Buck was little more than a year old in 2007 and only in his forever home for about 3 months when he and I went exploring in Hitchcock Woods. I had been to the woods on several occasions, mostly taking that familiar path from the main entrance at South Boundary, Devil’s Backbone, to the Horse Show Ring. We walked and walked, one path leading to another.
After a while, I noticed the sun was starting to set. I decided it was time to head back. It was then that I also discovered that we were lost. Did I bring a map? No! Why would I need a map?! After all, this was ‘just’ Hitchcock Woods! I tried to retrace our steps and was moving along quickly when we crossed paths with someone. Directions were shared, and the fellow admirer of the woods went his way, while Buck and I went ours, trying to find our way out. It didn’t take long before I realized that those well-intended directions just didn’t make sense.
All the while, the sun was slowly sinking off in the distance. I stopped. I felt like I wasn’t getting anywhere fast. Well, I was moving fast but no closer to where the hike started. The sky around me in those woods grew darker, and I made a decision: the woods aren’t that big, and if I headed in one direction long enough, I’d find my way out. With that in mind, I looked up towards the westward-setting sun, then set my course and started making tracks towards the south.
I found myself at the Palmetto Golf Course. Considering the day of the week and time of day, I felt the odds were slim of running across anyone, so I took the shortcut across the course. Getting to the other side, I reached a chainlink fence. I lifted Buck on my shoulder, climbed to the top of the fence, dropped him over on the other side and hurled myself over too. There on Whiskey Road, we walked along the sidewalk until arriving back at dirt lot at South Boundary. The sun had set, the stars were starting to shine, and Buck and I had our first of many adventures together.
_________
Recently, I started feeling my levels of stress rising and rising. It had been a while since I’d paddled or gone hiking anywhere, and there’s no better cure for stress than time spent outdoors. With that in mind, after work one day, I made a quick stop by the store, then headed to Hitchcock Woods at the Stable on the Woods entrance, which is located off of Dibble Road. With a quick change of clothes, I pulled on my boots and started down Cathedral Aisle. As I neared Black Gum Pond, I heard a Barred Owl in the distance. it wasn’t long before I felt that shift inside. I slowly started to unwind. Walking along, I cut off on the trail right before Black Gum Pond and started the slow climb uphill, continuing on until I reached High Point Line. In the back of my mind, I wanted to put in an hour’s hike, and I didn’t care what trails I took.
I’ve spent a lot of time in the woods over the years since that early adventure with Buck. Section by section, I learned the main routes that ran through the woods, north to south, and east to west. My general mode when I start another walk is to jump right in and follow whatever path seems to pull me in. I intend to get lost. The key, though, is that now I take a map — an important tool, since not every trail connecting the named trails has a name. I might head out on Coker Springs Road, but after heading down the main trail, I’ll take a left or a right, going deeper into areas with which I’m unfamiliar. Those unnamed, connector trails have the potential to make the day interesting.
Hiking along High Point Line, I cut across on another path and after a while, I noticed someone walking towards me. About that time, a light rain started to fall. We exchanged greetings and both agreed that the rain was a welcome event on this hot humid evening. She continued on her way and I on mine. The rain started falling harder, and I continued on my way, veering to the right on a path that seemed to offer some tree cover. As the rain came down, I looked over my shoulder and could see the pine trees on a slight incline with the sun shining through. The rain coming down made it a magical scene.
Walking along, I pulled out the map, but the rain made it difficult to read. I knew where I wanted to land so that I could connect back to Cathedral Aisle, and I had a sense of how long it would take to circle around to the start. I pulled out my phone to look at the time and noticed a missed call. Standing under some trees, with the rain falling down on me and all around, my friend and I talked about our days. I mentioned I was hiking in the woods with the intention of diverting from weights and gym workouts to connect with the outdoors for a while. My spirit needed it. They agreed. We said goodbye and I continued on. It wasn’t long before the trail I was on connected with another, and I recognized where I was – the Barton’s Pond Bridge, just as I planned.
The rain had stopped, and I started down Cathedral Aisle towards the parking lot and my car. In between the tall trees, the sun shone down, lighting everything it touched with a muted glow. Looking off into the trees, I stopped. Looking back between the trees, a doe was standing there frozen in motion. We stared at each other for a couple minutes, before she decided two’s a crowd. Off, deeper into the woods she went. I continued on, passing by Black Gum Pond. It wasn’t long before I was back in the parking lot. Drenched with both rain and sweat, I peeled out of my shirt and boots, then slipped on a t-shirt and Chacos. It’s handy to have some things in the car, just in case.
What strikes me and, yet, is not all surprising is how those things that were weighing on my mind as I went into the woods, somehow lifted out of my head and dissipated along those trails. While it may seem like some kind of mystery, science has confirmed what many of us knew for many years: time spent in nature is good for our physical and mental health.
Photographs by Wren Dexter..
Reflecting on this, I am taken back to the early days of the pandemic. I was an essential worker. When everyone was told to stay home, I found myself driving along roads where no other cars were seen. All along these roads, I would see acre after acre of clear cutting of trees. On these same roads I saw deer, raccoons, dogs and other animals, whose lives had been lost by the thud of a bumper. It was 2020 and I knew our area was going to explode in growth. During this time, I thought about our county commissioners. I thought about what we might talk about if we were to drive around the county. Maybe we’d talk about favorite foods or restaurants in the area. Or maybe we’d talk about music. Food and music may not save the world, but in a time when people can’t seem to agree on much, maybe we could find common grounds on these simple things.
I might also ask about their favorite places in Aiken County, and maybe we’d drive by there. After a while, I’d talk about what the natural world means to me; what I’ve learned from it over the years, and how it’s given me solace at times of grief. I’d talk about the damage to our communities when our natural world is only viewed as a commodity to be used up. Some of the bedrock environmental policies, supported and passed by Republicans and Democrats alike, have been weakened over the years through industry-supported attacks, and what we lose now can’t be undone.
What makes a place a great place to live? Hands down, it’s the trees, the rivers and lakes, and access to these special places that pulls people in. It’s about quality of life and recognizing that if we don’t protect these places, given all the ways they benefit us, who would we be?
Epilogue
It’s a little after 5 PM on Friday and I’m at a stop light on Powderhouse Road. As I look to the left and to the right on Whiskey Road, there’s a line of cars as far as I can see. Traffic is also lined up behind me on Powderhouse. It’s not unusual. And what these long lines of cars have to do with the clearcutting of trees is everything. It’s called sprawl.
When a developer proposes a project, they are supposed to submit a traffic study that looks at trips per day. Any development on or near Whiskey Road (or other high-volume roads) would automatically trigger a study. Next, the city engineer would review the study with a lens on current traffic levels and make recommendations. The review would then go to the planning commission and city council, who would then make a decision based on the study and recommendations from the city engineer. On a daily basis, I see evidence that whatever traffic studies were completed, and whatever recommendations were made by the city engineer, must have been ignored. How else could our roads be so far beyond capacity? There are solutions to this, and it’s called citizen involvement.
With the onset of explosive growth in the Central Savannah River Area, why are there few opportunities for citizens to weigh in on impacts to the places we call home? The City of Aiken has an Energy & Environment committee with two openings that have gone unfilled for a long time. There’s also a Citizen’s Advisory Committee that’s part of the Augusta Regional Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning Organization (ARTS MPO). The last I knew, there was no chair for the committee and no non-elected official on that committee. The whole purpose of the citizen’s advisory committee, which services Richmond and Aiken Counties, as well as part of Columbia and Edgefield Counties, is to advise on transportation planning across the CSRA. And how transportation planning takes place has everything to do with the land.
With the total population of over half-a-million people in Aiken, Richmond, and Columbia Counties, there are no other citizen committees to advocate for our natural resources in this area. This has to change.
_________________
ABOVE: Whiskey Road gridlock on the southside. BELOW: Another longleaf pine forest clear-cut in 2024 on hillside acreage above Bridge Creek to expand the area subdivisions over to Trollelline Road, a road with already-existing issues of stormwater runoff, erosion and hazardous traffic conditions in the wake of growth and new developments over the past decade.
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)
Figure 1. Affected area. The planned subdivision is on the undeveloped lands in the center of the photo (Aiken County Public.Net land database). Click to enlarge.
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).
Figure 2: Draft meeting minutes for the 11/14/23 Public Hearing. The minutes were approved in December 2023. Minutes are the official written record that city attorneys would present to a court in the case of civil litigation. Click to enlarge.
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.
Figure 3. Osbon Drive is a winding, narrow line lacking any center line. The traffic study lists it as having a capacity of 11,000 vehicle trips per day.
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)
Figure 4. Summary of the Traffic Study. Although the increase in “average daily trips” is three times the existing traffic on May Royal Drive, where most new residents will enter their neighborhood, the conclusion was “minimal impact on the adjacent road system.” Click to enlarge.
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.
Figure 5. Columbia Highway/Hwy 1 North during a slow time of day. The white truck is at the junction of May Royal Drive. The 338-unit subdivision will be situated on ~80 acres behind that truck. Area residents raised numerous concerns about their inability to turn left during peak hours; and when Grace kaolinite trucks are busy and during Emerson Plant shift changes. Several people have expressed the need for a traffic signal.
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.
Figure 6. Citizen concerns being raised during most recent City of Aiken Planning Commission meeting. From left to right: Commissioners Peter Messina, Charles Matthews, Steve Simmons, Chairman Ryan Reynolds, Planning Director Marya Moultrie, Vice-Chairman Jason Rabun, and Commissioners Sam Erb and Clayton Clarkson.
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.
How will ~2,000 new residences provide “traffic relief” benefits on the new, planned Powderhouse Connector Road project?
by Don Moniak
September 11, 2023.
Construction on the long planned, debated, and delayed Powderhouse Road Connector is expected to begin as early as next month. The Connector consists of a new, 1.0 mile road connecting Whiskey Road to Corporate Parkway and Centennial Avenue ; and another new 1.7 mile road connecting Whiskey Road to Powderhouse Road south of East Pine Log Road.
According to a recent memorandum from the Augusta Regional Transportation Study’s (ARTS) South Carolina Policy Subcommittee, the current project costs are $38 million. The memo states the intent of the project is to “provide relief to the congested Whiskey Road corridor by opening additional routes to East Pine Log Road and Centennial Parkway.”
A City of Aiken memorandum released this past Thursday states that funding for purchasing road right of ways is derived from Capital Project Sales Tax revenues which are allocated for “Whiskey Road Corridor improvements and congestions relief.” (Aiken City Council Agenda Packet for September 11, 2023, page 412).
The Connector Roads have been, and continue to be, presented as a congestion relief project. But according to two Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) pertaining to right-of-way (ROW) acquisition, the rural, open character of the landscape between Whiskey and Powderhouse Roads is also destined to be converted to a suburban environment of moderate to high-density residential development.
Tens of millions of dollars will be spent to provide limited-access roads through nearly 400 acres of undeveloped farm and forest land in unincorporated Aiken County; and to those eventual, multiple residential developments. Any developments in unincorporated areas which utilize city water and sewer services will eventually be annexed into the City of Aiken.
In addition, the City of Aiken intends to subsidize development by constructing and maintaining two major stormwater retention or detention reservoirs, and constructing essential sewer and water infrastructure to insure adequate capacity for planned residential neighborhoods.
Top Photo: Powderhouse Connector Project new roads locations. From ARTS Memorandum.
Bottom Photo: Anticipated development facilitated by project infrastructure. The 80-acre parcel is the “McLean” property, the 142-acre parcel is the Watson/Powderhouse Partners, LLC property, and the 37-acre property is owned by Clifford Place Partners. Powderhouse Partners, LLC is also the owner and developer for the new subdivision on the east side of Powderhouse Road called “The Sanctuary.” West of “The Sanctuary” is the Clifford Place Partners’ 37-acre property, which was purchased from James Watson in February 2023 for $820,000. Both Powderhouse Partners and Clifford Place Partners share the same address in County records: 3519 Wheeler Road, Augusta, GA 30909. Finally, Sycamore of Aiken, LLC, is planning to construct a 160-room hotel on four acres at the entrance/end point of the new Connector Road.
The Watson and Powderhouse Partners MOU.
A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Aiken, James Watson, Jr. and Powderhouse Partners, LLC is on Aiken City Council’s September 11, 2023, meeting agenda. The MOU pertains to 142 acres presently owned by Mr. Watson. Powderhouse Partners has an option to purchase all or parts of the property for future residential and commercial development. Clifton Place Partners, LLC, which shares the same Augusta business address as Powderhouse Partners, is also shown as a signatory to the MOU.
The MOU lists the following “intended land uses” as future development plans:
125 lots in “Sanctuary Residential Subdivision.”
500 townhomes
440 apartments
350 single family residential units
12 Acres of Commercial development
Under the agreement, Mr. Watson will provide 100 feet of right-of-way property for the roads, and, if necessary, the City will purchase an additional 20 feet of right-of-way. At $17,500 per acre, the one-hundred foot right-of-way amounts to an estimated $180,000 contribution.
In exchange, the City will pay $170,000 for seventeen acres of land earmarked for two new “regional detention ponds.” (1) In total, the ponds will be nearly three times larger in area than the retention pond along the Pawnee-Nielsen connector road.
The ponds will be constructed, owned, and maintained by the City of Aiken. The City will also construct a walking track around the fenced stormwater reservoir, and all landscaping to “obscure any chain link fencing.”
Although the reservoirs are designed to manage stormwater from both the new roadway and the residential developments, the developer will bear no costs. The MOU states:
“The City agrees to construct at its sole cost and expense the detention and/or retention ponds thereon,” and to “design and provide future retention capacity in these retention ponds for the Watson Property that will provide for future development of the Watson Property for all intended uses and density of residential and commercial development.”
The MOU also contains a provision for the Sanitary Sewer Trunk Main Extension Powderhouse Road project (Highfill Project No. AIK2014) to be located “along an easement granted by Clifton Place Partners.” One intent of the project is to “insure adequate capacity” for future development.
The project bid package map shows the sewer line running into the Clifton Place Partners property. The project award was for $624,975, and is being borne entirely by the city.
Finally, the MOU agreement also confers the property owner(s) and developer(s) a degree of veto power over the City’s plans for road access points, green space, bicycle paths, storm drainage lines, and landscaping. For example, the agreement states “the location of the storm drainage lines must be in locations acceptable to Watson, based on future development plans.”
On November 14, 2022, Aiken City Council approved an overlapping “Agreement” with four parties, referred to as the “McLean family tract.”
Under this agreement, the McClean Family will provide one-hundred feet of -right-of-way, and the city will purchase another twenty-feet if necessary. At $17,500 per acre, the 100 foot right-of-way amounts to an estimated $87,500 contribution to the project.
In return, the City committed to providing:
Stormwater capacity at the city’s new detention/retention ponds (on the Watson property) for any developments within that affected stormwater drainage area.
“All sewer and water service infrastructure, excepting tap fees,” which refers to the same Sanitary Sewer Trunk Main Extension Powderhouse Road project (Highfill Project No. AIK2014) referenced in the Watson/Powderhouse Parters MOU. The $624,975 extension will reach the McClain property.
Sufficient sewer capacity to facilitate development of “at least 600 residential units,” as well as undefined levels of commercial development.
Location of Sanitary Sewer Line Extension within the Powderhouse Connector Road project area, as reported in the Project Bid Package. A $624,975 bid has been accepted but the project award is pending.(2)
Footnote:
(1) The MOU indicates confusion over both the intent and size of the reservoirs. The City uses the terms “detention pond,” “retention pond,” and “detention or retention pond” in both the singular and plural sense. The MOU also uses “detention” and “retention” interchangeably.
The basic difference between a detention pond and a retention pond is as follows:
Detention Ponds, also known as dry ponds, involve no storage of water. Water is detained a minimum period of time and then released, leaving the reservoir bed dry again.
Retention Ponds, also known as wet ponds, have a permanent pool of water throughout the year, barring severe drought.
(2) Letter from City of Aiken Engineering and Utilities Department to City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh detailing the status of the Powderhouse sewer system extension project.
UPDATE:
In June of 2024 the email below was obtained within the response to a FOIA request to the City of Aiken. The email illustrates that traffic will also flow to Whiskey Road as new residents along the Powderhouse Road connector are encouraged to shop and dine along Whiskey Road; and that the redevelopment of the Aiken Mall property is a key dynamic for this traffic flow towards Whiskey Road.
Aiken City Council will have its first reading of an ordinance to approve a concept plan for a property at Neilson Street off Dougherty Road during its regular meeting at 6:30 p.m. Monday, August 14.
The owner of the property is Wellers Ridge SC, LLC. According to the first page of the memorandum, (found on page 40 of the 565-page agenda package for Monday night’s Aiken City Council meeting), the property is currently undeveloped with extensive tree coverage. The developer is proposing 60 multi-family rental units and a club house on this 5.91-acre parcel.
Concerns have been raised among area residents regarding overdevelopment, traffic congestion, and the potential effects of this development on existing issues of stormwater drainage and flooding. Citizens are organizing in opposition to more development in this area. Petitions are being drawn, signs being made, the media is engaged, and a large turnout is expected for Monday night’s meeting. Below are two letters received this morning from local citizens.
Letter from Mary Camlet-Agresta:
There is a continuance of aggressive building with no sign of relief. This one is an accident waiting to happen. As I sadly watched the concept plan progress to the City Council, I reached out to the people who were having issues, one being major flooding.
I spoke with the owner of University Medical Association first. I explained how I watched her at the meeting. I told her that I and Takin Aiken will stand with her. She passed my information on to the mother, Ann, whose property is on Dougherty Road. The storm in July had left her land (no structure on the property) submerged in water. I and other members of Takin Aiken met with Ann and her 2 children.
We looked at the property, the very old and neglected pipes, and the never-maintained retention pond. The property is County, but the retention pond is City. So, the failure to maintain the retention pond by the City, caused an overflow of water to block Dougherty Road and proceed onto the County property, which was under contract, but was canceled after the flooding. All of this excessive water now is a result of the under construction new build on Neilson Street.
There were many trees removed that helped, in the past, absorb a large portion of the rain water. Now the developer wants to add another 60 units with a club house on 5.91 acres, plus sandwich one neighbors property with two roads, one on each side. Never mind the additional traffic flow on Dougherty Road this will cause. The infrastructure MUST be addressed first before additional building of any kind takes place.
We will be at the City Council meeting on Monday, August 14, 2023 to oppose the concept plan of the 60 units and club house. How many more trees will be removed? How many more properties will be flooded? How long will Dougherty Road be closed? How much more traffic?
I hope everyone that reads this, and has had the opportunity to drive on Dougherty Road, understands that safety come first for the citizens of Aiken.
Mary Camlet-Agresta Takin Aiken Aiken, SC
____________________________
Letter from Diane Salsitz:
More construction and the lack of planning appear to be in the plans again —without concern for citizen’s safety or their well being. Businesses on Dougherty could be affected as well. Traffic on Dougherty is horrible now. Ask anyone who uses it, they’ll say the same. And yet, there are plans for two more streets to turn onto this crowded, narrow road. Can’t help but wonder if anyone on planning/zoning committee has traveled it.
Following the Developer’s Dog and Pony Slide Show and Strong Opposition, the First Parker’s Kitchen Public Hearing Was Continued Until a Later Date.
by Don Moniak April 25, 2023
Last night, after a three month delay to await a traffic study, Aiken City Council finally conducted the first Public Hearing (Reading) for the proposed Parker’s Kitchen convenience store and fuel station. The meeting ended with Council unanimously voting to continue the meeting to another time pending more information from staff and legal counsel, a better understanding of traffic issues, and examination of a needed deceleration lane on Whiskey Road leading into Stratford Drive.
Council may have also been convinced that any approval at this time might actually cross the high bar of “arbitrary and capricious” and “not a reasonable debate” generally required to overturn any planning and zoning decision in the courts. Every citizen who spoke at the podium expressed strong opposition to this project, even while acknowledging the other two Parker Kitchen projects in Aiken were in suitable locations—the blighted former Dick Smith dealership and the greenfield East Pine Log Road location. “This is not the right place” was a prevailing theme.
The Dog and Pony Show
The hearing began with what can only be described as a dog and pony show. Parker’s Kitchen Daniel Ben-Ysrael presented a ten minute slide introduction and slide show from the 28 minute mark to the 38 minute mark. The presentation included slides of clean stores, happy customers, and top-of-the-mind images such as an impressive old growth veteran oak and a Cedar Waxwing.
That was followed by another ten minutes of question and answer from Council to Ben-Ysreal and colleague Cody Rogers that included a few testimonials from Council members on the quality of the company — which has not been in dispute. Both representatives explained how the development would provide three new entrances to the neighborhoods, but were forced to acknowledge the two new entrances involved hazardous left turns; and the intersection of Powderhouse, Stratford, and Whiskey Roads would still have the only traffic signal.
The reason for the presentation was obvious—controversy. As neighbor Peter Stein—-who was frequently interrupted in defiance of city meeting protocol—put it, even the first neighbor’s meeting “was not positive at all,” and that was followed by a contentious Planning Commission meeting that featured ~15 opposing speakers and zero supporters.
According to City Council’s meticulous meeting minutes, Parker’s Kitchen did not find it necessary to put forth their presentation at any of the previous four Council meetings for the other two Aiken locations; not on April 25 or May 9, 2022; February 27 or March 13, 2023. Both plans sailed through the process with unanimous approval and no negative comments. The presentation was also absent at the January 10, 2023 Planning Commission meeting.
A slide from the Parker Kitchen’s Presentation to Aiken City Council on April 24, 2023Another top-of-the-mind slide designed to instill a positive image. The location of the tree was not identified.
The Citizen Comment Period: Public Safety, Cumulative Effects, Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, and past ordinances
After twenty minutes of time devoted to the developer, citizens were finally called to the podium. In all, eleven Aiken residents spoke against the plan, and no supporters appeared at the podium. Neighbor Bill Reichart started off the conversation by first describing two recent horrific accidents at the Powderhouse and Whiskey Road intersection that disrupted traffic; before stressing the cumulative impacts of over-development along the Whiskey Road corridor, with each sentence preceded by “add:”
“Add 350 newly approved multi-housing units…apartments 1/4 of a mile away…the Aiken Mall (redevelopment)…the new Powderhouse subdivision…Lulu’s…Lowe’s Foods…Circle K…and now a new gas station.”
Following more comments on safety by neighbor Carol Martin and Jacob Goss-Ellis’ comment that any such development at Gem Lakes and Woodside would be immediately vetoed, neighbor Anthony Agresta presented a legal concept that City Attorney Gary Smith chose not to challenge. After reiterating that the “other two locations are a good fit,” he described why “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus”—or “deceitful in one” claim, “deceitful in all” claims—applied to this case:
“During the January 10th Planning Commission meeting, Cody Rogers stated there would be two fuel tanker trucks a week. Later in the meeting Mr. Ben-Ysrael said they expect 240,000 gallons/week. Do that math, that is is 28.4 deliveries per month, not two per week. There is a legal concept called falsus in uno, falsus in animus, that I am sure Mr. Smith will agree to, that states false in one, false in all. Either the error was intentional or a mistake does not matter. We did not have access to accurate information. When one item is false, there is an obligation to reevaluate everything, and Council should remand this back to planning.” (1:13 of meeting).
There were no interruptions and questions.
Neighbor Jean Greenwald, who unsuccessfully appealed Council’s approval of the LuLu’s car wash development in 2020, was not deterred by that decision that did not find Council acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner. Greenwald, who lives ~300 feet from the proposed gas pumps, stated:
“There were certain conditions that were in effect when LuLu’s was approved that were removed.”
She then listed the major concerns of public safety, health, and traffic before stating, “Do your job and protect this community.”
Kelly Cornelius, who has prepared a video to document her points on discrepancies in the LuLu’s and Parker’s Kitchen zoning process, expounded for the alloted five minutes on how past approval conditions that deny car washes, 24-hour stores, and gas stations are still in effect.
“The parcel got rezoned from Limited Professional to Planned Commercial in 2003…the conditions are still on this parcel in question, according to a July 9, 2014 memo from planning director Ed Evans.”
Council appeared unaware of the 2003 ordinance defining limits on the Planned Commercial property. Cornelius’ documentation was cited in Council’s decision deferring a vote on the matter and continuing the process until more information was forthcoming.
It did not end there. Aiken Citizen Luis Rinaldini described how overdeveloped for “development’s sake” Whiskey Road is, how out-of-town developers profit while Aiken residents pay, and asked Council to “keep in mind and look after the people who already here.”
A crowded Aiken City Council chambers, April 24, 2023 (Photo by Jacob Goss-Ellis).
Bad Math
In addition to the conflicting math provided by the developer, Mayor Osbon added a puzzling calculation.
During the frequent interruptions of Mr. Stein early in the comment period, the issue of distance from the intersection to the gas station entrance arose. After Stein stated 420 feet was not much distance, Mayor Osbon described bumper to bumper traffic as a reasonable, safe situation:
“420 feet is not close (to the intersection. If you use 10 feet per car, you’d have 42 cars that could fit.”
In reality, the average car length is now about 14.7 feet, meaning that bumper to bumper traffic would involve fewer than 30 cars. If each car had one car length of space, which is less than the two-second rule, a safer, though not safe, number of cars would be closer to about 14 cars.
These estimates exclude passenger trucks (average of 17.5 feet), the daily flow of delivery trucks, and 3-5 fuel tankers per week, which might bring the safe amount of vehicles on a 420 foot stretch of road to fewer than ten.
After the debate and constant interruptions and arguments by Council, Stein ended with the statement, “We should rename Powderhouse Road Powerkeg Road.”
Mayor Osbon responded, “Very clever Peter, Very clever.” (1:06) Whether the statement can be perceived as complimentary, sardonic, or a mix of the two, is up to the viewer.
