October 3 County Council Meeting: Deerfield Golf Course and Adequate Public Facilities Presentation

    Thanks, recap, future and explanations

            -- George Edwards

Thanks to all of you all who were able to attend the October 3 county council meeting and standup in support of the Deerfield rezoning effort. The crowd standing up in council chambers was impressive.

I found out the morning of the meeting that there would not be public input on the second reading of the Deerfield North Course moratorium as it had not yet been timely advertised. (There will be public input on it on third reading instead). I called Gary Loftus, Deerfield Homeowner Association president, who had last told me that that was when he would be speaking and mentioned, what he probably already knew, that, with a crowd, council sometimes allowed unscheduled speakers.

Gary said he would handle it and ended up speaking during the general public input. It was too late to really get any general word out in the morning, and I did not know, until when he spoke, if and when he would speak, anyway. I apologize for the changing reports on the times that he would be speaking.

Both Deerfield measures passed, the rezoning unanimously and the moratorium except for one vote, Grabowski's. The stand up crowd, and Loftus's efforts made,  all the difference in the world. Public input will, presumably, be allowed on the next reading of both ordinances (as opposed to the general public input at the start of the meetings). 

 

I did not, nor do I intend to speak to County Council on the general golf course rezoning issues because I had promised Loftus  that I would not further complicate Deerfield's issue in council's minds (with my more general belief that all proposed future golf course redevelopments throughout Horry County should receive the full public discussion and three county council hearing procedure that a rezoning request does).

 

The request on behalf of Southwood (where I live) to downzone Wicked Stick golf course from the 120 foot high building heights allowed by current zoning for multi-families in our area, General Residential and Highway Commercial to R5 (minimum one-fifth acre residential lots) is, in my mind, a heck of a lot better than the current situation, failing the more desirable approach to require the full three reading approval process for any golf course redevelopment at all.

 

For those of you who attended: I apologize for the "slide" mixups by staff in support of my adequate public facilities ordinance (APFO) and as adequate public facilities ordinance (AAPFO) PowerPoint presentation (in lieu of a general county-wide golf course rezoning plea). I also know it was an awful lot for five minutes, but I felt it necessary to cover every approach and objection raised on making some attempt to control the impacts of growth. I'm afraid it made the presentation all but unintelligible to those not intimately aware of the issues. The council secretary promised to distribute two sheet, 6-slide-each, hand-outs to each county council member.

 

Click here to see the PowerPoint presentation and introductory material (added 10/19/06). I tried to respond to everything that I hear that CC can not do, it seems anything, about controlling growth. That is really too much to cover in five minutes (certainly without control of "clicking the slides"), but five minutes is the rule.

 

The presentation gets down to an adequate public facilities ordinance (APFO) that the planning attorney, at least, believes requires taxes on existing taxpayers to bring facilities up to adequacy before a developer could be required to make them adequate. That seems fair if unpalatable to current taxpayers even though the end result would be less total accumulated taxes to them. However, the inadequacies of public facilities are not true everywhere throughout the county and if they are not in some areas a developer can make them adequate or pay his/her proportionate share in dedications, construction and/or cash to make them so -- or wait. I won't get into this meaning we can not build more schools other than to note that public facilities may need upgrading or replacement in the normal course of things with or without development.

 

An AS Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance would not require current taxpayers to play catch up.

----

In an earlier discussion with Janet Carter, attorney and Planning Director, she did not express a legal opinion but opined that an AS Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance would be difficult to administer (but I don't see how more so than an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance). I suggested to her that county council allowing only five rezonings or development approvals per month (or whatever) would give staff more time for administrative duties , if the county can not do its legitimate job otherwise). She smilingly acted as if she didn't hear me (because, yeah that's going to happen).