During their meeting Tuesday, Anderson County Council heard more comments on a proposed large scale residential development moratorium and tabled second reading on the ordinance.
A representative of upstate Realtors provided a list of reasons not to approve the moratorium including the effects it would have on the 30 or so different businesses that are involved in the real estate sales, building and construction associated with the development of a typical subdivision and another 30 that become involved when houses are actually sold for residences.
Several County residents urged Council to approve the moratorium to provide a break and better planning on how the county will look in five or ten years or longer.
A big concern is tract homes, sometimes informally known as cookie cutter housing, which is a type of housing development in which multiple similar houses are built on a tract (area) of land that is subdivided into smaller lots.
One speaker warned of possible lawsuits associated with the proposal to allow the moratorium to be implemented in a particular Council District.
District 6 Councilmember Jimmy Davis and District 7 Councilmember Cindy Wilson both indicated they are in favor of the county-wide moratorium proposal.
Wilson said she is concerned about the 12000 lots that are already approved and the large tracts that are being developed. She said shortcuts are being taken in the large developments and home warranties in some areas are not being honored. She also expressed concerns about housing being built on “fill dirt”.
Wilson said the moratorium “is not the stop dead that most people think it is” and that the impact of a six month moratorium on real estate sales expressed and developers is “hogwash”.
She said a number of developers will have a contract to purchase large tracts and then have extensions with property owners while the value of the property is rising, resulting in the property owner losing money.
“I am still troubled by leaving it up to each individual council member’s district,” Wilson said.
Councilman Davis said, “it is a very flexible moratorium” adding “there needs to be a vote on the six month moratorium, yes or no.”
An amendment allowing each district to decide if they wanted a moratorium was added to the original ordinance on first reading Feb. 18.
The original plan called for a 60-day countywide pause in allowing new housing developments over 25 housing units without additional approval of full council.
Tuesday Wilson offered a motion to return the proposal to its original form which would have required the moratorium in all districts, citing concerns of possible lawsuits challenging the individual district moratoriums the ordinance would allow as amended. Councilman Jimmy Davis seconded the motion which failed with Wilson and Davis in favor and the rest of Council opposed.
Councilman Chris Sullivan, who represents Dist. 1, said the move would just encourage developers to reach out to the City of Anderson to annex their property to avoid any county regulation.
“The City of Anderson has an active annexation plan in my district,” said Sullivan. “They are gobbling up land and plan to gobble up more. I don’t want developers to turn to the city for annexation, so I think it is the wrong time and wrong place for a moratorium (on development) for District One.”
Council Chairman Tommy Dunn said that the only way to regulate the kind of development standards many citizens have said they want is through zoning.
“Zoning will give us the opportunity for better requirements,” said Dunn. “We need a plan to move forward.”
“The purpose of this moratorium is to work on our development standards to achieve those goals,” said Councilman Davis. “I want it to work, I would like for us to work together. Sometimes it takes a pause in something to get things right.”
After additional discussion, Councilman J. Davis offered a motion to table the vote on the moratorium, which was unanmiouly approved by Council.
