COASTAL OBSERVER

The size of the buffers contained in Georgetown County’s proposed wetlands ordinance continues to shrink. The minimum size of the wetlands protected from filling continues to grow along with the number of activities that would be exempt from the ordinance.

That hasn’t stifled opposition from those who say that federal and state protections are sufficient for the county’s 249,336 acres of wetlands.

The Planning Commission will hold a hearing on the ordinance next week, but County Council Chairman Clint Elliott told a workshop of council and commission members this week he is willing to hold more discussions if necessary.

Elliott listed the adoption of a wetlands ordinance as one of his priorities when he was elected council chairman last year.

The ordinance is among the goals of the county’s comprehensive plan, which was updated in 2024. The initial proposal called for a 50-foot buffer between wetlands and residential and commercial development. The buffer for industrial development was 100 feet.

Those have been reduced to 35 feet and 50 feet, respectively. A 100-foot buffer proposed for wetlands adjacent to water bodies was reduced to 50 feet. A 100-foot buffer for golf courses was reduced to 35 feet.

The buffers initially applied only to wetlands over a quarter acre in size. The threshold was raised to half an acre.

In addition, there would be a 15 foot building setback from the buffer.

The ordinance would require a permit from the county to fill a wetland larger than a quarter of an acre. That was increased from a tenth of an acre.

The local ordinance is seen as a way to protect wetlands that no longer have federal protection under the Clean Water Act after a 2023 Supreme Court ruling held that those protections only apply where wetlands have “a continuous surface connection to navigable waters.”

The buffers and permits for fill would only apply to new development. Existing lots would be grandfathered. Exemptions would also apply for forestry, agriculture, industrial parks, public utilities and infrastructure. 

Council Member Raymond Newton said that the county talks a lot about affordable housing, but “everything we do increases the cost.”

“What kind of cost would this have,” he asked Holly Richardson, the county planning director, at this week’s workshop.

The ordinance would require affected property owners to hire a professional to delineate the wetlands. For someone who wanted to create a subdivision of under 10 lots, Richardson estimated the cost at $1,200 to $2,000.

Someone building on an existing lot would be exempt from the ordinance, she added.

Commission member Bill Hills, a forester, said he thought the cost was more like $8,000.

“There’s a big discrepancy there,” Newton said.

Hills questioned the need for the local ordinance. “You can’t fill wetlands without a permit,” he said.

“That’s not accurate,” commission member Amy Armstrong said. She is executive director of the S.C. Environmental Law Project.

Armstrong cited examples of wetlands around the county that have been filled.

Newton asked if someone could obtain a fill permit from the federal and state government and still be denied a county permit.

Richardson said the county would automatically approve projects with federal and state permits, but that a conflict could arise with the so-called “non-jurisdictional” wetlands.

“With non-jurisdictional, this is going to give us purview,” she said.

Council Member Louis Morant said he was concerned that someone could spend the money to obtain federal and state permits only to be denied by the county.

He said he didn’t mind regulating wetlands if the county didn’t take control of them.

“We’re the ones who are going to control it at the grassroots level,” Council Member Bob Anderson said.

The ordinance will play a key role in managing stormwater runoff and flooding in the county, he noted.

Council Member Ernie Cooper asked if the county has staff who are qualified to enforce the ordinance and whether enforcement will come with a cost to the county.

“We don’t have any budgeting for enforcement at this time,” Richardson said.

She said the ordinance requires the owners to get the professional determination of the wetlands boundaries. The staff will review that work and ensure that the work is done in compliance with the permit.

Newton questioned whether the county could face lawsuits if its decisions were made by qualified staff.

Hills also asked if the county could face suits for unconstitutional “takings.”

“I don’t know how you can take away the use of somebody’s property without paying for it,” he said.

Jay Watson, the county attorney, said any regulation can lead to a takings claim, but that the success of that claim would depend on the specific circumstances.

“I’m a property rights guy,” Anderson said.

He is willing to work to ensure that current property owners are able to use their land, but he said that didn’t apply to “land speculators.”

Newton said the cost to property owners remains a concern.

“What is the economic impact this ordinance is going to have?” he asked. “Do we have any clue?”

Richardson said her staff applied the requirements to a development plan they had received. It proposed 270 lots. With the wetlands buffers in place, that number would be reduced by four.

“That could affect the developer’s bottom line,” she said.

There will be overall benefits to the county through stormwater protection, tourism and water quality, among others, Richardson said.

Hills pointed out that Horry or Charleston counties don’t have wetlands ordinances.

“Does anyone in this room want to live in Charleston County or Horry County?” commission member Marla Hamby said.

“I was thinking the same thing,” Anderson said.

The Planning Commission will hold a hearing on the ordinance April 16 at 5:30 p.m. in County Council chambers.