Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Roads Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oconee County committee directs planning review of road widths, parking and setback rules after resident complaints
Summary
Committee members asked staff to send concerns about narrow streets, driveway limits, right-of-way setbacks and related development ordinances to the planning commission for prioritized review after residents raised safety and access concerns in newly built subdivisions.
Oconee County committee members voted to forward concerns about road width, parking and driveway limitations in new developments to the planning commission for review and prioritization.
The motion followed multiple comments from committee members and residents about narrow streets, short driveways and the difficulty of on-street parking in new subdivisions such as Garrison Farms, which is annexed into the city of Seneca. "0 to 400 ADT ... is gonna be a 20 foot wide road," said Kyle Reed of Oconee County Roads and Bridges, explaining the county—s standard for average daily traffic thresholds and minimum road width. "So 20 foot wide, is fire code. So 2 fire trucks supposed to be able to pass."
Committee members said they had received complaints that houses in recent subdivisions have short driveways and narrow spacing between houses, leaving visitors and service vehicles to park in streets. One member raised a safety concern: if an ambulance or fire truck needed access, narrow streets could impede response.
Members also discussed a county rule that limits addresses on a single driveway and questioned whether the existing front-yard setback and right-of-way rules are too restrictive for property owners. A committee member said the county generally requires 25-foot setbacks from the right-of-way (and noted the South Carolina Department of Transportation typically uses 33 feet for secondary roads), explaining setbacks can preserve sight lines and allow room for future road or utility expansion.
County staff and members recommended a coordinated review because conflicting language across ordinances (chapters 32 and 38 were specifically referenced) creates confusion for developers, surveyors and residents. "That would be a great place for us to start to start marrying road language and parcel plat language because you're not the only person that has identified that conflict," a county staff member said.
The motion directs staff to compile the issues (road widths, parking, driveway/address limits, setbacks and private road standards), send them to the planning commission, and ask planning to prioritize revisions to related ordinances and resolve conflicting language. The committee moved the item and seconded the motion during the meeting; the public record shows the committee agreed to send the matter to the planning commission for review.
Next steps: staff will coordinate with the planning department to place the item on the planning commission—s agenda for study and possible ordinance amendments.
