In February, Corridor Development Inc., filed applications for a residential and commercial development project for approximately 52.48 acres located on Hwy 59 south of Carnesville, near one of the I-85 intersections.
The applications sought to rezone the property from agriculture intensive to residential multifamily and highway business, and the project consisted of a proposed residential development of 399 townhomes and fiveacres of commercial space.
In April, the board of commissioners denied the applications, and Corridor subsequently sued the county. Shortly after filing the lawsuit in May, Corridor offered to discuss a possible settlement.
Since the outcome of such litigation is in doubt, with the potential for significant taxpayer expenses facing the county in a protracted legal fight with a well-funded opponent, the board directed our attorney to enter into negotiations to determine if an acceptable agreement was possible.
The board of commissioners met several times with our attorney and asked for specific concessions to be included if we were to consider a settlement.
Corridor generally responded favorably to each of the county’s requests.
The following specific concessions were included in the proposed settlement, as discussed in the regular July meeting of the board of commissioners on Monday:
• The developer agreed to reduce the size and number of units in the development, from 399 units on 47.48 acres to a maximum of 226 units on 30.149 acres. This would effectively cut the original proposal almost in half.
• The developer agreed to a maximum density not to exceed 7.5 units per acre.
• The developer agreed that the revised, smaller plan would not be further modified to increase the number of units or density, and internal roads in the development would be prohibited from directly connecting to any adjoining parcels of land.
• The developer agreed not to expand the development in the future on the additional 17 acres that were removed from the original proposal, and the development would be expressly prohibited from being enlarged into adjoining parcels of land.
• The developer agreed to pay the county government public utilities fees of $3,000 per unit that would be paid upon the issuance of building permits (for a total of $678,000).
• The developer agreed to create a robust homeowners association to maintain community standards and covenants over time.
In making a decision on whether or not to approve the settlement agreement, the board has to weigh and consider several options.
One option, that of continued litigation, has a lengthy and uncertain outcome, with the very real possibility that the county would lose, be forced to accept the original development without any of the proposed concessions, and consume significant county resources and taxpayer money in the process.
Zoning decisions by local governments are often challenged in court, and those decisions are sometimes reversed. Property owners are frequently successful in court at arguing against restraints on the use of private property.
Accepting the proposed settlement ends the litigation and gives the county some control over the development with the ability to limit its size and effect on the local community.
Additionally, the developers would shoulder some of the cost of the impact on public services.
We as a county recognize that not only do we need housing to support industrial development (the two types of development go hand-in-hand), but we also recognize that housing is coming and we can’t really stop it.
We are in an area of the state that is primed for industrial and residential growth and we are seeing that occur daily. What we can do is try to manage growth appropriately.
Through the Unified Development Code that is in the process of being developed now, the county would implement new residential zoning districts that would push denser housing developments to locations along I-85, Highway 17 and to areas near the cities where more infrastructure is available, while at the same time preserving and protecting large tracts of land in the interior dedicated to agriculture.
The UDC will give the county the tools it needs to direct development to the areas we want it and the legal basis for denying those development proposals that don’t conform to our plans.
This allows the county to balance growth with maintaining our community’s agricultural and rural character.
As the board makes decisions about handling the lawsuit, we need to move forward sooner rather than later with adopting the Unified Development Code.
A wholesale revision of our outdated zoning ordinance is desperately needed and will provide more protections and options for regulating future development in a way that benefits the county the most.
The Corridor lawsuit has not been an easy decision for any of the commissioners.
We have a group of thoughtful individuals serving who are intelligent and desire to find the best answers for the county.
Each commissioner understands the concerns of the local residents, and they are torn between what is best for those citizens and what is best for the county as a whole.
We have an excellent attorney who has extensive experience dealing with this type of litigation and who has given the board sound legal counsel throughout. He has served Franklin County well over the years and we trust his advice.
The original proposal seemed too large and most would agree that the county was not ready for that type of development and the high cost it would bring.
But through the settlement negotiations, we’ve tried to find a compromise that would allow a smaller modified development to proceed and avoid further litigation, while at the same time minimize the impact on the community without taxing already strained public services.
Although a difficult choice, the settlement agreement represents a sound compromise, and I recommended the board approve at our meeting Monday.
The board opted to take additional time to consider the proposal, and that is also a wise choice, although as with any litigation, time is of the essence.
A special called meeting of the board has been tentatively scheduled for Friday, July 22, to consider the proposal again.
Hopefully at that meeting the commissioners will be able to reach a final decision on whether to accept the proposed settlement or proceed with litigation.
Jason Macomson is chairman of the Franklin County Board of Commissioners.