Council declines to advance rezoning for 4483 Choppy Road after residents and environmental groups raise safety and water-quality concerns

Georgetown County Council did not advance a request to rezone about 16.4 acres at 4483 Choppy Road on March 24, after extensive public comment and no motion from council. Planning staff described the application as a straight rezoning from Forest Agriculture (FA) to Forest Agriculture/Commercial (FAC) to allow conditional uses such as self-storage, and noted the parcel includes mapped wetlands and AE flood-zone areas. The planning commission recommended approval by a 4–3 vote.

The matter prompted sustained opposition from neighbors and environmental advocates. Nathan Scales, legal counsel for Blackwater Loop residents, called the proposal “spot zoning” that would prioritize a private interest over an established community and urged council to honor the county’s future-land-use map. A representative identified as the (river)keeper for a local watershed alliance warned the parcel’s wetlands are hydrologically connected to Peters Creek and the Black River, cited the site’s proximity to a Georgetown County water-and-sewer public-supply well, and said onsite and nearby industrial activity raised concerns about PFAS and other contaminants. Several residents described nighttime noise, light and traffic impacts and urged the council to enforce existing FA zoning.

Planning staff, represented by Holly Richardson, said FAC allows limited commercial uses (including self-storage) subject to conditions such as shielded lighting and a six-foot opaque buffer adjacent to residential parcels. Richardson told council she understood the applicant intends to locate self-storage outside the mapped floodplain and that any development would require stormwater, wetlands and encroachment permits and a site plan demonstrating compliance with buffer and setback requirements.

Councilors questioned whether the proposed self-storage would function as a new, independent business (staff replied that, according to the application, it would) and whether operating without the rezoning would require shutting the existing nonconforming business; staff said the longtime warehouse could continue as a legally operating nonconforming use if the rezoning failed. The planning commission vote and staff analysis were cited repeatedly by both proponents and opponents during public comment.

After questions from council and the public testimony record, the chair asked for a motion; no member moved to approve the rezoning and the ordinance failed for lack of a motion. No formal vote tally on approval was recorded in the meeting transcript. The council did not adopt any interim direction to staff at the meeting.

Next steps: The rezoning will not move forward as presented. Any future application would need to reappear on an agenda with a motion and a public hearing as required by county procedures.