Lexington County Council did not violate a judge’s order in restarting a building moratorium.

That’s the word from an attorney representing the building industry.

Lexington County Judge Debra McCaslin found the council violated the SC Freedom of Information Act April 13 when it voted on the 6-month moratorium on subdivisions larger than 9 homes, attorney Jay Bender told the Chronicle.

“The council held a special meeting the following week and gave 1st reading without managing to violate the law,” Bender said.

“The council then put the moratorium into immediate effect invoking the pending ordinance doctrine.”

That doctrine allowed the council to immediately start the moratorium before holding a public hearing and voting 2 more times.

County attorney Jeff Anderson has told the council the doctrine may not withstand a court challenge, sources told the Chronicle.

Bender said a Building Industry Association lawsuit to stop the moratorium until after the council’s 3rd vote is still active

“The immediate practical effect is that council gave an ordinance 1 reading and then announced it would be applied notwithstanding there was only 1 reading and there is no zoning ordinance amendment in prospect,” Bender said.

The builders fear that the clock on the moratorium will not start until after a 2nd and 3rd vote which has not yet been scheduled.

That means a 6-month ban could last longer than that, builders say.

A copy of the judge’s ruling made available to the Chronicle leaves unanswered questions.

• In her ruling, the judge clearly found for the BIA but only on the FoIA violation.

• She granted a temporary injunction but just how temporary? Does that mean until the county council holds a single public vote – which it did 2 days later – or until after a public hearing and 2 more votes?

The Chronicle has tried unsuccessfully to reach Judge McCaslin.

According to a court transcript, the judge said: “I’m going to find that the plaintiff has made a prima facie showing that the actions of the Lexington County Council violated 34-70, and that being just the way they went into executive session.

“I also think that plaintiffs [the BIA] established a likelihood of success on the merits. I find the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm and has no adequate remedy at law.

“Therefore, in order to preserve the status quo during the pendency of this litigation, granting the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary injunction. But I’m granting it solely on the grounds only of the Freedom of Information Act and not to the other 2 causes of action.

“And for the Freedom of Information Act, I’m talking 30-4-70(a)(1) through (6). You’re going to have to go back and do it, Mr. Anderson,” she told the county council attorney.