Edgefield County council approves new Rural Agricultural zoning district on second reading

Edgefield County Council gave unanimous second reading to Ordinance 24‑25‑0005 on March 4, 2025, creating a new Rural Agricultural (RA) zoning district intended to protect farmland and rural character while setting local rules on lot size, setbacks and buffer yards.

Supporters and county staff said the ordinance is intended to preserve agricultural uses, reduce land‑use conflicts and align local zoning text with the county’s recently updated comprehensive plan. David Hayer, who identified himself as a member of the county planning commission, told the council he was “real pleased” to support the district and read the ordinance’s stated purpose: to “protect, conserve, and encourage the retention of suitable areas for common farm and agricultural practices,” preserve open space and “prevent or minimize conflicts between common farm practices and nonfarm usage.”

During the public hearing and follow‑up discussion, a resident identified as Brad raised questions about how the RA district differs from the county’s existing Residential Development (RD) and Rural Residential (RR) classifications and which commercial uses would be allowed. County staff (referred to in the meeting as “Doc”) explained that RD is a strictly residential district and that RA is a new, separate district whose text — not the map — was before the council on second reading. The staff member said the RA district will cover largely unzoned territory (primarily in District 2) and that the map changes will be published and considered in a subsequent set of hearings and readings.

Staff clarified the ordinance’s use table affects primary uses; secondary or accessory uses (for example, a convenience store that also sells beer) are treated differently from an establishment whose primary use is alcohol sales. The administrator and staff said the county will regulate lot sizes, setbacks and buffer yards under the RA rules, but that environmental matters such as pesticide application, endangered species, stormwater and toxic spills remain under state authority (the South Carolina Department of Environment). As the staff member put it, “State law always trumps local law,” and the county can only require buffers and setbacks for local land‑use conflicts.

The ordinance as presented also adds two conditional uses specific to the RA district, including a conditional use for pet care that would not apply countywide. After brief council discussion, Councilman Moody moved to give second reading to Ordinance 24‑25‑0005; Councilman Talbert seconded. The motion passed unanimously by voice/hand vote.

The ordinance text change was described by staff as non‑substantive from the draft previously provided; a forthcoming map amendment will show where the RA district will apply. The council did not adopt any immediate enforcement changes for state‑regulated environmental activities; staff told the council those matters remain under state jurisdiction.

The council action advances the text amendment; a separate process for map amendments and any rezoning notices will follow before parcels are officially remapped to RA.