Effingham County planning staff described a broad rewrite of residential zoning standards at the Aug. 14 work session, proposing tighter design standards, new open‑space requirements and clearer rules for accessory dwelling units and small‑lot product types.

The revisions aim to steer higher‑density development toward more planned, amenity‑rich neighborhoods while preserving character in lower‑density areas, staff said.

What planners proposed
- Minimum lot sizes and tiers: R‑1 minimum raised to one‑half acre (the draft removes an earlier quarter‑acre option tied to public utilities); R‑5 minimum lot area recommended at 6,000 square feet (steering committee recommendation). R‑1A (manufactured homes on foundations) adjusted to match the half‑acre lot standard.
- Open space: R‑5 would require 25% net usable open space (up from a prior 15% standard); R‑1 remains at 10%. Staff provided a sample calculation demonstrating how wetlands, required buffers and inaccessible uplands are subtracted from gross acreage to determine the net developable area used to compute required open space.
- Sidewalks, street trees and right‑of‑way: R‑1 design standards now include optional sidewalk requirements with payment‑in‑lieu where appropriate; steering committee raised concerns about typical 4‑foot tree‑lawn widths and urged consideration of a wider planting strip for meaningful street trees (committee proposed looking at a 5‑foot or larger planting strip on certain street sections).
- Garage and facade standards: If a garage door occupies a substantial portion of a home’s front facade (staff cited a 40% threshold), draft rules would require architectural treatment such as carriage‑style doors, windows or an ‘‘eyebrow’’ overhang. Staff and builders discussed tradeoffs between garage setbacks and livability: moving garages back can improve street presence but may complicate floor plans on narrow lots.
- ADUs and accessory structures: The county’s recently adopted accessory dwelling unit rules remain in force; ADU living area was noted in the draft as not to exceed 75% of the primary dwelling’s living space.
- Mixed product allowance in R‑5: Staff proposed permitting up to 35% of units in an R‑5 development to be built to R‑2 standards (townhouses or narrow, detached “cottage” units) to allow product variety within a single development. The steering committee sought limits and early disclosure so buyers know whether phases may become build‑to‑rent later.

Why planners proposed changes
Planning staff and the steering committee said the goal is to “balance” density and design: allow smaller lot products where sewer is available (R‑5) but demand stronger design, common open space and maintenance mechanisms (homeowners association) so neighborhoods are walkable and visually consistent.

Points of debate and clarification
- Lot width, frontage and health‑department limits: The group discussed conflicts between county minimum lot widths and health‑department (septic) guidance. Staff noted that septic‑served lots often require wider setbacks or 150‑foot minimum widths to meet EPD/health rules and that the code should align with those technical constraints.
- Sidewalks and street design: Developers and a landscape architect on the steering committee debated the right placement of street trees (between curb and sidewalk for canopy effect versus in a wider tree lawn to avoid conflicts with utilities), and whether curb‑and‑gutter should be mandatory for new subdivisions.
- Open space and amenity credits: Developers argued the 25% open‑space requirement is aggressive and could be difficult to meet once wetlands and buffers are excluded; staff said the policy deposit and a credit system (extra credit for trails or built amenities) can incentivize desirable on‑site features.

Quotes
"If you're going to have larger lots, acre lots, then we don't apply the sidewalk requirements just simply because it's onerous for less dense, more rural neighborhood design," Chelsea (staff) said discussing R‑1 design choices.
"When you start talking about the lot width, that's what drives the cost," said Anthony Rocco, a local homebuilder, urging flexibility in lot widths and setbacks to keep product affordable.

Next steps and context
Staff said R‑1 could be finalized first and that R‑5 will require more time and graphics from the consultant; the commissioners discussed whether to allow a short extension to complete R‑5 work rather than rush final adoption. The package of zoning changes is part of a larger rewrite that also includes subdivision and open‑space ordinances. No formal votes were taken at the workshop.

Ending
Commissioners and stakeholder representatives asked staff to refine standards for street trees, garage‑setback/porch treatments and a clear public‑amenity credit system for open space before finalizing R‑5.