Zoning, subdivision, and other development regulations impact communities in many ways—from the natural environment to housing availability and affordability, neighborhood character to greenspace and walkability, employment opportunities to economic prosperity. Effective and efficient regulations can guide development to achieve desired outcomes, but cumbersome or outdated ones may result in devaluation, disinvestment, and other undesirable outcomes.
In this diagnostic report, various existing regulations of Statesboro, Georgia, are evaluated against the community’s stated objectives, stakeholder input, and best practices. Conclusions and initial recommendations are provided that will be refined through a public outreach process and incorporated into updated regulations tailored to Statesboro’s unique needs.
This diagnostic contains the following:
• Chapter 2 Policy Analysis reviews the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations primarily from public policy and stakeholder input perspectives.
• Chapter 3. Technical Analysis reviews the Subdivision Ordinance and non-zoning regulations primarily from technical and engineering perspectives.
Chapter 4. Legal Analysis reviews the assorted City codes from a high-level legal perspective; and
•Sec. 70 Street, Sidewalks, and other Public Areas
•Sec. 78 Traffic and Vehicles
•Sec. 82 Utilities
•Sec. 86 Vegetation
2. P OLICY ANALYSIS
POLICY ANALYSIS
This chapter reviews Statesboro’s Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations through a policy lens that includes the Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Statesboro Master Plan. Under Georgia law, zoning is a key implementation tool of land use policies, especially comprehensive plans. Stakeholder interviews are also considered.
2A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
The rationale for conducting this analysis is based on three general principles:
1. Z ONING SHOULD REGULATE ONLY WHAT NEEDS TO BE REGULATED IN ORDER TO PROTECT HEALTH AND SAFETY.
First, zoning regulations should place limits on the use of land only when necessary to promote the general welfare. Regulations that do not relate to public interests, such as health and safety, may overstep the police power granted to cities and may not be legally defensible.
2. Z ONING SHOULD RESPECT BOTH EXISTING AND DESIRED DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS.
Zoning regulations should relate to a community’s desired development patterns. When regulations are out of context with desired development patterns, land owners may need to apply for numerous administrative approvals and variances for typical development projects, which increase the cost of investment in a community. Furthermore, processing such administrative approvals and variances can unduly burden government departments.
3. Z ONING SHOULD BE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A PLAN, NOT A BARRIER TO ACHIEVING DESIRED OUTCOMES.
Zoning should be a tool to implement a community’s vision as expressed in its comprehensive plan. In many instances, a community invests time, funds, and energy into the development of a comprehensive plan, but zoning regulations are overlooked or revised over time in a disjointed manner. This scenario leads to outdated, inconsistent, and disorganized zoning regulations that are cumbersome, intimidating, and costly for property owners and administrators, alike, and impede planning goals and economic development. On the other hand, a comprehensive update to the Zoning Ordinance within the long-term planning process allows for clear, usable, defensible, and consistent regulations that operate efficiently to protect the public’s interests and encourage desired outcomes.
2B. METHODOLOGY
This policy analysis evaluates Statesboro’s existing zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations and informs recommendations for amendments found in Chapter 5.
Through critical analysis of the comprehensive plan, stakeholder interviews, and general planning and zoning expertise, five community objectives were identified, as follows:
A. Promote transportation efficiency and safety.
B. Promote economic development.
C. Promote housing diversity.
D. Protect historic and cultural resources.
E. Promote environmental sustainability.
Following the identification of the community’s objectives, each of the provisions of the zoning ordinance and the subdivision regulations were evaluated against the objectives and were scored as either:
+ Promoting the objective;
! Interfering with the objective;
= Both promoting and interfering with the objective, or having no impact on achieving the objective.
It is important to note that the analysis focused on the requirements of the regulations, not their clarity, consistency, or administration.
The results of each analysis were recorded and are included in the Consistency Matrix found in the Appendix. A summary of the analysis is provided in the Results section of this chapter.
The Results section also includes a summary of a variance request analysis which slotted each request for variance from 2017 to 2022 into one of eight categories.
A conclusion and list of recommendations in Chapter 5 provide guidance for future amendments to Statesboro’s zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations.
Lastly, results from stakeholder interviews are included in the Appendix.
2C. FINDINGS
OBJECTIVE A: PROMOTE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY AND SAFETY.
The Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the importance of transportation efficiency to the community. The plan is clear about creating a more hospitable environment for alternatives to driving: it states the community’s aim to increase pedestrian and bicycle safety and access to all portions of the city and between developments (page 18) and increase the number of sidewalks and bike paths overall (page 116). Interviews with stakeholders also revealed a community aspiration for increased walkability (see Appendix).
The plan also identifies specific recommendations for certain districts. As examples:
•In the Commercial Redevelopment #2 area, the plan recommends providing pedestrian and bicycling amenities, including walkways, benches, lighting, and bike racks (page 89).
•In the Residential Redevelopment area, the plan calls for design features that encourage safe and accessible streets, such as narrower streets, on-street parking, sidewalks, street trees, and landscaped raised median for minor collectors and wider streets (page 101).
•In the Neighborhood Center, pedestrian linkages should be provided to adjacent and nearby residential or commercial districts (page 103).
The plan furthermore identifies goals for improving the efficiency of vehicle transportation. It reiterates the need for greater connectivity between streets and developments and for access management standards to improve safety along major thoroughfares (pages 18 and 117). And it calls for higher-intensity development, which could minimize distances between residential, retail, and office areas and decrease the necessity of new public facilities and utilities and their associated public costs (pages 18 and 117).
In some specific areas, the plan provides recommendations for improving the efficiency and safety of vehicle transportation:
•In the Commercial Redevelopment #3 area, the plan recommends reducing parking requirements, particularly when nearby parking alternatives or transit is
City of Statesboro 2019 Future Landuse
Development Plan 2019 LANDUSEDES
Activity Centers/Regional Centers
Commercial Redevelopment Area # 1
Commercial Redevelopment Area # 2
Commercial Redevelopment Area # 3
Conservation Area
Developing Traditional Neighborhood
Developing Urban Neighnorhood Area
Downtown
Emerging Business
Established Residential Neighborhood
Gateway
Neighborhood Center Park
Potential Annexation
Residential Redevelopment
University District
Urban Core Gateway
available or shared parking arrangements are instituted (91).
•In the Park area, new developments should have linkages to surrounding developed areas through a network of streets (page 110).
SCORING SUMMARY
(Out of 205 evaluations)
SUMMARY
Less than 10% of the provisions reviewed actively promote this goal, and 20% interfere in some way. Although the City allows for a mixture of uses in some places to make walking distances viable and promote connectivity, and has invested heavily in bicycle trails, most of the City is kept physically apart by regulations that encourage sprawl and disadvantage residents without reliable car access.
SUPPORTING PROVISIONS
Mixed-use buildings are currently permitted in the CBD and CR districts, which encourages a walkable built environment (Zoning Ordinance Sections 801 and 1001).
Access management standards for parking lots promote efficiency and safety for cars (Zoning Ordinance Section 1601).
•Sight triangles at intersections protect drivers and pedestrians from traffic accidents (Zoning Ordinance Section 2204).
•T he Downtown District contains several pedestrian-friendly provisions, such requiring sidewalks, street-facing
building entrances, landscape buffering, and tasteful lighting (Zoning Ordinance Sections 3005 and 3010).
•T he Subdivision Regulations’ street standards ensure that new development is accompanied by safe, efficient roadways (Subdivision Regulations Section 4.1).
INTERFERING PROVISIONS
T he preference for single-unit dwellings with large, wide lots in many districts encourages sprawling, disconnected neighborhoods and does not reflect the existing patterns of many historic neighborhoods (Zoning Ordinance Articles IV, V, VII-A, VII-B, VII-C, VII-D, and VII-E).
•Commercial and residential uses are separated in most parts of Statesboro, increasing the distance residents must travel in order to enjoy amenities (see for example Zoning Ordinance Sections 601 and 901).
•Height limitations and procedures in commercial districts could discourage building “up” and, in turn, encourage outward sprawl—to the detriment of the City’s connectivity (Zoning Ordinance Sections 802, 902, 1002, 1103, 1216, and 1303).
•Parking minimums in all districts allocate more land than necessary toward storing cars, further pushing uses away from each other (Zoning Ordinance Sections 1600, 1602, and 3014).
• Broad buffering requirements, while well intentioned as a means to increase vegetation, may create physical barriers that create a segregated built environment. It is also inconsistent with the built patters of many historic neighborhoods (Zoning Ordinance Section 2302).
OBJECTIVE B: PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
In the “Comprehensive Master Plan 2019-2029,” economic growth and local prosperity are highlighted many times as community objectives. An area that is specifically emphasized is business diversity:
•T he plan calls for a greater number and variety of retail and other business establishments to locate within the municipal limits (pages 18 and 116).
•I t encourages the development of a diverse economy based on multiple industry sectors (page 18).
• T he plan recommends developing high-pay employment in administration, professional services, technology, and medicine (page 18).
•In the Neighborhood Center, the plan identifies the community goal of allowing a mix of appropriately scaled businesses to serve the residents’ day-to-day needs (page 103).
Stakeholder interviews also echoed a desire for mixed-used development by right, as opposed to by PUD (See Appendix).
Another element key to economic development is efficiency. The plan addresses efficiency with the following recommendations:
• Focus retail along major thoroughfares (page 18);
• Encourage redevelopment of older commercial centers rather than new construction in less accessible areas (page 89, Commercial Redevelopment #2 area).
•Allow “corner commercial” uses in residential developments (pages 95 and
97, in the Established Residential area and in Developing Urban Neighborhood area).
Lastly, the plan shines light on the importance of aesthetics in achieving the goal of economic development. For instance, on page 18, it recommends improving the appearance of the city to spur business investment. This recommendation is echoed on page 89 (the Commercial Redevelopment #2 area); page 91 (the Commercial Redevelopment #3 area), which calls for structures to be located near street front, with landscaped parking in rear of buildings; and page 103 (the Neighborhood Center area). Several stakeholders also emphasized a hope that new development would have a sense of architectural continuity, but without being overly restrictive (See Appendix).
SCORING SUMMARY
(Out of 205 evaluations)
SUMMARY
This goal had the lowest number of supporting provisions—less than 5% of provisions reviewed. 20% of provisions reviewed actively interfere with economic development, a tie for second highest. Use restrictions, dimensional standards, parking minimums, and unclear processes all pose significant barriers to development.
SUPPORTING PROVISIONS
•T he Subdivision Regulations’ clear standards for safe, efficient roadways could help encourage development (Subdivision Regulations Article 4).
•T he solar regulations provide clear, easy to navigate standards and processes that encourage installation of solar equipment (Zoning Ordinance Article XXXI).
INTERFERING PROVISIONS
•Sign regulations are viewed by some in the business community as too restrictive, especially on commercial corridors. They claim that this discourages investment from national chains—whether this is true remains to be seen. Nevertheless, variances to sign regulations are frequently granted and the regulations could benefit from more clarity and usability (Zoning Ordinance Article XV).
•Although the Downtown Statesboro Master Plan calls for mixed-use development to rejuvenate deteriorated parts of the City, the existing Zoning Ordinance allows mixed-use development in very few places (Zoning Ordinance Sections 601, 701, 901, 1101, 1201).
•Minimum lot areas and widths drive up property values and the cost of development, disadvantaging small businesses that cannot afford larger spaces (Zoning Ordinance Sections 1003, 1102, and 1213).
•Restrictions on heights in some areas do not align with existing plans to encourage greater density and mixed-use development (Zoning Ordinance Sections 802, 902, 1002, 1103, and 1215).
•Many of the administrative processes are vague and confusing to navigate, creating regulatory uncertainty that can deter development (See for example Zoning Ordinance Sections 1401, 2404, 2405, and 2906).
Parking minimums that require too much parking can increase development costs
and prevent valuable land from being used for anything besides car storage (Zoning Ordinance Article XVI).
OBJECTIVE C: PROMOTE HOUSING DIVERSITY.
The Comprehensive Plan summarizes the community goal of increasing housing diversity with the following: “Provide safe, clean and affordable housing choices to Statesboro residents of varying income levels” (page 19). The plan goes adds that Statesboro’s workforce requires a variety of housing options (page 116), and that, in the Developing Urban Neighborhood Residential area, developments should offer mix of housing types— from one-unit, detached homes to town homes to live/work units to apartments—at varying densities and prices within the same neighborhood (page 97). Stakeholder interviews echoed this hope for more housing opportunities, with one person noting that the City had not seen a residential development in 10 years, until very recently (See Appendix).
The plan also calls for an increase in homeownership rates (pages 19 and 101) and housing density (pages 19 and 97).
STATESBORO’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EMPHASIZES HOUSING AS AN IMPORTANT COMMUNITY CONCERN.
However, while increasing housing density is important, the plan specifies that, in many areas, such density should be focused on central portions of the city to better define a town center and to improve walkability. It recommends:
•L ocating of higher-density housing near commercial centers or along arterial roads, (page 89, in the Commercial Redevelopment #2 area, and page 103, in the Neighborhood Center area).
• L ocating detached, one-unit housing further from the commercial centers (page 89, in the Commercial Redevelopment #2 area).
SCORING SUMMARY
+ ! = 13 51 141 (Out of 205 evaluations)
SUMMARY
This goal saw the greatest number of interfering provisions and the greatest proportion of interfering provisions to supporting provisions: there are almost four times as many provisions that interfere with housing diversity as those that promote it. Many use restrictions and dimensional standards significantly hamper the construction of new, denser housing and raise housing costs. The cumulative impact is especially significant given the few regulations in unincorporated Bulloch County.
SUPPORTING PROVISIONS
•T he CBD and CR Districts allow mixed-use buildings, which can increase housing supply and bring down average rents (Zoning Ordinance Sections 801 and 1001).
•T he PUD district theoretically allows for creative housing options, but the process required for approval is sometimes slow unpredictable (Zoning Ordinance Article XIV).
• Water and sewage standards for residences help ensure that housing is clean and healthy (Subdivision Regulations Sections 4.1 and 4.2).
• Enforcing the building code helps ensure that residences are safe (Subdivision Regulations Section 8.6).
INTERFERING PROVISIONS
•Many residential districts do not allow more than one dwelling per lot, which constrains housing supply and increases the cost to rent or buy a place to live in Statesboro (Zoning Ordinance Sections 401, 501, 701-A, 701-B, 701-C, 701-D, and 701-E).
• Minimum lot areas, minimum dwelling areas, height restrictions, and setbacks limit the number of dwellings per acre and raise housing costs.
•A ssorted residential provisions do a poor job of encouraging infill, especially on historic nonconforming lots of record.
•In much of the City, residential uses are not permitted where commercial uses are present, thus closing off much of the City to residential development (Zoning Ordinance Sections 901, 1101, and 1201).
• Minimum parking requirements raise housing costs and inefficiently allocate land toward car storage that could otherwise be used for housing of people (Zoning Ordinance Sections 1600 and 1602).
•T he restrictions on manufactured housing prevent safe, attractive, affordable
housing from being developed (Zoning Ordinance Article XXV, Subdivision Regulations Section 2).
OBJECTIVE D: PROTECT HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Protecting historic and cultural resources is a key community objective identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The protection of historic structures is recommended throughout the plan. On page 19, for example, the plan calls for the protection and reuse of historic properties in Statesboro. In the Downtown area, the plan recommends that historic structures be preserved or adaptively reused wherever possible (page 85); in the Established Residential area, the plan calls for the restriction of demolition or substantial alteration of recognized historic structures (page 95); and, in the Neighborhood Center area, the plan encourages the rehabilitation of historic buildings (page 103).
The plan also encourages the establishment of historic districts and architectural standards that honor the city’s heritage. For example, Page 95 encourages the City to establish historic districts to protect Savannah Avenue and other historic residential areas from inappropriate development. Elsewhere, the plan recommends utilizing the Downtown Statesboro Development Authority Design Standards, the Central Business District zoning regulations, and other design or architectural standards to protect the design and character of historic structures while allowing flexibility in their uses (pages 19, 95, and 103).
Stakeholder interviews supported this goal as well. Several stakeholders expressed hope that re-use of existing buildings would occur where possible and that growth would be balanced against preservation (See Appendix).
SUMMARY
(Out of 205 evaluations)
Historic preservation had the greatest proportion of supporting provisions to interfering provisions, 7 to 1. However, this goal also had the most provisions with no effect either way: nearly 90% of provisions reviewed.
SUPPORTING PROVISIONS
Fairly generous nonconforming use standards are tolerant of existing buildings that do not meet current zoning requirements (Zoning Ordinance Article XXI).
•T he Downtown District contains express protection of certain historic buildings (Zoning Ordinance Section 3003).
•T he Downtown District requires that new development conform to design standards to preserve the City’s historic and cultural resources (Zoning Ordinance Sections 3005-3011, 3015, and 3016).
INTERFERING PROVISIONS
• Parking minimums can prevent the re-use of historic property that does not have the space to comply (Zoning Ordinance Sections 1600 and 3014).
The Comprehensive Plan identifies the promotion of environmental sustainability as an important community objective, a goal repeated in stakeholder interviews. Drinking water, floodplains, and wetlands are called out specifically, and the plan recommends:
•Protecting drinking water sources, such as streams, ponds, lakes, and wetlands (pages 19 and 118);
•Reducing impervious surface coverage (page 19);
•Increasing tree canopy to reduce the volume and/or peak flow of stormwater (page 19);
•Increasing standards to protect sensitive wetland habitats (page 19); and
•Adding landscaping in parking lots to reduce stormwater runoff (page 89, in the Commercial Redevelopment #2 area).
The plan also includes many recommendations for the preservation of open space and tree canopy. It encourages:
•Incorporating open space and natural landscapes into developments (page 19);
•Shade trees to be planted in parking lots and along highway corridors (page 93, in the Activity and Regional Centers area);
• Clustering development to preserve open space within site and minimizing impacts to mature trees (page 99, in the Developing Traditional area); and
•Preserving natural habitat in sensitive environmental areas, such as floodplains (page 118).
STATESBORO’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EMPHASIZES
SCORING SUMMARY
(Out of 205 evaluations)
SUMMARY
The split between supporting and interfering provisions was roughly even for this goal. But this goal also had the lowest number of non-affecting provisions; this is because more than another goal, many land use regulations can have indirect effects on the natural environment.
SUPPORTING PROVISIONS
•L imits on pollution, noise, odors, glare, vibration, waste storage, and more in the LI District help protect the public’s health and enjoyment of the natural environment (Zoning Ordinance Sections 1202-1212).
• L andscaping and buffering requirements help encourage the planting of vegetation (Zoning Ordinance Article XXIII).
•Regulations help protect against flooding and sediment erosion (Subdivision Regulations Section 4.1).
INTERFERING PROVISIONS
• T he preference for single-unit dwellings increases stormwater effluent per household (Zoning Ordinance Sections 401, 501, 701-A).
• Parking minimums keep the city dependent on cars and increase the amount of impervious surface (Zoning Ordinance Section 1600 and 1602).
•Parks and open space are not a permitted use by right in most districts.
PLEASE
VARIANCE ANALYSIS
All applications for zoning variances between 2017 and 2022 were assessed and grouped into the following categories:
1. Buffers
2. Parcels converted to PUD/land use changes
3. Building height
4. Building size
5. Miscellaneous/other
6. L ot size
7. Setbacks
8. Signs
For the year 2022, variances were examined only from January 1st to February 5th.A summary of variances is shown at right.
Of the 126 variances requested from 2017 to 2022, almost half related to signs. Sign variances included requests for increased allowable height, increased aggregate square footage, increased wall square footage, increased number of signs per elevation, relief from sign lighting regulations, and more.
After sign variance requests, miscellaneous and setback variance requests were second and third most common, respectively. Lastly, requests for variances regarding lot size, buffers, parcels converted to PUD, building height, and building size represented a small fraction of the total requests.
2D. CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, existing regulations include many standards that promote the objectives, but some fail to advance the community’s goals.
OBJECTIVE A: INCREASE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY AND SAFETY
Although the City has regulations to encourage safe and efficient roads for car drivers, attention to pedestrians is lacking. Updated regulations could encourage development oriented toward walkers and cyclists. A big part of the problem is outdated regulations that focus on vehicle trips at the expense of non-drivers and walkable development patterns, where appropriate. Considering the needs of non-drivers and local character will be key to reversing this trend.
OBJECTIVE B: PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The City’s existing Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations focus on preventing perceived negative impacts; there is little attention to encouraging some types of economic development. The current emphasis on prevention has led to regulations that discourage some types of beneficial development: outdated sign regulations; keeping residential and commercial uses separate; requiring large minimum lot sizes while limiting height and square footage of buildings; and reserving a disproportionate amount of land for parking. Changing the dynamic would require a mindset shift toward zoning for something, not zoning against something.
OBJECTIVE C: PROMOTE HOUSING DIVERSITY
As with much of the country, Statesboro is suffering from too little and too expensive housing to meet the needs of its residents. Meeting the City’s housing needs will require new construction, but the current regulations hamper supply by restricting lot size, number of dwelling units, location of housing with respect to commercial uses, and processes that discourage infill development. Easing dimensional standards, permitting more housing types (such as cottage courts or accessory dwelling units), adopting regulations that simplify infill, and allowing a greater intermingling of uses, where appropriate, could remove barriers to supplying housing to meet residents’ needs.
OBJECTIVE D: PROTECT HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Although the Downtown District has important regulations regarding historic preservation, the City could take more steps to protect historic and cultural resources. These could including expanding historic protections of buildings or districts, including commercial areas, or simply creating regulations that ensure that new buildings fit better.
OBJECTIVE E: PROMOTE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
The City has fairly strong standards with respect to pollution, drainage, etc. However, it can do more to protect and promote the use of green space: parks/open space could be permitted by right everywhere in the city. The City could also consider the regulation of impervious surfaces.
Also see Chapter 3. Technical Analysis.
VARIANCE ANALYSIS
Almost half of all variance requests in Statesboro between 2017 and 2022 related to signs, indicating that the sign regulations may not permit the types, size, location, and lighting that the market desires.
3. T ECHNICAL ANALYSIS
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
This chapter reviews Statesboro’s zoning, subdivision, and other development regulations through a technical lens, especially their alignment with engineering best practices and, where applicable, States of Georgia model ordinances. The following summarizes key findings by Chapter.
APPENDIX B SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
This chapter outlines plat requirements. From a technical perspective, the standards and process are comprehensive. However, there are a few areas that may need updating:
T here may be times when street lighting is not appropriate.
• T he code doesn’t require stormwater management facilities to be on a separate parcel within subdivisions.
• Storm facilities on separate parcels are not included in the plat requirements.
• T he standards for accepting drainage facilities conflict between Chapter 38 and Appendix B.
In addition, many cities are moving away including standards subdivision in subdivision regulations that might be useful to apply citywide, even when no subdivision is proposed. These include:
• Street design, especially private streets; Block and connectivity standards;
• Greenspace/open space standards; and Sidewalk and trail standards.
CHAPTER 22 CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
This chapter contains standards for cable communications. Generally, the standards are outdated and focus on the regulation of cable television. They do not align with current
MANY STREETS AND ROADS IN STATESBORO HAVE DRAINAGE DITCHES.
technology or recent State of Georgia model ordinances.
CHAPTER26 CEMETERIES
This chapter is limited to regulating the City’s Eastside Cemetery Extension.
From a technical perspective, the regulations are similar those found in many other public cemetery standards. However, there are a few areas that need updating:
T he standards for what decorative elements are allowed on gravesites is unclear with regards to things like grave blankets, grave benches, vases, and similar features.
• T he standards do not consider the historic nature of some grave markers.
• T here standards do not consider other cemeteries in the city, including pauper cemeteries.
CHAPTER 38 ENVIRONMENT
This chapter contains sections for Nuisance, Drainage Control, Noise ordinance, and Soil Erosion Sedimentation and Pollution Control. Nuisance and noise ordinance sections are generally consistent with surrounding areas and only minor edits are recommended. Erosion control ordinance sections are consistent with the EPD model ordinance.
CHAPTER 46 FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION
This chapter contains regulatory standards for flood plains.
One instance of higher regulatory standards (compensatory storage) noted. Current FIS and FIRMs are referenced in Statesboro’s ordinance.
This chapter is internally consistent.
CHAPTER 66 SOLID WASTE
This chapter outlines the disposal requirements for public and private waste collection services as well as construction debris.
From a technical perspective, the standards and process are comprehensive, and this chapter is internally consistent.
CHAPTER 70 STREET, SIDEWALKS, AND OTHER PUBLIC AREAS
This chapter outlines the requirements to build and operate within a public place (Rightof-way) including platting requirements, repair requirements, and requirements for public gatherings.
This chapter includes required items on plat, some of which conflicts with the plat requirements in section 3 and should be removed. Sidewalks required on arterial and collector streets (Appendix B Subdivision regulations Article 4) only but there is an incentive/funding program to encourage underground utilities, sidewalks, natural gas, etc.
CHAPTER 78 TRAFFIC AND VEHICLES
This chapter contains requirements for speed limits within the City, operational requirements for the Police Department and limitations on parking vehicles on existing facilities and trains blocking public access.
This Chapter is internally consistent.
CHAPTER 82 UTILITIES
This chapter covers water, natural gas, sewer, septic, septic disposal, and protection of underground utilities.
• Water – Requires service, limits wells in city limits
• Natural Gas – City provides installation to subdivision and incentive fund
• Water and Sewer Rates – Ordinance in place
• Sewer – No specific requirement for septic design is specified in the ordinance (distance from creeks). Refers to state and local agencies having jurisdiction (health
THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT FEATURES OPEN SPACE AND PRESERVED MATURE TREES.
department is referenced in subdivision (plat) section. Approval is required.
• Utility protection - Ordinance in place
• Water conservation - Ordinance in place.
• Stormwater utility – Ordinance in place.
CHAPTER 86 VEGETATION
This chapter covers tree protection and replacement requirements during construction activities.
• Requires 35% tree canopy to be maintained, tree canopy calculation established, diversity requirement established, alternative compliance for up to 60% of the requirement is allowed.
Single family residential exempted.
• Tree permits are required for “protected or replacement trees”.
• Tree protection during construction –ordinance in place and plan required.
Parking lot requirements – one tree for per 10 spaces generally.
4. L EGAL ANALYSIS
LEGAL ANALYSIS
This chapter reviews Statesboro’s Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations from a legal perspective, especially those considerations that directly shape the proposed UDC strategy, including recent legislation and legal decisions.
LEGAL BEST PRACTICES
There are several areas where Statesboro’s regulations are outdated and do not reflect current best practices as well as they could, especially recent State law changes, State model ordinances, and Supreme Court rulings. These include:
•Group homes, including small group homes in residential areas and SB 116 requiring “maternity supportive housing residences;”
•Historic preservation standards;
• Manufactured homes;
•Religious institutions;
•T he sign ordinance; and Telecommunications.
PROCESSES
Current procedures have not been comprehensively updated in many years. The existing codes include reference to boards that no longer exist (e.g. the board of appeals), and should be updated to reflect current practices.
Additionally, the Governor recently signed HB 1405, which substantially amended the zoning procedures law. This will require updates to the public notice and hearing process for various zoning decisions.
USES
While not purely a legal concern, the City’s existing use provisions are not as clear or use-friendly as they could be. Key observations include:
•Use standard are located in various code sections, which makes it challenging to know what is permitted in each zoning district.
•T he City does not often use special use permit. These are a great way to control the development of those uses that, while necessary or important, have the ability to be a significant detriment to the community.
•T here are many uses that are not addressed in the code, including: short term rentals, CBD/Vape stores, title pawn, etc.
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.
For a city of its size, Statesboro has many residential zoning districts, all but one of which are single-family districts only distinguishable by their lot sizes.
The City also lacks clear standards for “for rent only” communities. These are communities that resemble single-family subdivisions, but where all of the houses are rental units located on a single lot - making them a type of multifamily use.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our conclusions, we recommend amending the zoning ordinance and related regulations in the following ways, many of which will require confirmation and refinement through the public engagement process:
GENERAL
•Create a unified development code (UDC) that combines zoning, subdivision, and related regulations into a single, internally consistent document. The process of compiling all regulations into a UDC will allow the regulations to be updated with a focus on creating a modern, clear, and user-friendly code.
•Update other codes not within the UDC. Utilize tables and add illustrative graphics to improve readability and streamline the codes.
•Update definitions to align with code text and remove standards from definitions. Delete any defined terms that are not present in regulations.
•Updated standards to align with recent legislation affecting zoning, including SB 116 and HB 1405.
EXISTING ZONING STANDARDS
•Update the sign regulations to reflect community needs, current legal requirements, and improved usability. Ensure that the standards balance various community interests (Objective B and Variance Analysis).
•Create a new mixed-use zoning district that is available for future rezoning. Alternatively, amend existing commercial districts to allow non-commercial uses
•Develop citywide standards for screening dumpsters, loading docks, outdoor storage, mechanical equipment, and similar elements when located in the side or front yard areas.
Update minimum parking and loading requirements; consider reduced or eliminated parking and loading requirements, shared parking standards, off-site parking standards, and more. Outdated off-street parking requirements may lead to increased vehicle use, which could compromise pedestrian and bicycle safety; updating the requirements in some or all of Statesboro may result in improved safety for non-vehicle transportation options (Objective A). Off-street parking and loading adds to the overhead costs of businesses, which must pay for the land and maintenance of parking lots; updating parking and loading requirements could result in leaner and more successful businesses (Objective B). Furthermore, off-street parking and loading is often a less productive land use than business or residential uses, and allowing the market to determine adequate supply may lead to increased economic productivity (Objective B). Off-street parking adds to the costs of developing housing, and developers and landlords may pass on such costs to residents; updating parking requirements may reduce the cost of housing (Objective C). Parking and loading standards may hinder the reuse of historic properties, as historic properties were often developed before there were minimum parking and loading requirements, and such properties may not have adequate space on the lot to satisfy parking and loading areas; updating the parking and loading requirements may add flexibility to their redevelopment and reuse (Objective D). Parking
and loading minimums may increase the amount of impervious surface in a locale, which can lead to environmental degradation; updating parking and loading requirements may result in higher quality waterways (Objective E).
•In all districts that allow ground-floor commercial uses, ensure that height standards do not discourage the creation of quality commercial space, which may require a floor-to-ceiling height of at least 13 feet (Objective B).
•In the CBD (Central Business District), eliminate the prohibition of ground-floor residential uses, as long no groundfloor residential uses front a street. This change may reduce the expense of developing some mixed-use buildings by eliminating the need for and cost of elevators (Objective B) and may expand housing options (Objective C).
•In the CBD (Central Business District) and the HOC (Highway-Oriented Commercial) District, allow for buildings of up to 65 feet in height by right; and, in the CR (Commercial Retail) District, allow for buildings of up to 50 feet in height by right. Increased building height may allow for more economical use of land, resulting in increased business success (Objective B) and more affordable and diverse housing (Objective C).
•In the HOC (Highway-Oriented Commercial) District, eliminate the minimum lot frontage per use, increase the allowable building area, and reduce the minimum front setback. Allowing for more efficient use of land may improve business productivity (Objective B).
•In the CR (Commercial Retail) District, reduce the minimum lot area. Minimum lot areas may result in less efficient use of land and greater barriers to entry for entrepreneurs. Reducing the minimum
lot area could result in improved business productivity (Objective B).
•Update use regulations to modern standards. Focus areas should include housing types, daycare, group living, data centers (e.g., crypto currency mining), artisanal manufacturing/maker spaces, home occupation, vape/CBD shops, parking lots, religious assembly, industrial uses, short-term rental, title pawn, vehicular uses, and more (Objective B).
•Create a table of permitted uses. This will give both citizens and City staff an easy way to find which uses are allowed in which zoning districts. As part of this, the permitted uses listed under each zoning district’s standards should moved to the new table (Objective B).
•E xplore greater use of special use permits, including a more robust process. List special use permits in the table of permitted uses. A special use permit requires the same type of process as a rezoning, so it is easy to see how this would be beneficial for certain uses. As an example, suppose a property is zoned for a heavy industrial use that is desirable. A few years then pass and a new heavy industrial user wants to occupy the property. If that new industrial use requires a special use permit, the mayor and council will have the opportunity to review the use before it goes into operation or obtains vested rights to operate (Objective B).
•Update manufactured home standards to incorporate the State’s model ordinance for siting used manufactured homes, if they are to be permitted. (Objective C).
•Allow residential and commercial uses along the Creek on the Blue Mile. Explore a new district or using existing districts. Trail-oriented development may increase walkability (Objective A) and economic activity in Statesboro (Objective B).
•Develop standards to support the Creek on the Blue Mile (and possibly other corridors/trails). Explore an overlay, and review procedures. Trail-oriented development may increase walkability (Objective A) and economic activity in Statesboro (Objective B).
•Remove restrictions on the number of uses per lot. Multiple uses per lot may allow for increased walkability, as destinations may be less distant (Objective A).
Article 2. Rules of Interpretation | Sec. 2.1. Building Types
2.1.1. Building Type Descriptions
•Allow residential uses in all districts, except heavy manufacturing ones. Allowing residential uses in more places may result in a greater housing supply and more affordable and diverse housing types (Objective C). Furthermore, this may reduce distances between housing and commerce/employment, leading to greater walkability (Objective A) and increased business patronage (Objective B).
Sec. 2.1. Building Types
2.1.1. Building Type Descriptions
•Eliminate the requirement that a variance is required to build on a vacant nonconforming lot and adjust setback requirements to match historic setbacks. This change may encourage investment in existing neighborhoods (Objective B), increase the supply of housing (Objective C), preserve local character (Objective D), and make more efficient use existing infrastructure (Objective E).
• Omit minimum dwelling unit size requirements when developing standards for accessory dwelling units, cottage courts, and other housing types (Objective C).
Development within each district is controlled by the building types allowed within each district as shown. Each building type is described below.
•Consolidate single-unit residential districts into four or fewer districts, and increase the number of residential districts that allow for multi-unit dwellings. Consolidation of districts could increase the ease-of-use of the zoning ordinance. Increasing the number of districts that allow for multi-unit dwellings could result in more diverse and affordable housing options (Objective C).
A. Detached House. A building type that accommodates one dwelling unit on an individual lot with yards on all sides. Not intended for nonresidential uses.
•Remove setback and building separation standards that conflict with or are addressed by applicable building codes (Objective C).
•Relax dimensional standards for residential districts; specifically increase maximum heights in multi-unit residential districts and reduce minimum lot area standards in residential areas proximal to the core of Statesboro. Relaxing dimensional standards could result in increased housing diversity and affordability (Objective C) and improved business patronage (Objective B).
C. Attached House. A building type that accommodates two dwelling units that share a common wall along a lot line. Not intended for nonresidential uses.
•Allow accessory dwelling units by right in all single-unit residential districts. Accessory dwelling units may result in increased housing diversity and affordability (Objective C.) Accessory dwelling units may also allow owners of historic properties to increase revenues and better afford to maintain expensive historic buildings (Objective D).
COTTAGE COURTS
Cottage courts are small groups of attached or detached small dwellings organized around common open space. Units may share a common lot or be on their own fee-simple lots. They are currently allowed in some zoning districts that allow multifamily uses.
B. Carriage House. A small self-contained accessory dwelling unit located on the same lot as a detached house but physically separated, for use as a complete, independent living facility, with provisions for cooking, sanitation and sleeping.
D. Cottage Court. A building type that accommodates 5 to 9 detached dwelling units organized around an internal shared courtyard. Units cannot be vertically mixed. Not intended for nonresidential uses.
•Remove distinctions based on site-built versus manufactured housing; focus on the necessity of a foundation and compliance with the building code. Removing such distinctions could result in more diverse and affordable housing (Objective C).
•Allow parks and open space by right in all districts. Parks and open space uses could result in improved environmental quality (Objective E). Additionally, allowing parks and open spaces uses in all districts could result in improved access to greenspace by residents and visitors.
•A mend and clarify the standards for variances, conditional zoning, building permits, and other permissions. Clear standards reduce the likelihood of arbitrary and/or capricious decision-making and decrease the regulatory risk of development, which could improve business investment in Statesboro (Objective B).
•Eliminate special exceptions and convert all uses allowed by special exception to conditional uses (Stakeholder Interviews).
• Update the City’s administrative variance standards so that minor variances based on a legitimate hardship can be approved without going before the Planning Commission. This change could expedite the granting of permits, decreasing barriers to entry for new businesses (Objective B) and decreasing housing development costs (Objective C).
•Allow the Planning Commission to take a more active role in approvals. This action could relieve City Council of deciding on small-scale land use issues and increase the efficiency of issuing permits, which could decrease the costs of development and improve business investment in Statesboro (Objective B).
•E xplore ways to preserve Statesboro’s character and implement a recommended approach based on the public outreach process. Options explored should include a range of approaches, from a minimal set of design standards in certain areas to creating formal historic districts reviewed by a historic preservation commission in key areas, such as Savannah Avenue and the downtown commercial district. Such action could result in the preservation of historic and cultural resources in Statesboro (Objective D).
•Based on the above outcome, ensure that code reflects State’s standard for historic preservation ordinances (Objective D).
•A mend text to align with current procedures pertaining to electronic zoning maps and electronic submissions.
•Review the definition of family. This term can be used to discriminatingly enforce regulations and may decrease housing availability for non-blood-related families, interfering with Objective C.
•Ensure that the “Declaration of Legislative Intent” sections are reflective of recent long-range planning processes and updated community objectives.
•Consolidate definitions into one master glossary so that definitions that are easier to locate and are consistent throughout the ordinance.
•Update the telecommunications ordinance, especially its procedures. Make telecommunications towers a special use in all districts, with substantive criteria.
EXISTING SUBDIVISION STANDARDS
• Develop standards for when street lighting is not required.
• Require stormwater facilities within subdivision to be on separate lots (exempt these lots from zoning size requirements).
• Align Appendix B and Chapter 38 drainage standards.
• Remove standards from Appendix B that should apply citywide, even if subdivision is not proposed.
CHAPTER 22 CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
Change the “Cable Communication” terms to “Streamlining Broadband Deployment.”
• Include new utility application requirements and remove fees from the ordinance.
• Incorporate sections from the FCC Model Ordinance where applicable.
• Provide more detail for wireless cable (fiber) in the ordinance.
Clarify the utility relocation payment ordinance
CHAPTER26 CEMETERIES
• Create clear standards for what decorative elements are allowed on gravesites.
• Develop standards to ensure the protection of historic gravesites.
• Develop new standards for pauper’s cemeteries.
CHAPTER 38 ENVIRONMENT
• Replace Drainage Control sections with the EPD Model ordinance for Stormwater.
CHAPTER 46 FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION
No changes are recommended.
CHAPTER 66 SOLID WASTE
No changes are recommended.
CHAPTER 70 STREET, SIDEWALKS, AND OTHER PUBLIC AREAS
• Remove plat requirements from chapter entirely
• Parade, processions, and public gathering article should be edited to include limitations on timing and time of day allowances. Additional requirements for film may be added.
• Include sections to require traffic studies above a City determined threshold
• Include sections to require access routes to developments with more than 30 units.
• Include reference to vegetation chapter for sidewalk locations when street trees are required.
CHAPTER 78 TRAFFIC AND VEHICLES
No changes are recommended.
CHAPTER 82 UTILITIES
• Removal of duplicated information included in other chapters
• Remove rates from ordinance, should be provided as a separate document maintained by the City
CHAPTER 86 VEGETATION
As the City separately updates its tree protection standards, it is recommended to: Add requirements for street trees (including separation from sidewalk) in conjunction with Chapter 70.
APPENDIX
CONSISTENCY MATRIX
The consistency matrix provides an assessment of the consistency of each zoning and subdivision provision with the objectives. It is included as an addendum to this report.
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
OVERVIEW
This chapter summarizes the input gathered during stakeholder interviews, generally organized by topic. Comments are based on the perception of interviewees, and neither the City of Statesboro nor the consultant team makes any claims as to their accuracy or validity. However, even incorrect perceptions often indicate issues that could be of concern.
Comments have been paraphrased and edited to remove reference to specific individuals and businesses.
ADMINISTRATION: GENERAL
•T he current City staff want to help, but the rules are such that they cannot.
•Staff are not the problem – it’s the regulations.
•City staff don’t make the rules – they just enforce them.
•We need to untie City staff’s hands so they can help applicants.
•T he City staff should have an equal interest in the financial considerations.
•T he new code needs to be very easy administer.
•T here’s a perception that the City is too hard to work with (especially compared to the County), but the City has higher standards. Following rules is always going to be harder than having no rules to follow.
•T he County makes applicants feel welcomed and that they want to work
with them, but City often seems to put up roadblocks.
•T he City doesn’t seem to appreciate investment.
•T he City talks about economics, but it’s just difficult to work with them.
•Currently it’s developer vs. City
•T he code (and development process) should have a “Help me help you mentality.”
•T he City says they want investment, but often the processes deter them.
•T he Planning Commission doesn’t always agree with staff recommendations.
•T he Planning Commission listens to staff sometimes, but not always. They seem focused on economic development, not supporting the comprehensive plan.
•T he Planning Commission approves any business that comes through; economic development is a priority for them.
•T he Planning Commission supports many spot zonings.
•Builders want the City to help them build. Give them a way to make the deals work.
•Consider getting rid of special exception. Look at Sec. 18 and criteria.
•T here are Right Start meetings up front for all departments, including Fire, to review the project before applying. Doing this is a good idea, but sometime departments will raise more and more issues after submission and revisions. As a result, many developers don’t want to attend Right Start meetings because they’ll have to make changes after submission anyway.
•T he city used do Right Start meetings. Sometimes they’re helpful and sometimes they’re not. They raise points, developers design it per comments, then they give additional comments.
•Consider a pre-application meeting for PUDs.
•Some people think that they can bypass regulatory measures by talking to the right person.
ADMINISTRATION: VARIANCES
•Statesboro has too many variances.
•T hey prohibit multiple variances on the same request. You must file separate variances per section varied. This is ridiculous.
• Clean up variance process.
•T he City often imposes many conditions on projects just because they need a variance. The conditions should only mitigate the impacts of the variance, not open the entire project up to review. If the City wants these other things, they should be put into the code so that everyone has to follow them.
•T he City should be able to expedite certain types of minor variances, either by staff or Planning Commission approval.
Consider expanded administrative variations. (Note: multiple interviews had this comment.)
CODE USABILITY
•Some zoning standards are unclear.
•T he interpretation of the zoning must be clear. Different staff interpret the same standard differently over the years.
•T here are conflicts between zoning, subdivision, and stormwater regulations.
•T here’s a conflict between Land Development and Building Permit codes.
•T he code should be long-term and peoplefriendly/user-friendly.
ZONING DISTRICTS
•Statesboro desperately needs mixed-use zoning.
•T here’s no provision for mixed-use development without a PUD. We need to allow this.
•T here needs to be more specificity about what can be done in PUDs. What can and cannot be done in a PUD. They want to keep PUDs. People do PUDs for density reasons. PUDs are used for 10 acres or above. PUDs should have to go to all groups.
CITYWIDE DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN STANDARDS
•E xisting codes ensure a basic level of quality development, but it could be improved.
•E xisting codes keep things from happening that are not community oriented.
•I like how the codes work in Beaufort, SC. They have lots of new development and I like how they implemented architectural control.
•Developers want to do things as cheaply as possible, but with least amount of opposition. If you ask, they don’t mind making some improvements to the finished product, if it doesn’t take longer. Certainty is key.
•I don’t think everything should have to be approved by an architect
•New developments should have some sense of architectural continuity
•Form-based codes are a bad idea, but the code update should explore simpler ways to improve design in some areas; focus on the basic!
•Allow concrete for 3D printed houses.
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT/ DESIGN STANDARDS
•We should do all we can to encourage new redevelopment in downtown.
• T he building and investment industry would love to invest in downtown. We’ve traveled to other cities to see infill projects and they are amazing. The City should support investment in historic buildings in downtown.
•Make it easier to put lofts downtown.
•T he prohibition against ground floor units in downtown should only apply along the street, not interior to a block.
•Some resist the downtown guidelines, but they are in place for a reason.
•Consider creating a design district in downtown. It might make sense there.
• Consider allowing duplexes, middle-scale housing, and infill in downtown.
•CBD zoning today is pretty good, especially in terms of setbacks, etc.
•T here are some things that the City gets right; the incentive package for buildings downtown works.
•E xplore adopting the International Existing Building Code.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION/LOCAL IDENTIFY
•T he code should consider sense of place.
•I’m personally interested in preservation, especially on Savannah Avenue, but preservation is limiting when mandated.
•We need to balance preservation and growth.
•How can we encourage re-use and preservation?
HOUSING : GENERAL
•T he City is very supportive of owner occupied units, but many folks rent by choice.
•T he City hasn’t seen a residential development in 10 years, but a 239-home subdivision was recently approved between Cawana Road and the current end of Aspen Heights Drive off Fair Road. It required variances.
•T he city has many rehabilitation group homes.
•Look at group home standards. We have many halfway houses for folks with addictions. People pay weekly rent per person – it’s very lucrative. There may not be an inspection or licensing requirements. The City reviews these as Conditional Uses while operators are trying to get their licenses.
•Aging apartment complexes are an issue, especially around Georgia Southern. Students have abandoned them and moved into new complexes. The older complexes begin to decline as a result.
•T he City has supported mixed use and apartments, but the concern has been the impacts on what happens to the old. Do new apartments cause old to decline?
•New student apartment complexes are taking tenants from the existing apartments.
•It seems that the city was only interested in low-income subdivision.
• T here’s lots of rental single-family because of students.
•We need housing that allows people to age in place.
•T he City sees very few large lot, subdivisions. All are being built in the County because the County has lower standards and no septic. There are a lot of private water systems in the County, but they have very low pressure for fire hydrants.
•It’s very expensive to build in the City, but the City. Still, with the services, it doesn’t justify the higher costs.
•City regulations add about $10,000 per lot over the County. This makes it hard to build in the City.
• E xample: water distribution:
A. In the City, developers pay for water infrastructure, then homeowners also pay City water fees forever.
B. In the County a company pays for it but makes revenue from fees. There is also sometimes a payback at the end of 20 or 30 years.
C. Consider incentives where City pays for some infrastructure up front.
D. T he above incentive program used to exist.
E. City Water and Sewer taps add cost too – around $1,800 per unit
• Residential Subdivision Incentive encourages housing in the City if standards are met (i.e., design standards, no rental for 1 year, min 1 year rental thereafter). The City gives $10,000 per lot. Not many have used it Those who do are proposing smaller lots.
•City has very few condos and townhouses.
•Look at townhouses, they would be good for density.
•Setbacks in the zoning limit the ability to achieve townhouses.
•T here have been public plans that suggested innovative housing types, such as pocket neighborhoods, but then the reception turns cold when somebody actually tries to build one.
•T he 1,050 minimize size should be a bit smaller – especially for elderly, cottages.
•T he City has a minimum house size and minimum lot size. Folks might be open to smaller if it required higher standards.
•T he City needs a smaller lot and smaller house development.
•We should make cottages and carriage houses legal.
•Folks might be interested in carriage houses over garages.
•I would love to see tiny houses, small houses, cottages, etc.
•City doesn’t allow modular housing and the state requires it.
•How much housing can the city really support? Subdivisions around the city are eating up farms.
•T he City has no stomach for blight remediation. They expect developers to do all the remediation themselves.
•Griffin, GA, has a great blight remediation program because they own the utilities.
A. T hey tag houses
B. Don’t cut off utilities if somebody lives there, but they do cite the owner
C. If becomes very unsafe/life safely, they go after owner.
D. Don’t allow utilities back on until confirmed.
HOUSING: HISTORIC LOTS
•T here are many variances for setbacks and nonconforming lots.
•If a lot is nonconforming the City requires a variance and there are multiple variances.
•Create standards for re-using non-conforming lots of record.
•We should encourage more housing in the City limits, especially development on existing vacant lots.
•T he ways the zoning was written, nothing was grandfathered. It’s hard to build on a vacant lot. Setbacks are too big, houses are too big. Houses built under the current zoning wouldn’t fit it.
•Consider allowing builders to recreate a historic lot that once existed.
•We are required to filed variances to build houses that fit in well.
•Consider average front yard setbacks.
•Consider lowering setbacks in some areas.
•We should make it easier to build infill:
A. Greater administrative variance power would be useful.
B. Proactively update standards for smaller, historic lots.
C. Incentives for historic nonconforming lots are needed
SIGN REGULATIONS
•T he biggest issue is the sign ordinance, or lack of an effective one.
•T he sign ordinance needs major overhaul.
•Sign ordinance is very confusing and, in some cases, contradictory.
•Signage is the number one issue. The sign code is very outdated. It doesn’t include new lighting types (e.g., LED, electronic, etc.).
•T he sign ordinance is very vague.
•T he sign ordinance is a problem. We should consider how national chains are affected. They know which type of sign they need to succeed.
•T he sign ordinance doesn’t allow enough exposure for signs – especially for business.
•Almost all variations for signs are approved.
•T he sign ordinance doesn’t allow nice signs in downtown if they don’t meet the letter of the law.
•Allowed lighted signage downtown so it’s not a variance.
•T he sign ordinance works well in downtown. It’s more of a problem on the commercial corridors and the bypass.
•Murals needs special approval if they are more than 25% of the size.
•Murals needs work, especially in CBD.
•I would like to see an expansion on the definition of a mural. Murals today are regulated to images without text. That’s unfair to businesses. Consider expanding it.
•T he City used to have old signs, neon, etc. that were so cool. People liked them, but when new places want to do them, it’s challenging.
•E xpanding definition of murals. Look sat mural/public art standards – especially in the CBD, downtown.
•T he historic society wants to paint murals on every building.
•T he city needs to have historic context in a modern way, so that it attracts historic spaces.
•T he Planning Commission is constantly approving variances to the sign ordinance
•T he current sign ordinance is like Hilton Head’s, but Statesboro isn’t Hilton Head. The City doesn’t want garish signs.
•We’re not Hilton Head, but we don’t want to be Vegas either. Finding a good happy median.
•Make sure that sign regulations account for when two businesses occupy the same space.
•I lease commercial space and never had a client been deterred from Statesboro because of signage.
•Some of the signs are too big.
•Small businesses spend time and money on things that don’t get approved.
•Businesses can have an informal conversation with staff before filing sign permits.
•T he City requires a “monument sign” but they don’t require the a brick or some base so it looks odd.
•Sign ordinances are a balance. They need to balance diverse interests.
•How can we allow well designed signs and creativity? It’s difficult to do.
•T here has been a lot confusing over the issue of aggregate signs versus individual signs. She has to explain it almost daily to applications.
•“ Maximum height in sign ordinance” is unclear. Is it the sign of the actual sign or the elevation above grade. If the latter, many historic shopfronts are more than 12 feet above grade and signs historically go on the sign band above them.
•W indow film would not be a window sign and needs not permit.
•T he city has had push back or hesitancy regarding electronic billboards. Electronic can be nice if they are not too distracting.
USE STANDARDS
•T he City’s use classifications are a little vague, but I’ve never had an experience with a business tenant not being allowed.
•Use definitions are very broad. Uses are changing so consider wider definitions.
•I’ve seen cases where a convenience store was not approved because of the alcohol distance required from a tenant church (i.e., they did not own the property).
•C an we distinguish between owner vs tenant when applying use projections? Otherwise, a temporary, non-owner can kill a project.
•Consider use standards for car repair shops, industrial uses.
•T here’s been a question about whether the City should limit gas stations at key gateways.
•More and more people are working from home. People want to be able to sell things from their houses. Allow on-line sales. It mentions Tupperware and Amway.
•C an we ask people to sign off on business licenses in homes? Sometimes property owners don’t know about home occupation. The application should require property owner authorization.
•Mobile food services; look at limiting the number of times it can occur per year. Clarify if application per location, per occurrence, or just per location with an unlimited number of occurrences.
PARKING
•Parking standards may be needed. Look at them to make sure the ratios work well.
•Parking requirements should be set – they always need parking.
•Some new construction does not have enough parking. You’d think the businesses would know how much they need, but they cut corners.
•We look forward to having a parking problem in downtown (because it will mean we are doing well).
•Parking may be problematic for new development. A PUD came in at 0.7 per bedroom, but the standard code is 1.0 per bedroom.
•T here are standards for parking on an unimproved surface but a lot of times people just don’t comply.
•Police think frontal parking is safer.
•Allow street parking, wider 90-degree street parking.
ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION
•We need walkability for the aging population.
•T he city wants sidewalks, but they are sidewalks to nowhere. Why require this?
•Requiring alleys to be paved would add so much to the cost and make if unfeasible, especially small sites.
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS: GENERAL
•T he code should consider environmental sustainability.
•T he tree ordinance is too easy, despite Statesboro being a Tree City 30 years in a row.
•T he tree ordinance makes it hard for builders. There’s a 35% canopy coverage.
•E xplore updating the tree ordinance to encourage homeowners to maintain/ plant trees. We should reward people, not punish them (i.e., use carrots, not sticks).
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS: STORMWATER
•Don’t let people keep trees in detention ponds. Detention ponds should be maintained. There’ needs to be standards for ongoing maintenance to protect the dam.
•Look at the pond behind CVS. It shows what happens when it’s not maintained, so make sure we think about maintenance.
•Sometimes stormwater isn’t built to plans either.
•L arger stormwater retention adds land costs. Is there a way to use existing city network? It eats up land and adds.
•T here’s a stormwater fee based on impervious surfaces, but developers have to clean public ditches, upgrade sidewalks when they develop. They should get a reduced fee for improving the ditch (which has stormwater mitigation purpose).
FIRE CODES
•T here is a disconnect between Fire Department regulations and every other part of City government. It makes it tough.
•T he Fire Department is hard to work with. They don’t assume fire trucks can back up.
•T he Fire Department’s regulations hinder small, infill lot development. They require a turnaround in many projects, but this eats into parking and usable land. There should be a difference between what they want and other consideration.
•T here is a 500-foot hose-lay distance from the fire hydrant to the further portion of the site. Why should developers have to pay for hydrants if there’s already one. The County doesn’t have this requirement.
•It’s understandable that the Fire Department should be able to get to a fire quickly, but why do they also need the fastest way to leave? Especially when designing for this messes up a site plan?
•T he Fire Department inspections should be better coordinated with other City departments during plan review. The other
City departments respond quickly, but the Fire Department takes time. This one review can slow the permitted considerably.
UTILITY AND ENGINEERING STANDARDS
•Ordinances are too old and out of date.
•Much of the code is outdated, especially cable communications versus fiber, wire, etc. There are many companies in telecommunications today. We need rules for them in the ROW, standards, procedures, fees, especially true when the City is doing a construction project.
•Subdivision and development standards must be clearly defined so you can’t argue with it.
•Utilities in the public ROW are a problem. If GDOT needs to move them, the utility pays, but Statesboro must pay to move them. This takes time and money.
•T he City needs better encroachment standards, in general, including utilities, signs, buildings.
•T here are out-of-date references with regarding to who is responsible (e.g., Planning vs Engineering). Ideally, give Planning all zoning functions and Engineering all engineering functions.
•Today, engineers don’t get to look at site plans going through rezoning process. They will be approved, but engineering doesn’t get to review and comment before they are approved/rezoning/site plan conditions - especially PUD. Make sure it’s clear what they can do under ROW.
•T he City allows things on private roads that are not allowed on City streets, but
if private streets are not built to public standards, they won’t accept them.
•Look at street sections, street trees, etc.
•Pavement plans in subdivision are very generic. They are adequate for small, low volume street, but not major commercial developments. The City wants better standards for higher traffic roads that see heavier vehicles, volumes, etc. They want engineers to be required to design and submit plans for pavement designs that match anticipated users.
•Developers complain about the cost of business in the city, but they want to build cheap streets that fall apart.
•If developers are allowed to do something gin the ROW, make very clear who is responsible for maintenance after dedication. The City should not be on the hook for things that developers do wrong.
•Consider requiring a root barrier where trees are in the sidewalk to avoid damaging them. Normally the City recommends trees be planted outside the sidewalk.
•Driveways are a big issue, especially with ditches
•Inner city lots are often flat and there might be a ditch.
•People often don’t pour or pave driveways. They just drive into the yard and park.
•Look at creating better delineation of driveways, especially stormwater crossing under a driveway. It’s different in subdivision, environment, stormwater flooding, street details.
•T he City needs standards for how to address driveways.
•People driving off the road can damage utilities because sewers are often at the side of the road.
•Create standards about where utilities go.
•T he utilities are placed in a very inefficient location.
•Look at wider ROW standards because people are parking in the roadway, with consideration of fire lanes. People can’t park in sidewalks.
•Temporary cul-de-sacs are a problem. We need better standards. We need to assume that people are going to walk away before they do a phase 2. If they say there’s going to be a phase 2, require bonding.
LEGAL MEMO
The following memo was prepared by Brandon L. Bowen with Jenkins, Bowen & Walker, P.C. The purpose of the legal memo is to advise the consultant team on legal matters, not to offer any legal advise to the City of Statesboro.
STATESBORO LEGAL ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the City’s zoning ordinance and subdivision code and recommend the following updates.
(A) Process. A complete rewrite of the current zoning process is recommended to accomplish a couple of goals:
(1) T he ordinance references a board of appeals, but the board of appeals does not exist and the mayor and council serve this role. That is an acceptable process, but if that is the desired process, then the ordinance should align with that process. We recommend that the ordinance dispense with the board of zoning appeals; the zoning administrator can continue to be the chief administrative official for zoning purposes, the planning commission can serve as a recommending body, and the mayor and council can serve as both the appeals board (for variances and appeals of administrative decisions) and final decision maker on zoning matters (i.e. rezonings).
(2) T he Governor recently signed HB 1405, which substantially amended the zoning procedures law. This will require updates to the public notice and hearing process for various zoning decisions.
(B) Table of Permitted Uses. We recommend a table of permitted uses be developed and inserted; this will allow both citizens and staff to have an easy place to determine which is the appropriate zoning district for a particular use. The permitted uses listed under each zoning district would be removed and listed instead in a comprehensive table of permitted uses.
(C) Special use permits. We recommend that the City make more use of special use permits. These are a great way to control the development of those uses that, while necessary or important, have the ability to be a significant detriment to the community. We recommend that we develop a more robust special use permit process and list in the table of permitted uses those uses that are only permitted with a special use permit. A special use permit requires the same type of process as a rezoning, so it is easy to see how this would be beneficial. Suppose you zone a property for a heavy industrial use that is desirable. A few years then pass and a new heavy industrial user wants to occupy the property. If that new industrial use requires a special use permit, the mayor and council will have the opportunity to review the use before it goes into operation or obtains vested rights to operate.
(D) Unaddressed uses. There are a number of uses that we would recommend you consider regulating: short term rentals, CBD / Vape stores, title pawn, etc. If those are types of uses that the mayor and council wish to regulate, we can address in the table of permitted uses
(E) Residential zoning districts. There are quite a few residential zoning districts, all but one of which are single-family detached only, and they really are distinguishable only by their minimum lot size. We recommend analyzing whether so many similar districts are necessary. There are also incentive programs that can be effective in obtaining higher qualify construction through density bonuses that might be a good addition. We should also consider townhouse regulations that encourage desirable townhouse development. We may also want to develop regulation of “for rent only” communities to ensure that the City is getting developers that are well able to develop and maintain quality housing.
(F) Sign ordinance. We recommend a substantial rewrite of the sign ordinance to address recent case law; we would also recommend a table of permitted signs (for ease of review) and enforceable illumination standards for LED signs.
(G) Manufactured homes. We should address the regulation of manufactured homes to ensure that the zoning ordinance’s language meets the goals of the mayor and council. If manufactured houses are to be permitted, we recommend including the model ordinance on relocating used manufactured homes.
(H) Telecommunications Ordinance. There are some procedural updates that are needed here. We also may want to make telecommunications towers a special use in all districts, with substantive criteria.
(I) Group Homes. An update is needed here to address small group homes in residential areas. There is also a new law (SB 116) that will require an ordinance update in regards to “maternity supportive housing residences.”
(J) Religious Institutions. An update is appropriate here to address the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
(K) Historic Preservation. It appears that the downtown area has a historic-preservation requirements, but it does not appear to tract the applicable state law.
