Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rural Residential Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff and consultants propose new ‘rural residential’ zoning for 5-acre lots
Summary
Kimley-Horn and county staff proposed a voluntary ‘rural residential’ (AG5) zoning category for parcels of five acres or larger to provide an intermediate option between agricultural and R-80 zoning; the framework would be administrative for applicants but requires Board ratification of rezones.
Tim Hancock of Kimley-Horn told the Cherokee County Board of Commissioners the proposed rural residential zoning category (also referred to as AG5) is designed to let families subdivide larger agricultural parcels for children or relatives while preventing premature conversion of farmland. "The goals therefore [are] to create a category that does address this with a 5 acre or greater parcel size," Hancock said. He said the district would be applied to land currently zoned AG or R-80 and would be folded into the county's Recode Cherokee unified development code when that update is adopted.
Hancock recommended mirroring R-80 permitted land uses for the new district, with some development standards blended from agricultural standards. He emphasized the approach is voluntary: property owners would apply for the AG5 district under a streamlined administrative process but "at some point this body would have to ratify it" with a zoning map amendment or resolution. Brantley Day, county staff, introduced the measure and asked the Board for policy direction on whether to pilot the district on AG and R-80 lands first.
The presentation noted a cap intended to keep the district aligned with its purpose: no more than 20 lots and no more than 10 lots on any single street when using the AG5 standards. Hancock said staff will work with the county attorney to craft language that meets state zoning law and that the final text will return to the Board for review and action. The Board took questions but did not take a final vote on the ordinance text at the work session; staff indicated they expect to share a working draft and seek adoption later in the review schedule.
