OCONEE COUNTY, S.C. — The Oconee County Planning Commission on Monday directed staff to prepare revisions to the county's scenic-highway ordinance that would add a formal notice program and clarify which contiguous property owners must sign petitions seeking designation.

The commission took the action after public comment and a lengthy discussion about whether the county's scenic-highway process is effectively a zoning action and how much weight to give directly affected landowners. Planning commissioners instructed county staff to prepare redlined ordinance language that (1) adds a notice requirement for affected property owners, (2) removes an unclear sentence that would bar noncontiguous parcels from inclusion, and (3) rewrites the clause that currently requires "all persons owning a legal interest" to instead require signatures from owners of contiguous properties adjacent to a proposed corridor.

The matter returned to the commission after a 2024 application revealed what members called shortcomings in Section 26 of the county code. "In 2024, the planning commission reviewed an application for 1 of our roads to be provided as a scenic, highway designation," a commission member said during the meeting, noting the ordinance did not require applicants to identify or reach out to property owners who would be directly affected.

Residents who spoke urged the commission to tighten the process. "We feel like we're doing our part to maintain the beauty of that road for the benefit of all the citizens of Oconee County," said Mark Torres, a resident of East Shore Subdivision, describing volunteer litter cleanup the neighborhood conducted after a hurricane. Tom Markovich, another resident, said he viewed the designation as having "the same effect as zoning a piece of property" because it can restrict signs and similar uses.

Commissioners debated thresholds for approval. Some advocated for a 100% signatory requirement for adjacent property owners; others said that standard could be impractical and proposed alternatives such as a supermajority (for example, 75' or 80') or options tied to linear frontage or acreage. County staff and legal counsel said they would draft language and provide a menu of options for the commission to consider, including the 100% threshold as one explicit alternative.

The commission also discussed whether restrictions commonly associated with scenic-highway designation (billboard and junkyard limits) should remain in the scenic-highway ordinance or be enforced through separate billboard and junkyard ordinances. Staff noted cross-references already exist: the junkyard and billboard rules currently include distance limits tied to scenic-highway designations, and adapting those rules may require coordinated edits to multiple chapters (staff cited Chapter 32 in relation to commercial junkyards).

Motion and vote: Planning Commission member Nicks moved that staff prepare revisions that 1) add a public-notification provision, 2) strike the second sentence in paragraph (a) that reads "No parcel may be included within the scenic highway petition that is not contiguous to at least 1 other parcel that is included in the Scenic Highway petition," and 3) rewrite item (c) to require signatures from owners of contiguous properties adjacent to a proposed scenic corridor. The motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. The meeting record shows an affirmative voice vote; exact roll-call counts were not specified.

What happens next: Staff said it will bring back a redlined ordinance reflecting the commission's direction and will include alternative threshold options (including a 100% owner signature option and lower thresholds tied to linear frontage or acreage) and notice procedures. The commission asked staff to identify practical notice steps (mailing, corridor signs and posting) and to flag legal issues such as defining "legal interest" and handling partial or undivided interests.

Why it matters: Scenic-highway designation can limit uses such as billboards and junkyards and affect property rights adjacent to road rights of way. Commissioners said clearer rules are needed so applicants and affected landowners understand expectations and legal implications before a petition is filed.

Ending: The commission's requested edits are intended to give the public clearer notice and to reduce disputes about who must sign or be notified before a scenic-highway designation advances to county council for potential adoption.