Hilton Head Diagnostic Report v.3. by zoneco

Zoning Diagnostic Report

The Town of Hilton Head Island, SC

This report is a SWOT analysis and an evaluation of whether the zoning code is achieving the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.

Executive Summary

This Zoning Diagnostic Report evaluates the Land Management Ordinance (“LMO” or “Code”) of the Town of Hilton Head Island using two methodologies: 1. By analyzing its promotion or interference with the community objectives identified in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan (the “Plan”), and 2. Through a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (“SWOT”) analysis. To create this report, unbiased zoning consultants performed a careful review of the LMO, the zoning map, and connections between zoning regulations and real-world outcomes. Amendments identified by staff were also factored into this report.

The Town last updated its LMO and map in 2014. The LMO was developed and adopted prior to the development of the 2020 Plan and it is important to re-assess how the LMO compares to the updated land use goals within the Plan. Furthermore, in the wake of the adoption of a new code, there is almost always a period of adjustment where standards may require revision to aid with administration or achieving desired outcomes.

Every section of the LMO was put in a diagnostic matrix and reviewed. All sections were assessed for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) alongside the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.

Town Zoning Map

Introduction

Chapter 1: Introduction

WHAT IS A ZONING DIAGNOSTIC REPORT?

This report evaluates whether the Town Land Management Ordinance (LMO) achieves the community land use objectives articulated in Our Plan 20202040 (the “Plan”) through a SWOT analysis format. This report assesses the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats identified in the LMO through the lens of the land use goals present in the Plan.

WHY IS THIS ZONING DIAGNOSTIC REPORT IMPORTANT?

Zoning regulations impact many aspects of a community, including the natural environment, housing availability, available amenities, the feel of a neighborhood, access to greenspace, health and walkability, entrepreneurial opportunities, and economic stability. Therefore, an effective and efficient LMO is paramount to achieving a community’s desired outcomes.

ZoneCo believes in three general principles:

Principle 1. Zoning should regulate only what needs to be regulated in order to protect health, safety, and the general welfare.

Zoning regulations should place limits on the use of land only when necessary to protect health, safety, and the general welfare. Regulations that do not relate to such public interests may overstep the police power granted to cities and may not be legally defensible.

Principle 2. Zoning should respect both existing and desired development patterns.

Zoning regulations should relate to a community’s existing development patterns as well as its desired future scenario. When zoning regulations are out of context with existing or desired development patterns, land owners may need to apply for numerous administrative approvals and variances for common development projects, which increases the cost of investment and discourages improvements which may benefit the community. Furthermore, processing such administrative approvals and variances can unduly burden government departments.

Principle 3. Zoning should be the implementation of a plan, not a barrier.

Zoning should be a tool to implement a community’s vision as expressed in its comprehensive plan. In many instances, a community invests time, funds, and energy into the development of a comprehensive plan, but zoning regulations are overlooked or revised over time in a disjointed manner. This scenario leads to outdated, inconsistent, and disorganized zoning regulations that are cumbersome, intimidating, and costly for property owners and administrators, alike, and impede planning goals and economic development. On the other hand, a comprehensive update to the zoning code within the long-term planning process allows for clear, usable, defensible, and consistent regulations that operate efficiently to protect the public’s interests and encourage desired outcomes.

HOW IS THIS ZONING DIAGNOSTIC REPORT DIFFERENT FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN?

A comprehensive plan is the output of a lengthy, long-range planning process involving community engagement, visioning, and goal setting. Some community goals produced in this process may be general in nature, such as “Maintain the island aesthetic,” while others may be very specific, such as “Allow buildings of up to 45 feet in height.”

A comprehensive plan is adopted by a local legislative body (i.e., the Town of Hilton Head Island), but its vision is just that: a high-level roadmap to guide future decision-making. A zoning code or land management ordinance, on the other hand, is codified and sets forth regulations that, if not followed, constitutes a violation of law.

This report serves as a link between longrange planning, best practices and zoning, and the on-the-ground regulations of the existing LMO.

Context

Chapter 2: Town Context

OVERVIEW

The island’s physical beauty and natural resources contribute significantly to the island’s appeal as a destination and tourist magnet. The Native Islander Gullah community also contributes a cultural and historical richness to the Town. There is also a sizable and growing Hispanic community, which makes up about 11% of the Town’s 40,000 permanent residents. Over the past several decades, new resident growth has been swift within the Town.

Similar to many other beach communities popular with tourists, there is a sizable seasonal and second-home owner population. There has been a leveling of seasonality in the past few decades whereby the seasonal population has extended beyond the summer months and into shoulder months, leading to more consistent population flows onto the island. Although there is diversity on the island, it is predominantly white (87.8%), moreso than the County (77.9%), and the State (68.5%). The island’s black population has decreased in recent years (7.7%).

LAND USE

Over half of the island’s land is above mean high tide. The main land use category is residential (57.6%), and the next largest land use category is public uses (24.86%). Commercial land comprises just under five percent (4.87%), with industrial land comprising a relatively small, concentrated land area (1.31%). Undeveloped and vacant parcels are still relatively sizable (11.31%).

There are several character areas that residents and visitors see as unique, like Coligny, Sea Pines, and Stoney, among others.

HOUSING

As the island has grown and tourists and second home owners remain on the island for a longer high season, issues around workforce housing have intensified, and “The Town is actively seeking opportunities to foster an increase in housing to accommodate the needs of existing and future populations. In 2022, Town Council adopted the Workforce Housing Strategic Plan in an effort to move forward policy that is favorable to help the housing needs

The land uses and zoning on the Island are the foundation of all development and redevelopment within Town limits. Good planning ensures the amount and location of each land use category is balanced and sustainable for the existing and future needs of the community. (Hilton Head Comprehensive Plan, page 79)

of the Island” (Our Plan, p. 81). Lower income residents are the most likely to be cost burdened, with 40% of households being cost burdened in 2016 (Our Plan, p. 84).

The development of workforce housing is in contrast to the historic tailoring of housing to “mostly second home buyers and vacationers in the form of large singlefamily homes, condos, and timeshare units” (Our Plan, p. 81).

THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

There are several types of natural environments within the island and intentional land use planning is required for their protection. Examples are freshwater marshes, saltwater marshes, lagoons, conservation areas, forests, beaches, and dunes. The island has 34.5 square miles above the high tide line, and currently 7.5 square miles (21.7%) is covered with impervious surface. Given the effects of this much impervious surface on water quality, land use regulations should be developed in concert with land use strategies that promote efficient use of land thereby fostering conservation and preservation that does not increase runoff and non-point source water pollution.

Zoning Code Evaluation

03 Chapter 3: LMO Evaluation

A. OVERVIEW

The following sections provide our findings for each chapter of the code, broken down by sections, with the exception of Section A, General Themes, which lists several general observations that emerged from our analysis. Within each section, we identified the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, which we also viewed through the lens of the land use goals within the updated Plan.

B. GENERAL THEMES

REMOVE DUPLICATION AND CONSOLIDATE

There is ample opportunity within this LMO to remove sections that are duplicated, like the use tables, minimum parking standards, landscaping, and access management standards. Access management and landscape standards are peppered throughout the special use standards and could perhaps be consolidated into one, cohesive section.

The contents of each zoning district section within the LMO consists of 1. a list of permitted primary uses, 2. minimum parking standards, and 3. development standards. The permitted uses and minimum parking standards are also located elsewhere in the document in other chapters and could therefore be removed from the district sections, which would be effective in streamlining the code. Furthermore, updates to these standards would not require text amendments in two separate sections.

It is positive that this code creates exceptions and flexibility for unique scenarios for specific uses, within districts, or within unique geographic areas. However, the abundance of exceptions and usebased standards may be too numerous and burdensome to keep track of. Consider whether there is room to simplify or consolidate standards that contain conditional or qualifying statements.

ASSESS ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN

Some of the standards in this code may be challenging for staff to administer (and likely, challenging to navigate for users of the LMO). For example, administering setback angles requires detailed site dimensions that may be challenging to accurately capture on building plans and elevations. Assess whether the administration of this standard is proving onerous for staff, or challenging for code users. Furthermore, there are many use-based development standards peppered throughout several chapters of the code. Assess whether the administration of separate development and site standards by use and district over several chapters is proving challenging for staff and code-users.

ANTI-MONOTONY STANDARDS

Some of the standards like the zero-lot line standards and dynamic density standards will incentivize maximization of a lot’s building envelope. It is possible that the outcome within the built environment is monotony as home builders and buyers seek to maximize the site. Anti-monotony standards could foster variation in facade design, facade composition, materials, in addition to fostering some setback variation.

WORKFORCE HOUSING FLEXIBILITY

Workforce housing is listed as a defined use within the use table, Table 16-4-102.A.6: Principal Use Table. As a use, Workforce Housing is permitted in only one of the residential districts (it is PC, which indicates it is permitted with conditions). There is also a programmatic element to workforce housing and it is somewhat confusing on how these two facets intersect. Within a full code update, draw a greater distinction between the Workforce Housing Programs, and Workforce Housing as a specific and distinct use category.

HYPERLINKS

The online version of the code provides some hyperlinks in instances where sections are referenced, however many are missing. Given that references occur frequently within this code, ensure that all hyperlinks are active. It is positive that defined terms are bolded so that the user knows which terms can be found within the glossary.

C. CHAPTER 16-1: GENERAL PROVISIONS

OVERVIEW

The general provisions of a code pave the legal foundations for land use regulations while providing an overview of the code’s purpose and intent. This chapter provides guidance for the legal interactions between regulations within the code and those that are outside the code but also apply to properties within the Town.

FINDINGS

Chapter 16-1: General Provisions

Section SWOT Analysis

Sec.16-1-101. Ordinance Standard Zoning Language - No Recommendations

Sec.16-1-102. Authority Standard Zoning Language - No Recommendations

Weakness: Move provision J. up to the top of purpose and intent list given that the zoning code should be considered as the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.

Weakness: Remove the references to landowners. The code protects the health, safety, and welfare of the general public; inherently, no specific group shall be prioritized within the general public. Also, reference to the general public includes landowners.

Sec.16-1-103. Purpose and Intent

Weakness: Remove the words undue concentration of population as this language is vague and could be used in a discriminatory way toward more affordable housing types, multi-generational living situations, or smaller residential units in general.

Opportunity: Review these purpose statements to ensure maximum consistency with the goals of the updated Comprehensive Plan. There will be an opportunity to better align this section with specific goals related to preserving local history, equity, sustainability, among others.

Sec.16-1-104. Applicability and Jurisdiction Standard Zoning Language - No Recommendations

Sec.16-1-105. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan and Planning Policies Standard Zoning Language - No Recommendations

Chapter 16-1: General Provisions

Section SWOT Analysis

Sec.16-1-106. Relationship with Other Laws, Covenants, or Deed Restrictions

Sec.16-1-107. Official Zoning Map

Sec.16-1-108. Transitional Provisions

Threat: The enforcement of the portion of this provision that relates to covenants could prove to be problematic for the Town. The zoning code is charged with protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the public, while covenants protect the interests of private parties. Some covenants may run afoul of the law, and furthermore, some may be so old that there would no longer be any surviving party with standing to enforce it. In these cases, undue time, labor, and administrative burden would be placed on the property owner in releasing the covenant. This could also put the Town in a position whereby it would have to enforce an illegal covenant to comply with its own code. Consider altering this language to state that the Town will not enforce or consider any covenants that are not legal.

Strength: The processes for updating the map are well referenced and consistent with the state enabling legislation. This section also provides appropriate guidance for zoning district boundary ambiguities.

Threat: Provision B. provides a “Transition to New Zoning Districts” table, which shows the zoning districts from the prior code and how those districts were translated into the districts of the new code. This table is unnecessary given that the new map replaces the old map, agnostic of district transitions. Furthermore, if a new zoning district is created in the future, it will be complicated to integrate it into this table. Consider removing this table/section.

Strength: The reference to the code as an implementation of the Comprehensive Plan is positive.

Sec.16-1-109. Severability

Weakness: Remove the provision that specifically calls out landowners. Only the general public need be referenced - the code prioritizes the health, safety, and welfare of the general public, which includes landowners.

Opportunity: Through removing references to landowners, there will be an opportunity to bring the code into greater alignment with goals related to equity.

D. CHAPTER 16-2: ADMINISTRATION OVERVIEW

The administrative chapters of the code underwent a SWOT analysis and were otherwise reviewed through a lens of best practice, given that there were few mentions of the administrative chapters within the Plan.

Using our professional expertise, we can discern portions of zoning codes that do not seem intuitive, are overly burdensome to administer, or that are likely challenging the end-user in terms of comprehension and/or compliance. Often staff has more direct experience with administrative burdens that are not immediately clear from the document text. Interviews with staff should be undertaken to supplement the analysis of Chapter 16-2.

FINDINGS

Chapter 16-2: Administration

Section SWOT Analysis

Sec.16-2-101. Summary Table of Review Procedures

Strength: The summary table effectively lays out the process for various planning approvals.

Sec.16-2-102. Standard Review Procedures

A. General

Chapter 16-2: Administration

Section SWOT Analysis

Strength: The specificity around the process and expectations for the pre-application conference is positive.

B. Pre-Application Conference

C. Application Submittal

Weakness: Make pre-application meetings a requirement for Major Development Plan Review and Major Sub-divisions that require Design Review Board approval, require that the application for DRB come after the Planning Commission meeting.

Opportunity: Consider the inclusion of a sentence that would inform the reader regarding which Department or office they can contact to schedule a pre-application hearing.

Strength: It is positive that application fees are referenced but not listed - this allows the Town to change them at will. It is also positive that withdrawn applications are eligible for a partial refund. Most codes do not specify this and refund decisions are left to administrators without proper guidance.

Strength: It is positive that each permit type is laid out in clear terms for the user. The flow charts and graphics are effective in aiding with process comprehension. The analysis did not reveal any issues or areas for improvement.

D. Staff Review and Action

E. Hearing and Scheduling Notice

F. - K.: Advisory Body Review and Recommendation; Decision-Making Body; Effect of Approval; Post Decision Actions; Vesting and Expiration of Permit; Limit on Subsequently Similar Applications

Weakness: Within the stated goals for subdivision review, the avoidance of congestion and overcrowding is listed as a review criteria. This could be in conflict with the plan goal to foster equity, given that goals that aim to minimize overcrowding and congestion can sometimes be wielded to discriminate against more affordable, and usually smaller, residential units.

Weakness: Consider whether the description of minor subdivision should include a provision that to be considered a minor subdivision the property must also have access to a public thoroughfare, a planned common access drive, or utilities.

Weakness: Ensure that subdivision pre-approval meetings are mandatory.

Threat: Require applicants notify adjacent property owners of proposed Major Subdivisions and Major Development Plan Review applications. Also ensure that Property Owner Associations are given official notice.

Sec.16-2-103. Application Specific Review Procedures

Standard Zoning Language - No Recommendations

Strength: Appendix D provides greater detail on what is required for specific applications. It is positive that this section was included as an appendix in order to keep this section shorter and more concise. If changing any given application process requires a text amendment, consider removing Appendix D and keeping application checklists online or on file at the Department offices.

Opportunity: Upon review of the Traffic Impact Study parameters, integrate new language into application requirements and review. Consider the integration of the traffic impact study and the access management review/standards.

Weakness: It is positive that flow charts were included, however, the code’s online hosting platform does not correctly display them. Rectify this as the flow charts will aid in comprehension for the end-user.

E. CHAPTER 16-3: ZONING DISTRICTS

OVERVIEW

The zoning district sections contain many, but not all, of the standards related to uses, building, and site development within each respective zoning district. A general summary of the standards found within each district is in the table below.

FINDINGS

It is visible in the table above that some of the differences between districts are marginal, and reflect only small differences in density. Consider whether the districts should be consolidated or revised to better reflect a cohesive goal for aesthetics or form. In many of the mixed-use and business districts, there is also not always a marked difference in permitted uses or development standards.

The table below displays the findings from the SWOT analysis for the Zoning District chapter.

Chapter 16-3: Zoning Districts

Section SWOT Analysis

Sec.16-3-101. General Provisions

Sec.16-3102. Base Zoning Districts Established

Strength: This section effectively lays out all of the base zoning districts and effectively describes the relationships between them.

Weakness: The overlay districts should also be listed in this section (just as the base zones are). Given that they are not present on the zoning map, a user would have to sift through the entire document to find them. Provide a guide or table which displays overlay districts within this section.

Sec.16-3-103. Conservation and Recreation Districts

A. General Purposes Opportunity: Given that the zoning code predates the new Comprehensive Plan, ensure that the purpose and intent statements of all districts align with the updated Plan.

B. Conservation District Strength: It is positive that the intent of this district explicitly mentions goals from the Comprehensive Plan around habitat maintenance, sustainability, coastal protection, and property protection. It is positive that the use types are restricted in this district. There are no recommendations for this district.

Strength: It is positive that the intent of this district explicitly mentions goals from the Comprehensive Plan around maintenance of greenspace and community space, and the permitted uses reflect these goals.

C. Parks and Recreation District

Weakness: The measurement of maximum density as a GFA/acre might not be an effective measure of the types of uses permitted in this district (like public utilities, marinas, public parks, etc).

Weakness: One parking space per 200 GFA, for all uses where it is applied in the PR, is likely excessive; a parking standard this high is generally reserved for the highest traffic uses like restaurants and pubs.

Chapter 16-3: Zoning Districts

Section SWOT Analysis

Sec.16-3-104. Residential Base Zoning Districts

Opportunity: The purpose statements of each district should not list out the desired density, but should instead focus on the plan goals that would apply to the character of the specific area. A maximum density is not a land use goal, but rather a means to achieving a land use goal, and should be removed from the purpose statement.

A. General Purposes

B. Residential Single-Family - 3 (RSF-3) District

Threat: Within general purpose #2, change the words “excessive population density" to "overcrowding". Within the current planning climate, there are vastly different perceptions and definitions around what constitutes excessive population density. Instead, use the term overcrowding, which has a more direct relationship to health, safety, and welfare, which are the primary objectives of a zoning code.

Opportunity: Given the desire to maintain the island's unique aesthetic character, consider the addition of design standards that permit flexibility and options for design elements while fostering a coherent aesthetic and reducing the prevalence of monotonous design in the built environment (applicable to all residential districts).

Strength: The maximum impervious cover for major residential subdivisions is positive, and ensures land preservation and open space for new residential areas. Conservation subdivisions, or ensuring that the 16% set aside is located on the most environmentally sensitive areas, should be pursued as well.

Opportunity: Given the relatively minor differences between the residential districts, consider if any of them could be consolidated.

C. Residential Single-Family - 5 (RSF-5) District

D. Residential Single-Family-6 (RSF-6) District

Weakness: It is unclear why two separate districts are needed for the RSF-5 and RSF-6, which are almost identical, given that they have such a marginal difference in density (five units per acre, versus six units per acre in the RSF6). This equates to a roughly a difference in a lot size of less than 1,500 sf at the minimum density.

Opportunity: Given the relatively minor differences between the residential districts, consider which of them could be consolidated.

Strength: The flexible definition of multifamily is positive, and ensures that the scale of property development is connected to the desired building envelop, rather than through strict segregation of types of residential construction (some codes might have four separate classifications of "multifamily").

Strength: It is positive that the minimum parking for workforce housing references 16-5-107.D.2 where flexibility is given based on the site/property/use conditions. In many municipalities, excessive parking minimums can result in practical difficulties constructing workforce housing. It is also positive that there is density flexibility for workforce housing.

E. Low to Moderate Density

Residential (RM-4) District

Strength: It is positive that uses that are neighborhood amenities are conditionally permitted in this district. This will permit neighborhood residents to easily access the neighborhood-supportive uses that they use most frequently. This will also assist in furthering the plan goals around walkability, aging-in-place, and sustainability due to reduced need for an automobile for common trips.

Opportunity: Density flexibility should be coupled with anti-monotny standards and more specific requirements about where the 16% open space should be located.

Weakness: Where there is density flexibility, it should be coupled with anti-monotny standards and more specific requirements about where the 16% open space should be located.

Chapter 16-3: Zoning Districts

Section SWOT Analysis

Weakness: It is unclear why workforce housing is permitted in the RM-4, but not in the RM-8, given that greater densities are permitted in the RM-8.

F. Moderate to High Density Residential (RM-8) District

G. Moderate to High Density Residential (RM-12) District

Sec.16-3105. Mixed-Use and Business Districts

A. General Purposes

Opportunity: Given that a variety of commercial uses are permitted under the use category “Other Commercial Services”, assess whether small-scale convenience or grocery stores could also be permitted.

Opportunity: The Town should consider whether small grocers or convenience stores could be given an exemption for parking spaces if they are under a specific GFA - for example, small markets are exempt from providing parking spaces if they are under 1,200 GFA. This will help to preserve environments that have an existing walkable scale, and can also help avoid vacancy in walkable areas.

Strength: As with the other districts, it is positive that there is a minimum open space of 16% of the property, especially within the higher residential district - this will ensure that residents have greenspace to enjoy while also providing for greater runoff absorption.

The content of this section is addressed under the following subheadings

Strength: It is positive that the goals of the Comprehensive Plan are specifically referenced in this section.

Strength: Is it positive that the "Purpose" section for each district describes the desired character and intent of the district; this is in contrast to the residential districts, where the purpose statement references a density metric.

Strength: It is positive that the Development Form Standards provide intentionality for site development within the setback, and includes provision of specific frontage types.

B. Coligny Resort District

C. Community Commercial District

D. Light Commercial District

E. Light Industrial District

Opportunity: It appears that the Coligny Resort District has limited application throughout the Town, and furthermore, it appears that development within this district is primary commercial and not hotel/resort uses. The Town should consider rezoning this area to more accurately reflect the collection of commercial uses within this corner of the Town. Uses like small grocery stores should also be allowed.

Weakness: 1 parking space per 150 GFA is maybe excessive for eating and drinking establishments.

This standards and use permissions for this district seem reasonable given the goals of the district. The Comprehensive Plan does not appear to have updated goals for this district.

Weakness: Given the changing nature of industrial businesses, with increasing automation and technological innovation, it is difficult to assign uniform parking standards for industrial uses. Consider revision of the parking minimums for these uses to provide flexibility.

Strength: Given the role of tourism in the economy, the compact nature of this light industrial district is positive. Furthermore, many of the industrial uses found within this district support tourism.

Threat: The transportation infrastructure within the Main Street District will make it difficult to achieve the goal within the purpose statement of orienting this district toward pedestrians. To truly re-orient this district to people on foot or on bikes, the Town should consider a road diet or another measure to re-orient toward the pedestrian.

F. Main Street District

Threat: Parking standards are also reflective of the auto-orientation of the physical environment (e.g. grocery stores require one parking space for every 200 GFA)

Opportunity: Given the primarily commercial uses within the Coligny Resort district, consider if it could be combined with the Main Street District.

Opportunity: Given that the purpose statement lists "high intensity" development could go in this district, consider adjusting the maximum densities to reflect that.

Chapter 16-3: Zoning Districts

Section SWOT Analysis

G. Marshfront District

H. Medical District

I. Mitchelville District

Threat: The map calls this district the "Marshfront Mixed Use" while the zoning code calls this district "Marshfront District”. Change one of these documents so that they are consistent.

Opportunity: Is there opportunity for multi-unit workforce housing along the bike trail in this district.

This standards and use permissions for this district seem reasonable given the goals of the district. The Comprehensive Plan does not appear to have updated goals for this district.

Threat: Within this district, multi-family housing is permitted by-right but workforce housing is conditionally permitted. Anywhere multi-family housing is permitted, workforce housing should also be permitted by-right in order to avoid equity issues and facilitate market mechanisms to put workforce housing where it's economically feasible, especially given that residential density maximums tend to be low throughout the island.

Weakness: Evaluate whether the density maximums would eliminate development at a scale of 75 feet in height, which is the height maximum in the district.

Opportunity: It appears that few areas are zoned as NC, just a small area in the central-west portion of the island near Broad Creek. Consider whether this district could be consolidated.

J. Neighborhood Commercial District

K. Planned Development MixedUse District

L. Resort Development District

M. Sea Pines Circle District

N. Stoney District

O. Waterfront Mixed-Use District

Sec.16-3-106. Overlay

A. Airport Overlay District

Strength: It is positive that additional density is permitted where specific criteria is met.

Opportunity: Consider whether workforce housing could be included as part of mixed-use development in this district.

Weakness: It is curious that auto sales, towing services, and truck rentals are permitted in this mixed-use district (and auto rentals conditionally permitted). Auto sales and other such uses would not be compatible with residential uses and would be more appropriate for a strictly commercial PD.

Weakness: It is unclear why Family Compound and Family subdivision have higher parking minimums than other multi-family development types.

The standards and use permissions for this district seem reasonable given the goals of the district. The Comprehensive Plan does not appear to have updated goals for this district.

Strength: The expanded permitted uses are consistent with the stated goals of the district.

Strength: The setback flexibility in this district is positive.

Threat: The map calls the district "Stoney Mixed Use" while the code calls it Stoney District. Correct these documents so that they are consistent.

Threat: The map calls this district the "Water-oriented mixed-use", which is different than what is in the zoning code. Resolve this discrepancy.

Weakness: It is unclear how this district is markedly different from the Resort Development District and the Mitchelville District. Consider whether the consolidation of this district is possible.

Zoning Districts

Strength: The criteria for establishing the airport overlay and the subsequent regulations that foster safety are appropriate.

Threat: This section states that the boundaries of the COR would be showed on the official zoning map, although it is not present on the map.

Weakness: This section should provide more specificity around the design guidelines, for example "reduce incompatible and adverse impacts on the visual experience" does not provide enough guidance.

B. Corridor Overlay District

Opportunity: The Town should consider traffic calming on multi lane thoroughfares where streetscape improvement guidelines aim to "facilitate human interaction with the environment". Additionally, update design guidelines accordingly as part of a full code overhaul.

Opportunity: Consider adding standards for native species and diversification of plantings within landscape standards.

Chapter 16-3: Zoning Districts

Section SWOT Analysis

Strength: It is positive that the Planned Development Design calls for conservation through clustering of development in order to preserve natural or historic features.

C. Planned Development Overlay District

D. Forest Beach Neighborhood Character Overlay District

Strength: It is positive that a mechanism is in place for the transfer of development rights (through transfer of density and area requirements).

Opportunity: Assess whether the PD overlay be used for a development that does not require a property owner's association.

Strength: It is positive that there is flexibility for tree preservation.

Strength: It is positive that paving must be pervious.

Opportunity: Consider whether the additional standards of the Forest Beach Neighborhood Character Overlay could be integrated into a base district for this area, rather than requiring applicants to seek standards in two places.

Opportunity: Consider non-monotony standards in the residential districts.

Weakness: Consider whether the table in section f. is necessary given that the minimum lot depth is set at 100 feet regardless of the varied lot frontages.

E. Folly Field Neighborhood Character Overlay District

F. Holiday Homes Neighborhood Character Overlay District

Opportunity: Consider non-monotony standards in the residential districts.

Strength: It is positive that staff can review and grant approvals within the Folly Field Neighborhood Character Overlay.

Opportunity: Consider whether the additional standards of the Holiday Homes Neighborhood Character Overlay could be integrated into a base district for this area, rather than requiring applicants to seek standards in two places.

Opportunity: Assess whether the complicated lot standards are producing desired outcomes within the overlay district - if not, consider simplifying the standards.

Strength: It is positive that redevelopment projects in this overlay are eligible for a parking minimum reductionparking minimums are a frequent barrier to property redevelopment.

Strength: It is positive that this district exists to provide redevelopment flexibility. It is positive that the existing standards can be relaxed up to a specific proportion.

G. Redevelopment Overlay District

H. Coastal Protection Area Overlay District

Strength: It is positive that there is a minor amendment process to provide flexibility.

Opportunity: Consider whether the intent of this overlay could exist as a special permit for redevelopment sites, and would thereby not require a zoning map change.

Opportunity: Parking space dimensions likely do not need to be addressed within this section

Strength: The permitted uses in the CPA-O District are appropriate given the location of the district.

Weakness: The language around boundary delineation for this district could be clearer.

Weakness: Within both the Transition Area Overlay and the CPA-O, the language which delineates the boundaries and the Subdivision 1, 2, 3 sub-districts could be clearer. The lots marked A, E, S, X are also referenced, but not fully clear. Consider adding some narrative text that provides more of an explanation for these lots/subdivisions.

I. Transition Area Overlay District

Opportunity: Expand the Coastal Protection Area and Transition Area Overlay District up to Pine Island (Park Creek) to capture the extended Town beach limits.

F. CHAPTER 16-4: USE STANDARDS

OVERVIEW

This chapter contains a master use table which provides all use permissions for all districts within one, centralized location. Principal uses are divided into use categories for ease of use (ie. all of the residential uses are grouped together, the industrial uses are grouped together). Use permissions within any given district are classified as follows: P = Permitted by Right; PC = Permitted Subject to Use-Specific Conditions; SE = Allowed as a Special Exception; and Blank Cell = Prohibited. This chapter also includes guidance and procedures for assessing uses that are unlisted.

In addition to permitted uses, this chapter also covers any specific conditions applied to principal uses, in addition to accessory uses and temporary uses.

FINDINGS

Chapter 16-4: Use Standards

Sec.16-4-102. Principal Uses

5. Interpretation of Unlisted Uses

Use Table: General

Strength: The special standards for principal uses enables the tailoring of use-specific standards to minimize incompatibility between uses.

Strength: The process for assessing unlisted uses is thorough and comprehensive, and it is positive that staff have the ability to make a determination. It is also positive that there is a mechanism to add the unlisted use to the code if it is deemed to be (or potentially could be) regularly occurring.

Strength: The use table is relatively streamlined, which is positive.

Use Table: Workforce Housing Threat: It is curious, and likely problematic, that workforce housing is permitted in only one of the six residential districts.

Use Table: Tattoo Facility

Weakness: Tattoo Facilities do not require their own use category - especially given that tattooing is now integral to several cosmetology services.

Use Table: Food Truck Weakness: Add a category for Food Truck.

Use Table: Open Air Sales

B. Use Specific Conditions for Principal Uses

Sec.16-4-103. Accessory Uses and Structures

Accessory Use Table: Solar Collection Device

Accessory Use Standard: Outdoor Storage

Opportunity: Allow Outdoor Display and Sale of Merchandise in the Resort Development, Mitchelville and Marshfront districts.

Opportunity: Consider whether special use provisions related to access management could be consolidated into a general policy section that covers all issues related to access management.

Strength: The standards for accessory uses are generally positive and ensure both compatibility and flexibility in the instances where these uses are found.

Opportunity: Allow solar collection device in the Parks and Recreation district.

Opportunity: Amend definition or use standard to clarify that outdoor storage shall not be located on a truck or trailer.

Sec.16-4-104. Temporary Uses and Structures

Temporary Use Standard: Farmer's Market

Temporary Use Standard: Fairs, Carnivals, and Public Gatherings

Sec. 16-4-105. Workforce Housing (WFH) Program

Threat: If a farmer's market is providing food security and additional access to healthy food, it is unclear why the maximum duration of a farmer's market is nine months.

Opportunity: Assess whether the provision that this temporary use “must be associated with an adjacent institutional or educational use" is creating a hardship, or if exceptions could be made. Also ensure that this is permitting all freedom of association.

Strength: It is positive that density bonuses are provided for workforce housing.

Strength: The covenants related to maintaining the affordability of units is positive - many communities with workforce housing issues experience challenges in maintaining units as affordable. It is positive that standards are set for resale and rental rates.

Threat: It is unclear why the maximum density of any workforce housing development is 12 units per acre.

G. CHAPTER 16-5: DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS

OVERVIEW

This chapter contains a variety of site and building standards that apply to distinctive uses or districts, or generally to all development. Sections within this chapter cover things like open space standards, buffer standards, parking and loading standards, and fence and wall standards.

FINDINGS

Chapter 16-5: Development and Design Standards

Section SWOT Analysis

Strength: It is positive that flexibility is given to decrease setbacks under appropriate conditions, and it is positive that flexibility is given for some setback encroachments are appropriate and regularly occurring.

Threat: Remove setback angle requirements. It is likely that the administration of this standard is challenging for staff while also difficult for code users to understand and follow.

Sec.16-5-102. Setback Standards

Sec.16-5-103. Buffer Standards

Threat: The use setback calculations and standards could seemingly be accomplished with simpler buffer standards by zoning districts (with some very limited specifications by use).

Threat: Revise what is permitted to encroach into setbacks and possibly have a list or note under the table of what cannot encroach

Threat: Reduce the setback for gates on arterials roads

Strength: It is positive that options are given for buffer types - most codes provide only one option, which limits flexibility.

Strength: it is positive that flexibility is given for buffer planting reductions, and that there is a possibility that constructed buffers can count toward open space requirements.

Strength: It is positive that preservation of existing vegetation is promoted.

Weakness: Buffers are easier to administer by zoning district with some exceptions for new non-residential uses within a residential zone. The burden for developing a buffer should be placed on the new/developing property and not an existing property.

Opportunity: Assess whether a buffer should be located at the periphery of a site adjacent to the more intense use/zone, where the buffer is more likely to absorb any negative externalities from adjacent uses.

Threat: Allow a reduced setback and buffer requirement from access easements. Remove the requirement for a buffer from an access easement for commercial properties. Add requirement for access easements on shared property lines.

Threat: Add the Planned Development Mixed Use District and the Agriculture use to the adjacent use setback and buffer tables. Mirror the reduction allowed in the setback table for small residential development plan reviews and minor subdivisions in the buffer table. Remove note in setback table and under it allowing small residential developments to reduce setback to 5 feet.

Strength: The mandatory open space requirement is positive.

Sec.16-5-104. Open Space Standards

Opportunity: Provide specific criteria for the provision of open space that will ensure that it is a usable community benefit. Criteria should specify that it cannot be used for stormwater retention or buffer areas.

Opportunity: Given that it states that 16% is the minimum open space set-aside, assess whether it necessary to have a minimum open space standard within the development standards tables.

Chapter 16-5: Development and Design Standards

Section SWOT Analysis

Opportunity: Complete street standards should be mandatory instead of encouraged.

Opportunity: Add language to require pedestrian connectivity for all new developments.

Sec.16-5-105. Mobility, Street, and Pathway Standards

Sec.16-5-106. Traffic Analysis Standards

Opportunity: Add a list of collector roads since there is a list of arterial roads.

Opportunity: Assess whether all access to streets can be covered within this section, or if it also needs to be within the special use standards.

Opportunity: Consider whether there should be one cohesive access management section.

Opportunity: Replace using June traffic counts with July traffic counts for Traffic Impact Analysis Plan Standards.

Opportunity: Evaluate Traffic Impact Analysis methodology.

Strength: The parking maximum of 120% of the required minimum spaces is positive for the island's environment.

Strength: The reductions for shared parking facilities are positive.

Sec.16-5-107. Parking and Loading Standards

Sec.16-5-108. Site Lighting Standards

Sec.16-5-109. Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Standards

Strength: The provisions for compact and electric vehicles are positive.

Weakness: Given that minimum parking spaces are listed for each district within the use tables, assess if it is redundant to also list parking minimums in this section.

Opportunity: Add language to require pedestrian connectivity for all new developments.

Opportunity: Add provision that light temperature is measured in Kelvin. Move ambient dining light from sign section to lighting section

Strength: It is positive that absorption of runoff is a desired outcome of these standards.

Opportunity: Provide specificity on what can encroach in the 5 foot wetland buffer setback. Add a buffer requirement for lagoons and stormwater retention/detention areas. Add the 4 foot height limitation to wetland buffer pruning.

Opportunity: Wetland Mitigation Requirements for Projects that require a Community Benefit (Airport, Gateway Corridor).

Sec.16-5-110. Utility Standards No Recommendations

Sec.16-5-111. Fire Protection Water Supply No Recommendations

Sec.16-5-112. Flood Zone Standards No Recommendations

Strength: This section effectively governs the construction of fences on properties.

Weakness: It is unclear if the erection of a fence requires a permit.

Sec.16-5-113. Fence and Wall Standards

Weakness: Provide more clarity around when it would be acceptable to erect a fence more than 4 feet high (for example, 6 feet) within a setback facing a street.

Opportunity: Add a diagram to the fence section to make it clear where fences can be located. Also ensure that fences can not be placed in the sight triangle.

Chapter 16-5: Development and Design Standards

Section SWOT Analysis

Threat: Remove all references to content within the signage standards, which are numerous.

Sec.16-5-114. Sign Standards

Opportunity: Complete a full legal review of the signage chapter to ensure content neutrality.

Opportunity: Establish clear provisions for Political Signs.

Strength: It is positive that preservation of environmental features must be displayed within a site analysis.

Weakness: Provide more clarity around what information is required within the site analysis vis-a-vis environmentally sensitive features (ie. topography, soils, habitats, or vegetation, etc.)

Weakness: Provide more clarity around the criteria for application of a zero lot line subdivision.

Weakness: Provide provisions for requiring better designed subdivisions (ex: min lot sizes, Floor Area Ratio, winding streets), which includes non-monotony standards, context sensitive design, site connectivity, and design that follows positive planning principles.

Weakness: Clarifications needed in the character overlay districts as it relates to further subdivision of lots, tree mitigation and setback reduction references.

Sec.16-5-115. Subdivision Standards

Sec.16-5-116. Impact Fees

Weakness: Amendment to provide clarification on residential driveway width standards. Part of the issue I think is that the code tries to use one term "Development" for all development, so there is additional wording to clarify residential vs non-residential in some sections. The code is also missing pedestrian circulation and connectivity from most of the document.

Weakness: Explore whether access easements should be limited in the number of properties they can service, and ensure that the current standards accommodate emergency vehicles.

Opportunity: Add site development plans and tree surveys to submittal requirements for major and minor subdivisions. Add a requirement for lot addresses to be shown on plats

Opportunity: Consider making sidewalks and connected pathways through subdivisions mandatory - the language is currently unclear about whether they are technically required (it currently defers to staff interpretation).

Strength: It is positive that flexibility is given for an individual assessment for unique scenarios.

Opportunity: Consider removing the transportation impact fee schedule from the document, and replace it with a fee schedule on file at the Town.

H. CHAPTER 16-6: NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION

OVERVIEW

This chapter contains standards which ensure that any activity or development on environmentally sensitive areas are appropriate and consistent with goals to protect wetlands, beaches and dunes, and trees.

FINDINGS

Chapter 16-4: Use Standards Section SWOT Analysis

Strength: Controls on pesticides and chemicals, sediment disruption, fill, slope construction are all positive.

Strength: It is positive that permitted path construction within wetland buffers must be pervious.

Opportunity: Develop wetland Mitigation Requirements for Projects with a Community Benefit (Airport, Gateway Corridor).

Sec.16-6-102. Wetland Protection

Opportunity: Assess whether a criteria should be established for developments when a fee-in-lieu is permissible instead of wetland conservation.

Opportunity: Given that preservation of these features will be more important as sea levels rise, and given some staff identified ambiguities in the current language, complete a full assessment of existing standards related to wetlands, beaches, and tree/canopy conservation.

Strength: The specification of dune protection, which accounts for beach access, is positive.

Sec.16-6-103. Beach and Dune Protection

Sec.16-6-104. Tree Protection

Opportunity: This section should be regularly reviewed to account for new and evolving data around sea level rise, especially new research that may inform NFIP reforms, and storm surge data

Opportunity: Strengthen the language as it relates to trunk offsets and tree protection zones of specimen trees and significant trees during construction. Require a variance for removal of a significant tree.

Opportunity: Assess whether there are other types of professionals, like a landscape architect or arborist, that can produce a tree survey.

I. CHAPTER 16-7: NONCONFORMITIES, CHAPTER 16-8: ENFORCEMENT,

CHAPTER 16-9: DISASTER RECOVER, CHAPTER 16-10: DEFINITIONS, INTERPRETATION,

OVERVIEW

AND MEASUREMENT

Minimal issues were found in the remaining chapters with the exceptions listed in the table below.

FINDINGS

Chapter 16-4: Use Standards

Section SWOT Analysis

16-7-101: General Provisions, Nonconformities

16-10-105: General Definitions

Threat: Add a requirement that if a nonconformity is being changed by 50% or more, it needs to be brought into full compliance

Threat: Amend the dwelling unit definition

Threat: Amend the definition of changeable copy

Threat: Amend the definition of family. This definition leaves no room for non-traditional households, which are ever-increasing within the United States.

Threat: Amend the definition of Outdoor Storage to make it clear it doesn’t mean items on a truck or trailer

Weakness: Add a definition for NAVD88 datum

Weakness: Add a definition and use standards for food trucks

J. CONCLUSION

The Town of Hilton Head Island is currently undertaking specific, intentional efforts to revise the zoning code to best meet the needs of the community. The strengths identified are helpful in understanding how the current LMO is meeting the needs of the community, and the weaknesses, opportunities, and threats should be reviewed to understand which observations and findings might lead to additional future amendments to the existing zoning code. Ensure that any future amendments do not lead to inconsistencies, and given the scale of amendments identified, consider a full code overhaul at some point in the future.