Parker’s Kitchen at Stratford and Whiskey – if approved would be more broken zoning promises

“The zoning has been in place forever.” That is what Aiken City Attorney Gary Smith told the Aiken City Council on the evening of Sept 28th, 2020 before Council approved a car wash on a parcel that was zoned to exclude car washes. Other conditions prohibited on that zoning included no 24 hour businesses, no fuel sales and no fast food restaurants among other things most people wouldn’t appreciate in their backyard.

Enter Parker’s Kitchen, a 24 hour fuel sales/ fast food joint, now applying for approval on that same parcel. The heavily opposed proposal is on this Monday night’s City Council agenda.

Stratford Drive off of Whiskey serves as the single entrance into the three subdivisions. In 2003 when the Springstone Villas portion was approved as the most recent of those subdivisions, it was done as a rezoning and the commercial portion of that rezoning had restrictions/conditions placed on it for future development.

The LuLu’s Experience

In 2020, despite hundreds of signatures on a petition protesting the LuLu’s car wash proposal; despite zoning conditions on the books since 2003 that included NO CAR WASHES, despite a lengthy and passionate public comment period without a single area citizen in support of the proposal, City Council nonetheless approved the request by a 5-2 vote to put a car wash on a parcel with zoning conditions prohibiting a car wash. Councilwoman Diggs and Councilwoman Price were the two dissenting votes.

The same level of resistance and lack of support characterize the debate over the Parker’s Kitchen at Stratford and Whiskey Road proposal.

To add further insult to the LuLu’s approval, Council members Kay Brohl, Andrea Gregory, and Ed Woltz blamed citizens for not knowing what the zoning conditions were when they purchased their homes. The citizens did know. The zoning was Planned Commercial with zoning conditions that included no car washes, as seen below.

The record also shows that Council Members Kay Brohl and Ed Woltz both voted to approve these conditions in 2003, when they were on the Planning Commissioners and Ed Woltz was the Chairman. The minutes from that meeting are here.

After the PC’s recommendation was forwarded to Council, Councilwoman Lessie Price seconded the motion to approve those 2003 conditions. City Attorney Smith signed the 2003 rezoning ordinance above with the conditions included.

So that’s a total of four City officials still in power today who either voted or signed the ordinance to approve those 2003 conditions, and who are now charged with hearing the Parker’s Kitchen proposal.

Former councilman Don Sprawls, who is the current real estate representative for the parcel, also voted to approve. So that’s five people involved today who were instrumental in approving the 2003 conditions.

The Parker’s Kitchen and LuLu’s Overlap.

At present, a portion of the LuLu’s parcel is for sale and under contract by Parker’s Kitchen, a 24 hour fuel sale business. What are the other exclusions on those 2003 zoning conditions? They are fuel sales, 24-hour businesses of any kind, and fast food restaurants — all of which fit the description of Parker’s Kitchen.

At the first city council meeting on Parker’s Kitchen, April 24th, 2023 meeting , Councilwoman Price was the only official who seemed to remember those conditions as she made the motion to continue the hearing until a later date.

To be clear, City Council has the power to vote to change the zoning on a parcel; and, as we learned after a 2020 appeal on the Lulu’s decision, City Council can apparently also blatantly ignore conditions on a zoning parcel. City Attorney Gary Smith and former-planning staff member,(now planning director) Marya Moultrie paved the way for Council’s 2020 vote to approve Lulu’s, assuring Council that those conditions did not exist. A similar path has been paved for Parker’s.

City attorney Smith told the council that same night in 2020 that the Planned Commercial (PC) zoning had been in place forever. He stated the concept plan for the parcel had expired, and then, in the same meeting, he told them that the Lulu’s application was to amend a concept plan.

Which is it? The 2003 zoning conditions on the parcel were clear. The concept plan may have expired, but the zoning conditions did not.

As the video below highlights. Mr. Smith, Ms. Moultrie and five council members ignored citizen’s input, ignored the zoning conditions, and then had the audacity to lecture residents for not knowing the zoning conditions when they purchased their homes.

So City Council was led to believe by Planning Commission Staff and City Attorney Gary Smith that they were approving a concept plan on a parcel that had PC zoning without conditions.

The City of Aiken got away with approving Lulu’s, and a Circuit Court Judge ruled in their favor on an appeal. But that was pre-Pascalis lawsuits, pre-Silver Bluff grocery store lawsuit, pre-flurry of ethics complaints, pre-Labscalis.

Back in 2020, only those affected by Lulu’s were paying attention. Up until now, there has been considerably less resistance to the demolishing of historic buildings across a half a city block, heavy-handed land-clearing and development, and the now ubiquitous Dollar Stores and Lulu’s.

Semantics Matter

In the City’s quest to assure those in attendance in the 2020 meeting, (as they approved Lulu’s) that the 2003 zoning conditions no longer existed — that the conditions had somehow magically vanished from the PC zoning — it appears they did not bother to actually remove the conditions or change the zoning because, recall, as Smith told us, “The zoning has been in place forever.” Indeed the PC zoning — with the conditions — has has been in place since then.

The new 2020 ordinance on the parcel approving Lulu’s reads ” Approve a Concept Plan”

While the 2003 zoning ordinance reads ” Approve a re-zoning”

Semantics matter, zoning is zoning, and the court of public opinion is turning. The latter was clearly evident in citizens’ statements made during the public comment portion of the May 22, 2023 City Council meeting to council members regarding matters of civility and having their voices heard. It certainly appears more people are paying attention. Maybe they’re finding more time to read up on local issues while parked on Whiskey.

The 2003 Zoning Conditions Still Recognized in 2014

More research uncovered that the zoning conditions had not fallen off in 2014 when another applicant put a concept plan in for this parcel. Then Planning Director, Ed Evans, put it right in the agenda packet.

The evidence showing that the conditions are ZONING conditions rather than concept plan conditions just continues to accumulate.

Parker’s Kitchen

During the April 24, 2023 meeting on Parkers, I asked Ms. Moultrie if those conditions were listed in the agenda’s Parker’s documents. Mayor Osbon redirected the question to himself. and then did not answer the question.

However, Mayor Osbon did make an issue of a sign that said ‘Shame’ that my 80 year-old aunt held up during my comments, and directed at Council. Law enforcement was called in handle the quite dainty, 80 year-old lady holding a small sign in a City Council meeting.

Now , in the June 12th, 2023 Memorandum from City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh in the agenda packet for Parker’s states that:

Since no building permits were issued within 5 years of the
original commercial component of the concept plan approval, the 2003 concept plan approval for the commercial component expired, but the PC zoning stayed on the property.

Mr. Bedenbaugh acknowledges in the memo that the 2003 ZONING stayed on the property, but what he failed to admit is that the 2003 PC zoning came with conditions (see the 2003 Ordinance )

The 2003 Concept Plan and Zoning Process.

Permits were issued under that rezoning for Springstone Villas. They are also zoned PC as shown on the map below. This was found in Lulu’s application packet.

Springstone Villas enjoy the same zoning as the parcel in question as it was all rezoned to PC at the same time, in fact, officials placed the conditions on the commercial portion of the PC because there was no definite concept plan for the commercial component for it at the time of the rezoning and this ensured the residential portion of the PC zoning (Springstone Villas) would be protected. The minutes of the 2003 meetings accurately depict this. From the July 14th, 2023 First Reading

Later in that same meeting Councilman Cunning confirmed there is no definite commercial plan.

Early on in those same July minutes it states Planned Commercial zoning requires approval of a Concept Plan. Again, the only Concept Plan ever approved to move forward for this parcel at that 2003 rezoning was that of Springstone Villas.

This seems to completely negate the City’s claim that the 2003 Concept Plan of the Commercial component has expired. According to the minutes, there never was a definite concept plan for the commercial component approved – the Concept Plan approved was for Springstone Villas and the commercial component was Planned Commercial with conditions.

The first PC zoning approval conditions read “only the residential portion will be allowed to proceed and that the concept plan for the commercial portion be reviewed by the planning commission and council prior to approval of any site plan for that portion” (credit to Stratford resident John Melvin for discovering this clause).

The Continuation of the First Parker’s Hearing

Well-organized citizen opposition to Parker’s Kitchen proposal will be presenting their positions to City Council on Monday night, June 12th. City Council will meet an informed, passionate and intelligent citizenry. The opposition is growing, not shrinking.

In addition to concerns over the City’s compliance with its own zoning conditions on Parker’s, there are concerns over issues of health and safety regarding siting a gas station next to a residential area. The City is well-advised to review the definitions of arbitrary and capricious before making their decision.

There is also a closed-door Executive Session scheduled Monday before the meeting to accept legal advice on the Parker’s Kitchen proposal. Although allowed, The Freedom of Information Act does not encourage Executive Sessions. The key word is that Council “can” enter closed door meetings under some exemptions. There is no “shall.”

There is no reason, especially after the legal discussion during the April 24th unfinished hearing, why the legal issues can not be discussed in full open view. There is no pending litigation that is one prerequisite for taking legal advice behind closed doors. The issue should be aired in open session, on-the-record, for every citizen to hear.

Full Disclosure: My mother was the plaintiff vs. The City Council in the appeal on the Lulu’s decision. My Uncle was the President of the Springstone HOA when the Hotel was built off Whiskey Rd adjacent to Stratford. He, along with others, worked hard to make sure that hotel would not affect the residential area. Due to the berm and tree buffers, the dedicated entrance at the opposite of the property off Whiskey Rd, and to not putting a curb cut on Stratford, you truly do not know that hotel exists when you enter into this residential area. They did it right.