Planner presents draft zoning map for Central Pacolet, proposes R20/R10, ADU limits, and restrictions on RVs

Jeff Gilbo, a regional planner with the Appalachian Council of Governments, presented a draft zoning ordinance and map to the Planning Commission that would rework residential zoning across Central Pacolet and add new targeted districts.

At the outset, Gilbo told the commission the packet in front of members includes draft text and a map showing recommended zoning based on current lot sizes and the town’s future land use map. "What I want to talk about tonight are the residential districts," he said, and walked commissioners through a series of proposed districts and standards.

The draft proposes two single‑family districts: R20 with a 20,000‑square‑foot minimum lot and R10 with a 10,000‑square‑foot minimum. Both would allow customary accessory uses and home occupations but generally would exclude manufactured or mobile homes except where specifically permitted or grandfathered. Gilbo said the goal is to minimize nonconforming lots by matching district boundaries to existing parcel sizes.

On accessory dwelling units (ADUs), Gilbo proposed carrying forward current town language: secondary dwelling units should be subordinate to the primary home, located in a rear or accessory structure, limited to no more than 25% of the principal structure’s gross floor area, and have a minimum habitable area of 500 square feet. He said the primary dwelling must remain owner‑occupied.

Gilbo also outlined a duplex residential district (allowing duplexes without full multifamily zoning) and a multifamily district for garden apartments, townhouses and larger developments. For multifamily, he proposed a typical garden‑style cap of about 10 units per acre and a half‑acre minimum site before apartment review would be allowed.

The consultant reviewed mobile/manufactured housing and mobile‑home park provisions: a manufactured/ mobile home district is included for areas intended to allow those housing types; mobile‑home parks would have a 5‑acre minimum and 5,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit. Installation and unit standards (skirting, stairs, meters, orientation) would largely be carried forward from the town’s existing ordinance.

On domestic animals and poultry, Gilbo recommended aligning the zoning text with the town code that currently allows hens (no roosters) and suggested adding a permit or inspection process to address nuisances (odor, free‑roaming animals, butchering in yards). He said he would revise zoning language to reflect the town code's poultry rules rather than prohibit chickens outright in residential districts.

Gilbo recommended new language restricting the use of recreational vehicles as dwellings. "The language I will present to you would not allow an RV to be used for residential purposes ever," he said, describing draft limits on where RVs may be stored (behind the front building line) and enforcement tied to town code and neighbor complaints.

Commissioners raised concerns about existing zoning that currently allows multifamily (including triplexes) in parts of town. Gilbo emphasized the difference between the future land use map and current, legally effective zoning: if a permit is applied for under current zoning before adoption of new rules, the applicant may be entitled to proceed under the existing code.

Gilbo proposed a recreational zoning district for the mill property and river flats — intended primarily for recreational uses, with single‑family housing permitted only as a conditional use requiring Planning Commission and council review. He suggested tools such as a planned development district (PDD) or flexible review to protect the property while long‑term plans are developed.

He presented a proposed schedule for the ordinance process: another working session in January, a draft in February, Planning Commission review in March, then two Council readings in April–May with potential adoption in June. Draft deliverables will include hard copies and editable digital formats for the town’s use.

The meeting ended with a motion to adjourn that was seconded and called "all in favor," with no opposition recorded in the transcript.

This discussion will proceed through additional Planning Commission sessions and public hearings before any ordinance is adopted.