Myrtle Beach planning officials call city’s new zoning proposal ‘reckless’
Myrtle Beach planning officials took issue with the lack of communication from city leaders after receiving an ordinance they perceive to be a reckless endeavor for the city.
Myrtle Beach City Council last week approved the first reading of an ordinance that would lessen zoning restrictions and expand the boundaries of the Redevelopment District Zone to encourage mixed-use development and redevelopment in areas that are struggling economically from 29th Avenue North to the southern city limits between Kings Highway and Ocean Boulevard.
Currently, the zoning designation, also known as a floating zone, spans east of Kings Highway from 8th Avenue North to 3rd Avenue South. A floating zone is typically used to plan for future land uses that are anticipated or desired by the community, but are not confirmed. Each zone, upon approval, is unique to its own specifications.
While city council believes the proposal will encourage development, enhance the area’s aesthetics and provide more freedom to potential developers, Planning Commission members think it will have a profound impact on the city, especially when it’s a different proposal than what was previously discussed.
Chairman Bill Pritchard said a phone conversation with City Manager John Pedersen on the topic included a recommendation to keep areas of focus within the city “surgical.”
“And then I get this. This just blows me away,” Pritchard said during Tuesday’s meeting. “I almost don’t know how to react to it. Maybe it’s what city council wants to do, but it doesn’t seem like a direction I can be comfortable with.”
Commissioners cited the large area of land put into consideration as a major concern, along with the “administrative nightmare” it will cause with thousands of properties in question that could all be considered RDZ and how lifting the zoning restrictions could negatively affect the community.
Per the ordinance, the RDZ expansion would exclude residential and highway commercial zoning districts but would allow developers or businesses to start with a blank slate of zoning on eligible land and basically dictate their own zoning district. Staff would consider applications on a case-by-case basis.
Each property would be subject to a public hearing before planning and approval by council.
Retail uses, tourism-related business, cultural arts activities, corporate headquarters, research and development corporations, high technology growth business, residential uses, particularly workforce housing, and historical preservation projects would be eligible for an RDZ district.
Applicants must have a minimum threshold investment of $1 million for mixed-use or commercial purposes, according to the ordinance. Architecture designs must be aesthetically pleasing and enhance the character and value of surrounding properties.
“This is an effort to jump-start something, and what concerns me about this is, is it going to draw in quality development? I’m not sure changing what we’ve currently got will make a difference,” Commissioner Ann LeMay said. “I think it’s reckless.”
Pritchard added how each zoning designation provides rules and guidelines for developers to adhere to and expectations for the community. Zoning protects land values in a way this proposal diminishes, he said, calling it a “very, very loose zoning classification.”
“We want to encourage development, it’s not something anybody is opposed to,” Commissioner Joyce Karetas said. “But sometimes you try to manipulate things so that it’s difficult and this to me is unyielding and the area is so large.”
Zoning Administrator Kenneth May said the proposal puts the city in a precarious situation, asserting that not all development is good development. Senior Planner Kelly Mezzapelle argued the inflated perception of property values as a reason for a lack of development rather than the zoning.
Commissioners also noted the RDZ currently in place was implemented in 2015 also to jump-start development. Two proposals have been submitted since, officials said.
“We haven’t had blazing success from that area,” Pritchard said. “This isn’t doing what we want done, and it doesn’t seem to be working.”
Despite their dismay, planning officials said they could support the proposal if it was a smaller geographical area. Officials said if council compromised with their recommendation, they’d be open to expanding the RDZ in the future if it produced an influx of applicants looking to make improvements.
Commissioners also requested city leaders do a better job of communicating with them, stating that they are unaware of the city’s objective prior to receiving an ordinance or application.
“There’s not enough communication from council on plans,” LeMay said. “We don’t get all the pieces to the puzzle, and maybe if we did, we’d support this.”
Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposal on Feb. 4 at 1:30 p.m. at the City Services Building on Oak Street.
This story was originally published January 22, 2020 at 3:22 PM.
