Oconee commissioners review broad Unified Development Code text amendments, send to consent

Oconee County Board of Commissioners discussed a package of proposed text amendments to the county’s Unified Development Code (UDC) at its Jan. 28 meeting, and staff recommended placing the package on the consent agenda.

Planning staff presented 38 separate revisions that would update local rules to reflect recent state code changes, clarify permitting standards for fiber/broadband facilities, adjust standards for manufactured and modular homes, revise guest-house and farm-tenant dwelling rules, and add or amend nonresidential architectural, parking and landscape requirements.

“These evening, you have a group of text amendments that we've put together, for your consideration,” Dan said, outlining changes that span Articles 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 10–16 of the UDC. He described several of the larger changes: bringing replacement manufactured-home regulations into alignment with state law; establishing permitting and use standards for fiber/broadband transmission facilities (including a new definition and a 10,000-square-foot maximum for the enclosed facility); and updating references to the county’s comprehensive plan and state code definitions.

Why it matters: The amendments aim to align Oconee’s UDC with recent state statutory and building-code changes and to clarify standards that affect where and how residential and nonresidential development may occur. Changes such as allowing site-built or modular homes in the mobile-home zoning district, adding standards for parking-lot lighting, and limiting nonresidential coverage in agricultural zones could affect future development proposals and permit review.

Key points from staff’s list and commissioner questions

- Manufactured homes: Staff proposed revisions to allow replacement manufactured homes and to expand where single-family detached manufactured homes may locate, reflecting recent state preemption of some local rules.

- Fiber/broadband facilities: Staff said a fiber “hut” prompted new language to permit a fully enclosed facility (special use permit required in AG, AR and AR-3 zones) and to limit the footprint to 10,000 square feet.

- Guest-house, farm-tenant and tenant-dwelling rules: The guest-house access standard would apply only in major subdivisions. The draft would change the minimum farm-tenant dwelling size from a 1,500-square-foot minimum to a formula equal to 75% of the primary residence’s heated floor area. Staff also said a farm-tenant dwelling would need an associated conservation-use area and indicated a 10-acre threshold when that was discussed.

- Nonresidential standards and overlays: Revisions would clarify permitted uses in certain industrial and office zones (for example, allowing fine-art schools in B1/B2 zones), prohibit outdoor self-storage in the Marshall overlay while permitting indoor-access units where zoning allows, and set a 70% maximum lot coverage for nonresidential uses in agricultural zoning when allowed.

- Miscellaneous technical changes: The package also proposes updates to road-construction standards (curb and gutter, deceleration-lane pavement thickness), tree-spacing requirements, sign definitions (adding a mural sign consistent with a 2023 amendment), and administrative-role references.

Commissioner discussion and staff clarifications

Commissioners asked several clarifying questions. On pool safety, Commissioner Vincent asked whether automated pool covers would be required to be used when pools are not in active use; Dan responded that the county is proposing to follow the state building code allowance for automated pool covers in lieu of fences and that enforcement would follow that state standard. On the fiber hut item, a commissioner asked about screening; staff confirmed vegetative or fence screening standards would continue to apply. On farm-tenant dwellings, staff said they would require conservation-use status on the property to qualify as a farm-tenant dwelling and discussed a 10-acre threshold in that context.

Next steps and public comment

Staff asked whether the board would place the package on the consent agenda. The chair indicated citizens would not have a public-comment opportunity at the next meeting on consent items but said residents may contact commissioners and may request that an item be removed from consent for separate discussion at a later meeting. No formal final vote on the UDC amendments was recorded during the Jan. 28 meeting; staff recommended the amendments for consent consideration at a subsequent meeting.

The presentation covered numerous technical changes; staff said they would provide specific ordinance text and section references for formal consideration if the board moves the package off consent for debate.