The Friends of the Aiken County Historical Museum are excited to present “Opera & Broadway in Banksia,” a fundraiser for the museum on January 27. This intimate musical performance will feature Cristina Fontanelli & Friends.
Cristina Fontanelli is a well-known personality through her recordings, her appearances on TV, radio, in concert, nightclubs, and opera, and through her acting debut on network television. She has sung title roles with the Palm Beach Opera, the Cairo Opera, Opera of Hong Kong, the NY Grand Opera, NJ State Opera, and the Opera of the Hamptons.
Cristina is a guest artist with many prestigious orchestras, including the Boston Pops and the St. Louis Symphony, performing in major concert halls throughout the U.S. and the world, including the Lincoln and Kennedy Centers. She has completed three world tours with the Mantovani Orchestra. A listing of some of the popular “giants” she has appeared with include Tony Bennett and Joel Grey. Cristina’s beautiful soprano voice has taken her to the White House as part of President Clinton’s holiday celebration and Cristina was invited to open the ceremonies at the Stars and Stripes Inaugural Ball for President George W. Bush.
She has appeared as a PBS-TV/NY affiliate host for Andrea Bocelli’s “Live From Central Park” also starring Celine Dion and Tony Bennett; for the “Il Volo Takes Flight” special; Vienna Boys Choir and Qi Gong PBS-TV Specials. Please join Cristina plus world-class tenor and pianist friends for a night of dramatic singing in history.
Tickets can be purchased at achmfriends.org/events. There is a $75 General Admission ticket with a cocktail reception and a $100 VIP ticket with reserved seating, a champagne reception, and a meet & greet with the performers.
The Friends of the ACHM is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. All proceeds from this event will benefit the Museum’s educational programming, artifact preservation, and exhibits development. (Text taken from the Facebook event page)
2026 UPDATE: This year’s Aiken Camellia Show will be held on Saturday, January 17, 2026 at the First Presbyterian Church at 224 Barnwell Ave. NW from 1:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. Want to attend or enter a bloom? See full details here.Now for a bit more about camellias, the Aiken Camellia Show, and why you should go. But first, this disclaimer.
Disclaimer: I am no expert on camellias or camellia shows, just an enthusiastic bystander and child of the South, where one picks up a few things. Please let me know if there are corrections to be made.
About Camellias
The two most commonly grown camellia species in our area are Camellia sasanqua (native to southern Japan) and Camellia japonica (native to China, Korea and Japan). Both are evergreens and faithful, cool-season bloomers. As a rule, sasanquas tend to have smaller leaves, and they bloom earlier, beginning in autumn. The japonica, which is generally more prized by camellia fanciers, tends to have larger leaves, and it blooms later, beginning in early winter. The japonica makes a fine cut flower, whereas many of the sasanquas tend to drop their petals faster than you get them into a vase. Depending on the variety, a camellia may bloom for one to three months or longer.
Above: Sasanqua ‘Setsugekka.’ A lovely, long-blooming shrub that scatters a festive confetti of petals onto the lawn.
Above: Japonicas hold their petals and will stay fresh-looking for days. This is a japonica ‘Lady Laura’ from my brother’s garden.
There are hundreds of camellia species and thousands of camellia varieties, or cultivars. We have three camellia species in our yard — sasanquas, japonicas, and a single sinensis, the latter of which is the source plant for green tea and matcha. Throughout autumn, the sinensis produces dozens upon dozens of small, cream-colored flowers utterly laden with pollen. A single blossom can occupy a bee for several minutes collecting bundles of pollen.
Between the three species, we have about two dozen cultivars in our yard. Some sound like they stepped off either the society page or a Clue game board — Marie Bracey, Professor Sargent, Marjorie Magnificent, Mrs. Charles Cobb, and Dr. Tinsley. Others have more descriptive names, such as Yuletide, Alba Plena, Debutante, White Empress, and Taylor’s Pink Perfection.
Above: An arrangement of my mother’s favorites. Dr. Tinsley is at the center, surrounded by (clockwise, starting at 1:00) Marjorie Magnificent, Herme, Marie Bracey, Mrs. Charles Cobb and Professor Sargent.
Once you become acquainted with camellias, it’s impossible to have just one favorite among the many cultivars. Two of my longtime favorites are Dr. Tinsley (an intriguing beauty that exudes a mysterious, sweet nectar), and the perfectly decorated, pink, rose and white Herme, which was said to be the favorite of author Eudora Welty. There are always new favorites to discover, which is one of the many delights of attending a camellia show.
Life for a camellia in Aiken is about as close to heaven as it gets, between our warm and humid climate, our temperate winters, and the acidic soil. Plant camellias in an understory of pine trees, and they will reward you with a lifetime of relatively carefree growth and a long bloom season of colorful pink, coral, rose, red and/or white flowers ranging from delicate, graceful and ethereal, to showy and festive.
Above: In our yard, the sasanqua ‘Yuletide’ blooms from October to December. Unlike many sasanquas, a cut flower will last several days in a bud vase
About the Camellia Show
The earliest camellia show in our area may have been an Augusta show that was hosted by the Sand Hill Garden Club in 1932. Annual Augusta camellia shows commenced, which drew Aiken Garden Club members and other camellia fanciers across the region who vied for ribbons, silver bowls, and best bloom awards. Local camellia show attendees of that era included well-known Aiken names and garden club legends such as Phelps, Wilds, Henderson, Salley, McLean, Crosland, and Woolsey.
The very first Aiken Camellia Show may have been the one held by the Aiken Garden Club in 1934 at the home of Mrs. Robert H. Wilds on Hayne Avenue. Additional shows were sporadically held by various garden clubs over the next 20 years until 1954, when the shows became an annual Aiken tradition.
This year marks 70 years of the annual Aiken Camellia Show. During the 1950s, the show was held at the Aiken Municipal auditorium. A few of these shows were canceled due to cold-weather damage to the blooms and buds — a hazard for camellia shows. During the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s the shows were held in the Kennedy Junior High gymnasium. Since the mid-1980s, the shows have been held at various other venues, including USC-Aiken, the Aiken Mall, and area church gymnasiums.
While there have been a number of changes to the show over the years, two stand out as prominent in my mind. One is “gibbing,” the use of gibberellic acid to increase flower size and induce early blooming. The other is that, because increasing numbers of growers utilize greenhouses, a blast of winter freeze is no longer the death knell for a camellia show.
Above: A japonica ‘Herme’ with icicles and sleet.
Camellias under glass
I used to delight in visiting the greenhouse of a family friend and camellia grower in the 1970s-80s who kept camellias both outdoors and “under glass.” A camellia greenhouse is not a hothouse, but a cold greenhouse that protects from severe conditions. Attendees to the Aiken Camellia Show will notice that the blooms are categorized by numerous classes, most of which are further categorized according to whether the blooms were grown protected (under glass) or non-protected, which are defined as “those grown in natural surroundings without any man-made protection from the elements.”
My mother’s camellias
My mother, a hardworking, lifelong gardener of everything from kiwis to cabbages to calamondins — who, for decades kept a summer garden large enough to fill both the freezer and the canning pantry every year — also happens to love camellias. She’s entered a number of camellia shows over the past 50 years, but has also lost out to weather some years. Her most recent show was in 2019 at the age of ninety.
On the morning of the show, she went out into the yard at first light to select the best blooms. After labeling them and carefully packing them for transport, she took them to town to register them, then returned home to await the show later that day.
Above: My mother’s preparations for the Aiken Camellia Show.
Her odds of winning a ribbon would seem slim, given the caliber of competition and the fact that all of her blooms are grown outdoors and without the benefit of gibberellic acid. Much to her delight, four of her camellias won 1st place, and two won 3rd place. One of her camellias, a Herme, won a special award.
Even if she’d won nothing, attending the show was, as always, a special occasion. We oohed and ahhed over the lovely blooms and discussed which ones we might one day plant in our yard. We also enjoyed the flower arrangement part of the show, which featured contemplative and artful Japanese floral arrangements, called Ikebana.
Above: From the 2019 Aiken Camellia Show, held in the gymnasium of the First Presbyterian Church.
While there have been many changes to the Aiken Camellia Show over the years, the experience of attending a camellia show today is much like I remember from my early childhood. Whether you’d like to enter your camellias in the show, or simply enjoy browsing the dazzling variety of blooms, the Aiken Camellia Show is a pleasure to attend. Chances are, you’ll leave with a list of favorites. As traditions go, this one’s a keeper.
In parting, a few words on the “Miss Aiken,” camellia. I don’t have a copyright free image of one, but you can see photos at the Brookgreen Gardens link, above, or visit one in person this February at the railroad depot at Union and Park this February. Or visit the one in Hopelands. I know of another ‘Miss Aiken’ in a southside yard, whose owners passed away about 20 year ago. This house has since seen two other owners. The latest owners likely don’t know about the treasure planted at the corner of their house. I breathe a sigh of relief whenever I drive by and see she’s there. One day I should stop by, introduce myself, and tell them the history of their ‘Miss Aiken.’
__________________
Below: The newest addition to our camellia family, a sasanqua ‘October Magic Orchid’ which grows in a container beside the front door.
As reported in One-Year Lease After One-Year Lease, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site (DOE/SRS) has only authorized its Savannah River National Laboratory’s (SRNL) management and operating contractor to negotiate one-year, renewable leases for space in the proposed $20 million, publicly-funded “Mixed-Use” office building in downtown Aiken now under development by the Aiken Corporation.
A more suitable option for the $20 million effort is to have the City of Aiken complete the project, and then gift the building to the the State of South Carolina’s University system—which is a party in the management and operating contract. This option would satisfy the state’s contractual commitment for its major Universities to invest in the SRNL contract, which was the primary justification for the $20 million allocation from the state’s plutonium settlement allocation to pay for the project.
The Rent-Free Alternative
Monday evening’s regular Aiken City Council meeting agenda includes a Public Hearing of the “First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the 2023-24 Budget to Include $20 Million from the Plutonium Funds for the Mixed-Use Building in the Downtown.”
The supporting memorandum for the ordinance states, in part:
“The Department of Energy [DOE] gave the Savannah River National Lab (SRNL) conditional approval to begin discussion with Aiken Corporation on a lease to occupy a portion of a mixed-use building in Aiken to be built on a currently vacant lot on the 100 block of Newberry Street NW.”
The Newberry Steet, NW, property is currently owned (1) by the Aiken Corporation (ACorp), which hopes to develop and own the “mixed-use” office building that will require at least $20 million of public funds obtained by the City of Aiken (COA) from the State of South Carolina’s plutonium settlement.
The current managing and operating contractor for the DOE-owned SRNL, the Battelle Savannah River Alliance (Battelle), has a five-year, multibillion dollar contract with DOE/SRS; with an option for a five-year extension. The Alliance includes the state’s major Universities: Clemson, South Carolina State, and the University of South Carolina.
As reported in 45,000 Square Feet Without a Tenant, the future of the $20 million plus “mixed-use” facility is entirely dependent upon ACorp reaching an agreement with Battelle for a long-term lease for use of a “portion of the building;” with subsequent approval by the Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site (DOE/SRS).
In fact, the COA’s Economic Development department warned twice in its most recent monthly reports that the ACorp Board “has made it clear that no further steps can or will take place until DOE/SRNL has offered an unambiguous, albeit contingent, commitment to lease the proposed facility….At this point, an MOU, LOI, draft lease, or some other instrument, even one with significant contingencies and hard outs for each party, is essential. Without one by year’s end, the chances of the project moving forward become less likely.”
Yet, ACorp is moving forward on a Request for Proposals for architectural design services with an estimated cost of up to $2 million; all without any contract with Aiken City Council to do so.
In actuality, the $20 million allocated by the South Carolina legislature was not for a “Mixed-Use Building in the Downtown” that would be owned by a private organization. The state legislature in 2023 specifically allocated $20 million for “Off-site infrastructure improvements for SRS/National Lab, including the Aiken Technology/Innovation Corridor.” This line item in the plutonium settlement disbursement contained no provision for rent payments from the federal budget to any public body or private organization.
The allocation, if implemented as written, actually satisfies the state’s required investment commitment for the Universities to participate in the SRNL management and operating contract. As reported in Offsite Infrastructure, the Universities are contractually obligated to invest in the contract and the only specified deliverable in that contract provision is a “workforce development” facility. (2)
The City of Aiken’s “Savannah River Litigation Settlement Fund Request Form” (Figure 1), submitted one year ago, contained no mention of a “Mixed-Use Facility.” The proposal was for a building devoted to a “Workforce Development facility” for SRNL; to be built on city-owned property. The funding request, which also contained no mention of the Aiken Corporation, defined the purpose as:
“Construction of workforce development center, shared event/exhibition space and office space for the Savannah River National Lab to be located within the incorporated limits of the City of Aiken on property under the control of the City of Aiken.”
Figure 1: City of Aiken request for $20 million SRNL project funds. (Click to enlarge)
The allocation granted by the SC legislature in response to this funding request was for off-site infrastructure, with no strings attached in terms of future leases or revenues. The funding did not specifically allow for a commercial building to be constructed on behalf of any private organization that would subsequently earn rental revenues from a federal government contractor. Given these facts, could the City of Aiken be involved in a misappropriation of state funds by allowing Aiken Corporation to own the building on its own property?
There is an alternative to avoiding any real or perceived appearance of a misappropriation, and the current pathway that has already involved arduous and costly long-term lease negotiations between Battelle and ACorp—which so far have yielded only a commitment to negotiate for a series of one-year leases. Should such an agreement ever emerge between the two, it would still have to be approved by the DOE/SRS contract administrator.
The alternative, which has been presented to State Senators Tom Young and Shane Massey (3), is as follows:
1. Since the justification for the $20 million in state funding resulted from South Carolina’s commitment for the Universities’ participation in the Battelle contract, the facility should be built for the Universities; not for any private, rent-seeking organization. Since the City of Aiken controls the funds, its procurement department could be tasked with the design and construction process.
2. After completion of the facility, the property and/or building could be donated to a state Universities member, such as the University of South Carolina at Aiken (USCA); which would then provide the office space to the current SRNL contractor at no cost—as originally intended. The contractor would only be responsible for the utility and maintenance costs.
If a new contractor emerges in five to ten years that chooses to forego its use, the office facility could remain in the hands of the Universities and continue to provide the long-sought connectivity between USCA and downtown Aiken. Or it could revert back to the City for its use or sale.
One caveat would have to be that any Battelle-led consortium could not claim the workforce development facility as an asset in future contract bids; the option to continue to occupy the building on a rent-free basis would have to be made available to any future bidder.
This option not only removes the costly and difficult process of DOE and SRNL representatives negotiating a long-term lease with a publicly funded, private entity, it also removes the necessity of relying upon annual federal funding to pay the lease. The building would still be occupied by some SRNL employees and the intended “rotating group of university faculty, students and researchers.” There would just be no rent expected from a federal contractor whose budget is subject to the whims of Congress and DOE.
As for the Aiken Corporation’s Newberry Street, NW, property, part of the $20 million could be used by COA to buy that property. The City could still select another property, such as a portion of the nine acres of the County-owned “old hospital” property (Figure 3) currently under contract to the Turner Development company. After all, City Council has yet to approve the ACorp’s Newberry Street location as the location for the $20 million project.
(Note: For further background on the plutonium settlement disbursement process and the rent-free alternative, see Footnote 2)
Figure 3: The “Old Hospital” property at 828 Richland Avenue, West, was the most popular choice for a future SRNL Workforce Development office building.
A Project Gone Awry.
The SRNL/“Mixed-Use” project to date has mimicked the practices that ultimately contributed strongly to the failure of Project Pascalis: secret proceedings leading to a decision, with public input of any kind allowed only after the decisions were made. The project also evolved into an unrecognizable version from the original publicly presented proposal, during which Aiken City Council oversight was lacking.
As described in Three Missing Pages, following the cancellation of Project Pascalis, city staff surreptitiously recruited the Aiken Corporation to pursue the project by using property owned by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC). On December 9, 2022, ACorp President Buzz Rich signed a city staff-approved contract with the architectural firm of McMillan Pazdan and Smith (MPS) to begin work on the project. The AMDC had no involvement in the decision to utilize its properties in this manner.
Aiken City Council then met in two closed-door Executive Sessions to discuss the project, and subsequently withheld its very existence and its proposed location on disputed Project Pascalis properties during two public meetings in January 2023. Council finally choose to inform the public of their decisions at then-Mayor Rick Osbon’s January 23, 2023 “State of the City” address. The SRNL downtown project announcement came one week after Council made promises to pursue a “reset” and fresh start on a path forward for the Pascalis project properties during a special-called meeting.
The role of the Aiken Corporation was not even hinted at during the “State of the City” address (Figure 2) despite its existing contract with MPS. Its role as the probable developer and building owner was not revealed until March 13, 2023–four full months after being silently recruited to tackle the task.
Aiken City Council’s unofficial delegation of the project to the third-party Aiken Corporation was made months before deliberation and approval of the $250,000, no-bid contract. Council’s decisions caused a one-year delay in pursuing a final path for the Hotel Aiken and other Pascalis properties.
In the end, the contract eventually led to a recommendation by Aiken Corporation to use state-obtained funds legislatively allocated to Aiken County and passed on to the COA to locate the project on ACorp property for the benefit of ACorp. Aiken City Council has yet to officially validate this self-serving recommendation beyond unofficially failing to object to it.
Figure 2: SRNL’s Director Dr. Vajid Mahiji addressing the crowd during the State of the City address, January 23, 2023. At the time, the word “Mixed-Use” was absent from the discussion.
Summary
The original purpose of the $20 million was not to build a private “mixed-use” office building. It was not to further subsidize the City of Aiken nor its private partner the Aiken Corporation with an annual flow of federal financing that could be better put to other purposes.
The legislative intent was to construct “off-site infrastructure” for an institution whose operating contractor includes the state’s university system. The only justification for awarding plutonium settlement funds for use by one of the Defendant’s institutions, SRNL, was that the state had committed to an investment in the Battelle-led alliance with state Universities. That commitment specifically included a workforce development facility from the Universities and for the alliance.
The Universities, in their role as alliance members, should be the ultimate recipient of this funding
Aiken City Council should recognize that its decisions, coupled with a lack of adequate oversight, in downtown redevelopment efforts have only caused delays in the redevelopment of the Hotel Aiken as well as an updated Aiken County judicial system infrastructure, divided the Aiken area community, and disrupted the lives of numerous small downtown business owners.
Council could take an entirely different path of in-house management of any developments on city property by ceasing to farm out vital tasks to third-party intermediaries. It could also do the right thing by eventually gifting the $20 million workforce development office building to its intended owner, the state’s University System, and stop describing it as a generic “mixed-use” building.
Twenty million dollars of federal treasury funds is at stake in this process. Beyond maybe selling property for project use, should any private organization whose by-laws fail to identify the COA or Aiken County as “shareholders” be allowed to profit from this publicly-funded project? Should $20 million be spent without any future restrictions on the use of the building should SRNL stop renting space? Or should the money be spent for the common good, in support of higher education? “ The County legislative delegation and the City of Aiken still has time to reverse their support for the current private, rent-seeking alternative and choose to make the facility a true public asset.
Footnotes:
(1) Details of the Aiken Corporation’s purchase of its Newberry Street, NW property is contained in Aiken’s Cousin Problem.
Not reported in that story was the probable collateral for the Newberry Street property; a 25-acre parcel of land between North York Street and Kershaw Street, NE, that is now owned by Aiken Corporation. According to Aiken Corporation meeting minutes from November 2021, the original owner of that property wished to donate it to the City of Aiken, but instead city staff opted to allow Aiken Corporation to accept the land donation.
According to a City of Aiken Economic Development Department monthly reports, at the time of the Aiken Corporation’s $650,000 Newberry Street property purchase, the 25-acre parcel was under contract for $625,000; enough to pay off the entire loan.
By the end of 2022, that contract with the Auben Company was cancelled. In June of 2023, the ACorp Board voted to accept an offer of $437,500, which closely corresponded to the appraisal conducted to quantify the size of the donation for IRS reporting purposes.
The property is currently proposed for single family housing and commercial use by High Brass Development, LLC. The Aiken Corporation sale will be executed after City Council approval of the High Brass concept plan. ACorp would then be able to pay off two-thirds of its $650,000 loan.
(2) The following is an updated summary of information first reported in Offsite Infastructure.
Further Background on the Plutonium Settlement Disbursement Process and the Rent-Free SRNL Project Alternative.
On August 30, 2020, the State of South Carolina reached its landmark, $600 million settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice.
Now commonly referred to as “The Plutonium Settlement,” the action was the result of the Department of Energy (DOE) failing to meet the terms of Amendments made to Defense Authorization Acts that mandated the removal of one ton of plutonium per year from SRS if a planned Plutonium/Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) was not operational by 2016. Failure to remove the plutonium triggered upwards of $160 million per year in fines to be paid by the federal government to the State of South Carolina.
DOE now has until 2037 to remove surplus plutonium brought to SRS from other nuclear weapons complex sites, a process that complied with DOE’s 1997 legal decision to consolidate all “non-pit” surplus plutonium at SRS.
Following the settlement, SC Attorney General Alan Wilson immediately granted $75 million of the funds to three law firms (later reduced to two) managing the litigation leading up to the settlement. A legal challenge to that decision currently remains in state courts, but the first decision was favorable to the AG’s office.
As described in Off-Site Infrastructure, intense competition for the remaining $525 million in funds followed the settlement, with a final ldecision not reached until the end of the 2023 legislative session.
The competition included one of the Defendant’s institutions, the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL), lobbying for a lion’s share of the funds. The justification for that lobbying effort was the SRNL operating contract between DOE and Battelle Savannah River Alliance (Battelle).
On December 20, 2020, DOE awarded the Battelle-led alliance the $1.9 billion, five year contract to manage and operate SRNL, with an option to extend the contract to ten years. The alliance is comprised of the Battelle corporation, which operates, or assists in operations at, numerous other national laboratories; and five regional universities: the University of South Carolina, Clemson University, South Carolina State University, Georgia Institute of Technology, and the University of Georgia.
One contract provision involved investments by the various BSRA partners. The State of South Carolina, on behalf of its University system, committed to making “a substantial investment to support DOE and SRNL,” that included a “possible infrastructure investment colocated with SRNL to support workforce development.” (Section J-14 of the contract).
One year later, Governor Henry McMaster was happy to oblige that wish. In a December 9, 2021, letter, to House speaker Jay Lucas and Senate President Thomas Alexander, Governor McMaster presented his proposal for ensuring “the communities surrounding SRS be the prime beneficiaries of these settlement funds.”
Governor McMaster proposed spending twenty percent of the total plutonium settlement on SRNL, writing:
“The one-time investment of $120 million will be used over the next five years by the alliance to hire scientists, grant scholarships, and upgrade equipment at SRNL, as well as for the construction of a new facility to house the alliance at SRNL.”
The state legislature was clearly reluctant to invest one-fifth of the settlement on the Defendant, but eventually settled on an allocation of $20 million for “SRS/National Laboratory Off-Site Infrastructure and Innovation District.” This allocation more than met the state’s commitment in the BSRA contract.
The allocation was for off-site infrastructure, with no strings attached in terms of future leases or revenues. The funding did not specifically allow for a commercial building constructed on behalf of any private organization that required a lease arrangement with a federal government contractor. The only justification for the allocation was to meet obligations made by the state on behalf of its major universities.
(3) On September 15, 2023, I emailed a letter to Senators Tom Young and Shane Massey, asking them, in part, the following:
“It is increasingly evident that the $20 million allocation from SRS/plutonium settlement funds that was awarded to the City of Aiken is no longer specifically for an SRNL facility. How is this not a misappropriation of funds?”
There was no formal response to the letter.
A subsequent, October 3, 2023 letter outlined a case against the Aiken Corporation being tasked with the project, arguing, in part, that an organization mostly involved in six-figure projects should not be suddenly tasked with an eight-figure project.
The Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site (DOE/SRS) has only authorized the Savannah River National Laboratory’s (SRNL) management and operations contractor to pursue a series of one-year leases for space in the proposed $20 million “Mixed Use” office building that is currently under predevelopment by the Aiken Corporation.
While the publicly-funded downtown project keeps shrinking in size while costing the same, Aiken City Council is allowing Aiken Corporation to pursue further development before city staff has even prepared another no-bid contract for Council approval.
By Don Moniak January 7, 2024
Aiken City Council is scheduled twice to discuss the proposed $20 million “Mixed Use” office building, also known as the “SRNL project,” during its January 8th regular meeting, The first, and more important, discussion is scheduled to occur behind closed doors during an Executive Session. The second discussion is a public hearing much later in the meeting. Both agenda items involve the relationship between the City of Aiken (COA) and the Aiken Corporation (ACorp) as it pertains to the SRNL project.
In March 2023, Aiken City Council signed a no-bid, $250,000 contract with the Aiken Corporation for predevelopment work on a proposed Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) “workforce development” office building. The scope of work for that contract was reportedly completed with the issuance of a “feasibility report” and a site location recommendation by Aiken Corporation.
The contract also authorized ACorp to negotiate lease agreements with “third parties.” The only known third party at this time is SRNL, which is fully owned by the U.S. Department of Energy, but managed and operated through a contract with the Battelle Savannah River Alliance (Battelle). Both DOE/SRS and Battelle must reach a mutual agreement for any facility leases.
Between the March 2023 COA/Acorp contract agreement and the September 25th site location recommendation, the proposed facility size shrunk from 45,000 square feet to 36,000 square feet, the project was rebranded as a generic “Mixed Use” spec building, while the estimated cost remained at $20 million. Now, ten months later, ACorp has only managed to obtain a commitment to negotiate a series of one-year leases; but has yet to report the signing of any Memorandum of Understanding.
Aiken City Council is presently allowing ACorp to move forward on the next stages of the $20 million project that is being funded with South Carolina’s plutonium settlement funds. Yet, Council has not approved the recommended facility location, nor does it have have a contract with ACorp to continue further development work.
The Closed Door Session
The first discussion is scheduled as a closed-door Executive Session to “to discuss a proposed contractual arrangement with the Aiken Corporation regarding the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) downtown building project.” The justification for closing the doors is that the discussion involves “negotiations incident to a proposed contractual arrangement.”
South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act allows for this vague exemption, but also allows public bodies the freedom to discuss these issues openly and in full public view. If City Council chooses to close the doors Monday evening, it will be opting to privately discuss the expenditure of millions of public monies on a publicly funded, private organization (ACorp) that, in turn, will seek to extract hundreds of thousands of dollars of rental revenue from a federal contractor subject to the vagaries federal budget shaving.
According to two letters in the meeting agenda documentation, there is no proposed contract, only a commitment to negotiate a contract. Battelle is only authorized by DOE/SRS to pursue a base one-year lease with options for up to nine one-year renewals with ACorp. The lease renewals are obviously dependent upon the availability of funds in DOE/SRS/SRNL annual budget.
In a December 14, 2023 letter, DOE/SRS granted Battelle “preliminary approval to move forward with the procurement action in support of real property leased space from the Aiken Corporation.”
The DOE/SRS approval letter was in response to a December 11, 2023, letter (Figure 1) from Battelle requesting:
“Programmatic Approval to move forward with a procurement action in support of real property leased space from the Aiken Corporation for a one (1) year base period lease estimated at $375,000 (to) $425,000 per year, with nine (9) additional (1) year option periods. The request is for approximately 25,000 square feet of office/collaborative space located in a future building in downtown Aiken with a projected cost of $15-$17 (per square foot). “ “
By comparison, the Amentum Company presently has a three-year lease at $20,500 per month ($246,000/year) for 20,000 square feet of office space in the ACorp’s Newberry Street building adjacent to the Aiken Performing Arts Center. Amentum’s square foot rate per year is $12.30, nearly one-third less than the upper rental rate under consideration by Battelle.
Battelle’s December 14th letter also contained the company’s first public reference, since the project was announced last year, that it is contractually obligated to provide an office building focused on workforce development (1):
“This future building was identified in BSRA’s proposal to manage and operate SRNL.”
Figure 1: Letter from Battelle Savannah River Alliance to DOE/SRS
The Public Hearing
The second discussion towards the end of the meeting will be a public hearing on the “First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the FY-2023-24 Budget to Include $20 million of SRS Settlement Funds.”
The supporting memorandum (Figure 2) for the ordinance describes DOE’s, “conditional approval (for Battelle) to begin discussion with Aiken Corporation on a lease to occupy a portion of a ‘mixed use’ building in Aiken to be built on a currently vacant lot on the 100 block of Newberry Street, NW.”
The memorandum goes on to state that, “City Staff is working with Aiken Corporation on an agreement that will be before Council at a future meeting in February.”
By that time, Aiken Corporation is expected to have chosen a firm for the million dollar plus job of designing this proposed $20 million “Mixed Use” facility; for which it only has one potential tenant that is unwilling to commit to more than a one-year lease.
Figure 2: Supporting Memorandum for the $20 million budget amendment ordinance
Aiken City Council’s Cycle of Private Permission and Public Forgiveness
The existing situation is strikingly similar to the early stages of the project in December of 2022, when Aiken City Council met behind closed doors with ACorp and SRNL representatives. That meeting occurred after the ACorp had already signed its contract with the architectural firm of McMillan Pazdan and Smith to begin project work.
Council then withheld the existence of the updated project for more than a month.It’s contract with ACorp was not approved until three months after it secretly sanctioned the ACorp/MPS contract; that approval also allowed for reimbursement of project work during the three months preceding the COA/ACorp contract.
Today, Aiken Corporation is moving forward on a Request for Proposals for Architectural Design Services, even though the organization has no contract with the City of Aiken to pursue such services which are expected to easily exceed a million dollars.
Within a span of thirteen months, Aiken City Council has twice allowed ACorp to race ahead of Council’s official decision-making process; the latest example of this public body granting permission to a “partner” before seeking public approval, or forgiveness, of its decisions.
When it comes to downtown, Aiken Corporation continues to set the agenda, while Aiken City Council keeps following. The difference today is that instead of hundreds of thousands of dollars being involved, $20 million is at stake.
Footnote:
(1) Details of this contractual provision and the subsequent lobbying of plutonium settlement funds can be found in Offsite Infrastructure .
Improving the chances for informed scrutiny of local government actions.
by Don Moniak
January 2, 2023
Public hearings require public notice. The latter are predominantly vague, uninformative, and inaccessible; part of a process that stacks the deck against meaningful and impactful citizen involvement in the decisions that affect their lives and their communities. Without better notice, people are less likely to be able more adequately scrutinize proposals in their neighborhoods and community, and have less of a chance to influence decisions made during public hearings. This Better Advance Notice feature is an imperfect effort intended to help improve the chances for more informed reviews of proposed local government actions.
Summary of Several Public Hearings Notices Powderhouse Connector Road development begins. Controversial Gregory Road high density residential development Aiken historic district roofs, chimney caps, and fences Economic Development Agreement Closed Door Meetings A Note on Public Hearings Review of Public Notices System Complete Public Notices for January 2024, as of 12/31/2023
Summary of Several Public Hearings Notifications for January 2024
The Powderhouse Connector Road project is touted as a traffic reduction solution for Whiskey Road. However, as reported in Development Road, the project also involves hundreds of acres of government subsidized residential and commercial development—with upwards of 2,000 new residences tentatively planned for the area.
Before road construction has even begun, approvals of the first major developments are already on the City of Aiken’s public hearing docket. The full details are not yet known due to a practice of the city’s planning department to withhold information until four days before public hearings—more than two weeks after the requisite public notices are published.
On January 9th, the City of Aiken Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on three proposals associated with the connector project:
1. The annexation and single-family attached (townhouses) and detached dwellings of 129 acres of property, presently owned by the James S. Watson Revocable Trust, by CSRA Development Company.
2. The annexation of 13.5 acres of land presently held by five property owners; with 2.78 acres of undefined commercial development (Planned Commercial zoning).
3. Annexation of public right of ways between Whiskey Road and South Centennial Avenue, SE.
Figure 2: Annexation and development areas. 143-acre parcel bounded by red is ~129 acres for annexation and residential development. Area bounded by green is approximate locations for detention pond construction. 80-acre area parcel bounded by blue includes 13.5 acres for residential development and 2.8 acres of commercial development.
The Controversial Gregory Road Residential Development.
On January 16th, Aiken County Council’s first public hearing involves an an amendment to rezone 54.5 acres along Gregory Road, north of North Augusta, from “RC, Residential Single-Family Conservation to PUD, Planned Use District, Type B.”
The main parcel involved in the disputed rezoning proposal was purchased in 2019 by Gregory Lake LLC for $522,656. The situation is a another case of a development-minded new property owner attempting to create a zoning district island within a larger zone in which hundreds of residents have chosen over the years for their home and property investments (Figure 2). This is a recipe for conflict.
County Council is holding a public hearing because the Aiken County Planning Commission opted on December 21st to not to take action on the proposal. This is the second time a development on this Gregory Road property has been deferred to County Council, the first being in 2019. That project suffered a bureaucratic death when developers failed to submit a required traffic study; but other unreported factors undoubtedly led to its demise.
WJBF News of Augusta’s Nikita Dennis’ report on the Dec 21st ACPC hearing described a packed hearing room and a petition signed by 187 nearby residents. The parcel sizes in that area generally range from 0.4 to 2.0 acres and the area retains a considerable forest canopy.
The threat of higher density housing that interrupts the existing conservation approach, along with a substantive increase in traffic, are motivating neighbors to speak up. The issue is not whether there should be a housing development, it is how it should fit into the existing neighborhood.
These types of higher density developments within or adjacent to older neighborhoods dominated by roomier properties were met with strong resistance in 2023. In the Aiken area, the most notable objections were to the proposed Henderson Downs (East Richland Avenue) and the May Royal Drive high-density single housing developments. The latter development was detailed in New Shopping Opportunity and Tiny Lots.
The hearing is expected to draw a large and lively crowd, the likes of which this County Council rarely witnesses. As with the vast majority of crowded public meetings, the atmosphere will probably remain civil, but whether outspokenness itself will be viewed as “uncivil” remains to be seen.
Figure 2: Map of project area (bounded in red), showing a continuous Rural Conservation (RC) zoning district which developers are seeking to disrupt into less protective Rural Development (RUD) zoning district.
Aiken Historic District Applications
The Aiken Design Review Board’s (DRB) January 2, 2024, meeting involves several small-scale applications for changes to structures and their surroundings in the historic district. These mini-projects typify the DRB’s workload and are generally devoid of controversy. The DRB’s system treats major developments like Project Pascalis in a similar manner as an application to change out gutters, replace roofs, or alter windows on single homes in the historic district.
On the agenda for January 2nd are requests for Certificates for Appropriateness for new chimney caps (Figure 3) on a Colleton Avenue home, a “raised seam tin replacement roof with a 14.5″ wide raised seam with a pencil stripe instead of a 16″ wide raised seam” on an indoor tennis court structure on 3rd Avenue, and removal of an existing pergola, extension of a brick paved area surrounding a pool, extension of an existing wood fence, and conducting landscape work including removing five cedar trees at 100 Colleton Avenue SW, the historic Wilcox Hotel.
Figure 3: Hip and Ridge style chimney cap offered as an example by the DRB.
City of Aiken Development Agreement
Only one public hearing is scheduled for the January 8th Aiken City Council meeting, the Second Readings of the Public Hearing for a six-figure development agreement with McGhee and McGhee LLC for a proposed 12-unit residential development adjacent to the Farmer’s Market on Williamsburg Street (Figure 4).
While not being applied under the City’s Economic Incentives Ordinance passed in 2018, the conditions are similar—cost sharing for basic infrastructure deemed beneficial to the city. In this case, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds will be used as a subsidy for the development. CDBG funds are also allocated to the controversial Farmer’s Market Parkway redevelopment project that the City has pursued alongside with McGhee and McGhee’s redevelopment effort.
Similar incentives have been approved in recent years for other housing developments, including the Union Street development adjacent to Gyles Park, a water line extension for a Beazly Homes subdivision on Wire Road, and fifty-percent cost sharing agreements for permit fees and utilities infrastructure for two Great Southern Homes subdivisions.
Minimal incentives have been approved for existing retail businesses. An exception was the ordinance authorizing an incentive package for B&W Enterprises in 2019 to assist with the upgrade for the Betsy’s on Park restaurant. In that case, business license fees were reduced by fifty-percent for five years, and the City shared half of all permitting and utility connection fees—approximately $12,500.
These incentives are available to any business that can promise increased revenue and jobs—such as another grocery store in the northern half of Aiken or any small business seeking to expand. But it is unclear how well incentives are made available, marketed, and monitored. In response to a FOIA request in early 2023 for a listing and tracking of all incentive agreements to date, the City of Aiken responded that no such record exists—similar to a lack of tracking of city property sales and purchases.
Figure 4: Memorandum describing development agreement
Closed Public Meetings
Controversy surrounding closed-door Executive Sessions deeply permeated the City of Aiken Mayoral election debates in 2023, with candidate Teddy Milner promising to avoid Executive Sessions whenever possible. As reported in Executive Session Backgrounder, at least one Aiken City Council justification for a closed-door meeting in the past four months was highly suspect.
The Design Review Board has an Executive Session on its Special Called Meeting agenda scheduled for 4:30 pm. The purpose of the closed door meeting is “the receipt of legal advice on pending litigation and other matters covered by the attorney- client privilege.”
More specific information is not provided at the present time, but are mandated prior to the actual session. The subject of the litigation should be identified, and in the spirit of openness any other matters falling under attorney-client privilege should also be identified.
The DRB is advised by Attorney James Holly, who since May 2022 has earned upwards of $100,000 in his part time role as DRB legal counsel. As reported in Project Pascalis Legal Costs, Mr. Holly’s fee is $275 per hour, and he has earned more than enough in the past year of half-time work to fund a full-time staff assistant city attorney. The same advice could also be provided by the City Attorney or the City Solicitor, both of whom would represent a major cost savings to taxpayers.
The matter of attorney-client privilege is itself controversial, as it is overly vague and subject to abuse. The law saws the closed-door session “can be” closed, not that it “shall” or “should be” closed.
At its October 2023 meeting, Aiken County Council took the unusual action of voting to waive attorney-client privilege, and air a legal matter in open session. The effort was led by District 6 Councilman Phil Napier, who proclaimed that “this is taxpayer money, and taxpayers deserve to hear about it.”
Unfortunately, the eloquent and highly informative five minutes or so of otherwise “confidential and privileged” legal advice provided by County Attorney Brad Farrar is not publicly available due to the fact that County Council refuses to make even audio recordings of its meetings publicly available on the county website. Aiken County Council is the only major public body in Aiken County to not live-stream its proceedings, and routinely approves what can only be described as woefully insufficient and often highly inaccurate meeting minutes.
A Note on Public Hearings
This is the first installment of a bi-monthly to monthly summary of upcoming public hearings by Aiken County public bodies, with an emphasis on City and County Councils and Planning Commissions. The information provided in this report pertains to public notices available as of 12/31/2023.
Public Hearings notifications across Aiken County are characterized by a dearth of pertinent information (Figure 5), often accompanied by poor visual access on legally required neighborhood signage (Figure 5); and are inaccessible to anyone lacking a subscription to the local Post and Courier newspaper outlets. They are also seldom written in plain English.
Detailed information is lacking, and public bodies are loath to provide additional information until one to five days prior to the actual meeting; when agendas and agenda packets are published. Thus, developers have a 3-4 months head start and obtain taypayer-funded coaching by local government staff; while citizens are generally granted less than a week to prepare for a public hearing. The system is as transparent as lightly discolored water.
Figure 5: Typical public hearing published notice with vague descriptions of proposals. Figure 6: Typical neighborhood signed notice of a City of Aiken Planning public hearing. These notices once omitted the fact that “work sessions” were held prior to the public hearing to discuss development applications. During these work sessions, citizens are only spectators, while developers/applicants can present their case. However, following objections to the former system, work sessions are now part of the notification process.
This notification system strongly favors developers, not citizens whose quality of life, property values, and safety are most affected by proposed developments. Developers meet with government staff well in advance and essentially lobby for their projects; whereas citizens can generally only guess at what is proposed in their neighborhoods—unless more conscientious developers hold advanced community meetings.
Details of applications for development are sometimes available upon request, but can be denied except via a FOIA request. Since government can take 30 days to respond with actual information, this option is impractical. In addition, some public bodies, such as the City of Aiken’s Planning Commission and Design Review Board, conduct “work sessions” where projects are discussed in public but citizens are deprived of the option to even ask questions. In these cases, the citizenry are mere spectators while developers are participants, and the matters discussed are often not repeated during the formal public hearing.
Thus, by the time citizens show up to a public hearing, de facto decisions are often already made. Unless compelling evidence can be provided by citizens, there is slim hope for a change in mind by elected or appointed officals.
In regard to notification meeting agendas and associated documents known as “agenda packets,” all City of Aiken public bodies go above and beyond mere compliance with the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act, which mandates 24-hour notice of agendas. The City routinely provides agenda information four days in advance.
At the other extreme, Aiken County Council and the Aiken County Planning Commission barely meet the requirements, with agenda notices generally provided close to the 24-hour deadline. In December 2023, County Council’s meeting notice was provided to interested parties only 15 minutes prior to the 24-hour deadline for compliance with the SC FOIA Open Meetings legal requirements.
Overall, the system does not come close to exemplifying openness in government, and is as “transparent” as lightly discolored drinking water. (Figure 7)
Figure 7: Turbidity is a measure of transparency in drinking water, analogous to political transparency. Even cloudy and lightly discolored water is somewhat transparent. (Photo from westlab.com)
Review of Public Notices System
Public notices for public hearings are mandated by law. A thorough Guide to Public Notices can be found on the South Carolina Press Association’s website.
Citizens can receive notifications of public meetings by requesting them via the appropriate public body. South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act, mandates that:
“All public bodies shall notify persons or organizations, local news media, or such other news media as may request notification of the times, dates, places, and agenda of all public meetings, whether scheduled, rescheduled, or called, and the efforts made to comply with this requirement must be noted in the minutes of the meetings.” (SC 30-4-80(E)).
However, unless a public body chooses to be more open in its notification process, public notices are only posted in public buildings and published in the local paper of record. In Aiken, notices are generally published in the Aiken Standard.
The Standard is a subscriber-based newspaper. This means that public notices which are paid for with taxpayer dollars are not publicly available via its classification ads section—even though the paper does freely publish its commercially paid advertisements found in the print edition. .
Local public bodies have chosen not to provide these notices via their public websites. A search of Aiken County, City of Aiken, and City of North Augusta websites did not yield any up to date public notices. The City of North Augusta does have a public notice page, but as of 12/31/2023 it was not up to date.
However, public notices are available via a searchable, free service provided by the South Carolina Press Association simply called South Carolina Public Notices. This monumental resource does require a search, which can be conducted by county, municipality, publication, and date range.
The SCPA’s public notice database covers everything from public hearings to courts announcements to self storage auctions to liquor license applications, and more. In 2023, The Aiken Chronicles will attempt to provide monthly updates on upcoming public hearings in Aiken County via this valuable resource.
Qualifier: These updates are not guaranteed to be complete. Mid-month updates are expected, but also not guaranteed. Any readers who wish to volunteer their assistance in this effort can write to eurekascresearch@gmail.com.
Complete January 2023 Public Notifications (as of December 31, 2023).
January 2, 2023: City of Aiken Design Review Board (DRB) (meets regularly on the first Tuesday of each month)
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF AIKEN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MEETINGS
January 2, 2024 At 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 2, 2024, the City of Aiken Design Review Board (the Board) will hold a Regular Meeting and Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers on the third floor of the Municipal Building at 111 Chesterfield Street S., Aiken, SC 29801.
The following items will be considered:
Approval of Minutes Approval of the Minutes for the Work Session and Regular Meeting on October 3, 2023.
Approval of the Minutes for the Special-Called Work Session and Meeting on October 12, 2023.
Approval of the Minutes for the Work Session and Regular Meeting on December 5, 2023. Approval of the Minutes for the Special-Called Work Session and Special-Called Meeting on December 7, 2023. Old Business None New Business Election of Officers Application
#CERH24-015: Applicant David Grant is requesting approval to remove an existing pergola, extend the brick paved area surrounding the pool, extend the existing wood fence, and conduct landscape work including removing five cedar trees at 100 Colleton Avenue SW (TMP 121-29-09-001).
Application #CERH24-020: Applicants Michael Milano and Jean Armstrong are requesting approval to replace and add new chimney caps at 418 and 426 Colleton Avenue SE (TMP 121-09-07-005).
Application #CERH22-042-AMENDMENT: Applicant James Brodie is requesting approval to amend the Certificate of Appropriateness for approval of a raised seam tin replacement roof with a 14.5″ wide raised seam with a pencil stripe instead of a 16″ wide raised seam at 125 Third Avenue SW (TMP 105-12-17-009). TAX28-AMENDMENT: Applicant James Brodie is requesting approval to amend the Certificate of Appropriateness for approval of a raised seam tin replacement roof with a 14.5″ wide raised seam with a pencil stripe instead of a 16″ wide raised seam at 125 Third Avenue SW (TMP 105-12-17-009).
Special-Meeting (Executive Session) At 4:30 p.m., the Board will hold a Special-Called Meeting in Room 309 of the Municipal Building, at which time an Executive Session will be held on matters allowed by S.C. Code Section 30-4-70(a)(2) of the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act, including the receipt of legal advice on pending litigation and other matters covered by the attorney-client privilege.
Work Session At 5:30 p.m. the Board will hold a Work Session in Room 315 of the Municipal Building, at which time there will be a brief preliminary review of matters on the Regular Meeting Agenda. Individuals needing special assistance or sign interpreter for the meeting, Please notify the Planning Department 48 hours prior to the meeting. Updates and other additional information may be viewed via the City of Aiken Website. Contact: City of Aiken Planning Department (803) 642-7608 December 30, 2023.
January 8, 2023: Aiken City Council (meets on second and fourth Mondays of each month):
PUBLIC NOTICE Pursuant to Ordinance 71276 of the City of Aiken, the following ordinance will be considered for Public Hearing at the meeting of Council to be held on Monday, January 8, 2024, at 7:00 P.M. in the Municipal Building, 111 Chesterfield Street S in the Council Chambers. The meeting will be available for public viewing via the City of Aiken YouTube channel. TITLE 1.
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF AIKEN TO ENTER INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH MCGHEE REDUX, LLC. SUMMARY 1. An ordinance approving a development agreement with McGhee Redux, LLC for Market Row on Williamsburg Street SE. Individuals needing special assistance or sign interpreter to participate in the meeting, please notify the City Manager’s Office 48 hours prior to the meeting. Sara B. Ridout, City Clerk December 29 & January 2, 2024.
January 9, 2023. City of Aiken Planning Commission (meets on second Tuesday of each month).
PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING JANUARY 9, 2024 The City of Aiken Planning Commission will hold a regular meeting on January 9, 2024 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located on the 3rd floor of the Municipal Building, 111 Chesterfield Street South, at which time the following will be considered:
Election of Officers
Application #24-20011
Annexation of 129.23 acres, a portion of tax parcel #122-15-01-004 (po), Powderhouse Road, by CSRA Development Company for James S. Watson Jr. Revocable Trust.
Application #24-22004 Planned Residential (PR) Concept Plan for single-family attached and detached dwellings on 129.23 acres, being a portion of tax parcel #122-15-01-004 (po), Powderhouse Road, by CSRA Development Company for James S. Watson Jr. Revocable Trust.
Application #24-20012 Annexation of 13.54 acres, being a portion of tax parcel #122-15-01-004 (po), Powderhouse Road, and 2.78 acres being a portion of tax parcel #122-19-01-001 (po), Athol Avenue, by CSRA Development Company for James S. Watson Jr., Mary Ann Fry, Fred Douglas McLean, Debra Murphy and Kathy M. McLean.
Application #24-23005 Planned Commercial (PC) Concept Plan for commercial development on 13.54 acres, being a portion of tax parcel #122-15-01-004 (po), Powderhouse Road, and 2.78 acres being a portion of tax parcel #122-19-01-001(po), Athol Avenue, by CSRA Development Company for James S. Watson Jr., Mary Ann Fry, Fred Douglas McLean, Debra Murphy and Kathy M. McLean.
Application #24-20010 Annexation of Public Street Right-of-Way between Whiskey Road and South Centennial Avenue SE; TMP #122-18-05-013 and portions of #122-14-01-003, 122-15-01-004, 122-19-01-001 and 122-18-05-014; 219Harco Drive, 2301 S. Centennial Avenue, Powderhouse Road, Athol Avenue and 2148 Oak Grove Road.
Application #22-23001 Planned Residential (PR) Concept Plan amendment to amenity area on Bergamot Parkway, TMP #122-13-02-036, by Mark at Woodford SC, LLC.
Application #22-23003 Planned Commercial (PC) Concept Plan amendment to signage at 140 Jefferson Davis Highway, TMP #087-18-11-002, by Drayton Parker Companies, LLC.
Proposed amendments to Zoning Ordinance Sections 5.2.3.C.2, 5.2.3.D, 5.2.3.I.2, 6.1.3.D and 6.1.3.E, as applicable to the Design Review Board.
(These Zoning Ordinance Sections currently read as follows:
5.2.3.C.2: Applications for a Certificate shall be accompanied by the following unless waived by the Secretary or otherwise specified on the application form provided by the Board.
5.2.3.D. Public Hearing and Public Notice. For any Certificate of Appropriateness application that it must consider, the Board shall conduct a public hearing not later than 30 days following receipt of a completed application form accompanied by all required information and documents. Public notice of each such public hearing shall be given at least seven days prior to the hearing by the posting of a sign by the City on each street frontage of the subject property clearly visible to the public stating the date, time, and place of the public hearing.
5.2.3.I.2: Appeals: From the Board. Any property owner, City official, or other person aggrieved by and seeking relief from any final decision of the Board on an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness may appeal that decision to the Circuit Court pursuant to Section 6-29-900, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976, by filing a petition with the court within 30 days of the filing of the written decision of the Board with the Secretary.
6.1.3.D: Application Deadlines.
1. Applications for which no public hearing is required shall have no application deadlines.
2. All applications for which a public hearing is required shall be completed and submitted to the appropriate official prior to the meeting at which the permit or approval will be considered in accordance with the following table unless waived by the Planning Director.)
January 16, 2023. Aiken County Council
There will be public hearings at the regular meeting of County Council on Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 7:00 pm, in the County Council Chambers, Third Floor, Aiken County Government Center, 1930 University Parkway, Aiken, SC 29801 concerning the following matters:
1. Ordinance to Approve an Amendment to the Aiken County Official Zoning and Development District Atlas to Rezone Tax Parcel 004-19-01-004 and a portion of Parcel 004-19-06-003 (approximately 54.5 acres) located on Gregory Lake Road (S-582), North Augusta, SC in Council District 5 from RC, Residential Single-Family Conservation to PUD, Planned Use District, Type B.
2. Ordinance to Approve an Amendment to the Aiken County Official Zoning and Development District Atlas to Rezone Tax Parcel 122-13-08-024 (approximately 0.24 acres) located on Whiskey Road (SC-19), Aiken, SC in Council District 7 from RC, Residential Single-Family Conservation to LD, Limited Development District.
3. Ordinance to Declare Certain Property, Identified as Aiken County Tax Parcel #050-16-05-002, and Located at the Intersection of Highland Drive and Jefferson Davis Highway, as Surplus and to Authorize Its Transfer to The Graybill Company, LLC.
4. Ordinance to Amend Sec. 2-63 “Legislative Action” in the Aiken County, South Carolina Code of Ordinances.
5. Ordinance to Confirm Responsibility for Maintenance of Streets, Ways and Bridges Annexed by City or Town Councils. Members of the Public who attend the Council Meeting need to use the rear entrance of the building. Individuals needing special assistance or sign interpreter to participate in the meeting, please notify the County Administrator’s Office at (803) 642-2012 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. December 30, 2023.
