COASTAL OBSERVER

Georgetown County has gone to court to overturn a state decision that will require that structures in some inland areas be built to the same standard as those on beachfront to reduce the risk of storm damage.

And in case that doesn’t work, the county is asking the legislature to change the way the state handles requests to modify building codes.

“We can’t go through another hurricane season with this burden on our citizens,” Jay Watson, the county attorney, told members of the legislative delegation last month.

At the heart of the issue is a designation on federal flood maps that shows the “limit of moderate wave action.” Known as the LiMWA line, it marks the inland limit where wave heights of 1.5 to 3 feet can be expected.

The building code adopted by the state in 2021 requires that structures east of the LiMWA line to be built to standards that apply in the oceanfront  “V zones.” That will affect the types of foundation used, what areas under structures can be enclosed and the building elevation. That didn’t become an issue until Georgetown County’s federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps were updated in 2023. The previous maps, which dated to the 1980s, didn’t include a LiMWA line.

On the updated maps, the line extends as much as 6 miles inland. That includes areas along the Pee Dee River and parts of Wedgefield Plantation outside Georgetown.

The county asked the S.C. Building Codes Council for a modification of the requirement. It pointed out that it is more stringent than the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program, which local governments have to follow in order for property owners to be eligible for federal flood insurance.

Steven Elliott, the county’s chief building official, testified before the Building Codes Council that in addition to increasing the cost of new construction, “the new restrictions would also make numerous existing structures nonconforming in terms of flood compliance.”

It could make them uninsurable, he said.

The council denied the county’s request. The county asked the council for reconsideration. After a second hearing, the request was denied again. It also denied a request from the county to amend its decision to reflect “all aspects of the deliberations and communications with the county.” 

The county filed an appeal last month with the S.C. Administrative Law Court saying the Building Codes Council’s decision was improper on procedural grounds and flawed because it failed to fully state its reasoning.

In addition, the county states in its appeal that officials were told “off the record” that the Building  Codes Council thought the county could use its discretion to ignore the stricter requirements.

Watson told the legislative delegation he was concerned that to do so could jeopardize disaster aid from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which also administers the flood insurance program.

“It puts my credentials in jeopardy,” said Elliott, who is the county’s certified floodplain manager. “We have to take LiMWA lines at face value.”

He doesn’t believe the lines are accurate, noting that there are areas on the Waccamaw Neck between the beach and creeks that aren’t within the LiMWA line, but areas between the creek and Highway 17 that are.

“You’ve got areas literally on the beach at Pawleys that are outside it,” Watson said.

The county has worked with the S.C. Association of Counties to draft legislation that would shift the burden from local jurisdictions having to show why the Building Codes Council should approve modifications to requiring the council to show why they should be denied.

“We demonstrated to them that this is simply erroneous on its face,” Watson said.

State Sen. Stephen Goldfinch said he would have been happy to intervene with the S.C. Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, which oversees the council.

“You don’t have to spend money on a lawyer to go appeal to the ALC,” he said.

Although now that the county has done so, it may be inappropriate for him to do so, Goldfinch added.