Jasper County council reviews proposed U Haul Overlay, debates new Village Commercial rules and legal risks

Jasper County planners presented a revised ordinance for the U Haul/Overlake Overlay District at a county council workshop, proposing to remove the RP 10 district, introduce a new Village Commercial (VC) base zone and impose new design and environmental standards across the overlay.

Lisa, a county planning staff member, told the council the draft narrows allowed uses in Village Commercial (VC) to smaller-scale commercial activity by removing forestry and elementary/secondary schools (because principal structures in VC are limited to 2,500 square feet in heated floor area). The draft would allow business and technical-training schools as conditional uses, add professional, scientific and management offices, and limit accessory buildings to a combined 1,500 square feet per property. Planner staff also clarified that parking standards remain in Article 12 and were not changed in the VC proposal.

Planners revised the ordinance’s wastewater language to distinguish single-family systems from multi-unit wastewater treatment systems. Under the draft, single-family advanced wastewater systems would have a 100-foot setback from wetlands, while multi‑unit systems would face a larger buffer in critical coastal areas (staff discussed a 400‑foot figure used in the overlay and noted some critical-area setbacks remain greater). To aid existing property owners, the ordinance adds a septic-reserve-area exemption (8.9.4.2.b) allowing the Development Services Director (DSR) to grant relief based on lot size, natural features or other physical constraints; administrative adjustments of up to 20% of a numerical standard would also be available under the nonconforming-lot provisions (8.9.5).

The draft adds Planned Development District (PDD) standards that would require any subdivision over 10 acres or 10 dwelling units to apply for PDD review; staff said applicants must demonstrate proposed development will not adversely affect infrastructure or public services. Lisa said the PDD rules would cap maximum net density in a PDD within the overlay at 1 unit per acre, while the proposed Village Commercial density and other numerical standards were discussed elsewhere in the ordinance (staff later noted VC density proposals and parking remain governed by base zoning and Article 12).

Staff also identified map changes: several Community Commercial parcels along Highway 462 would be converted to Village Commercial, while a single anomalous 170‑acre commercial parcel on Highway 462 would be rezoned to Rural Preservation. Properties along Highway 170 — where water and sewer are available — would remain Community Commercial but be subject to the overlay’s design standards. The presentation noted the overlay footprint had been reduced from earlier proposals; staff said roughly 79 properties were now proposed for rezoning, down substantially from earlier drafts.

Council members raised many granular questions: whether a local lumber/building-supplies operation could be grandfathered or reconfigured to meet VC limits; how NAICS codes are used to categorize uses; whether certain retail subsectors, laundromats (heavy water use), automotive parts stores, or chain restaurants would be permitted, conditional or prohibited; and how accessory buildings and two-story designs would be measured against the 2,500‑square‑foot limit. Staff repeatedly pointed to the NAICS‑based use chart to reduce subjectivity and said many higher‑impact uses would not fit the Village Commercial scale.

Planners presented a proposed prohibited‑uses list for the overlay (dual-frontage lots design standards, large‑scale septic systems serving 20+ people, mining, wholesale depots and distribution facilities, regional big‑box retail, truck stops, repossession services, large medical complexes, indoor amusement, marinas, hotels, manufacturing at regional scale, data centers and similar high‑impact uses). Lisa said the Planning Commission reviewed prohibited uses but declined to include them in its recommendation; staff left the list for council consideration.

During public and expert comment, attorney Nicole Scott — who identified herself as counsel with a national firm and former Berkeley County attorney — warned the council about legal vulnerabilities. Scott said the county’s zoning must be consistent with its comprehensive plan and South Carolina enabling statutes, and she flagged potential problems with the PDD threshold and the overlay’s application that could raise equal‑protection or takings claims if property owners are effectively prevented from developing land for extended periods. She also urged coordination with the county attorney and cautioned that the length of the moratorium and the use of the impending‑ordinance doctrine could invite litigation.

Other speakers urged adoption of the overlay as a tool to protect sensitive environmental and historic resources, saying staff had crafted compromise language and that further small adjustments could be made later. Council members requested additional detail from staff on parking, the hardware/hardware‑store classification, accessory‑structure caps, the tree ordinance (noting it may merit its own review) and the PDD language to avoid conflicts with state law.

Staff highlighted one operational case: Aqua Blue Pools, a corner property that obtained a zoning certificate before the moratorium; staff said the draft includes clauses allowing projects with preexisting zoning certificates to proceed through site‑plan review but noted those applicants must still meet setbacks and other standards.

Next steps: staff agreed to return with refined maps, additional documentation (including the NAICS references and best‑practice research used to set setbacks), and targeted clarifications on the items raised by council. The council agreed to delay placing the ordinance on the first meeting agenda, give staff time to revise the draft and meet individually if needed. The workshop concluded with a motion to adjourn that passed by voice vote.

No final ordinance vote or formal adoption occurred during the workshop; the council’s direction was to refine the draft and bring the item back for further consideration.

Quotes capturing the discussion include planner Lisa explaining use‑chart changes: “Everything in red is proposed, that’s what’s proposed to change in the current ordinance,” and attorney Nicole Scott warning of legal exposure: “If you approve a PD that does not meet state law, then you’re gonna be subject to challenge.” A resident turned stakeholder urged action: “Do the right thing and do it. Get it done and move on.”

What’s next: staff will update the maps and ordinance language to address council questions and provide supporting documentation; the council deferred final action to a future meeting while allowing staff and the county attorney to review legal issues.