Earlier this week, there occurred an odd and interesting two days for City of Aiken land use planning, involving a city planning commissioner publicly speaking out against the city’s planning process; followed the next day by the commission’s near-rejection of a high-density housing development north of the City limits. 

The 4-3 vote to forward a 338-unit housing development proposal to City Council for its consideration followed a confusing public hearing—confusion over what was promised and demanded by the Commission of the developer, and what was delivered to the people who requested concept plan changes. Specifically, a required traffic study has yet to be submitted to the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT), City Fire Marshall, or City Engineer for their review and approval. Adding to the confusion, the developer answered an expressed, though informal, request for reduced housing density by adding more homes to the proposed subdivision.

(Update, Feburary 16, 2024. On January 31, 2024, the City of Aiken issued a Request for a Statement of Qualifications “to solicit input from interested firms to determine if they have the experience and qualifications necessary to assist the City” in replacing the existing 25-year Zoning Ordinance).

By Don Moniak

February 16, 2024

One day after a City of Aiken Planning Commission member was granted, as a private citizen, a half-hour forum before City Council to express his discontent with the city’s land planning system and zoning laws, the Planning Commission (1) nearly rejected a proposed 338-unit, high-density housing development on forested lands currently located outside the city limits and surrounded by distinctly different, long-established neighborhoods.

The development in question has no proposed neighborhood name to date; i.e “Henderson Downs” or “Aiken Village.” It is only referred to as the “May Royal Drive development.”

The development area is situated on four separately owned parcels across ~81 acres, north of the City limits and bounded by the 70-year- old Crosland Park neighborhood, Osbon Drive, May Royal Drive, and U.S. Highway 1 North. (Figure 1)

(Additional details of the project were first reported in New Shopping Opportunities and Tiny Lots; an Update following the first public hearing held on November 14th; and Planning Commission documents from November 14, 2023 and Feburary 13, 2024.)

The First Public Hearing

On November 14, 2023, a Planning Commission public hearing was held to review, discuss, and accept citizen comments for the proposed, yet-to-be-named neighborhood. During that meeting, not a single area resident spoke in favor of the project. More than a dozen spoke in opposition to some or all parts of the plans and raised serious questions about public safety, traffic, stormwater impacts, property values, and general quality of life issues such as noise and light pollution.

Concerns and questions were mostly expressed by long-time county residents and taxpayers who have resided on significantly larger, quiet, generally wooded, properties along Osbon Drive and May Royal Drive. Both areas are outside of the city limits. The development is going to negatively impact their quality of life and property values, although in ways that are too expensive and difficult to measure and monitor.

Traffic and housing density emerged as two of the dominant issues (2) that ultimately led the Commission to table the proposal.  However, the development application was tabled strictly due to traffic issues, whereas only a general desire for a reduction in housing density was expressed by commissioners.

In terms of housing density, the consensus was clear that seven homes per acre was inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhoods, which currently ranges from 1-4 homes per acre. That consensus was best summarized by Commissioner Jason Rabun’s statement that “the concept plan is expected to change drastically.” However, no housing density conditions were added to the application that were binding on the developer.

In terms of traffic, there were serious questions about access onto Highway 1 North, entrances along narrow, winding Osbon Drive (Figure 3), and increased traffic volume on May Royal Drive. 

The Commission did make one binding decision pertaining to traffic. A motion was approved to table the developer’s application until after a traffic study was submitted; after which the review process would return to the Planning Commission before being forwarded to City Council.

The process for the Motion to Table was riddled with confusion. The official motion within the meeting minutes only stated that the application would be tabled until a traffic study has been completed and has received input from the City Engineer and Fire Marshal. The preceding minutes suggest the intent was for DOT approval (Figure 2).

The transcript (3) from the City’s archived live-stream only adds to the confusion. During the discussion, Commissioners expressed a desire for the following variety of review and approval conditions:

• “Approved by DOT and reviewed by the city Fire Marshall for their input.”
• “Review by the City Engineer.” 
• “Meet with the Fire Marshall.” 
• “Proper weigh-in  from the City Engineer and the local authority.” 

Not a single one of these specific sentiments was enshrined in the official motion, as defined in the Meeting Minutes. However, the last condition, “proper weigh-in from the City Engineer and the local authority,” appears to have preceded the actual motion, but was not listed in the official record. Input was not required from SC DOT and no approvals were necessary from DOT or other parties; only input.

The Second Public Hearing.

Neither the desire for lower housing density, nor the demand for a reviewed and/or approved traffic impact study, were satisfied in the developer’s amended application:

• The updated concept plan not only failed to reduce the housing density, the developer added five more units to the plan, raising the number of homes from 333 to 338. 
• No detailed, final traffic impact study was contained in the Commission’s document package. Instead, only a two-page summary of an undisclosed, initial traffic study, from the City’s Charleston-based traffic engineering consultant, was provided. That summary includes the information that DOT approval would be necessary at a later date. (Figure 4)

During the public comment period, a few concerned citizens identified the discrepancies. 

In terms of the traffic study, Mayfield Drive resident Jennifer Roberts asked some pointed questions at the 24:40 mark of the meeting:

• Ms. Roberts: “At the previous meeting it seemed that it was indicated that the South Carolina DOT traffic study would be done prior to this meeting. I am kind of confused by that. I do understand there’s a process after everyone else’s comments but just want to note that we are very opposed to it.” It was also brought up that they would also need Fire Marshall approval. Has there been (approval)?”

City Planning Director Marya Moultrie: As far as the concept plan, (the Fire Marshall) will do an initial analysis of the roadways. But ultimately when the developer goes to submit a civil plan (the Fire Marshall) will make sure they have enough fire hydrants and their turn radiuses are appropriate. It’s actually typically done at a later date and although they do kind do a cursory look at this they won’t truly dive into it until a little bit later in the process but they do absolutely have to approve the roadways, their turnarounds, their hydrant locations, all that must be approved.

Ms. Roberts: As neighbors will we be notified of any of these approvals? 

Ms. Moultrie: That’s all part of the internal review that goes through all the different departments including our Fire Marshall and Public Safety. 

After explaining that City Council consideration of the development would be in two weeks, Ms. Moultrie stated further that, the developer does “not have to share their engineer review from the Fire Marshall” during City Council’s review process. 

In other words, what was perceived as promises were not delivered, and neighbors will not even be entitled to scrutinize the final review process until well after the development’s concept plan is approved by City Council.

Thus, due to the unclear, and improperly transcribed requirements for the traffic study on November 14th, what was conveyed as a requirement three months ago was not provided prior to Tuesday night’s meeting. The developer was allowed to submit a traffic study that was only summarized by the city’s contract traffic consultant, who somehow concluded that the impacts of thousands of new vehicle trips on nearby roads would be minimal. 

The traffic study itself is unavailable, and yet to be formally reviewed or approved by most of the parties identified during the November 14th hearing; unlike some other development proposals—such as Parker’s Kitchen on Whiskey Road—where SC DOT approval was required before the proposal was forwarded to City Council. Instead, only a summary of a study was provided, and that initial, undisclosed study does not appear to have been “detailed.” (Figure 4)

In terms of the housing density, Osbon Drive resident Gloria Brown inquired as to how more units could be added after the Commission had expected a “drastic change” to the plan. 

Commissioners tended to agree with the sentiment, perhaps best summarized by Chairman Ryan Reynold’s statement that, “it leaves a bad taste when the Commission asks for fewer homes and you come back with more.”

Commissioner Clarkson cast one of three opposing votes. the fourth time since September he has objected to a high-density residential development. Mr. Clarkson also, for at least the third time in 18 months, expressed a desire for more restrictive “overlay districts” to prevent the creation of “more Whiskey Roads.”

Commissioner Charles Matthews also cast an opposing vote, based largely on the failure to look at the big traffic picture along Highway 1 North (Figure 5), citing another large housing development under construction just a mile to the south.

Commissioner Peter Messina was the third opposing vote. He took most exception to the housing density, outlining how hundreds of 0.14 acre lots are not consistent with surrounding 0.25 to 1.5 acre parcels, which violates the guidelines for Planned Residential zoning district.

The “Joint” City Council/Planning Commission Work Session

(Update. The audio recording of the 2/12/2024 Work Session is available here.)

Commissioner Messina’s concerns were highly consistent with statements he made to City Council the day before the public hearing. He was the center of attention during City Council’s February 12, 2024, work session; in which the only agenda item was titled, “Planning Commission Update.”

The staff memorandum for the work session stated:

”Councilwoman Gregory requested that Planning Commissioner Pete Messina and other members of the Planning Commission discuss current Planning Commission procedures with City Council to provide an update and feedback.

Commissioner Messina and other members of the Planning Commission will be present to speak to Council this evening. We would like to schedule a joint work session of City Council and Planning Commission at a mutually agreed upon date.”

However, only Mr. Messina was allowed to speak at length before Council. After presenting himself as “a citizen of the town,” (4) and not as a Planning Commissioner, he began by stating:

“My main concern this evening is to talk about proper planning and planning in the right places, not haphazard planning.” 

The issues he identified, which strongly reflect sentiments shared by many people across the community; but that are seldom clearly conveyed during the approval process for developments, included: 

• “There is too much haphazard development and growth,” and it is “too piecemeal.” 
• “In the town we worked in, we asked for a buildout analysis, look at the potential of the property, then hire a traffic study for the whole town, not piecemeal. Four proposals in a row with 90 (daily vehicle trips) per day does not require a traffic study but in total they should.” 
• Stormwater management only manages excess stormwater coming off the site, but too many retention ponds releasing at the same time can still cause problems. 
• Planned residential zones of five acres are too small, and allowable housing densities are often too high on areas that are smaller. There should be zoning for everything from 1/2 to 5 acres. 
• In terms of impervious surfaces, there are no standards. The only impermeable surface requirement is that 20-25 percent is open space. 
• There is a lack of information for concept plan reviews. Sometimes facades are not available to council; for example the Silver bluff shopping center. “Too many plans are on an 8.5 x 11 piece of paper that require a magnifying glass.”
• If something is allowed that does not make sense, then the zoning would change; i.e change a zoning code so a car wash would be zoned out. 
• “Giving us something nice” leads to other nice buildings. If you start with a car wash the next-door development is not going to be nice. It is not something to be proud of. 
• The Comprehensive Plan covers growth from 30K to 50K. “You have to know how large a town you want to be. Ask the question: do we need another Citizens Park, another Odell Weeks,” to accomodate growth?
• The county donut holes are a problem throughout the city. 

Mr. Messina was allowed 30 minutes to speak as a private citizen, more than ten times longer than other private citizens are allowed to speak during regular Council meetings on nonagenda issues; six times longer than citizens are allowed to speak during public hearings.

During his speech to Council, the other six Planning Commissioner’s watched and listened.

After Mr. Messina was finished, Commissioner Clayton Clarkson walked to the podium and stated that, “We are 35 minutes into a meeting and only one commissioner has spoken.”(4)

Other Council members expressed discomfort with the way the work session was handled. Councilwoman Kay Brohl, who has also served on the Planning Commission, asked whether these issues had been discussed among the Commission. Councilman Ed Woltz, who once chaired the Commission, stated that it was the first work session he had attended in which Council had no materials to prepare for the meeting (6).

Two weeks ago, on January 31, 2024, the City of Aiken issued a Request for a Statement of Qualifications “to solicit input from interested firms to determine if they have the experience and qualifications necessary to assist the City” in crafting a new Zoning Ordinance. The RFQ was issued because the City is “considering a near-future Request for Proposal (RFP) for a new City of Aiken Zoning Ordinance to replace the current 25-year-old City of Aiken Zoning Ordinance.

|City Council has the option of ordering non-decisional Public Hearings on any significant issue (7). Council could request public hearings—one for each section of town—during which all affected citizens, both city and county residents, could raise concerns and ask questions about the land planning process, the existing zoning ordinance, and any future zoning ordinance—just as Council allowed one private citizen thirty minutes to do so. If such hearings were held, some Planning Commissioners like Peter Messina would find that there is widespread support for their advocacy of stricter growth standards.

Footnotes

(1) The Planning Commission is an appointed body that makes recommendations to City Council; which is responsible for approving ordinances allowing for developments to occur. It does, however, establish its own by-laws.

(2) Stormwater was another serious concern, and one facing further scrutiny.

The developer agreed to mitigate light, noise, and aesthetic impacts by constructing a fence around the entire subdivision, and leave a 25-foot wooded buffer between the fence and neighboring properties.

(3) The transcript from the archived live-stream, edited for clarity (double wording and pauses removed), and focused only on the traffic impact study requirements, is as follows:

At 1:07:30

Commission Chairman: The (first) motion was to accept the application with the listed recommendations. My recommendation is to amend the motion, you would have to amend the motion to: 

Commissioner: Yes, to require that the traffic impact study come back before us with the required changes that are going to be implemented based on the egress and ingress out of the development plus the buffer changes.” 

Chair: Okay just just for clarity did you want to have the traffic study completed prior to going to city council? 

Commissioner: That’s what I was asking. 

Chair: So Commissioner Clarkson is amending his motion to include Commissioner Rabun’s condition that to include, so we can get it correct, that traffic study be submitted and approved by DOT and reviewed by the city Fire Marshall for their their input. (emphasis added)

(Commissioners agree)

At 1:10:49:

Chair: I think to make it cleaner (and not send to City Council), you table the applications and wait for the proper traffic study with review from the city engineer and then that allows them to come back without scrapping their application,  is that correct?  So with that knowledge now you can make another amendment? 

Commissioner: I would add to my motion which is saying that we add the conditions that we have all talked about but just move to table it to allow them time to do the traffic study to meet with the fire marshal to make sure that doesn’t change this development drastically. 

Chair: The motion was originally to accept this for or approve it or recommend for city council for approval based on the conditions, Commissioner Clarkson has amended. his motion now to table both these applications until further traffic study, with proper weigh-in  from the city engineer and the local Authority so we can have a better understanding of the traffic situation because that appears to be one of the biggest issues in this area that we all agree upon. With that being said, do I have a Second to table? 

The motion then passed.  

(4) Planning Commissioner Peter Messina was the Town Engineer and Planner for Bernard Township, New Jersey for more than three decades. The Township is located 40 miles and 55 minutes west of Manhattan, New York.

According the U.S. Census Bureau, the township has a current population of nearly 28,000; a medium household income of $174,072; a poverty rate of 3.2 percent; a combined white and Asian-American population of 93 percent; and a median housing value of $744,000.

(5) Mr. Clarkson also disputed an assertion made by Councilwoman Gregory’s at the onset of the meeting, that the planning department had not properly notified other commissioners of the meeting. 

(6) The situation also contrasted sharply with the January 22, 2024, Council Meeting. During that meeting, a Recreation Commission member rose during the “public comments on nonagenda items” portion of the meeting to relay that Commission’s vote to recommend a pause in the Smith-Hazel City Park redevelopment effort until there was a public hearing on what was actually being proposed.  He was abruptly interrupted and cut off after speaking past the allotted three minutes.

(7) Sec. 2-69 of City Code allows for “Hearings by special committees.
The city council may appoint a special committee to assist in or hold a public hearing for the council at any time upon any matter pending before it. Minutes or reports of hearings held by special committees shall be filed with the city clerk as public records.”

Instead of this option, “work sessions,” which are not defined in City Code nor described in the City’s outdated Handbook for Effective Boards, Commissions, and Committees, are routinely held; during which citizens are spectators who are denied input.