Golf Course Rezoning Proposals
3/14/07 Update: As anticipated there was no reconsideration at the Horry County Council meeting yesterday evening
and the Wicked Stick rezoning exactly as agreed between Wicked Stick management and the Southwood community
is now established (Click here to see the agreement.)
2/21/07 Update: The Wicked Stick rezoning passed third reading on the consent agenda at the Horry County Council
February 20, 2007 meeting . It will now be rezoned in accordance with the Wicked Stick/Southwood agreement, barring a
motion for reconsideration passing before the minutes are read at the next Horry County Council meeting. There is no
current indication that such a motion will be made, let alone passed.
2/2/07 Update: Click here for other and golf course meeting reports and alerts more recent than below .
Summary from September 17 through October 16
Click the link in the table below for the section you would like to see:
September 17 Situation Summary
In many ways, the Deerfield and Southwood situations are widely divergent. Deerfield wants some of their property and their
golf courses which are zoned R7 rezoned to R5 and R3. And, unlike Southwood, the Deerfield golf courses have been sold for
redevelopment.. (Unlike the other numbered residential zoning classifications, R7 allows duplexes which are frequently used as
rentals or time shares and the 7 designation indicates one-seventh acre lots which are smaller than the existing residential lots in
Deerfield.)
Southwood supports Councilman Ryan's county-wide proposal requiring all golf course properties to be rezoned so that any
redevelopment requires public scrutiny and the full three reading county council ordinance process worked through. Failing that,
Southwood, wants its adjoining Wicked Stick golf course which is zoned either General Residential (allowing 120 foot high
multifamily buildings there) or Highway Commercial rezoned to R5, or at least a substantial portion of it rezoned to R5 -- and
therefore face the full ordinance enactment procedure if built otherwise. All Southwood residential lots appear to be built to R4
(one-fourth acre single family lots) or larger so rezoning everything to R5 (on-fifth acre lots) would keep all the construction
reasonably consistent. Southwood has not been sold nor is it known to be in the process of being sold.
The initial Southwood/Deerfield request was very professionally done. But no one from Southwood was involved in the original
Southwood/Deerfield request, the map showing the proposed delineation between Highway Commercial and R5 lots, nor the
Planning Commission selected subcommittee discussion. The Southwood petition shows what Southwood wants (click here).
The 9/17 updated editorial (click here) explains the reasons for championing the petition that is currently being
signed, and has been signed, by many in Southwood. Similar reasons apply to the suggested bare petition format (click here)
offered for other Horry County golf course communities to edit as appropriate to their community. The alternative to rezone
to specific residential lot designations consistent with the existing residential homes in a golf course community is suggested to
cover the eventuality that Horry County government will not rezone so any golf course redevelopment at all will require the full
county ordinance review procedure.
August 23 situation, synopsis and commentary
Click your choice below to skip to the section:
Details of August 23 Southwood/Deerfield Zoning Corrections with Map
Details of Proposed Revised Conservation District Classification for Horry County Golf Courses
Southwood, Deerfield and Horry County have apparently, at least temporarily, won, in the sense, that there will be no
Planning Commission vote against the Southwood/Deerfield zoning correction proposal in the next few weeks as previously
believed and reported by some county staff members. Adam Parness, Horry County Planning Commission chairman
emailed the following yesterday, August 23, at 11:33 a.m.
___________________
"You're always welcome to speak, but I feel your best chance to make the argument would be before the actual vote perhaps
in the late September meeting. I have had only a brief discussion with the subcommittee Chair regarding such. He will discuss
their findings at our next Zoning Committee meeting on August 29 at 3:30pm. There is no public input at these committee
meetings, but there will also be NO vote taken on this issue that day either. As well this is not on our Agenda for the full
PC on August 31. So we will NOT be voting then either."
___________________
I have verified with the county that the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting is October 5 (the first
Thursday of the month) so I don't know whether or not Adam is referring to an earlier meeting. My guess is that he just
misspoke (or miswrote).
Click here to return to the top of this page.
The "downzoning" contemplated in the Southwood request specifically is to rezone Wicked Stick golf course
property currently zoned HC, Highway Commercial, and GR, General Residential (that allows higher density
apartments and multi-family buildings), to R-5 (which allows only residential single-family homes on lots of
8,712 square feet or more).
The Deerfield "downzoning request" asks that existing designated Deerfield residential lots be downzoned from R-7
(6,000 square feet minimum and allowing duplexes): some to R-5 (8,712 square feet minimum) and some to R-3
(14,520 square feet minimum). Any single family zoning classification numbered less than 7 precludes duplexes that are
frequently used as rentals or time shares. These changes would bring county zoning into conformance with the Deerfield
home owner association documents.
Earlier reports from others were first that this "downzoning" zoning correction request would be voted on during a Planning
Commission meeting on August 31 and then earlier yesterday by the full Planning Commission in their zoning committee
meeting on August 29 in which public input is not formally permitted although the chairman had the discretionary power to
allow at least an individual member of the public to speak.
According to the sub-committee chairman, there had been no earlier opportunity for public discussion although the
sub-committee meeting that resulted in the measure's negative vote was open to public viewing at the Surfside Beach library.
Developers were consulted as to exactly what they intended to do and the sub-committee included two residents of
Deerfield, one of the communities that would be immediately affected.
The follow up e-mail to Chairman Parness, and copied to Mike Ryan, the county councilman who represents Southwood,
that was sent earlier today and is in quotes, and separated from the rest of this text with solid lines, below, summarizes
other aspects of where we now stand. The next few paragraphs explain some of the terms and names used in the e-mail.
Enactment of a "pending ordinance doctrine" prevents developers from getting a building permit under prior rules after first
reading by county council is passed until an ordinance contemplated to change those rules is acted upon.
"CC" is short for County Council.
"Janet" refers to Janet Carter, attorney and Director of Planning.
"Mac" refers to Ed McMenamin, chairman of the sub-committee that voted against the rezoning correction request for
Southwood and Deerfield.
"HC" is short for Highway Commercial zoning.
"GR" is short for General Residential zoning (which can include tall condominiums).
"PDD" is sort for Planned Development District.
_____________________________
"Thanks again for your promptness in responding.
"Is there any way that planning commission can expeditiously get something to the council which will allow them to pass first
reading on an ordinance so as to enact a "pending ordinance doctrine" or can CC initiate something on their own on golf
course community downzoning without planning commission doing something first? (Janet is not in this week, so I can't ask
her.
"As I understand 'Mac' (rather than stumble over the spelling of Ed's last name), Planning is in the process of trying to
determine what golf course communities should be considered for downzoning and which have the most critical need although
it feels that making all golf course areas conservation preservation with no other allowed use than for a golf course is too
extreme.
"Could we not just blanketly disallow anything but golf course or single family residential uses in golf course areas? This
would at least require golf course developers to go to CC for PDDs or whatever else and would not require the in depth
analysis delay.
"I believe Mac and I agree that zoning downsizing or uses within zoning districts are legitimate and perfectly legal uses
of governmental power. (I would go further in believing that it is nigh a county government duty to change zoning and
uses to equitably conform with community and commercial patterns as the county grows).
"As all Wicked Stick golf course property is currently zoned HC or GR although it surrounds or abuts residential Southwood,
the Southwood need is critical and ruling against the Southwood/Deerfield request would have contradicted the apparent
overall county-wide Planning approach. So it is great news that no potentially negative vote by the Planning Commission will
be taken on the Southwood/Deerfield request (that might better be separated) Planning has settled on a county-wide
approach. The only potential problem on this could be cured by CC somehow declaring and advertising a
'pending ordinance doctrine.'"
__________________________________
Deerfield people did a great job of composing the combined community request that asks that existing designated Deerfield
residential lots be downzoned from R-7 (6,000 square feet minimum and allowing duplexes): some to R-5 (8,712 square
feet minimum) and some to R-3 (14,520 square feet minimum). Any single family zoning classification numbered less than
7 precludes duplexes that are frequently used as rentals or time shares. These changes would bring zoning into conformance
with the Deerfield home owner association documents.
Click here to return to the top of this page.
I understand the map scanned into the Southwood/Deerfield Zoning Corrections section below was prepared by county staff.
The needed incursion into the currently zoned HC area is unclear and needs to be more precisely defined. If all the HC zoned
golf course area is not rezoned to R5 the landscaping, buffer and tree preservation ordinance requires a landscaped buffer.
I don't know whether the earlier county staff reported date for Planning Commission review was a miscommunication within
county staff or the now later named date for Planning Commission review is a result of Southwood's expressed desire
for a public meeting at which it could send a group. In any event, past experience indicates that a heavily attended public
meeting at which citizens views are expressed tends to get results, so Southwood citizens, especially, would be well
advised to prepare for such if events dictate its desirability.
Click here to return to the top of this page.
Two basic proposals to protect residential communities from potentially adverse golf course area redevelopment have been
submitted to Horry County Planning. Thank you, Deerfield citizens and councilmen Barnard and Ryan for initiating them. To view
the one you wish with an introductory discussion, click your selection from the following two items:
Southwood/Deerfield Zoning Corrections
Revised Conservation District Classification for Horry County Golf Courses
Southwood/Deerfield Zoning Corrections with Partial Map:
An Horry County Planning Commission Subcommittee headed by District 5 Commissioner Ed McMenamin has voted this
request down 4 -1 and will submit a memo to this effect to the Planning Commission. The latest information is that this will not
come before the Planning Commission sooner than late September. I understand that the subcommittee included
Ed McMenamin, Pam Hobeika, a Deerfield resident, Phil Tilghman, and Elizabeth Seratini, another Deerfield resident. Unless
some of the others were just appointed by county council and not yet on the county Web site, McMenamin and Hobeika were the only planning
commissioners on the subcommittee.
District 4 Commissioner, and subcommittee member, Pam Hobeika, explains that this request involved golf course properties in
Deerfield that had been bought for development and the HOA rules already protected Deerfield so she saw no reason to vote to
invite a lawsuit for a meaningless end. On the contrary, Deerfield’s position was that Horry County zoning should match legal
homeowner association covenants and change the current R7 zoning that allows duplexes to the requested R3 rezoning which
does not. (Any R [residential] zoning designation numbered below R7 does not allow duplexes [frequently used as rentals or
time-shares rather than being owner occupied], the number indicates the rough number of houses allowed per acre, e.g. R7
zoning allows 7 houses per acre, R5 zoning allows 5 houses per acre, R3, 3 per acre, specifically R7 lots must be no less than
6,000 square feet, R5 lots must be no less than 8,712 square feet, R3 no less than 14,520).
In any event, the Wicked Stick golf course bordering Southwood is not currently being sold for redevelopment and
Southwood covenants do not protect against development adverse to its homeowners' property values or aesthetics such as
condominiums or worse looming over residences because of its current General Residential (GR) and Highway Commercial (HC)
zoning -- even though at least some of the developers of Southwood and Wicked Stick were the same people. And homeowners
bought in on the, apparently naive, belief that they were buying golf course lots, as advertised, that would remain so in perpetuity.
It is clear from the accompanying map prepared by Planning Staff, (at the end of this section) that there are extensive areas
on Wicked Stick Golf course adjacent to residents on Heathmuir Drive, Coventry Road, and some other roads that are currently
zoned general residential (allowing tall condominiums) or highway commercial. It is unclear from the map what part of the
Wicked Stick golf course property between the residences on Heathmuir Drive and Bypass 17 was being requested to be
rezoned single family residential, R5, instead of Highway Commercial. But the Deerfield resident that authored the texts for the
requests says that he had in mind projection of a line from Beaver Run Parkway. I did not determine, where he envisioned the
residential R5 zoning line parallel to 544, although that will be a moot point if the Southwood portion of the request were
rejected by Planning Commission, along with the Deerfield portion. This is exactly what would happen if the Planning
Commission were to accept the sub-committee recommendation which, so far, has dismissed the requests for both.
Deerfield, although not in as potentially dire straits as Southwood has done a wonderful job of carrying the ball so far and
deserves support.
REASONS TO SUPPORT THIS REZONING CORRECTION
REQUEST FOR SOUTHWOOD AND DEERFIELD
COMMUNITIES - June 20, 2006
1. Zoning Classifications Incompatible With Existing Land Use Situation.
Deerfield and Southwood communities contain residential land uses and
subdivision lot sizes that are not respected or protected by the current R-7, GR
and HC zoning district classifications currently applied to these communities.
According to the Horry County Zoning Ordinance, the purpose of residential
land use zoning is to protect existing "residential developments of low
density, to discourage the encroachment of commercial, industrial, or other
uses capable of adversely affecting the residential character and to preserve
the architectural character of established neighborhoods." The current R-7,
GR and HC zoned areas of Southwood and Deerfield do not provide the
required protection for these low density residential neighborhoods because
the zoning classifications allow redevelopment to be much more intensive
(medium to high density populations) than the originally designed subdivision
layouts envisioned and built infrastructure will currently accommodate.
2. Example of R-7 (residential 7 lots per acre) Redevelopment. The attached
sketch plan marked Exhibit "A" depicts a typical existing lot in Deerfield
Plantation. The lot is 15,000square feet in size and house/garage is 2,800
square feet in size. Exhibit "B" shows what R-7 zoning will allow the
property owner to do with the lot if vacant due to a fire, etc. The lot can be
split in two and two-duplex dwelling units can be located on each lot (total of
4 dwelling units). This arrangement increases the population density by a
factor of four (4) times. Utilities were sized for the original lot layout.
Increasing the population density by 4 times puts a substantial strain on the
utility systems well beyond intended design capacity. This type of
redevelopment may be good short-term profit creation for the redeveloper but
it is very poor long-term economics for the community and its public utilities
infrastructure.
3. Original Intent and Fairness To Homeowners. Deerfield and Southwood
communities were designed and built to be Golf Course Communities and the
original subdivision layouts were designed with the golf course as an integral
part of the community. The storm water drainage system, street pavement
system, pedestrian sidewalk system (or lack thereof), water and sanitary sewer
lines and pumping stations, electrical lines and substations, telephone and
cablevision system lines were all designed and sized to accommodate the
originally planned number of building lots and dwelling units. Land use
zoning is intended to match the existing pattern of development so as to
protect existing property owners from unwanted changes to the land uses in
the community. Improper and incorrect application of new zoning districts
allow a privileged few property owners who happen to have vacant land
available to be redeveloped to higher density development an opportunity to
reap windfall profits at the expense of the majority of the community
residents and voters. The "fairness doctrine" or "doing unto others as you
would have others do unto you" requires the local governing body to develop
and apply appropriate land use zoning classifications to all properties in each
community so as to implement the protection intended by the Ordinance.
4. Specific Request For County Council To Immediately Correct Zoning
Classifications For Deerfield and Southwood Communities. The land use
zoning classifications currently applied to the entire Southwood community
and certain low-density neighborhoods in the Deerfield community are
incorrect and do not provide the necessary protections to the property owners
of these communities. Specifically, in Southwood the current zoning district
classifications of HC, R-7, and GR are requested to be changed to R-5 as
shown on the attached Exhibit "C" Rezoning Plan. In Deerfield the current
zoning district classification ofR-7 is requested to be changed to R-3 and R-5
for those low-density neighborhoods shown on the attached Exhibit "C"
Rezoning Plan.
To return to the top of this page, click here.
Revised Conservation District Classification for Horry County Golf Courses
John Danford of Planning Staff is proceeding on the basis that this proposal should not apply to all golf courses county wide and
that it should be applied on a case by case basis. He is getting information together on which Horry County communities are golf
course communities that could reasonably be classified as such for this ordinance. He cautioned that this is a very time-consuming
process.
I indicated an urgency for action before golf courses are sold for other type development as allowed under the existing zoning.
He said that it is up to County Council and the Planning Commission to set priorities as to whether or not a community is imperiled
by the delay. Pam Hobeika had said that she felt that Planning Staff was to ascertain the communities, such as Southwood,
that need urgent help. Obviously, the more homeowners and homeowner groups throughout the county that urge the Planning
Commission and County Council to set the needed priorities for staff the better.
I believe that County Council must pass first reading on a specific ordinance and that must be advertised before the "pending
ordinance doctrine" -- that can prevent activities that will be banned by the ordinance -- can be invoked. Waiting for this all to
happen in a reasonable time is a false hope. Golf course communities in the direst need must press their case for protection
hardest and all Horry County homeowners and homeowner groups should strongly support them and the need for urgent
action.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE
AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ORDINANCE
June 20, 2006
A. Proposed Revision of Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 736 by the
addition of the following permitted use:
736. Conservation/Preservation District (CO 1)
736.1 Permitted uses.
(I) Golf courses, public and/or privately owned and operated, designed and built
as part of a residential subdivision within a Golf Course Community (see Golf
Course Community definition) that utilize the course layout as part of the
neighborhood storm water drainage system, and serves as community open
space. Residential neighborhood golf courses shall not be lighted for night
play, nor operate commercial driving ranges, putting greens, miniature golf
games or other related commercial businesses within 500 feet of residential
structures at night.
B. Proposed Revision of Zoning Ordinance, Article IV, by the addition of the
following definition as Section 435.1 - Golf Course Community:
Golf Course Community. A residential community planned, designed and built to
be a complete residential community with a golf course as a central unifying open
space facility within the community. Residential streets are designed to parallel some
or all of the golf course fairways and blocks are longer than normal and streets cross
the fairways at appropriate pre-planned locations so as to accommodate the golf
course layout. The storm water drainage system for the golf course and the residential
blocks are planned and installed so as to compliment one another and natural drainage
features such as streams, ponds and wetlands are utilized as part of the golf course
design features rather than being a separate and distinct part of the residential blocks for
the purpose of community open space. There is no original preapproved plan to convert
the golf course to any other use in the future and residential lots are sold with the
understanding that the buyer is purchasing a lot that is part of a Golf Course Community.
C. Proposed Revision of Land Development Regulations, Article 9, by the
addition of the above definition of Golf Course Community.
REASONS TO DESIGNATE GOLF COURSE
COMMUNITIES AND REZONE THEIR GOLF COURSES
TO A REVISED COI-CONSERV ATION DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION - June 20, 2006
1. Definition of Golf Course Community. A Golf Course Community is a
residential community planned, designed and built to be a complete residential
community with a golf course as a central unifying open space facility within
the community. Residential streets are designed to parallel some or all of the
golf course fairways and blocks are longer than normal and streets cross the
fairways at appropriate pre-planned locations so as to accommodate the golf
course layout. The storm water drainage system for the golf course and the
residential blocks are planned and installed so as to compliment one another
and natural drainage features such as streams, ponds and wetlands are utilized
as part of the golf course design features rather than being a separate and
distinct part of the residential blocks for the purpose of community open
space. There is no approved plan to convert the golf course to any other use
in the future and residential lots are sold with the understanding that the buyer
is purchasing a lot that is part of a Golf Course Community.
2. Original Intent and Fairness To Homeowners. Golf course communities
were designed, built and sold on the original premise that the community
should have a golf course designed and located within the community as open
space and a recreation facility for the homeowners of the community.
Developers use this concept to attract buyers to their project and as a sales tool
to help sell residential lots in the new community. The County's land use
zoning program should support and protect this original intent of the designers
and developers of a Golf Course Community because it is the honest and fair
thing to do for all parties. In the future, all newly planned Golf Course
Communities should clearly identify any future "phase-2 plan" to convert the
golfcourse to more residential building lots or units by submitting a
preliminary future plan for golf course conversion that shows future streets,
utilities and lot layouts.
3. Community Infrastructure Designed and Constructed Interdependently
With The Golf Course. Golf Course Communities are normally designed
and built so that the golf course layout and the residential street layout are
interdependent. In other words, the overall community is designed to
accommodate only the number of building lots and dwelling units originally
proposed. The stormwater drainage system, street pavement system,
sidewalk system (or lack thereof), water and sanitary sewer lines and pumping
stations, electrical lines and substations, natural gas lines, telephone and cable
lines and substations are designed and sized to accommodate the planned
number of building lots and dwelling units. Golf Course Communities in
Horry County have not historically been pre-planned for golf course
conversions to more residential building lots or dwelling units at some
unknown future time. Without an up-front, pre-planned, pre-approved golf
course conversion plan Horry County policy should be to not approve new
land subdivision proposals for golf course conversions, unless major
infrastructure capacity changes are made, because the existing infrastructure
will become less adequate and problematic for the original residential building
lot and dwelling unit owners and renters.
4. Applicability To All Horry County Golf Course Communities. The
proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development
Regulations will provide a policy mechanism within these ordinances that is
applicable to all Golf Course Communities in Horry County. A survey would
identify all golf courses by TMS number that qualify under the new definition
of Golf Course Community. The total number of residential lots currently.'
located within the golf course communities of Horry County could also be
calculated as part of the survey.. An unofficial guesstimate is that there are
approximately 25 golf course communities containing 10,000 to 12,000 lots
and/or dwelling units. One amendment to the Zoning Map could change all
designated golf course parcels to the COl- Conservation-Preservation District
for some protection against future unplanned conversion development
proposals.
5. Zoning, Fairness, Vested Rights, Takings and Windfall Profits Issues.
Zoning existing golf courses within Golf Course Communities to CO1-
Conservation-Preservation District does not prevent the later rezoning of these
golf course properties to some other land use classification; rather, it merely
makes the conversion process public, debatable, and more problematical for
the redeveloper/owner. Currently, having an older commercial golf course
within a Golf Course Community zoned R-7 (hypothetical situation) provides
the commercial golf course property owner a "windfall profits" opportunity to
sell the old golf course to a new redeveloper/owner based upon the face value
assumption that the new owner/developer has the "right" to redevelop the old
commercial golf course as the R-7 district allows (small lots with duplex
dwelling units that increases the population density by 4 times). In fact, the
new redeveloper/owner's right to redevelop (vested rights) takes effect only
after approval by the County government (County Planning Commission) of
the Preliminary Land Subdivision Plat as required in the Land Development
Regulations Ordinance or by the issuance by the County government of a
Building Permit or other official development approval. Because the old
commercial golf course (hypothetical situation) is already zoned R-7 the new
redeveloper/owner is not required to expose its redevelopment plans to the
public as no rezoning is required. Therefore, there is no public review process
whereby the existing HOA or individual property owners/voters can learn
about or express opinions about the redevelopment plan that is about to alter
their neighborhood and community forever. Finally, an unhappy HOA could
make the legal argument in Court that a "taking" has occurred to the lot
owners by the new redeveloper/owner and County government because the
added value earned by the lot owners by paying extra for a Golf Course
Community lot/dwelling unit has been "taken" away by the redevelopment
conversion of the golf course which partially provided the value in the first
place and has sustained that value as a Golf Course Community property over
the years.
6. The Fairness Issue And A Solution To The Problem. There is clearly an
inherent "fairness issue" involved in this situation due to the lack of a public
review process for such a major alteration in the long established land use
pattern of an older Golf Course Community including the issue of the impact
to the existing utilities systems. Application of the "fairness doctrine" or
"doing unto others as you would have others do unto you" is a strong
argument for rezoning existing commercial golf courses within Golf Course
Communities to the C01-Conservation-Preservation District as a means to
require that future redevelopment conversion project proposals at least be
subject to public scrutiny, debate, and due process prior to the vesting of
development rights by the County government.
Horry County Council is requested to have its staff study this issue and for
Horry County Council to subsequently but in a timely fashion:
(1) amend its Zoning Ordinance definition of the CO1- Conservation-
Preservation District to include commercially owned and operated golf
courses within designated Golf Course Communities; and
(2) amend its Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Regulations
Ordinance to include a new Golf Course Community definition; and
(3) survey, identify, and designate all Golf Course Communities in Horry
County by an overlay zone designation; and
(4) amend its Zoning Map to designate Golf Course Communities and
apply the CO1 District classification to all golf courses within the designated
Golf Course Communities.
To return to the top of this page, click here.