Council approves first reading of countywide accessory-structure rules, raises follow-up questions

York County Council approved first reading of a zoning text amendment Monday that replaces multiple accessory‑structure rules with a single countywide standard, increases some size allowances and clarifies where and how accessory buildings may be sited.

Planning staff presented the measure as an effort to simplify the code and remove particularly burdensome requirements in the Lake Wylie overlay. Under the proposed amendment, maximum accessory‑structure limits would be measured by building footprint rather than gross floor area and would allow up to 65% of the footprint (or 600 square feet, whichever is greater) for qualifying lots. Staff said the footprint metric is easier for applicants to draw and for staff to calculate.

The amendment also clarifies that residential accessory structures must be subordinate to the principal dwelling in dimensional aspects; it retains a 125% height limit for nonresidential accessory structures (measured relative to the principal structure); and it prohibits accessory structures from being built in recorded easements, rights‑of‑way or septic drainfields unless the recorded document expressly allows it.

Jonathan (planning staff) and another planner, Seth, described examples to illustrate the change. Buono used a lakefront example to show how the current Lake Wylie overlay sometimes forces homeowners to pursue variances to place small accessory buildings; under the countywide standard those placements would be allowed. Buono also gave a prefab‑metal workshop example to show how the new footprint standard can make such structures permissible where the current overlay prohibits them.

Councilmembers generally supported the goal of simplifying standards but asked staff to return with additional information before final adoption. Several councilmembers, including Councilman Litton, urged staff to consider adjustments that would accommodate lakefront and retirement community needs — for example, taller shop doors for RVs or boats — and to clarify the variance standard and how applicants may seek exceptions. Staff replied that larger requests would still require a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals, while administrative adjustments (if adopted) could provide limited additional latitude on top of the new maximums.

The Planning Commission recommended approval by a 7‑0 vote. Council approved first reading and instructed staff to provide additional background and analysis — including comparisons to alternative approaches such as a limit on total buildable area — before second reading.