Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Residential topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission reviews draft residential zones, narrows setbacks and lot sizes
Summary
The Planning Commission debated proposed residential districts — conservation, rural, VR1, VR2/BR2 — and tuned setbacks, lot coverage and minimum lot sizes while directing staff to add cross-references to wetland setbacks and to return with refined ordinance language.
The Awendaw Planning Commission spent the bulk of its meeting weighing a package of proposed residential zoning districts that would reorganize the town’s residential rules into conservation residential, rural residential, village residential (split into VR1 and VR2) and a higher-density BR2 tier.
Commissioners and staff previewed dimensional standards tied to each district and adjusted several key measurements. Daniel Barr, the town’s planning manager, summarized the conservation district as intended for low-density uses with a 3-acre minimum lot area and a 35-foot maximum height. Commissioners debated raising the proposed 15% lot coverage for conservation lots to 20% so property owners could reasonably add pools or paved areas.
“That's how I was thinking,” Commissioner James said when the group discussed increasing coverage from 15% to 20% for large lots.
The commission proposed a consistent approach to setbacks across districts: a 50-foot front setback for the largest lots, reduced interior side setbacks of 25 feet for many residential zones, and rear setbacks generally set at 50 feet in conservation districts and reduced in denser districts. Barr advised the commission to add an explicit cross-reference to the town’s wetland/critical-area ordinance so more restrictive wetland setbacks would control when applicable.
Commissioners also split what had been a single village-residential category into VR1 (roughly 1-acre minimum) and VR2/BR2 (half-acre to approximately 21,500–30,000 square-foot ranges, depending on public water service). The commission discussed tying smaller minimum lot sizes to public (town) water connections in VR2: lots served by public water could be permitted at the lower 21,500-square-foot threshold, while lots without public water would be held to a larger minimum (e.g., 30,000 square feet) to address septic feasibility.
The group spent time clarifying accessory structures, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and dwelling groups. Staff said the code currently distinguishes ADUs (accessory to a primary structure) from dwelling groups (multiple primary structures on one parcel, historically present in some neighborhoods) and that the code’s existing combination-sum rule (which effectively requires 30 feet between primary structures in a dwelling group) should be preserved for safety and historic-pattern reasons. Barr urged commissioners to consult building and fire codes when finalizing spacing standards.
Commissioners emphasized they do not intend to make existing lots unbuildable and asked staff to codify clear grandfathering and variance procedures for non-conforming parcels during the rezoning process. Barr said parcels that do not meet new minimums will typically remain non-conforming, with variances or rezoning appeals available, and that the future land use map will guide which existing parcels are rolled into which new zones.
The commission did not adopt final ordinance text at the meeting; members directed staff to incorporate the setback and lot‑size edits, the wetland cross-reference, and clarified definitions for primary and accessory structures for consideration at a subsequent session.
