Lexington County sued its own Zoning Board over a Lake Murray housing development (2024)

LEXINGTON— Lexington County is seeking to settle a lawsuit against its own Board of Zoning Appeals and a Lake Murray developer.

County Council voted at a May 28 meeting to settle ongoing litigation between the zoning board and developer Retreat at Lake Murray LLC, which had been ongoing since February.

Lexington County will drop its challenge of a zoning board decision to grant the developer an exception on the county’s setback requirements for a proposed housing development on Lake Murray, according to court documents.

Attorneys for the county, zoning board and developer all said they agreed to the terms of the settlement but were still awaiting the presiding judge to formally sign off on the conditions.

The dispute

The dispute began when the county’s Board of Zoning Appeals voted in January to allow a developer to set homes 20 feet back from the roadway rather than the county’s standard 30 feet in a proposed housing development slated for Lake Murray.

The county zoning board granted the developer an exception to the setback requirement at a January meeting after the developer claimed the homes impacted by the exemption would still include two-car garages and driveways with enough space for two parked cars, negating the county’s concerns about excessive street parking.

The development was also planning to provide more than 50 overflow parking spots in a lot adjacent to the homes when the exception was granted, according to court documents.

And, the developer claimed wider setbacks would require more trees to be removed. As for street parking, the developer said the roads will be privately maintained within the development rather than publicly maintained.

Where it all began

Kevin Connelly, owner of the property and self-proclaimed longtime Lake Murray resident, said the development provides varied housing types and amenities desired by the community well below county limits on density at the January zoning board meeting.

“This whole notion of this is about greedy developers and that’s all it is — I’m not saying that you guys said that— I’m just saying that’s some of the rumors that I’ve heard around,” Connelly said. “I’m trying to build a quality development.”

At the same meeting, residents spoke out, expressing concerns about traffic, impact on threatened box turtles and street parking preventing emergency vehicles from accessing nearby homes.

County Councilman Larry Brigham spoke against the exception at the meeting. The development is in his district.

“After a while, everybody’s going to catch on,” Brigham said. “Our developers will catch on to the point where this is an appeal about every development that comes in.”

County challenges zoning board

The countychallenged the zoning board’s ruling, claiming the zoning board did not give enough justification for the ruling. The government also alleged that reduced setbacks encourage on-street parking, which could block emergency vehicles from accessing the development. And the county claimed the board's ruling was motivated by concerns for the developer’s profits.

“The more vehicles that are being parked on the County’s streets, the more difficult it is for the County’s first responders to get to emergencies in a timely manner to save lives and property,” the county claimed in court documents. “A few more dollars in a developer’s pocket are not worth the safety risks for the County’s citizens and is certainly NOT an “unnecessary hardship” on the Developer.

“Greater profit is not a permissible element for granting the variance,” the county claimed.

The zoning board responded in court documents that its 3-2 decision in favor of the developer was based on the development’s independently done studies and the challenges posed by the site’s topography.

In a separate filing, the developer accused County Council, and specifically Council Chair Beth Carrigg, of violating the Freedom of Information Act by not discussing the council’s legal action against the developer and zoning board at a public council meeting.

The Board of Zoning Appeals did not join the developer in accusing County Council of FOIA violations, according to court documents.

The development

The Retreat at Lake Murray, LLC project includes 49 homes in its initial stage, with duplexes, lakefront home lots and commercial space to include a restaurant proposed for further phases, according to court documents.

The development is proposed for 58 acres at the intersection of Beaver Creek Road and U.S. 378 West, with property fronting Lake Murray. A total of 106 homes are planned, with the 49 initial “patio” homes, 24 duplexes and 33 “estate” homes closest to the lakefront, according to court documents.

The patio-style homes planned for the initial phase of the development— and subject to the setback dispute— will be marketed toward older individuals, Connelly said at the zoning board meeting.

These individuals will likely want less yard to maintain, further necessitating the smaller setback, he said.

The attorney representing the developer said the “seemingly non-controversial request apparently found itself in the middle of recent Lexington County political battles on the development and growth in the County” in court documents.

The settlement

As part of the lawsuit's settlement, the developer will agree to provide more parallel parking on roads to leave lanes open for emergency vehicles, according to court documents.

The county will also waive regulations limiting developers to disturbing no more than 20 acres in developments. The Retreat developer will be allowed to disturb 42.2 acres for the patio homes included in the development with oversight from a licensed engineer, according to court documents.

All parties will drop their claims against the others, according to the settlement.

Lexington County Attorney Eric Bland declined to comment in detail about the settlement before details had been finalized by a judge, but said the timing of the June 11 primary had no effect on the county’s decision to settle.

Chairwoman Carrigg also declined to comment in detail but did say all parties involved had decided to pay for the cost of the litigation personally.

“While both parties made some mutually beneficial concessions in a good-faith effort to resolve the matter, it has not yet been approved by the court,” she said. “Once the order is executed by the judge and filed with the court, we may very well have an additional comment.”

The attorney representing the Board of Zoning Appeals did not respond for comment.

Moving forward

Attorney Benjamin Nicholson, who represents the development, did not provide details on the next steps for the project.

A 90-day stop work order, which was handed down in court documents in February, lapsed in late April.

“I can tell you that Kevin Connelly, who owns Connelly Builders and Connelly Development of Lexington, already has a number of permits approved for the development and hopes to begin clearing land late this summer,” Nicholson said in a statement.