George's Information and Comments

Growth Impact Action Committee

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Proceedings: Envision 2025 Comprehensive Plan 3/15/2007

    -- 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.

New Information on the Horry County Web Site

The steering committee membership has been updated on the Horry County Web site (www.horrycounty.org and click Envision 2025), namely three new sponsoring organizations have been added (the procedure followed to authorize the new appointing organizations  is currently unknown), Black Water Development, D.R. Horton and Doctor's Care with their appointees, respectively: David Duvall, Mitchell M. Flannery and Kitty Howell and the appointees for two organizations have been changed, Burroughs and Chapin: Felix Pitts replacing Marshall Smith, and Wildlife Action Inc: Pam Creech replacing Carolyn Jebaily.

I intend to publish the officially approved Land Use Element minutes with other enlightening information when such become available and my time permits.

If you want to return to the top of this page, click here.

Top Level March 15 Envision 2025 Unofficial Minutes

This unofficial March 15 Envision 2025 meeting discussion covers  some of the meeting details, including some that are not appropriate for official minutes but give you the overall flavor of the meeting. Official minutes showing passed motions will also be published when they become available.

The Designated Urban Growth Areas Strategies having been completed during the March 1 meeting except for the last of the two strategies under policy III, the committee prepared to consider the Designated Rural Areas Strategy with a print out and a screen display showing the original staff proposal and Burroughs and Chapin proposed amendments of nearly every paragraph shown in red text.

Peggy Graham, Horry County Planning Commission, chair appointee, asked why the separation between the urban and rural sections. John Danford, Senior Planner explained that it was done to make the plan more manageable to develop -- rather than having to consider the entire county, as a whole.

David Duvall, now listed on the March 9 update of steering committee members as an appointee of Black Water Development, said that we can never know what will happen in the next five to ten years and that he was generally concerned with property rights.

Fred Richardson, the chairman, suggested “plowing through” on specifics rather than discussing overall philosophies.

The general discussion continued nevertheless. Marty Ekster, District 1 appointee said that the committee’s aim should not be to control growth. It should let people do what they want to do. But the committee should concern itself with HOW growth proceeds and how to do it right.

Holly Kauffman, Planning Commission, in speaking of open space, asked why a developer should be required to supply it if there was a park down the road.

Ekster said the committee should get into rules and that a developer SHOULD be required to provide open space.

Chairman Richardson said that he appreciated philosophy but "let’s work through the particulars."

Julie Harbin, District 4 appointee, expressed concern for farmers’ interests when none were participating on the steering committee.

Kauffman said that farmers could protect themselves.

Later, Ravin Gore, Horry County planner, responded to  expressed concerns by assuring all that the Horry County comprehensive plan provisions would not supersede those of municipalities.

David Utterback, District 3 appointee, suggested changing the wording of the Designated Rural Area Strategy Goal from “reducing” the amount of new development . . . to “guiding.” I believe the committee agreed.

After the first paragraph vote, George Edwards, a citizen in the audience, asked as a point of information whether the committee was accepting the extensive B&C red text suggested amendments unless they were explicitly defeated by committee amendment.  After being told that was indeed so, Edwards questioned whether it was appropriate to use the text prepared by a single organization as the discussion baseline.

Kauffman extolled the expertise that B&C provided and said anyone else’s submission would be treated the same way.

Subsequently, Kauffman said that farms and golf courses were the worst offenders as to water sources. Utterback said this was not true.

A motion was made to strike Policy I: “Maintain for future generations the resources and traditional ties to the land that define a large portion of Horry County.”

Danford said he would like to give tools to forward that policy.

Pam Creech said she was opposed to striking the policy.

Kauffman strongly endorsed striking it.

Dr. Susan Libes, a CCU PhD in the audience who has attended many of these meetings before, suggested an alternate strategy that did not appear to get any support.

Pam Creech referred to the adequate public facilities ordinance concept and said development should not run roughshod over others. She backed the right to develop as she backed the right for someone to drive their car “over there” (pointing) but not the right to run over others in the process.

After much continued discussion and a break, chairman Richardson proposed deleting the entire Designated Rural Areas Strategy. The committee then voted to do so, even though it was estimated that 89% of Horry County is rural.

Kauffman said that what was needed was a total land use strategy.

Danford urged taking up the individual strategies. He would have to rewrite the entire document to accommodate the striking of the major rural areas section.

A black lady in the audience stood and spoke. She said that more than money was involved, among other things describing the smoggy pollution layer that could be seen looking down from high rises. She asked: "Why can't we stop now?"

Someone opined, as to Policy II that no one new what we were talking about.

As the entire text will be rewritten, it is not particularly germane to get into further specifics. I will leave any further discussion of the strategies deleted or those that will be retained to the rewrite of the official minutes, their approval and availability. In the main, the motions or accepted amendments were not stated by the chair and, frankly, my notes are not clear as to what was deleted or struck.

If you want to return to the top of this page, click here.

Comments

 I question the propriety of planning commission members dominating these meetings' discussions. As I understand it, Planning Commission, as a body, will get its chance to approve or disapprove any committee findings it chooses in its recommendations to the County Council.

At one point in this meeting, Kauffman of the planning commission strongly and unequivocally  proclaimed that growth pays for itself. Danford said this was not established one way or another in his understanding. During the break, I handed Kauffman, who was conversing with Danford, a note citing the many studies and statistics showing that growth never pays for itself -- even where impact fees are imposed -- that are detailed in the 1999 book Better not Bigger by Eben Fodor.

The massive (nearly every paragraph) changes suggested by Burroughs and Chapin

constituted a substitute motion rather than simple strike, insert or add amendments.

According to the accumulated wisdom embodied in established parliamentary procedures, such is handled by amending the original proposed motion (effectively the staff prepared document), then amending the substitute, voting on the substitute and if the substitute does not pass returning to further amend, pass or take whatever further action on the original proposal.

Kauffman said that everyone's suggestions would be treated in the same way that Burroughs and Chapin's were. I don't know where her authority arises to make such a ruling on the steering committee, but if that is followed, the door is open to any other appointee to submit his or her written substitute proposal or amendments and for them to be printed for consideration by the entire committee.

Most disturbing is the sudden appearance of three new steering committee organizations and their appointees, all apparently developer oriented. If new organizations are admitted to the steering committee, the procedure for admission should be promulgated with the hope of allowing restoration of the balance between developer and non-developer interests as was the stated aim for this committee by county council.

If you want to return to the top of this page, click here.

DesDesignated Rural Areas Strategy

Goal

Designate and protect Rural Areas that have distinct resources, characteristics and a traditional way-of-life in Horry County by reducing the amount of new development and employment growth in critical areas that have significant ties to the natural environment. 

Policy I

Maintain for future generations the resources and traditional ties to the land that define a large portion of Horry County.

Strategies

A.      Develop an Horry County Trails and Open Space Master Plan that identifies current and future needs, potential acquisitions, potential funding mechanisms and an implementation program.

B.     Develop a Riparian Corridor Ordinance that severely limits development and creates a permanently protected natural vegetative area within a specified distance of riverbanks, tributaries and other water features.

C.     Encourage cooperation and an open forum between the County, State, National, and regional agencies and organizations, both public and private, with an interest in conservation and preservation of natural resources.

Policy II

Sustain a rural way of life by maintaining the integrity of agricultural, natural, and historic lands and resources and the viability of the rural economy.

Strategies

A.      Appoint a County Agricultural Advisory Board to review and coordinate policies, regulations, and capital investment decisions; commission an Agricultural/Rural Economic Development Plan and program; explore National, State and local level tax incentives and programs; develop and maintain a list of local producers; and coordinate with other entities with a vested interest in local agriculture and forestry.

B.     Establish a countywide “Transfer of Development Rights” (TDR) program that compensates property owners in designated Rural Areas.

C.     Develop and implement a Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) program that rates, based on a point system, the relative importance of land resources based upon specific measurable features.

D.     Establish a countywide “Purchase of Development Rights” (PDR) program that compensates property owners in designated rural areas.

E.     Develop an Agricultural Security Areas Ordinance that provides protection from ordinances that would otherwise limit or restrict agricultural activities.

F.      Discourage re-zonings to urban/suburban densities in designated rural residential areas.

Policy III

Preserve rural character and lifestyles in areas beyond the urban-suburban fringe, while providing opportunities for compatible rural development.

StrtStrategies

A.      Minimize scattered development in rural areas by focusing growth in Rural Centers including Village Growth Areas, Crossroads Communities, Rural Business Areas, and Rural Neighborhoods where infrastructure, services, density and population mimic suburban and urban type development patterns.

B.     Develop and encourage the use of a Rural Cluster Ordinance that allows for compact development in Rural Centers.

C.     Develop Rural Area Management Plans (RAMP) that detail the land use needs of specific rural communities and areas.

D.     Establish improved design standards appropriate for new rural developments in regards to subdivision and lot sizes, open space, buffers, road connectivity and school site reservations.

E.     Discourage expansion of water/sewer and other public facilities that could increase development pressure in rural agricultural areas, except where needed due to conditions that prevent reliance upon well/septic systems.

If you want to return to the top of this page, click here