Housing moratorium remains complex

The ongoing moratorium’s effect on plans for a potential apartment complex in Hartwell claimed much of the discussion during the April 11 Hart County Board of Commissioners’ meeting.

The discussion spilled into the planned work session to review the multi-family development moratorium after the meeting as well.

The idea, a 56-unit apartment complex to be built behind Walmart on Parkdale Road, was first brought to the board by Bill Leard, who owns the land.

“I’ve come to ask two things,” Leard said. “I know it’s a different situation with the moratorium on. It’s been going on almost two years, and it’s affecting a lot of people…I think this is something Hartwell needs as far as workforce housing.”

The proposal for the apartment complex hinges on an application with the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), which, if approved, would provide an affordable housing option in Hart County.

The complex’s potential developer, Edward Libershal, estimates a three-bedroom apartment will rent for around $500 a month.

However, the county’s moratorium on multi-family housing developments stands in the way.

The moratorium, originally planned to last 180 days, was voted into place on July 27, 2021. The April 11 meeting marked day 624 of restricting new housing development to “site-specific, stick built single family homes, mobile homes and modular homes.”

Libershal said he learned that the moratorium restricted his potential project for the first time a week earlier, while reading The Hartwell Sun’s report of the March 28 Commissioners meeting. At that meeting, the board denied a developer’s request for the moratorium to be lifted regarding duplexes.

“This last Monday night, I was reading The Hartwell Sun and that’s when I learned multi-family [developments] were limited,” Libershal said. “When I initially began looking in Hartwell, I saw the moratorium. I saw small-lot subdivisions, and I thought I’m in the clear since we’re doing conventional apartments. We’re not subdividing. It’s 12 acres…When I talked to Terrell [Partain], he said if I did come for a permit as of right now, they cannot issue a permit.”

Libershal questioned if restricting apartments was within the original intent of the moratorium.

“Really, all we’re looking for is clarity,” he said. “Is this type of conventional multi-family [development], this close to Hartwell, is it the intent of the moratorium to limit that?”

Libershal explained that they’re up against a May 19 deadline.

“Our application deadline is May 19, and we’re sort of in that process where right now, I have the environmental consultants spring-loaded and ready to go and at some point they’re going to tell me it’s too late,” he said. “But until we can get an idea of what we will or won’t be able to do, everything is kind of hanging.”

District 1 Commissioner Michael Bennett said that the moratorium could not be lifted before May 19. Leard said that he wasn’t asking for special or unfair treatment, but that he felt this was a special opportunity.

“I’m not asking for something that you can’t do for someone else, but I think this is something we need, something that would suit Hartwell and is proven to be successful in the past,” he said. “The comment was made when it started that it was going to affect a lot of people. It’s gone on a long time, and I hope it’s still being worked on…These opportunities don’t come often, I can tell you that.”

Commissioner Chairman Marshal Sayer explained that the main reason multi-family developments were prohibited was due to the county’s sewer situation.

“Multi-family was prohibited prior to the moratorium for a simple reason,” Sayer said. “The county has no sewer…that’s why the county had a stance on multi-family.”

Libershal explained that the property is close enough to the city sewer system that hooking up to the city’s system would be feasible, if allowed by the city, and he expressed confidence that it would be allowed for his project.

The discussion crossed over from the regular meeting to the work session. District 4 Commisioner Jeff Brown expressed concerns of allowing exceptions.

“If we approve them for this, we give an exception to the moratorium. We don’t have an ordinance in place to where if there was building or development to take place, we’re caught in a bad area,” Brown said. “On a personal level, I get it…but I’m putting personal away and looking at strictly laws and us as commissioners and what we have in place as a county, and it would put us in a bad situation if we don’t have stipulations of the ordinance in place.”

Libershal assured that the restrictions they’re under from DCA would more than cover the county for his development. Libershal suggested potentially writing up an agreement that his development would meet whatever stipulation needed to be granted an exception.

“We could come up with an agreed upon exception with the stipulation that it must be built to the most strict city standards or whatever it is,” Libershal said. “Then anyone in the future that wanted to do the same would also have to comply. They’re not just jumping through a loophole. They have to jump into the gauntlet and satisfy you before another exception would be granted.”

The board showed overall support for the idea.

“I think it’s an ideal location,” Sayer said. “…I think it’s a good idea, I think it has affordability. Everybody has been asking for affordable housing, and that’s about the only way you’re going to get affordable housing.”

“It doesn’t infringe on agriculture, which is our main basis here,” Brown said.

The board expressed a possibility of granting the exception if the agreement is written tight enough between Libershal and the county attorney to not allow the exception to be exploited in any way, also hinging on Libershal’s ability to get a written agreement from the city granting the development to be on the city’s sewer system.

“If you could, if you will allow us a little time to confer with our attorney to see how we can work this and be fair, Sayer said. “…We can’t vote on anything tonight.”

No action was taken on the item during the regular meeting or the work session.