Thanks again to the community for the feedback on the zones and concepts shared in the open houses. We are very appreciative of your time as we have tried to work the process in a transparent and deliberate step-by-step manner over the past year. Presented below: 1) a summary of how we got here, 2) where we are in the process and next steps, and 3) the feedback from the open houses.
How We Got Here
The leaders of the Town, SIPOA, and SIC decided that working together (rather than in silos) to develop an aligned long-term plan of how to best leverage the Island’s facilities, assets, and services, would be the most efficient way to meet the current and future needs of Seabrook Island. The last broad island-wide plan was developed in 2005, and there has been significant change since that timeframe. This has resulted in a 12-month methodology that leveraged our recent studies, industry experts, community survey data, in-depth focus groups, and now feedback to the initial projects/ideas from the open houses.
Where are We in the Process & Next Steps
The feedback is currently being reviewed in detail by Kuo Diedrich Chi (KDC), the Master Plan project team, and the leadership groups of all three entities. (This post covers several key primary themes; however, each of the nearly 200 individual submissions – containing over 1,000 specific comments – are currently being reviewed by KDC and the project teams.)
The Master Plan will be updated, taking the feedback into consideration in terms of revising the zones, concepts, and next steps. In addition, the long-range planning committees are working on additional details on several of the smaller Phase 0 and Phase 1 concepts in terms of design and estimating. A final Master Plan document will be available by the end of August. This will be our roadmap going forward that will be reviewed on a regular basis and used to help align other related projects.
Feedback
Although there were areas of concern, the feedback was generally positive and supportive of the approach of the three entities working together on an aligned, longer-term strategy. The concerns were largely related to the three general feedback themes provided below. The summary below is a collection of several primary themes that were reflected in the feedback on the specific projects and ideas.
General Feedback Themes
Vision & Prioritization: Be careful not to turn Seabrook into a Kiawah-type resort.
- This feedback is a good reminder to keep focused on our guiding principles, which are provided in FAQ #21.
Financial Transparency: There is a need for more detailed cost information.
- Full agreement with this feedback and there will be more detailed cost information based on the timing of potential projects.
- As a reminder, the Master Plan is simply a long-term vision and strategy (road map) that will be reviewed/updated on a regular basis going forward, and does not formally “launch” any large projects. Rather, for those larger projects, the detailed financial plans (costing, funding) and approvals will occur on a project-by-project basis when (and if) that project moves into a potential execution phase in the future. (See FAQ #4).
Scope – Flooding & Resilience: The Master Plan should have an enhanced focus on issues such as beach erosion, water management, etc.
- These are mission-critical areas that are fundamental to the future of Seabrook. The Master Plan scope approach of having awareness of the existing projects/strategies in that are specifically addressing these issues — but not trying to duplicate them — is provided in FAQ #11. Going forward, there will be an effort to better highlight these areas/strategies in conjunction with the Master Plan.
Specific Feedback Themes
- Nature Gateway: Feedback was the Oyster Catcher owners-only pool is an important amenity, and building updates should be cost-effective and not over-done. There was also a desire to move at a quicker pace. Strong opposition to converting area to a nature-only arrangement.
- Lake House: Comments were mostly supportive of facility improvements (including strong support for pool heaters and locker room updates). Feedback highlighted room shortage for 10-20 and 50-100-person groups. Opinions were mixed on playground movement, addition of oyster roast area, and lake pier.
- North Campus: Overall, this was viewed as an opportunity area for the Island for the future, but opinions were mixed on timing and scope. Of all the different elements of the North Campus, the three that received the most comments were: 1) the barn design receiving negative feedback (does not seem to fit); 2) questions on the need for a gaming center, and 3) mostly positive feedback on a marsh-view restaurant concept (but ensuring that there is a solid business case and a plan to handle staffing issues).
- South Campus:
Beach Club Area: General store received generally positive feedback. Pelican’s Nest capacity and availability was a highlighted issue (with most people understanding that there are regulatory restrictions/challenges due to the shoreline proximity).
Island House Area: Support for sports bar concept replacing pro shop. Positive feedback for overall updates (but some question on timing). Push to move the Pro Shop closer to the Crooked Oaks putting green. Mixed views on a new Golf Academy: enthusiasts want it; others have concerns on costs and impact on the driving range.
- Gardens: Community garden plots adequate as-is (no waiting list) but support for improving appearance and functionality of area. There was general agreement that the space behind the gardens could be repurposed and used more efficiently.
- Racquet & Equestrian: Support for Bocce court addition (but suggestion to have it at the Lake House) and other improvements. There were mixed opinions on the equestrian discovery center.
- Nature, Trails & Beach Access: Support modest kayak launch/storage with good tidal access. ADA upgrade for Boardwalk #9 was supported while there was less enthusiasm for Boardwalk #8 changes (since it was recently updated).
- Parking: Island-wide pain point at beach accesses, Island House and Racquet Club that needs more attention (although it was recognized that there are land limitations).
-Submitted by Seabrook Island Master Plan Committee