____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

General
■Home: George's Page
■Alerts                  
■Contact Us or Receive GIAC Weekly E-mails
National Project
OPERATION SIT IN
Long-Term National Resource Material
■Wake up America!

■Remember in November--2010, 2012 and 2014
■Voting System and Fraud Prevention Tradeoffs--Revised 9/5/10
■Voting System Recommendations
■A Road Map for America's Future
■CBO Analysis of Congressman Ryan's Roadmap
■'Contract From America'
■Tea Party America Refounding Principles
■Public Education System and Learning
Horry County 2010 Election Information
■Candidate Snapshots --Horry County --updated
■Constitutional Amendment Questions
Other Menus
■Classic Links
■George's Musings
■Nation/World & Features
■South Carolina  Links

■Horry County  Links

■References
Site Navigation
■Navigation Tips and Site Description 10/8/10

■Index for GIAC Site

2/19/09
■Web Site Link Menu Collection/Explanation 11/20/08

Growth Impact Action Committee:

Horry County and South Carolina
■ Growth Impact Action Committee Roadmap

■ Council/School Board

Horry County Candidates

2010                      4/1/10
■What Now on Growth's Fiscal Impact  2/18/09
■GIAC Visions 1/26/09
■How to be Effective
■Horry County PRIDE
■Envision 2025 Comp Plan 10/9/07
■Imperative Horry County Ordinances 8/30/07
■Priority Investment Act 5/26/07
■Golf Course Rezoning Proposals 3/14/07
■Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, etc. 11/25/06
■The "Takings Issue" 8/22/06
■Home Rule When Allowed 10/9/05
■GIAC Position

 

Editorial: My Perspective on Golf Course Uses and Zoning

            -- George Edwards

 

9/15/06 Update in blue text expresses my opinion change and the reasons for the change, in support of the suggested petitions.

I suggested to council better than a year ago that all golf course areas county-wide be zoned so that the only other development option was single family residential. This would not preclude owners/developers from seeking other development options but it would require them to negotiate with county council rather than just automatically get a development permit and it would preclude developer’s legitimate complaint, when they meet opposition, that the rules are being changed on them although they proceeded in dependence on those rules.

As it is, Janet Carter, Director of Planning, again legitimately, has pled that any redevelopment limitation that homeowners might want to impose on developers should be looked upon by homeowners in the light of the terrible things that could legally happen within the existing zoning regulations if developer requested rezoning were not allowed.  Pam Creech called the latter nothing but blackmail and I agree.

I understand Deerfield homeowner’s rezoning request that makes an even finer point between the types of residential housing that should be allowed developers in their community and, given my druthers would feel the same way in Southwood as to precluding building duplexes as allowed in R7. So, especially with all the good work those at Deerfield did in working towards correcting mis-zoning, I support their position.

I was upset when I heard that the zoning correction requests, including that for Southwood appeared to be going down the drain -- when part of that was asking to correct the Wicked Stick golf course (that engulfs Southwood) zoning that is all either GR, General Residential (for instance, condos), or HC, Highway Commercial. I don't care how many years that zoning has been in effect, it was bad zoning to begin with and it needs to be corrected to single family residential now.

I was even more upset when I understood that the Wicked Stick rezoning request was going to be denied with no public input whatsoever -- even though the sub-committee studying the Deerfield Southwood request was better balanced than was the case with such committees just a few years ago. It had no Southwood members.

There are those that believe that golf course properties should never be redeveloped. I understand the feeling as I bought with the understanding that I was buying a golf course lot and anticipated that it would stay such. Indeed, I paid thousands of dollars extra to get a golf course lot, and those homeowners within Southwood with lots not directly adjacent to the golf course bought with the understanding that they would have golf course views. All Southwood property values would depreciate from their present value if the Wicked Stick golf course were redeveloped.

Councilman Ryan's proposal to rezone golf course areas into remaining golf courses county wide would still allow future rezoning to such as PDDs on appeal to the county council, but it would require such to go before county council. At that point, the redevelopment's appropriateness and the golf course's need could be established, i.e., if the motivation is just to make the most money possible or if it is an economic necessity.

As zoning goes, though, I believe that it would be bad zoning at the other extreme. If a golf course finds that it can not stay in business as a golf course, it should be allowed to redevelop to residential classifications compatible with existing neighboring residences. I believe it would be unfair not to allow them to redevelop to another usage at all and rezoning precluding such would appear to me to be a legal "taking." But golf courses neighboring residential communities should be rezoned single family residential, not zoned as Wicked Stick is currently – Highway Commercial and General Residential which allows condos.

I have changed my mind about that struck out above, as reflected in the petitions, after reading a letter to the editor day before yesterday in which a resident in a golf course community was complaining about his views of weeds and parked construction equipment in the former golf course adjoining his community that was being redeveloped. Before, I thought it only fair for golf courses to be allowed to build single family residences in the golf course area if they could no longer otherwise stay in business, further that residents would be worse off if a golf course closed and no longer maintained the former golf course area, and finally that not allowing such would be a legal "taking" if it was economically infeasible to continue business as a golf course. Now, as I fully realize that the county would recognize the same facts and have to allow rezoning to, at least, single family residential regardless of the golf course's rezoning before, I have changed my mind.  

The county council then would be in a position to affirm that a golf course redevelopment was an economic necessity and not simply greed before approving a redevelopment, negotiate the details of what will be developed and hopefully manage to contract with the developers to maintain the golf course areas and control residents views as much as possible during any redevelopment.

In my opinion that it is highly likely that County Council will not act on the specific Southwood/Deerfield request but handle those golf course communities as it sees fit in response to Councilman Ryan's request.

I now fully support Councilman Ryan's proposal and only mention the alternative of rezoning to single family residential consistent with the residential lots in the neighboring community, in Southwood's case, R5, on the possibility that the county council might not have the votes to support Ryan's proposal while it would support rezoning Southwood to R5 in response to the Southwood/Deerfield request specifically or as part of its response to the Ryan proposal by rezoning selected golf courses or golf courses countywide to single family residential consistent with the residential lots in the neighboring community.