Vic MacDonald-Edtor

Open Space Residential Development remains a thorny issue for the Laurens County Council as it seeks to craft Ordinance 991, amending Ordinance 926, and find common ground between housing developers and people who think the county has enough development.

The most recent endeavor was 2nd reading approval of open space rules which passed the Council on a 5-1 vote Jan. 12. Council Member Kemp Younts, who represents the fast-growing area of Northern Laurens County, voted “no” to the entire revamped ordinance, which faced 11 potential revisions.

The revisions were suggested by Blue Water Civil, Ryan Homes, and the Laurens County Water & Sewer Commission, who were invited to comment by the County.

Northern Laurens County resident Nancy Garrison, whose ranch now is bordered by massive subdivisions, presented her view about the issue of maximum density during the public comments time. Her comments were allowed because Second Reading of the Open Space Residential Development ordinance was an agent item.

But the bulk of comments were from Paul Harrison, of Greenville and a civil engineer, who looked at the ordinance from a developer’s perspective. He was allowed to comment both during public comments and during discussions among the council members about the ordinance.

He said the fact that the proposed county ordinance requires 60% open space “right off the bat” goes far beyond where other counties in the state have set their regulations. 

“Affordability is a big topic,” he said, “and cluster provides the ability for a more affordable product. We can decrease the buildable footprint, we can do smaller houses and still get the buffers. I’m speaking in terms of areas that have public water and sewer; a lot of the growth are areas that have public water and public sewer. You should have the ability to do a smaller lot in those areas. You should be able to cluster them together. … (With 60% open) there’s no break to the developer because of open space. It really makes it tough to do developments under the current ordinance as written.”

Harrison already had expressed his concerns to the county’s planning staff, and this was his opportunity to express those to the Council as a whole.

Council considered 11 changes, voted some up and some down, and made it possible for a complete ordinance to be drafted for a workshop meeting between the Council and County Planning, and eventually a final, 3rd reading vote.

Council was told that the county planning staff was not recommending approval of any of the 11 changes.

A change related to the allowable percentage of townhomes died for lack of a second.

A change passed related to the percentage of houses allowed to face the open space (Younts voted “no”).

A change passed unanimously related to buffer space required when 2 subdivisions adjoin each other.

A change passed related to the percentage of open space related to common space (Council Vice-chairman Matthew Brownlee voted “no”).

Side-yard setbacks received a minor change, which could allow for greater density within the open space developments (Younts voted “no”).

The current ordinance would require an entrance for every 50 lots; that was recommended to be an entrance for every 100 lots. Harrison said the first requirement is “not practical, and not standard in other jurisdictions” and the LCWSC said it is excessive and the number of entrances should be capped at 4. This is for open space developments only. A motion to approve passed 5-1 (Younts voted “no”). As a side note: if you had a 700-lot subdivision, you would have to have 7 entrances (without the cap); that might not even be possible, and might even discourage development, Council was told.

Council unanimously approved adding language that could provide for roundabouts on some cul-de-sacs; for instance, so fire trucks could turn around rather than have to back out of a subdivision.

Council accepted an amendment related to open space being intersected by a long public road or right-of-way.

Harrison recommended striking language related to where open space must be located, and leaving that to the developer’s discretion. Council was told that county staff strongly disagrees with this amendment. The idea died for lack of a second.

Council approved an amendment related to using ponds as open space, with Council Members Justin Lane and Younts voting “no”.

Developers have to submit and get county approval for a plan to maintain the open space – Council Member Arthur Philson Jr. voted “no”. And Council approved a modification to streetscaping requirements to insure that subdivisions have “nice” entrances – Council Members Brown Patterson and Philson voted “no”.

Following the amendments discussion, Council gave the entire, rewritten ordinance the second of three required readings, and a 5-1 “yes” vote. The County is advertising a public hearing on this matter, when 3rd and final reading could take place, for February 9.