Effingham commissioners pause Ebenezer historic-overlay effort after residents push back

Effingham County planning staff presented a draft Ebenezer Historic Overlay District at a Feb. 18 workshop and regular meeting, then heard hours of public comment and commissioner debate before agreeing to take the ordinance off the agenda for revision.

The draft ordinance included a mapped boundary around the roundabout and toward Ebenezer Creek, a 70-foot minimum buffer from the street right-of-way, a 26-foot maximum building height and a long list of prohibited uses that staff said came from resident input. "We had our charrette ... and then again, November 14 at Ebenezer Middle School," Planning Manager Chelsea Furnald told the board. "I thought those were very successful, and and definitely gave us a lot of really good information."

Furnald said staff also removed many of the draft architectural standards that originally appeared in the ordinance after strong resistance at the Ebenezer Middle School meeting. "We did take some information from the constituents there that they were very much against any type of subdivision or HOA type rules. And so in trying to, you know, take their input in as well, that is part of why I removed those standards," Furnald said.

Why it matters: the district would add an extra layer of controls on top of existing zoning for an identified corridor leading to a historic core, affecting what can be built and—critically—how property owners may petition the county for rezoning. Commissioners debated where the overlay properly belongs in the planning toolbox: as a set of design standards (architectural/gateway treatment) or as use restrictions (what land uses are allowed). Several commissioners said they support preserving a gateway to the historic area but do not want to preclude property owners’ right to petition the county for rezonings.

Public comments were divided. Roger Kitchen, who attended the charrette, told the board the overlay "does what the intent is, which is to preserve the historic nature of this corridor." Deborah Harrelson, who lives near Ebenezer, said she reviewed the draft and found it "pretty fair, considering what residents wanted." By contrast, Alice Hurst, who also spoke, said she was not opposed to an overlay in concept but opposed the way the draft was written: "I'm against the way that it is proposed. I feel like ... every bit of that was taken out," she said, referring to architectural standards that residents had expected to see. Jerry Graham, who also addressed the board, told commissioners many longtime property owners had built under existing expectations and were concerned about new restrictions.

Staff clarified several technical points during the discussion: the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) had confirmed that an overlay can limit uses within a zoning district but cannot eliminate a zoning district itself; the 70-foot buffer came from earlier retreat and public input and would apply in addition to some setback standards; and architectural standards removed after public pushback could be revisited if the board decides to pursue design guidance instead of use restrictions.

Outcome and next steps: After extended discussion, the board voted to remove the item from the agenda so staff could revise the ordinance and return with clearer language and — if the board wants it — more explicit architectural/design standards. The motion to remove carried unanimously.

What remains unresolved: whether an overlay should focus on design standards (gateway/architecture) or on land-use prohibitions; whether the buffer and some use exclusions are appropriate; and how any overlay would affect landowners’ ability to petition for rezoning. Staff said it will bring a revised draft back for further public workshops.