Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owner Seeks Rezoning of 3‑Acre Highway 1645 Parcel; County Staff and Planning Commission Recommend Denial
Summary
County planning staff and the planning commission recommended disapproval of a rezoning request to change a 3‑acre parcel along Highway 165 from AG10 to AGR; applicant and multiple neighbors spoke in support and the county received 25 public comments backing the request before the hearing.
Charleston County planning staff and the planning commission recommended denial of a rezoning request to change a 3.0‑acre parcel along Highway 165 (original parent parcel TMS 1790000113) from the Ag 10 zoning district to AGR, county staff said at a public hearing. The property owner requested the change to permit a residential subdivision that would allow one additional home on the divided lot.
The recommendation against rezoning rested on the county’s comprehensive plan and the Zoning and Land Development Regulations (ZLDR), staff said. Staff identified the parcel’s future land‑use designation as agricultural preservation and cited ZLDR provisions that place parcels existing prior to April 21, 1999 and smaller than 30 acres into settlement areas—criteria staff said the subject parcel does not meet. Staff also said the AGR district would permit higher residential density than the agricultural preservation designation allows.
Planning staff said no prior zoning map amendment requests had been submitted for the subject parcel; they noted the recorded plat for the larger parent parcel states density has been met for the adjacent TMS 1790000112 and that no further subdivisions are allowed after that plat is recorded. Staff told council that two approval criteria were not met and that criteria c and d were not applicable; as a result, staff and the planning commission recommended disapproval. Prior to the planning commission meeting on Aug. 11, no public comments had been received; at that meeting the applicant and the owner spoke in support. For the county council hearing, staff reported receipt of 25 comments in support.
The applicant and supporters told council the requested change is modest and intended to allow a single additional house. "We are requesting this modest change in zoning to allow for a single additional home," property owner Richard Bell told council, adding the house would be tucked into the woods and not used for commercial activity. Supporters included Herbert West and Victor Ayala, who the applicant said previously owned or now own portions of the adjacent tracts and submitted letters of support.
A nearby resident and former BZA member, Anthony G. Bryant, spoke at the hearing but focused his remarks on broader concerns about planning policy and growth definitions rather than parcel specifics. Amy Chico, another speaker, described the application as a single‑house subdivision rather than a larger development and urged council to consider the local pattern of AGR zoning around the parcel.
No formal council vote on the rezoning appears in the transcript excerpted for this hearing; the matter remained a public hearing item with opposing recommendations and public support documented.
Why it matters: The request pits parcel‑level property rights and neighborhood support against staff findings that the rezoning would be inconsistent with the county comprehensive plan and the ZLDR’s settlement‑area standards. Any future council action would change the permitted density and potentially affect how the adjacent parent parcel’s recorded density limitations are interpreted.
