After several years of work, revisions and discussion, the final draft proposal of the Orangeburg County zoning ordinance is expected to come before Orangeburg County Council for its first reading the Monday after Thanksgiving.

The goal is to have the ordinance approved by the first of the year.

County Council has to approve the zoning ordinance on three separate readings, with one more public hearing to take place prior to second reading. First reading is expected to take place during a specially called meeting on the Monday after Thanksgiving (Nov. 26), Orangeburg County Administrator Bill Clark said.

The two following readings are expected to occur during the regularly scheduled December council meetings.

Council members say they have been digesting the 125-page document slowly over the past two weeks and are satisfied with its contents.

"A lot of work has been put in this ordinance," Orangeburg County Council Vice Chairwoman Janie Cooper said, explaining the work done has been diligent and needed, especially to put some limits and control on what has been pretty much uncontrolled growth. "I think it will be great and people will be pleased with it after it has passed."

Cooper said the zoning ordinance was adequately aired through the nine public zoning hearings held throughout the county with concerns -- such as those over the Four Holes district -- being addressed in the final draft.

The Orangeburg County Planning Commission has been working on the document for years through the assistance of Columbia planning consultant Dan Vismor.

The document

would bring zoning to unincorporated areas of the county for the first time.

Orangeburg County Council Chairman Harry Wimberly said council members have had the documents for two weeks and he has yet to hear back from any related to concerns.

"I don't anticipate any of that (significant problems)," Wimberly said. "I anticipate the general public is pretty much knowledgeable on the zoning ordinance. I hope we move smoothly from now on without any delays."

Councilman Heyward H. Livingston said he has been meticulously looking at some of the zoning ordinance's pages over the past few days but acknowledged that he has yet to get through the entire ordinance.

"What I have seen it looks pretty fair," he said. "I don't have a problem with what I have seen so far."

Heyward Livingston said while he is not the biggest fan of zoning, the county's population growth and different businesses coming into the county -- most recently being some nightclubs -- mean conflicting uses will more and more come into play.

He said zoning would help regulate some of these types and other similar businesses from moving "into back yards."

"Zoning would have a place for that type of business," he said. "There are several, but that is the biggest on everybody's mind right now."

Livingston said he hopes the ordinance will prove satisfactory for all county residents.

Councilman Clyde Livingston said he does not have any immediate significant concerns about the proposed zoning ordinance and if there are any "sticking points," he is unaware of them.

"I just want to be sure that it is an equitable zoning plan and that it is really zoning and not something we just call zoning," Livingston said. "The chairman is wanting to get a solid consensus of all council members. He wants everybody on the same page and does not want any division on council as we move forward on something that has been needed for a long time."

The zoning ordinance is part of a "sincere effort" on the part of council and the Planning Commission to get a zoning plan that will work for the county, he said.

Councilman Johnnie Wright said when looking at such a comprehensive and "very complicated" document, there are bound to be people who have different interests and see things differently.

Despite the complications and the size of the county -- which is among the largest in the state -- he said the ordinance is "about the best we can come up with."

"It is not going to be perfect," Wright said. "I think it is trying to meet the median and balance the outcome of it. I think it is pretty decent."

Either way, Wright said, he for one is ready to move on it after many years of discussion.

"If it serves the purpose of the most good of the county and the people, I think we need to move forward," Wright said, adding the beauty of the ordinance is that it is a fluid document that can be changed in the future if need be.

A series of public hearings were held by the Planning Commission countywide a few months ago and, in addition to the hearings, the commission

has spent much of the past year finalizing the ordinance with input from County Council.

Orangeburg County Deputy Administrator Harold Young acknowledged the ordinance is "not a perfect document" but that the comments made by those who attended the public hearings were "taken wholeheartedly" into consideration.

It has made a number of changes after a series of public hearings, including removing special protections for the Four Holes watershed and loosening restrictions on home-based businesses.

Since then, it has also been fine-tuning the regulations such as working to develop more restrictions on sexually oriented businesses (the county is not allowed to prohibit such clubs, but it can limit where they're located) and loosening restrictions on industries wanting to locate in the Forest-Agriculture zoning district.

Also, the zoning ordinance regulates the amount of noise, light, odor and other conditions a manufacturer can create that can affect neighbors.

One outstanding question was related to manufactured homes and the required roof pitch.

The discussion revolved around the zoning ordinance's requirement to limit manufactured homes with a 5:12 pitched roof slope, which is steeper than a 3:12 pitch, to the general residential district.

Officials representing the Manufactured Housing Institute of South Carolina expressed concern the requirement would be a burden on home ownership to those who cannot afford the 5:12 pitch.

Some planning commissioners said the current draft ordinance, which limits the roof slope requirement to the general residential district, would not have a significant detrimental impact on the manufactured home industry.

At the conclusion, the ordinance for manufactured homes will remain the same.

T&D Staff Writer Gene Zaleski can be reached at gzaleski@timesanddemocrat.com and 803-533-5551.

You must be logged in to comment.