|
April 19, 2025
Friends & Neighbors:
A standing-room-only crowd listened intently on Thursday night as the Planning Commission unanimously voted to send the proposed "Neighborhood Amenity" zoning district back to County Council with a recommendation to defer it pending input from citizens and receipt of further information.
This result is both good news and bad news for residents of Litchfield Country Club and Hagley.
THE GOOD NEWS
The good news is that the Planning Commission members seemed to be listening to residents who opposed the proposed "Neighborhood Amenity" (NA) zoning district. Most felt that while NA is more preferable than the current R-10 zoning, it still allows residential development of the golf courses.
Residents were very clear that they want a zoning district that allows NO residential development which is consistent with the "Private Recreational" Comprehensive Plan designation that was in place for many years.
Senator Stephen Goldfinch spoke at the public hearing and said:
"This plan is not ready for prime time, and I ask you, respectfully, send this back to Council and tell them, 'please defer this until these people (pointing to the audience) are able to sit at the table and we can have a negotiated agreement about what's right for the Waccamaw Neck, because this is not it.'"
In addition to residents who packed into Council Chambers, the Planning Commission also received many letters from citizens who could not attend the Public Hearing held on Easter weekend. Most residents respectfully requested the Commission to:
(1) Return the Comprehensive Plan designation of the golf courses to "Private Recreational" as it had been for many years;
(2) Create a new zoning district for the golf courses that allows no residential development; and
(3) Temporarily zone the golf courses as Neighborhood Amenity until the new non-residential zoning district can be drafted and approved.
Cindy Person, Legal Counsel for Keep It Green, sent a formal letter to Planning Commission citing a South Carolina Supreme Court case that upheld a purely recreational zoning district for golf courses in Mount Pleasant. CLICK HERE to view letter.
Planning Commission Chairman, Elizabeth Krauss, asked the Planning Director to obtain more information about the Mount Pleasant "Conservation Recreation" zoning district. The fact that the Planning Commission is interested in exploring the details of a non-residential zoning district seems like a step in the right direction.
Your presence and active involvement made a difference.
THE BAD NEWS
The bad news is that the Planning Commission had no discussion and made no decision about an immediate change to the current R-10 zoning of the golf courses to provide temporary stop-gap protection in the interim. As a result, residents continue to be completely unprotected during this deferral process.
It is disappointing that the only one who remains fully protected at the present time is the Chinese-owned golf course owner, Founders International.
A REMINDER ABOUT HOW WE GOT HERE
As we watch this play out, it is important to keep in mind that the only reason the golf courses are currently "stuck" with R-10 zoning and in urgent need of protection is because the County has let us down ... twice.
(1) The first let-down was the County's failure to follow state law and change the R-10 zoning to be in accordance with the "Private Recreational" Comprehensive Plan designation of the golf courses that was in place for 17 years from 2007-2024.
As soon as citizens learned of the disparity back in 2018 after Founders Group sold the Litchfield Racquet Club for high density development, we begged the County many times over to correct the egregious problem. They ignored us.
(2) The second let-down was during the 2024 Comprehensive Land Use Plan update. Instead of protecting the golf courses by keeping the "Private Recreational" designation and updating zoning to be consistent, County Council voted to change the two golf courses to a brand new Comprehensive Plan designation, "CONAG," that allows residential development.
Now, the very same Council officials who disregarded citizens and voted for the new Comprehensive Plan that allows residential development on the golf courses, suddenly claim to want to "protect the golf courses against residential development" with a new zoning district that, curiously, still allows residential development.
This begs the question: Do they really want to protect the golf courses, or do they just want it to look like they are protecting the golf courses? After all, re-election is on the horizon.
Clearly, the best protection against residential development of the golf courses is to not allow it. Period. County Council has the power and legal authority to provide us with a non-residential zoning district for the golf courses. The question is: Are they willing to do it?
The ball is in their court and citizens are watching very closely.
| 
