Glynn County Board of Commissioners - Regular Meeting

Good evening, and I would like to welcome you to the Thursday, September 3rd, 2026 meeting of the Glynn County Board of Commissioners. I have asked Commissioner Tosteson if he would lead us in our invocation tonight and Commissioner Clark if he would lead us in the pledge. So if you could stand with us, please.

Father, thank you for allowing us to gather and conduct the county business. Thank you for allowing us to live in such a wonderful, beautiful place that we have here. Bless these proceedings this evening and bless each and every one here. All in your Son, Jesus, precious Holy Name. Amen.

to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Mr. Chairman, I move to approve the consent agenda for general business with the exception of any issue, item the commissioner wishes to choose and pull.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All right. I have a motion from Commissioner Rafalski to approve consent agenda under general business and a second by Commissioner Swett, Booker, Commissioner Booker. Any discussion? All in favor, please raise your right hand. And that is unanimous. That moves us to our public hearing for alcohol beverage license. So as I read this, please keep in mind that we are here to be good neighbors and to speak civilly to each other. we agree with the subject matter or not. So let's keep that in mind. And public hearings will be limited to 30 minutes for each opposing side with five minutes allocated to each individual speaker. Comments are to be limited to relevant information regarding your position and should avoid being repetitious. And if your group has a spokesperson, please allow that individual to present your group's position at the time allocated. And as always, your cooperation is appreciated. Item number eight is to consider the issuance of a 2026 alcoholic beverage license to meet, I didn't pronounce that before time, LLC located at 2054 Perry Lane Road, Brunswick, Georgia, 31525. The license is to sell beer at a grocery store and offer consumption on premises, Sunday sales permitted. And Mr. Martinez, Jr. is the licensee, and we have Ms. Kinstal-Willis.

Good evening, Commissioners. Christy Kintz, Oakland County Licensing and Compliance. The application has gone through a process. The background of the licensee has been approved by the police department, and the licensee is present tonight as required by the ordinance.

All right. Before we open the public hearing, commissioners, is there anything that you wish to say? All right, this is a public hearing for the alcoholic beverage license. If you want to speak against this alcoholic beverage license, please come forward and state your name for the record. Anyone to speak in opposition to it? All right, hearing none, seeing none, we'll close that portion. Anyone who wishes to speak in favor of this alcoholic beverage, please come forward. State your name for the record, please. All right, that went quickly. We'll close the public hearing, and, Commissioners, we're back to you.

Mr. Chairman, I move to... Issue the 2026 alcohol and beverage license to Nuterica LLC, located at 2054 Perry Lane Road, Brunswick, Georgia, 31525. License is to sell beer at a grocery store, not for consumption on premises. Sunday sales are permitted. Julio C. Martinez, Jr., licensee. Second.

All right. We have a motion by Commissioner Rafalski, a second by Commissioner Sweatt to approve this license. Any other discussion? All in favor, please raise your right hand. That is unanimous. Item number nine, public hearing for land use. This is ZM-26-16, and it is the Christ Church Frederico Rezone. We have Ms. Leaf with us.

Good evening, Commissioner Stephanie Leaf, Planning and Zoning Director. So this is, let's see, IT, if you could go to the other presentation. Thank you. Great, thank you. This is ZM 2616, and this is a rezone of several properties owned by Christ Church. And the primary goal of this rezone request is they have three different zoning districts on their properties, three different parcels, and they're seeking to consolidate all of their parcels and uses into one planned development district, just so everything is consolidated into one and it's clear what these parcels are used for. So currently, they have conservation, preservation, one family residential R12. And there is a portion that is in a PD district, too. So here are their properties. So this is, of course, the north end of the island and Stevens Road and Frederica Road. So just to orient you, this is Frederica Road here. This is Stevens Road turning off. And then the parcels where the orange stars are located are the ones that are subject to this rezone. And this is the commons subdivision. And then this comprehensive plan does show this is North Island. This is in keeping with the comp plan. And then this is a survey of the property. And then this is their master plan that shows what they are planning to do with the properties. And they are keeping the church religious use and uses that are compatible with the historic use of the property. And then the full plan development district text is in your packet. But here's just, they do show the permitted uses that are on parcel A and parcel B. I'll just orient you here so that they do have a divide into different parcels here. And then they also have accessory uses for parcels A and B. And then they have more limited uses on the one parcel C. The Islands Planning Commission did recommend approval as presented. We did receive some questions. I think there was one or two public comments at that meeting, questions about traffic and access off of Stevens Road. There were some questions about that, but no other concerns expressed at that meeting. And these are your possible actions tonight. And Zach Harris and Chris Jordan are here from Hunter McLean for this application. I'm happy to answer any questions as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Leaf. Commissioners, any questions or comments before we open public hearing? None. All right. This is a public hearing for ZM-26-16. If anyone is here to speak in opposition, please come forward. State your name for the record, please, and you'll have five minutes. Anyone to speak in opposition? Moving right along, seeing none, we'll close that portion. Anyone who wishes to speak in favor, please come forward and state your name for the record. You'll have five minutes.

Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Chris Jordan. Along with Zach Harris, we represent Christ Church. We're joined tonight by Rector Tom Purdy, the head of Christ Church, several members of the Christ Church, and I believe a few deacons. So I'll be very brief. Ms. Leaf said it well. Tonight is about cleanup. Christ Church owns 24 acres zoned across three parcels right now, all of which are zoned differently. And it doesn't make sense. It's not accomplishing any purpose. The church would like and is hoping to obtain a uniform set of consolidated zoning that applies to the entirety of their property. That's the only reason that we're here tonight. So if the commission has any questions of me, I'm happy to answer them. Otherwise, we appreciate the commission's consideration of our application.

All right. Thank you. Anyone else to speak in favor? All right. Seeing none, hearing none, we'll close the public hearing for ZM-26-16. And, Commissioner, we're back to you.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like a motion to approve the proposed zoning as requested.

Second. All right. I'll have a motion by Commissioner Duncan, a second by Commissioner Tosteson. I think I heard first. Any other discussion? All in favor, please raise your right hand. And that is unanimous. Thank you. Item number 10 is ZM-26-17. That is 3337 Highway 82 Rezone. And we have with us tonight Mr. Carey.

Good evening, Commissioners. Christopher Carey, Senior Planner. Before you tonight, we have a rezoning request at 3337 Highway 82. That's 3337 and 3349. Here's the location. It was right here along the Highway 82 corridor. So the request is to rezone a 1.9 acre property from forest agriculture to highway commercial to allow for future commercial development on Parcels 02-00691. and 02-00763. All uses allowed in the Highway Commercial Zoning District would be allowed, and the current primary use that is being requested or is being used on the property is major and minor storage. So right here is the definitions for minor and major storage as in our ordinance. And here's the difference between what is proposed and is existing for development standards, going from a forest agriculture mainly residential use to a highway commercial use. And here is a sketch plan of what is out there on the site. The Planning Commission did recommend unanimous approval of this application. And these are your possible motions. Mr. Sauter is available for questioning as well, and that is all from staff.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Kerry.

Commissioners, can you put the very first one back up?

Okay.

I thought it was on 82.

Yes, this is just north of Southern Hardware.

All right. Any other questions, comments, commissioners? All right, this is a public hearing for ZM-26-173337 Highway 82 Rezone. Anyone who wishes to speak in opposition, please come forward, state your name for the record. You'll have five minutes. Anyone to speak in opposition? Hearing none, seeing none, we'll close that portion of the public hearing. Anyone who wishes to speak in favor of ZM-26-17, please come forward and state your name for the record. All right, seeing none, hearing none, we'll close the public hearing. And, Commissioner, we're back to you.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve ZM-26-17-3337 Highway 82 Rezone as presented. Second.

All right, we have a motion by Commissioner Tossison, a second by Commissioner Clark to approve ZM-26-17. Any discussion? All in favor, please raise your right hand. And that is unanimous. Thank you. Item number 11 is to consider ZM-26-19, Brailsford Duplexes Rezone. And again, we have Mr. Carey with us on this. Mr. Carey? Good evening, Commissioners.

Tonight we have a rezoning for Brailsford Duplexes. This property is located at 3426 and 3424 Brailsford Avenue. Here's the location. Right here in blue. So we have three vacant lots. The request is to rezone the two properties, three lots, 3.31 acres from R61 family residential to plan development tax. The intent is to make the existing properties more feasible for residential development. Overall, the setbacks are reduced to allow more space to build on the proposed lot, similar to adjacent properties located in the city of Brunswick's zoning district. So here is the difference between what is proposed and existing. Overall, the minimum requirements proposed are 4,500 square foot lots with a lot width of 45 feet wide, 15 foot front setbacks, five foot side yard setbacks, and a seven foot rear building setback. And here is your master plan. So right here we have the three parcels showing on the north parcel a duplex and future development on the bottom parcel. And here's the plan development text that is also in your packet. The Planning Commission did recommend unanimous approval of this application. And these are your possible motions. We do have Kevin Higgins on behalf of the property owners as their agent available as well. That is all from staff.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Carey. Commissioners, anything before we open the public hearing? All right, this is a public hearing for ZM-26-19, Brailsford Duplexes Resort. Anyone who wishes to speak in opposition, please come forward, state your name for the record. To speak in opposition. Seeing none, hearing none, we'll close that portion. Those who wish to speak in favor, please come forward, state your name for the record. All right, moving right along. We'll close the public hearing. And, Commissioners, we're back to you.

Mr. Chairman, I move to approve ZM 2619 as presented.

Second.

All right, we have a motion by Commissioner Wafalski, a second by Commissioner Booker to approve ZM-26-19. Any other discussion? All in favor, please raise your right hand. And that is unanimous. All right, that brings us to item number 12, TA-26-3, subdivision regulation text amendment. And we have with us to speak about this Ms. Leaf coming to the podium. Thank you.

So, Commissioners, this is an amendment to the subdivision regulations. So, as you may recall, you all adopted new subdivision regulations back in April of 2026, and those went into effect on July 1. And as these went into effect, we became aware of a clarification that needed to be made regarding the subdivision regulations and regulations and subdivisions that are on the island. So throughout the most recent drafts of the subdivision regulations that went through the planning commissions and then went to the board, it was intended for all subdivisions on the island to be to go through the full preliminary plat, construction plans of applicable, final plat process, which is what we now call the major subdivision process. That is still an administrative process, but it was intended for them to go through that full process instead of being done purely administratively with the expedited subdivision process, which is now referred to as minor subdivision. So that was the intent, but just in the final draft that came out, there was a need for clarification to make sure it was abundantly clear that that was the intent. So that is what this does, is this does clarify the subdivision regulations stating that all creation of new lots on St. Simons Island and Sea Island need to go through the major subdivision process. Now if someone's moving a lot line, if they're consolidating lots or replatting in another way where they do not create new lots, they can still go through the minor subdivision process But any new lot creation goes through this process. So that is what this clarification does. And this did go to the mainland and the islands planning commissions. They both voted in favor of recommending this as presented. And I'm happy to answer any questions you have on this.

Commissioner, see any questions from this link? All right. We will open the public hearing for TA-26-3. Anyone who wishes to speak against the subdivision regulations text amendment, please come forward and state your name for the record. Anyone to speak in opposition? Seeing none, hearing none, we'll close that portion. Anyone who wishes to speak in favor, same thing. All right. Seeing none, hearing none, we'll close the public hearing on TA-26-3. And, Commissioners, we're back to you.

Mr. Chairman, I move to approve TA-26-3 as presented.

Second.

All right. We have a motion by Commissioner Hrafalski, a second by Commissioner Clark to approve TA-26-3. Any other discussion? All in favor, please raise your right hand. That is unanimous. Thank you. Item number 13 is a zone ordinance text amendment. And this item is being presented for the first reading only, and no board action will be taken at this time this evening. So, Ms. Leif.

Thank you. So this is an amendment to the zoning ordinance. This was requested by commissioners to make these changes. There's several changes within one. So there's basically four different areas that I'll cover. So it's a little bit more lengthy. I'm going to go through each of them one by one. If you want to stop at the end of each one and ask questions at that time, you're welcome to. Or I can just run through all of them, whatever your preference is. With the planning commissions, we did kind of do a stop and have a little bit of discussion after. each of the segments. So the first of the four is a change to the marsh buffer ordinance. So for a number of years prior to the July 1, and these are all changes to what became effective on July 1, but prior to the July 1 ordinance, the county did have what we call a development setback from the marsh. So it was a 15-foot area that was measured from the Coastal Marshals Protection Act boundary and the 15 feet back. And within that 15 foot area, there could be no development. And so what we did in the July 1 drafts, or July 1 ordinance, was kept that 15 foot buffer, but we clarified it a little bit more to be specific about what could and could not happen in that buffer. So that was the only change that we did there. This request is to remove the 15-foot buffer. What that would essentially do then is the only buffers, setbacks that would be in place would be whatever the state of Georgia requires. Currently, the state's Environmental Protection Division has an erosion and sediment control buffer of 25 feet. That does apply to a lot of properties. There are some properties that meet criteria to get exemptions from that. And in those cases, if the state did not require a 25-foot buffer, that's where our county one would kick in, that we would have a 15-foot buffer. So with this change being made, if there was no state-required buffer, then the county would not be requiring a buffer either. And so the only setbacks from you know, from the marsh, you know, would be whatever the rear property line might be. So it was really deferring to what the state would require. We would not have an additional, you know, more restrictive buffer in this case. Do you have any questions on this for maybe the next one?

Commissioner, any questions? So we're just basically staying in line with DNR standards?

We are. Yeah, we just would not have anything that's more restrictive or additional regulation.

Because they already have theirs in place, is that correct?

Yeah, the Environmental Protection Division of DNR has this in place, correct.

Thank you, Ms. Lee.

Yep.

Any other questions? Okay, this is a public hearing for TA-26-2.

Oh, I'm sorry. There are several other ones. OK. I'm sorry. Go ahead. No worries. So the next one would be site coverage on the mainland. So currently, with the new ordinance, we instituted a 60% site coverage countywide for residential lots. it was 85% site coverage for commercial lots. And that's mainland and islands. What this amendment would do would remove that site coverage requirement or site coverage maximum on the mainland. So the island would still have a 60% or 75% for commercial, so 60% residential lots, 75% commercial lots. But the mainland would no longer have that. And what we count into site coverage is basically anything except dirt, grass, and trees. So we count gravel driveways, we count walkways, pools, the footprint of the structures, all that's in site coverage. So this is what this amendment does. And I will note that the Mainland Planning Commission, when they reviewed this, in their recommendation to you all, they did state that they would recommend that this be removed countywide. So there would not be a site coverage maximum countywide at all, so to remove it for islands and mainland. But what's before you with this amendment is just removing it on the mainland. Any questions on that one before I move to the next? So the next one is traffic impact studies. And this one was more of a clarification that staff wanted to have done here. So we had some earlier drafts that included a reference to a level one and a level two traffic study. That verbiage ended up getting removed from the drafts. However, in a couple spots, the terminology level one traffic study stayed in. So because that's confusing, because we don't have a definition for a level one traffic study, and it's not a requirement, We just wanted to clean this up to remove any reference to Level 1. What this ordinance did with the July 1 revisions was state that the county engineer can request a traffic study upon review of an application. And so that is how we've been operating since July 1, is the county engineering department will review an application, and based on their their expertise and review, they'll request a traffic study. It also can come out in a pre-application. So before an applicant submits for their development, they have a pre-application with us. During that pre-application period, county engineering may request a traffic study at that time, which gives them an opportunity to do that before they apply. So this is just really a cleanup on this. I will note that the Mainland Planning Commission did have a change to this. They did want to leave level one traffic study in here. It's basically like a trip generation memo is basically what it is. And they wanted to leave that reference in here and then have language that would state if the trip generation memo required additional study, then the county could require additional study. So that was what they put in there. And I'm sorry, I'm going to go back to the site coverage real quick because the Islands Planning Commission did have a change I did not mention. So in the Island Planning Commission's recommendation regarding site coverage, they did want to count artificial turf and gravel as 50% of the square footage towards site coverage. So basically if you had gravel or artificial turf on your property, 50% of that, only 50% of that could count towards your site coverage and you kind of get a pass on the other 50%. And then they also wanted to exempt accessibility and emergency resilient equipment like generators and handicap lifts from, or handicap ramps from the site coverage calculations. So anything that was used for an emergency purpose they wanted to exclude from site coverage calculations. Were there any questions on the traffic impact study? And this is just what the language says now in the code, just for your reference. And then this last one is regarding development plan approval. So what we, in the prior code, we called site plan approval. It's the approval process that takes a project to the one of the planning commissions. And it's multifamily or commercial development is what goes through that site plan process. The terminology changed from site plan to development plan in this new code. And what this amendment does is it will exempt additions or new accessory buildings to an existing commercial site from having to go through the development and planning process. So if you've got an existing commercial site and you want to expand your building, your business is growing, or you want to add an accessory building onto the property, because it's an already existing commercial site, then you do not have to do development plan approval process. So you can go straight to applying for your commercial building permit, and you do not have to go through a planning commission for a review. So that is what this amendment is, and neither of the planning commissions had any changes to this one.

Ms. Lee. Yes, sir. Could I ask a question? But this would be, it could be a case where it's multifamily and then someone's doing commercial. Also?

So this does not include any kind of mixed use. So it really is only commercial, like a purely commercial site. That's a good question. OK. And that is the end of that overview. And then I already kind of went through what the two planning commissions had and their recommendations to you all. And then as the chairman said, this is a first reading. This is a public hearing tonight, but you will not take a vote. But we have noticed another public hearing on September 17, which would be the second reading. And the board could take a vote that evening. Thank you.

All right. Commissioners, any questions, comments before we open the public hearing? So this is the public hearing, the first public hearing for the zoning ordinance text amendments. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to these four proposed tweaks to our text? Anyone to speak in opposition? All right. Oh, here we come. If you'll come forward, state your name for the record, please, and you'll have five minutes.

Hello. It's nice to see you all again. Thank you for the opportunity to comment tonight. My name is Kat Montgomery. I'm a St. Simons resident and also a representative for Coastal Conservation Organization 100 Miles, dedicated to protecting Georgia's 100-mile coast through advocacy, education, and community engagement. I appreciate that y'all are going to host multiple chances for the public to comment on these changes. And I'm very curious to hear your discussions tonight, as the planning board discussions seemed mostly concerned with creating more relaxed rules for development. Neither board seriously discussed the impacts of stormwater runoff to our shared resources. I'd like to know if any stormwater management experts have been consulted when considering removing the site coverage limits. Managing stormwater is not only about mitigating flooding and controlling drainage, but it's really about maintaining water quality. Limiting the amount of impervious surface reduces the amount of sediment and chemicals in stormwater runoff that pollute the water we drink, the water that we swim in, and the water our local seafood comes from. Georgia EPD, the State Environmental Protection Division, created the Coastal Stormwater Supplement, the CSS, which outlines the special care that coastal counties like ours should take when it comes to stormwater runoff. The CSS provides comprehensive guidance for stormwater management to protect the coast and its people from the negative impacts of land development and non-point source pollution. We ask that you defer the elimination of site coverage maximums to mainland Glynn County until an adequate solution to address stormwater management concerns is created and codified for all residential and commercial properties. Implementing site coverage limits is just one way that you can manage stormwater. You could take suggestions from the Coastal Stormwater Supplement Plan, of which there are many. It's a long document, y'all, like 500 pages. And it includes a model ordinance that you could adopt into the Glynn County codes. You could reinstate the 25% open space requirement under the St. Simon Street Ordinance and expand it to include all of Glynn County. You could adopt a flexible approach to the impervious surface limits, such as exempting the accessibility and emergency equipment from site coverage calculations, as the Island Planning Commission recommended. 100 Miles will submit more detailed comments on the proposed site coverage change, and we are happy to connect you with resources on coastal stormwater management so you can make an informed decision. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. Anyone else to speak? Speak in opposition. Please come forward, state your name for the record, and you'll have five minutes.

Good evening. I'm Maggie Van Campfort, Coastkeeper for Altamaha Riverkeeper Organization, a local nonprofit environmental advocacy organization. And I appreciate all Kat's comments that save some of the time for my comments. So ditto on what she just said about stormwater management. And if I can, can I hand you this to pass down the line?

There.

This is a photo. This was just coincidental that I was out in the rainstorm on Friday and got these two buckets of water. One of these is the Altamaha River, where it's flowing off of a floating dock. And the other one is where all the rain is coming off a parking lot down the boat ramp into the river. Which one do you think is which? This is why stormwater management matters. This is why green space and buffers that are vegetated to stop that rainwater, slow it down and stop all this debris, oil, gas, anything that could be running off of those impervious surfaces matters to our waters. Glynn County did a good thing in adding the 15-foot buffer and site limits to the zoning package when you approved those a few months ago. I really don't understand the reason for this reversal now. I would love to hear an explanation of why those are being proposed to take those away. A 15-foot buffer is very minimal, but it's better than none. And I recall commenting on this during the zoning hearings previously about asking for an even larger buffer. And I believe Ms. Leaf's explanation of why this was being added was it was to fill gaps where there's no buffer at times, and that the county had noticed that it was necessary to keep those buffers from becoming paved or other impervious surfaces. And the site coverage limits, because my search through the zoning ordinances, I couldn't find any other impervious surface limits. So the way I understand it is if you Do this amendment to take out your site coverage. That means any property owner could pave 100% of their property aside from the state-mandated buffers. Do you really want to pave paradise? Put up a parking lot? That's going to increase the heat that we're experiencing. This has been a miserably hot summer. Heat's only going to get worse the less green that we have covering the earth, the less tree canopy we have. And flooding is going to get worse. So I really encourage you to keep the minimum 15-foot buffer to fill those gaps when the state buffers don't apply. It would be great if you even made it larger to match the minimum 25-foot state buffer, but at least keep the 15 and hold off on removing entirely the site coverage limits until you can look at it and figure out if you need to add some impervious surface limits to an amendment. Or I don't understand if there's a problem with the site coverage language that's making it difficult to enforce, something like that. But not to just take it away entirely, unless I'm wrong in that there is something that would prevent people from paving 100% of their property. So thank you for considering our input on this. I am unavailable to attend the second public hearing, so my absence at that meeting doesn't mean my comments have changed. So I hope you'll treat the comments tonight equally as the ones that are received at the next meeting. Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you. All right, anyone else to speak in opposition? All right, seeing none, hearing none, we'll close that portion. Anyone who wishes to speak in favor, please come forward. State your name for the record, please. All right, seeing none, hearing none, we'll close the public hearing. This is the first reading, and we will consider it again at our next meeting. No vote will be taken on this matter this evening. Our next item on our agenda tonight is an appeal, and it's a public hearing for this appeal. After receiving a verbal report from county staff regarding the appeal, both persons favoring and persons opposing the relief sought by the appeal shall have the opportunity to address the Board of Commissioners. The persons favoring the relief sought by the appeal shall be invited to speak first. followed by persons opposed to the relief sought by the appeal. Each side shall have a total of 30 minutes total to address the Board of Commissioners. Upon request made to and approved by the Board of Commissioners prior to speaking, any individual may speak for up to 15 minutes. All other speakers shall be limited to no more than five minutes unless permitted additional time by the Board of Commissioners. Any allowance of additional time shall not extend the overall 30-minute time limit per side unless more time is granted by the Board of Commissioners to permit a more complete discussion of the issue. Any rebuttal shall be allowed only within the overall time constraints set out herein. So that brings us to item number 14, appeal the Board of Appeals decision on ZV-26-15, 732 Ocean Boulevard, St. Simons Island. Ms. Carroll.

Good afternoon. Niecy Carroll, Glynn County Planning and Zoning. This is an appeal of the Board of Appeals decision on ZV-26-15, 4732 Ocean Boulevard, SSI. Just a quick note, the first variances are governed by the previous zoning ordinance, and this current variance is governed by the new ordinance, which became effective July 1 of 2026. Just a brief overview, the original home was built in 1924, which made it an existing legal nonconforming structure, more specifically the front porch, which faces 9th Street. On November 13, 2025, the Board of Appeals approved ZV2541 with the vote 4-0, with Chair Woodman being absent, to bring an existing nonconforming structure into compliance, the front and right side setbacks. At that time, the homeowners proposed modifications to the existing kitchen in addition of one bedroom and one bath. While the Board approved the request, site coverage concerns remained unresolved. which is the second variance. To maintain a streamlined and timely process with the contractor, staff did allow revisions to the original plans to keep the process moving forward until the Board of Appeals took action on the second variance. Prior to the February 12, 2026 meeting, a site visit revealed significant project changes beyond what was publicly noticed. As a result, the prior variance approval, ZB 2541, the first one, was called into question, and newly submitted materials require additional staff review. At that same meeting, the Board of Appeals voted to defer the second variance to an undetermined date. Following the meeting, staff conducted a comprehensive review of the newly submitted materials and determined that the previously approved variance remained in compliance, which brought the existing non-conforming structure into compliance, specifically addressing encroachments on the front and right side setbacks. At the March 24, 2026 special call meeting, the BOA did approve the second variance with conditions. And just to note, it was if the existing walls fronting Ocean Boulevard and 9th Street are demolished, then the variance granted under ZB 2541 and ZB 2549 shall be deemed null and void. and any structure on the property must comply fully with all current zoning and building standards as new construction. On May 14, 2026, staff determined at a site visit that the structure had been substantially altered from its original approved design and deviated from the BOA's action, which made the first two variances null and void in accordance with the BOA's action. The applicant builder did not consult with staff prior to making decisions to deviate from the approved variance, and reconstructed walls differ in size from those previously approved and do not incorporate any structural elements from the original residence. Therefore, the building inspections department did issue a stop worker order on the property. The applicant's specific request tonight is to reduce the front and right yard setbacks. This is the location map. This is the survey. This is the survey zoomed in. This was the location for the first variants. This was what was left at the second variants. This is the current site. These are letters, we received letters of support from the citizens. After conducting the public hearing for case ZB2625 on August 13th, the BOA renders its decision on the variance requested by Lee Swofford, an applicant and agent, and homeowners. The BOA denied the applicant's request with a vote for one. Voting A on the motion, Eddie Wildsmith, Richard Edgy, Michael Munitelli, and Cliff Whitman. Voting nay was AJ Berry. These are your possible actions. And these are your possible motions.

All right. That's it for staff. All right. Commissioners, any questions, comments before we open the public hearing on this appeal? All right. As stated in our ordinance, anyone who wishes to speak in favor of granting this appeal of the Board of Appeals, please come forward. State your name for the record.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Shannon Scherer. And my husband and I own the 1924 cottage at 732 Ocean Boulevard. First, I sincerely appreciate the time and attention.

Excuse me. Could I get you to speak into the mic a little more?

Is this better? Okay, yes. I sincerely appreciate the time and attention you have given this matter. When we began restoring this little cottage, we never imagined that we would end up standing here. What started as a renovation became a much more extensive restoration simply because of what was uncovered. But the simplest and most important fact remains that the walls in question are in the same place that they have been since 1924. We didn't move them an inch. We did not expand the existing non-conforming footprint. We repaired and restored those walls in the same place where they have stood for more than a century. Our goal all along has simply been to save this little 1924 St. Simons Beach Cottage. And throughout this process, our community has shown up for us in a way that we never expected. As of tonight, we have 545 people who have signed a petition supporting our effort to save and restore this cottage. Many others have taken the time to write to you directly, and we are incredibly grateful. If it's acceptable for you tonight, I would like to ask for those that are in support of this to please stand up. Is that acceptable?

It is.

Thank you. So we just humbly ask for you to provide us a path forward to finish what we started, to restore this little house and keep its nonconforming walls where they have stood since 1924. And I thank you for your consideration. All right.

Thank you.

Anyone else who wishes to speak in favor? Please come forward. State your name for the record. I think we saw the show of support. Anyone else to come forward and speak in favor? All right. We'll close that portion of the hearing. Anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to ZV-26-15732 Ocean Boulevard, please come forward. State your name for the record. Anyone who wishes to speak against me? All right. Seeing none, hearing none, we'll close the public hearing. And, commissioners, we are back to you. Chairman, I'd like to move to reverse the denial of case number ZV26-15 by the Board of Appeals.

Second. All right.

I have a motion by Commissioner Duncan and a second I think was simultaneous from Commissioner Toxteson and Clark. Any other discussion? All in favor of reversing the decision by the Board of Appeals as presented, please raise your right hand. That is unanimous. Thank you. All right. And that does conclude our regular schedule for this evening, with the exception of our public speaker, Ms. Diane Waldron. It's coming forward, and you will have five minutes.

Good evening, commissioners.

You're going to need to pull the mic right to your mouth, please.

How's that? Much better.

Thank you.

This is all I have to say, so this will be quick. I just want to give you a heads up about something. I live at 115 Enclave Lane in the neighborhood of Sea Palms West. On the night of September 15th, the IPC will hear a request for rezoning of the property of 445 and 5447 Frederica Road on St. Simons Island. It's owned by a company called Reaf, R-R-E-A-F, who owns the Sea Palms Resort. You probably are thinking, why is she bringing this up now? The reason I am preemptively addressing this is because I attended the meeting, the IPC meeting on July 23rd, and we all remember what happened that night. And that was in regard to the rezoning request for 104 General Oglethorpe Road. This new meeting for this new piece of property that is requesting a rezone, I intend to attend that meeting and speak at that meeting as well. The company that owns Sea Palms Resort Reef Their goal is to lease that property and have it developed into an extensive entertainment venue, which would be adjacent to multiple neighborhoods. If the IPC votes to approve this application, it will be moved forward to you for your consideration. I want you to know that I support the new ordinances, which you all worked very hard. And the planning and zoning people worked very hard for our new ordinances. And the ones for zoning and rezoning, that's a good thing. It gives us a map to follow. Anyhow, so I want to thank you for all you do for the county because I know you have a hard job. And should this end up before you, I hope ordinances will be followed. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Ms. Waller.

You're welcome.

All right. Mr. Attorney, any call for executive session? Gentlemen, with that, I entertain a motion.

Mr. Chairman, motion to adjourn. Second.

I have a motion by Commissioner Hrafalski, a second by Commissioner Sweat and Tosteson. Any other discussion? All in favor, please raise your right hand. All right, we are adjourned. Thank you for coming.