commercial
development. On Hilton Head Island and Daufuskie Island, $28 is exacted ($280
per single family residential unit) per trip generated to road projects (this is in
addition to what is exacted from Hilton Head Island's Traffic Impact Fee
Program).
Figure 9 summarizes the estimated revenues from both road impact fee programs
over the next 15 years.
Figure 9: Anticipated Future Revenues from Transportation Impact Fees (2005 to
2020)
K , u
Edlmateti R,nrenue
Itr�paot P�aOn!M�
2005-2020
f0eppufort Cou�tty'r9m'paotlFee Propt i(®Itaffton)
31Y
$ 22,050,213
1 M{ Yt I Yiq I U N
Bbaufortr0eun Imp�oRiR416, tn��Hikon
5,286,941
dM.�l�hdjt?
;t�61ai1�Atlf4
hr 'Hlfttin,Wddd'181And Impad�Fit�e' lra�Xam
11,867,316
�.�w�. Xn 4' h,.pG�.v.,lt•i
27337154
i C .,�;ft ,. `<!1 a;,��. , », a4:
be on the Regional roadway network
• All of Hilton Head Island's Impact Fees camwt used
because of the way their Impact tee rrogram is gel "P -
Other Fun&g Sources: In addition to the two primary transportation funding
sources; local governments have also used other means to address the overwhelming
need for transportation improvements. On a project -by -project basis, the local one -
cent sales tax, toll roads and Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts have been used
to fund needed transportation improvements. Given the estimated funding shortfall
of $192,206,846, it is likely that similar sources of funding for transportation
improvements might be sought in the future to close the projected funding gap.
♦ Local One -cent Sales Tax: A local one -cent sales tax was utilized by the County
to fund the widening of SC 170 between McGarvey's Corner and the City of
Beaufort. The special sales tax was enacted by a referendum of Beaufort County
voters in 1998, for a two-year time period and was used to fund the local match
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report Page 19
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
($40,000,000) for a State Infrastructure Bank project. Presently there are no sales
tax revenues in place to fund needed road capital improvements between 2005 •
and 2020. In fact, a referendum on an additional one -cent sales tax, which would
have generated $117,203,500 over a five-year period for road capital
improvements, was defeated by the voters in November 2004.
• Tax Increment Financing (TIF). TIF funding is a possible revenue source for
transportation projects. This funding method is utilized by establishing a special
taxing district to provide infrastructure improvements to that district. Increases in
property taxes collected within the district are used to fund the infrastructure
improvements. The Bluffton TIF, covering various properties in the SC 46/Bumt
Church Road area, was used along with road impact fees to fund the Bluffton
Parkway between Burnt Church Road and SC 46. (This is interesting to note
because the TIF funds were used to fund 30% of the project which represents the
proportion of the Bluffton Parkway that was calculated to Fie serving existing
needs and therefore ineligible for transportation impact fee funds.) All funds
from the Bluffton TBR have been obligated.
• Toll Roads: There are only two toll roads in South Carolina, one of which is the
Cross Island Parkway on Hilton Head Island. The Cross Island Parkway was
completed in January 1998. Approximately 46% of its $83 million price tag was
paid for with state and federal highway funds. The, remaining 54% was financed
through state highway bonds, which are to be paid with the toll. On average, $5.5
million is collected annually from the toll ($1.00 per automobile to payoff the
state highway bonds). The last bond payment is scheduled to be paid in 2021. It
is important to note that toll funds in excess of what is needed to pay off annual •
debt service could be used for other projects in the region. If it were in the
interest of the Town of Hilton Head Island to increase tolls or to continue to
collM tolls beyond the debt service period, a possible revenue source would be
available to fund transportation projects.'
• Land Dedications for Rights-of-wav (ROW): Historically, development
agreements have been used in Southern Beaufort County to secure rights-of-way
for needed roads. The ROW of the Bluffton Parkway between Burnt Church
Road and S.C. 170 was secured through the Buckwalter (Bluffton), Shults
(Bluffton), and Oaks (Beaufort County) Development Agreements. The
Buckwalter Development Agreement also secured the ROW for Buckwalter
Parkway and its portion of the Bluffton Parkway. The Shults Tract Development
Agreement was also used to secure the connector that links the Sheridan Park
commercial area with the Bluffton Parkway. Land dedications could be used in
the future as a means of acquiring right-of-way for the needed improvements to
the Regional Road Network.
s Because of public opinion on toll collections continuance of any tolls is doubtful
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report .
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 20
9
Addressing Demand Through Alternative Modes Of
Transportation
The magnitude of Southern Beaufort County's transportation problem and its funding
shortfall points to the importance of looking beyond capital improvements to address
transportation needs. Therefore, this section looks at alternative means of
transportation and the opportunities and obstacles of looking beyond private
automobiles to move people around the region. The alternative means of
transportation examined here include public transportation, ferry systems, and multi-
use pathways as a means to reduce vehicle miles traveled, or demand on the Regional
Road Network.
PubUc Zhwuporfadon: The Lowcountry Regional Transportation Authority (LRTA)
provides public transportation in Southern Beaufort County. LRTA serves five
counties (Beaufort, Jasper, Colleton, Hampton, and Allendale) and focuses primarily
on bringing rural residents to jobs in Beaufort, County. LRTA offers three types of
services — fixed route commuter servicet., demand response service and Job Access
and Reverse Commuter Service (JARC).
♦ Fixed Route Commuter Service: LRTA provides eight fixed route commuter
lines, two of which only operate during the summer months. The fixed routei,
operate in one direction during peak, periods taking commuters to their
workplaces in the morning and returning them to their communities in the
evening. The Bluffton headquarters of LRTA serves as a transfer center for
commuters.
• Job Access and Reverse Comttutte (IARC): JARC is a federal program designed
to link low-income residents to employment and services. Three additional fixed
routes are offered by LRTA through this program to provide transportation to
employment for low-income residents.
♦ Demand Response: LRTA also offers shared ride services with several vans
(paratransit) that are available by advance reservations.
Map 4 shows the location of LRTA's regular and JARC fixed route commuter lines.
There are two additional routes not on the map - 310 goes from Hampton to Hilton
Head Island and 312 goes from St. Helena to Hilton Head (at about 1:00 pm and
returns at midnight)., All the other routes start at about 4:30 am and return by 7:00 -
7:30 pm. Figure 10 provides a summary of ridership of the three services types
provided by LRTA.
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 21
Figure 10: Lowcountry Regional Transportation Authority Ridership for FY 2004
lMrY106 .T)rpta Rldomhlp" (FY 2004)
F1xOd'�pttttl�vioe 144,418
7,927
h
r*�) SAI: 162 346
'Source: Lowcountry Regional Tranaportaion Auttarity
"Ridership is defined as one person making a one-way trip hom origin to
destination.
LRTA receives federal dollars through the Federal Transit Administration's Section
5311 funding. Local funding is provided by the five member counties and the Town
of Hilton Head Island. Beaufort County contributes approximately 42% of the local
share while Hilton Head Island contributes 34%. Additional funding is provided by
local fares and SCDOT.
In 2003, the Lowcountry Council of Governments (LCOG) retained Day Wilburn and
Associates to draft the Lowcountry Public Transit Coordination Feasibility Study.
The study looked at regional socioeconomic trends, development patterns and trends,
and existing travel patterns. The study also provided an overview of LRTA and
compared the economic efficiency of local public trnnsportation to other rural and
suburban regions. The study concluded several factors make the efficient provision
of public transportation difficult in the region. While Southern Beaufort County is -
rapidly becoming urbanized, residential densities remain fairly low at i to 2 dwelling
units per acre. Low residential density in conjunction with decentralized commercial
and employment areas make it difficult to provide regular transit service that can
attract people away from their automobiles.
Recognizing these limitations, the study looked at the possibility of establishing
mainline transit service along U.S. 278. This would consist of a regularly scheduled
fixed route service with frequent service levels and long hours of operation. The
study emphasized making the service attractive from both a convenience and a visual
standpoint. In order to work most efficiently, a mainline transit service would need
connector services to link riders in other communities to the 278 corridor. The study
also recommends having a bus transfer center at the western end of the corridor.
While Southern Beaufort County is a long way from light rail service, the study
recommends possible steps toward having a limited stop bus service that provides
some of the convenience and attractiveness of light rail. The plan also discusses the
possibility of providing bus service in conjunction with High Occupancy Vehicle
(HOV) lanes and Smart Transportation Systems to provide transit service that moves
more quickly and efficiently than automobile traffic. Providing for limited stop
transit service is very important to consider when planning for the future
configuration of the U.S. 278 corridor.
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report •
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 22
Ferry Serrke: Several factors have caused local officials to explore the use of a
• passenger ferry system to address transportation needs, access to employment, and
tourism. Beaufort County's many waterways create an obstacle to land transportation
with only one bridge across the Broad River. Another factor in favor of ferry service
is that, compared to other altemativre forms of transportation, it does not require a
large up -front investment such as roads, rails and trails. As a result, several
alternative water ferry studies have been conducted to explore the possibility of
utilizing the abundant waterways and potential marine transportation options. In
2001, Beaufort County submitted a grant to the federal Ferry Boat Discretionary
Program seeking partial funding for a year-round ferry service between Port Royal
and Jenkins Island (Hilton Head). In early 2002, the County was notified that it
would not receive the requested grant. In 2001, a limited ferry service between
Hilton Head and Daufuskie Islands was established by a private organization for
residents and visitors.
In 1998, a private study was performed by A.J. Weis, USNR that studied the
feasibility of operating a passenger ferry system between the Port Royal Boat
Landing in northern Beaufort County and Jenkins landing near the U.S. 278 bridge
to Hilton Head Island. The study made the assumption that 6.5% of all employees on
Hilton Head Island commute from northern Beaufort County end that 7% of these
employees would consider ferry service as an alternative to automobile
transportation. This number equates to 117 round trip passengers per day for 250
workdays. The study also assumed that 26,000 tourists would use the ferry service
annually. The total number of passenger trips annually was estimated at 110,500.
• The study recommended a round trip fare of $8 and a $60 per month commuter
charge for using the ferry service. The study was also based on the ferry service
being owned and operated by the Lowcountry Regional Transportation Authority
(LRTA).
In 2001, Beaufort County hired Wilbur Smith and Associa .es to review and critique
the 1998 study. The Wilbur Smith study brought to light some of the limitations of
ferry service.
• One of the obstacles of fent' service as an alterative to commuting by
automobile is that it would take approximately one hour to make the trip between
the two terminals. This time factor would discourage many potential commuters.
• Another obstacle is funding. The prim%y funding source for the operation and
upkeep of the ferry system would r., -sd to be from collected fares and local taxes.
Currently no dedicated federal funding source exists for new ferry systems. The
higher the fare structure, the more potential commuters will be discouraged from
using the system, especially low and moderate income residents.
• The ferry terminals would need to have adequate space for parking and multi-
modal facilities to move people from the terminal to places of employment.
Multi -Use Pathways: Another way to address current and future transportation
demand is to promote walking, running, and cycling as viable alternatives to
automobile transportation. Below is a summary of the planning and implementation
Transportation and 011ier Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 23
that has been done for pathway projects in Southern Beaufort County. Map S shows
the location of existing and proposed pathways.
• Hilton Head Comprehensive Plan: The Town of Hilton Head Island has been the
leader in the region in establishing an extensive network of mull -use traits. The
Town currently has over 49 miles of public multi -use trails with over 31
additional miles planned in their ten year Capital Improvements Program. The
Town's Comprehensive Plan recognizes the potential of its trail network to
provide alternative means of transportation to visitors and residents alike. The
comprehensive plan proposes connecting public transit operations with
employment, shopping, and tourist destinations. The plan also calls for promoting
the use of its trail network by providing the public with information showing the
relationship of multi -use pathways to shopping areas, employment centers and
other areas of interest. The plan also recognizes the need to connect the island's
trail network to pathways systems in the Bluffton area.
• Southern Beaufort Greenway Plan: The Southern Beaufort Greenway Plan,
completed in 1999, delineates a number of projects with trails called for
throughout the Bluffton area and connecting to unincorporated portions of
Beaufort County. Phase one of the improvements in the plan calls for improving
the pedestrian climate in historic Bluffton while connecting it with the newer
annexed areas such as Palmetto Bluff, the Buckwalter Tract, and the Shults Tract.
The plan also seeks to connect existing and proposed parks, schools and other
amenities with the residential areas of Bluffton. Phase two of the plan calls for
the construction of a multi -use trail along 278 from Buckwalter Parkway east to
Hilton Head Island, connecting with Hilton Head's trail network. Figure 11
provides a summary of the portions of the Southern Beaufort Greenway Plan that
have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented to date.
Figure 11: Implemented Projects of the Southern Beaufort Greenway Plan
Extent �,
1 ml
NrtN(�F�IilerT�all t New River at SC 170 to Jones Tract
B6ck�alttlr mall F r , SC 46 to Bluffton Parkwayi.'i
In addition to trail projects, the Town of Bluffton has had some success working
with developer: in the Old Town and in the PUD's to provide linkages to the
pathways system and in some cases to fund the construction of additional
pathways. These Town policies are consistent with the Beaufort County's
Comprehensive Plan which emphasizes walking trails and bicycle facilities for
existing and planned schools to offer a safe and convenient alternative to motor
vehicle travA by parents or students.
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 24
Tools and Policies to Address Transportation Demand
• As is highlighted earlier, given the present and future condition of Southern Beaufort
County's Regional Road Network, it is also important for the participating Local
Governments to consider using planning tools and policies that help reduce vehicle
miles traveled, or transportation demand, and maximize the existing capacity of the
Regional Road Network. These tools, such as access management standards, traffic
impact analysis ordinances, traffic modeling, and intelligent transportation systems
will not increase capacity on the Regional Road Network and are therefore probably
not an alternative to the list of road improvement projects identified in Figures 4 and
5. They can, however, be used to maximize the existing capacity of the Regional
Road Network, and insure that the system is being used as efficiently as possible.
Access Management Standards: Access Management Standards are a series of tools
designed to improve the efficiency of the transportation network. Access
management can help reduce traffic congestion by limiting and controlling vehicles
entering, exiting, and turning along major transportation corridors such as US 278 and
SC 170, and ensuring a smooth flow of traffic. Minimizing the potential disruptions
to the vehicles in the roadway facilitates traffic movement. Effective access
standards benefit a community by reducing accidents, increasing roadway capacity,
providing better access to businesses, and improving mobility. There are seven
different types of access management worthy of consideration, which could
potentially reduce travel demand on the major transportation corridors that are
considered the worst traffic problems. These are summarized in Figure 12.
• Tiq*7c Impact Analysis Ordinances: The purpose of a Traffic Impact Analysis
Ordinance is to require a developer to determine the impact of their proposed
development on the road network and provide mitigation, if necessary. The
performance standard to determine whether mitigation is needed is LOS "D" along
affected roadways and intersections.
SCDOT requires traffic impact studies for very large developments. SCDOT's
minimum thresholds for requiring a study are summarized in Figure 13.
Figure 13: SCDOT Guidelines for Determining the Need for an Impact Study*
Monter„] 100,000+ gross sq.tt.
OOntent 75+ acres
n 1- WAV 350+ employees
loprMent;� 100+ single family detached
200+ total dwellingunits
V,+Offi4W 100.000 gross so.ft.
and Roadside Management Standards
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
Page 1.5
d
6.
9
FlDuro 12 Sinnmary of Addika Man pemerit Standirds
ACCESS
MANAGEMENT DESCRIPTION LOCAL APPLICATION
TECHNIQUE
SIGNAL SPACING Meximirinp the spacing bafween;traffic slgnais and SCDOT.has a numtier of requijertwsnts or'warrants
redudnp the overetl numda� of signals alongthat must be met t lorxtssipnal xT�ieal♦s werrlurts>;
heneportation coRtdot7 his placement of.traffic Include the fraffic lime at an Intersec�fonj eccwetg
- ;'sipnala slgnlflcantly impacts tfro ability to'mope traffic hlstory'dlkirke from otheF alpnals°and rMny, othei <
sloop a roadway Sipn09 plawtl too dose together factors ! ,
;can Impede the flow o';fraffic on tiro roadway: } ° ;
BeaulortCour
ntyhpe;rnore, fflnpeirt {etarfdarclaralop
p
u-&,278 in the BIufh lArea 3
otl , � ,elpfes4in Rural' i,
ansa and 2 000 in urbanYarwf FryNor�klq� M1"
Island a Ccmprefwrle(y6 Plan diec6irrpjpas, the
Installation of traffic;signifs i, th, 1r5$0'fast
established slgnefiiad IntersectI"
SIGNAL TIMING AND ; Timing and.m"mizing'the available green time for An arterial en ata and
COORDINATION traffic signals along major transportation coon
rrltlo
This techniqP►o0fesslon study was
ue reduces the amount of time that cars perfomred irtiplemented tri 2Q03 Joey S 278 in' ,
Rftl
ate stopped at a tref�iC signal along a major I andathe
r Wan p! corridor `l I plemerltgtljnirrp'Ine
,rt
Intersections In"2001 The�rol�N�!
�� ' " signal timing on I
baaeSl nfo�n jaHfC
hcurrcounjs tha'the Tadrn biJndtjctd
DRIVE AY-SPACINGi Setting minimumcu
epedhg between driveways or rb SCOOT has 11r If ddvqurt}y separa0on etandarfls,
cuts Fewer drhrsweys mean fewer points whereifwm
that are enforced uphf)hsrn psrnfkfn
raw slows to melte birrts rotor ays and the ptocess Each a the tti lAr y
. , redudignof .,pptpn(�Iysflr�Jr `i. , i ;,p8deptedymOr9{8itlrlpa�,dh�y� !�' v` {� r
DRIVEWAY P9IGN , , +AdeQJWoitu�Tllnaradu a nd;ddvawiav'W4eh n�rrtW ernnr. _?..�.= f �
i �' t• 7 y��L+�l u7 WOTraQIC prr;WO
roadway P►cpefly designed ddvsways will reduce
the time k takes a car to leave a travel lane and ante
the driveway:
,
11
i 0 U
I
Flpure 12: Summary. of;Access Man pstnsttt Sbtntitirds (Cohd iii d)
ACCESS
MANAGEMENT DESCRIPTION
LOCAL APPLICATION
TECHNIQUE
DECELERATION , TiPge are dedloat4d lanes for traffic to decelerate in
Deceleration lertea are often roquired (by SCDOT or r i
UNES'; order to melts a right tum Into,a d►lyeway or side r
i local povemment) at gioderate"1o.hiph
:street `.Cars`deceleradnpYo'melie alum have a
develapmeds to rtaUp�te tt►e da�tel4prrNpl s Impaot i.
dedicated lane and do not Impede through tiaflic
on the through Jraffiq on the corijrbr oO,wtdch it lo ti
located ,Today, t(ts 6atfic ir(yZact,anelysisordinsnce
(a the vehlole usede�etarmine`w1laUief t i , ' j
deceleraUor lane is 1 , 11'i , ; 1 ,
SHARF,D DRIVEWAY The development,o} 1rorltapa roads and badtside+
7neet�ld tj
Beaufort ►d!r epacijloally requlresngn residential
�ACCFS' CROSS; cess (xovk)es aA oapoJtunky to remove tuming '
tle�elopments to pidVld4'Iinj�epes forailJJoininp +
ACCESS DRIVEWAY+ ; trafflts from the roadway and serve businesses wkh
deve)opments,<;Evdn Ira tta stleerlCe or ffJses apeckb'
AND FRONTAGE" altemste ao" t+ Fronteme end bei*side access
requirements these access managemerK technique&',
ROADS (BACKSIDE roads offer perellel routes removing tical trefllc from
may be required as a'reeuk'pf p tratfic Impact
ACCESSmajor tranagortatibn co ti)lore They also allaW more
{'
apayeis to mkipate tf�e imp%c4 of a ppacft a..
developmems direct access to signalized
deyeJppmppL-: Tfte�Town HYlo^.t(eadiltland ti
iMersetaiortia .Sha driveways serye fro or more
encoureQea ahere� acebsssridzatl�rsfe s this} 7
adjacent propertRaqulrirp adjoining
during the developnterit reViesi process
developmeFtg to proirWo;croas access or to'ehare+
�driirewaya poteMtallyrred ar refitlt
on the arterial
roadway arld feducas the poteMlal:for conflict`;'
between emeiinpi exkirig ilm through traffic.
GENERAL Qeneral interconnectiv)yr rofera to puideealinthat
INTERCONNECTIVITY encourege qr rayuire'tlk(erera developments to
provide a network of secondary roedYyays ih
{
ramous local tralfichpm maiq lranaQo(tedon corridors
s S}aulolS ty arld ` .
� 5 �
' interironnectivity tncludeii providirpdirest a^ im from
,.
specific Wwjvlpiotl reqtirlw, ldsthaf adliress r s �;
reeidenNal communiNeato commerdal area
'llnke�es betw4en' el s�bdlViafons
regubjrp stubbed stre�;s to be in
eeaeiprojded p '
stibdivleionsFior croasaccess aril builtling new
Agraemerits and rellttatl PUD s requiro
perallol roads.
interconpacllvky Eden iQ tiJs absence of,theser
s 0, staaxlards in npctivlly maybe required }t
of adevelepntera "At, mmerK�atipn
I ly
1 reflic Ipact Meale
k'6
Smaller developments still have the potential to create significant impacts on the road
network. For that reason, each of the Participating Local Governments has adopted •
local ordinances requiring traffic impact analyses. Beaufort County and the Town of
Bluffton require any development exceeding 50 peak -hour trips to do a traffic impact
analysis. Typical developments at the 50 peak -hour threshold may include banks,
drive-through restaurants or 50 -lot residential subdivisions. The Town of Hilton
Head Island has a threshold of 100 peak -hour trips.
Typical improvements recommended by a traffic impact analysis to mitigate the
impacts of development include the provision of turning and deceleration lases, the
installation of traffic signals, and sharing access with adjoining developments. Along
major corridors such as US 278, these improvements help maximize capacity by
reducing curb cuts and minimizing friction from turning vehicles. Where capacity
deficiencies cannot be adequately mitigated, a traffic impact analysis may trigger a
development to reduce its overall size.
Maintaining and Updating Trgo7c Count Data. Having the latest information on
traffic volumes along major roadways helps state and local governments prioritize
transportation projects, determine whether a signal is needed and determine whether a
roadway's traffic volume exceeds capacity. SCDOT conducts annual traffic counts
for each of its major roadway segments. SCDOT measures traffic volume at these
locations over a 24-hour period. The resulting figure is called the Average Annual
Daily Traffic (AADT) count. SCDOT does not provide annual traffic count
information on intersections, but will conduct counts for problem intersections on an
as needed basis.
The Town of Hilton Head Island conducts their own manual traffic counts at all of
their major intersections to determine peak hour data. These counts are conducted
during the second week of June, which represents a high volume but not peak volume
time of the year. The differences between the data that the Town collects and
SCDOT's AADT data are that the Town looks at peak hour demand rather than
average daily traffic volumes. The Town's data is also specific to intersections. At
each intersection, counts are made for each turning movement.
Beaufort County and the Town of Bluffton currently do not have the staff to compile
their own count data and, therefore rely on SCDOT's AADT information. Beaufort
County's Comprehensive Plan calls for an annual county traffic program to insure
that peak and off-peak period operational efficiency (degree of traffic congestion) is
monitored, and that a strategy to deal with emerging congestion is developed and
implemented.
TRANPLANModei: The primary purpose of the TRANPLAN model, used both by
Beaufort County and Hilton Head Island is to determine future traffic volumes on the
road network. This primarily enables the Town and County to plan for road projects
in a timely manner to provide sufficient growth capacity to meet the projected
demand. The TRANPLAN model can also help determine the transportation impacts
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report 40
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 28
and ultimately the decision of whether to approve large projects, such as a PUD or
• large-scale zoning amendments.
Intelligent TMnsportation Systems (ITS): US 278 is at capacity in some places and
over capacity in others. Mitis results in the road being very susceptible to delays from
accidents and other unforeseen events. The ability of safety officials to respond
quickly to congestion issues is important to minimize these delays. There are three
components to the county's Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)- video
surveillance of roadway conditions; incident management vehicles to help clear
stranded vehicles; and highway advisory radio broadcasts. The Beaufort County
Emergency Management Department operates 26 surveillance cameras along SC 170
and US 278. These cameras send images that are updated every five seconds to the
Emergency Management Department's Traffic Management Center in Beaufort. The
Traffic Management Center can then assess the situation and respond accordingly.
Such responses may include sending SCDOT incident management vehicles to
remove wrecked or stranded vehicles, dispatching law enforcement officials, updating
electronic message boards to notify drivers of detours, and broadcasting over
designated AM radio stations. Images from the cameras are also placed on the
Emergency Management Department's web site allowing motorists the ability to
assess traffic situations before leaving home.
Managing Growth: Another method of addressing future transportation demand is to
manage the growth that is anticipated to create the demand. The measures of
managing growth generally fall into three categories — regulating density, intensity,
and land use through local land use ordinances; limiting growth by limiting the
number of building permits that are issued°; or purchasing land in key locations to
remove the potential for development.
In Southern Beaufort County, the greatest success in controlling growth has been
through the purchase of properties by local government to remove them from
potential development. Hilton Head Island's Land Acquisition Program has been
used by the Town to remove land from potential development through purchase of the
lands. The program, funded by the Real Estate Transfer Fees (RETF) was established
in 1991. Since that time, the Town has spent $120.4 million on 101 parcels totaling
1,111.72 acres. The Town has calculated that their land acquisition program has
prevented 4.5 million square feet of commercial space, 1,365 motel rooms, 3,266
multi -family and time-share units, and 26,216 peak hour trips.
Removing land from development through the purchase of strategic parcels for open
space and to protect environmentally sensitive lands is also one of the objectives in
Beaufort County's Rural and Critical Lands Program. Five purchases made through
that program along the US 278 corridor have potentially removed 860,600 square feet
of commercial space, 790 dwelling units and 20,600 generated trips per day.
4 The Steering Committee at the January, 2005 meeting, directed the Consultants and County staff to explore rate of growth
tools as part of the Implementation Strategies, subject to additional discussions on The Fiscal Opportunities and Constmints
to Growth Background Report
• Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 29
Environmental and Aesthetic Concerns
This section has focused primarily on the need for road improvements to address
existing and Buildout demand on the Regional Road Network and how alternative
modes of transportation and planning tools can temper this demand. It is important to
note, however, that even if the region were able to fund all the transportation
improvements identified as necessary to accommodate new growth and development,
it does not address the question of whether too many four and six lane roads will
erode the character and quality of life in Southern Beaufort County. That issue is
overviewed in this section.
Environmental Concerns: Today, road connections are recognized as important in
making road networks and communities more pedestrian -friendly. Connecting
wildlife habitat, and reducing its fragmentation is also recognized as an important
goal. Achieving both connectivity goals has the potential to serve cross-purposes. In
planning for future roadways, considerations should be given for the network of open
spaces that is discussed in The Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth
Background Report. Innovative road construction techniques have been used to aid
in linking wildlife habitat.
Aesthetics: When Southern Beaufort County was largely rural, many of the region's
roadways consisted of one or two travel lanes covered by a canopy of live oaks.
Highway 46 between Bluffton and Pritchardville and SC 170 between Sun City and
SC 46 still retain much of this rural character. These corridors helped establish the
images for the region. One of the qualitative costs of growth is the loss of these rural
byways through road widenings and realignments.
Beaufort County's Comprehensive Plan calls for the protection and enhancement of
the scenic quality of its roadways through corridor planning. In addition,
considerable effort has been made by the Town of Bluffton to maintain the scenic
quality of Highway 46 and 170. The ]ones Tract Development Agreement calls for
having a divided highway with parallel travel lanes spaced an adequate distance from
the existing roadway to preserve the existing tree canopy on SC 170 when the road is
widened. The Town of Hilton Head Island's Comprehensive Plan also recognizes the
importance of preserving the aesthetic qualities of its roadways. The plan specifically
calls for the protection of transportation landmarks, such as Sea Pines Circle and its
landscaped medians along William Hilton Parkway (U.S. 278).
All three Participating Local Governments have Corridor Overlay Districts that work
to enhance the areas roadways by requiring development to conform to high standards
for architecture, landscaping, tree preservation, lighting and signage. The application
of district standards, however, are limited to the development of parcels along the
roadways subject to the overlay, and do not apply to road widenings, intersection
improvements, and median landscaping. This lack of coordination between private
and public improvements has the potential to create conflicts and inconsistencies in
the application of aesthetic standards along the regions roadways.
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 30
Regional Transportation Planning Framework
During the review of the County's Comprehensive Plan in 2002, The Town Councils,
Planning Commissions, and staff of the Town of Hilton Head Island and the Town of
Bluffton held joint meetings to develop suggested revisions to the vision statement,
goals, and objectives of the County's Transportation Element. ,This review also
highlighted major accomplishments that had been undertaken during the previous five
years, and future initiatives to be started. One of the major recommendations agreed
to by all of the jurisdictions included additional emphasis on the increasingly regional
nature of transportation planning and the need to establish a formalized interagency,
multi jurisdictional structure and process for transportation decision-making. The
first goal in the revised Transportation Element called for the establishment of a
regional transportation planning process to examine the transportation system as a
whole. The following action items were adopted by County Council to address this
gam:
♦ Ensure that the County and municipalities' decision-making process considers
and coordinates with each other.
♦ Maximize cooperative planning efforts with officials from Jasper County, LCOG,
and Chatham County (Georgia) involving land use decisions affecting shared use
of major transportation modes.
• Establish a closer working relationship with SCDOT by meeting at least quarterly
to review County and regional transportation issues.
• Over the last several years, staff and elected officials in the three jurisdictions have
diligently endeavored to professionalize transportation planning. To enhance inter-
jurisdictional coordination and communication, the Beaufort County Transportation
Advisory Group (BCTAG) was created; it included elected officials and other citizens
from the County's jurisdictions. In addition, staff from the County, Bluffton, Hilton
Head Island and the SCDOT meet regularly to discuss transportations issues centered
around US 278, the Bluffton Parkway, and, more recently, SC 170. It was noted
during the review of the County's Transportation Element, that the current system of
informal interagency coordination needed to become more formalized through the
development of a process to accomplish a continuing and cooperative transportation
planning and decision-making program for the region, perhaps modeled on those used
by Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs).
• Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 31
SECTION 2: PARKS AND RECREATION
Southern Beaufort County's active and passive parks and recreation facilities are an
important component of the region's quality of life. They are also an important
component of the region's economy. The first background report established that
natural amenities such as coastal waters, salt marshes, beaches, trees and local
wildlife are an integral component of the region's attractiveness to both tourists and
newcomers. Parks and recreation facilities are an important means of making these
natural amenities accessible to both residents and tourists.
Future population growth will have a significant impact on the ability of the
Participating Local Governments in the region to respond to increased demands for
regional park land and facilities. This section focuses on inventorying Southern
Beaufort County's existing Regional Park Network, determining whether existing
regional park land and facilities serve existing needs, and then what regional park
lands and facilities will need to be provided to accommodate the new growth and
development estimated in The Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report.
Existing revenue sources and their ability to address the future needs are also
examined. While The Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background
Report will provide a more detailed analysis of revenue projections to determine
funding gaps, this information is provided to give an indication of what significant
revenue gaps exist today for the funding of the Regional Park Network.
The final subsection in this section on Parks and Recreation addresses the issue of
public access to Southern Beaufort County's waterways and marshes. The Natural
Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth Background Report establishes that the
region places great value on its beaches, waterways, and saltmarshes. Waterfront and
marshfront property is scarce and expensive to acquire. Therefore, it is important to
thoroughly assess where existing opportunities lie to offer more public access to the
water in order to accommodate future population growth.
One issue of regional concern is the availability of additional land to accommodate
future park needs. All three Participating Local Governments have been proactive in
acquiring land for parks through fee simple purchases or from dedications negotiated
from private developments. These lands have significantly benefited the region by
addressing both existing and future needs for regional park lands. However, to meet
established level of service (LOS) standards for the Regional Park Network at
Buildout, an additional 525.1 acres is needed primarily in the Greater Bluffton Area.
Another issue of concern is that as Southern Beaufort County continues to grow, the
availability of land for future parks becomes scarcer and more expensive to acquire.
This analysis also shows there will probably be funding shortfalls for regional park
lands and facilities if the present system of funding parks is maintained into the
future. Southern Beaufort County is fortunate to have Park Impact Fees to address
the demand placed on regional park facilities by future population growth. However,
it may be time to reassess the structure of park impact fees to determine whether the
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
Page 32
•
40
revenue from the program is adequate to ensure regional park facilities can be
provided to accommodate new growth and development.
Existing Regional Park Network
Southern Beaufort County has 3,786.4 acres of federal, state, county and municipal
parks. These parks range from small neighborhood pocket parks, to the 970 -acre
Pinckney Island National Wildlife Refuge. In an effort to organize parks and
recreation facilities into logical grouping for the purposes of planning and growth
management, this report makes a distinction between parks that serve specific natural
and cultural preservation goals and parks that serve a broader diversity of regional
active and passive recreation needs. The parks that serve regional active and passive
recreational needs constitute the Regional Park Network, and consist of both park
lands and facilities (see Map 6).
The purpose for making this distinction is that large preserves such as Pinckney
Island National Wildlife Refuge and Victoria Bluff, which serve very important but
limited passive recreation needs, are not well suited for heavy usage, and not
appropriate for major facilities improvements. Also, their vast acreage could distort
the overall need for park land in the region by possibly showing there is sufficient
land available when in fact, there may be a deficiency of land for ball fields and other
active recreation facilities.
. Figure 14 below identifies the inventory of Southern Beaufort County's existing
Regional Park Network.
Figure 14: Inventory of Regional Park Network in Southern Beaufort County
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan , Page 33
�R�en�lRtcr�i�Ip13F�tsllRitaa
Adiveor
Passiveel
'�srsjta)
eeiv0
fir, #. P.6 •.. ,
�,,` HIRohHi�S„' �T�oth
.ax'loll0r,',.
�ZLUEV
Oki 46-
active
); t
^,�w
� Old M C Riley 'Cif(npldx ;
n
active
(tat {cr6' efuRuk :
active
11120 F
! w
active
0"-
Y t `i ritfid Ar Airvl
passive
t,
( t,4+9 8
c �iijts Perk `
active
both
�0 0
'�{ tGreater,BhiM�onAratTotd,:
�Y8i6�,i;
;„�(
"See Figure 25
In addition to Southern Beaufort County's 769.4 -acre Regional Park Network, there
are public lands worthy of note. There are 3,057 acres of special use parks and nature
preserves in Southern Beaufort County. These lands are largely undeveloped and
serve specific natural and cultural resource protection goals. Figure 15 identifies
these special use parks and nature preserves.
Figure 15: Inventory of Special Use Parks and Nature Preserves
Area (ac.)
�— 411.0
} 100.0
165.0
1,255.0
970.0
100.0
In addition, all three Participating Local Governments have acquired land that is
suited to serve future park and recreation needs. Hilton Head Island's land
acquisitions have been funded largely by its real estate transfer fee (RETF); Beaufort
County's acquisitions have been through its Rural and Critical Lands Program; and
the Town of Bluffton's lands have been acquired through dedications negotiated
through development agreements. These lands are considered when assessing the
needs for regional park lands and facilities for new growth and development in
Southern Beaufort County. Figure 16 provides an inventory of these lands.
•
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 34
Figure 16: Inventory of Undeveloped blit k Needs Lands that have Potential to
Establishing a Level of Service (LOS)
For the purposes of this report, LOS standards for Southern Beaufort County's
Regional Park Network is established for two general categories. The first category is
park land (acres) and the second is park and recreation facilities.
LOS Standards for Park Land (acres). These two LOS standards are applied to two
areas separately, the Town of Hilton Head Island and the remainder of Southern
Beaufort County (Greater Bluffton Area).
Town of Hilton Head Island: While the Town of Hilton Head Island's Recreation
and Open Space Plan establishes LOS standards for regional, community and
neighborhood parks, several factors have led the Town to consider moving away
from general national standards for regional park land needs:
Transponation and 011ier Public Facilities Background Report Page 35
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
1. As Hilton Head Island approaches buildout, park needs become more defined
and tied to citizen surveys, input from public meetings and existing recreation •
participation rates.
2. Being a major tourist destination, Hilton Head Island has both unique
recreation amenities such as beaches and other water related facilities and
unique recreation needs created by the sizeable resort and seasonal population.
3. Finally, many recreatio:L.l amenities are supplied by private developments
serving the residents of those developments. These private amenities reduce
the demand for public park and recreation facilities.
Rather than attempt to weight national standards with all of the factors described
above, this report accounts for these factors by setting Hilton Head Island's LOS
standard at its existing LOS for the provision of land. This methodology assumes
that the Island's existing mix of public and private amenities is currently serving
its permanent and seasonallresort population at an acceptable level. The formula
below shows how this LOS is calculated.
Existing Park Acreage (475,6 ac) x 1,000 =12.2 acres per 1,000 residents
2005 Population (38,931)
• Greater Bluffton Area: Since the remainder of Southern Beaufort County is
anticipated to receive a considerable amount of population growth (53,263
additional permanent residents at Buildout), an established LOS standard was
used. Beaufort County's Comprehensive Plan establishes LOS standards for
county parks (5 acres per 1,000 residents), community parks (8 acres per 1,000
residents), and neighborhood parks (2 acres per 1,000 residents). Since the •
Regional Park Network established in this report does not include neighborhood
parks, the acreage requirements fur county and community parks were added to
produce a LOS standard of 13 acres per 1,000 residents.
LOS Standard jor Park and Recreation FaciliNes. The other Regional Park -
Network LOS standard established in this report relates to park and recreation
facilities. Rather than attempt to estimate the specific needs for soccer fields,
baseball fields, picnic areas, playgrounds, and other recreation facilities, the LOS
standard for park and recreation facilities focuses on determining an LOS based on
the replacement cost for the existing park and recreation facilities serving the current
population. This was done first by identifying the inventory of park and recreation
facilities in Southern Beaufort County's Regional Park Network (see Appendix 3)s
7be cost to replace these facilities is then determined by applying cost estimates for
each facility type. Figure 17 below shows the estimated replacement cost for park
and recreation facilities in Southern Beaufort County.
s Several proposed facilities were added to the existing puke and recreation facility inventory because Weir needs were determined by the
Beaufort County PALS to be addressing existing demands. These projects include 2 tennis courts and one playground in Shults Park; three
has" fields, five soccer fields and supporting facilities in Buckwa ter Park; and 11 miles of multiuse trails identified in Phase One of
We Southern Beaufort Greenways Plan.
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report •
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 36
• Figure 17: Replacement Costs for Southern Beaufort County Park Facilities for
Regional Park Network
its AeOtMII0113 ii {as r; Inventory gi ,} Total Coal
t'� zak ll),F�u 4 11 tisYixJ IO1J0 $3,300,000
23 �' �e'�` "� b00 8 900 000
%r'r. t c .00.0 3,900,000
13
Lpn&�ograe. 8 �`is Xur"'11�'bt70 320008
12 aya t dr;6� I4i. 900,008
1 �j
8 r '4 . tl0 (SOtl 400 000
4 t`wmS i 1100 10,000,000
�r �iUnity,Cer�, �..
'k si' rfr Swim t 401'' 1 a +x � 1 1,120,000
13 i y'K t rrr r�7Q;000.� 750,000
200i0i1d
2,600.000
65 miles �,b t T00AW.. 8,500,000
r �t
2,334 � 1,5b0 � 3501 000
�`8018IiafeP,"OMi,�acl e.�— 2'15,000
, Wi' - i 4' 0488000
Q
IIeC �soillNeer(t� "Of 8,093,200
r ; t3Ulif¢tel
48 200
;Based on cost estimates for future improvements to Buckwalter Pak
® It is estimated the replacement cost of existing park and recreation facilities for the
Regional Park Network is $48,559,200. Based on the current permanent population
these facilities serve (67,179), the LOS standard is the provision of $722 of park and
recreation facilities per capita.
Existing and Projected Park and Recreation Needs for
Regional Park Network
Exisdng and Projected Needs for Park Lands: Now that LOS standards are
established for the Regional Park Network in Southern Beaufort County, the next step
is to apply existing and Buildout population estimates to calculate existing and
projected needs.
♦ Bxistine Needs for Park Lands: The existing need for park land is determined by
applying the LOS standard for the Greater Bluffton Area (13 acres per 1,000
residents) to its existing permanent population (28,248) and by applying the LOS
standard for the Town of Hilton Head Island (12.2 acres per 1,000 residents) to
the Town's current permanent population (38,93 1). Figure 18 blow summarizes
the existing conditions of park land in the Regional Park Network.
• Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 37
Figure 18: Existing Conditions of Park Lands (acres) and Deficiencies in Southern
Beaufort County's Regional Park Network
�. Greater 1 Total
BluMon Area'
293.8 4 789.4
387.2 )'f 38 842.8
I�aOdilatlo t 73.4 r i •�i,,iG10 73.4
*Includes Daufuskie Island, Town of Bluffton and all unincorporated areae
This analysis indicates there is currently a need for 73.4 additional acres of park
lands to serve the Greater Bluffton Area, but no need for additional park land on
Hilton Head Island.
4 Buildout Needs for Park Lands: To determine estimated park and recreation land
needs at Buildout, the same LOS standards are applied to the estimated Buildout
populations of Hilton Head Island (53,329) and the Greater Bluffton Area
(8 1,513). The additional park lands needed to serve Southern Beaufort County's
estimated Buildout population are summarized in Figure 19,
Figure 19: Need for Park Lands (acres) at Buildout in Southern Beaufort County for
Regional Park Network
Greater
Blullton Area an Total
Total
ExibtittpWYxld;(ac) 293.8 47,Bi8,t` 769.4
T ' r d�Naeds (ac) 1,059.7 I'M' 8+, 77 1,710.3
YkRYMN
785.9 1i}? ,��Of$Ui!as 940.9
*Includes Daufuskfe Island, Town of Bluffton and all unincorporated areas
Figure 19, however, does not account for the available undeveloped lands
(Figure 16) that have the potential to serve regional park and recreation needs.
Figure 20 below assumes these lands will be used in the future to address
Regional Park Network needs for park land. With this assumption, the net
additional park lands needed to serve Southern Beaufort County's estimated
Buildout population is identified in Figure 20.
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
Page 38
•
Figure 20: Net Additional Park Lands (acres) Needed at Buildout in Southern
• Beaufort County for Regional Park Network
Orester Bluffton , HIM"'M l;v
ri
wrl Area*
II1i�dIdO tWtt1�,� 765.8
8tl s ' 256.7 190;9 MlI
f0F
Y✓i;: r 7 ;wsr y jt ul
+508.2 16'9+�
*Includes Daufaskle Island, Town of Blunton and all unincorporated areas
This analysis indicates the additional undeveloped lands owned by the Town of
Hilton Head Island have the potential to more than address all of the Island's
future recreation needs. The remainder of Southern Beaufort County (Greater
Bluffton Area) will need an additional 509.2 acres of park land to accommodate
the Buildout population.
4 Cost to Accommodate Buildout Needs: To determine average upland acreage
costs for park lands in Southern Beaufort County, the Trust For Public Lands was
consulted. They are the non-profit agency that manages the Rural and Critical
Lands Program for Beaufort County. They recommended an estimated cost of
$35,000 per upland acre in the Bluffton Area for park lands. Based on this
assumption, the need for an additional 509.2 acres for park land is estimated to
• cost $17,822,000.
Existing and Projected Needs for Park and Recreation Faciiides: Based on the
LOS standard of $722 per capita for park and recreation facilities, it is estimated it
will cost a total of $48,852,686 to provide park and recreation facilities to
accommodate the Buildout population in the region. Of this amount, $10,395,356 is
needed for Hilton Head Island, and the balance, $38,457,330, is needed for the
Greater Bluffton Area. Figaro 27 below summarizes these estimated costs by sub-
areas in the region.
Figure 21: Projected Costs for Park and Recreation Facility Needs for Regional Park
Network at Buildout
•
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 39
Additional
LOS ( 2 "i ;
Additional facllltla
Population Growth
purl{ hollHlee
coete to eccommodete
Eatlmated at
Buildout
„cg.fe M► °
future population
HlhonNead island l
14,398
}%;$722
rowth
518,395,356
Greater effl
, :,on
53,286
x;$722
638,467,330
TOTAL
87883
882 888
•
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 39
In total, it is estimated the cost to provide new growth and development with
• adequate park lands and facilities in Southern Beaufort County is $66,674,686. Of
this amount, $10,395,356 is to accommodate new growth and development on Hilton
Head Island, and $56,279,330 is to accommodate new growth and development in the
Greater Bluffton Area. See Figure 22.
Figure 22: Summary of Costs of Park Lands and Facilities to Accommodate Buildout
Population
�r.
Park Land t:oata p . AddltlorMl foolllHaa
Faoll� Toth
rr'v,14�
ji�llOn'♦ 1�1�Itttd10;395,3ti6
;it .'� $10,395,356
Orsaier,BlylNon
Area
$17,822,000 $38,457,930 *; $58,279,330
i-i,�°Yb
41:iTAL. 7,
178Y1000 8828118';`;': 8718!8
Existing Sources of Funding
There are a number of funding sources used by the Participating Local Governments
to pay for park land acquisition and park and recreation facilities. These funding
sources are identified below. While The Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to
Growth Background Report will provide a more detailed analysis of revenue
projections to determine funding gaps, the following information is provided to give
an indication of where significant gaps exist that are of regional importance.
Today in Southern Beaufort County, regional park lands and facilities are funded
through four major sources: Park impact fees, the Rural and Critical Lands Program,
exactions imposed at time of PUD approval, and the Town of Hilton Head Island's
RETF6. Hilton Head Island also uses property taxes to fund park facilities. What this
summary analysis demonstrates is that if no changes to the existing revenue structure
for the funding of the Regional Park Network are made, the participating Local
Governments will not be able to fund the needs for regional park lands and facilities
into the future.
impact Fees: Park and recreation facilities is a component of Beaufort County's
Impact Fee Program. The Impact Fee Program funds park aid recreation capital
improvements whose need is created by the impacts of new growth and development.
The County's Impact Fee Program does not fund the acquisition of park land;
however, Hilton Head Island's program does allow for land acquisition. In Southern
Beaufort County, the need for park facilities is calculated separately for Hilton Head
Island and the Bluffton/Okatie Area to account for different growth estimates and the
different LOS standards used by the Town and the county. Daufuskie Island is not
included in the parks and recreation component of the Impact Fee Program because it
was determined when the Impact Fee Program was created that the need for park and
recreation facilities on the island is low. Park Impact fees are exacted on new
6 Additional miscellaneous funding sources include Accommodations Taxes, PARD funds, Hilton Head Island TIF funds,
• Sunday Liquor License Fees and Hilton Head Island Traffic Impact Fees (for trails).
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 40
residential units and paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. In the
Bluffton/Okatie Area, the park impact fee is $483 per residential unit. On Hilton •
Head Island, the fee is $268 per residential unit. On average, annual revenues
generated from the Impact Fee Program amount to $400,000 to $500,000 in the
Bluffton Area and an average of $60,000 on Hilton Head Island. Impact fees for
parks and recreation were calculated to cover capital projects only. It was assumed
that land acquisition would come from donations from developers or other sources. If
the existing park impact fee program remains in place, it is estimated it will generate
$16,223,804 at Buildout (see Figure 23 below).
Figure 23: Projected Revenues at Buildout from Beaufort County's Park Impact Fee
Program
*Includes permanent and seasonal dwelling units
This would leave a shortfall of approximately $32,628,882 based on the analyses of
needs ($48,852,686 for facilities, versus $16,223,804 in revenue). It should be noted,
however, that historically, the Participating Local Governments have used other
revenue sources to fund park improvements, especially on Hilton Head Island. These •
revenue sources include PARD funds, an Accommodations Tax, and Sunday Liquor
Permit Fees. In addition, Hilton Head Island's impact fees must be spent within their
jurisdiction. However, even if this funding gap is halved, it points to the need to
reconsider the existing Impact Fee structure for parks and recreation.
Rural and Critical Lands Program: In 2000, Beaufort County voters approved by
referendum the Beaufort County Rural and Critical Lands Program for the purpose of
protecting rural lands from development pressure from urban areas. The program,
which was approved for 40 million dollars, is funded through bonds paid by a 2 mil
property tax increase over a period of 20 years. To increase funding would take
another voter referendum. To date, the properties purchased through the program
(e.g., the lands at the Okatie Headwaters and the Pinckney Colony tract) are only
appropriate for passive recreation improvements. The purpose of the program does
not allow for the use of the funds to purchase lands for active recreation uses.
Of the $40 million approved by the voters, only $ 10 million has not been spent. It is
likely that the remaining $10 million will be spent by the end of 2005. A portion or
all of these funds could potentially be used as a funding source for acquisition for
passive park lands in Southern Beaufort County for the Regional Park Network.
However, even if all the existing monies appropriated for Southern Beaufort County
were used to purchase lands for the Regional Park Network (approximately five
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 41
8 of Estimated(
k-111111.°� Total Estimated
Addfllonat tlnrrallln`
0
N�
8avanw—
Units• — 2005 to
Bulldout
200510
Bulldout
Qr11tH;81uffton Anti
27,884
tip
113,458,312
iHiflon)isad lrtend '
10,319
288.'""
$2,765,492
38,183
$182231114
*Includes permanent and seasonal dwelling units
This would leave a shortfall of approximately $32,628,882 based on the analyses of
needs ($48,852,686 for facilities, versus $16,223,804 in revenue). It should be noted,
however, that historically, the Participating Local Governments have used other
revenue sources to fund park improvements, especially on Hilton Head Island. These •
revenue sources include PARD funds, an Accommodations Tax, and Sunday Liquor
Permit Fees. In addition, Hilton Head Island's impact fees must be spent within their
jurisdiction. However, even if this funding gap is halved, it points to the need to
reconsider the existing Impact Fee structure for parks and recreation.
Rural and Critical Lands Program: In 2000, Beaufort County voters approved by
referendum the Beaufort County Rural and Critical Lands Program for the purpose of
protecting rural lands from development pressure from urban areas. The program,
which was approved for 40 million dollars, is funded through bonds paid by a 2 mil
property tax increase over a period of 20 years. To increase funding would take
another voter referendum. To date, the properties purchased through the program
(e.g., the lands at the Okatie Headwaters and the Pinckney Colony tract) are only
appropriate for passive recreation improvements. The purpose of the program does
not allow for the use of the funds to purchase lands for active recreation uses.
Of the $40 million approved by the voters, only $ 10 million has not been spent. It is
likely that the remaining $10 million will be spent by the end of 2005. A portion or
all of these funds could potentially be used as a funding source for acquisition for
passive park lands in Southern Beaufort County for the Regional Park Network.
However, even if all the existing monies appropriated for Southern Beaufort County
were used to purchase lands for the Regional Park Network (approximately five
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 41
million dollars), there would still be a significant fund`ng shortfall for park lands
• (approximately 12 million dollars).
Furthermore, even if the Rural and Critical Lands Program receives additional funds
in the future through a voter referendum, the use of the program may be morn
appropriate for passive recreation uses such as trails and picnic areas, but not
necessarily for ball fields, recreation complexes and other active recreation uses.
Land Donations from Private Developments: Private developers have donated much
of the existing active parkland in the Bluffton Area as part of PUD approvals and
Development Agreements. Donations from four large annexations have provided the
Town and the region with 367 acres of active and passive park land and $750,000 for
the design and construction of park facilities. Figure 24 provides a summary of these
contributions.
Figure 24: Parks and Recreation Donations to the Town of Bluffton from Annexation
and Development Agre&uents
"ita�(I19tt0 91Utfi�O
acres 'y "7i5f%iGUIJ(
9th"uke Tract'' 125 acres �OOd 000i.
63 6*der iacc 142 acres $300;000:
jtiiies E��tate; 90 acres
4.f'i? _4,�Tota1 367 acres 7lt0'000.-
Source Town of Bluffton Community Development Department
While dedications from private developments have served Southern Beaufort County
in the past, there are some factors that limit their usage in the future. While additional
land acquisitions from private development may be possible, only 10.9% of the land
in Southern Beaufort County remains uncommitted to future development.
Development of these uncommitted areas would likely result in increased density and
therefore increase the estimated Buildout population. This would result in an
increased demand for park land and facilities and may be counterproductive or result
in a zero sum gain (or less).
Town of Huton Head Island (RETF): The Town of Hilton Head Island has been
very successful in acquiring park land by use of its real estate transfer fee (RETF),
which amounts to one quarter of one percent (.0025) of the purchase price of the
transfer of real property. As described in The Natural Assets and Natural Constraints
to Growth Background Report, Hilton Head Island is unique in its ability to use this
funding source. The RETF generates approximately $3.8 million annually for the
town. Since its inception in 1991, the Town has spent $120.4 million on 101 parcels
totaling 1,111.72 acres. The purchase of these parcels has served primarily as a
growth management tool for the Town as well as supplying land for community
facilities and parks. Based on the established LOS standards for park lands, Hilton
Head Island is within 15.9 acres of meeting its Buildout park land needs for the
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report Page 42
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
Regional Park Network. Assuming that the current level of revenue generated from
this funding source remains constant, the Town can anticipate $57 million over the •
next 15 years. It is assumed that these funds will be spent on additional lands to be
used for growth management, parks lands, and other community facilities.
Revenue Generating Park Amenities: Currently PALS receives revenue from
impact fees, program registration, and occasional rentals of athletic fields. One
potential source of additional revenue is to provide facilities that pay for themselves.
Many municipal and county park systems provide such amenities as water parks,
campgrounds, meeting facilities, and picnic shelter rentals. If successfully conceived
and managed, these amenities have the potential not only to pay for themselves, but
also to provide additional revenue to cover facilities that do not generate revenue.
Existing Parks Management Framework
Beaufort County Parks and Leisure Services (PALS), a division of county
government, is responsible for park planning and the operation of the county's
recreation programs. Park maintenance is the responsibility of the Beaufort County
Public Works Department. The PALS Board, which has countywide representation,
is appointed by and acts as an advisory body to County Council. Both the Town of
Hilton Head Island and Town of Bluffton coordinate with Beaufort County for the
maintenance of their parks. PALS also runs countywide recreation programs
including soccer, baseball, and summer camp programs.
The Town of Hilton Head Island provides additional maintenance to some of their Is
own facilities, its beach accesses and passive recreation areas such as Fish Haul Park.
The Town has its own Parks and Recreation Committee that serves a similar role as
the PALS Board making policy and program recommendations to Town Council.
Additional recreation programs are offered on the Island by the non-profit Island
Recreation Association, which offers, among other programs, youth soccer, football,
golf, and summer camp. The Town of Bluffton provides parks planning assistance,
but primarily relies on Beaufort County for the construction and maintenance of park
facilities. It is anticipated that as the Town of Bluffton grows, it will play a greater
role in parks and recreation similar to Hilton Head Island,
Summary
Based on the established LOS standards for park lands for Hilton Head Island and the
Greater Bluffton Area, 509.2 additional acres of parks, estimated to cost $17,822,000,
are needed to accommodate Southern Beaufort County's buildout population of
134,842. This future park land need is entirely within the Greater Bluffton Area and
estimated to cost $17,822,000. Hilton Head Head should be able to meet its future
park lands needs with existing undeveloped Town -owned properties.
Potentially, 5 million dollars from Beaufort County's Rural and Critical Lands
Program could be used to address park land needs in the Greater Bluffton Area, but
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 43
•
even if the program received additional funding, its use is probably not appropriate
• for active park lands. Assuming 5 million dollars from the County's Rural and
Critical Lands Program is used to fund park land needs, and that Southern Beaufort
County's park land needs are split evenly between active and passive uses, them is
still a 12 million dollar funding shortfall. While some of this shortfall may be
addressed through dedications from private developments, it is likely that these
dedications would be a result of new development in the uncommitted areas of the
region or increases in density from approved developments. Both of these actions
could result in increases in demand for new park lands thus lessening the benefit that
would be derived from the land dedications.
•
There are also potential funding shortfalls in park facilities needs, Based on the
established LOS standard of $722 per capita in park facilities expenditures,
$48,852,686 is needed to accommodate Southern Beaufort County's Buildout
population (7.2 million on Hilton Head Island and 26.7 million in the Greater
Bluffton Area). The existing impact fee program should provide approximately 16
million dollars, leaving a funding gap of 17.7 million dollars (4.5 million on Hilton
Head Island and 13.3 million dollars in the Greater Bluffton Area), This revenue
shortfall could be addressed through modification to the existing park impact fees, or
through other funding sources. These other revenue sources include PARD funds,
Accommodations Tax and Sunday Liquor Permit Fees, and the RETF on Hilton Head
Island.
The Town of Hilton Head Island is in the process of updating its Recreation and Open
Space Plan. This presents an opportunity for the Town to evaluate whether the fee
structure of its component of the County's Park Impact Fee Program will adequately
address future park facility needs. Beaufort County's Parks, Recreation and Open
Space Plan (1998) needs to be updated as well.
Finally, better ways to link the provision of park maintenance with the addition of
new park facilities needs to be explored. One ongoing concern with the management
of parks in Southern Beaufort County has been the issue of maintenance. Park impact
fees provide a dedicated funding source for new park facilities, but no dedicated
funding source covers the increased costs of park maintenance. Increases in
personnel and maintenance equipment brought on by new park facilities must be
supported by the general fund of Beaufort County or by the municipalities. If these
increases are not approved at budget time, the overall LOS for park maintenance
decreases as new park facilities are added.
Public Access to Water
In Southern Beaufort County, another important issue when discussing parks and
recreation is public access to water and salt marshes. Two of the five natural assets
identified in The Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth Background
Report as integral components to the region's sense of place and quality of life are
saltmarshes and coastal waters; and beaches and dunes. Approximately 47'% of the
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
Page 44
total area of Southern Beaufort County is influenced by tides. When Beaufort County
was largely rural, there were many informal places that served as boat landings,
picnic spots, and swimming areas. As Southern Beaufort County became more
developed, these informal water access areas have gone away, placing greater
importance on the public sector to provide boat landings, beach access, and other
public facilities. Ibis section will provide a brief inventory of public access in the
form of beach access, boat landings, and other more passive areas that offer fishing,
birding, and enjoyment of the views.
Beach Access: Southern Beaufort County has approximately 15 % linear miles of
beaches. Between mean high tide and the water, beaches are public lands that are
under the jurisdiction of the OCRM. From this standpoint, the region has a 15 S!, mile
linear park fronting the Atlantic Ocean. Providing adequate public access to this
amenity is vital to both the quality of life for the area's residents and to the economic
health of the region's tourism industry. Beachfront property tends to be intensely
developed and expensive to acquire. These two factors create a challenge to the
public sector to provide adequate access and to provide sufficient land for park-wL-
and other supportive facilities. Hilton Head Island has nine public access points
along its 12 miles of beaches. Figure 25 below provides a summary of the Island's
beach accesses. The locations are shown on Map 7.
Figure 25: Public Beach Access on Hilton Head Island
Source: Town of Hilton Head Island Planning Department
In 1998, the Town of Hilton Head Island adopted a Beach Access Plan. The plan is
based on an agreement between the Town and OCRM to provide more parking spaces
at its beach access areas. The town currently provides 1,206 parking spaces with 293
additional spaces under construction. The plan calls for a total of 1,400 parking
spaces in beach access areas by the year 2008.
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report •
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 45
On
Bee4�fAtvee
Acreage
f, ,
Ex�stlrig'��i
Proposed
FoII�r Fl ' �Beaoh!Park',;
1.0
a �
t� rhn i B �Pl�l'k
12.8
1
0.5
��Ilder c
y, , , Col E►S►�i a ;�a 1E�
2.0
f
w ' i�'
14.0
2d7`,"��
75
w
"4P06'Fl "IV. ad Be;,
14.7
` , t
75
,
��t' a} 16tki�jfkaCk
6urkea 8�t;gh%ijtjlaark`•
91.0
67.6
1`23
49
Bar�orel �Ei{ppriafon
12.8
` C�I��eJF �Etoh
4.4
' _+
24
Un(�9pllatedi
n/a
70
�nsr'�Toteli
174.8
1,20t3'<
293
Source: Town of Hilton Head Island Planning Department
In 1998, the Town of Hilton Head Island adopted a Beach Access Plan. The plan is
based on an agreement between the Town and OCRM to provide more parking spaces
at its beach access areas. The town currently provides 1,206 parking spaces with 293
additional spaces under construction. The plan calls for a total of 1,400 parking
spaces in beach access areas by the year 2008.
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report •
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 45
• Daufuskie Island has approximately 3 rfi miles of beach with only one public access
point on Beach Drive between Bloody Point and the Oakridge development.
Dauf iskie Island is only accessible by boat and, therefore, demand for beach access is
far less than on Hilton Head Island. Having only one beach access point, however, is
a disadvantage to island residents, some of whom resort to driving on the beach to
reach inaccessible areas.
Boat Landings: Beaufort County owns and maintains seven boat landings in
Southern Beaufort County. An additional boat landing is under construction on the
south side of Broad Creek on Hilton Head Island under the Cross Island Parkway. In
addition to Beaufort County's landings, another public boat launch is available at the
Oyster Factory in Bluffton. Map 7 provides the locations of these landings. Several
of the boat landings are currently over capacity, especially on holiday weekends and
during shrimp baiting season. Alljoy Landing, for example, is heavily used with boat
trailers often spilling out into the surrounding neighborhood streets.
The Boating Management Plan (2002), a component of the Beaufort Special Area
Management Plan, looked at how to accommodate the growing number of
recreational boaters in Beaufort County while ensuring protection of natural resources
and water quality. The plan compared the number of registered boaters in Beaufort
County in 2000 to the total population from the 2000 Census and determined that
registered boaters make up 13% of the total population. Assuming this percentage
remains constant, there are currently 8,733 boaters in Southern Beaufort County with
17,529 anticipated at Buildout. These estimates highlight the current and projected
demand on Southern Beaufort County's boating facilities.
Private Developments with Public Access: Several private developments in Southern
Beaufort County offer opportunities for the public to enjoy views of the water.
Harbour Town in Sea Pines, with its shops, restaurants, promenades, and lighthouse is
a good example. Shelter Cove Marina and to a lesser degree Palmetto Bay Marina
also offer the public the opportunity to shop, dine and stroll along the waterfront.
Palmetto Bluff Village in the Town of Bluffton is another good example of a private
development offering public access to the waterfront.
Other Opportunities for Public Access. There are several areas in Southern Beaufort
County that offer passive enjoyment of the region's water and marshes. Fish Haul
Creek Park located on Hilton Head Island is a good example of a passive park that
gives the public a chance to enjoy picnicking, hiking, local wildlife, and views of Port
Royal Sound. The 31 -acre park, opened in 2004 has a picnic shelter, walking trails,
restroom facilities, and an observation pier into the marshes of Fish Haul Creek.
Shelter Cove Community Park with frontage along Broad Creek and Chaplin
Community Park with mid -island beach access also offer passive enjoyment of the
region's water and marshes. While properties fronting the water and salt marshes are
expensive to acquire, there are properties in Southern Beaufort County owned by
public or non-profit entities that have the potential to provide the public with more
access. Figure 26 provides a list of some of these properties.
• Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 46
Figure 26: Public Properties Offering Opportunities for Additional Public Access to •
the Water and Salt Marshes
s l of tlllb �s y Owner
L a
WttnerF I
rertt oo
ftroh "/ l Deep Water
'i
end Beaufort Co.
t >< i00 ✓
0
"rrgi+►tiiirj Beaufort Co.
0
Beaufort Co.
n(�{,rfx�ia��11t11� Beaufort Co.
c 'x0001:�,
700
1400
y41�'� !�!o�} i r Be rt n Land Trust
' '1i{ 7tlOu+j
50
SCDNR and Ports €
'140M`
15,760
���rItk'dtll }?�}}�LIS4�lKg'"S'Authority
r�Ip .1 U.S. Fish and WIldINe
? 21 7f10 y.l
24800
E'3-#�5 4p(�1l' Town of Bluffton
' lrj Town Hilton
E; ". 100 ,'
`
0
t s of Head 1
ti1001 1
0
ereh� oath g Town of Hilton Head 1
r• a ¢40�
0
}'t,"4 F }l" �!t(v6,Pi i Town of Hlfton Head 1
Hotel 1 `cj �M 0 ; Town of Hilton Head 1
�
4 > 775
tr; BefO
80
0
I h tij�f 1O�6tlkifp �' !i Town of Hilton Head 1
�irA� �hd�l`Rln{(% Town Hilton Head
a 8280+
350
,l r0 of 1
and Beaufort Co.
1880/'
0
�,+21s�uNa I�ylr�ritbt;+ Town of Hifton Head 1.
l�¢ele4n!I>!'i Town Hilton Head 1
0
fetply of
600'
0
yr8(o gy�W�ilamel� Town of Hilton Head I
r ,I Town of Hilton Head I
taiil
80p. �
0
0
_8�,^���j��p
i �
�, ', �
,'(Florbet►hoe'Rtii)a
`.Stone � ''' fle�Me hrua� i Town o(Hilton Head I.
'400 ':
0
Conelusion: As Southern Beaufort County continues to grow, demand for public
access to the water will increase while available lands for providing access will likely
diminish. Fortunately, as illustrated in Figure 26, there are currently opportunities to
enhance existing public lands to increase public access to the water and marsh. Fish
Haut Creek Park offers a model of good passive public access and highlights the
potential of the properties listed in Figure 26 to offer additional public access. The
feasibility and cost of providing additional public access on existing public lands
needs to be explored further, especially in terms of specific water access needs such
as boating. In addition, it is important for the Town of Hilton Head Island through its
Land Acquisition Program and Beaufort County through its Rural and Critical Lands
Program to continue to pursue waterfront and marshfront properties.
Private developments, such as Sea Pines have historically provided the public the
ability to enjoy the waterfront. The Town of Hilton Head Island in its Initiative Area
Plans for Stoney and Chaplin is looking at providing incentives to encourage private
developers to construct pathways along the waterfront for public access. Providing
incentives to encourage public access to the water in private developments is another
method for addressing this need.
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report 10
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 47
MW I
SECTION 3: PUBLIC SCHOOLS
In June 2004, DeJong, an educational planning firm, was hired by the Beaufort
County School District to assist in the development of a ten-year facility master plan.
The firm was hired to gather and summarize district demographic data, develop a
program capacity analysis for each school facility, develop 10 -year enrollment
projections, conduct facility condition assessments, develop a build -out scenario for
the county, and explore options and alternatives for meeting the future facility needs
of the district. The results were included in three reports completed by Delong in
January 2005: a Facility Master Plan, a Facility Assessment Report, and a Build -out
Scenario Report. These reports are summarized in this section as they pertain to
school facilities in southern Beaufort County.
Current and Projected Student Enrollment
Beaufort County is the fastest growing county in South Carolina, and student
enrollment reflects this growth. In 1994-95, the enrollment for pre -kindergarten
through twelfth grade was 14,042 students. As shown in Figure 27, the enrollment
for the 2004-05 school year has grown to 18,749 students, an increase of 4,707
students, which corresponds to an average annual increase of about 470 students per
year County -wide.
Student enrollment in the County is expected to increase by 6,904 students over the
next ten years to a total of 25,653. This corresponds to about 690 new students per
year, countywide. As Figure 27 shows, the northern county enrollment is expected to
increase 26% in the next ten years to 12,935 students, while the southern enrollment
is projected to increase 53% to 12,718 students.
Figure 27: Current and Projected Student Enrollment
20042005 1".20111" �i;� InerNN (%)
Enrollment y�" Enroliti�'l
,Wb ° }�Uf11yrY.9 10,254 ,I�v.l GtA.2,9 6 ��.:, 2,481 (2896)
Source: Derong, Inc. (2005)
ted enrollment for Southern Beaufort County down into
Brealung the ten -Year proles
grade groups, the student increases are as follows:
Pre -K:
+ 51
K-5:
+1,598
6-8:
+1,205
9-12:
+ 1,470 -
Special Ed:
+ ' 99 (distributed among all schools)
Total
+4,423
• Transportation and Other Public Facilities Eaekground Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
Page 48
No
Delong then projected student enrollment based on a "Build -out" scenario for the
County. They coordinated with County and municipal planners to ensure that the
Build -out estimates were based on local development assumptions. For Southern
Beaufort County, the Build -out estimates were the same as used in the Land Use
Patterns and Trends Background Report. The estimated student enrollment at "Build-
oue' for 2020 is shown in Figure 28.
Figure 28: 2020 Student Enrollment Projections
2,429
6,005
As Hilton Head Island's status as a destination resort has grown over the past 20
years, it hes become a more attractive place for people to buy resort or retirement
property. This type of housing typically yields no students. For that reason, resort
properties were subtracted from the projections, and only permanent residences were
counted in the housing unit totals. As with the rest of Beaufort County, each area in
Hilton Head was closely reviewed to determine what type of housing is planned for
the future and, consequently, what the expected student yield rates for that housing
would be. Based on existing conditions and future plans, Hilton Head Island is
projected to gain an additional 2,429 students between 2005 and Buildout (2020).
This includes an additional 1,260 Elementary School students, 554 Middle School
students, and 615 High School students, bringing the total student population to just
over 6,000 students in 2020.
The Bluffton area has undergone dramatic changes in the past 10 years, and is
currently the area in Beaufort County experiencing the most rapid growth. 2020 is
again the expected Buildout year for the Bluffton area although some portions
(particularly within the Bluffton town limits) are expected to build -out before 2020,
while others (Daufuskie Island, for example) are not expected to build -out by that
time. Meetings were held with Delong and local planners to gain a better
understanding and confirm future housing amounts and types. Based on this analysis,
the housing stock in the Bluffton area is projected to nearly triple by 2020. Figure 28
shows that that this additional housing will yield an additional 3,607 students,
bringing the total student count to 7,095 by 2020.
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report •.
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 49
•
School Capacity vs. Enrollment
Southern Beaufort County contains the Bluffton Cluster and the Hilton Head Cluster
schools. There currently are a total of 9 schools within these clusters with 2 high
schools, 2 middle schools, and 5 elementary schools (Map 8). Four of these schools
have been built during the last five years: Bluffton Elementary (1999), McCracken
Middle (2000), Okatie Elementary (2003), and Bluffton High (2004). FISm 29
shows the current enrollment vs, capacity for these school facilities.
Figure 29: Current Student Enrollment vs. Capacity
r�ri
2004-05
FtlrS+
DNftaratco
"l rnE it
EnrolNtnM
sr�m!
`
717
2b
i'� +.•'�78?."
t ;� 1!3041 11"11''.
-142
38
fijs
T,`ft
2018,
40k,:
r'81it`
98
892
-20
3 t t tl�1t13M1ia00 "
917
t+ >
35
-131
"
�I� w� '
1 254
1�b81
-55
-203
i lhon H
1,187
11.31.1
124
Source: Delong, Inc (2005)
This analysis indicates that five of the nine schools in southern Beaufort County aro
currently over capacity. What's more, all of the schools in the Bluffton area, except
for Okatie Elementary, are over capacity. The Bluffton High School, which just
opened last fall, is already 200 students over capacity. On Hilton Head Island, by
contrast, only the Middle School is currently over capacity.
Figure 30 shows that in five years, the school capacity in Southern Beaufort County
is expected to be deficient at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. In ten
years, it is projected to be over capacity by 1,489 students at the elementary school
level, by 1,321 students at the middle school level, and by 1,472 students at the high
school level.
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
Page 50
Figure 30. Southern County School Capacity vs. Projected Enrollment
School Facility Needs
Delong's was contracted to project school facility needs for the next ten years;
therefore, this section, unlike the sections in this report related to transportation and
Parks and recreation public facility demand, does not project future needs at Buildout.
DeJong worked with a Northern and Southern Steering Committee to develop facility
options based on a series of community meetings and data developed for the district.
The options included new construction to address overcrowding and projected
growth, and renovations to existing buildings. The options were then presented at a
second round of community meetings before being finalized by the Steering
Committees and presented to the School District as recommendations.
For Southern Beaufort County, the preferred options included;
• Four new elementary schools (500 students each)
• Two new middle schools (500 students each)
• Additions to McCracken and Hilton Head Middle Schools (300 students each)
• One new high school (1200 students)
• Complete build -out of Bluffton High School – Third Floor (450 students)
The building costs associated with these new facilities are shown in Figure 31
L
TnUISportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report •
S -them Beaufort County Regional Plan
Page 51
•
•
Figure 31: School Facility Needs
.,'
Grade
CoMI uretlon
ProarNrt: s;
CG fail r r ;
Conetructlon
Coat M
„ F�00!M!d , , r
�l1e�t.n,f
PK -5
°6QA "'
10.0-11.0
1y1UUrrrW..�
PK -5
10.0-11.0
�11e1�/ L d
PK -5
509 fa r;
10.0-11.0
PK -5
S '600 _`_ ::
10.0-11.0
8 8x600
11.7-12.7
,hw!NII� tum
6.8
tx '600
11.7-12.7
.
l j ry4
6•e
600 a °
6.8-7.8
�oh to'I AoCtri�lte�i'
6.8
-
6.8-7.8
9-121,200
40.3 — 41.3
Gontplete l31 o�t1H8
9.12
1.7-2.7
,5;250,,
$119.0-129.0
Source: Delong, Inc. 2005
The DeJong Study did not address potential sites for new school facilities, nor the
additional costs associated with the purchase of property for new schools. Using the
per acre purchase price for upland property in Southern Beaufort County assumed in
the Parks and Recreation section of this report (i.e. $35,000 per acre), and minimum
acreage requirements provided by the School District, the property needs for the new
facilities (not including additions to existing facilities) recommended above are
shown in Figure 32. It should be noted, however, that there is some economy to be
gained if a potential site is shared with two or even three schools, as is the case in
Bluffton.
Figure 32: Acreage Needs for New School Facilities
eilr olitiAGnKM Coet
coMl undlon iNoe , Property
�erttary; PK -5 16;6 542,500
{619n}enfary� ,, `. PK -6 `i5}d" 542500
N�s,,sElem PK -5 A6 6 542,500
Nif,'IAIn , 1 ' PK -5 542,500
y}18tl1e School5-8 27 5 962,500
Ne �1I&Jle soh00 4' 6-8 21:6 962500
N 1i101i 3c600l9-12 57' 1,995,000
u , ,'.'Total``? 174 :8.090.000
* 45 acres plus 12 acres for atWetics, practice, events, etc
The recommendations shown in the DeJong report have just recently been presented
to the School District, but have not yet been adopted. It is clear, however, that with
the continued growth expected in Beaufort County, and particularly in Southern
Beaufort County over the next ten years, new school facilities will need to be built,
In order to accomplish this, as well as the other recommendations contained in the
DeJong study, it will be important for the School District to establish a financial plan
STransportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
Page 52
to fund the necessary $119 to $129 million in future construction and modification of
school facilities and to purchase the needed land for the schools (approximately 6
million dollars). The costs associated with design and construction of new facilities
are typically paid for with proceeds received from the sale of General Obligation
Bonds which in tum are paid for with revenues from local property taxes. This
method requires voter approval via Bond Referendums. In addition, it will be
important for the District to collaborate with local jurisdictions and the community in
locating future school facilities to best accommodate predicted growth.
SECTION 4: ISSUES OF REGIONAL CONSIDERATION
This section will focus on some of the opportunities for better regional cooperation
and joint planning in the areas of transportation, parks and recreation, and public
schools. Once again, these issues are meant to be the starting point for the setting of
goals and implementation strategies by the Steering Committee and the public.
Transportation
Work toward a more formalized approach to regional transportation planning.
Over the last five years staff and elected officials in the three Participating Local
Governments have diligently endeavored to provide more inter jurisdictional
communication and coordination on regional transportation planning. The Beaufort
County Transportation Advisory group (BCTAG) and the US 278 Corridor Study •
Group are good examples of this. Faced with significant transportation needs and
funding shortfalls, it is important the regional approach become more formalized
through the development of a process to accomplish a continuing and cooperative
transportation planning and decision -malting program for the region, perhaps
modeled on those used by Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs).
Address dtfrckneks on U.S. 278: Thsre is currently much discussion of how to
address the existing and projected transportation needs on U.S. 278. Beaufort County
adopted the recommendation from the U.S. 278 Long -Term Needs Study to combine
the extension of the Bluffton Parkway east to the bridge to Hilton Head Island with
the widening of U.S. 278 and the bridge to six lanes. SCDOT is currently considering
a proposal from a private engineering firm to combine an expressway concept with a
system of frontage roads and u-tums. These two options present two very different
scenarios in terms of cost, aesthetics, mobility and the accessibility of local
businesses. Regardless of whether one of these two options is pursued or additional
options are considered, it is important that the decision is made at the regional level
and that all interests (local residents, tourists, local businesses, employees, etc.) are
served by the improvements. In addition, neither proposal adequately addresses the
segment of US 278 between the Cross Island Parkway and the Skull Creek, which is
estimated to be nearly 20% over capacity at Buildout. Additional traffic engineering
studies will be necessary to determine an acceptable solution to this road deficiency,
and will likely result in increasing the cost to address needs in the Regional Road
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 53
Network at Buildout.
• Address she funding gap: No matter which options are pursued to address
transportation needs, Southern Beaufort County faces a substantial funding gap to
address both existing transportation deficiencies and projected needs at Buildout.
This problem is beyond the ability of the individual local governments to solve on
their own and points to the need for regional cooperation in transportation planning,
the need to find and use additional funding sources, and the necessity of placing more
emphasis on other modes of transportation and land planning and growth
management tools to mitigate the impacts of growth on the region's transportation
network.
Address remaining projected tral is deficiencies: The road improvement projects
presented in this report to address deficiencies are derived largely from
recommendations from the Beaufort County Comprehensive Plan, the U.S. 278
Short- and Long -Term Needs Study, the Hilton Head Island Capital Improvements
Plan, and various traffic impact studies associated with individual development
projects. Even with these projects, however, the projected traffic conditions at
Buildout still result in several critical links failing with regard to level of service (see
Figure 7). Additional traffic engineering studies will be necessary to determine
acceptable solutions to the remaining road deficiencies, and will likely result in
increasing the cost to address deficiencies in the Regional Road Network at Buildout.
Acceptable solutions may include improvements to existing roadways, new
roadways, access management techniques, multi -modal projects, land use strategies
® (e.g., purchase of undeveloped parcels), or some combination of these.
Seek alternative modes of transportation: While private automobile transportation is
currently the predominant mode of transportation in Southern Beaufort County, it is
important to provide for the accommodation of other means of transportation in the
design of future developments and future roads. Public transportation works most
efficiently where there are nodes of centralized, higher density developments and a
mix of land uses. Incentives or encouragement of this type of development might be
considered, if it does not result in placing additional vehicle miles traveled on the
Regional Road Network. This needs to be taken into consideration when reviewing
new developments and redevelopment plans. The provision of multi -use trails,
sidewalks, and pedestrian connectivity between residential and commercial
developments is also important. Finally, the design of new roads and improvements
to existing roads, especially US 278, needs to take into consideration the provision of
bike lanes, pedestrian trails and transit facilities.
Incorporate context sensitive design: Future transportation improvements need to
take into account the importance the region places on environmental quality and
aesthetics. In planning for future roadways, considerations must be given for the
network of open spaces that is discussed in The Natural Assets and Natural
Constraints to Growth Background Report. Innovative road constructive techniques
need to be considered in linking wildlife habitat. These methods include using
bridges rather than causeways when crossing wetlands. All three Participating Local
• Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report Page 54
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
Governments have Corridor Overlay Districts, but the application of development
standards that govern aesthetics are limited to the development of parcels along these ` • '
roadways and day not apply to road widenings, intersection improvements and median
landscaping. This lack of coordination between private and public improvements
needs to be addressed with a more comprehensive approach to corridor planning.
Coordinate regional hansporodan efforts with Jasper County: As development
spreads further west in Southern Beaufort County, the importance of regional
cooperation with Jasper Count; and the City of Hardeeville becomes vital. Traffic
volumes are estimated to exceed capacity on SC 170 between McGarveys Corner and
the Academy for Queer Excellence (ACE); and on portions of US 278 west of
McGarveys Corner. Regional cooperation with Jasper County is important because
the opportunities to establish parallel roads to SC 170 and US 278 largely rest in
Jasper County. Anther area of concern is the extension of Bluffton Parkway west of
SC 170 to I-95. Coordination of this extension between the Town of Bluffton,
Beaufort 7ounty, and the City of Hardeeville is important to insure that the
intersection with SC 170 is appropriately designed and the cross-section is adequate
to accommodate regional demands.
Parks and Recreation
Address Funding Shor6ldl in Park Land Acquisition: Southern Beaufort County
has potentially a 12 million dollar funding shortfall in park land acquisition needs.
While some of this shortfall may be addressed through Beaufort County's Rural and •
Critical Lands Program and future dedications from private developments, both of
these options have limitations that are unlikely to fully address the acquisition of the
525.1 acres of park lands needed to serve Southern Beaufort County's estimated
Buildout population. Beyond the apparent need to identify additional funding sources
to acquire park lands, there are opportunities to pursue other options, such as
partnering with the Beaufort County School District to share some facilities.
Reevaluate Park Impact Fee Program: There are potential funding shortfalls in park
facilities needs. Based on the established LOS standard of $722 per capita in park
facilities expenditures, $33,966,826 is needed to accommodate Southern Beaufort
County's Buildout population. This leaves a funding gap of $32,628,882. This
revenue shortfall could be addressed through modification to the existing park impact
fees, or partially through other funding sources. These revenue sources include
PARD funds, Accommodations Tax, and Sunday Liquor Permit Fees. In any
instance, it points to the need to reconsider the existing Impact Fee structure for parks
and recreation. The Town of Hilton Head Island is in the process of updating its
Recreation and Open Space Plan. This presents an opportunity for the Town to assess
whether the fee structure of its component of the County's Park Impact Fee Program
will adequately address future park facility needs. Beaufort County's Parks,
Recreation and Open Space Plan (1998) needs to be updated as well.
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southem Beaufort County Regional Plan
•
Page 55
Increase Park Maintenance Fanddng Proportionately to Increases in Park
•
Facilities: Better ways to link the provision of park maintenance with the addition of
new park facilities needs to be explored. One ongoing concern with the management
of parks in Southern Beaufort County has been the issue of maintenance. Park impact
fees provide a dedicated funding source for new park facilities, but no dedicated
funding source covers the increased costs of park maintenance. Increases in
personnel and maintenance equipment brought on by new park facilities must be
supported by the general fund of Beaufort County or by the municipalities. If these
increases are not approved at budget time, the overall LOS for park maintenance
decreases as new park facilities are added.
•
Maximize Opportunities for Pablie Access to the Marsh and Water. As Southern
Beaufort County continues to grow, demand for public access to the water will
increase while available lands for providing access will likely diminish. Fortunately
there are currently opportunities to enhance existing public lands to increase public
access to the water and marsh. Fish Haul Creek Park offers a model of good passive
public access and highlights the potential of undeveloped public properties to offer
additional public access. The feasibility and cost of providing additional public
access on existing public lands needs to be explored further, especially in terms of
specific water access needs such as boating. In addition, it is important for the Town
of Hilton Head Island through its Land Acquisition Program and Beaufort County
through its Rural and Critical Lands Program to continue to pursue waterfront and
marshfront properties. Finally, private developments, such as Harbour Town at Sea
Pines have historically provided the public the ability to enjoy the waterfront.
Providing incentives to encourage public access to the water in private developments
is another method for addressing this need.
Public Schools
Based on the Beaufort County School District's Facilities Needs Study, with the
continued growth expected in Southern Beaufort County over the next ten years, seven
new school facilities will need to be built. The magnitude of this public facility need has
several regional implications. One hundred and seventy-four (174) acres is needed to
accommodate future school sites. As more of Southern Beaufort County becomes
developed or committed for future development, the task of finding suitable sites for
future schools will become more challenging. Therefore it will be important for the
School District to collaborate with local jurisdictions and the community in locating
future school facilities that accommodate predicted growth and that are consistent with
local land use plans. In addition, the School District will need over approximately
$125,000,000 to $135,000,000 to fund the need capital school; facilities in the region.
The Participating Local Governments and School District will need to work
cooperatively in developing strategies to find the needed revenue, especially since
demands for other capital funding is necessary for roads. Finally, because of the
important relationship between schools, land use, and quality of life issues, it is also
important for the School District and the Participating Local Governments to coordinate
their efforts and support policies to use public policy and public infrastructure
commitments to build more livable neighborhoods and communities.
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
Page 56
APPENDIX 1: MAPS a
Map 1: Existing Road Conditions
e,
all Amami ally Traine Is , 0 CONDITIONS
Less then IAOW
14ow -Am
nwethen34000 �iiiiii
�• � Me
lWl N MMoe
A, B, or C
EorFamogagggomms it i
r
� t ,g ti�i a ,� rsp�(�• Qj1
t bn t ?�c*27
. V s 2 8 `�� (` q � yC �1� IF ' 'ftF/i�h" Ott r'.�•.r
►"tip, `� C t ,���, ��,�• �, ;''
} � �'� r tirt� .✓ ,� r3 ��j�'r��raK, `
Y [[
+1, ! �o dt,r�ti � �tytw til I `� ,a„ n ����,•,,I
j`�Jvwo 4W
J`""Jl&'S''• t � Y�; y�`�t�i�Q�l"¢ °,� �'•�'�}�t��
i .tf k d,r*4r�tdC � t'�y i.��C+ L��►T�,t t k�i � 'pt� i'�P � i , ��i�`S�I
o-'` � � tl tl { h`'}`"(C(�. /►its r�r' 3e� t�t ybL�,„� ��I+S N� 4•r
i«,.. `ts;.. , •la7�iL i.. , t_..'..c�(,infM7a-. �.x ��. �r�a ..:}'.. .;fM1:�����.:�rt:.��+.a+r". �ua�.�'.���ti ��7
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
Page 5
9
.®
Transport»:ion and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 58
Map 3: Additional Deficiencies at Bu"lout not Addressed by Recommended Capital Improvements
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 59
A
M
11
don Authority. Fixed Route.MaP
COLLETON
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report Page 60
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
Map 5: Existing and Proposed Trails in Southern Beaufort County
Public Paths & Trails
Existing
Proposed
C�
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 61
Mao 6: Location of Regional, Community and Special Use Parks
- iFECIALUSE PARK INATURALPRESERVES ; {��y1 � � r ml
- REOIONALPARKNETWORK a ,,"j "y°t� i YNJ
POTENTIAL FUTURE PARKArY.k-
v � 1.
TA
� t
P
',.0 70
/.� p yf•.I t� r9,+i, t�xtrl` f �A� .1
J i' 'Y ii �f IJJff }}7 4 s
� 1 •'�r. ��' S+. ely i2lthyMD�i�Lx-'�Ci'
� •� r�4jy1;' r ,y 5°i r s t r'%I�rAM�jI �Av� F5,
R•w ��r Fr1 W:.
.tine. h N
A } (AUUUr�'As' t kyxq, t ,.47 N Y.{ eaal@ a Xw
Fry/ ��•y�
"'x'W�'{�Ykr;J
-K",�+'ta�
i s I t �ht
is
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 62
Map 7: Public Access to Water and Marsh
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Soothem Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 63
11
Appendix 2: Growth Trends on Southern Beaufort County
Roads
Growth Trends on Greater Bkd ton Roadways 1999 - 2003 0
25Ao0
20100D
--YhSCr0t yMWHd
161000 x-80 OUA^ Rd
t8C 170 (NaM of U8 278)
--eudh ki-nd ro.a
10,000—a-Butd church Road
6,000
0
1000 2000 2001 2002 2003
YEAR
Growth Trends on Hihon Head Island
Roadways 1999 - 2003
6,000
1000 2000 2001
YEAR
40,060
36,aoo
301000
26,000
20,000
16,000
10.0w
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southem Beaufort County Regional Plan
2002 2003
•I
-w—ww.m HOM PkAV (North)
- A wwro Hk" Play (BOA)
—r—Pi moOW Hod
—M —Cron 1SWW POW%
—;—Pq*Avmuo
tMtlIMM Orin
Page 65
6,000
1000 2000 2001
YEAR
40,060
36,aoo
301000
26,000
20,000
16,000
10.0w
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southem Beaufort County Regional Plan
2002 2003
•I
-w—ww.m HOM PkAV (North)
- A wwro Hk" Play (BOA)
—r—Pi moOW Hod
—M —Cron 1SWW POW%
—;—Pq*Avmuo
tMtlIMM Orin
Page 65
55.000
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000 r
10,000
1900
■
Growth Trends on U.S. 278 In Groner Bluffton
IM -200
—+—US 279 (West ol SC 170)
-f- US 279 (SC 170 TO SC 46)
-+-- US 279 (East of SC 4 6)
—ah— US 279 (Moss Creek to
Spanish Wells)
2000 2001
YEM
• Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
2002 2003
APPENDIX 3: INVENTORY OF PARK AND RECREATION •
FACILITIES
0
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report •
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Page 67
V 0 R T
77r:.—, CAU` -rY 0
Fiscal Opportunities and
Constraints to Growth
Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
� erBi9e
Iiu>t1,Irpnemis kBMlnMn1 [aMURlnl/
C L A R I O N
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTIONAND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...«».«...».«..»»..«..»..«»......»»»»»»«.••• 1
0
Overview of Major Thema»«»»«»....«»...«»......«».».»..»»....»..«.»»...»...»........«..».»»...........1
Executive Snmmory.».......».....«....».».....«««.»«....».«...»....«»»«««..».««.«.»«....«..»»...»..»»».»2
Section1: Existing and Projected Revenue Needs..............................................................2
Section 2: Projected Funding and the Funding "Gap".........................................................3
Section 3: Analysis of Potential Funding Options...............................................................4
Section4: Regional Considerations.....................................................................................8
Appendix..............................................................................................................................8
SECTION1: PROJECTED INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS............................«..........«..«...««....»....9
Summary ..»......... ........ .................................. ................................................. .«.........«......10
Transportation ..........»..........«..............................................«...........»...........«..............»».»»....10
Parks and Recreation .........« ........................ «... ".... ............... ».«......... »........... ........... ««.... ».«11
Public Schools ....... »........................................ »........ ........ »............................ ............ ........... ««.12
Libraries. .............. ............................ .... .............................. . ........ . .............. ......... . ............ —13
ExistingLibrary Facilities ..................................................................................................13
EstablishingLOS Standards..............................................................................................1 S
Existingand Projected Library Needs...............................................................................16
Fire Protection .......... »...................................... »..... «................................................... ...... .....»..17 •
BlufftonFire District..........................................................................................................17
Hilton Head Island Fire Rescue Department (Fire/EMS)..................................................20
DaufbskieIsland Fire District...........................................................................................23
EMS..............................................«................»............................... ..23
Beaufort County EMS Department....................................................................................23
Hilton Head Island Fire Rescue Department.....................................................................24
Sheriff/Low Enforcement........................................«..............".....».....«............«..............»...»25
SECTION 2: PROJECTED FUNDING FOR CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE, AND FUNDING
"GAP"»..»«»...................................................................».......».................................»........»............... 26
Transportation ............... .................... ......................... ».»...... «.............................. «.»............... 27
Parke and Recreation ................. »..................................................... «...........
»..»»».............»..»29
Schools ............................... «............................................................. "..«................ «.................... .32
Libraries ....»................... .»..... »»............ ........... »......................... .».............. ........... .......... «......32
Fire Protection .......................... «.«....................................... „........................ «»»............. .....« ...33
BlufftonTownship Fire District.........................................................................................33
HiltonHead Island Fire Rescue Department.....................................................................34
EMS.... »....... ............. «........».....»...............»......«..«.........................».....................»....«.........., 34
Beaufort County EMS Department....................................................................................34
Hilton Head Island Fire Rescue Department.....................................................................35
SECTION3: POTENTIAL FUNDING TOOLS ........ «.................................... ..........» ............36
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005 •
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page ii
General Criteria for Evaluating Fuding Tools...».»...«..».»....««......•...«...«««.••�«.»«�.
• Evaluation of Specific Funding Tools
TheProperty Tax............................................................. ...38
ImpactFees........................................................................................................................39
CapitalProjects Sales Tax.................................................................................................41
RealEstate Transfer Fee....................................................................................................42
LocalOption Gas Tax........................................................................................................43
FundingSources.................................................................................................................44
SECTION 4: REGIONAL CONSIDERATIONS «...»».« .............».... __47
Collaboratively Select a Diverse Mix of Funding Tools. .... «..»..».»..»»»»»..»«,«.,,...»«..«.«.«47
Regional Cooperation will be Requlrsd......«.....«....»........»..»........... »».»».».«...»..«....«««...w18
r9addering Controls on the Rate of Growth .»........ ».......................... .».».«........««.»«..«.•AS
Considering Adequate Public Facility ControlL....«..».........»....«»»...».».«..»«...«..»«..»......49
Focus on Increasing the Commercial Tax Base. ........................
»»...»»..«...».»...«.».«.««»...SO
APPENDIX A: EVALAUTION OF POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES....--- 51
Potential Funding Toole «..«..«......»......»» ...... .................................. ........... .«....... ....«.«..........Sl
Bonds.................................................................................................................................51
ImpactFees............................................................................................................52
CapitalProjects Sales Tax.................................................................................................53
RealEstate Transfer Fee....................................................................................................54
LocalOption Gas Tax................................................................................... ........55
• Special Benefit or Assessment Districts....................................................... . .........55
TaxIncrement Financing(TIFs)........................................................................................56
HospitalityTax...................................................................................................................57
AccommodationsTax........................................................................................................58
CarRental Tax...................................................................................................................58
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 0
Overview of Major Themes
Southern Beaq/ort County Faces Major Demands for New Publk Infmstructure and Services.
Prior background reports have established that Southern Beaufort County is expecting significant
population growth in coming years. The new growth expected to occur between 2005 and Buildout
(estimated to be about 2020) will create significant demands for capital infrastructure for transportation,
parks and recreation, school, fire, EMS, and library facilities. Capital infrastructure needs in Southern
Beaufort County for these six types of facilities is estimated to cost $495.636 million, in 2005 dollars.
Approximately 91 percent of the costs will be incurred to fund roads (510/o), schools (27a/o), and park
and recreation facilities (13%), mostly in the unincorporated County and Bluffton. Libraries, fire
protection, and EMS facility needs will account for the remaining 8 percent of the total costs.
A Funding Gap Exists Between Available Revenue and Capital Needy.
Under the current revenue structures, the Participating Local Governments will not be able to generate
sufficient revenue to fund these capital needs. The funding "gap," or the difference between the funds
needed versus those that can be generated, is estimated at $366.569 million, in 2005 dollars. Of this
amount, approximately 98 percent of the "gap" is for roads ($185 million), schools ($135 million), and
parks and recreation facilities ($37.8 million) in the unincorporated county and Bluffton.
Transportation, Schools, and Parks/Recreadon are the Most Passing Needs. .
The facilities where capital infrastructure funding needs are most pressing are transportation, schools,
and parks and recreation (the latter primarily in the unincorporated county and Bluffton). Given either
the size of the revenue "gap" for these facilities, and/or the institutional arrangements by which they are
being provided and their interrelated nature, these facilities are regional in nature for purposes of this
planning process. The Participating Local Governments should work collectively to coordinate funding
actions for these facilities.
Future capital infrastructure funding needs for public safety facilities (fire protection and EMS) and
libraries can and are being addressed by the individual Participating Local Governments or other quasi -
governmental entities. Even though there are small revenue "gaps" for several of these facilities, there
are adequate sources of revenue to address future needs. Thus, these facilities are not considered
regional in nature for purposes of this planning process, and should continue with current funding and
management.
A Creative and Diverse Set of Tools will be Necessary to Help Address the Funding Gap.
While the funding "gap" for roads, schools, and park and recreation facilities is substantial, them are
existing funding tools available to address the "gap" if there is public support to use them. Some, but
not all, of the funding tools the Participating Local Governments are authorized to use are already in use,
and are discussed in this report in Section 3.
Other potential funding tools are not authorized currently under South Carolina state law, yet they have
been successfully used by other local governments in fast-growing areas to fund capital infrastructure.
Some of them are discussed in Section 3 of this report, and in the Appendix. •
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page
0
• New Resloaal Approaches cad Pa MIIA,41 li9/1 be Netam,,y to Address &r Faadlas QVI
The framework for action can be established in this planning effort, but specific appropriate funding
packages must ultimately be decided upon by the individual Participating Local Governments through a
regional mechanism and framework for action that will be further explored and, discussed in the
subsequent Implementation Memos. This background report provides a solid tatd realistic focus and
framework for consideration and evaluation of the revenue tools available to address the revenue "gap"
issue. The Committee and Participating Local Governments can use the information in this report as a
point of departure for considering new regional approaches and partnerships to address the funding gap.
Executive Summary
The Land Use Patterns and Trends Background Report established that Southern Beaufort County has
grown and will continue to grow at a fast pace. This population growth (both permanent and seasonal)
will have significant implications on the demand and provision of public services and capital facilities
within the region. The Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report estimated the
demand that the Buildout population will have on the need for capital facilities and their costs for three
public facilities:
• Transportation;
• Parks and Recreation; and
• Public Schools.
• It also recommended appropriate LOS (levels -of -service) standards for each of these public facilities,
outlined how the local governments in the region (along with the state, with respect to roads) are and
will be able to fund these capital facility needs under the current fiscal arrangements, and whether a
funding "gap" existed, or will exist.
This Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report (hereinafter "Fiscal Report")
adds the following three public facilities to the analysis:
• Fire;
• Emergency Medical Services (EMS); and
• Libraries)
Section 1 Existing and Projected Revenue Needs
Section 7 of this report summarizes the results of the Transportation and Other Public Facilities Report,
and then includes an evaluation of fire, EMS and library facilities, similar to that conducted for
transportation, parks and recreation, and school facilities in the Transportation and Other Public
Facilities Background Report. It includes recommendations for an LOS standard and estimates of the
m The report does not include an evaluation and analysis of facilities that have countywide service areas, such as general
government, sheriff; courts, detention, public works, and related facilities, since they are beyond the project's scope and do
not benefit the specific service area, Southern Beaufort County, like roads, fire stations, libraries (through branch locations),
etc.
• Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 2
demand the Buildout population in the region will have on the need for the capital facilities and their
cats. Figure 1 summaries the results of this analysis. Figure 1 shows capital infnetructuro needs for •
Southern Beaufort County from 2005 to Buildout for these six facilities aro estimated to cost $495.636
million, in 2005 dollars. Approximately 91 percent of the costs will be incurred to Rend mads (51%),
schools (27•/"), and parte and recreation facilities (mostly in the unincorporated County and Bluffton)
(13%). Libraries, fire protection and EMS facility needs will account for less than 10 percent of the total
costs.
Figure 1: Summary of Estimated Capital Needs,
Southern Beaufort County, 2005 -Buildout
Roads U63,924AN1100%
Parka
974 888
Schools
138 86YJ 000
Ubnuv
1002 887
Bluffton Firs Dletr�t
7180 000
EMS
000
Hilton Head Fire Rescue
11 188 000
TOTAL NEED!
X38 383
Section 2: Projected Funding and the Funding "Gap"
Section 2 of this Report reviews how the local governments in the region are funding these capital
facility needs, and demonstrates that a large funding "gap" will occur if present fiscal arrangements are
not modified to address the capital facility needs of new population growth. Figure 2 summarizes this •
"gap," by comparing the funding need for each facility with the estimates of the revenues that will be
geneexisting sources. This comparison shows an existing Rending "gap" of $366 million. Of
this amount, approximately 98 percent of the "gap" is for roads ($185 million), schools ($135 million),
and perks and recreation facilities ($37.8 million) in the unincorporated county and Bluffton.
0
Figure 2: Summary of Funding "Gap,"
Ah Southern Beaufort County, 2005 -Buildout
'fa noon in road bas and $5 nObn In awry bas 118"Od to ex/sting debt service has ba•n Rased out
Section 3: Analysis of Potential Funding options ";nvolvea
Because approximately 93% of funding needs, and approximately 98% of the funding gap
capital needs for roads, parks and recreation, and school capital facilities, these facilities are identified as
regional in nature for purposes of this planning process. Section 3 focuses on the most realistic funding
tools that could be used by the Participating Local Governments to address road and park and recreation
41 needs (the School District is addressing funding for schools). The tools addressed include:
• Property tax;
• Impact fees;
• Capital projects sales tax;
• Real estate transfer fee; and
• Local option gas tax.
other revenue tools were considered (and discussed in the Appendix), but are not included in Section 3
for different reasons.
Toll roads were not considered a viable funding tool because of a perceived ink of public
support for their use on US 278.
special benefit districts were not included because, given the direct benefit requirements
for the assessments, the tool is usually used for capital infrastructure that is more local
(versus) regional in nature.
Tart Increment financing (TIFs) was not included because it results in the County
foregoing increased tax dollars for other needs and therefore represents no net increase in
revenue. Also, it is usually used for more localized, versus regional projects.
• Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005
page 4
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
• Vehicle license fees were not included because they would require legislative authorization
and in the context of funding roads and parks, are not likely to genenrte substantial revenue..
• A rental car receipts tax was not included because the large majority of rental cars used in
the region are rentzd at the airports in either Savannah or Charleston, and consequently the
tool would not be a significant revenue genern or.
A hotel occuprnncy tax was not included because, in the context of funding large regional
funding gaps ibr roads and parks and recreation, it is not likely to generate sufficient
revenue given the majority of hotel/motels are located within the Town of Hilton Head
Island.
• An accommodations tax was not included because, while it is a significant funding source
for the Town of Hilton Head Island, in the context of funding large regional funding gaps
for roads and parks and recreation, it is not likely to generate sufficient revenue for the
County and Bluffton given the majority of hotellmotels are located within the Town of
Hilton Head Island.
Revenue projections are provided for each of these tools. In addition, the usefulness of the tools is
evaluated using several criteria, including:
• Revenue Potential: Whether the tool can generate substantial sums of monies to fund capital
infrastructure;
• Geographic Application: Whether the tool can be applied across the region;
• Legislative Authorization: Whether the tool requires legislative authorization;
• Technical/Administrative Ease: The ease of administering the tool; and
• Public Acceptability: How residents will accept the funding mechanism
Based on this overview of the most realistic funding sources to address the funding "gap," the ano ,ysis
seems to indicate the following:
Transportation: The following funding sources are offered to address the funding "gap" for buildout
capital needs in the Regional Road Network. The first three funding options offered are enabled by the
State to be used by local governments. The last two options would require changes to State enabling
legislation.
• Property Tax: Even though the property tax is an available source of funding, and could
potentially generate a significant amount of money, an increase in property taxes to fund
capital road infrastructure is not good policy for several reasons. First, if used as the sole
funding source to address the gap, it would result in a signfcant Increase in local property
taxes. Furthermore, if the bonds needed io fund the improvements were issued today, it
would more than triple the County's current debt service payments. Second, the County
currently does not have the bond capacityfor such a bond campaign, and it will be a
number of years before it does. Third, given the existing funding structure for school capital
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 3
• facilities, the School District is going to have to rely on the property tax to address the
funding "gap" fr; schools.
Impact Fees: impact fees are a viable source of Ponding for road capital infrastructure in
Southern Beaufort County. Many local governments in fast-growing Sunbelt communities
have used impact fees to fund a significant portion of their capital needs for roads. For
example, according to the latest National Impact Fee Survey (2005) the national average
(excluding California) for a road impact fee fora single family unit in 2005 is $1602.
However, many of the urbanizing counties in Florida and other states have road impact fees
for single-family dwellings that are in the $2,00043,000 range. Even though Beaufort
County has an existing road impact fee, it exacts fees that are significantly less than the
actual cost the local governments will incur to accommodate new growth. This existing
policy has contributed to the existing deficit in road infrastructure. Estimates indicate that
an increase in the fee to $1600 a single-family unit (and a comparable increase for other
land uses) will generale $72 million in additional revenue. Increasing the existing road
impact fees is a funding option the Participating Local Governments should seriously
consider coupling with other funding tools to finance capital road needs.
• Cap4� Prolects Sales Tax: The Capital Projects Sales Tax is the funding tool available to
the county that could go the furthest in generating needed revenues for capital road
improvements. Even though a $117 million dollar Capital Projects Sales Tax was narrowly
defeated by voters last year for road capital improvements. It should be re -considered
because it has the capacity to generate such significant sums of money, over an extended
® period of time. For example, it is estimated that $175 million could be available from a
Countywide Capital Projects Sales Tax for projects in Southern Beaufort County.
However, as is discussed in this report, any sales tax option will have to be approved by the
voters on a countywide basis, so public acceptance and support for this tool is critical. At a
minimum, what this means is that any provision placed on the ballot for consideration by
the voters would need to also assure voters some of the sales tax would be used to fund road
improvements in the northern portion of the county.
• Real Estate Transfer Fee (RETFI: A real estate transfer fee is a fee on the transfer, sale or
conveyance of real property. The rate is applied against the purchase price of the property.
The use of revenue raised can be restricted to certain capital expenditures. As is discussed
in the report, the Town of Hilton Head Island has implemented a real estate transfer fee, at a
rate of one quarter of one percent (.0025). This revenue source is currently generating
approximately $3.8 million annually for the Town, which the Town has historically used as
a growth management tool to purchase land. Based on information provided by the County
Assessor's Office, if the county currently had in place a 0.0035 real estate transfer fee, it
would have generated $8.6 million this Fiscal Year from transfers within the
unincorporated County, outside the Town of Hilton Head Island. Given the growth
estimated for Southern Beaufort County between 2005 and Buildout, this annual figure
could easily increase overtime. If it remainF; constant, it would generate approximately
$130 million countywide over the next 15 years. Assuming that 50% of those funds would
be spent in the southern half of the County, at least $65 million could be used to fund
capital projects and/or service debt for capital projects for Southern Beaufort County needs.
OFiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 6
Gas Tax: Some of the road funding today in South Carolina is carried out through the gas .
tax. Both a federal and state gas tax is paid on each gallon of gasoline purchased. local
Currently the state gas tax is 16 cents per gallon. None of these funds today B
o to governments to address road capital needs. Some communities across the nation aro
authorized by their state legislatures to impose an optional local gas tax. It is estimated that
if the state legislature authorized Beaufort County to impose a five cent optional gas tax
be used on road capital improvements, it would have generated $2.9 million countywide n
the last Fiscal Year. If it remains constant, it would generate $43.6 million countywide
over the next 15 YAM
Paris and Recreation. In Hilton Head Island, there are limited needs for park lands and facilities.
There aro no existing or future needs for park lands, and them is a funding "gap" of $10.4 million to
address park and recreation facilities. As is discussed in the Transportation and Other Pubfic Pacll,'Nes
Report, and this report, the Town plans to use existing funding sources (Sunday Liquor License Fees,
PARD funds) to address these needs. The situation in the Greater Bluriton area (the unincorporated
county and Bluffton) is different, because the funding "gap" is much greater — it is $37.8 million, so
additional funding sources that are not being used will have to be considers:.
• Pronerty Tax: Unlike the situation with respect to roads, use of property taxes to address
the funding "gap," or a portion of the funding "gap" for park and recreation facilities is a
possible option. First, the sum needed is relatively modest (relative to the road needs), if it
is used in conjunction with another funding r, ource. (For example, the property tax could be
used in conjunction with a park impact fee increase.)• •
Impact Fees: As with roads, impact fees are a viable source of funding for park and
recreation facilities in Southern Beaufort County. Even though Beaufort County has an
existing park impact fee, it does not include fees for land, nor has it been updated recently
to account for the increased cost of recreation equipment and facilities. It is estimated a
moderate increase in park impact fees (from $483 to $840 for a single-family unit) will
generate an additional $10 million dollars in revenues. The fees might be able to be
increased to even higher levels.
Capit!t Protech Sates Ta:: Similar to roads, the Capital Projects Sales Tax is a strong
and viable option that needs to be reconsidered as a funding tool. It has the capacity to
generate significant sums of money, over an extended period of time.
Aad rt■1■te Transfer Fee: Finally, and as with roads, the real estate transfer fee could be a
viable funding tool for parks. As is discussed above, if the county currently had in place a
0.0035 real estate transfer fee, it would have generated $8.6 million dollars this Fiscal Year
from the unincorporated County. Given the growth estimated for Southern Beaufort
County between 2005 and Buildout, this annual figure could easily be increased over time.
If it remains constant, it would genecte $130 million countywide over the next 15 years.
Of that amount, it is assumed at least half ($65 million) could be used to fund capital
projects and/or service debt for capital projects for Southern Beaufort County needs (some
for parks and some for roads).
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005•
page 7
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
Section 4: Roomel Considerations
Finally, in Seat:r. a: Regional Considerollons, the report focuses on regional considerations and issues
tw# ::o drawn frau the analyses in Sections 1.3 of the report. Like each of the other previous
background reports, it is important to stay focused on regional considerations and opportunities. $a they
are intended to be the darting point for the development of common regional goals. The key regional
conk eradons identified in Section 4 include:
• Focusing the Dialogue on Funding Tools;
• Focus on New Regional Approaches;
• ratsidering Controls on the Rate of Growth;
• Considering Adequate Public Facility Controls; and
• Focus on Increasing the Commercial Tax Base.
Appendix
An appendix contains additional background information about the specific rim I ng tools addressed in
Section 3.
SECTION t PROJECTED INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS •
As discussed in the Land Use Pattern and Trends Background Report, Southern Beaufort County has
grown and will continue to grow at a fast pace. The region currently (2005) has an estimated 67,179
permanent residents. At Buildout, roughly 2020, this number is anticipated to grow to 134,842
pemuwent residents. Uncommitted lands (approximately 10.9% of the study area) have the potential to
accommodate another 25,000 residents in addition to the estimated Buildout population of 134,842
permanent residents. Additionally, the estimated seasonal/resort population at Buildout will also place
additional demands on the community facilities in the study area.
This population growth (both permanent and seasonal) will have significant implications on the demand
and provision of public services and capital improvements within the region. The Transportation and
Other Public Facilities Background Report estimates the demand that population growth will place on
the following three types of capital infrastructure, for both current and Buildout populations:
• Transportation;
• Parks and Recreation; and
• Public Schools.
In this Fiscal Report, TischlerBise, with assistance from the local government staffs, adds the following
three community facilities to the analyses:
• Fire;
• Fmergency Medical Services; and •
• Libraries.
For all these types of facilities, both the previous report and this report follow the same methodology in
order to evaluate whether current fiscal arrangements will generate sufficient revenues to fund the
needed capital infrastructure. In instances where revenue generation is insufficient, the reports identify
the finding "gap," or the difference between the costs needed to address capital infrastructure needs, and
governments' ability to generate the needed revenue.
The first step in the analysis involves determining recommended LOS standards for each specific type of
facility. Once LOS standards are determined, existing and Buildout population estimates are applied to
determine the existing conditions of the infrastructure, and the demand future growth will have on
infrastructure needs for the facility. Given the amount of population growth expucted to occur, the
report estimates there will be a need to construct a significant amount of new capital improvements for
each type of facility if new growth is to be accommodated at an acceptable LOS. The costs for these
capital improvements were are also identified.
The following sections first summarize the results of this analysis for all types of facilities listed above.
Subsequent subsections cover first in the Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
(transportation, parks and recreation, and schools), followed by the new analysis for library, fire and
EMS capital infrastructure.
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 9
0
0
Summary
Figure 3 summarizes the estimated infrastructure needs for Souther'; Beaufort County from 2005 to
Buildout. The total infrastructure needs are estimated to be $496.636 million, in 2005 dollars. Over
91% of the costs will be incurred to fund roads (51a/o), schools (27%) and parks (130/9). Libraries, fire
protection and EMS facility needs will account for less than 10 percent of the total costs. See Flsxre 3.
Figure 3: Summary of Estimated Capital Needs for Southern Beaufort County
Roads 9263 924 000 1 51%
Parks
$86.674.688 1
13%
Schools
$135.090.000 1
27%
Ubrary
21002687
4%
Bluffton Fire District
7160000
1%
EMS
000
0.1%
Hilton Head Fire Rescue
11 196 000
2%
TOTAL NEEDS
9496 636 3631
100%
Transportation
In rapidly growing areas such as Sossthem Beaufort County, the pace of growth has greatly outdistanced
increases in transportation capital improvement needs. This results in increased congestion and
deteriorating levels of service. The Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
identifies the Regional Road Network for Southern Beaufort County.2 The Common Goals for
Transportation established by the Steering Committee identifies LOS "D," as the desired LOS standard.
It estimates a total of 5253,924,000 (in 2005 dollars) in capital road improvements are needed between
2005 and Buildout to address existing and future needs Y Figure 4 below provides a summary of
Southern Beaufort County's transportation infrastructure needs.
3 The report defines the Regional Road Network as the principal arterials, minor arterials, and major collectors in the region.
The Regional Road Netwo& consists of 183 miles of roads.
'Projects to address existing deficiencies aro derived from existing studies and analyses in the region, largely flrom
recommendations from the Beaufort County Comprehensive Pian and the U.S. 278 Short -Torn Needs Study.
4 As is discussed in the Transportation and Other Public FaotiUles Background Report, these estimates do not include
finding 8 road segmenta making up approximately 20 linear miles of roads on the system flat will operate at LOS "E" and
"F" if improvements are not made to them. They include the following roads: SC 46 -May River Road (SC 170 to Buck L
Road); 5.120 — Bruin Road (S-46 to Burnt Church Road); SC 170 - Okatie Highway (SC 46 to US 278); US 27.8 - Fending
Island Road (Jasper County line to SC 170), US 278 - Wm Hilton Parkway (Spanish Wells Road to Gumtree Road); and
parts of US 278 Business — Wm Hilton Parkway. The reason they are not included in the estimates is that no studies have
provided recommendations that address these deficiencies, nor have any additional widenings received endorsement from the
Participating Local Governments. In fact, Hilton Head Island's Town Council has taken the position to oppose any future
widenings of US 278 (William Hilton Parkway). There is also strong support locally to designate SC 46 (May River Rad) a
scenic highway, which would preclude any additional widenings on that rad segment.
• Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 10 ,
Figure 4: Summary of Transportation lefrastrueture Needs '
Source: Tranaporteffm and Oster Pub0c FaeM&I Background Report
Of this amount, $31,010,000 is needed to address existing needs (deficiencies) and $222,914,000 is
needed to address the demands from estimated new population and employment growth. Detailed
infonrurtl4m pertaining to the individual capital improvements aro in the 7Yansporfafion and Other
Public Facilities Background Report.
Parks and Recreation
Futuro population growth will have a significant impact on the ability of the Participating Local
Governments in the region to respond to increased demands for park land and recreation facilities. The
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report establishes LOS standards for the
Regional Park Network in terms of park land and recreation facilities per capita for Hilton Head Island
and the remainder of Southern Beaufort County (Bluffton and the unincorporated county — the Greater
Bluffton Area).s These LOS standards were then applied to existing and Buildout population estimates
to determine existing and projected needs.
As shown in Figure S below, the Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report
estimates the cost to provide new growth and development with adequate park lands and facilities in
Southern Beaufort County is $66,674,686. Of this amount, $10,395,356 is to accommodate new growth
and development on Hilton Head Island, and $56,279,330 is to accommodate new growth and
development in the Greater Bluffton Area.
s The Common Goals established by the Steering Committee state the Regional Park Network should not fall below the
following LAS standards:
Hilton Head blend
12.2ac. of land per 1,000 residents
$722 of park and recreation facilities per capita
BleMoe and unincorporated Beaufort Comely
13.0 acres of land per 1,000 residents
5722 of prtk and recreation facilities per capita
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005 •
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 1 I
• Figure S: Summary of Costs of Park Lauds and Facilities to Accommodate Buildout Popalatlon
Won HOW Island 10,395,358 10,3OO,3M
Grealer Million At" $17,822,000 t38 457 330 O 330
TOTAL COST TO MEET DEMAND 17 an 000 NO OM NOM
Source; TranaporMdan and Other Public Facilities BecA round Report
•parkWity costs ars higher than those conal W In the TranepOrtstlon and Other
Public FadNBa BeottDround Report due to County stalfdwJ*d to Increase the LOS
per coplis standard from SW2 to $722.
Public Schools
L•: June 2004, the Beaufort County School District hired DeJong, an educational planning firm, to assist
in the development of a Facility Master Plan, a Facility Assessment Report, and a Build -out Scenario
Report for the district (which includes Southern Beaufort County). The information in these reports
includes estimates for student enrollment, new capital infrastructure needs for schools, and their costs.
Because the School District is responsible for the planning of new school facilities, as well as proposing
funding for capital infrastructure for schools, the Transportation and Other Public Facilities
Background Report incorporates the information from these reports.
As part of DeJong's effort, student enrollment was estimated based on a "Buildout" scenario for the
County. For Southern Beaufort County, the Buildout estimates are the same as that used in the Land
Use Patterns and Trends Background Report. However, because DeJong was contracted to estimate
capital infrastructure needs for the next 10 years (through 2014-2015), the estimates in the
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report only project demand through 2014-
2015.
Today, five of the nine public schools in Southern Beaufort County are over capacity (Bluffton
Elementary, M.C. Riley Elementary, H.E. McCraken Elementary, Hilton Head Middle, and Bluffton
High). Moreover, all of the schools in the Bluffton area, except for Okatie Elementary, are over
capacity. The Bluffton High School, which just opened last fall, is already 200 students over capacity.
By contrast, on Hilton Head Island, only the middle school is over capacity.
Based on the Buildout estimates, DeJong estimates Hilton Head Island should gain an additional 2,429
students between 2005 and Buildout (2020). This includes an additional 1,260 Elementary School
students, 554 Middle School students, and 615 High School students, bringing the total student
population to just over 6,000 students in 2020. Enrollment in the Bluffton area is projected to nearly
triple by 2020. This would result in an additional 3,607 students, bringing the total student count to
7,095 by 2020.
The preferred option identified from DeJong's work to address the need created by new population
growth for additional school facilities through 2014-15 in Southern Beaufort County is;
• Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 12
• Four new elementary schools (500 students each); •
• Two new middle schools (500 students each);
• Additions to McCracken and Hilton Head Middle Schools (300 students each);
• One new high school (1200 students); and
• Complete build -out of BluMon High School — Third Floor (450 students)
The building costs associated with these new facilities are shown below in Figure 6. As Figure 6
indicates, the estimated costs for school construction over the next 10 years total $135,090,000. This
includes $129,000,000 in facility costs and $6,090,000 for land.
Figure 6: Summary of Costs of School Construction and Land from DeJong Study — Southern
Beaufort County
Elementary Schools ,000,000 2,170.1100 $40,170,000
Middle Schools $26.400.000 $1,925,000 $27,020,000
NO Schools 11s9 .600.000 SI.M.ODO 211111.801LOOD
Total 120000000 000000 $1 090 000
Soume Tfanapooden and 011w Punk FwNd" Background Report
Libraries •
Existing Library Facilities
Beaufort County has a countywide system of libraries that serve the unincorporated county and its
municipalities. It includes five branch facilities consisting of a total of 91,000 square feet of building
space. Collectively, the branch facilities house 230,910 items, which are defined to include books,
reference volumes, DVD's, cassettes, and CD's.
Two of the County's five branches are located in Southern Beaufort County. They are the Bluffton
Branch, located in Blufiion, and the Hilton Head Island Branch located on Hilton Head Island. Figure 7
shows the location of these two branches.
Figure 8: Public Libraries In Southern Beaufort County, 2005
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to (WWh Background Report 05/16/2005 •
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 13
n; ,
-19
Figure 8: Summary of Library Facilities in Southern Beaufort County, 2005 •
Bkdhon Branch 25,000 0.09 "11A2
Hilton Head Branch 26,000 0.67
Total 51000 0.78
•Source: BMW County Llbrety
••Cwmt LOS based on estimated 2005 population of 38,931 for HHI and 28,248 for
BlulRon Area
Establishing LOS Standards
For the purposes of this report, two categories are included in the LOS for public libraries: building
space (square feet) per capita; and the number of items in the library collection per capita.
dalfMAR Snacr As is shown above in Figure d, if an LOS for building space is used that is based on
providing the same amount of building space to future residents as existing residents, the LOS could
vary, depending on what geographic area is used to evaluate LOS. For example, the current LOS in the
Bluffton area, based on the current population is 0.89 square feet per capita; on the other hand, the LOS
in Hilton Head is 0,67 square feet per capita. If the LOS is based on the study area (the Southern
Beaufort County region), the LOS is 0.76 square feet per capita. However, if the LOS is based on the
county as a whole, the LOS would be 0.60 square feet per capita, the LOS used when the library impact
fees were calculated for Beaufort County in 1999.6
Because library facilities are available to and used by the public throughout the county, and because the •
branch library facilities are located throughout the county, it is recommended that the LOS used for both
building space and items be countywide in nature.
According to the Beaufort County Public Library, the 21" century library is expected to provide a
variety of services beyond the traditional book collection and reading and periodical areas, like meeting
spaces, computer labs, and areas dedicated to serving teens and young adults. In an effort to ensure that
Beaufort County libraries are able to provide such services, the Beaufort County Public Library
consulted architectural firms that specialize in libraries to determine an appropriate LOS that reflects
current programming needs. This consultation suggested the county needs to provide between 1.25 to
1.6 square feet of building space per capita. However, since this LOS standard is more than double the
current countywide average, and there has been no formal discussion of this LOS standard with elected
officials, it was mutually decided by TischlerBise and County staff that the 0.76 square feet per capital
LOS standard that currently exists in the study area (Southern Beaufort County) be used as the LOS for
this evaluation. Although this standard is higher than the current countywide standard (0.60 per capita),
it is similar to the LOS currently provided in the Bluffton area, which is projected to receive the most
population growth over the next 15 years.
6 This 0.6 square foot LOS standard was based on standards published by the South Carolina State Library Board in 1995.
(The Heery Facilities Master Plan, conducted for Beaufort County in 2001, called for a LOS of 3.8 square feet per capita.)
Aft
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 03/16/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 15
• CoUredee Size !!taro): The 1999 County Impact Fee Program for libraries uses a LOS for collection
size (items) (books, reference volumes, videos, dvd's, cassettes, and cd's) per capita of 3.5 items per
capita, based on the South Carolina Public Library Standards (1998). According to the Thomas J.
Hennen, Jr. American Public Library Rating (HAPLR), the LOS for collection size (items) should be 4.5
items per capita. Because the Beaufort County Library System's current LOS is much lower than both
of these standards (1.73), the lower standard of 3.5 items per capita is used in this analysis.
11
Existing and Projected Library Needs
Now that LOS standards are established for Libraries, the next step is to apply existing and Buildout
population estimates to calculate existing and projected needs for library building space and collection
size (items). Figare 9 below provides a summary of the existing needs for these facilities, based on the
LOS, as well as projected demand at Buildout. There is, and will continue to be, a substantial need for
library building space and collection items in Southern Beaufort County due to expected population
growth.
An additional 51,424 square feet of library space is required in order to maintain the recommended LOS
standard in Southern Beaufort County of 0.76 square feet per capita.7 In addition, 349,687 collection
items are needed at Buildout to correct existing deficiencies and address future needs. Of this amount,
112,866 items are needed to address existing deficiencies; the balance, 236,821 items, is needed to
accommodate the estimated new permanent population at Buildout s
Figure 9: Projected Demand for Library Facilities and Services In Southern Beaufort County
Based on a Buildout Population of 134,842 Persons
r For total library square footage of 102,424 square feet at Buildout.
' The estimates for library needs are based on the existing permanent population of 67,179, and the Buildout permanent
population of 134,842.
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
05/16/2005
page 16
67,179
0.75 sq. it.
Der capita
51,000 51,000 0
57,179
3.5 Items
r capita
235,127 122,251 (112,855) items
67,883
0.75 sq. 6.
r capita
51,424
57,883
3.5 items
r capita
235,821
Building Space
51424
Collection Items
49 857 Items
=349=68
r For total library square footage of 102,424 square feet at Buildout.
' The estimates for library needs are based on the existing permanent population of 67,179, and the Buildout permanent
population of 134,842.
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
05/16/2005
page 16
To calculate the cost of providing sufficient library building space and collection items to accommodate
both the existing and the Buildout population of 134,842, several assumptions are made by County stab' O
about costs. Based on existing construction cost estimates provided by the Library Department, it is
assumed that on average it costs $200 per square foot to construct new library building space, in 2005
dollars. To calculate the costs of collection items, the average cost of all types of existing library
collection items is weighted according to the proportion that they represent to the overall collection.
This figure amounts to $30.65 per collection item, in 2005 dollars. Figure 10 provides a summary of
the costs the county will incur to provide the library space and collection items to accommodate the
existing and Buildout population.
Figure 10: Coat to Provide Library Facilities at Buildout, Southern Beaufort County
Projected Demand from Existing Population
x Estimated Unit Cost'
-
$200
112,058
$30.55
Cost to Most Demand-Exlsd Bass
80
$3 469 3N $3,459,363
Projected Demand from New Population
x Estimated Unit Cost'
51,424
$200
235,521
$30.55
Coat to Mast Damand•Fufun Population
$10,284,776
S7 2581646 $17,543,324
TOTAL COST TO MEET DEMAND
510.2%776 $10,717,691 $21,002,667
• alt costs are from Beaufort County staff
Figure 10 above indicates it will cost the county $21,002,667, in 2005 dollars, to provide the library
building space and collection items to accommodate the existing and Buildout population. Of this
amount, $3,459,343 is to address existing deficiencies for collection items, and $17,543,324
($10,284,776 for building space and $7,258,548 for collcction items) is is accommodate new population
growth.
Fire Protection
Fire protection is currently provided in Southern Beaufort County by three different entities. The
majority of the study area is served by the Bluffton Township Fire District, which is its own
governmental entity. Fire protection in the Town of Hilton Head is provided by the Town's Fire/EMS
Department. A very small part of the study area (Daufuskie Island) is served by the Daufuskie Fire
District. As part of this analysis, it was decided that TischlerBise and County staff would determine
existing needs, future demand, and the costs to address these needs for the Bluffton Township Fire
District and the Town of Hilton Head Island. Costs for the Daufuskie Fire District are not included
given the small amount of development in the District relative to Southern Beaufort County, and its
isolated nature.
Bluffton Fire District
The Bluffton Township Fire District currently serves a 246 -square mile area through a complement of
six stations and one substation. Staffing for the District is comprised of a combination of paid and
volunteer employees. The District currently has an ISO rating of five (5). Figure 11 below shows the
locations of the District's current stations and Figure 12 provides a summary of the District's current
facilities, in terms of building size and apparatus.
Fiscal Oppmiunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005 •
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 17
•
1
Figure 11: Location of the Facilities of the Bluffton Fire Dbtrict and the Beaufort County EMS
Department, 2005
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 18
Filture 12: Current Inventory of Stations and Apparatus for Bluffton Township Fire District, •
2005
Station Ai D-BluB0on
71800
Station 03141ritchardville
4,000
Station 032-CallawnWe
4,044
Station 033 -Buckingham
3,770
Station 034-Okade
4,477
Station 036 -Indian HNl
.12,500
Station N36-0aNelon River
500
Pumpers
8
Tankers
3
Aerials
1
Service Vehicles
1
Source: Bluffton Townhslp Fire Mind
The Bluffton Township Fire District has closely analyzed development trends and planned for future
population growth within its boundaries, consistent with the growth trends outlined in the Land Use
Patterns and Trends Background Report. According to conversations with District staff and the
District's Capital Improvement Plan, seven additional stations are needed to provide adequate service
and response times within the study area between 2005 and 2020 to meet the needs of new growth.
Three locations have been specifically identified — a Palmetto Bluff Station, an Oldfield Station, and a
Buckwalter Station. The location of the remaining four is to be determined. Also, additional apparatus
needs to be acquired (seven pumpers and an aerial). The costs to provide these additional capital
improvements are estimated to total $7,150,000, in 2005 dollars. Figure 13 below summarizes these
growth -related capital needs for the Bluffton Township Fire District.
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 19 .
nn
•
•
Ask
Figure 13: Growth -Related Cspitd Needs, Bluffton Township Fire District, 2005 through
Buildout
Pelmotto Blu%Station
2008
1000
0knield Station
2008
55501000
Buckwalter Station
2010
$550,000
NOW Statbn-TBD
2010-2020
$550.000
New Station -TBD
2010-2020
$550.000
New Station TBD
2010-2020
$650.000
New Stadon-TBD
2010-2020
$550,000
Pumper
2008
$350,000
Aerial
2008
$650.000
Pumper
2008
$350.000
Pumper
2010
$350,000
Pumper
2010-2020
$350,000
Pumper
2010.2020
$350,000
Pumper
2010-2020
$350,000
.Pumpff
2010.2020
1 $350.0001
Tolel
57160 000
Source. BluRton Township Fire District
•2005 dollars
Hilton Head Island Fire Rescue Department (Fire/EMS)
Fire protection service and emergency medical service (EMS) on Hilton Head Island ire provided by the .
Town of Hiltma Head Island Fire Rescue Department. The Department serves a 54 -square mile area and
includes all of Hilton Head Island (except the unincorporated portions) and a large portion of the
Intracoastal Waterway and Port Royal Sound that abut the Island. The Fire Rescue Department currently
provides a high level of service of fire protection and EMS services to the Town. The Fire & Rescue
Department strives to maintain a minimal staff while delivering a high level of customer service. This
concept is demonstrated by the department through the use of the "jump truck." The jump truck
philosophy of service delivery allows the department to utilize the same crow to respond to Emergency
Medical and fire calls for service. This approach allows one Fim/Rescue crew to do what requires two
crews in most jurisdictions, thus allowing the department to maintain minimal staffing.
In providing fire protection, the Fire Rescue Department currently has seven (7) staffed fire stations.
Fire Rescue operates a three -shift system with thirty-five (35) positions assigned to each shift with a
minimum stating level of twenty-nine (29) personnel on duty each day. The Town currently has an ISO
rating of 3. Figure 14 below shows the location of the stations.
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report
Soulhem Beaufort County Regional Plan
Figure U: Hilton Head Inland Fire Ram Statiettu, 3005
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005 •
Southern Beaufart County Regional Plan page 21
• Figure 13 below summarizes the Department's current stations and apparatus.
Figure IS: Inventory of Station sad Apparatus 1lor Hilton Head Island Fiore Rescue Department,
2005
Sfotlon 01- 70 Cardillo Parkway
10,864
Station #2 - 65 Lighthouse Road
6,328
Station 03 - 534 Willem Hilton Pkwy
71810
Station 04 - 400 Squire Pope Rood
11,204
Station 05 - 20 Whopping Crane Way
61900
Station #6 -16 Queen Fogy Road
81100
Station #7 -1001 Marshland Road
12,200
911 Communications Center
3,919
Admin istrefin Com x - 40 Summit Drive
19,550
Pumpers
9
ToMers
2
Aerials
2
Ambulances
9
Service Vehicles
2
Other Vehicles
9
Command Vehicles
3
Source: Mon Head Island Fire Rescue Department
Similar to the Bluffton Township Fire District, the Hilton Head Island Fire Rescue Department closely
analyzes development trends and has planned accordingly for future growth within the Town, consistent
with the growth trends outlined in the land Use Patterns and Tends Backg,.vund Report. Accordingly,
the Town recently adopted an update to the 1998 Fire and Rescue Master Plan. Figure 16 below
summarizes the Fire Rescue Department's growth -related capital needs over the next 10 years (2005-
2015).
Since Hilton Head Island is a relatively small geographic area, and time is the greatest controllable
factor impacting the outcome of a fire or medical emergency, the number and location of fire stations
has the greatest impact on response times. To date, the Towv has been able to locate a sufficient number
of stations and pieces of apparatus to provide a high leve; ijf service. In addition, there is a need for
other growth -related capital improvements, including administration and training facilities, apparatus,
and an emergency alert and warning system. The estimated cost of these growth -related capital
improvements is $11,195,000, in 2005 dollars.
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
05/16/2005
page 22
I
Figure 16: Capital Needs for the Hilton Had bland Fire Rescue Department, 2005-2020
Daufuskle Island Fire District
The Daufuskie Island Fire District currently serves an eight -square mile area through a combination of
one main station and one substation. Staffing for the District is comprised of I 1 full-time employees, I
part-time employee and 17 volunteers. The District has an ISO rating of five (5). Filgrrtte er below
summarizes the District's current stations and apparatus. This information is being provided b
background information only.as I
Figure 17: Iuventory of Stations and Apparatus for Daufuskie bland Fire District, 2005
Source: Daaluakle Island Fire Dlsidd
EMS
Emergency medical services ares currently provided in Southern Beaufort County by two different
entities. The Bluffton area is servcJ by the Beaufort County EMS Department. The Town of Hilton
Head Island is served by its own Fire Rescue Department.
Beaufort County EMS Department
The Beaufort County EMS Department is currently providing EMS services to all of Beaufort County,
except for the Town of Hilton Head Island, which has its own Fire Rescue Department. The Beaufort
County EMS Department provides services out of 10 stations. Four of these stations are Incited in
Souther Beaufort County, in the Bluffton area. Their location was identified previously in Figure 11.
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan 05/16/2005
page 23
•1
Emergsrtcy Alert and Waming Systen
$750,000
New Training Center
$1,125,000
New Flro Department Headquarters
$3,000,000
Replacement of station N1
$2,000,000
Replacement d station #5
$2,000,000
shlRe Fire Apparatus
$2 020 000
T�
otal
$111Y6 t100
SIwace: Hilon Head Island F6e Rescue Depafhnent
Daufuskle Island Fire District
The Daufuskie Island Fire District currently serves an eight -square mile area through a combination of
one main station and one substation. Staffing for the District is comprised of I 1 full-time employees, I
part-time employee and 17 volunteers. The District has an ISO rating of five (5). Filgrrtte er below
summarizes the District's current stations and apparatus. This information is being provided b
background information only.as I
Figure 17: Iuventory of Stations and Apparatus for Daufuskie bland Fire District, 2005
Source: Daaluakle Island Fire Dlsidd
EMS
Emergency medical services ares currently provided in Southern Beaufort County by two different
entities. The Bluffton area is servcJ by the Beaufort County EMS Department. The Town of Hilton
Head Island is served by its own Fire Rescue Department.
Beaufort County EMS Department
The Beaufort County EMS Department is currently providing EMS services to all of Beaufort County,
except for the Town of Hilton Head Island, which has its own Fire Rescue Department. The Beaufort
County EMS Department provides services out of 10 stations. Four of these stations are Incited in
Souther Beaufort County, in the Bluffton area. Their location was identified previously in Figure 11.
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan 05/16/2005
page 23
•1
- 0
•
The only station the County owns is the main headquarters station. The remaining nine stations aro
owned by the various Fire Districts in the County, which allow the Department to co -locate transport
and quick response vehicles at these locations.
Three of the four stations in Southern Beaufort County are considered full stations, meaning they are
equipped with an ALS (advanced life support) unit. One station is classified as a quick response station,
meaning the rescue unit only has a staff of one and is not used for transport. There are currently 4 ALS
units and one quick response vehicle serving Southern Beaufort County.
Discussions with Beaufort County EMS Department staff indicate thnt growth -related capital
improvement needs for the next 15 years will consist only of apparatus purchases. For example, the
Department would like to upgrade the current quick response station to a full response station, which
requires a $200,000 expenditure for an ALS vehicle. Staff also indicates new growth will also require
two additional locations, which will be co -located with future fire stations constructed by the Bluffton ,
Township Fire District. Historically, the County has not contributed to the capital coat of fire station
construction. Instead, the County has contributed toward the operating coat of the stations (i.e. utilities,
insurance, etc.), and on occasion, has contributed toward renovations. Figure 18 identifies the capital
expenditures needed for new equipment purchases to accommodate the projected growth in the area
served. The capital equipment is estimated to cost $600,000, in 2005 dollars.
Figure IS: Estimated Capital Needs for Beaufort County EMS
7ALS-New
pgrade to Full Statlon 5200,00(1 Station 5200,000ew Station 5200 OOU
Total ie00 000
Source: SWUM County EMS Department
Hilton Head Island Fire Rescue Department
As is discussed in the previous section on Fire Protection, the Hilton Head Island Fire Rescue
Department is presently providing fire protection and EMS services to the Town of Hilton Head Island.
All fire fighting personnel are cross -trained to a minimum level of Basic Emergency Medical Technician
(EMT) with a goal of maintaining forty two (42) of our personnel trained to a level of EMT Paramedic.
Each fire station is equipped with at a fire engine and an ambulance so that based on the type of call for
service the personnel will have the appropriate equipment to provide the required tasks including
transportation to the nearest medical facility. This concept is delivered by the department through the
use of the `jump truck concept." The jump truck philosophy of service delivery allows the department to
utilize the same crew to respond to Emergency Medical and fire calls for service. This approach allows
one Fire/Rescue crew to do what requires two crews in all other countyjurisdictions, thus allowing the
department to minimize staffing requirements.
Ambulance units are located throughout the Town at the every fire station. Growth related costs from
2005 to 2020 are included in the discussion on fire protection needs in the section discussing the Hilton
Head Island Fire Rescue Department, since ambulance units are part of the stations and respond to both
•
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 24
fire and emergency medical calls. These costs are identified as Fire Department related costs and aro
contained in Figure If above. To make a direct comparison of infrastructure costs for fire, medical and •
emergency warning needs must be combined.
Sheriff/Law Enforcement
As outlined in the Introduction and Executive Summary, specific LOS standards and coats aro not
identified for the Sheriffs Office, due to the countywide nature of the Sherrifra facilities and services.
The Beaufort County Sherifrs Office provides law enforcement protection to unincorporated Beaufort
County and the Town of Hilton Head Island (on a contract basis). The Town of Bluffton hes its own
Police force. In addition to traditional patrol and investigative functions, the Sheritrs Office also
provides other countywide services such as animal control, the serving of civil processes, courthouse
security and various other services9. For patrol functions, the Department is broken out into Northern
and Southern Enforcement Patrol Units. The Northern Enforcement Patrol Unit responds to calls north
of the Broad River Bridge, while the Southern Enforcement Patrol Unit responds to calls south of the
Broad River Bridge. The Sheritrs Office currently has 191 sworn personnel, of which 35 aro dedicated
to the Town of Hilton Head Island as part of the Town's annual contract for law enforcement with the
Sherifrs Office.
The Sheriff's Office currently operates out of two main facilities. They are the Main Headguartms,
which is part of the Beaufort County Government Center, and the substation provided by the Town of
Hilton Head Island as part of its contract for services. In addition, the Sheriff's Office utilizes several
"storefront" substations such as those at Tanger Outlet and the USC Campus. These "storefront" •
substations are small in size and are typically donated, and are therefore not considered as part of the
Sheriffs capital inventory.
SECTION 2: PROJECTED FUNDING FOR CAPITAL
INFRASTRUCTURE, AND FUNDING "GAP"
Section 2 of this report evaluates the question of whether the Participating Local Governments (along
with the state, with respect to roads), under their current revenue structures, will be able to generate
sufficient revenues to fund the needed capital infrastructure identified in Section 1: Projected
Infrastructure Needs. In instances where revenue generation is insufficient, the report identifies the
funding "gap," or the difference between the costs needed to address capital infrastructure needs, and
governments' ability to generate the needed revenue under current revenue structures.
In summary, this Section 2 show that there is a funding "gap" today between the costs for current and
future capital needs in the region at Buildout for roads, parks and recreation, schools, libraries, fire
protection, and EMS facilities, and the revenues that can be generated under existing fiscal
arrangements.
Figure 19 summarizes the estimated capital improvement needs, generally through Buildout, for road,
park and recreation, school, library, fire protection and EMS capital facilities. It then identifies existing
sources of revenue that are being used to fund these needs. Finally, and based on estimated needs and
existing funding levels, the funding "gap," or future needs are identified. Figure 19 shows an existing
funding "gap" of $366,569,799. Of this amount, approximately 98 percent of the "gap" is for roads
($185 million), schools ($135 million), and parks and recreation facilities ($37.8 million) in the
unincorporated county and Bluffton.
® The funding "gap" for each type of facility is described in more detail following the table.
Figure 19: Summary of Estimated Infrastructure Needs and Current Funding Sources for
Southern Beaufort County, 2005 -Buildout
1$6 mlMon In mad tees and $5Wilon in Itbrary tees dedicated to existing debt service has been naffed out
Fiscal opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 26
Transportation •
Historically, the principal source of dedicated road funding for Souther Beaufort County has been
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) dollars through the South Carolina Department
of Transportation (SCDOT). In addition to STIP monies, both the Town of Hilton Head Island and
Beaufort County have implemented road impact fee programs. 10 As is outlined in the Transportation
and Other Public Facilities Background Report, these two sources of revenue for road funding will not
be adequate to fund the capital road improvements needs for the Regional Road Network to address
either existing deficiencies or projected needs at Buildout. In order to illustrate the magnitude of
Southern Beaufort County's transportation funding shortfall, Figure 20 below, from the 7hansportation
and Other Public Facilities Background Report, compares the region's needs in terms of the costs to
make the needed capital improvements11, as compared to anticipated revenues from SCDOT and local
road impact fees. It shows a funding "gap" of approximately $181.4 million dollars (This funding gap is
slightly different than what is contained in the Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background
Report due to the inclusion of the road impact fees from the Town of Hilton Head Island and the
reduction of gross impact fee revenue to account for future impact fees dedicated to servicing existing
debt.
Figure 20: Estimated Transportation Funding Shortfall from Transportation and Oilker Public
Faculties Background Report
Coate to Address Existin0 Transportation Demand
Costs to Address Buildout Transportation Demand
$31,010,0001
$222.914.000
Total Cost to Address Demondl
$253.924.000
5ExMn9pent STIP Funds
IP Revenue 2005 -Buildout
Fee Revenue Buildout
18,000,000
$20,250,000
$30 204Gross
Dedicated Revenue to Address Demand
$t10 70
Dedicated to Serve ExisBn Debt Service*$8.00Q.000
Net Delicate! Revenue to Address Demand
72 70
ESTIMATED FUNDING SHORTFALL
101 lL10
Source: Transportation and Other Public FacAfts Background Repot
'Based on intbrm don obtained from County Budget Department
" There are two Impact Fee programs. Beaufort County's Impact Fee Program exacts fees on new development in the
BluMon/Oketie area and on Hilton Head Island to fund the widening of SC 46, the Bluffton Parkway, and the widening of
the Buckwalter Parkway. The Town of Hilton Head Island has its own Traffic Impact Fee Program which Ponds
transportation projects within the Town, and projects on the Regional Road Network identified in the Jl ansportadon and
Other public Facilities BacAground Report
r r As is noted earlier and in the Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report, these estimates do not
include fhnding 8 road segments making up approximately 20 linear miles of roads on the system that will operate at LOS
E" and " l"' if improvements are not made to them. They include the fol lowing roads: SC 46 -May River Road (SC 170 to
Buck f. Road); S-120 — Bruin Road (S-46 to Burnt Church Road); SC 170 — Okatie Highway (SC 46 to US 278); US 278 —
Fording Island Road (Jasper County line to SC 170); US 278 — Wm Hilton Parkway (Spanish Wells Road to Gumtree Road);
and parts of US 278 Business — Wm Hilton Parkway.
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005 •
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 27
PW
• TischlerBise's own review of the revenue estimates generally reconfirms the statements in the
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report that they aro optimistic. Based on
further review of the STIP funding and conversations with the LCOO staff involved with the allocation
of STB' funding, we suggest it is more realistic to expect the annual STIP allocation over the next 15 '
years to be about 50 percent of the annual $2 million a year STB' allocation estimated, or $1 million a
year, or $15 million to the region over 15 years (instead of the $26,250,000 estimated in the
Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report. 12
On the other hand, we estimate that the revenue generated from the Beaufort County road impact fees
will generate $7.68 million dollars more then the fees estimated in the Transportation and Other Public
Facilities Background Report, or $46,885,529, instead of $39,204,470. See Figure 21 below. 13
However, it is important to note that approximately $8 million in future impact fee revenue is committed
to servicing existing debt
"As is discussed in the Transportation and Other Public Fatilider Background Report, STIP funding to LCOO (composed
of Beaufort, Jasper, Hampton and Colleton Counties) has averaged around $2 million per year. To estimate future S11P
revenue, County staff made an aggressive assumption that Southern Beaufort County would receive 75% of the $2 million in
average annual revenue that the LCOO area has been receiving.
Thera are several reasons TischlerBise suggests this assumption is optimistic. First, although funds distributed by LCOO
have averaged $2 million annually in recent years, LCOO is not guaranteed a certain amount of funds annually. Second,
LCOO staff suggests the allocation assumed in the report is probably optimistic for the region. Third, them is currently no
long-range plan for the expenditure of future STIP funds; consequently, any fiends received will be allocated an a project -by -
project basis, using a decision-making matrix. Finally, the projections contained in the report appear to be overoted; even if
75 percent of the LCOO allocation goes to Southem Beaufort County, it would only amount to $1.5 million dollars annually,
or a total of 522,500,000 (the Transportation and Other Public FaciRtler Background Report estimates $26,650,000).
In addition to anticipated futwe STIP revenues, the estimates also included one current project, the widening of US 278
between Simmonsville Rad and the bridge to Hilton Head Island, for which past STIP ftmds aro obligated. Filum (15)
million dollars ($7 million from the STIP along with an additional $8 million from various matching sources) are earmarked
for this project. This is the only remaining project in Southern Beaufort County from SCDOT's "27 in 7" Program where 27
fia
years of projects were executed in a 7 -year timeme with STIP allocations used to pay off bonds. This estimate seem fine.
The revenue projections prepared by County staff were intended to provide rough estimates of the transportation impact
fees that would be generated. To prepare these estimates, staff largely utilized revenue projections contained in the County's
1999 Impact Fee Study, with adjustments to reflect the amount of revenue collected between the study date and today.
In preparing our impact fee revenue projections for the Beaufort County impact Fee Program, TischlerBise used projected
growth in housing units and nonresidential development from 2005 to Buildout obtained from the county for the Bluffton
arca, which is a more accurate indicator of future revenue. These estimates indicate the Bluffton arca will receive an
additional 15 million square fat of nonresidential development and 27,864 additional housing units from 2005 to 2020.
These estimates of growth are then multiplied by the impact fee amounts of $1,120 per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential
development and $448 per housing unit.
The County's impact fee district that includes Hilton Head Island and Daufuskie is anticipated to receive an additional 3.99
million square feet of nonresidential development and 10,319 housing uni6. This is multiplied by the impact fee amounts of
$712 per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential development and $280 per housing unit.
• Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/21105
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 28
Figure 21: Revised Road Impact Fee Revenue Projections
Beaufort County Road Impact Fee Program (Bluffton Area) 522,050,213 29,283,178 �$7S'=J.!952Beaufort County Road Impact Fee Program (HHI/Daufu" Area) $5,288,041 $5,735,038 Hllton Head Island Road Ins t Fee $11887 318 11887 316Total Ins act Fee Revenue 539 70 548 885 529
'Source: Transportation and OtherPubllc Fadllties Background Report
Figure 22 below shows the revised transportation funding shortfall, or "gap," based on this additional
evaluation. It reconfirms the analysis conducted in the Transportation and Other Public Facilities
Background Report, that the existing sources of funding for road capital improvements in the region are
inadequate to fund existing deficiencies and the future needs for capital road improvements on the
Regional Road Network. As Figure 22 indicates, with the revenue projection refinements suggested,
the transportation funding shortfall has increased by $3.6 million to $185 million.
Figure 22: Revised Transportation Funding Shortfall Estimate
Costs to Address Existing Transportation Demand•31,010,000
Coats to Address Buildout Tran tion Demand'
$222,914000
31,010,000
Cost to Address Demand
53 9 00000Existing
4$222,OSI4.000Total
Unspent STIP Funds
Projected STIP Revenue 2005 -Buildout**
P acted Impact Fee Revenue 2006 Buildout
$15,000,00000,000
$28,250,000
39.204.470
$15,000,000
805 529
Gross Dedicated Revenue to Address Damand
70
$76.88 529
Less Impact Dedicated to Serve Fadstl Debt Servk:e•••
000000
000 000
Not Dedicated Revenue to Address Demand
72 70
885 829
ESTIMATED FUNDING SHORTFALL
181 0 530
$185038 71
'Source: Tran8pode6on and Other Public Facilities Background Report
111784de0se astimate assumes Study Area recleves 50% ofLCOG allocation annually
—Based on Information obtained from County Budget Department
Parks and Recreation
As outlined in the Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report, it is estimated that
the cost to address existing deficiencies and provide new growth and development with adequate park
lands and facilities for the Regional Park Network is $66,674,686. Of this amount, $10,395,35614 is to
accommodate new growth on Hilton Head Island, and $56,279,330 is to accommodate new growth in
the Greater Bluffton Area. See Figure 23 below.
14 Park facilities only.
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 29
Figure 23: Summary of Costs for Park Land and Facilities to Accommodate Buildout Population
Source: Transportation and 00w Public FaciNdes Background Report
'Pack fecMAy costs aro hWw than those contained In ft Transportation and 00W
Public FSCW" Bacfmround Repot due to County atoll derided to Incresas ft LOS
per capb standard hom $502 to $722.
Today in Southern Beaufort County, regional park lands and facilities are funded primarily through four
major revenue sources: 15 park impact fees, funds from Beaufort County's Rrtal and Critical Lands
Program (for passive park land acquisition), the Real Estate Transfer Fee (RETF) (for land acquisition
on Hilton Head Island), and general revenues.
As is discussed in the Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report, the existing
revenue structure on Hilton Head Island is sufficient to address park land needs, t but there is a funding
"gap" for park facilities needed to accommodate the Buildout population. In the Transportation and
Other Public Facilities Background Report, it was identified as $4,462,305. With the changes shown in
e Figure 23 above, it is $7,629,864.
On the other hand, the existing revenue structure will not be able to fund the needs for regional park
lands or facilities in the Greater Bluffton area. There is a funding "gap" of $37,821,018. " See Figure
24.
" It should be noted, however, that historically, the Participating Local Governments have used other discretionary revenue
sources to find park capital improvements on an ad hoc basis, especially on Hilton Head island. These revenue sources
include PARD finds (about $13,000 annually) and Sunday Liquor Permit Fees (HHI). However, these are not dedicated
revenue sources, and must find competing demands.
"There is no existing need for park lands on Hilton Wad, and a 15.9 acre surplus of available lands to meet Buildout needs
for park lands.
17 The reason for this is that the park impact fees aro only being used to fund park facilities.
•
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 30
0
Figure 24: Summary of the Estimated Funding Gap for Park and Recreation Facilities
Source: Transportation and Odor Public FacMas Background Report
'Revenue to Amd Hftn Head Island needs is from Beaufort County Impact Fee Program
-County staff esBrrtalas that haffof the remaining $10 mlNlon allocated to the program can be
used to purchase ackiftnal lands In Southern Beaufort County
The only funding sources identified as existing viable funding sources for park lands and facilities into
the future in the Transportation and Other Public Facilities Background Report, are the Real Estate
Transfer Fee (RETF), the Rural and Critical Lands Proigram and park impact fees. Currently, only the
Town of Hilton Head Island has authority to use the RETF.Is Park impact fees have been adopted by
Beaufort County, apply in both the Greater Bluffton area and on Hilton Head Island, vary by planning
area, but only fund park facilities. 19
In determining the park impact fee revenue projections contained in the Transportation and Other
Public Facilities Background Report, staff applied projected growth in housing units for the Bluffton
and Hilton Head Island areas to the current impact fee schedule, which is the most accurate indicator of
Is likely revenue. Consequently, TischlerBise concurs with these projections.
° The Town of Hilton Head Island has been very successful in acquiring park land by use of its real estate transfer fee
(RETF), which amounts to one quarter of one percent (.0025) of the purchase price of the transfer of real property. As
described in the Natural Assets and Natural Constraints to Growth Background Report, Hilton Head Island is unique in its
ability to use this funding source. The RETF generates approximately $3.8 million annually for the town. Although not
technically a dedicated revenue source for parks and recreation needs, since its inception in 1991, the Town has spent $120.4
million on 101 parcels totaling 1,111.72 acres, The purchase of these parcels has served primarily as a growth management
tool for the Town as well as supplying land for community facilities and parks. As is discussed earlier, based on the
established LOS standards for park lands, Hilton Head Island has enough available land to meet its Buildout park land needs
for the Regional Park Network. Assuming that the current level of revenue generated from this funding source remains
constant, the Town can anticipate $57 million over the next IS years.
19 As is discussed in the Transportation and Other Pablic Facilities Background Report, park and recreation facilities aro a
component of Beaufort County's Impact Fee Program. The County's park impact fee program does not fund the acquisition
of park land (It was assumed that land acquisition would come from donations from developers or other sources.)
In Southern Beaufort County under the county's impact fee program, the need for park facilities is calculated separately for
Hilton Head Island and the Bluffton/Okatie Area to account for different growth estimates and the different LOS standards
used by the Town and the County. Daufuskie Island is not included in the parks and recreation component of the Impact Fee
Program because it was determined when the Impact Fee Program was created that the need for park and recreation facilities
on the island is low. In the Bluffton/Okatie Area, the park impact fee is $483 per residential unit. On Hilton Head Island, the
fee is $268 per residential unit. On average, annual revenues generated from the Impact Fee Program amount to $400,000 to
$500,000 in the Bluffton area and an average of $60,000 on Hilton Head Island.
s
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 31
Schools
The Beaufort County School District currently funds 100 percent of its infrastructure needs through
local sources. The District currently has a debt levy of 22.2 mills per $1,000 of assessed value. Also of
relevance, is the District's constitutional debt limit of 8 percent of total assessed value (FY2005 assessed
value was $1,288,479,500). To go beyond the constitutional limit of 8 percent to issue bonds for school
construction requires a voter referendum.
It is not the intent of this analysis to make recommendations for funding of school capital needs. Rather,
school capital needs are presented for informational purposes only, as the Beaufort County School
District is its own governmental entity. Conversations with School officials indicate that a finding plan
for the capital needs identified in the DeJong study is currently being developed, with a recommended
plan being adopted sometime over the summer.
Libraries
As discussed in the previous section, it is estimated that the cost to address existing deficiencies and
provide new growth and development with adequate library building space and collection materials is
$21,002,667. Of this amount, $10,284,776 is for building space and $10,717,891 is for collection
materials. This is shown below in Figure 25.
Figure 25: Summary of Costs for Library Building Space and Collection Items
Building Space $10,284,778
Collection Materials $10,717,891
TOTAL CO3T TO MEET DEMAND 1 $21002887
Capital facility needs for the Beaufort County Library are funded through General Fund revenue and
library impact fees, which have been adopted by the county, and are applied across the region (in all
Participating Local Governments). Of those two sources, only impact fees can be considered a
dedicated revenue source for capital needs.
The County's current impact fee program is assessed against residential development, with the fee
amount varying by collection/expenditure district. The impact fee is currently assessed at $867 per
housing unit in the Bluffton Area and $107 per unit in Hilton Head Island/Daufuskie. Toproject futrtro .
impact fee revenue, these impact fee amounts are applied against the projected number of housing units
for each area. As shown below in Figure 26, this yields estimated Library impact fee revenue of
.$25,262,221 from 2005 to 2020. However, approximately $5 million of the future impact fee revenue is
pledged to service existing debt service on the recently constructed Bluffton Library, resulting in net
impact fees of $20,262,221.
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005 •
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 32
• Figure 26: Projected Library Impact Fee Revenue, 2005-2020
WNWW.Wautuskie 10,319 107 1,104,133
$24168088
BIut�Dketle 27 884 5997
droaa Ira @* Rwsnua 38183SS5 000 000
Less Revenue Dedicated to Debt Ser*A $20 2 1
Nat Im FN Rwsnus
•source:Beautort County stair
Consequently, the library impact fees alone will generate all but about $5 million of capital library needs
in the region to address both the existing deficiencies for collection materials, as well as the future
capital library needs from the Buildout population. ($21,002,667 in capital needs versus $20,262,221 in
revenue generated). This leaves a funding "gap" of $740,000, in 2005 dollars.
Figure 27: Summary of the Estimated Funding Gap for Library Building Space and Collection
Materials
Southern Beaufort County $21,002 8871 $20,262,221 15740
'Revenue dedicated to existing debt service payments has been deducted.
® It is important to note that existing deficiencies cannot be funded by impact fees. Therefore, the
$3,459,343 identified in Figure 10 as the existing deficiency in collection materials cannot be funded by
library impact fee revenue.
Fire Protection
•
Bluffton Township Fire District
As discussed earlier, the Bluffton Township Fire District is its own governmental entity. As such, the
district is authorized to fund both its operating/maintenance expenses and capital infrastructure costs
through property tax millage. The current mill rates of the District are 17.9 per $1,000 of assessed
value for operations and 0.70 per $1,000 of assessed value for debt service on capital needs.
In addition to the District's debt levy, fire impact fees, adopted and exacted by the County and passed on
to the District for capital infrastructure, are the other source of revenue used to fund growth -related
capital facilities. The fire impact fee for a single-family dwelling unit is $481. Based on information
provided by the District staff, impact fee revenue has been averaging about $500,000 annually.
This fire impact fee should be more than sufficient to address the District's capital infrastructure needs
into the future to accommodate new population growth, without use of its ad valorem base.
Conservatively, it is estimated the fire impact fee will generate $500,000 per year over the 15 -year
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
0511612M
page 33
N
projection period for capital fire inftastructure, or 57,500,000.20 As discussed previously and shown
below in Figure 28, Bluffton Fire District capital needs over this same period are estimated by the
District to be $7,150,000.
Figure 28: Comparison of Projected Impact Fee Revenue and Facility Costs
r
cted Bluffton Fire District Costs 2005-2020 7,150,100
cted Im t Fee Revenue 2005.2020. $7,500000
EsOmated Funding Surglus I 8,160 000
Hilton Head Island Fire Rescue Department
The Hilton Head Island Fire Rescue Department is funded as part of the Town's General Fund
operations, and as such, is funded through general revenues such as property taxes and hospitality taxes',.
The Town currently pledges a portion of the hospitality tax to pay debt service for Fire Rescue projects.
The hospitality tax is a one -percent tax on the sale of prepared meals and beverages. This source is
currently generating approximately $2.3 million annually, of which approximately $696,000 is being
used for Fire/Rescue debt service. See Figure 29.
Figure 29: Projected Hilton Head Island Fire Rescue Funding Shortfall
"rDedicatedRescue Revenue 11,195,000
Rescue Dlsbicl Coats $11.195.000
Estimated Funding Shortfs 11 so
Source: Nihon Head Island Fire Rescue Depmrbmnt
EMS
Beaufort County EMS Department
The Beaufort County EMS Department is part of the County's General Fund operations, and as such, is
funded through general revenues such as property taxes. The Department does charge a fee for service,
depending on the type of service provided. This revenue is intended to primarily cover operating costs,
of which it is currently covering 60-70 peicent.
10 We suggest this historical revenue stream is the hest way to estimate fire impact fee revenue because: 1)we do not have a
way to back out residential units and nonresidential square footage projected for the Dauthe>7e area, which ere included in
the unincorporated arca of Southern Beaufort County, and 2) we do not have a projectirm of residential and nonresidential
development by type (i.e. single family vs. townhouse and retail -versus office):
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 34
Since there is not a dedicated EMS funding source, the estimated funding "gap' for the total growth-
related costs is $600,000.
Hilton Head Inland Fire Rescue Department
As discussed above under Fire Protection, EMS services aro provided by the Town of Hilton Head
Island Fire Rescue Department These services are funded as part of the Town's General Fund
operations, and as such, aro funded through general revenues such as property taxes, accommodations
taxes and hospitality taxes. Tho estimated finding gap is shown above in Figure 29.
■
III
SECTION 3: POTENTIAL FUNDING TOOLS 0
This section h intended to provide support and a framework for the consideration by the Steering
Committee and the Participating Local Governments of how to address the capital infrastructure Finding
"gap." Because approximately 93% of funding needs, and approximately 95% of the funding "gap,"
involves capital needs for roads, parks and recreation, and school capital facilities, this section identifies
the most realistic funding tools that could be used by the Participating Local Governments to address
road and park and recreation needs, and provides a general range of the revenue that could be generated
by each of these tools. (School funding issues are not included, since school funding is planned for,
managed, and initiated by the School District.) It also summarizes the pros and cons of using the
revenue tool
As is discussed in Sections 1 and 2 of this report, approximately 91% of funding needs ($495.636
million), and approximately 98% of the funding "gap" ($366.569 million) in Southern Beaufort County
involves capital needs for roads ($185 million), parks and recreation ($37.8 million in the
unincorporated county and Bluffton), and school ($135 million) capital facilities.. Given the size of the
revenue "gap" for these facilities, and/or the institutional arrangements by which they are being
provided and their interrelated nature, these are the facilities upon which this regional planning effort
should focus, in terns of cost of growth strategies.
General Criteria for Evaluating Funding Tools
An array of potential funding tools to address coat -of -growth issues already are authorized in South S
Carolina. Still other tools are unauthorized but have been used by other fast-growing Sunbelt
communities in other states to fund capital infrastructure for roads and parks/recreation facilities. They
include the property tax, impact fees, the capital projects sales tax, the real estate transfer fee, toll roads,
special districts, tax increment financing, the local option sales tax, the hotel occupancy tax, rental car
receipts tax, and vehicle license fees. There might be others.
In focusing on a funding strategy to address the funding "gap" for road and paddrecreation facilities, it
is important to begin by prioritizing, or identifying the funding tools that provide the most realistic
opportunities to achieve the funding goals of the region. It is suggested that in considering which tools
are most appropriate for consideration for road and parks/recreation facilities, five principle criteria be
considered:
• Revenue Potential: Whether the tool can generate substantial sums of monies to fund capital
infrastructure;
e Geographic Application: Whether the tool can be applied across the region;
• Legislative Authorization: Whether the funding tool requires legislative authorization;
a Technical/Administrative Ease. The ease of administering the tool; and
a Public Acceptability: How residents will accept the funding mechanism.
The funding needs and finding "gap" for roads and parks/recreation facilities is substantial,
consequently, it is important, when considering revenue tools, that they have the capacity to generate
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/20050
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 36
• substantial revenue, over time. Usually, revenue tools that can be applied across the region (or county)
have the capacity to generate more substantial sums of revenue; furthermore, revenue tools that can be
applied across the region, are generally considered to more fairly allocate funding responsibilities for
regional facilities. Obviously, when considering revenue strategies, it is usually easier for a local
government to implement a revenue tool that is authorized by state law, versus having to seek legislation
from the state legislature. Some revenue tools are easier to administer than others, in terms of the time
and resources that have to be committed from staff to keep the program current. Finally, the public
acceptability of a revenue tool is important, especially when it has to be approved by voters.
Evaluation of Specific Funding Tools
With this said, and after consultation with the staffs of the Participating Local Governments, it is
suggested that the revenue tools the Steering Committee use as a starting point for consideration to
address the funding "gap" for roads and park and recreation facilities are:
• The Property Tax;
• Impact fees;
• The Capital Projects Sales Tax;
• Real Estate Transfer Tax; and
• The Local Option Gas Tax.
Other revenue tools were considered, but were not included for different reasons. All but toll roads are
• discussed in the Appendix to this report
• Toll roads were not considered because the community seemed to rule that out as a viable
revenue funding tool on US 278 in recent months.
• Special benefit districts are not included because, given the direct benefit requirements for
the assessments, the tool is usually used for capital infrastructure that is more local (versus)
regional in nature.
• Tax Increment financing (TIFs) was not included because it is used primarily in a re-
development context, it results in the county foregoing increased tax dollars for other needs,
and is usually used for more localized, versus regional projects.
• Vehicle license fees were not included because it would require legislative authorization
and in the context of funding roads and parks, is not likely to generate substantial revenue.
• A rental car receipts tax was not considered because the large majority of rental cars used
in the region are rented at the airports in either Savannah or Charleston, and consequently
the tool would not be a significant revenue generator.
• An accommodations tax was not included because, while it is a significant fitnding L4ume
for the Town of Hilton Head Island, in the context of funding large regional funding gaps
for roads and parka and recreation, it is not likely to generate sufficient revenue for the
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 37
County and Bluffton given the majority of hotel/motels are located within the Town of
Hilton Head Island. •
Each revenue tool is discussed and evaluated below, along with a general estimate ofthe amount of
revenues that the tool could generate to address the funding "gap" forroadsand perks/recreation
facilities.
The Property Tax
Even though the County is authorized to use the property tax to fund road and park capital infrastructure,
them are limitations to its use. In the context of this analysis, it is very difficult to estimate what the
exact increase in property taxes would be if they were used to fund the funding "gap" for roads ($ 185
million) and parka ($37.8 million), since the required mill rate is dependant on so many factors, like:
• The number and amount of each bond issue,
• The timing of each bond issue.
• The interest rate at the time.
• The increase in assessed value over time.
• The retirement of existing County debt.
However, if it is assumed that general obligation bonds are issued today in the amount of $226,726
million to address the funding "gap" for roads and parks (in practice they would be spread over time),
the resulting debt service payments would be $16.4 million annually, assuming one bond issue and a 20 -
year amortization period. In order to illustrate the order of magnitude of such a bonding need, if the
county issued such a bond today, it would require a 12.8 mill increase to the current capital millage of
5.4 .21 Put another way, the County's current debt service payments are only $6.6 million annually. This
would equate to an increase to the current debt levy of approximately 150 percent ($16.4 million
annually versus $6.6 million annually). When viewed in the context of the overall property tax rate, it
equates to an increase of approximately 8 percent to the overall mill rate of 161.4 for properties in
unincorporated Southern Beaufort County.
Also of relevance to this issue of using bonds to "jump start" capital road or park projects through the
property tax, is that (acconling to information provided by the County) Beaufort County is currently at
approximately 54% of its bonding capacity. In practical terms, what this does is limit the amount of
capital road or park projects which the county can bond at this point in time through the property tax —
since right now the County currently has approximately $55 million in legal debt it can bond (without
voter approval). (If, however, an alternative funding tool with a dedicated revenue stream was adopted
such as a Capital Projects Sales Tax or a gas tax, the County could issue revenue bonds, backed by the
2(According to information provided by the County Assessor, 1 mill cummily yields approximately $1.28 million.
22. Beaufort County and the Town of Hilton Head Island currently fiend a great deal of their capital inf restructure needs with
bonds. The Town of Bluffton currently does not have a bond rating and therefore has not issued bonds to data (However,
Bluffton is currently seeking a bond rating.) .
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report OS/16/2005�
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
page 38
• Capital !Vects Sales Tax or a gas tax. This would have a positive impact on the County's debt
capacity.),
fJ
The property tax has significant revenue potential, but them are limitations due to the existing limits on
bonding capacity (the County currently has debt capacity of approximately $55 million compared to
$226 million in funding needs for roads and parks.). See Figure 30. It is a tool that can be applied
across the region, but might raise potential equity issues in that property tax increases to fund capital
infrastructure in Southern Beaufort County would result in significant countywide property tax
increases. There is existing authorization to use the property tax, but limitations on its broad application
to fund roads in particular, because of the effects it would have on the county's bonding capacity. It is
easy to administer, since the County already administers a property tax program.
Finally, even if it can be designed so that the property tax could be used, through bonding, to raise
sufficient revenue to fund the debt service on bonds required to address the funding "gap for roads and
parks, public acceptability of property tax increases to fund capital infrastructure is uncertain, as
significant property tax increases usually meet public resistance; in addition, public acceptance of a
property tax increase in northern Beaufort County to fund capital infrastructure in the south would
probably meet strong resistance.
Figure 30: Property Tax
Revenue Potential
Significant
Geographic Application
High. But It deo would Increase property taxa In North Beaufort
County
Legislation Authorization
Legislative Authorization exists, but bond capacity Ilmlb ability to
use property tax as means tool
Teehnkal/Adminlstradve Ease
Easy to administer
Public Acceptability
Uncertain. Probably moderate to low, due to fact It world require
significant property tax Increase, and would result In property
owners In North Beaufort County funding capltd improvements In
Southern Beaufort County
Impact Fees
Impact fees can be defined as new growth's fair share of the cost to provide necessary capital facilities,
like roads and parks. Impact fees cannot be imposed on new development to pay for or provide public
improvements needed by existing development. Capital improvements funded by impact fees must
enable the jurisdiction to accommodate new development by adding facility capacity. Both road and
park impact fees are being utilized across the region. However, the fee structures, assumptions and
methodologies are quite old and are in need of updating, especially in light of the LOS standards and
cost assumptions contained in this Report and the Transportation and Other public Facilities
Background Report.
Many local governments in fast-growing Sunbelt communities use impact fees to fund a significant
portion of their capital needs for roads. For example, according the latest National Impact Fee Survey
23 Debt capacity is not as much of a concern for the Town of Hilton Head Island, as most of the Town's bond issues are
revenue bonds, retired with a hospitality tax, an accommodations tax and TIF revenue.
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plea page 39
(2005) the national average (excluding California) for a road impact fee for a single family unit in 2005
is $1602. However, many of the urbanizing counties in Florida and other states have road impact fees `•
for single-family dwellings that are in the $2,000-$3,000 range. Beaufort County's existing mad impact
fee program exacts fees that are significantly less than the actual c ca the local governments will incur c
accommodate new growth. Thie existing policy has contribto
uted to the existing deficit in road
in6astructure. If mad impact fees were increased from there existing levels for single family of $ 440 to
S 1600 for a single-family unit (and the fees increased at a comparable level for other land uses), it is
estimated the Participating Local Governments will generate an additional $72 million in revenue for
road capital facilities.
As with roads, impact fees are also a viable source of funding for park and recreation facilities in
Southern Beaufort County. Even though Beaufort County has an existing park impact fee, it does not
include fees for land, nor has it been updated recently to account for the increased cost of recreation
equipment and facilities. It is estimated a moderate increase in park impact fees (from $483 to $840 for a
single-family unit) will generate an additional $ 10 million dollars in revenues. It might be possible to
increase the park impact fees to even higher levels.
Impact f. -es for both roads and parks have significant revenue potential; however, they will need to be
used with other funding tools, since impact fees cannot be used to fund existing deficiencies, and there
are existing deficiencies for both road and park capital infrastructure. In addition, in practice, there is
usually always a revenue gap that occurs between impact fees and the revenue needs of the community
(even when the fees are exacted at 100% levels). See Figura 31. As with the existing road and park
impact fees in the county, impact fees can be designed and exacted on all new growth and development
across the region; in addition, and relevant to the equity issue between north and south County, they can
be designed and targeted (through the use of geographic districts) so that it is only the now growth and
development in Southern Beaufort County that is asked to pay for the now capital infrastructure needs in
south county. There is existing authorization for the Participating Local Governments to adopt impact
fees for roads and parks. Impact fees are more difficult to administer than many of the other revenue
tools because of their "fair share" or proportionality requirements. Detailed support studies need to be
prepared to support increased impact fees, and these studies will need to be updated every five years or
so. Finally, the public acceptability of increases to the existing road and park impact fees is uncertain.
However, fair share impact fees have found a high degree of public acceptability in many fast-growing
Sunbelt communities, because they can raise substantial sums of revenue for capital infrastructure, and
because they only ask new growth and development to pay their fair share ofcnfiaatnrcture costs. Impact
fees, however, do meet resistance from the building industry, in particular, because they are imposed at
time of building permit issuance.
•
Figure 31: Impact Fees
Revenue potentia
shimilleset
Geographic Application
High, red the tool can be targeted so that only new growth
and development in Southern Beaufort County pays the
cat of needed capita Infrastructure In Southern Beaurort
County
Legislation Authorization
Legislative Authoriratime estate
Techukal/Admintatnlive Ease
Administratively demandm
public Acceptability
Uncertain. Far share impart fen have been embraced by
the public In many high growth Sunbelt eommnaitles.
They are restated by the building community, since the feu
Hs normallycollected at time of bulldin rmit iauuee.
Capital Projects Sales Tax
Many communities across the nation are authorized by their state legislatures to increase the local sales
tax by a modest amount to provide a dedicated source of funds for infrastructure. The State of South
Carolina allows for such taxes. One is a voter approved Capital Projects Sales Tax, which must be used
for capital projects. A second is a local option sales tax, which if approved by the voters, must then
issue a property tax credit to County taxpayers totaling the amount of revenue raised.
A Capital Projects Sales Tax was utilized by the County to fund the widening of SC 170 between
McGarvey's Corner and the City of Beaufort. The special sales tax was enacted by a referendum of
Beaufort County voters in 1998, for a two-year time period and was used to fund the local match
($40,000,000) for a State Infrastructure Bank project. In fact, a referendum on an additional one -cent
sales tax, which would have generated $117 million over a five-year period for road capital
improvements, was defeated by the voters in November 20042e.
Even though the $117 million dollar Capital Projects Sales Tax was narrowly defeated by voters last
year for road capital improvements, it is a strong and viable revenue tool that needs to be considered as a
funding tool for capital infrastructure. Using the annual revenue estimates prepared by the County in
conjunction with the Capital Projects Sales Tax referendum that failed in 2004, such a tax could
generate approximately $23 million annually on a countywide basis, or approximately $350 million over
15 years. Of this amount, it is conservatively assumed that half, or approximately $175 million would
be available for projects specific to Southern Beaufort County.
The Capital Projects Sales Tax has substantial revenue potential. See Figure 32. It is a revenue tool that
would be applied across the region and county, if adopted, which might raise potential equity issues
between north and south County, if the revenues generated are not equally split. Then: is existing
authorization to adopt the Capital Projects Sales Tax, but it requires voter approval. Finally, public
acceptability of the Capital Facilities Sales Tax is difficult to gauge, since the $117 million dollar
Capital Projects Sales Tax was narrowly defeated by voters last year for road capital improvements.
However, alternative funding sources like the Capital Projects Sales Tax have been embraced by the
public in other fast-growing Sunbelt communities facing substantial capital infrastructure funding needs.
r. A similar referendum was also defeated in November 2002.
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 41
Figure 32: Capital Projects Sales Tax
•
Real Estate Transfer Fee
Also known as a deed transfer tax or documentary stamp taxes, a real estate transfer fee is a fee on the
transfer, sale or conveyance of real property. The rate is applied against the purchase price of the
property. As discussed previously in this report, the Town of Hilton Head Island has implemented a real
estate transfer fee, at a rate of one quarter of one percent (.0025). This revenue source is currently
generating approximately $3.8 million annually for the Town, which it has historically used as a growth
management tool to purchase land, as well as purchasing land for community facilities and parks.
In the Town of Hilton Head's case, the enabling legislation limits the RETF's use to the purchase of
land. Assuming that the current level of revenue generated from this funding source remains constant (a
conservative estimate), the Town can anticipate an additional $57 million over the next 15 -years.
If the County was able to gain legislative authorization for 0.0035 real estate transfer fee, for the purpose
of funding both road and park capital infrastructure (lands and facilities), based on information provided
by the County Assessor's Office, it would have generated $8.6 million this Fiscal Year from transfers
within the County, outside of the Town of Hilton Head Island. Given the growth estimated for
Southern Beaufort County between 2005 and Buildout, this annual figure could easily increase over
time. If it remains constant, it would generate $129 million countywide over the next 15 years. Of this
amount, it is conservatively assumed that $65 million (approximately half) would be available for
Projects specific to Southern Beaufort County.
The Real Estate Transfer Fee has substantial revenue potential. See Figure 33. Like the Capital
Projects Sales Tax, it is a revenue tool that would be applied across the region and county, which might
raise potential equity issues between north and south County, if the revenues generated are not equally
split. The big hurdle with respect to using the real estate transfer fee as a funding tool today is that it
requires state authorization. Since Hilton Head Island has been given such authorization, it is probably
worth pursuing such authorization. Finally, even though public acceptability of a Real Estate Transfer
Fee is difficult to gauge, it would appear to be high, given the fact that the tool is accepted and used by
the Town of Hilton Head Island.
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/102005 •
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan �p 42
Uncertain.
i leant
=Fall-onAuthorlution
High. Not the tool most be applied across the cooly.
Mendel disparltla between north and south Carty
coo be addressed s Ititlr the revenue
Legislative Authorization exists, bet voter referendum is
required.
TechdeWAdministradve Ease
to admlmter.
Public Aces ublll
•
Real Estate Transfer Fee
Also known as a deed transfer tax or documentary stamp taxes, a real estate transfer fee is a fee on the
transfer, sale or conveyance of real property. The rate is applied against the purchase price of the
property. As discussed previously in this report, the Town of Hilton Head Island has implemented a real
estate transfer fee, at a rate of one quarter of one percent (.0025). This revenue source is currently
generating approximately $3.8 million annually for the Town, which it has historically used as a growth
management tool to purchase land, as well as purchasing land for community facilities and parks.
In the Town of Hilton Head's case, the enabling legislation limits the RETF's use to the purchase of
land. Assuming that the current level of revenue generated from this funding source remains constant (a
conservative estimate), the Town can anticipate an additional $57 million over the next 15 -years.
If the County was able to gain legislative authorization for 0.0035 real estate transfer fee, for the purpose
of funding both road and park capital infrastructure (lands and facilities), based on information provided
by the County Assessor's Office, it would have generated $8.6 million this Fiscal Year from transfers
within the County, outside of the Town of Hilton Head Island. Given the growth estimated for
Southern Beaufort County between 2005 and Buildout, this annual figure could easily increase over
time. If it remains constant, it would generate $129 million countywide over the next 15 years. Of this
amount, it is conservatively assumed that $65 million (approximately half) would be available for
Projects specific to Southern Beaufort County.
The Real Estate Transfer Fee has substantial revenue potential. See Figure 33. Like the Capital
Projects Sales Tax, it is a revenue tool that would be applied across the region and county, which might
raise potential equity issues between north and south County, if the revenues generated are not equally
split. The big hurdle with respect to using the real estate transfer fee as a funding tool today is that it
requires state authorization. Since Hilton Head Island has been given such authorization, it is probably
worth pursuing such authorization. Finally, even though public acceptability of a Real Estate Transfer
Fee is difficult to gauge, it would appear to be high, given the fact that the tool is accepted and used by
the Town of Hilton Head Island.
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/102005 •
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan �p 42
Uncertain.
•
L
0
Figure 33: Real Estate Transfer Fee
Revenue Potential
SI IBennt
Geographic Application
High. But the tool mut be applied across the county.
Potential dlsparitles between north and walk County con
be addressed b s Nti the revenue
Iation Authorisation
lathe tired.
Teeholeal/Adminktrative Ease
Easyto administer.
Public Acceptability
Uncertain but It Is accepted In Hilton Head.
Local Option Gas Tax
Similar to the Capital Projects Sales Tax discussed above, many communities across the nation are
authorized by their state legislatures to add a local tax on each gallon of gas sold within the jurisdiction.
Presently there is not a local option gas tax in place within the region. It is a revenue tool that would
require authorization from the state legislature.
According to information obtained from the State Department of Revenue, the latest figures on gas sales
in Beaufort County indicate that 58,211,428 gallons of gas were sold annually. If the state legislature
authorized the County to adopt an optional five cents a gallon gas tax to use to fund capital road
infrastructure, it would generate approximately $2.9 million countywide in the last Fiscal Year. If
remains constant, it would generate $43.6 million countywide over the next 15 years. Assuming half of
this amount would be used to fund road capital infrastructure in Southern Beaufort County, it would
generate an additional 21.8 million dollars for toad capital improvements in the region.
As is outlined above, the local option gas tax has moderate revenue potential. See Figure 34. Like
many of the other tools discussed, it is a revenue tool that would be applied across the region and
county, which might raise potential equity issues between north and south County, if the revenues
generated are not equally split. The big hurdle with respect to using the local option gas tax as a Ponding
tool today is that it requires state authorization. Since it is not a revenue tool that has been used, it is
difficult to prognosticate whether it is something the state legislature would be willing to authorize.
Public policy support for such a tool comes from the fact that it is the purest form of a user fee for
Ponding capital road infrastructure, and the fact that it has been authorized by an increasing number of
states for use in fast-growing Sunbelt communities. Finally, even though public acceptability of a local
option gas tax is difficult to gauge, it should be noted that it has met with a fairly high degree of public fu
acceptability in fast growth communities in need of capital infrastructure nding.
Figure 34: Local Option Gas Tax '
Revenue Potential
Moderate
Geographic Application
High. But the tool most be applied across the
county. Potential disparities between north
and south County con be addressed by
s little the means
Lyliblation Authorization
latlon required.
Teehnkal/Adminlstrative Ease
E to administer.
Public Acceptability
Uncertain, but used by many high growth
Sunbelt communities. ,
• Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005
Southem Beaufort Countyltegional Plan page 43
Funding Sources 0
Based on this overview of the most realistic funding sources to address the funding "gap" for roads and
parks and rwmation facilities, the analysis seems to indicate the following:
Transportation: The following funding sources are offered to address the funding "gap" for buildout
capital needs in the Regional Road Network. The first three funding options offered are enabled by the
State to be used by local governments. The last two options would require changes to State enabling
legislation.
Property T� Even though the property tax is an available source of funding, and could
potentially generate a significant amount of money, an increase in property taxes to fund
capital road infrastructure is probably not good policy for several reasons. First, if used as
the sole funding source to address the gap, it would probably result in a sign ylcant increase
in local property taxes. Furthermore, if the bonds needed to fund the improvements wcro
issued today, it would more than triple the County's current debt service payments.
Second, the County currently does not have the bond capacityfor such a bond campaign,
and it will be a number ofyears before it does. Third, given the existing funding structure
for school capital facilities, the School District is going to have to rely on the property tax
to address the funding "gap" for schools.
• Impact Fees: Impact fees are a viable source of funding for road capital infrastructure in
Southern Beaufort County. Many local governments in fast-growing Sunbelt communities
have used impact fees to fund a significant portion of their capital needs for roads. For
example, according to the latest National Impact Fee Survey (2005) the national average
(excluding California) for a road impact fee for a single family unit in 2005 is $1602.
However, many of the urbanizing counties in Florida and other states have road impact fees
for single-family dwellings that are in the 52,00043,000 range. Even though Beaufort
County has an existing road impact fee, it exacts fees that are significantly less than the
actual cost the local governments will incur to accommodate new growth. This existing
policy has contributed to the existing deficit in road infrastructure. Estimates indicate that
an increase in the fee to $1600 a single-family unit (and a comparable increase for other
land uses) will generate $72 million in additional revenue. Increasing the existing road
impact fees is a funding option the Participating Local Governments should seriously
consider coupling with other funding tools to finance capital road needs.
• Capital Protects Sales Tax: The Capital Projects Sales Tax is the funding tool available to
the county today that could go the furthest in generating needed revenues for capital road
improvements. Even though a $117 million dollar Capital Projects Sales Tax was narrowly
defeated by voters last year for road capital improvements. It should be re -considered
because it has the capacity to generate such significant sums of money, over an extended
period of time. For example, as is discussed above, it is estimated that $175 million could
be available from a Countywide Capital Projects Sales Tax for projects in Southern
Beaufort County. However, as is discussed in this report, any sales tax option will have to
be approved by the voters on a countywide basis, so public acceptance and support for this
tool is critical. At a minimum, what this means is that any provision placed on the ballot for
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 44
• consideration by the voters would need to also assure voters some of the sales tax would be
used to fund road improvements in the northern portion of the county.
Real Estate Transfer Fee: A real estate transfer fee is a fee on the transfer, sale or
conveyance of real property. The rate is applied against the purchase price of the property.
The use of revenue raised can be restricted to certain capital expenditures. As is discussed
in the report, the Town of Hilton Head Island has implemented areal estate transfer fee, at a
rate of one quarter of one percent (.0025), which can be used for land, which generates
substantial sums of money for the Town. This revenue source is currently generating
approximately $3.8 million annually for the Town, which the Town has historically used as
a growth management tool to purchase land. Based on information provided by the County
Assessor's Office, if the county currently had in place a 0.0035 real estate transfer fee, it
would have generated $8.6 million this Fiscal Year from transfers within the
unincorporated County, outside the Town of Hilton Head Island. Given the growth
estimated for Southern Beaufort County between 2005 and Buildout, this annual figure
could easily increase over time. If it remains constant, it would generate approximately
$130 million countywide over the next 15 years. Of that amount, it is assumed at least $65
million could be used to fund capital projects and/or service debt for capital projects for
Southern Beaufort County needs.
Gas • Some of the road funding today in South Carolina is carried out through the gas
tax. Both a federal and state gas tax is paid on each gallon of gasoline purchased.
Currently the state gas tax is 16 cents per gallon. None of these funds today go to local
governments to address road capital needs. Some communities across the nation are
authorized by their state legislatures to impose an optional local gas tax. It is estimated that
if the state legislature authorized Beaufort County to impose a five cent optional gas tax to
be used on road capital improvements, it would have generated $2.9 million countywide in
the last Fiscal Year. If it remains constant, it would generate $43.6 million countywide
over the next 15 years.
The benefits and disadvantages of each of these funding tools is different, but all are similar in that they
each can be applied across the region (and in some instances the county), and they each generate a
substantial amount of revenue, which is needed for road capital improvements.
Other revenue tools, like special districts, TIFs, vehicle license fees, and rental car receipts, have been
used by other Sunbelt communities in fast-growing areas to support funding for road capital
improvements. These revenue tools, however, will probably not be significant revenue generators in this
context, or can only. be used for limited applications. However, if appropriate and the Committee
desires, these tools can be discussed more at the Implementation Memo stage.
In any instance, given the funding "gap" for roads ($185 million), in developing a funding strategy for
roads, it will be important that the Participating Local Governments rely on multiple revenue tools that
will generate substantial sums of revenue.
Parks and Recreation. In Hilton Head Island, there are limited needs for park lands and facilities.
There are no existing or future needs for park lands, and there is a funding "gap" of $10.4 million to
address park and recreation facilities. As is discussed in the Transportation and Other Public Facilities
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
05/16/2005
page 45.
Report, and this report, the Town plans to use existing funding sources (Sunday Liquor License Fees, •
PARD funds) to address these needs. The situation in the Greater Blufilon area (the unincorporated
county and Blufilon) is different, because the funding "gap" is much greater — it is $37.8 million, so
additional funding sources that are not being used will have to be considered.
• Pronerty Tax: Unlike the situation with respect to roads, use oflimperty taxes to address
the funding "gap" or a portion of the funding "gap" for park and recreation facilities is a
possible option. First, the sum needed is relatively modest (relative to the road needs), if it
is used in conjunction with another funding source. (For example, the property tax could be
used in conjunction with a park impact fee increase.)
Impact Fees: As with roads, impact fees are a viable source of funding for park and
recreation facilities in Southern Beaufort County. Even though Beaufort County has an
existing park impact fee, it does not include fees for land, nor has it been updated recently
to account for the increased cost of recreation equipment and facilities. It is estimated a
moderate increase in park impact fees (from $483 to $840 for a single-family unit) will
generate an additional $10 million dollars in revenues. The fees might be able to be
increased to even higher levels.
Capital Prolects Sales Tax: Similar to roads, the Capital Projects Sales Tax is a strong and
viable option that needs to be re -considered as a funding tool, As is discussed above, it has
the capacity to generate significant sums of money, over an extended period of time.
Real Estate Transfer Fee: Finally, and as with roads, the real estate transfer fee could be
a viable funding tool for parks. As is outlined in the Option 3 discussion in the report,
based on information provided by the County Assessor's Office, if the county currently had
in place a 0.0035 real estate transfer fee, it would have generated $8.6 million dollars this
Fiscal Year from the unincorporated County. Given the growth estimated for Southern
Beaufort. County between 2005 and Buildout, this annual figure could easily be increased
overtime. If it remains constant, it would generate $130 million countywide over the next
15 years. Of that amount, it is assumed at least $65 million could be used to fund capital
projects and/or service debt for capital projects for Southern Beaufort County needs (some:
for parks and some for roads).
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005 •
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 46
1
SECTION 4: REGIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
This section focuses on regional considerations and issues that are drawn from the analysis in this report.
As with the previous background reports, it is important to stay focused on regional opportunities as part
of this planning process. These issues are intended to be a starting point for the development of
common regional goals.
Collaboratively Select a Diverse Mix of Funding Tools.
This report outlines that new growth expected to occur between 2005 and Buildout (estimated to be
about 2020) in Southern Beaufort County will create significant demands for capital infrastructure for
transportation, parks and recreation, school; fire, EMS, and library facilities. Capital infrastructure
needs in Southern Beaufort County for these six types of facilities is estimated to cost $495.636 million,
in 2005 dollars. Approximately 91 percent of the costs will be incurred to fund roads (510/o), schools
(270/o), and park and recreation facilities (13a/o), mostly in the unincorporated County and Bluffton.
Libraries, fire protection, and EMS facility needs will account for the remaining 8 percent of the total
costs. -
Under the current revenue structures, the Participating Local Governments will not be able to generate
sufficient revenue to fund these capital needs. The funding "gap," or the difference between the funds
needed versus those that can be generated, is estimated at $366.569 million, in 2005 dollars. Of this
amount, approximately 98 percent of the "gap" is for roads ($185 million), schools ($135 million), and
parks and recreation facilities ($37.8 million) in the unincorporated county and Bluffton.
. The facilities where capital infrastructure funding needs are most pressing are transportation, schools,
and parks and recreation (the latter primarily in the unincorporated county and Bluffton). Given either
the size of the revenue "gap" for these facilities, and/or the institutional arrangements by which they are
being provided and their interrelated nature, these facilities are regional in nature for purposes of this
planning process. The Participating Local Governments should work collectively to coordinate funding
actions for these facilities.
Future capital infrastructure funding needs for public safety facilities (fire protection and EMS) and
libraries can and are being addressed by the individual Participating Local Governments or other quasi -
governmental entities. Even though there are small revenue "gaps" for several of these facilities, there
are adequate sources of revenue to address future needs. Thus, these facilities are not considered
regional in nature for purposes of this planning process, and should continue with current funding and
management.
Section 3 of this report identifies the most realistic funding tools that could be used by the Participating
Local Governments to address road and park and recreation needs, and provides a general range of the
revenue that could be generated by each of these tools. They are:
• The Property Tax ;
• Impact fees.
• The Capital Projects Sales Tax;
• Real Estate Transfer Tax; and
• Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 47
• The Local Option Gas Tax.
Other revenue tools are discussed in the Appendix. The discussion of potential financing tools is •
intended to help inform the regional discussion as to how best to address the funding "gap." The
discussion of tools, however, is not a set of specific recommendations for action by the Committee at
this time. Instead, the discussion is intended merely to inform and focus dialogue on the more realistic
funding options, and to emphasize there is no single "answer" to the issue, but multiple funding options
that could potentially address the funding "gap.,,
It ultimately will be necessary to select a creative and diverse set of funding tools to address the funding
gap. At the next stage of this planning process, the Implementation Memos, the consulting team will
present the Advisory Committee with a set of possible funding packages that illustrate how the tools
listed in Section 3 of this report could possibly be combined to address the various funding shortfalls
identified in Section 2.
Regional Cooperation will be Required.
Regional cooperation will be necessary to successfully address the funding challenges for roads and
parks and recreation facilities in the Bluffton area. The region, planning process is providing an
opportunity to develop a framework for such cooperation. It may be appropriate to develop formal
and/or informal mechanisms to administer some of the funding mechanisms or strategies that are
selected. In other communities, some such mechanisms have includ M multi jurisdictional taxing
authorities, revenue sharing, etc. The Implementation Memo will sugi- est optional, specific approaches
for multi jurisdictional cooperation in Southern Beaufort County in moi^ detail
Considering Controls on the Rate of Growth. •
Many officials and residents in Southern Beaufort County have indicated strong interest in adopting
some type of growth -rate controls to help ensure that future growth does not outpace the local
governments' ability to provide new infrastructure. Rate of growth regulations have been used by a
number of local governments throughout the country to ensure orderly and well managed growth in their
community, where growth and development is occurring at a rate that outstrips the community's ability
to adequately accommodate it. These regulations typically work by specifying an annual rate of growth
for the community, in terms of numbers of new residential and/or tourist units and/or the amount of new
commercial space. The rate may reflect a specified percentage of annual growth established in the
community plan, or it may be in the form of a specified number of units or amount of square footage for
which permits can be issued in any year.
One example of community that has adopted such a regulation is Monroe County in the Florida Keys.
The ordinance adopted by Monroe County allows an allocation of approximately 200 new residential
units per year, split between all the local governments within the County. This number was established
in the County's comprehensive plan as a reasonable rate of growth in consideration of the local
governments' ability to evacuate citizens in time of a hurricane event. Another local government who
has adopted a rate of growth regulation is Boulder, Ceiarado; that regulation allows for a two percent
annual rate of growth. Other communities have used rate of growth regulation variations tw introducing
quotas, or hybridizing systema with adequate public facilities regulations (see below).
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan 05/16/2005 0
page 48
� r
. One of the keys for a local government's ability to successfully establish such a growth management
tool is its ability to demonstrate that growth is occurring at such a pace that it outstrips the local
government's ability to accommodate it, in terms of providing governmental facilities and services.
Utilizing rete control regulations can buy time for the community to plan for and respond to the
demands of growth and formulate mora comprehensive, long range planning solutions. A rate control
program must be clearly intended to support a community direction, outlined in a comprehensive plan.
Otherwise, it is nothing more than a slow way to get to an unknown (and possibly undesirable) outcome.
The potential use of a rate of growth regulation can be addressed in more detail in the Implementation
Memos, if the Committee continues to show strong interest in the topic. However, it should be
emphasized now, as part of this Background Report, that, while a rate of growth regulation may improve
the ability of the region to coordinate the provision of public infrastructure, it will most likely not reduce
the funding gap, but just extend the time under which it needs to be provided. This is because the
general direction or policy of the community has been to approve the level of development which
requires the capital infrastructure upon which the funding "gap" is based. Most likely, another affect of
a rate of growth regulation would be to place an emphasis on the use of funding tools that are not related
to growth (the property tax, the Capital Projects Sales Tax, the real estate transfer fee, a local gas tax,
versus impact fees).
In summary, controlling growth rate is a tool that can be used for a range of legitimate public purposes,
and it will be explored as a tool in the implementation Memos. However, it is a tool that should be
implemented based upon a carefully developed strategy whose consequences are fully understood.
Considering Adequate Public Facility Controls.
Over the past 15 to 20 years, another growth management technique has emerged in rapidly growing
communities, primarily in the Sunbelt and in several fast-growing states (Florida and Washington),
which embraces the idea that local government's facility planning and funding programs should be
coordinated with the land use regulatory process so that the approval of development is coordinated with
the provision of adequate levels of capital public facilities. In the planning profession and literature, the
concept is characterized as "adequate public facilities" (APF) or "concurrency." At its moat basic level,
the concept of adequate public facilities is simple and straightforward. It is a growth management tool
used by local governments that coordinates the provision of capital public facilities (like mads and
parks) with the timing of development. It requires that adequate public facilities (operating at adopted
level of service standards) be available to accommodate new growth and development at or about the
time it occurs. Even though the APF concept seems fairly straightforward, experience shows that its
implementation, especially for roads, is complex — consequently, it must be carefully crafted and
managed to be effective.
In any initial discussion of the APF concept, and particularly with respect to its discussion in Southern
Beaufort County, it is first important to dispel any misconceptions about what APF is or should be. The
traditional and appropriate definition of APF emphasizes planning/management/funding as the key and
most important components of any APF program. Under this view, the focus of APF is on
govemtnent's responsibilities to establish sound planning and funding programs for infrastructure; while
important, the regulatory aspects of the program are not as important, and are used only to ensure that
adequate facilities are available. Thus, under the traditional and appropriate application of APF, the
focus is on the management and funding of infrastructure so that the community's desired levels of
• Fiscal opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 49
r `
growth and development are coordinated with the provision of infrastructure in an efficient and orderly •
way.a
What this means with respect to the use of an APF concept in Southern Beaufort County to coordinate
the provision and funding of capital infrastructure with land use and development, is that while it could
be used to help coordinate adequate facilities with development, it will not foreclose the need to find
funding for the needed capital infrastructure.
Focus on Increasing the Commercial Tax Base.
One of the ways that many communities address long range fiscal issues is through the promotion of a
better balance between residential and nonresidential uses. The conventional wisdom is that residential
uses typically do not pay for themselves — they typically cost more to serve with public facilities and
associated operating costs than they generate in various tax revenues. Conversely, commercial uses (i.e.
retail, office, industrial) typically generate more in revenues than the costs to provide services and
facilities, and are thought to provide a net fiscal surplus. Consequently many communities emphasize
the strengthening of the commercial tax base as part of a fiscal strategylb
The analysis of the fiscal impact of the relationships of regional land uses is beyond the scope of this
report; however, it is probably safe to say that any efforts to better balance the residential and non-
residential land uses through the development of quality commercial development would be a net
positive in term of fiscal impact. It is also important to note in any discussion of the issue, that the way
in which the region is planned and development has been approved limits the ability to dramatically
change the balance of land uses. Specifically, as was demonstrated in the Land Use Patterns and Trends
Background Report, it appears approximately 90 percent of the land in Southern Beaufort County is •
already committed to a land use pattern through the approvals of development plans and development
agreements. Further, much of the remaining 10 percent of uncommitted land is in locations and
configurations that do not tend themselves to commercial development.
This is not to suggest that a program of emphasizing quality commercial development should not be
pursued; on the contrary, given the limitations of the remaining uncommitted lands, now is the time to
emphasize such an effort, and any successes could help mitigate the regional funding "gap."
45 A second and inappropriate view perceives APF as a purely regulatory and "no growth" measure, with no govemmental
responsibilities to manage and coordinate the provision of infrastructure. Under this perspective local government may
impose an adequate public facilities requirement (e.g., that adequate road facilities shall be available prior to the approval of
development) without pluming, management and funding efforts to ensure the adequate provision of inf ntsinreture in an
orderly fashion. This is not an appropriate view of APF.
26 However, contrary to conventional wisdom, several studies conducted by TisehlerBise and others have indicated that in
certain cases, residential development has a positive fiscal impact to a community. This is especially we in jurisdictions that
rely heavily on property tax and income tax, as well as resort communities such the Town of Hilton Head Island and
Southern liesufort County, where there are many high-end housing developments and second homes, which tend to have
higher assessed values and in many cases do not generate school children or a full-time demand on certain governmental
services.
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005 •
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 50 .,
APPENDIX A: EVALAUTION OF POTENTIAL FUNDING
SOURCES
This Appendix A supplements the discussion in Section 3 by providing additional general discussion of
some of the funding tools the Participating Local Governments should consider as part of this regional
planning effort, along with their advantages and disadvantages. The funding tools discussed in this
appendix include:
• Bonds
• Impact Fees
• Capital Projects Sales Tax
• Real Estate Transfer Fees
• Local Option Gas Tax
• Special Benefit or Assessment Districts
• Tax Increment Financing
• A Hospitality Tax
• An Accommodations Tax
• A Car Rental Tax
Potential Funding Tools
Bonds
If a community is not paying cash for capital infrastructure (which is generally not the case), the
community usually uses general obligation or revenue bonds to fund capital infrastructure. Beaufort
County and. the Town of Hilton Head Island currently fund a great deal of their capital iniiastructure
needs with bonds. The Town of Bluffton currontly does not have a bond rating and therefore has not .
issued bonds to date. However, it is worth noting that the Town is currently seeking a bond rating.
General obligation bonds are secured by property taxes and other general fund discretionary revenue.
Accordingly, they aro backed by the "full faith and credit of the jurisdiction. Revenue bonds are not as
prevalent as general obligation bonds. These bonds are backed by revenue, from sources more
specifically defined than those backing general obligation bonds. Examples include income tax, TIF
proceeds, user fees, impact fees, special assessment district fees, excise taxes, etc.
Admit a:,
• General Obligation Bonds
o General obligation bonds lessen the need for a jurisdiction to upfront its own general f and
dollars.
• Revenue Bonds
o Revenue bonds lessen the need for a jurisdiction to upfront its own general fund dollars.
o Revenue bonds may not affect a jurisdiction's debt capacity since they are not backed by
the "full faith and credit" of the jurisdiction.
• Fiscal Opporhmities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005
I
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 51
o Revenue bonds do not require vote approval.
o Revenue bonds can be used in conjunction with another financing mechanism, with that•
mechanism pledged to retire the debt.
Disadvantages:
• General obligation bonds
o In the context of this analysis, Beaufort County already funds a good deal of its capital
infrastructure needs through general obligation bonds.
o With general obligation bonds, costs to individual property owners will be proportional to
property value rather than demand for the facility and will applied to all property owners.
• Revenue bonds
o Since dedicated revenue streams are sometimes less predictable and less stable than
general revenue, interest rates may be higher for revenue bonds versus general obligation
bonds.
Impact Fees
An impact fee is a land use regulatory tool used by a local government that exacts a fair share fee on
new development based on the costs the local government will incur to fund capital infrastructure (like
roads and parks) to accommodate new development. In determining the reasonableness of these one-
time fees, the analysis that supports the fee should demonstrate that: 1) needed capital facilities are a
consequence of new development; 2) the fees exacted are a proportionate share of the govemmenfs cost;
and 3) revenues are managed and expended in such a way that new development receives a sufficient
benefit. (South Carolina enables local government entities with comprehensive plane to impose certain
types of development impact fees. See South Carolina Code of Laws § 6-1-910, et. seq.) •
Impact fees cannot be imposed on new development to pay for or provide public capital improvements
needed by the existing development base. Capital improvements funded by impact fees must enable the
jurisdiction to accommodate new development by adding capital facility capacity. To be proportionate,
new development should pay for the capital cost of infrastructure according to its "fair" share of impact
on the particular public facility for which it is imposed. To ensure impact fees are proportionate, the
cost allocation methodology should consider variations by type of development and typo of public
facility. As appropriate, capital cost assumptions must consider the net cost of facilities after accounting
for grants, intergovernmental revenues and other funding sources. The reasonable connection between
the impact fees and the benefit requires that funds be earmarked for use in acquiring capital facilities to
benefit the new development. Sufficient benefit also requires consideration of when the fees are spent.
This benefit test generally leads communities to set up collection and expenditure zones for public
facilities that have general geographic service areas.
As is discussed in the report, impact fees are currently utilized by Beaufort County (roads, parks and
libraries), the Town of Hilton Head Island (roads) and the Bluffton Township Fire District. However,
the fee structures, assumptions and methodologies are quite old and are in need of updating, especially
in light of the LOS standards and cost assumptions contained in this report and the Transportation and
Other Public Facilities Background Report.
Fiscal Opport mities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan
page 52
• Advaituses:
• Impact fees can help meet capital intiastmcture needs due to new growth with less pressure on
the tax rate.
• Impact fees can generate substantial sums of revenue.
• Impact fees are politically attractive, since they pass on specific capital costs to future
development.
• Impact fees coordinate new growth with the facilities demanded.
• Impact fees can be applied across the region.
• Impact fees are more predictable and equitable than informal systems of negotiated exactions
and are likely to generate considerably more revenue.
Dbad►watages:
• Impact fees are typically not due until development occurs. As a result, this makes it difficult for
the jurisdiction to use the fees to construct capital improvements prior to or in conjunction with
new development.
• In the context of funding growth -related facilities, impact fees cannot be assessed on the existing
development base.
• Rational nexus requirements impose a set of earmarking and accounting controls that limit the
use of impact fee revenue.
• . Technical studies are required to develop and justify the adopted impact fee amount.
• A good impact program requires regular updating.
•
Capital Projects Sales Tax
Many communities across the nation are authorized by their state legislatures to increase the local sales
tax by a modest amount to provide a dedicated source of funds for infrastructure. The State of South
Carolina allows for three such taxes. The first is a voter approved Capital Projects Sales Tax (S. C.
Code of Laws 4-10-310), which must be used for capital projects such as bridges, highways, streets.
This 1% tax has a duration period of 7 years. The second is a Local Option Sales Tax (S. C. Code of
Lawn 4-10-20), which if approved by the voters, must then issue a property tax credit to county
taxpayers totaling the amount of revenue raised. This 1% tax has no duration limit. The third is a
Transportation Authority Sales Tax (South Carolina Code of Laws 4-37-10). This 1% tax has a duration
limit of 25 years.
A Capital Projects Sales Tax was utilized by the County to fund the widening of SC 170 between
McGarveyIs Comer and the City of Beaufort. The special sales tax was enacted by a referendum of
Beaufort County voters in 1998, for a two-year time period and was used to fund the local match
($40,000,000) for a State Infrastructure Bank project.
Presantly there is not a Capital Projects Sales Tax in place. In fact, a referendum on an additional one -
cent sales tax, which would have generated $117 million over a five-year period for mad capital
improvements, was defeated by the voters in November 200421.
• n A similar referendum was also defeated in November 2002.
Final Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan Mge 53
Advantages:
• A Capital Projects Sales Tax is often one of the most convenient forms of infrastructures
financing, and can result in the generation of substantial amounts of revenue.
• A sales tax is generally easy to administer and relatively invisible when it is "piggybacked" onto
state taxes.
• A sales tax broadens the tax base to include non-residents.
• A sales tax can be used to back revenue bonds, which will not impact the County's debt capacity.
• A sales tax is applied across the region and county.
Disadvantages:
• A sales tax can be considered a regressive tax, especially if it is applied to groceries, since lower
income households spend a greater share of their income on groceries than upper income
households.
• Sales tax revenue varies with spending trends, and so is less reliable than property tax revenue.
• The Capital Projects Sales Tax must be approved by a vote of the voters.
Real Estate Transfer Fee
Also known as a deed transfer tax or documentary stamp taxes, a real estate transfer fee is a fee on the
transfer, sale or conveyance of real property. The rate is applied against the purchase price of the
property. The use of revenue raised can be restricted to certain capital expenditures. For example, the
State of Maryland authorizes a real estate transfer tax, with a specific percentage set aside for the
purchase of parkland.
As is discussed in this report, the Town of Hilton Head Island has implemented a real estate transfer fee,
at a rate of one quarter of one pe►nent (.0025). This revenue source is currently generating
approximately $3.8 million annually for the Town, which it has historically used as a growth
management tool to purchase land for growth management and community facilities and parks.
_ Assuming that the current level of revenue generated from this funding source remains constant (a
conservative estimate), the Town can anticipate an additional $57 million over the next 15 -years.
Today, Beaufort County is not authorized to adopt a real estate transfer fee.
Advantages:
• A real estate transfer fee has the potential to generate a substantial amount of revenue since it is
based on all real estate transfers.
• A real estate transfer fee can be used to back revenue bonds, which will not impact the County's
debt capacity.
• A real estate transfer fee is generally easy to administer and relatively invisible when as it is paid
at time of closing on real property.
• A real estate transfer fee is applied across the region and county.
Disadvantages:
• Beaufort County is not authorized to use a real estate transfer fee.
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Orov.di Background Report 05/16/2005•
Southam Beaufort County Regional Plan page 54 '.
}
• Since revenue from the fee fluctuates with the real estate market, the revenue sham can be
•
difficult to predict.
• Realtors argue that a real estate transfer fee has a negative impact on housing costs and economic
development.
• It can be argued that real estate transfer fees are regressive since the burden is higher for lower
income households.
Local Option Gas Tax
Many communities across the nation aro authorized by their state legislatures to add a local tax on each
gallon of gas sold within the jurisdiction, for the purposes of funding capital road infrastructure. The gas
tax is assessed at the time someone buys gasoline, and is considered by most commentators as the purest
type of a user fee to fund capital road infrastructure. Presently there is not a local option gas tax in place
in the region, since a local option gas tax is not authorized under state law.
AdvoNtggu:
• A gas tax has the potential to generate a moderate amount of revenue for road capital
improvements.
• A gas tax is generally easy to administer and relatively invisible when it is "piggybacked" onto
state and federal gas taxes.
• There is a direct correlation between the tax itself and what the revenue is used for (a pure form
of user fee for road funding).
• A gas tax trroadens the tax base to include non-residents.
• • A gas tar.• can be used to back revenue bonds, which will rot impact the County's debt capacity.
Dtradvantagear
• Beaufort County is not authorized to use a local option gas tax.
• Detractors claim that the gas tax is inherently regressive.
• Experience nationally indicates that contrary to popular belief, gas tax revenue, in most
communities ilea not increased at a rate commensurate with population growth; instead growth in
revenues has remained relatively flat, even as growth occurs.
Special Benefit or Assessment Districts
A funding tool that is used by a number of local governments to fund capital infrastructure is the special
benefit or assessment district. Counties and municipalities in South Carolina are empowered to crate;
such "districts"within their jurisdictions for the purposes of financing capital improvements.
Counties aro empowered to create special tax districts (S. C. Code of Laws 4-9-30(5xa)) to assess
property and level properly taxes to different areas at different rates to make appropriations for roads
and other public works. Municipalities are empowered to create improvement districts (S.C.C.L 5-37-
35) to impose assessments, revenues, or debt service on bonds which may be used to fund municipal
improvements within certain geographic areas.
Fiscal Opportunities end Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 55
i
A special benefit or assessment district is created by a local government to provide one or several
specific public services or capital improvements. In establishing the districts and determining the •
assessments to pay for capital infrastructure, it is necessary to demonstrate a direct linkage between the
capital improvement and the landowner paying the assessment to fund the capital infinstructure. Because
of this direct benefit that is required for this type of funding tool, such districts are generally not used to
fund capital infrastructure at a regional scale. Instead, the scope is more localized in nature. In many
instances, the property owners in the benefiting area agree to establish a special district or assessment
area. Infrastructure improvements may be bond financed and paid over time by the benefiting property
owners, usually by means of an additional charge on the property tax bill. In general, special assessment
districts are easier to implement in areas where relatively few property owners control large tracts of
land.
Advantages:
• Special benefit or assessment districts may be more politically acceptable and equitable because
they confine levies to the local users that receive direct benefits from the capital infrastructure
improvements.
• Unlike some other financing techniques, such as impact fees, special benefit or assessment districts
are not limited to new development only. They are usually imposed on all properties within the
area of benefit.
• The revenue stream from special assessments is a reliable source of funding, since they are based
on an annual levy.
• Due to the amortization of the debt, a special benefit or assessment typically results in a lower•
annual payment.
• The revenue generated from the assessment district can be used to pay the debt service on a
revenue bond issue, which will not impact the County's debt capacity.
• Beaufort County is authorized to use special benefit districts.
Disadvantages:
• Special benefit or assessment districts are generally inappropriate for financing capital
infrastructure that has far-reaching benefits (like regional facilities), due to its direct benefit
requirements.
• Special benefit or assessment districts require detailed studies to d.,ei,ment the direct benefits to
each member of the district who will pay the assessment, and to document a fairly concrete
connection between the payment of the assessment and the receipt of the benefit.
• The creation of too many independent special assessment districts in a community can result in the
fragmentation of decision making and lack of government coordination.
Tax Increment Finenring (TIFs)
Tax increment financing (TIF) identifies increases in property tax revenue within a geographic area that
are due to new development or renovation. The incremental increases in revenue are earmarked for
capital infrastructure improvements or services needed in that same geographic. area. Throughout the
lifetime of the TIF district, the tax contribution from the properties in the district remains at the original.
Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/7005
Southem Beaufort County Regional Plan psge 36
,p
• "baseline". Meanwhile, the increases in tax revenue that is due to the incremental increase in value over
the "baseline" tax assessments is deposited in the TIF fund, which pays for necessary infrastructure
improvements. (See S.C. Code of Laws 6-33-10, et. seq.)
Advantages:
• Unlike some other financing techniques, such as impact fees, TIFs are not limited to new
development only.
• TIFs can encourage new, private investment in an area that may not otherwise have been
developed. TIF funding of improvements may also jump-start development in surrounding areae.
• TIFs are usually accepted by the community and the developers alike.
Disadvantages:
• New development in a TIF area is likely to create additional demands for public services, but the
jurisdiction will not receive the increased tax revenue from the TIF district until the TIF -backed
bonds aro retired.
• Since the local government will not receive the tax benefits from the property improvements for an
extended period of time, public concern over funding may hamper the approval of a TIF district.
• A TIF -backed bond is likely to have a higher interest fate than a general obligation or revenue ,
bond.
• • If development does not occur as forecasted, revenue needed to retire debt could fall short,
requiring the City to use alternative revenue to meet the debt obligations.
• As with general obligation bonds, costa to individual property owners will be proportional to
- property value rather than demand for the facility.
Hospitality Tax
A hospitality tax (S.C.C.L 6-1-700) is a tax levied on consumers purchasing prepared foods and
beverages from vendors within a city or county enacting such a hospitality tax. The tax is used to
generate revenue for tourism -related purposes. Local governments in South Caroline. are authorized to
levy a hospitality tax of up to 2% if approved by a positive majority of the governing body (a county
hospitality tax may not exceed 1% if it has not been approved by appropriate municipal governing
bodies within the county).. Today, the Town of Hilton Head Island has levied a hospitality tax of 2•/s
(recently increased from 1%) on prepared food and beverages.
Advantages:
• A hospitality tax can be used to back revenue bonds, which will not impact the County's debt
capacity.
• A hospitality tax is generally easy to administer and relatively invisible when it is paid at the same
time payment is made on the meal.
• A hospitality tax broadens the tax base to include non-residents.
• A hospitality tax is applied across the region and county,
• Fiscal Opportunitiee and Constraints to Growth Background Report 05/16/2005
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan page 57
0
• Since revenue from the tax fluctuates with the tourist economy, the revenue stream can be difficult*
to predict.
• It can be argued that hospitality tax is regressive since the tax burden is higher for lower income
households.
• While a hospitality tax generates a moderate amount of revenue within the Town of Hilton Head, it
would not generate even moderate sums of revenue in the other parts of the county, since the
tourist base is not as substantial,
Accommodations Tax
An accommodations or hotel occupancy tax is levied on the rental of rooms, lodging, or similar'
accommodations. Local governments in South Carolina are authorized by S.C.C.L. 12-36-920 to levy an
accommodations tax of up to 7% on the gross proceeds derived by business owners renting rooms,
lodgings, sleep accommodations to visitors. The tax does not apply to facilities with less than 6 sleeping
rooms. The Accommodation Tax also imposes a sales tax of 5% on additional guest services offered at
facilities not otherwise taxed under this law. Today, the Town of Hilton Head Island has levied an
accommodations tax of 5% (the maximum amount permitted) on business owners renting visitor
accommodations. Forth percent of the resources generated by the Town's Accommodations Tax
collected by counties and municipalities is allocated by S.C.C.L. to a special Tourism -related Fund to be
used for "tourism related expenditures", the remainder goes to the Town.
Advantages:
• While an accommodations tax generates a moderate amount of revenue within the Town of Hilton
•
Head, it would not generate even moderate sums of revenue in the other of the county, since ,
the tourist base is not as substantial.
• An accommodations tax can be used to back revenue bonds, which will not impact the County's
debt capacity.
a An accommodations tax is generally easy to administer and relatively invisible as it is paid at time
of payment for the accommodations.
• An accommodations tax broadens the tax base to include non-residents.
a An accommodations tax is applied across the region and county.
Ditradvantoges:
• Since revenue from the tax fluctuates with the tourist economy, the revenue stream can be difficult
to predict.
•
It can be argued an accommodation tax is regressive since the tax burden is higher for lower
income households.
Car Rental Tax
A car.rental tax is a levy imposed on persons renting vehicles, like cars. It us used by communities
across the country, especially communities with a strong tourist base. The levy generally ranges from 2
to 7 or 8 percent of the cost of the vehicle rental. In communities with a sizable car rental tax, and a high
degree of usage, revenue generation can be high.
Fiscal Opportinides and Constraints to Growth Background Report. 05/16/2005 •
Southern Beaufort County Regional Plan , pane 58