|
George's Information and Comments Growth Impact Action Committee ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ |
|
|
Proceedings: Final Steering Committee Meeting on June 21 Envision 2025 Horry County Comprehensive Plan -- George Edwards
Notes: 1. These are not official proceedings, but as I observed them. I intend to publish the Land Use Element minutes for this meeting (which will likely include more or fewer items and details) with other supplemental material provided by staff when such becomes available. 2. The official Land Use Element portion for the comprehensive plan prepared by county staff as the final output of the steering committee is published on the Horry County Web site, www.horrycounty.org. 3. Eric Rabon is listed as attending in the official minutes received on July 26 and has been added here although not so noted here, previously.
Top Level June 21 Envision 2025 Unofficial "Minutes"
Rather than a chronological order of events in this meeting and the more or less formal listing of attendees, these proceedings instead present items in the order that I most want to emphasize.
If you want to view a particular section of these proceedings, click the appropriate link in the following table. Otherwise, just scroll down.
Motion for Growth to Pay for Itself
The immediately following motion was actually presented near the end of the meeting with a printed copy distributed among the steering committee attendees by Edwards.
Motion: Establish ways for growth to pay for itself so that the tax burden on existing residents is not increased to pay for the additional facilities required to support new developments.
For: Council District 4, Julie Harbin Council District 8, George Edwards Council District 11, Carol Hardwick Coastal Carolina University, Dr. Susan Libes Wildlife Action Inc., Pam Creech
Against: Many voted against and no one volunteered that they had not voted when asked. Therefore this lists all other attendees at the June 21 comprehensive plan steering committee meeting: Note 1: The ordinance establishing the steering committee includes the following quote as to membership criteria: “One community member from each district appointed by their respective County Council Member; excluding individuals affiliated with the real estate and land development industries.” Note 2: The life blood of those affiliated with civil engineering firms is land development.
Council District 1, Marty Ekster Council District 2, Mitchell Flannery – initially listed (March 15) as affiliated with D.R. Horton, a real estate development firm. He is its land acquisition agent. Council District 5, Kitty Howell – initially listed as with Doctor’s Care (March 15) Council District 6, Tamera Bergstrom – Director of Marketing for Elam, Todd, d’Ambrosi of South Carolina, Civil Engineering and Planning Council District 10, Eric Rabon -- initially listed (April 5) as affiliated with Shoreline Engineering Burroughs and Chapin, Felix Pitts Area Chambers of Commerce, W. Greg Hyman Grand Strand Water and Sewer Authority, Fred Richardson, Steering Committee Chairman – volunteered that he was against Holliday Associates, Johnny Skipper USDA Nat. Resource Conservation, Sammy Johnson Horry County Planning Commission Chair appointee, Peggy Graham
Absent: Council District 3, David Utterback – absent since April 19 meeting although present at all six previous meetings before that concerning the land use element. Council District 7, Ibrahim Aborsey Ashly – absent since April 19 meeting although present at all six previous meetings before that concerning the land use element. Council District 9, Shirley Martin – Horry County planning commission member Council District 10, Eric Rabon – initially listed as an appointee of Shoreline Engineering, previously attended April 5 and all other land use element meetings since Coastal Carolina Association of Realtors, Steven Neeves – absent since April 19 meeting Horry County Schools, Eddie Rodelsperger – only appointee attending any land use element meeting was Kyle? Loftus at the February meeting Horry-Georgetown Homebuilders Association, Lawrence Langdale – attended the February meeting and the two May meetings during the land use element discussions Horry-Georgetown Technical College, Harold Hawley – no appointee attended any of the land use element meetings Myrtle Beach Hospitality and Tourism Association, Pauline Levesque – no appointee attended any of the land use element meetings Horry County Planning Commission member, Holly Kauffman, earlier absent during the land use element discussions only at the February and March 1 meetings.
Marty Ekster asked for strategies supporting this goal. Edwards suggested two:
1. Determine the increased property taxes on the county's general population that a development's added public facility needs will require. 2. Remove public facility adequacy requirements for developments that provide public facilities and infrastructure improvements equal in value to the amount necessary to make the public facilities required by the development adequate.
In the general discussion that followed, Libes and Harbin referred to strategies already in the comprehensive plan that supported this goal. These include one to initiate studies for evaluating the fiscal impacts of land development, another for an incentive zoning ordinance for developments that provide public facilities, or infrastructure, and the references to an Adequate Public Facilities ordinance that would avoid development where public facilities are not adequate. Creech spoke citing several reasons that showed that including the goal in the comprehensive plan was desirable.
Richardson likened development to selling hot dogs in that the more you sell the less the individual cost. Libes and Harbin pointed out that the goal related to infrastructure costs not to the costs to developers.
There was general opposition from the developer contingent and Ekster made repeated rounds of objections to any new taxes, fees or developer contributions. He said that we were already paying too much in taxes, that government was far from as efficient as private enterprise. He pointed out the minimal increase in water and sewer fees over the years that Richardson had cited earlier.
Edwards said he was a great believer in free enterprise, but opined that the major reason for the small percentage Grand Strand Water and Sewer fee increases was the impact fees that were paid for water and sewer. As to Richardson's hot dog analogy, he noted that commercial businesses tended to pay taxes that covered their infrastructure need, the problem was largely due to residential development. He said that new development does not pay for the costs of the new infrastructure it requires, noting the many across-the-country studies and statistics showing that were cited in the book Better not Bigger.
Edwards said he had no reason to believe that Horry County was "special," in fact if new development was such a financial blessing, Horry County would be awash in money. He said that someone had to pay for the new infrastructure that development requires and that he was tired of doing so. He said that it should be paid for by the newcomers that required it. Developers would offset any increased development cost for needed additional public infrastructure to those newcomers.
The vote was taken on the proposal with the results shown above. It failed. Only Creech, Edwards, Harbin, Hardwick and Libes are known to have voted for the motion to have growth pay for itself.
Click here to return to the hyperlink table of sections near the top of this page.
Motion to safeguard landowner property rights
Another motion was actually presented preceding the above near the end of the meeting with a printed copy distributed among the steering committee attendees by Skipper.
Goal: Safeguard Private Property Rights of All Landowners
Strategy: Encourage the need for private property rights to be considered in land use planning and the need for a landowner's property rights to be protected consistent with state and federal guidelines. The comprehensive plan should provide equal growth opportunities for all communities in the county and should respect, at a minimum, the existing zoning.
Edwards said that being for private property rights was akin to supporting "motherhood and apple pie." But he suggested two potential substitute motions: 1. Respect private property rights while minimizing negative impacts to residents, businesses, natural resources and public infrastructure, or simply, 2. Respect private property rights while minimizing negative impacts on others.
Ekster asked if Edwards was asking this to be inserted within the main motion. Edwards said he was proposing that it be substituted for the main motion and moved the simpler of the two suggested substitutes:
Respect private property rights while minimizing negative impacts on others.
Chairman Richardson, said he was not an expert on parliamentary procedure and, without asking if there were any further amendments on the main or substitute motion, simply called for a vote on the substitute motion .
The substitute motion failed. I do not know but suspect that it received the approval of the same five people who unsuccessfully approved the motion for growth to pay for itself.
During the discussion, Carol Coleman, Deputy Planning Director, said that the main motion would not effect the way that Planning carried out its duties.
The main motion to safeguard private property rights passed.
Click here to return to the hyperlink table of sections near the top of this page.
Motion to encourage protection of rural area characteristics
Earlier in the meeting, Libes distributed a printed copy with variations of a possible motion to encourage protection of rural area characteristics. I believe that the variation that passed was:
Encourage the protection of rural areas that have distinct resources, characteristics, and a traditional way-of-life in Horry County in a manner that respects private property right while simultaneously minimizing the natural resource impacts of new growth and development.
Click here to return to the hyperlink table of sections near the top of this page.
Graham suggested wording changes in a number of places she pinpointed throughout the document. Many were accepted by committee consensus. Some questioned facts were left for staff to decide. These should be covered in the final Envision 2025 land use element as it will be presented to Planning as well as the minutes of the June 21 meeting. I have asked for electronic copies of both. Of course, the minutes can not be officially approved by the steering committee as June 21 was its final meeting.
Click here to return to the top of this page. |