The Planning Commission’s recent struggle to answer this question while pushing a developer to comply with rules that don’t exist.

by Laura Lance
October 15, 2023

The elephant in the room at the Tuesday night City of Aiken Planning Commission public meeting and the work session that preceded it was the word, “Why?” 

On the table were two requests from Mr. Tracy Turner, the prospective buyer and developer for the old Aiken County Hospital property. One request was for a zoning change (from Office to Planned Commercial); the second request was for approval to send Mr. Turner’s concept plan to City Council for consideration. The zoning request passed 5-0 as expected because there was little choice, since past commissions had granted rezoning to two previous developers, whose similar projects were ultimately abandoned.

The concept plan was a different matter. And it was a different matter in ways that raised questions about the fairness of the proceedings.

Above: Mr. Turner’s Concept Plan for commercial and residential mixed-use development on the old Aiken County Hospital property. Click for larger view.

Above: A brief description of the plan. See the Planning Commission agenda packet, pgs. 51-73, for full details.

The level of scrutiny given to Mr. Turner’s concept plan was different from that applied to other developers’ plans observed over the past year. There were demands made of this concept plan that have not been evenly applied to other developers’ plans.

Why?

During one exchange, a Commission member told Mr. Turner that the plan needed “more parking closer to the buildings.”

Mr Turner asked, “Is there a requirement of how far parking should be from a commercial parcel? Does Aiken have a requirement for the walking distance from a —-“

Mr. Turner’s questions were twice interrupted by two or more Commission members, who were speaking all at once to answer him, “No,” and “It’s a mindset,” and, “It has to be  reasonable.” 

Mr Turner asked, “What is reasonable?” 

“Reasonable to me, 150 feet,” answered one commission member.  

Another member stated, in a line that could have come straight from the Mad Tea Party scene in Alice in Wonderland, “I mean, well, it’s almost easier to see what is unreasonable than it is to see what is reasonable.”   

A witness to this and other exchanges throughout the meeting could be forgiven for wondering if there weren’t perhaps a note or two of arbitrariness to the proceedings, as the Commission hammered the applicant on adherence to rules that don’t exist.

A similarly-themed exchange had a commission member asking Mr. Turner if his proposal included affordable housing and would accommodate economic diversity — standards that are not asked of all developers; criteria that are not required of this or any developer, as pointed out by citizen-attendee, attorney Margaret Tribert, in her public statement on Mr. Turner’s proposal:

“This guy is trying to do something beautiful, and he’s not under any obligation to give us affordable housing when he does that. That is not a requirement for a developer in this community, and, you know — that’s someone’s obligation but it’s not his. I don’t think he is offering public housing. I don’t think he is under any obligation that is not controlled by existing federal statutes.”

Here, several points must be mentioned. First, there was not a single voice of opposition to this concept plan from the public during the meeting — just the opposite. There were perhaps a dozen members of the public — a diversity of individuals — who rose to give their support of sending Mr. Turner’s concept plan forward. (Read a sampling at this page). There were even two City officials who came to the podium, not in support of the project per se, but in support of the process. These statements and, indeed, the entirety of this public meeting are worthy of hearing.¹

Another point to be made is that two members on the Planning Commission are also members of the Aiken Corporation, which is arguably in competition with Mr. Turner for developing the $20 million SRNL office complex. This is a topic that has stirred no small amount of controversy since last month when the the Aiken Corporation — through the power of its contract with the City of Aiken to assess potential sites for the SRNL complex — abruptly and without notice or explanation disqualified the old hospital site from consideration during a public hearing in September.

Given this controversy, a question on potential conflicts of interest by those with the power to stonewall progress on Mr. Turner’s development was not only appropriate, but perhaps should have been circumvented by the recusal of those Aiken Corporation board members from even being in a position to make decisions on Mr. Turner’s requests. Certainly no member of a government body would want to be put into this position.

Top: Augustine Wong, architect, and Tracy Turner, developer, making their presentation. Bottom: Tracy Turner in discussion with the Planning Commission.

The public, whose interests are served by fair proceedings in these meetings, should not be put in a position where they’re left wondering if conflicts of interest entered into the discussion. But there we were on Tuesday night, and there was that elephant in the middle of the room: Why?

When, at last, that question was spoken out loud, it was received by some on the Planning Commission as an insult. One member was compelled to give character references for the two Aiken Corporation members serving on the Planning Commission, describing them as “good men” who “always act honorably.”

It should go without saying, but I’ll say it anyway. The fairness of one’s actions should be based, not on the purported honor of any individual, but on the fairness of their actions. Does the Planning Commission apply its scrutiny evenly to all developers who come before them? That didn’t appear to be the case in Tuesday night’s meeting.

Why?

Why was the Planning Commission taking such an adversarial stance toward a developer who came before them with a concept plan to redevelop a property that, second only to the Hotel Aiken, might be the greatest eyesore greeting newcomers to our City?

Why would the Planning Commission risk driving away a developer who has brought to the table the starting point of a viable plan — one that has been enthusiastically received by the public — to buy this long-neglected, much-vandalized, historic old Aiken County Hospital and restore its historic structures and preserve many of its old trees, while transforming this property into a beautiful, park-like campus with attractive housing, retail, and mixed-use buildings?

At the meeting’s end — and only during the final minutes and seconds of the eleventh hour — Mr. Turner’s concept plan was approved to go forward to City Council by a narrow vote of 3-2. Two of those three votes in favor came from the two Aiken Corporation members. The outcome of the meeting shows the power of citizen participation, which swung the vote to Mr. Turner’s favor. ²

The process for addressing the Planning Commission’s stated concerns was as easy to follow as it was to imagine. This is because the process was not rocket science. In fact, it took less than two minutes to accomplish the task. The hours leading up to those two minutes, however, left ample food for thought that will linger long after the heartburn subsides.

________________

Footnotes:

1. Citizens are encouraged to watch this portion of the meeting, beginning just after minute 13:00 and continuing to the end of this YouTube video. Note, this is the public meeting. The work session that preceded the the public meeting was not recorded.
2. Before there was a Motion to Approve, there was a Motion to Table the agenda item. That motion failed by a vote of 3-2.
   
   However, as Don Moniak will point out in an upcoming general review of the city’s planning process, even this Motion to Table was out of character and arguably unfair:
   
   “Before the 6 pm public hearing, there was a work session where the commission devoted a full forty minutes to discussing and dissecting the proposal. This intense level of scrutiny alone is unprecedented in recent years, which any review of work session meeting minutes would confirm. 
   
   “The discussion included the idea of a Motion to Table, or postpone, the concept plan approval until Turner Development could satisfy the demands of commission members. This too was highly unusual, but the worst aspect is there appeared to be a consensus on tabling—and decision making like this is not allowed or appropriate in work sessions which are outside the public eye.”