Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richland County committee reviews zoning ordinance edits on farm residences, accessory structures and outside storage
Summary
Committee members reviewed draft revisions to Chapter 119 zoning including right‑of‑way presumptions, a clarified setback averaging rule, a state‑referenced farm residence definition (Chapter 91), and debated limits on accessory structures under 120 sq ft and new outside‑storage enforcement language.
The Natural Resources Committee reviewed proposed edits to the county zoning ordinance intended to clarify rights‑of‑way, setbacks and definitions that guide when new dwellings or accessory structures may be built.
Zoning staff described several specific edits: right‑of‑way widths are presumed to be 66 feet (33 feet from center where practical) with a minimum of 49.5 feet where that is not possible; setback averaging language was clarified to reference the structure nearest the road; and the county is aligning its farm residence language with Chapter 91 (state statute) by including a definition that lists owners, parents/children and individuals earning more than 50% of income from the farm as eligible occupiers.
Committee members expressed concern that a prior local limit of ‘‘up to two farm residences’’ could conflict with state guidance and asked staff to survey neighboring counties and bring back recommended language. The committee agreed not to rush a decision and to work with corporate counsel on wording and limits tied to acreage or other objective measures.
Accessory structures: members debated a permit exemption for structures under 120 square feet and whether the exemption unintentionally allows multiple small structures to be combined into de facto residences. Staff proposed working with corporate counsel to consider limiting pre‑house accessory units to one small structure or otherwise tightening language.
Outside storage/junkyards: the committee discussed recurring complaints about visible salvage and outside storage—some sited in floodplain areas—and asked staff to review Rockbridge Township’s outside‑storage language and return with draft enforceable standards and corp counsel recommendations.
Why it matters: ordinance language determines the county’s ability to regulate development, ensure public safety and preserve shorelines and floodplain integrity. Members flagged the need for legally robust wording to avoid unintended consequences and to limit administrative burden on residents and staff.
Next steps: staff will consult corporate counsel, survey other counties’ ordinances and present recommended wording at a future meeting.
