Land use
One house on 5 acres? How about no houses, golf course residents ask
A proposal to create a new zoning district for the area’s two oldest golf courses has drawn questions from residents and members of the Georgetown County Planning Commission.
“This has been a struggle. How do you make sure the golf courses are protected,” said Elizabeth Krauss, who chairs the commission.
County Council Member Stella Mercado asked planning staff last month to change the zoning for Litchfield Country Club and the Founders Club in Hagley Estates, which were both developed in the 1960s. The current zoning matches the neighborhoods: “R-10,” which is limited to single-family homes on lots no smaller than 10,000 square feet.
Residents are concerned how the property could be redeveloped if the courses close.
A proposed “neighborhood amenity” zoning district would allow one house for every five acres although houses could be built on acre lots. It could also contain parks, recreation facilities or “other recreational amenities.”
Any new lots would have to front on existing roads.
Litchfield residents told the commission last week they would prefer no development.
“Please make it clean and simple,” said Andrea Berkeley, who lives on the golf course. “Delete residential. Delete commercial.”
She estimated the proposal would allow another 30 homes in Litchfield Country Club and about the same in Hagley, although deed restrictions in Hagley would prevent the subdivision of the Founders Club property, according to Tom Stickler, the president of the POA.
Marty Farrell, who also lives on the Litchfield Country Club course, called the proposal “nothing more than a public relations campaign.”
Duane Draper, a resident who chairs the board of the citizen group Keep It Green, questioned whether the recreational component would allow miniature golf courses and bowling alleys.
“The language is very vague,” he said.
Keep It Green, which is suing the county over past zoning and land use approvals, said in emails to supporters that the “private recreational” designation of the courses in the 2007 county comprehensive plan did not allow residential or commercial development. That’s when the county should have changed the zoning, said Cindy Person, the group’s attorney. She also lives on the course.
She called the proposal “the lesser of two evils.”
“There’s nothing stopping you from keeping the golf courses exclusively golf courses,” she told the commission.
Krauss asked staff to refine the definitions before presenting the zoning change for a public hearing in April.
“We can certainly tighten up that language,” said Holly Richardson, the county planning director.
