|
Proceedings: Envision 2025
Comprehensive Plan
3/1/2007
-- George Edwards
To move to a particular topic
on this page, click the appropriate table link below.
Click
here if you want to move back
to the main menu for the Land Use Element
of the Envision 2025
Horry County Comprehensive Plan.
Information available on the Horry County Web site as of 3/1/2007
"Envision 2005" is the new comprehensive plan that has been being
developed for the last two years. You can view some information at
www.horrycounty.org by clicking
the top item in the left hand menu: "Envision 2005." On the page that
then appears, there are links to the published texts of the six
developed elements except for the very important "Land Use Element"
which this page discusses. The last of the previous six, the "Economic
Element" is dated 1/24/2007.
(There are slots for meeting minutes and agendas up to 8/10/2006, but
meetings scheduled after 4/13/2006 were either cancelled or clicking
their links yields only a blank page. There is a published agenda, but
only a blank page for the minutes of the 6/2/2006 meeting.)
Click here if you want to return to the
table of section links.
Envision
2025
3/1/2007 Meeting on Land Use Element
with Comments Before Official Minutes Become Available
The committee reviewed the staff prepared: "Goals, Policies and
Strategies for the Land Use Element" paragraph by paragraph through the
"Objectives of the Land Use Element" and all but one of the "Designated
Urban Growth Area Strategies."
For now, I will report
top-level unofficial minutes on the 3/1/2007 meeting.
I understood that one objective was deleted: "Provide a
balance of land uses and densities at appropriate locations and endorse
development in areas with available public services and facilities."
This was considered to require an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
that the county had not yet adequately prepared for. The wording of a
subsequent strategy to "adopt" such an ordinance was amended to read to
"plan" for such.
Two urban growth area strategies were deleted:
- "Promote community involvement and stakeholder participation
through the use of Community Benefits Agreements (CBA's)."
- "Establish of [sic] a countywide "Transfer of Development Rights
" (TDR) program that grants density increases in designated urban
growth areas."
The committee asked for a few wording changes to clarify meaning or
the committee's agreement including replacing "require" with "encourage"
to say "Encourage preservation of sensitive environmental features and
open space . . . "
The next Envision 2025 meeting scheduled from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. on
March 15 was rescheduled to 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. the same day.
Click here if you want to return to the
table of section links.
Comments:
The idea of Community
Benefits Agreements (CBA's) is a breath of fresh air. Instead of
the current system in which developers negotiate with county planning
alone, they would also negotiate with communities and put any agreement
reached into a legally enforceable contract before approval by the
county council.
Although another committee member told me that this went through
without comment at the previous meeting, Peggy Graham, the Horry County
Planning Commission, Chair Appointment opined that neighboring
communities would never agree to any development.
Graham confirmed with Janet Carter, the Director of Planning, that
the measure concerned written contracts. Carter pointed out that oral
agreements on such matters are not enforceable. I believe it was Graham
who further objected that the county could no more monitor and enforce
such agreements than it concerned itself with restrictive covenants.
Carter did not contradict that and the measure was defeated by a show of
hands of the steering committee voting for its deletion.
In my mind, there is no appropriate reason to remove this highly
desirable comprehensive plan strategy as the introductory word used was
"promote," not "require." In the past, communities have reached
agreements with developers to control neighboring development and, like
restrictive covenants, Community Benefit Agreement's could provide quite
valuable protection to a community's character.
The committee's removal of the strategy to establish a county wide
"Transfer of Development Rights"
was a victory for already densely populated communities. Janet Carter
pointed out that TDR's would help maintain the character of rural
communities and, on the other hand, residents in an urban community
would be heartily displeased if the density or building heights of a
neighboring development were automatically allowed to increase beyond
the requirements of its established zoning simply because the developer
had paid for a TDR.
Changing
the wording from "Adopting" to "Planning for" an Adequate Public
Facilities Ordinance is not unreasonable given the county's stated
current inadequacies in assessing public facility adequacies. However
the stated reasons appear to fall apart with regard to an As Adequate
Public Facilities Ordinance. Either an APFO or AAPFO could
serve as a tool for the county council to choose to disapprove a
development -- unless the facilities it requires are in place or the
developer agrees to take sufficient measures to ensure that the adequacy
of public facilities for the development will be, at the least,
maintained.
With an Adequate
Public Facilities Ordinance,
a local government could not
fairly ask developers to cure existing deficiencies before approving a
development. It must either allow development only in an area where
there are no deficiencies or further tax all existing properties to make
the public facilities adequate in that area or, if desired or legally
mandated, in all areas within the local government's jurisdiction.
Elected officials, understandably, do not wish to impose additional
taxes further if that can be avoided. Furthermore, a Capital
Improvements Plan would be necessary to identify the necessary added
public facilities needed and the taxes required to produce those
facilities. These requirements, in addition to the fact that the county
does not have control over state roads or schools are used as arguments
against enacting an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.
The county government may not control the schools but they collect
the taxes for the schools so this very last argument appears dubious.
And by name at least, an Adequate Public Facilities ordinance could
be used as a tool to control growth by allowing it only in areas where
adequate public facilities exist -- without the need of a Capital
Improvement Plan and the accompanying additional taxation.
An As
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance would provide a tool
which the county government could choose to use to refuse new
development that it would find difficult to do otherwise without being
charged with being "arbitrary and capricious" when a developer proposes
a development otherwise totally meeting the requirements of the zoning
district it is in. It could however accept an agreement with a developer
who offers to provide measures whereby the new development would, at
least nominally, maintain the current level of public facility adequacy.
Obviously, there is a difference between what infrastructure is
adequate to support current county requirements and that required to
support a new development.
Figures, apparently, are currently available as to the percentage
adequacy of the roads necessary for a development's use and the school
board has information on the capacity of the schools reasonably
available to serve a development. I would hope that the county can
determine the adequacy of the other infrastructure required to support a
particular development. If the data is not readily available, data
should be gathered before a development is approved as to whether or not
adequate public facilities are in place for any proposed development or,
if not, what changes are necessary to keep the development requirements
within the available public facilities and require those changes be
agreed to as a condition of development approval.
An "As Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance" would not require a
full-fledged capital improvement plan, even though such may be highly
desirable. And it would not require increased taxes on current county
residents. It does help minimize the negative impacts of growth.
Summary Comments
- The deletion of the Community Benefit Agreement strategy from
Envision 2025 should be reconsidered. Community Benefit
Agreements could provide quite valuable protection to a community's
character. They should be promoted.
- The committee's removal of the strategy to establish a county
wide "Transfer of Development Rights" was a highly desirable
victory for already densely populated communities.
- Changing the wording from "Adopting" to "Planning for" an
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance is not unreasonable given
the county's stated current inadequacies in assessing adequacies.
However the stated reasons appear to fall apart with regard to an
As Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.
- Either an APFO or an AAPFO could serve as a tool for the
county council to choose to disapprove a development -- unless the
facilities it requires are in place or the developer agrees to take
sufficient measures to ensure that the adequacy of public facilities
for the development will be, at the least, maintained.
- An As Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance would not
require a full-fledged capital improvement plan, even though such
may be highly desirable. And it does not require increased taxes on
current county residents. It would help minimize the negative
impacts of growth.
Click here if you want to return to the
table of section links. |