York County Council: ‘We messed up’ on Newport Lakes

Officials push law requiring public input on changes

By Christy Mullins - cmullins@heraldonline.com

After a half-hour of admitting the county “messed up” in its decision to privately approve several changes to a housing development outside Rock Hill, York County councilmen Monday night pushed for a new law that would open all planned development changes to public input.

“I don’t want to wait,” council Chairman Buddy Motz said. “I want something done now.”

The discussion came after dozens of neighbors in the Crystal Lakes community complained to county officials that the development being built beside their homes is a major downgrade from what the county approved four years ago in public meetings.

Motz wants to amend county law to include limits on how many changes a planned development can undergo and to require that all changes – major or minor – be signed off by the council.

“A little piece of the apple had a bite taken out of it each year,” Motz said Monday night about the Newport Lakes development. “Over a four-year period a lot of bites have been taken ... but what I’m most concerned about is that the neighborhood was not notified of the changes. We as a council were not notified.”

Newport Lakes was originally zoned for rows of townhouses with alleyways, a clubhouse and a community pool. The neighborhood would target young professionals and first-time parents, developer Tony Berry said in 2006.

When the first houses went up last month, Crystal Lakes neighbors learned they would live beside a community of lower-priced, one-story patio homes on some 295 smaller lots, geared toward empty nesters and retirees.

Swing sets and a walking trail would replace the community pool, among other changes made six times by the developer and signed off by the county’s planning department behind closed doors in 2007, 2008 and 2009.

Crystal Lakes residents said they didn’t know about the changes. Neither did any of the seven members of the York County Council or County Manager Jim Baker.

“Invariably, developments are going to change over time,” Baker said Monday. “But nobody should have been surprised. The worst thing that happened is we surprised people. Everybody got blindsided by it.”

Councilman Tom Smith said the trust factor in District 6 had been marred.

“If you agree to a (planned development) then you need to stick by it,” he said. “When you change, change, change, that’s not living up to the agreement. We messed up here. There’s nothing good about it because now it’s been signed off, and we can’t do anything about it.”

A quick e-mail alerting councilmen that planned developments are undergoing changes in their districts would help, Councilman Joe Cox told the county’s planning director.

Councilman Curwood Chappell said better communication is a must in order for councilmen to know their districts. And while the plummeting housing market was a factor in the changes to Newport Lakes, Chappell said all of those changes should have been reported to the council.

“The longer you wait to complete something, size goes down,” he said. “That’s well understood. But it went down maybe in the wrong place. There’s a place for everything, you know.”

Neighbors met with county officials, the developer and the builder earlier this month for answers. They also drafted a letter to county staff last week, noting changes they’d like to see to a plan that has been altered several times without their knowledge.

County officials say Berry has done nothing wrong in seeking and gaining approval of the changes in his development.

Berry explained the changes came when his original builder, Mattamy Homes of Ontario, Canada, backed out of the deal in October 2007 and his new builder, True Homes, sought a stronger market in older home buyers.

Motz tacked the discussion on Monday’s agenda in hopes that no more surprises hit neighborhoods affected by planned developments.

“We’re the ones who signed off in the beginning,” Motz said, “and I want us to sign off in the future.”

The council hopes to take an initial vote on the new ordinance March 1. It will need to be approved three times to pass.