Council denies rezoning request for 3.28-acre Pritchardville lot after neighbors cite wetlands, neighborhood impacts

Beaufort County Council denied a request to rezone a 3.28-acre parcel in Pritchardville that the owners sought to reclassify to permit animal production.

County staff said the parcel is currently zoned T3 Edge, a primarily residential district that allows crop raising but not animal production, and that enforcement action followed when animals were being raised there. The owners applied to rezone to May River CP, a district that allows animal raising, and sought the change to correct the zoning violation, planning staff said. The planning commission and the Natural Resources Committee both recommended denial before the item came to full council.

At the council meeting, resident Carol Crutchfield testified during public comment that maps in her packet showed the parcel adjacent to designated wetlands and within the headwaters that drain into Stony Creek and the May River, which she said has experienced elevated fecal coliform levels. Crutchfield told council the application was made to “rectify a zoning violation for T3 Edge, which does not allow for animal production,” and noted neighbors were not notified of some pre-council meetings. Other public commenters expressed concern about neighborhood integrity and groundwater/runoff impacts.

Council debate cited compatibility with surrounding uses and potential environmental and public-facility impacts. Councilman Lawson, whose district includes the parcel, said he grew up on a farm and sympathized with the owners but could not support a zoning change so close to the Verdier View neighborhood. Councilman Glover said South Carolina law protects the right to farm but raised concerns about the number of animals on the site and advised the owners to seek technical guidance on appropriate stocking levels.

Councilman Cunningham moved to deny the rezoning request, saying the application was “not consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive code,” would not “address a demonstrated community need,” and could “result in adverse impact on the natural environment, including water, air, storm water.” The motion to deny was seconded and passed by voice/show of hands; the transcript records the council vote in favor without a roll-call tally.

Staff noted the owners were present and that, if a rezoning were ever approved, staff would have recommended buffers and additional standards to mitigate impacts. The council did not adopt any additional standards or conditions as part of tonight’s action; the motion recorded only denial of the rezoning application.

The Council recorded the property size in discussion as 3.28 acres and confirmed that a citation had been issued by code enforcement leading to the application process.