Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Campground topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richland County committee tables campground conditional-use request over missing plans, floodplain concerns
Summary
A proposed campground/ RV site plan was tabled after committee members and neighbors said the petitioner failed to provide detailed maps and floodplain information; staff noted a DATCP plan approval exists but does not address local floodplain review.
Richland County land use committee members voted to table a conditional-use petition for a proposed campground after members said the petitioner had not provided a site map showing parcel location, flood‑plain details or the full plan required for local review. The motion to table carried on a voice vote.
Committee members and a neighbor who sent a written list of questions told the committee they did not have enough information to proceed. A staff presenter said the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) had provided a plan approval for the layout, but that DATCP does not check local flood‑plain status and the county must confirm the sites are outside regulated flood plain or meet the campground flood‑plain ordinance.
The lack of a parcel‑level map and a clear indication of which sites fell inside the flood plain were central to the discussion. One resident who authored an emailed list of concerns told the committee she could not identify the exact parcel or site locations from the materials provided and said DATCP plan approvals typically include more detailed campsite maps. County staff confirmed the DATCP packet they received included a layout but did not tie that layout to parcel coordinates on the county tax map.
Committee members emphasized that the petitioner should appear in person or online with full documentation — including the DATCP plan map tied to county parcel references — before the committee takes action. The motion to table was made and seconded (second named as Elaine); a voice vote followed and the petition was tabled until the next meeting.
The committee also noted that DATCP does not review local flood‑plain compliance and that the county’s flood‑plain ordinance contains specific standards for campgrounds; county staff said those checks remain a local responsibility.
The committee asked staff to request the petitioner supply the DATCP plan that ties campsite layouts to parcel coordinates, confirm which sites (if any) fall in mapped flood plain, and either appear at the next meeting or provide an online appearance. The item will be returned when those materials are available.
