DAPHNE, Ala. — One issue on Wednesday divided city planners during a special work session: the land use ordinance’s reversionary clause.

While updating the land use booklet, commissioners and city staffers couldn’t decide on whether to delete or modify the clause.

The section says that a rezoned area will revert to the original zoning designation if a project hasn’t broken ground in one year.

Commissioners agreed that one year is too short a time for some projects to begin — many said that two years was more realistic — but disagreed about whether to modify the number or remove the clause all together.

Councilwoman Cathy Barnette, also a planning commissioner, said she believes the clause should remain; however, she said, a  two-year deadline would be more reasonable.

Past properties could be grandfathered in to avoid staff exhaustion, but future properties should be held accountable, she said.

“As we move forward we should begin to enact the ordinance,” she said.

Commissioner Larry Chason disagreed and said the section is dated and gave past commissions the ability to stop developers who didn’t live up to their promises for certain projects.

He foresees future problems with enforcement, he said.

“There’s no process to a reversion,” he said. “The new land owners will sue.

“I think I know how Daphne came to have a reversionary clause and I think it’s a misuse of authority.”

Chason — who acted as chairman in Jeff Carrico’s absence — asked that a vote be called during the Aug. 28 meeting to determine the clause’s fate in the new land use booklet to be presented to the city council for  consideration.

Also Wednesday, the commission considered the required percentage of completion before a project can be bonded.

Bill Eady, planning director, said the project should be completed before it is bonded since the city is responsible for the property if a developer goes bankrupt.

“It’s not right to put the city in that position,” he said.

Chason, however,  said that some leniency is needed.

He believed the ordinance should stay at 80 percent because certain aspects of construction are detained by outside parties at no fault of the builder, he said.

“Nobody has any control over … utilities,” he said. “You can’t live in there and you can’t get a building permit without power.

“They have to wait on getting approval from the planning commission … it leaves the developer dead in the water and paying interest on millions of dollars while they’re waiting for the grass to grow.”

He suggested a clause that allowed commissioners to okay the bond if minor details were the only delay.

Barnette suggested they compromise at 90 percent, with surety from a  cashiers check or a letter of credit from an Alabama lending institution

All planners agreed.