Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code‑assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants present code assessment recommending unified development ordinance and hybrid zoning approach
Summary
Clarion Associates presented an assessment that recommends consolidating Lexington County’s zoning, subdivision and landscape/open‑space rules into a unified development ordinance, adopting a hybrid zoning structure aligned to the county’s Future Land Use and Character Map, and modernizing development standards and procedures.
Consultants Clarion Associates presented a code assessment to the Lexington County planning committee and recommended a multi‑phase rewrite of the county's development regulations to implement the comprehensive plan.
Clarion senior advisor Craig Richardson and project director Leanne King told the committee the assessment’s central recommendations are to (1) consolidate zoning, subdivision and landscape/open‑space regulations into a single unified development ordinance, (2) move from a dominant performance‑based zoning framework to a hybrid approach that combines performance, Euclidean and form‑based elements aligned to the county’s Future Land Use and Character Map, and (3) modernize development standards and procedures with clearer graphics, tables and standardized review steps.
The consultants said the county’s current performance zoning places most unincorporated lands into two broad districts, which can allow a wide range of uses with impacts controlled largely by a road‑classification system and buffers. Clarion recommended a restructured district set tied to the comprehensive plan’s character map (for example: Rural/Agriculture, Residential Estate, Complete Neighborhoods, Community and Regional Commercial, Employment Focus) and a clearer approach to density limits, permitted uses and form standards for each district.
Clarion also recommended improved user friendliness through integrated graphics and two‑page district sheets, consistency by consolidating procedures (site plan review, administrative adjustments, formal interpretation procedure), and more measurable compatibility and buffering standards. The consultants advised adding an administrative adjustment procedure to permit minor numeric adjustments without a variance and codifying interpretation/appeal rules.
Council members asked how the proposed district structure would be applied to the existing county map. Clarion said some legacy districts could remain temporarily while staff and property owners pursue a phased remapping and that municipal coordination would be crucial where overlay districts abut town limits. Questions also focused on timing — Clarion estimated a multi‑year process if the county proceeds to a full rewrite: assessment (complete), code rewrite and a testing phase applying the draft to sample developments.
The committee did not vote on a rewrite at the meeting. Staff said that if council elects to proceed, the county will issue an RFP for the ordinance rewrite and follow a phased implementation plan that includes testing the draft against existing development cases.
Next steps: council to review the assessment document; staff to collect questions and to return with options and a procurement plan if council requests a formal code rewrite.
