Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pickens County staff outline new land‑use/subdivision process and preview four rezoning cases for March hearings
Summary
Planning staff presented how Chapter 67 (land use) and Chapter 38 (subdivision approval) now work together, and previewed four cases—including a 145‑acre LandRoco reclassification and a procedural review of Planning Commission action—scheduled for the county's March meeting.
Planning staff provided a detailed briefing at the March 2 Pickens County meeting on recently adopted land‑use rules and four rezoning/special‑use cases set for hearings in March.
Staff explained that the county adopted Chapter 67 (land use) in May 2025 to require Board of Commissioners (BOC) review of land‑use district reclassifications; Chapter 38 remains the technical subdivision approval process. Staff described the two complementary questions the county now asks for new subdivisions: 'does it fit in?' (land‑use reclassification) and 'will it function?' (subdivision approval and technical standards).
Bill (planning staff) previewed four cases that will come before the BOC at its March regular meeting: LandRoco (RZA 191101), a roughly 145‑acre proposal that would reclassify multiple land‑use districts to enable a major subdivision; a proposal for a secure truck‑parking facility off Highway 53 East; a business relocation request (Tiana William Cool) that the Planning Commission recommended unanimously; and the Reed down‑zone request that would move parcels from rural residential to agricultural (changing density from 1.5‑acre minimums to 10‑acre minimums) to preserve rural character.
On the LandRoco case, staff described an internal procedural review after Planning Commission action: the PC's initial recommendation for denial failed amid a recusal situation and a subsequent 3–2 vote favored approval. Staff told the board that a member's statement about a family member did not meet the legal standard for a recusal under state law and that, procedurally, the earlier recommendation for denial stands. Staff characterized the issue as procedural rather than substantive and said it will bring a recommendation of denial of the land‑use reclassifications to the BOC on March 16.
Staff emphasized that the BOC is the final zoning authority (the Planning Commission is advisory) and that, depending on the BOC's decisions about reclassification and special‑use permits, the matter may then proceed into the Chapter 38 subdivision approval process (preliminary plat, infrastructure/bond stage, final plat). The board heard the staff presentation and scheduled public hearings for the cases on the March meeting agenda.
