Oconee County commissioners review wide-ranging Unified Development Code amendments; no vote taken

County staff presented a package of 38 proposed amendments to Oconee County’s Unified Development Code for commissioners’ review on Jan. 28, 2025. The changes would align several local rules with recent changes in state law, add or clarify permitted uses in multiple zoning districts, and change technical standards for site development, landscaping and road construction. No formal vote was taken; staff said the package could be placed on the consent agenda for a future meeting.

The proposals cover a wide range of subjects. Several items are written to conform local regulations to recent state law changes for manufactured homes, including allowing replacement manufactured homes and expanding where single-family detached manufactured homes are permitted (including AR 3 and AR zones). “This is just to bring us in accordance with the state code that changed recently,” Daniel Hagood, a county staff member who presented the amendments, said.

The package would also add a new definition and use rules for fiber-optic or broadband transmission facilities, allowing a small “fiber hut” to be permitted by special use permit in AG, AR and AR 3 zones under a telephone/cellular/telecommunications use heading. Hagood told commissioners the text would require such facilities to be fully enclosed and limited to 10,000 square feet; he also said required screening (vegetative or fenced) would still apply.

Other land-use changes would: replace the term “continuing care retirement community” with the state’s updated “type A and type B life plan community” definitions; allow site-built or modular single-family dwellings in the mobile-home zoning district; add radio and television broadcasting stations as permitted uses in additional industrial zones (OIP B1 and industrial); and tighten nonresidential lot-coverage limits in agricultural zoning districts to a 70% maximum where nonresidential uses are allowed.

The draft would impose new standards on certain commercial uses: indoor-access-only for many warehouse/self-storage units in OIP, B1 and OBP zones (with outdoor self-storage prohibited in the Marshall overlay district); parking-lot illumination requirements for business parking areas open after dusk; and a requirement that pet-sitting and boarding facilities operate in a fully enclosed building except in OBP, B2 and industrial districts.

The amendments include several technical and procedural changes. Examples: lowering the threshold for when a traffic study is required from the current level to 500 average daily trips (ADT) and adding a requirement to submit traffic-signal synchronization files; removing a numerical limit on the number of lots served by a private access drive in commercial and industrial zones; adding administrative roles to the as-built plan review process; and allowing applicants to skip a preliminary commercial site plan in some cases at the planning director’s discretion.

Several commissioners pressed staff for clarifications. When asked about proposed pool-safety language that would allow pool covers in lieu of fences, Hagood said the change tracks state building code allowances: “The state code allows that automated pool cover to be used in lieu of fencing,” he said, adding that owners would be required to use the cover as permitted by state law. On farm-tenant dwellings, commissioners asked about acreage and the number of houses per acreage; Hagood said the county’s approach would require qualifying conservation use on the property to establish a farm-tenant dwelling and discussed a typical benchmark of one tenant dwelling per five acres while noting staff could bring specific acreage thresholds back for consideration.

Commissioners also asked about screening and siting for the broadband “fiber hut” option; Hagood confirmed required screening standards would remain in place. Multiple other editorial and cross-reference corrections appear in the draft package, including deleting roof-pitch standards for manufactured homes, updating references to the county’s comprehensive plan and adjusting tree-spacing and landscaping requirements.

No formal adoption vote occurred during the meeting. Chair and staff discussed whether the package could be placed on the consent agenda; staff said citizens would not have a separate public-comment chance on the item at the next meeting if it remained on consent, but any commissioner could remove an item from consent for separate consideration. If advanced on consent, the amendments would return for a formal vote according to the board’s normal agenda process.

The county’s Unified Development Code, the draft amendment list and the transcript indicate multiple sections and local cross-references would change if the package is adopted. Staff said they would provide any additional clarifications requested by commissioners before bringing the item back for formal action.