The City of Aiken Planning Commission will likely open business in 2023 by recommending approval of a new convenient store and a new 76-unit apartment complex on Whiskey Road. A public notice (1) was published this past Monday, December 19th, announcing a January 10, 2023, public hearing before the commission for:
An application for a utility request at Whiskey Road and Dominion Drive by Cranston Engineering Group;
A concept plan approval request by Drayton Parker Companies for a property at Whiskey Road and Stratford Drive; and
An annexation request for 1804 Pine Log Road near Hound’s Lake.
Parker’s Kitchen, Southside
The concept plan application from Drayton Parker Company is for a Parker’s Kitchen convenient store and eight pump service station to be located at the junction of Whiskey Road, Stratford Drive, and Powderhouse Road. This is the second Parker’s Kitchen planned for Aiken. The first one, on Richland Avenue below Sam’s Club, gained approval from Aiken City Council in May, 2022. Parker’s Kitchen is presently a chain of seventy convenient stores concentrated in the Savannah, Charleston, and Statesboro areas.
Unlike the Richland Avenue location at the long vacant, former Dick Smith auto dealership, the second Parker’s Kitchen will necessitate clearcutting and grading an undeveloped 2.6 acre forested tract that is 300 feet east of the Springstone Villas neighborhood. The company estimates a volume of more than 1,000 vehicles at their new location.
The parcel is one-quarter of a 11.6-acre area purchased in 2019 for $1.4 million by Lulu’s Holdings of South Carolina, LLC (agent: Robert Black), and later subdivided into four lots.
The other three lots are:
A 2.7 acre tract fronting Whiskey Road where a Lulu’s Car Wash is under construction.
An undeveloped, forested 5.3 acre tract presently providing a 275-foot wide buffer between Springhouse Villas and the two properties fronting Whiskey Road, but could be developed next.
Lulu’s Holdings of SC properties. Car wash is in SE portion, planned Parker’s Kitchen in NE portion.
The Lulu’s Car Wash was approved as part of an annexation and Planned Commercial concept plan for the entire 11.6 acres. After rejecting the first concept plan, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended a revised version on July 14, 2020, in spite of a petition drive in the Springhouse and Stratford Hall neighborhoods that garnered more than 200 signatures. City Council followed suit with a unanimous approval.
A subsequent lawsuit was dismissed when the judge ruled the city had not acted outside of its authority and the plaintiffs had not proven the decision was arbitrary and capricious.
Whiskey Road Apartments
Just under one mile to the south of the developing Lulu’s commercial complex are newly planned apartments. The Whiskey Road Apartment complex city services application shows a 76-unit, three building apartment complex planned on a 6.64 acre parcel across from the junction of Talatha Church and Whiskey Roads, adjacent to the Cornerstone residential neighborhood. (The public notice contained no mention of the busy Talatha Church intersection, opting to list the location only as “Whiskey Road and Dominion Drive.” )
The property is in unincorporated Aiken County, and the developers are only requesting city water and sewer services, and not annexation. Plans show a trio of three-story apartment buildings surrounded by 114 parking spaces, with an entrance via a new spur road located approximately 325 feet south of Talatha Church Road.
Whiskey Road Apartments Layout and Paving Plan.
Although the current apartments application lists South State Bank as the property owner, county records show that South State Bank sold the property on October 26, 20222 property for $425,000 to Cornerstone Aiken LLC (2) at 742 Trailhead Lane, Fort Mill, SC. This is the same address used by the developer, Ishvan Realty, LLC (Agent: Venu Parapelli), a SC company incorporated on October 15, 2022.
In 2020 a new Duke’s Bar-B-Que Restaurant was proposed on the property. The Planning Commission heard and unanimously approved that application on the same day as the Lulu’s hearing. There were no objections to the proposal, which was later withdrawn. Unlike the current proposal, the Duke’s application included a traffic study.
Since 2015, other developments within a half- mile of the proposed Whiskey Road Apartments include Summerton Village, the Townhomes at Chukker Creek, a new Dollar General, and the Lotus Park Senior Living Apartment Complex presently under construction.
Whiskey Roads Apartments property. Left photo from 2021, Right photo from 2014. Source: Aiken County
Footnotes
(1) The public notice in the Aiken Standard on December 19, 2022.
(2) Cornerstone’s registered agent is LegalInc. Registered Agents, Inc of Charleston, whose agent in turn is United States Corporation Agents, Inc. at the same Charleston address. The firm’s registered agent is Northwest Registered Agent of Charleston, whose agent in turn is Registered Agents, Inc. at the same Charleston address, who is turn are represented by Northwest Registered Agent. From there the trail remains on a circular path.
Aiken County One of Three Beneficiaries of Dominion Energy’s V.C. Summer Plant Tax Settlement
by Don Moniak
December 18, 2022
A second state park should be opening in Aiken County in 2023 when South Carolina State Parks officially adds the former 192-acre, South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCEG) employee recreation area known as Misty Lake to its park system. South Carolina Director of State Parks Paul McCormack confirmed Friday in a telephone interview that the state closed on the Dominion Energy property this past Wednesday, December 14th. Dominion is scheduled to hand over the keys right after the New Year.
The agency intends to have the park open for public use later in 2023, after finishing the necessary facilities work; but no opening date goal is set. Since the state park system is self-funded, there will be user fees, but those remain to be determined. As a point of comparison, Aiken State Park currently charges $3 per adult and $1 per day for children.
A facility inspection and a Phase I Environmental Assessment were completed prior to closing to ensure the state was not inheriting any liabilities, such as a faulty dam. The park is tentatively named “Misty Lake State Park,” but the decision is not final.
Misty Lake is one of three new state park properties obtained as part of a settlement on unpaid sales taxes from the failed VC Summer Nuclear Power Plant expansion. The $9 billion dollar fiasco ultimately led to convictions of high level officials, and Dominion Energy acquiring the largest private utility in South Carolina, SCANA energy.
The land exchange was first reported a year ago by the Post and Courier of Charleston and the Associated Press. The other two new parks are in other relatively affluent settings—Lexington and Georgetown Counties—which SCEG also selected for employee parks and executive retreats.
Situated about halfway between uptown Graniteville and Belvedere, Misty Lake is in the midst of the fastest growing portion of Aiken County where large private landholdings are in demand. “ In the past eighteen months developers purchased two other other large land holdings near Misty Lake:
Greenville based RIdge Road Holdings, LLC purchased a thousand acre property less than one mile to the north for $6 million in 2022.
Beazly Development Company of Evans purchased a two hundred acre property 3.5 miles to the northeast in 2021.
Instead of Dominion probably selling these assets to a developer to pay off part of its large acquisition debt, the property will now serve as a quiet public park to an area presently lacking in open, public space.
Approximate boundaries of Misty Lake State Park
The property is composed of three parcels:
1280 Ascauga Lake Road; a 35-acre parcel with twenty eight year old, 1450 square foot former clubhouse adjacent to a seven acre pond and surrounded by 28 acres of loblolly pine dominated forest.
A 12.5-acre undeveloped tract on the west side of the pond that is also dominated by mature loblolly pine.
A 145-acre tract north of the pond stretching to I-20, presently classified as mostly ag-timber land, and a mix of loblolly pine timber production plantations interspersed with hardwood bottoms.
Former clubhouse and probable future park headquarters. Photo from Aiken County Tax Assessor.
A 336-unit Apartment Complex on thirty-acres near USC-Aiken and along Gregg Highway named The Parker at Aiken; to be zoned as “planned residential” in accordance with city policy for residential developments greater than four acres.
An eleven tract equestrian subdivision of thirty-three acres—-of which 4.5 acres requires annexation—-along Powderhouse Road named Powderhouse Crossing; also to be zoned as “planned residential.”
As expected, Tuesday night the Planning Commission unanimously approved the 336-unit Parker at Aiken “luxury garden” apartment complex, but not before requiring the developer to pave more of the property at the expense of the city’s open space requirements.
Approval of the application to annex 30 acres into the city and construct the 14-building, 336-unit complex already contained nine conditions identified by the city planning department. The commission revised condition two to require buildings be thirty feet from the property boundary instead of ten feet; and added condition number ten:
“Item 10 should read 50 (additional) parking spaces minimum. To achieve that a waiver can be granted for a reduction of open space….item 10 to produce or add parking as needed for spots a minimum of 50, dependent on open space requirements that can be reduced as such to achieve a 50 minimum (additional) parking spaces.” (13:45 to 14:15 of the meeting).
Commissioners reasoned that, because of the number of two and three bedroom apartments, 1.5 parking spaces per unit provided insufficient parking. Although the concept plan called for 517 parking spaces, “which is 13 more than required,” the planning commission made an arbitrary decision to add more; contradicting the original condition that the developer comply with open space requirements.
Page 4 of Memorandum from Planning Director Marya Moultrie to the Planning Commission
Except for the developer, who offered to answer any questions, no citizens spoke on the proposal.
Update: The decision to add more parking was not made during the public hearing, it was made during the 5-6 p.m. “work session.” During a “review of items on the regular agenda” in the work session, the change in parking requirements was recommended and commissioners concurred to change the proposed ordinance:
“Commissioner Clarkson suggested a change to the Ordinance to require more parking for apartments with more than 2 bedrooms and it was agreed that an Ordinance change should be presented to City Council.” (December 13, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, Page 2)
“Bad Information” and a Red Herring
Powderhouse Crossing also was approved unanimously, after eight citizens spoke in favor of the proposed equestrian residential development on property recently purchased by Worth Capitol Holding’s Rusty Holzer of the famous and infamous Holzer family (1). The property is adjacent to the Autoneum manufacturing plant, Bruce’s Field equestrian park, and the Virginia Acres (unincorporated portion), Dunbarton Oaks, Ward Hills, and Gatewood neighborhoods. Only one citizen expressed opposition, but only after learning the new subdivision is planned as a gated community.
Three citizens who expressed full support for the development did have some questions and concerns. Aiken city resident and neighbor Randy Cole describing having “moved here a couple of years ago and it looks like a great project. My only concern is when we did move here we were told that was conservation land and it would never be developed, and now it looks like it’s going to be developed.”
Planning Commission Chairman Ryan Reynolds interrupted to say “I think that’s some bad information.”
Cole agreed, and went on to say he would “hate to see all the trees go down and I’m looking at the back of a barn where I had the woods.” He did not add that retaining some forestland would also buffer the upscale development from the adjacent neighborhood. (1)
The sentiment was repeated by city resident and neighbor Lisa Skiffington, who expressed a desire for “a restriction where they’d leave some of our trees there since that’s part of the reason we bought.”
Instead of asking for the developer’s representative to address the issue, Reynolds then actually spoke to the developer’s intent, and offered a red herring as an alternative:
“I’m sure they’ll make every effort to get along with their neighbors but they’ll be able to do what’s in their legal right to do if moving all those trees is within their right. And they have that right to do that right now as planned residential. So they could be putting in a bunch of dense apartments in there right now and they’re not, so try to keep that in mind. But I understand the concern.”
So minutes after opining to a concerned city resident they had received “bad information,” Chairman Reynolds provided inaccurate information to the only neighbors expressing a concern and who also pay city taxes. Neither the planning director nor commissioners offered any of the following corrections or clarifications:
By definition, planned residential zoning allows for conditions on development, as it “gives City Council control of the details of a proposed project through approval of a concept plan…each concept plan is subject to detailed review by City Council.” This is a condition developers accept in return for city services—water, sewer, a paid fire department, and a city police department. (2)
The planning department and commission required the Parker at Aiken planned residential apartment complex to “comply with the City of Aiken Tree Preservation, buffer, and landscape requirements.” Yet, the only condition for the planned residential equestrian development is “that some natural buffer of grand or significant trees are maintained in those areas that are currently vegetated (3).”
Chairman Reynolds also mis-phrased the preservation of grand trees—a city policy—as a salvage operation, stating there will be “some salvage of grand and significant trees.” The Planning Commission does has the authority to recommend a buffer and adherence to tree preservation rules to City Council, and council has the the authority to impose such requirements on the developer.
In planned residential, any proposal to develop a “bunch of dense apartments” would require twice as much open space and likely compel the planning department to require a wider forested buffer around the property. A dense apartment complex on property traditionally viewed as passive open space would also provoke a maelstrom of objections and opposition from surrounding neighbors. Threatening city residents with a worse alternative that does not exist and is a remote possibility is a prime example of a red herring.
The commission also failed to adequately address the question of future development of a five-acre portion of the thirty acres. When county resident and neighbor John Kelly asked if the five acres “might become commercial,” Reynolds replied “if we had a crystal ball we’d tell you.”
What was not conveyed by the commmission is the limitation of commercial space to five percent of a planned residential district, meaning the 33.4 acre tract is only allowed up to 1.67 acres of commercial development. Although the definition of “commercial space” is as malleable in Aiken City planning as the concept of open space, the proper answer to the question is that part of five acres can be commercialized if City Council approves.
From City of Aiken GIS Mapping: Unocolored areas represent property in uincorporated Aiken County.
(2) The first page Page of the Planning Director’s memo to the Planning Commission reads:
(3) As the entire 33.4 acres is vegetated, the sentence should read “areas that are currently forested.”
(4) During the May 2022 Planning Commission meeting, Chairman Reynolds told another concerned citizen that the city did have the authority to limit clearcutting:
“Chairman Reynolds informed her that the developers would have comply with landscaping and tree requirements that would prevent clear cutting the parcel. Ms. Moultrie added that the Applicant will be required to do a tree survey and retain any grand and significant trees.”
Parking Lots as Open Space and Converting Residential to Commercial
The 100-acre Village at Woodside development has been classified by the City of Aiken as “Planned Residential” zoning since 2005. From 2001-2005 the development was part of the larger Woodside Plantation, which is also zoned Planned Residential. In its most recent proposed Concept Design amendment, Village at Woodside’s developer continues classifying paved parking lots as non-commercial space, and claims a proposed shopping center with 339 parking spaces and fronting Silver Bluff Road is primarily for its residents. The City of Aiken’s Planning Department and Planning Commission have accepted these proposals, and Aiken City Council is poised to make the final approval. (Update: City Council unanimously approved the development on November 28, 2022).
“Planned Residential”
Planned residential is a special use district within the City of Aiken’s Zoning Ordinance, described as a flexible and creative class of zoning:
“The Planned Residential (PR) District permits greater flexibility and more creative and imaginative design for the development of residential areas than is generally possible in other residential districts while potentially allowing a limited range of nonresidential uses primarily serving the residents of the PR project. In exchange for there typically being no minimum lot sizes and widths or minimum setbacks, and a variety of housing types, the developer gives City Council control of the details of a proposed project through approval of a concept plan. The District promotes more economical and efficient use of the land, a harmonious variety of housing types, a higher level of amenities, compatibility with surrounding uses, preservation of natural features and open space, and the interconnection of trails and sidewalks.”
Some design standards in the Planned Residential category that are prone to creative manipulation include:
A maximum of five percent of the total area is “permitted to be devoted to uses other than residential and open space, but there is no entitlement to any commercial or institutional use.”
Any commercial development “shall be designed primarily to serve the residents of the Planned Residential project.”
Twenty percent of single family residential areas, and forty percent of multifamily residential, must be devoted to “open space;” and half of this must be improved for recreational use. (1)
The Village at Woodside was separated from Woodside Plantation in 2005, after Woodside land holding company Sidewood Development, LLC transferred more than ninety-three acres of property to Silver Bluff Development Corporation— which subsequently became the developer of record.
Since 2005, Silver Bluff Development has deeded 14.5 acres of its property to two property owner associations, retained 33 acres, and sold the remainder to residents and businesses. One-third of property owner association lands consist of paved parking lots or roads.
Since its inception, area residents have voiced concerns about the scale of commercial development at the Village; and the prospect of the undeveloped stretch of Silver Bluff road devolving into a congested area like Whiskey Road. Some city officials joined with developers to calm concerns by portraying planned commercial development as limited:
“The developers had stated that 69% of the commercial area will be green space and not developed. Approximately 30 acres will be developed in that section.” (Aiken City Manager Roger DeLuc, June 11, 2001 City Council Meeting Minutes)
” The commercial area would be more like 21.4 acres rather than 30 acres” (Aiken Mayor Fred Cavanaugh, June 11, 2001).
Commercial Space Without Parking Lots?
Due to the five percent commercial use rule, The Village at Woodside is allowed by the City to have a total of 229,000 square feet of commercial space, or 5.25 acres. The Village at Woodside has minimized its total commercial space through the loophole of deeding commercial parking lots to the Woodside Village Master Neighborhood Association.
Under state law, “the special valuation of homeowners’ association property shall not result in any homeowners’ association property being valued at a rate less than five hundred dollars an acre.”(2) These lands held by property owner associations are classed as “common areas” by the Aiken County Assessor’s Office. This classification applies whether the property is an open field, a recreational trail or a busy, paved parking lot.
In its most recent Concept Plan amendment, the Village provided a listing of commercial properties in Schedule A (3). All but one property, the maintenance building, involve only the square footage of buildings, which collectively total 189,000 square feet. While Village at Woodside breaks down its commercial space to the square foot, its concept plan fails to break down the 37 acres it claims as “open space.” (4)
However, the three paved parking lots that service businesses are not categorized as commercial space. If these 4.5 acres of parking lots are considered, the total commercial area more than doubles. These parking lots are owned by the Woodside Village Master Neighborhood Association, are categorized by the county as ‘common ground,” and appraised at the standard rate of $500 per acre. The total appraised value of the paved “common areas” is less than $2500. Thus, the POA’s annual tax bill for each parking area is about ten bucks.
Village at Woodside Medical Center parking lot and tax bill.
Aiken County does not categorize these “common area” paved parking lots as improvements; unlike the approach in most commercial developments where pavement is considered an improvement often appraised at a rate of $75,000 to $90,000 per acre. For example, down the road at Center South Shopping Center, the 6.2 acre paved parking area is appraised at close to $580,000; as compared to the less than $2500 total appraisal for Village at Woodside parking lots. In downtown Aiken, the improvement value of a 0.3 acres of pavement in a parking lot owned by R&O Enterprises, LLC (Agent Rick Osbon) is appraised at $25,000.
While the Village at Woodside developer is not unique in exploiting this tax loophole, it is unique in presenting the illusion that commercial parking lots owned by its property association somehow constitute open space within a planned residential development.
This trend will continue if Aiken City Council approves the latest annexation and design change. The newest proposed addition to the commercial total, situated in a 4.6 acre proposed annexation parcel, is also the largest—a 60,000 square foot shopping center composed of a 47,240 square-foot grocery store and seven 1,400 square-foot shops. Again, only the buildings are considered part of the commercial space equation, leaving the large, multi-acre, 339-space parking lot and road system in the default category of open space.
Exhibit A from Village at Woodside Concept Plan AmendmentIn this aerial view of the proposed shopping center, the grey area representing paved parking lots, roads, and truck spur to the loading dock are not considered commercial space by Silver Bluff Development Corporation or the city. From: Aiken City Council Agenda Packet for 11/28/22
The proposal also includes other infringements on the open space concept. Silver Bluff Development has labeled buffer areas along Silver Bluff Road as “open space,” all future, proposed commercial development will require the clearcutting of approximately fourteen acres of currently undeveloped, real open space, and the new shopping center will destroy an existing trail and fragment the interconnection of trails and sidewalks. (5)
The Planned Residential Shopping Center
Village at Woodside has promised its residents its own grocery store since 2005. In every amendment to its concept plan, the grocery store was always listed as 20,000 square feet, and its location was always presumed to be in the Village, not facing Silver Bluff Road. Beginning in 2001, in order to better maintain the rural, residential character of the area, developers also promised no commercial development along and fronting Silver Bluff Road.
Village at Woodside Master Plan Approvals, 2005-2022.
The 20,000 square-foot promise continued through Feburary, 2022. Seven months later Silver Bluff Development announced that it had attracted a grocer who would build a 48,000 square foot “speciality grocery store” with seven adjacent shops of 1400 square feet each, a three-fold increase over what was promised and approved for seventeen years.
Even though the planned shopping center with a large grocery store fronts Silver Bluff Road, is one-third of a mile from the nearest resident, a half-mile from the center of the residential development, and contains more parking spaces (339) than allowable residential units (318), Silver Bluff Development and Peach Properties insist that its shopping center will primarily serve residents of Village at Woodside, and thereby meet the requirements of Planned Residential zoning.
It should be clear that the developers are exploiting the Planned Residential category to avoid the visual of converting an area zoned residential for decades by Aiken County into a commercial shopping center. This distortion of the zoning concept is further seen in updated drawings in the Design Concept plan which exclude adjacent neighborhoods across the road and behind the proposed shopping center, and present the Village at Woodside as an isolated, stand-alone community.
The latest rendition of the Village at Woodside. Red indicates future development. The tanned area is the primary residential community.
“OPEN SPACE: Outdoor or unenclosed area on the ground accessible for outdoor living, recreation, pedestrian access, or landscaping. Open space shall not include parking areas, driveways, deck or terrace areas, utility or service areas, or any space with a dimension of less than six feet in any direction.”
Section 4.2.6(G)(5) of the The City of Aiken Zoning Ordinance sets the following conditions for Open Space in Planned Residential areas:
“a. All open space areas shall be held in common for the enjoyment of the residents of the development or dedicated to the City for the use and enjoyment of the general public.
i. A minimum of one-half of the required open space area shall be improved for passive and active recreational use.
ii. Required open space shall be in addition to any required landscape, buffer, or setback areas required for individual uses with the development.
b. The portion of the project composed predominantly of detached single-family dwelling units must have at least 20 percent open space. The portion of the project composed predominantly of multifamily residential units must have at least 40 percent open space. The portion of the project composed predominantly of nonresidential development must have at least the open space required in the PC District. City Council may vary the standards of this section to allow for creative design. (Ord. 09122011C)
c. Common open space required by these regulations shall be developed in accordance with the following.
i. The amount of open space required shall not include land area devoted to other uses, including buildings, except for recreational structures.
ii. Common open space shall be used for amenity or recreational purposes. The uses proposed for the common open space must be appropriate to the scale and character of the development considering its size, density, expected population, topography, and the number and type of dwellings to be provided.
iii. Common open space is intended to serve as a community amenity, providing focal points for the development (including squares, plazas, or greenways), as well as passive and active recreational space that serves the needs of the residents. Residential development within the PR project is intended to have a close visual relationship to the provided open space.
iv. Common open space must be suitably improved for its intended use, but common open space containing natural features, existing trees, and groundcover worthy of preservation may be left unimproved.
v. The site planning of the PR project shall provide open space which provides for internal connectivity and is useable by the residents. For the purposes of this Section, parcels under 25 feet in width or located without access by residents shall not be counted as open space.
vi. Open space should connect with similar open spaces on adjacent properties in order promote an interconnected network of greenways and trails.
vii. The buildings, structures, and improvements proposed in the common areas shall conserve and enhance the amenities of the common open space.
viii. Proposed development staging shall provide for coordination of the improvement of the common open space and the construction of dwelling units in the PR project.
ix. Legal instruments as provided under the Horizontal Property Act of South Carolina shall govern the permanent retention and maintenance of any common open space not dedicated to the City. A description of such lands shall be recorded with the proper authorities.”
(2) SC 12-43-227 defines state property tax requirements.
Woodside is not alone in exploiting this homeowners association loophole for tax purposes. There are paved parking areas all across Aiken County that are appraised at $500 per acre because they are owned by a not-for-profit property owners assocation; even though the commercial buildings or residential complexes that are served are commercial for-profit.
(4) The Village at Woodside provides detailed accounting of commercial space and residential units, but “open space” is simply identified as “37 acres,” with no subsequent, detailed accounting.
From Village at Woodside Concept Design map. February, 2022.
In the most recent version of the Concept plan, the proposed “Village Inn” hotel is removed from the commercial accounting and added to the residential totals; and the 20,000 square foot grocery store is replaced by the much larger shopping center.
(5) Some open space that is identified on the Concept Design map is the buffer between commercial developments and Silver Bluff Road, as the example below shows.
Future development will require approximately fourteen acres of existing undeveloped, forested land to be clearcut and converted to buildings or parking areas.
Village at Woodside (Blue = Approximate boundary, Areas in Red = Future Development)
The City of Aiken Recreation Commission’s High Absenteeism Rate
Three members of the City of Aiken’s Recreation Commission violated the attendance policy for city boards, commissions, and committees in 2021 by missing more than forty percent of their meetings. Yet, no members were automatically removed, as required by city ordinance. Two of the three voted on February 1, 2022 to dramatically raise city recreation fees, a vote later inappropriately presented in a memorandum to City Council as a legally valid approval of the major fee increases. Without these votes, the meeting would have lacked a quorum, and no vote could have occurred.
Boards, Commissions, and Committees
Aiken City Council appoints citizen volunteers to three boards, seven commissions, four committees, and the Aiken Housing Authority—which operates as an independent body. According to the Aiken Handbook for Effective Boards, Commissions, and Committees (Handbook), these advisory volunteer bodies are essential for crafting city policies that can have profound effects on the lives of citizens:
“In keeping with Aiken’s philosophy of citizen involvement, the City Council appoints citizens to commissions, committees, and boards to assist it in formulating city policy. The strength and success of the Aiken City Government is to a large degree reflective of the quality of service performed by volunteers to these entities.”
Most volunteer bodies fall under the advisory category, but several have broader powers over the citizenry:
The Design Review Board and Board of Zoning Appeals are “quasi-judicial” bodies similar to administrative courts of law; and their decisions can only be appealed to District Court.
The Planning Commission provides the first round of review and approvals or disapprovals for requests for annexations, developments requiring zoning changes, and city services for developments outside city limits. City Council rarely overrules their recommendations.
The Municipal Development Commission is independently incorporated, but remains almost entirely funded through the City budget; and its resolutions, recommendations, and plans still must be approved by City Council.
Among other duties, the Community Development Committee is legally authorized to approve or disapprove the disbursement of federal housing assistance funds, choose contractors, and rule on Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs.
From Aiken Handbook of Effective Boards, Commissions, and Committees. 2018.
Rules of Attendance
Chapter Two, Article Four of the city’s municipal code governs the requirements of the various boards, commissions, and committees. The lead requirement, Section 2-141, involves attendance:
“Any appointed member of a board or commission created by an ordinance of the city council who during a calendar year is absent from 40 percent or more of the regular meetings or three or more successive regular meetings of the board or commission shall automatically be removed therefrom and shall not be reinstated to the remainder of his term except by a resolution adopted by the city council.”
According to the Handbook, each volunteer body is assigned a paid city employee as a contact. The function of the contact is similar to that of the City Manager’s role during Council meetings; they are responsible for working with Chairpersons and members to provide leadership and support, prepare and review agenda material, and offer expert advice.
Another primary responsibility of the staff contact is to monitor the attendance policy:
“Reviews the attendance policy with the Board, Commission, and Committee members and ensures that they understand and are following attendance rules by attending at least sixty percent (60%) of all regular and special meetings. Maintains records of attendance and reports to the city manager the need for potential removal of any Board, Commission, or Committee member who is absent three successive regular meetings in a year and/or who is absent a total of forty percent (40%) or more in a year. “
Attendance Problems Receive a Public Airing
At its November 14, 2022 meeting, Aiken City Council debated the merits of reinstating Design Review Board member Josh Stewart; who missed forty percent of all regular meetings in 2021. In 2022 he has missed three of eight meetings, two workshops involving the Hotel Aiken and Beckman Building demolition discussion, and the legally mandated continuing education workshop.
Council eventually tabled the motion to reinstate by a vote of 4-3, but not before City Planning Director Marya Moultrie made a false claim to Council that Stewart had attended every meeting in 2022. Details of the contentious debate were reported in the Sunday, November 20th edition of the Aiken Standard.
Recreation Commission Attendance Problems
According to its city website, the Recreation Commission’s mission is to “serve as a liaison between the city residents and program participants and the Aiken City Council to ensure the development and provision of appropriate, quality recreation facilities, services, and programs.”
Because programs are open to nonresidents of the city, the commission is one of three organizations that allows nonresident volunteers to serve; the other two being the Aviation Commission and the Equine Committee. The group also holds the distinction of having non-voting “youth commissioners,” and in 2021 introduced the concept of “youth influencers.” The commission is currently involved with crafting the proposal to build a multi-million dollar soccer complex at Citizens Park.
A review of Recreation Commission meeting minutes revealed an even deeper attendance problem than the Design Review Board. In 2021, three members of the commission missed fifty percent or more of the meetings (1); and in 2022 two of those members continued to miss more than fifty percent of meetings (2). Although city ordinance mandated the members be removed from their appointed office, no action was taken.
In addition, up to three meetings in 2022 were cancelled due to a lack of a quorum (2), indicating a deeper attendance issue. Overall, the Recreation Commission is plagued by a lack of participation. Even its youth commissioners are absent well over fifty percent of the time.
As reported in Taking $2 From a Child to Play a Game, on February 1, 2022 the Recreation Commission held a special-called meeting that lacked proper public notification. The only agenda item involved a proposal to substantially increase recreation fees. The 5-0 vote to approve the fee increases occurred despite the fact the commission lacks the authority to change fees—it is only authorized to provide advice and recommendations to City Council.
By city ordinance, two of the voting members should have been automatically removed from their positions and ineligible to vote. Even if the vote had only involved a resolution to recommend fee increases, the presence of only three legitimate members and subsequent lack of a legal quorum would still have rendered such a vote invalid.
Troubles with Volunteerism in Aiken
2022 has been a difficult year for Aiken’s volunteer commissions and boards. A lawsuit filed against the demolition and redevelopment effort known as Project Pascalis revealed that three members of the Municipal Development Commission and two members of the Design Review Board were appointed despite not living in the city—a major oversight by City Council. At one point the three person election commission was reduced to a single member.
Now, the issue of overlooked attendance violations has emerged for the Design Review Board, the Recreation Commission, and possibly other committees, commissions, and boards. For example, while not at the forty percent level, Planning Commission Chairman Ryan Reynolds has missed nearly a third of the meetings of the most powerful commission in the city in 2022. Equine Committee member Courtney Conger missed four of seven meetings in 2021, and two of three in 2022; although that committee is deemed ad-hoc.
Aiken City Council has consistently delegated more of its authority to city staff in recent years. For example, as reported in Taking $2 From a A Child to Play a Game, Council discussed delegating the approval of the hanging of banners to city staff. While this sounds innocuous, a single incident of a controversial banner will likely return the issue back to Council approval.
In the case of the Recreation Commission, recreation fees were raised despite the fact it was not authorized to do so, in a meeting that lacked proper notification, and by members who legally should have been removed for attendance policy violations.
______________________
Footnotes
(1) Recreation Commission Minutes for 2021.
Tuesday, January 19, 2021 Aiken, South Carolina Present: Chairperson Suzy Haslup, Vice-Chairperson Mike Beckner, Commissioners Lori Comshaw, and Ricky Brown. Others Present: City Staff Sam Radford, Rasheka Gaines, and Alex Meyers, Fellow Lead for America. Absent: Commissioners Melissa Viola, Susan Schifer and John Wallace, and Youth Commissioners Bailey Edwards and Grey Larlee
Tuesday,, March 16, 2021
Present: Chairperson Suzy Haslup, Vice-Chairperson Mike Beckner, Commissioners Lori Comshaw, Susan Schifer, and Ricky Brown. Others Present: City Staff Sam Radford, Rasheka Gaines, and Breanna Jackson Absent: Commissioners Melissa Viola and John Wallace, and Youth Commissioners Bailey Edwards and Grey Larlee
Tuesday, May 18, 2021
Present: Chairperson Suzy Haslup, Vice -Chairperson Mike Beckner, Commissioners Melissa Viola, John Wallace, and Ricky Brown. Others Present: City Staff Rasheka Gaines Absent: Commisoners Susan Schifer and Lori Comshaw; Youth Commissioners Grey Larlee and Bailey Edwards.
Tuesday,August 17,2021
Present: Chairperson Suzy Haslup, Vice-Chairperson Mike Beckner,Commissioners SusanSchifer, Lori Comshaw and Ricky Brown. Others Present: City Staff Samantha Radford. Absent: Commisoners Melissa Viola and John Wallace
Tuesday, October 19, 2021
Present: Chairperson Suzy Haslup, Vice-Chairperson Mike Beckner, Commissioners Susan Schifer, Lori Comshaw, John Wallace, and Ricky Brown. Others Present: City Staff Samantha Radford & Rasheka Gaines; PRT Influencers Kaia McMullen, Mika Mayo, Kaeleigh Seigler Absent: Commissioner Melissa Viola
RECREATION COMMISSION
Tuesday, November 30, 2021. Present: Chairperson Suzy Haslup, Vice-Chairperson Mike Beckner, Commissioners Lori Comshaw, Ricky Brown, and Melissa Viola (Zoom). Others Present: City Staff Jessica Campbell, Samantha Radford & Rasheka Gaines. Absent: Commissioner John Wallace, Susan Schifer
Summary of Recreation Commission Attendance, 2021. 50% Absentee Rate: Commissioners John Wallace and Susan Schifer. 67% Absentee Rate: Commissioner Melissa Viola.
Member
1/19 (Z)
3/16 (Z)
5/18 (Z)
8/17 (Z)
10/19
11/30
Haislup
P
P
P
P
P
P
Wallace
A
A
P
A
P
A
Comshaw
P
P
A
P
P
P
Schifer
A
P
A
P
P
A
Viola
A
A
P
A
A
P (Z)
Beckner
P
P
P
P
P
P
Brown
P
P
P
P
P
P
P = Present; A = Absent, (Z) = Attended via zoom
(2) Recreation Commission Minutes, Calendar Year 2022.
Tuesday, February 1, 2022 Aiken, South Carolina
Present: Chairperson Suzy Haslup, Vice-Chairperson Mike Beckner (Zoom), Commissioners Lori Comshaw, John Wallace, and Melissa Viola (Zoom). Others Present: City Staff Jessica Campbell, Seth Holley, Rasheka Gaines, Alex Myers, and Alison Cribb . Absent: Commissioner, Susan Schifer
Tuesday, March 15, 2022
Present: Chairperson Suzy Haslup, Vice-Chairperson Mike Beckner, Commissioners Lori Comshaw, and John Wallace. Others Present: City Staff – Rasheka Gaines, Austin Rippy, Alex Myers, and Alison Cribb. Absent: Commissioners Susan Schifer and Melissa Viola.
Tuesday, August 16, 2022
Present: Chairperson Suzy Haslup(Zoom),Commissioners John Pettigrew,Lori Comshaw, Susan Schifer, and John Wallace. Others Present:City Staff-Rasheka Gaines,Sara Harvey, and Alison Cribb. Absent: CommissionersMelissa Viola.
Summary of 2022 Recreation Commission Attendance 67% Absentee Rate: Susan Schifer and Melissa Viola.
Member
2/1
3/15
5/18
8/16
10/18
11/21
Haislup
P
P
C
P
NQ
Wallace
p
P
C
P
NQ
Comshaw
P
P
C
P
NQ
Schifer
A
A
C
P
NQ
Viola
P (Z)
A
C
A
NQ
Beckner
P (Z)
P
C
NA
NQ
Brown
Resigned
NA
C
NA
NQ
Pettigrew
NA
NA
NA
P
NQ
P = Present, A = Absent, C = Cancelled Meeting, NQ = No Quorum. NA = Not Applicable, not a member. Shifer and Viola each missed two of the three meetings held with a quorum thus far in 2022.
