Board weighs workforce‑housing rules that would allow 2–3× density on compact infill sites

Cherokee County staff presented a draft workforce‑housing ordinance at the Nov. 18 work session designed to encourage homeownership for households at roughly 80% of area median income without using multifamily apartment product types.

Planner Mr. Trevick introduced the proposal and said staff had shifted from a broad overlay approach to a use‑based standard targeted at infill sites. The draft would define a new restricted use—single‑family workforce housing—limited to detached or attached single‑family forms (detached, duplex, quadplex, townhome), on sites of 10 acres or less, served by public water and sewer within two miles of specified roads and located in residential or agricultural zones outside of existing master‑plan districts.

“We're really looking at detached and attached single family housing, which could be detached, duplexes, quadplexes, or townhomes,” Trevick said. The program would exclude apartment complexes and include conditions such as a 50‑foot exterior building setback, maximum 4‑story height, 10% minimum open space and a 35‑foot exterior buffer.

The draft includes density flexibility: a project may seek up to three times the surrounding zoning density but decisions would remain discretionary to the Board and could be capped at a lower multiplier based on neighborhood context. Staff presented a Riverchase example (a county‑owned ~9‑acre site constrained by floodplain) showing two concept plans: ~14 units (1.5 du/acre) and ~20 units (2.22 du/acre) with 3‑bedroom houses sized about 1,200–1,500 sq. ft. and no garages to contain costs.

To preserve long‑term affordability, staff proposed a minimum 30‑year deed or land‑use restriction (some jurisdictions require in‑perpetuity protections). Commissioners discussed alternatives—liens, second‑mortgage models, nonprofit buy‑downs—and raised questions about who would monitor resale compliance and how to enforce income limits over multiple transactions.

Board members debated process mechanics: whether approvals would be primarily site‑plan driven (with the Board setting exact unit counts, housing types and acreage caps) and whether applications would bypass the Planning Commission and come directly to the Board for a public hearing. Several commissioners emphasized the need for clear enforcement and monitoring before the Board adopts long‑term preservation requirements.

Chairman Fisher said he wanted a fuller study of enforcement options before finalizing the ordinance. Staff will return with refined language, examples of preservation mechanisms used by other jurisdictions, and further analysis of fiscal and administrative implications.

If adopted, the ordinance would permit workforce housing as a restricted use with public hearings and explicit review criteria, aiming to produce permanently affordable homeownership opportunities on small infill parcels.