Berkeley County planning commission defers waiver request for Edisto Drive subdivision

Berkeley County Planning Commission on Aug. 26 deferred a request by Legia Esperanza Guerrero Gallo to waive private-road paving requirements in section 59-45 of Berkeley County’s land development and subdivision regulations so the applicant could subdivide a 7.6-acre parcel along Edisto Drive to create an additional 1.84-acre lot.

The waiver would have exempted the applicant from paving roughly 1,285 linear feet of Edisto Drive from Highway 52 to the proposed new access point. Planning Department staff told the commission that Edisto Drive is a privately maintained, unpaved road serving about 21 existing lots; creating the additional lot would increase that total to 22 and trigger the county’s paving standard unless relief is granted.

Planning Department staff summarized the technical requirements in the county code, including documentation that a maintenance regime is in place, recorded covenants or hold-harmless language, a requirement that the access meet unpaved-road width and International Fire Code standards, and evidence that other property owners served by the access were notified. Staff said the county’s records do not show a maintenance agreement for Edisto or written notice to other property owners about the waiver request.

Applicant Alma Lacefield, who identified herself at the podium, said the intent was to subdivide the property so a daughter could occupy the new home and acknowledged she had not provided written agreements from neighbors. "She's wanting to just subdivide to add, you know, another home to the acres that she has already," Lacefield said. Lacefield told commissioners she believed neighbors who maintain the road were “okay with that,” but conceded she did not have written proof.

Several nearby residents objected. Benjamin Weeks, who said he lives at 339 Stetson Lane and that he has been maintaining the road with his own equipment and money, told the commission he was not notified of the subdivision application except for meeting signs posted on the driveway. "I was not notified of this other than the signs that were posted on the driveway," Weeks said. "Without some kind of 100% ironclad maintenance agreement... I am 100% against this." Tony Weeks, who said the property had been in his family and that he had previously been required to obtain approvals for family subdivisions, raised similar concerns about notification and long-term maintenance responsibilities.

Commissioners pressed for written evidence that property owners served by Edisto have been notified and that a road-maintenance agreement exists or will be recorded concurrently with any plat. Planning staff said the department can supply a maintenance-agreement template and that the commission may defer to allow the applicant to gather documentation. With the applicant’s consent, the commission voted to defer the waiver to the next meeting so the applicant could provide a written maintenance agreement and evidence that affected property owners were notified.

The commission’s deferral does not decide whether relief will be granted; staff said any future approval would require the applicant to certify that the access conforms to unpaved-road standards and to record maintenance and hold-harmless agreements with the plat if relief is granted. The planning department also noted access must meet emergency-access requirements.

The county council has final authority over rezonings; planning commission recommendations on waivers and minor subdivisions are advisory for some items but are final for other limited relief requests per the county code. Staff advised residents and the applicant to follow the application through the county council process if necessary.