Land use
Golf course rezonings move ahead with rebuke to citizens group
By Charles Swenson
coastal observer
Georgetown County Council voted this week to prevent development of two area golf courses under their current zoning while a zoning change that will limit what can be built on those sites moves toward final approval.
That followed a stinging rebuke from Council Member Stella Mercado of the citizens group Keep It Green, which had organized opposition to a change that it didn’t think went far enough in reducing future development at Litchfield Country Club and the Founders Club in Hagley.
“The misinformation and propaganda that has been disseminated by Keep It Green and Keep It Green Advocacy has stoked fear and confusion within the community, resulting in conflict, mistrust and division within the community, between neighbors and between the people and elected officials,” Mercado said in asking the council to invoke the “pending ordinance” doctrine for three measures that will limit development on the sites if the golf courses close.
One ordinance creates a “neighborhood amenity” zoning district that limits residential development to one unit for
every five acres with a one acre minimum lot size. It would also prevent the creation of new streets to make land available for building lots. And, at Hagley, it would allow commercial use for property that fronts on Highway 17, but only uses such shops and offices that are allowed under the “neighborhood commercial” zoning district.
The council approved first reading of that ordinance and two others that apply that zoning to the golf courses, which are currently zoned “residential 10,000-square feet” like the surrounding neighborhoods. That allows up to four units an acre.
Keep It Green and property owners represented by the nonprofit law firm Keep It Green Advocacy asked the county to change the zoning to prevent any future residential development on the golf courses, which is estimated to be about 30 homes on each.
They argued that the county should have done that when it classified the courses as “private recreational” areas in land use maps that were part of county’s comprehensive plan adopted in 2007.
The updated comprehensive plan adopted last year classified the courses as “conservation-agriculture.”
After a hearing last month, the Planning Commission recommended the council defer action on the neighborhood amenity district to get more information, particularly about an ordinance in the town of Mount Pleasant that restricted residential development on golf courses.
Dunes West challenged that in court. The state Supreme Court upheld that ordinance.
Mercado, whose district includes Litchfield Country Club, said she wanted to “clean up the mess created by Keep It Green and Keep It Green Advocacy and its associates and set the record straight.”
The change will reduce the residential density of the golf course property by 95 percent, she said.
Founders Group, which owns the courses, hired Stephen Goldfinch, an attorney and state senator, to try to negotiate a higher use for the property, particularly in Hagley.
The pending ordinance doctrine doesn’t prevent changes to the ordinance by County Council at the two readings that still need to be adopted.
Council Member Bob Anderson, whose district includes Hagley, said he wants to eliminate the provision that allows the one acre lots in the neighborhood amenity district to be clustered.
That would reduce the number of potential lots on each course to 24, he said.
Anderson was out of town this week and didn’t attend the council meeting. He pitched the change last week to Tom Stickler, president of the Hagley Estates Homeowners Association, and Cindy Person, chief counsel for Keep It Green Advocacy.
“This is the best I can do,” he told them.
Anderson added that he won’t support any increase in residential use that the Founders Group might propose.
Anderson said he is concerned that Mercado’s move and her criticism of Keep It Green, will erode support for a compromise.
“I don’t like what she did,” he said.
Person called Mercado’s comments “completely inappropriate and misplaced.”
On the other hand, “I’m happy about the pending ordinance,” she said.
Person also said she would be interested to hear what Mercado considers misinformation.
She questioned the claim that the reduction in density is 95 percent. While that is true if 5 acres becomes the site of one lot rather than 20, Person pointed out it would be hard to create 20 lots without roads and other infrastructure that would reduce the buildable area.
Removing the provision for clustering lots would make the change more acceptable, Person said. “Clustering really defeats the purpose.”
That is Anderson’s plan. “It will be amended,” he said.
