* Disclaimer - If ad is a click thru and you are having problems please click on link to download latest version of flash player.Flash Player

ON THE WEBSITE:

• PHOTO GALLERY: Peru mission trip
• PATH TO THE DRAFT: Diary of Ricky Sapp
• GOING GREEN: Rain barrel makes comeback
• GANG OUT: Program partners with Project GO
• CLYBURN CENTER: S.C. State moves forward

Advanced Search
You are not logged in. | Login | Register

Log in to TheTandD.com

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
  Forgot Your Password?
 

Proposed rules for developers 'oppressive,' Realtor says

By TUCKER LYON, T&D Government Writer  Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Leave a Comment | Default | Large

New rules for developers have been put on hold while Orangeburg City Council studies whether they are as “oppressive” as a local Realtor claims.

Marion Moore says the proposed rules are, “the broadest, most oppressive and cumbersome document I’ve ever” read.

“It’s totally counterproductive in growing our city. It’s absolutely over the top. ... It will absolutely stifle growth in the city of Orangeburg. It will force growth into the county,” he said.

And the increased costs to developers will be “passed on to your constituents,” he said.

After hearing from Moore Tuesday, City Council voted 5-2 to hold off on the proposed ordinances for the third time. The new regulations, which would have to be met before a plat can be recorded, cover development standards for items such as sidewalks, drainage, green space and utilities.

According to Moore, a fellow developer has costs of $20,000 per lot in the city based on existing regulations. Under the new proposal, he said, the costs would increase by 15 percent to 20 percent.

“I don’t think that’s where we ought to be going as a city,” Moore said.

Moore said he understands the proposal stems from another developer who didn’t do what he should have done and cost the city’s Department of Public Utilities. If that’s the problem, “don’t throw the baby out with the bath water,” he said.

Moore said, “Even with what the county has now, it’s more stringent to do a deal in the city than in the county. Show me where the problem is.”

Asked to cite specific problems with the ordinance, Moore said developers would have to pay more utility costs.

“Is it OK for the city to bear the costs, but not the Realtor?” asked Councilman Bernard Haire.

DPU Manager Fred Boatwright said, “No city I’m aware of does for developers what this city does.”

The impact fees are “miniscule,” Boatwright said. “Somebody has to pay, either the developers or the rate payers.”

Mayor Paul Miller asked what the specific differences are between the county’s regulations and the city’s proposal.

City Administrator John Yow said the city’s proposal would require curbs, gutters and sidewalks on major streets of developments. Otherwise, street width and rights-of-way would be about the same.

Moore said those differences would be, “more than what our economic demographics can handle.”

“I hear what you’re saying, but I’m not hearing what it is, specifically, you’re wanting to have us table it to discuss,” said the mayor. “I think we need some type of document to control development. One thing I do like about this document is there is a check-off list and if (a developer complies) there’s no saying ‘No.’ As it stands now, that might not be the case.”

Councilman Charlie Jernigan noted that he’s been “against this for a good long while.” With so many people against different aspects of the ordinance, he said council should take another look.

If “we don’t stand up and take a stand,” then state legislators will continue to erode local governments’ Home Rule, he said.

Haire urged council to move forward. He and Councilwoman Sandra Knotts voted against the motion to table the issue, pending further study.

Yow asked council what it wants studied.

The mayor said he wants to know the difference between building a development in the county and in the city.

“That’s my number one question. If we’re fairly equal, then there’s no problem,” he said.

“And if we are really looking out for our constituents,” said Councilwoman Liz Zimmerman Keitt.

There is a difference between rural and urban areas, Yow said. That’s “why some people choose to live” in the county or in the city.

Moore was requested to provide a cost analysis, with input from city planning consultant Dan Vismor.

“We need input, but I’m concerned at the 11th hour,” he said.

In other business, council authorized the administrator to enter into contracts for health/dental insurance. In an effort to minimize escalating costs, council approved contracts for new plans with different providers.

Council also proclaimed “forgiveness” as the Community of Character trait for November.

T&D Government Writer Tucker Lyon can be reached at tlyon@timesanddemocrat.com or by calling 803-533-5545.

To subscribe to the print edition of The Times and Democrat, click here.

 
Leave a Comment
The following comments are reader submitted. They do not represent the views of The T&D or Lee Enterprises.



» Post a comment Thanks for your comment! Once approved, your comment will appear on the site.

You must be logged in to comment.

Click Here To Sign in

Click here to get an account
it's free and quick
Please note: The Times and Democrat provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.




More News