COASTAL OBSERVER

Georgetown County planning staff now have sole responsibility for reviewing multi-family developments with more than 10 units for the first time in 15 years.

County Council gave final approval this week to an amendment to the zoning ordinance that eliminates its role in the process along with review by the Planning Commission to determine whether the plans meet the county’s regulations. The measure also eliminates public hearings, but includes notice to property owners within 600 feet of the proposed projects and requires those projects to have additional open space and landscaped buffers.

The approval was delayed a month after Council Member Stella Mercado asked that the proposal be changed to eliminate County Council, but keep the Planning Commission and the public hearing. Waccamaw Neck residents applauded the change, saying it would provide needed public input.

But Mercado said this week that her intentions had been misunderstood.

“On second reading, I tried to fix something that was going to be a verbal amendment from Bob. I hadn’t seen what he was proposing before that,” she said, referring to Council Member Bob Anderson. She remembered thinking, “why were they clapping?”

After Holly Richardson, the county planning director, recapped what she thought Mercado was asking for – Planning Commission review with a public hearing – Mercado replied, “correct.”

The full council voted to defer the final reading of the change until this month. When the agenda was published, residents became concerned.

“Ms. Mercado was very clear about what she was asking,” said Cindy Person, chief counsel for Keep It Green Advocacy, which has challenged county land-use decisions in a series of lawsuits, including two that involve the approval of multi-family developments through the process the county has now changed.

“Here we are a month later and the public has seen no amended ordinance,” Person said.

Norman Reid, a member of the Pawleys Island Civic Club, said he favored retaining review by the Planning Commission. “I appeal to you to do the right thing,” he said.

Mercado said afterward that she supports staff review because the process, known as site plan review, is a “review of a conceptual drawing.”

It is done only on projects where the zoning already allows multi-family development. If a zoning change is required, that will need a review and a hearing before the Planning Commission and three readings by County Council.

“I’ve been pretty consistent,” Mercado said. But she added “I can see how there was confusion.”

Council Member Everett Carolina offered an amendment that would keep the commission’s role. It was defeated 5-2, with Anderson joining him in support.

An effort by Anderson to table the change was also defeated 5-2.

Anderson said he thought he might have succeeded in keeping the commission’s role if he had pressed for a vote in June.

Mercado said public awareness of new multi-family projects was the original goal of the process, and that remains even with staff review.

In addition, “this ordinance update will also help increase attainable workforce housing, which is a critical component of our community viability,” Mercado said.

Also this week, the council deferred a vote on a change to the tree ordinance that increases the penalties for damaging or destroying protected species.

Council Member Raymond Newton said the fine of $500 per inch of tree diameter could add up to more than the income of some rural residents. 

He asked the council to hold a workshop on the ordinance. His colleagues agreed.