Category Archives: Development Issues

Aiken County, City Government, Planning & Development, Water Usage

The Up and Coming North Aiken Housing Boom

13 Comments

If all proposals come to fruition, seventeen housing developments between Richland Avenue and Interstate 20, within the City of Aiken’s water and sewer district, could result in 4,492 new housing units and more than 10,000 new residents to the area. The combined population of the two Northside City Council districts could grow by 50 percent.

by Don Moniak

May 25, 2025

Since 2020, Aiken City Council has been presented with, and approved, fifteen new housing development applications located between Richland Avenue and Interstate 20 that are within the City’s Sewer and Water District. Nearly every vote has been unanimous. Two more development applications that are currently pending have been recommended for approval by the city’s Planning Commission, and face almost certain unanimous approval by City Council.

In total, the seventeen developments* span 1,327 acres, involve twelve different developers, four large property annexations, and, if completed in full, will provide a total of 4,492 new housing units—2,994 single family homes, 796 townhouses, and 752 apartments (Table 1).

Only three apartment complexes comprising 416 units have been described as “affordable housing.” Much of the remainder has been described as “work force” housing on small lots (predominantly 0.125 to 0.2-acre lots), with purchase price quotes being most frequently in the $225 to $275 thousand range. Only Woodhaven and Coopers Place will have larger lot sizes and prices closer to $350-500K.

Just under half (2,158 units) of the total units are now within city limits or on lands recently, or soon to be, annexed. The remainder are situated on unincorporated county lands, but will be subject to annexation if the subdivisions become contiguous to the city (Table 2).

Using the 2020 census’ average household size of 2.4 people per home, the increase in population within the city’s Sewer and Water district–in the area between Richland Avenue and Interstate 20–from these developments alone could number about 10,780 new residents. In the short run, the population growth within the City of Aiken’s, due to both infill and annexed developments, could be around 5,200 new residents. All of this growth will be in Council Districts 1 and 2; where the combined existing population is reportedly 10,610.

While numerous individual traffic studies have been completed, there has been no cumulative traffic effects analysis. However, it is fair to assume that, if all developments move forward, University Parkway, York Street, Rutland Drive, Highway 19N, Wire Road, and Hwy 1 North will all experience heavy increases in traffic.

To accommodate the growth, the City is building a new drinking water plant, but issues with sewage capacity will remain in place until the Horse Creek Wastewater Plant is upgraded.


(*In terms of new housing between Richland Avenue and I-20, these figures do not include growth of another thousand homes or more planned in Trolley Run Station, which is in the Valley Public Service Authority Sewer and Water District and not subject to annexation inside the City of Aiken. This will add another ~2,500 more people to the Aiken area.)

DevelopmentUnitsAcresType
Lokay Lane8010Apartments
Parker at Aiken33630“Luxury” Apartments
Highlands Bluff22644Single Family and Townhomes
University Townhomes16053Townhomes
Rutland Place26946Single Family and Townhomes
Portrait Hills14641Single Family
Rivers Crossing20053Single Family
Bridge Creek705212Single Family
Sundy Street14417Apartments
Fox Ridge Terrace19219Apartments
York Street20240Single Family
Palomino Acres31647Duplexes
May Royal Drive18552Single Family
Woodhaven165240Single Family
Cooper’s Place157112Single Family
Bedford Place725214Single Family
Creighton Meadows28487Single Family
Totals 4,4921,397
Table 1: Developments by number of units, acreage, type housing (click name to view property data and property purchase price paid by developer, if available).

DevelopmentDeveloperLocationJurisdiction
Lokey LaneTaft Mills GroupGregg HwyIn City
Parker at AikenParker-Aiken LLCGregg HwyAnnexation
Highlands BluffHighland Bluff LLCUniversity ParkwayCounty
University TownhomesSouthern United DevelopmentUniversity ParkwayAnnexation
Rutland PlaceVIP RiversideRutland Avenue/Hwy 19In city
Portrait HillsGreat Southern Homes Hwy 19 NorthAnnexation
Rivers CrossingKD Owner 3 LLCHwy 19 NorthCounty
Bridge CreekD&M PartnersHwy 19 NorthCounty
Sundy AvenueUlysses Sundy AvenueIn city
Fox Ridge Trace Tafts Mill Group Rutland AvenueIn City
York Street QOZB2 LLC/MK Land DevelopmentYork Street In city
Palomino Oaks Great Southern Homes York StreetIn city
May Royal DriveMidland Valley LLC/Ivy HomesYork StreetAnnexation
WoodhavenBeazley HomesWire RoadCounty
Cooper’s Place Georgia Southern Wire RoadCounty
Bedford PlaceBeazley Homes Hwy 1N /AirportCounty
Creighton MdwsH & A DevelopmentHwy 1N /AirportCounty
Table 2: Developments by Developer, Location, and Jurisdiction.

Notes on Individual Developments

Area 1: Gregg Highway

Figure 1. Gregg Highway developments. 1. Parker at Aiken apartments. 2. Lokey Lane apartments

Lokey Lane/Gregg Highway

This affordable housing apartment complex was approved by Aiken City Council on April 8, 2024. (see page 140-160 for more details). The target tenants are residents earning less than the area median income. No action has yet been taken. The developer has until June 2025 to close on the property before the concept plan expires.

In June 2024, City Council also voted to award the developer/investor an economic incentive for up to $90,000 to cover half the costs of The permit fees, business license fees, and water and sewer tap fees paid to the city.

The Parker at Aiken

This luxury apartment complex is under construction (Figure 2). City Council approved annexation and a concept plan in January 2023; after the Planning Commission granted a waiver on open space requirements in order to mandate more parking spaces. The area was most recently dominated by Longleaf Pine forest. The developers left undisturbed approximately 3 acres of loblolly pine wetland (Figure 3).

Figure 2: Ongoing construction at Parker at Aiken
Figure 3: Parker at Aiken, 2023 (Aiken County Land Database)
Parker at Aiken 2025 (Google Earth)

Area 2: University Parkway, Hwy 19N, Rutland Drive, York Street, May Royal Road

Figure 4: 1. Highland Bluff ; 2. University Parkway Townhomes; 3. Bridge Creek; 4. River Crossing; 5. Portrait Hills; 6. Rutland Place; 7. Palomino Oaks; 8. May Royal Drive; 9. Guildford; 10. Sundy Street Apartments; 11. York Street 12. Fox Ridge Trace

Highland Bluff remains in the site preparation, utilities installation, and road building stage. Aiken City Council approved water and sewer services in May 2022. The area was formerly forested with a loblolly pine/hardwood mix (below). It is 1.3 miles from the City limits. For more information, see A Stormwater Story.

Highland Bluffs, 2023
Highland Bluffs, 2025

University Townhomes

Annexation and the concept plan were unanimously approved in May 2022.

Some controversy over its access affected the project. The project is divided into two areas by Lincoln Avenue (Figure 7), which is an unpaved County-owned road. The developers therefore sought two distinct subdivisions with two separate entrances for the gated community—one from University Parkway and one through the Kennedy Kolony subdivision via Tennessee Avenue.

However, long-time area residents objected to this intrusion, and during a community meeting they managed to win a concession—the developer would seek an entrance via Lincoln Avenue, and not Tennessee Avenue. (This option involved lobbying County government to pave the road, and the status of this lobbying effort is unknown. Thus only the northern half of the project is under development.)

The University Parkway side of the project is in the site preparation stages. Because part of the project area is too steep to develop, approximately one-third of the site will remain forested.

For more details, see pages 68-88.

Figure 7. University Townhomes property, within red outline. The area north of Lincoln Avenue is under development. The area north of Lincoln Avenue is temporarily on hold due to access issues after neighborhood objections to the proposed entrance via Tennessee Avenue.

Bridge Creek

This proposed 705-home subdivision on 212 acres was unanimously approved, with minimal discussion, for sewer and water service by Aiken City Council in January 2025. The development still requires approval by the County Planning Commission—no application has been forthcoming to date. The land was clearcut in the early 2010s and never reforested. The property is only 0.6 miles miles from the city limit. For more details, see More Development, More Congestion Enroute for Highway 19 North.

Rivers Crossing

City Council approved water and sewer services in May 2021. The County Planning Commission approved the site plan in 2022. SC DOT and the County required the developer to install turn lanes on Highway 19 in order to access the property.

Surveying of new lots is complete and home construction is nearly half completed (Figure 8). Numerous homes have already sold for $270 to $290 thousand; and are being advertised as starting in the mid $200s K (Figure 9).

The area was originally primarily open field/farmland with a few small patches of timber. There are no rivers or creeks on or nearby the development.

The site is only ~700 feet and three small properties away from city limits; meaning annexation is a probability in the not distant future.

Figure 8; Rivers Crossing new home construction
Figure 9

Portrait Hills.

Aiken City Council approved annexation and the concept plan in 2021, and approved an economic incentive in 2022. Surveying of new lots is complete and home construction is well underway. Numerous homes have already sold for $270 to $295 thousand. For more information, see Dust Storm in an Incentive Zone.

Figure 10: Portrait Hills new home construction

Rutland Place.

City Council approved the concept plan in July 2025; which also included an adjacent plan for six acres of commercial development where a Tractor Supply store is envisioned as an anchor retailer. Both the commercial and residential projects remain in the predevelopment and planning stages—no ground has been disturbed to date. The area is approximately 75 percent open field and 25 percent loblolly pine dominated forestland. (Figure 11).

A highly controversial aspect of the project was a waiver request for tighter spacing between buildings; a request to which Aiken Public Safety and the Planning Commission objected. Aiken City Council, with the exception of Mayor Teddy Milner and Councilman Ed Woltz, voted to override the objections of their public safety department and Planning Commission.

Homes are expected to sell in the $225 to $275 thousand range.

See pages 81-160 for more details.

Figure 11. Rutland Place site. Residential area is property outlined in red. Commercial lots are between residential and Rutland. Aiken High School is south of Rutland Dr.

Concord Hill and Maple Green Development at York Street and Rudy Mason Parkway

City Council unanimously approved rezoning to planned residential and a concept plan in April 2025. As with the Rutland Drive development, a waiver on building spacing was sought and approved by Council.

The development consists of two properties, both of which were already cutover, that were combined into one development. The project is in the design stage.

Homes are expected to range from $225 thousand to $275 thousand.

For more details see pages 88-116.

Palamino Oaks

City Council approved the concept plan in 2021. As described in The Realtor Association’s Unreality, Aiken City Council approved a $247,000 economic incentive– to pay for half of work permits and utility connections costs– for Great Southern Homes in 2022.

Site preparation and utilities are completed (Figure 13), but home construction has yet to begin (see below). Prior to 2023 the property was a loblolly pine/hardwood forest, and approximately one-quarter of the forestland has been retained; mostly along the northern boundary.

Figure 12
Figure 13: Status of site

Sundy Street Apartments

The first rendition of the Sundy Street affordable housing development was approved in March 2023. That developer did not move forward, and a second developer has taken over the project. The city’s Planning Commission unanimously recommended, on May 13, 2025, that City Council approve the current development (see Page 123 for more details).

The site is forested and has a wetland component that appears to be limiting development to about half of the 17-acre property.

Fox Ridge Terrace Apartments.

The city’s Planning Commission unanimously recommended, on May 13, 2025, that City Council approve this affordable housing development.

The site is entirely forested and also has a wetland component; the plan (see Page 99 for details) shows approximately one-quarter of the forestland will remain in place.

Figure 14: Fox Ridge Terrace layout
Figure 15: Fox Ridge Terrance


May Royal Drive

The first rendition of the May Royal Drive development (yet to have a neighborhood name) was laced with controversy. Concerns regarding quality of life, noise and light pollution, traffic, property values, and the threat of annexation were raised by neighbors residing in the unincorporated county. A flawed traffic study actually considered a left hand turn into a left hand turn to be a traffic mitigation measure.

The pressure from neighbors resulted in some concessions from the developer: a 75 ft buffer between existing homes, no access from Osbon Drive, and a perimeter fence (Figure 16).

However, the developer never closed on its property purchases and the concept plan that was approved by City Council in April 2024 expired.

Another concept plan was brought forth, with Ivy Homes as the builder, and pared down to 52 acres (from 90). This time, despite the same concerns there were no concessions, and City Council approved the plan in March 2025.(Figure 17)

See pages 117-157 for more details.

Figure 16: Final plan for first May Royal proposal approved by City Council in 2024; when the developer agreed to a lower housing density and a 75-foot buffer between new homes and existing neighbors who lot sizes range from one to four acres. That concept plan expired when the developer reportedly could not complete its purchase of the project properties. In the subsequent project design, the same developer only agreed to a 25-foot buffer buffer (the minimum buffer size in the Zoning Ordinance is a mere 10 feet).
Figure 17. Second rendition of the May Royal Drive development. First proposal in 2024 initially included parcels “A” and “B,” and parcel B was removed. The development approved this year also excluded parcel. The developer indicated that Parcel A will become part of the subdivision at some future date.

Area 3: Highway 1N, Wire Road, and Airport

Figure 18: 1. Woodhaven ; 2. Coopers Place; 3. Bedford Place; 4. Creighton Meadows

Woodhaven

The City approved water services, but not sewer, in October 2024. This was a done deal since, in March of 2023, City Council approved a cost-sharing agreement for a water line extension to the property. The City would pay two-thirds of the cost up to $670,000, with the developer (Beazley Homes) paying at least one-third.

According to the City Manager’s supporting memorandum (page 101), the waterline extension was one facet of an overall scheme to extend water service as far as Exit 29 along Interstate 20:

“The initial phase of 9,100 linear feet of 12-inch water line extends service to the proposed residential development. The next phase extension of 8,625 linear feet water line provides an extension to existing facilities that the city has on Beaver Dam Road. Additional phases could extend water service to Interstate 20 Exit 29. The availability of water and larger tracts and providing services to this exit could further expand the city’s water district and provide opportunities for further growth to the north of Aiken.”

The site is still in the predevelopment stage.

The development is expected to be more upscale, similar to the adjacent Summer Lakes neighborhood, with lot sizes of 0.98 acres. Unlike Summer Lakes, the only access to Woodhaven will be from Wire Road. The City is not providing sewer services, so the homes will be on septic systems. The property is nearly 2 miles from the city limits, and is unlikely to be annexed in the near future.

Coopers Place

City Council unanimously approved water service on January 27, 2025; the same day it approved utilities service for Bridge Creek and Bedford Place. The Aiken County Planning Commission had already approved the site plan in October 2024; over the objections of numerous area residents.

On March 10, 2025, the Aiken City Council unanimously voted to approve an agreement with Georgia Southern Homes to extend the city’s drinking water system another 3,000 feet north along Wire Road. The deal is for Southern Homes to build the line to their proposed 157-home subdivision; with the City shouldering up to 2/3rds of the cost of the $500,000 project.

Bedford Place

City Council approved water and sewer service for this high density development on January 27, 2025. The first phase of the project site plan was approved, with contingencies such as engineering and traffic study approvals, by the County Planning Commission at its April 2025 meeting.

The property along Hwy 1 North and Beaverdam Road is presently forested with loblolly pine and has been managed as a tree farm for decades. The site is four miles from the City limits. A portion of the property is within the Aiken Airport overlay district.

Creighton Meadows

Aiken City Council approved water and sewer service in August 2024 (see pages 123-137). The only objection to the application for utility service came from Will Williams of the Western South Carolina Economic Development Partnership. In a letter to Council, Williams raised concerns about developing housing adjacent to the Shaw Industries plant on the Frontage Road.

The site, which was also was the preferred location for the House of Raeford chicken slaughterhouse and processing facility that was rejected by Aiken County Council in April 2024, was clearcut in 2023. A portion of the property is also in the Aiken Airport overlay district. It sites 5.1 miles away from Aiken city limits and is highly unlikely to be annexed under current rules.

The Aiken County Planning Commission approved the site plan in June 2024.

Guildford Townhomes: Rejected for Now.

A public hearing on the application to annex a 24-acre parcel and build 188 townhouse units, called the Guildford, along Wire Road (see Page 68) was held by the city’s Planning Commission on May 13, 2025. After hearing from numerous local citizens, and failing to obtain answers on several issues from the developer’s representative, the Commission recommended denying the application for annexation and concept plan. (See 0:35 to 1:30 mark of meeting video).

At least eight nearby residents, mostly along Wire Road, rose to speak against the subdivision; all of them citing traffic and quality of life concerns as reasons to deny the application. Among the statements were:

  • “It will be a really ugly little crowded neighborhood.” 
  • “I already can’t get my mail“ (which is across the road for many residents) due to fast and heavy traffic
  • “We feel blindsided by this“ and “there are no guardrails against this kind of development.” 
  • This is not compatible with that area of North Aiken, which remains rural and dominated by larger lots. 
  • People already have trouble navigating Wire Road during peak hours. 

For their part, the Planning Commission at times ripped into the application, stating, among other things that: 

  • There were too many unanswered questions remaining (in fact the developer could not answer many questions). 
  • “This is exactly what makes a horrible development…It is Exhibit A of what not to do.” 
  • “The concept plan is not at all compatible and consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. 

The developer can still take their case to City Council, or they can withdraw their application and regroup—-which would be the practical thing to do given the complete lack of support and substantial opposition to the project. But given the fact that Beazley Homes has purchased the property, it is likely to be developed for housing.

Guildford was the second subdivision in North Aiken to be rejected in the 2020s. In September 2023, the proposed 212-unit Henderson Downs along East Richland Avenue faced unanimously opposition from the Planning Commission after the Aiken Steeplechase Foundation and other neighbors on all sides voiced objections to the subdivision. No further action has been taken to develop the property.

Development Issues, Downtown Aiken, Editorials, May 2025

Parsing the RH and Winter Colony Development Group Branding Efforts

5 Comments

by Don Moniak

May 18, 2025

The leadup to this moment in the saga of the downtown Aiken’s Pascalis Properties is summarized in Local Politics and Planning in 2025. As reported there, in November 2024 Colliers representative Tommy Tapp informed Aiken City Council that, in reference to potential bidders for the property:

“Another concern, is their bid going to be kept secret? They don’t want it shopped around in the press or made public because one of the criteria is ingenuity and creativity and what they can do with the project.”


Six months later, one of the six bidders, known as the Winter Colony Development Group, has taken the odd and unusual step of urging Aiken citizens to lobby “Aiken City Hall” on their behalf; in large part by shopping their creative ideas on Facebook.

The lobbying and public relations effort involves two videos.

First, there is the video titled Winter Colony Development Group’s Proposal for the City, released this weekend and already enjoying 1,000+ views. (It is the same video as the one titled Final 2 Winter Colony Development Group that can be found on the group’s You Tube Channel 256. That video was provided to Colliers and the City of Aiken four months ago—but not publicized. It has 173 views.)

The proposal video presents the group’s vision for the Pascalis properties: “reimagining” the Hotel Aiken into fourteen luxury condominiums, two restaurants on the ground floor, thirteen townhouses replacing the motel on Bee Lane, a 56-spot parking garage behind the Warneke Cleaners property (with no indication of the future of that historic business), and an assortment of retail space along Richland and Laurens.

In the comment section of the latest popular release, the group wrote:

“City Hall is about to vote to turn the historic Aiken Hotel into a budget hotel without enough parking. If you prefer the alternative of Downtown Family Living with Shopping, Dining and Live Outdoor Entertainment, call Aiken City Hall at 803 642 7600 and demand the Winter Colony Proposal be chosen. Thank you for your support and tell your friends!”

The latest version also urges citizens to link to a music video titled Aiken Downtown Family Living; in which the group further disparages an undisclosed competitor’s proposal. The video features a folksy country song with the refrain “if it speaks to what you feel, call the City. Let’s make it real.”

The song is an advertising gimmick concocted by one of the group’s partners. That partner is the Ransom Company, whose website features a dozen product “jingles” by branding expert Tim Ransom. The Aiken Community Downtown Family Living video “jingle” is described on the site as a “Social Media PSA.”

Now compare the folksy Aiken Community Downtown Family Living PSA to a third related Channel 256 video, called RH Winter Colony; which was produced six months ago and has 27 views. RH Winter Colony is a sales pitch for potential investors, and the pitch is the history of Aiken and American elites as embodied by the Aiken Winter Colony. The “RH” brand is described as capturing the “American Recreational Spirit” of both the Winter Colony era and today.

Do watch both videos, RH Winter Colony and Aiken Downtown Family Living, back to back for a sales pitch dichotomy lesson. The former pitches elitism, exclusivity, 5th avenue, Rodeo Drive, luxury, and the planned, stylistic poses of unsmiling recreationists; a vision without children, and without family.

The latter pitches down to earth folksiness, images of Aiken’s common, humble, and popular places; smiles and spontaneity among both local children and adults. It has family.

RH Winter Colony seeks to lure financial investors; Aiken Downtown Family Living seeks investments of public opinion.

The two videos are the two faces of the Winter Colony group’s brands, both presented by the creators of the “iconic” brands for Fruit of the Loom/Star Wars boys underwear, Saranac Lake beer, Grizzly smokeless tobacco, and Lotrimin fungal cream; among others.

Why?

Why did Winter Colony Group choose to participate in a secret selection process up until the moment it appeared the process was leading to the selection of another bidder? Given the fact that one requirement in Request for Offers was to divulge the bidders’ financial sources, would Winter Colony publicly disclose that information–along with its proposed purchase price, portfolio, and more complete concept plans?

It could be that the Winter Colony Group is exactly what Aiken wants and needs. The group has arguably performed a service by reminding citizens that a competition is ongoing. But the manner in which it has pursued its goals and attempted to manipulate public opinion leaves more questions than answers.

The entire spectacle, and all the intrigue, might be resolved if other bidders were to follow suit and trot out summaries of their offers, whether it be promotional videos or a power point program. City Council could also release a summary of all six offers without divulging names. Some, if not all, of the secrecy could be lifted.

But at this point, one competitor’s proposal has merely been branded as a “budget hotel without enough parking” by a branding expert who has only provided a few minutes of details about its own plans. The owners of the Pascalis properties, the citizens of Aiken, deserve more than more stumbling by many of the same parties—City Council and the City Manager—who helped bring Project Pascalis to the table more than three years ago.

Above: Images from RH Winter Colony video.

*Footnote:

*Submission requirement in the Colliers’ November 2024 Request for Offers bidder’s packet. (Obtained via a Freedom of Information Act Request.)

Screenshot
Aiken Corporation, City Government, Development Issues, March 2025

Uncertainty at the Downtown “Mixed Use” Facility

11 Comments

Progress continues on the $20 million downtown “Mixed Use” facility, which the City of Aiken hopes the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) will eventually occupy as a “workforce development facility.” However, two years after the project was announced with great fanfare, there is still no lease agreement with SRNL’s contractor, Battelle Savannah River Alliance (BSRA); deep federal budget cuts could further threaten the viability of any new leases for federal contractors.

Recently, SRNL/BSRA officials were dissuaded by the Department of Energy (DOE) from attending the facility groundbreaking, and were ordered by DOE to have the SRNL logo removed from project signage. Is the City of Aiken creeping towards a misappropriation of the $20 million by constructing what is essentially a “spec” building on behalf of its nonprofit “partner” organization the Aiken Corporation?

by Don Moniak
March 17, 2025

Two years ago, the $20 million downtown Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) project, funded by State of South Carolina “Plutonium Settlement” funds, was in its early predevelopment stages. At the time, the preferred location (1) was on a portion of the former Project Pascalis footprint where an L-shaped, 3-story, 45,000 square-foot building was proposed on the Warneke Cleaners and Holley House motel properties.

Also, at that time, the primary envisioned use for the property was that of workforce development (2) for the SRNL contractor, Battelle Savannah River Site (BSRA).

The great fanfare during the project introduction left no doubt about that intent. The top two floors were to be office space, and the ground floor was to be primarily a showcase for the lab, a place for public interactions where scientific poster sessions would adorn the halls.

That vision faded sometime in the summer of 2023 when the prospect of a long-term lease grew fainter(3). In September 2023, the Aiken Corporation, with an unofficial acquiescence by Aiken City Council, chose to locate a three-story, 36,000-square-foot facility on its own property on Newberry Street–that property was acquired by ACorp in July 2022 for $650,000. A series of emails from the September to November, 2023, time period also showed city officials discussing a building without any committed tenant; one that could be used for an entity other than SRNL.

With the Newberry Street decision made, the City and Aiken Corporation collaborated on moving forward with the design contract. First, the Aiken Corporation hired the architectural firm of Cheatham, Fletcher, and Scott to conduct design work. Then, the City took over the project and hired Cheatham as the City’s contractor. In other words, the City utilized an unofficial, indirect procurement process to hire an architectural firm for a contract exceeding one million dollars.

Between the time of the award of the design contract and the award of a construction contract to the firm of Allen-Batchelor Construction, the City bought the property for $752,230.23; a sum that included two years of interest on the Aiken Corporation loan and city and county taxes for 2022 and 2023. (Figure 1)

Figure 1: Breakdown of costs for purchase of one-acre of property on Newberry Street NW for the purpose of the SRNL/“Mixed Use” Building.


The Groundbreaking

On January 27, 2025, just over two years to the day of the project announcement, a ceremonial groundbreaking took place.

Missing from the groundbreaking festivities were representatives from SRNL. Also missing from the project sign was the SRNL logo. This was not the original intent of SRNL officials, who accepted an invitation to the function on January 10th, 2025. On January 20th, though, an event occurred which changed everything.

That event– a new Presidential administration came into power, and suddenly, federal leases were being canceled, funds were being frozen, and talk of selling off federal buildings was in the air.

On January 24th, SRNL Assistant Director Sharon Mara wrote to city officials that, per DOE guidance, the lab would not have a presence that day (Figure 2); and per DOE order, the lab logo could not adorn the project sign (Figure 3). However, lease discussions could continue.

Figure 2: Notification from Sharon Marra to City officials regarding SRNL absence from the groundbreaking ceremony. (click to enlarge)
Figure 3: Notification from Sharon Marra to have SRNL logo removed from the project sign. (click to enlarge)

This is not the first indication that future SRNL occupation of the facility would range from possible to precarious, or maybe not at all. As reported in One-Year Lease after One-Year Lease, as of January 2024, the SRNL contractor only had DOE permission to negotiate one-year leases, not longer-term five or even ten-year leases. In fact, by the time the facility is finished, BSRA’s first five-year contract is due to expire. Although a five-year renewal is expected, a renegotiated lower contract price is quite possible.

Still, eighteen months has passed since the siting decision was made, and there is still no lease or even a memorandum of understanding between the parties. The likelihood of DOE/SRNL permitting BSRA to enter into any new lease agreement may now possibly be fading away.

Who could occupy the facility if SRNL/BSRA does not, and who would own the building?

On February 26, 2024, Aiken City Council approved a “Framework Agreement” for future agreements with the Aiken Corporation regarding the project. This agreement required ACorp to relinquish ownership if SRNL/BSRA was not a tenant. (Pages 202-204)

The anticipated path forward was that the City of Aiken would purchase the Newberry Street property from Aiken Corporation, use the remainder of the $20 million Plutonium Settlement allocation to construct the facility, and then sell the facility and property to a yet-to-be-identified, for-profit subsidiary of the not-for-profit Aiken Corporation. (4)

When the facility is completed, the City will transfer ownership “pursuant to the terms of a subsequent Purchase Sale Agreement…which will, among other terms, specify a deed restriction providing for the return of the subject property to the City should the (Aiken Corporation) no longer desire to own or lease the building to an appropriate tenant.” (emphasis added). 

The intent of this latter clause, which appears to dictate that Aiken Corporation will own the building only if SRNL is a tenant, was indicated in City Manager Bedenbaugh’s supporting memorandum that the Aiken Corporation’s “to-be-formed entity will lease the building to SRNL.” (emphasis added.) 

At the February 26th meeting, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh was asked to define “appropriate tenant.” He did so in a manner that implied some wiggle room, stating:

“There is kind of a clawback, should that not follow through or the mission changes.”

He noted that he would define an appropriate tenant as “based on a mission that is similar to what is stated in the opening paragraph of the National Lab or its successor agency.” 

On January 27, 2025, Aiken City Council approved a new agreement, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), with Aiken Corporation and its newly formed, for-profit property management company called Aiken Ventures LLC. Just as ACorp’s for-profit property management company, LED Inc., manages the downtown Amentum Building, Aiken Ventures LLC will manage the “Mixed Use” building on behalf of Aiken Corporation and the City of Aiken.

Missing from the January 27th MOU is the clawback provision and any reference to a deed restriction. Instead of Aiken Corporation ownership being contingent upon SRNL’s contractor being a tenant, the language in this agreement appears to provide a loophole:

“Ventures is expected to enter into a lease with SRNL, whereby SRNL will lease the second and third floors of the property on such terms and conditions as may be agreed between Ventures and SRNL.”

There is no contingency plan in the case of the SRNL contractor being unable to obtain DOE permission to obtain a lease.

There does remain, however, a “rent-free alternative.”

The original purpose of the $20 million was not to build a private “mixed-use” office building. It was not to further subsidize the City of Aiken nor its private partner the Aiken Corporation with an annual flow of federal funds that could be better put to better use.

The legislative intent was to construct “off-site infrastructure” for an institution whose operating contractor includes the state’s university system as part of the Battelle Savannah River Alliance. The only justification for awarding plutonium settlement funds for use by one of the defendant’s institutions, SRNL, was that the state is committed to an investment in the Battelle-led alliance from its university system. That commitment specifically included a workforce development facility.

If the City of Aiken truly wants the SRNL contractor to have a downtown presence, it would be wise to begin considering the option of deeding the property to one or all three of the State’s three major universities.

Footnotes

(1) The original choice by SRNL was the City’s parking lot property next to the City of Aiken Municipal Building, where a two-story garage topped by an office building was visualized in September 2022.

(2). As reported in The SRNL Project Was a Component of Project Pascalis, the facility constitutes the first stage in a much larger, $120 million state-funded program to Battelle Savannah River Alliance for SRNL workforce development.

(3) As reported in One-Year Lease After One-Year Lease, the prospect of a long-term lease became bleak by January 2024. To this day, there is still no signed lease or even a Memorandum of Understanding between SRNL, Aiken Corporation, and City of Aiken.

(4) The February 2024 “Framework Agreements” states that to pay for the facility, the City “will provide financing to Corporation, which it anticipates providing on an interest-free basis.” Thus, much of the rent proceeds will be used to pay for a building that was already paid for with the plutonium funds.

This provision is absent in the January 2025 MOU, which states that the City will deed the property to Aiken Corporation’s for profit Aiken Ventures LLC; and that if the property is put on the market the City has the right to buy it back for $1.

Development Issues, Planning & Development, Traffic & Safety

More Development, More Congestion Enroute for Highway 19 North

4 Comments

Close to 1500 new homes could be built in the near future along State Highway 19 North (Edgefield Highway) between the Aiken bypass and Interstate 20’s Exit 18. Since 2021, Aiken City Council has approved development plans for two subdivisions within city limits that will involve more than 500 new homes. Council has also approved water and sewer services for more than nine hundred new homes outside of the city limits, most recently approving services for 705 new homes in a 212-acre subdivision known as Bridge Creek. Meanwhile, no safety improvements are planned for the narrow and increasingly congested road.

by Don Moniak
March 10, 2025

In 2014, the City of Aiken, Aiken County, and SC Department of Transportation (DOT) held public meetings to gauge community sentiments over safety and future development along Highway 19 North, also known as Edgefield Highway. During the meetings, a number of major safety issues were identified by area residents (Figure 1).

Since 2014, the only progress, safety-wise, that has occurred are two new left-hand turn lanes and one new right-hand turn lane. Only one of these, a northbound left-hand turn at Good Spring Road, was constructed to improve existing traffic flow. The other two turn lanes were mandated by the County and DOT as mitigation for the traffic increase from a new subdivision called River Crossing.

Meanwhile, the bulk of the safety and congestion issues identified in 2014 have worsened with increased traffic; which SC DOT estimates as being 11,800 average vehicle trips per day. According to the latest reports from the Augusta Regional Transportation System (ARTS), no improvements are currently planned along this stretch of road.

Figure 1: Safety issues identified along Hwy 19N in 2014.


The five-mile stretch of State Highway 19 North (also known as Edgefield Highway) between I-20’s Exit 18 and the Aiken bypass (Hwy 118) is arguably one of the most dangerous major roads, if not the most dangerous, in Aiken County.

A two-lane thoroughfare for its entire length—except for a 0.2-mile stretch of four-lane through the small commercial district south side of Exit 18–the road meanders through three long curves, a few straightaways, and one traffic signal. The near-absence of wide shoulders results in the Highway Patrol and the Sheriff’s Office generally taking a hands-off approach to enforcing traffic laws.

Turn lanes are absent at the the busiest intersection at Reynolds Pond Road, as well as at every other of a half-dozen junctions; all of which commonly lead to traffic backups.

The road passes through a steady mix of residential, commercial, institutional, and light industrial land uses; including about fifty homes, three churches, one restaurant, one busy gas station/convenience store, a Dollar General, a barber shop and seasonal fruit stand, two beauty salons, a daycare center, two used car lots, three auto repair shops, a metals recycling center, two construction offices, two self-storage enterprises, a private nightclub, a screened road rubble storage property, a major electric substation, a dusty, empty lot that doubles as a flea market, and a well-screened, 30-acre automotive junk yard.

Nearly every homeowner and business on the west side of the road has mailboxes on the east side of the road; residents must navigate through fast and heavy traffic just to retrieve their mail.

The presence of so much private property along the route complicates the potential for any proposed road widening or other access enhancements. Any plan for improvements would face the daunting task of a heavy dosage of eminent domain. Simply put, unlike University Parkway or Hwy 78, widening of Edgefield Highway is almost an impractical option.

In spite of these limitations, the City of Aiken began moving forward, beginning in 2019, with utility upgrades, particularly sewer services, in the Exits 18 and 22 areas. The intent was to service and attract new commercial and residential development—including an effort to attract one major new business around Exit 18, widely rumored to be a Buc-cee’s travel plaza.

But whereas a modern, wide, four-lane road (Highway 1N) with a continuous middle turn lane for a median (1) leads to Exit 22, the road leading to Exit 18 (Hwy 19N) remains a winding two-lane with a meager scattering of turn lanes.

Despite the lack of safety improvements, three new subdivisions along the route have been approved since 2021, and a larger fourth one is under proposal. Two of the subdivisions, 150-home Portrait Hills and 330-home Rutland Place, are in the City of Aiken; while the other two, the 200-home River Crossing and the proposed 705-home Bridge Creek, are on unincorporated county lands, but subject to future annexation.

The proposed 705-home Bridge Creek subdivision (Figures 3 and 4 below), which is located on 214 acres along Highway 19 and between Croft Mill and Mayfield Roads, has the potential to add the most new congestion because of its size and the fact that the only proposed access is along Hwy 19. (As a point of reference, the massive Trolley Run Station subdivision currently has approximately 1,066 housing units).

Current state of property

Both access points are proposed at locations along long curves (Figures 4 and 5 below) The developer also plans to intrude upon residents who reside on Alan Drive, a cul-de-sac neighborhood also known as Bedford Park.

Looking north on Hwy 19.
Looking south on Hwy 19, both access points are in view

The Aiken City Council, with minimal discussion, approved water and sewer service for Bridge Creek on January 27, 2025. The ultimate decision on access and project size will be determined by Aiken County’s Planning Commission or by Aiken County Council. To date, no application has been submitted to the County planning department.

Footnotes:

(1). There are a few dedicated turn lanes, but most of the Hwy 1N median is designed for either left or right-hand turns.

(2) Developer’s description of the proposed Bridge Creek subdivision. (click to enlarge).

.
Aiken County, Development Issues, Elections

Local Politics and Planning in 2025

Leave a comment

A County Comprensive Plan, A City Zoning Ordinance, Another Downtown Aiken Redevelopment Decision and Debate, and City Elections

by Don Moniak
January 10, 2025

Several major developments and events are on 2025’s local political docket. Notable among them are the preparation of a new 10-year Aiken County Comprehensive Plan, the rewrite of City of Aiken’s Zoning Ordinance, the selection of a buyer and developer of the remaining six Project Pascalis properties downtown Aiken, and municipal elections.

Figure 1. Comprehensive Plan interactive map for public comments. The site is being populated
with recommendations for new parks, transit routes, pedestrian and bicycle routes, requests for
amenities such as grocery stores, concerns over the proliferation of dollar stores, and numerous
other issues.


Aiken County’s 2025-2035 Comprehensive Plan

As described in The Resiliency Element, Aiken County is required by state law to develop a Comprehensive Plan that serves as a guiding document for future development of unincorporated portions of the county. 

The existing 2014-2024 Comprehensive Plan, which was only an amendment to the 2004-2014 plan, has passed its expiration date; but it will have to suffice until a new one is completed. In practice, the current plan did not go into effect until January 2016; it was passed in December 2015 following a one-year public comment period.

The Aiken County Planning Commission (ACPC) is more than half a year behind schedule on preparing the 2025-2035 plan that will, in its words, provide “a framework for how the County will change, through public and private investment, in the next two decades.  The comprehensive planning process provides residents, property owners, merchants, industry, builders and developers a reasonable forecast of the county’s future. The plan is long-range and seeks to address the County’s future needs for housing, economic development, recreation and cultural resources, and transportation facilities. The plan seeks to balance the desire for growth and development with protection and preservation of the County’s unique natural resources.”

Up until the first of this year, there had been no solicitation of citizen input, even though the issue first ended up on the ACPC’s May 2024 agenda—albeit without the required public notice. At County Council’s December 19, 2024 public meeting and the following ACPC meeting on December 21st, a schedule for four public involvement meetings*, as well as a two month public comment period, was announced.

Soon after the public meetings announcement, a Comprehensive Plan website was finally created. The site contains a link to an interactive map (Figure 1) for making specific comments and a general email address, planning@aikencountysc.gov, as an alternative. There is also a community survey with sixteen questions. The comment period runs through February 28, 2025.

So far, a Demographic and Economic Inventory Report and a Market Analysis Report are also available for review and comments.

*The public information sessions are scheduled as follows.

Public Information Session #1
January 14, 2025, 6:00 pm – 8:00pm
Roy Warner Park
6021 Roy Warner Park Ln, Wagener, SC 29164

Public Information Session #2
January 22, 2025, 6:00 pm – 8:00pm
Aiken Senior Life Services
1310 E Pine Log Rd, Aiken, SC 29803

Public Information Session #3
January 27, 2025, 6:00 pm – 8:00pm
Gregg Park Civic Center
1001 A Avenue, Graniteville, SC 29829

Public Information Session #4
January 28, 2025, 6:00 pm – 8:00pm
North Augusta Community Center
495 Brookside Ave, North Augusta, SC 29841

(At present, no information sessions are scheduled for the more rural areas that surround Silver Bluff and Ridge Spring-Monetta High Schools; while two of the meetings are within incorporated portions of the county. Nor are any daytime sessions or weekend sessions planned.)

Figure 2. Initial schedule for rewrite of the City of Aiken’s Zoning Ordinance, as explained during
a July 9, 2024 City Council work session. The consulting firm leading the effort has promised
extensive citizen involvement at all phases of the process through a community communications campaign.


City of Aiken Zoning Ordinance/Unified Development Ordinance

The current City of Aiken Zoning Ordinance dates back to 1999. Although numerous amendments such a “tree preservation ordinance” have been incorporated since that time, it is a dated Ordinance with substantial flaws. Unlike a Comprehensive Plan, this is a legally binding document–although one with numerous loopholes such as very wide discretion in the implementation of Planned Residential and Planned Commercial zones.

In January 2024, after two of seven Aiken City Council members endorsed prioritizing a rewrite of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, city staff moved ahead with the project. Seeking public input was not a part of that step forward.

On January 31, 2024, the city’s procurement department issued a Request for Qualifications for a consulting firm specializing in urban planning to undertake leadership of the Zoning Ordinance rewrite.

In June 2024, a review committee consisting of four staff members—the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and two members of the Planning Department—selected the Chicago, Illinois-based urban planning consulting firm of Houseal-Lavigne to facilitate the process. City Council members were absent from the review and selection committee; one that also decided the process would lead to the creation of broader, more standardized Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).

On July 9, 2024, the proposed contract was presented to City Council during a work session. According the consulting firm’s presentation, the first period of “community engagement” was scheduled for late summer and early fall (Figure 2). Houseal-Lavigne’s $228,000 contract (Pages 161-179) was subsequently approved at the July 9th regular meeting.

According to the meeting minutes, prior to any rewrite “a lot of community engagement to get a sense of what (people) like about the ordinance and what (people) feel needs to be fixed moving forward” would occur. Later in the process, a communications plan would ensue that solicits comments on the draft plans.

Six months later, no opportunities for community engagement and citizen involvement have been announced. The existing Ordinance has yet to be subjected to scrutiny. Since the workshops promised during House-Lavigne’s presentation to Council have yet to materialize, it could be safe to assume the process, like the County’s Comprehensive Plan, could continue into 2026–especially if city residents choose to seriously engage in the process.

Figure 3. Six of the original Project Pascalis properties that are up for sale and redevelopment.
The six properties are presently owned by the City of Aiken; whose Municipal Development
Commission purchased them for $7.5 million in November 2021. An additional $2 million was
spent on the Newberry Hall property; which was sold to the lessee in 2024 for $1.125 million.

Downtown Development

The highly controversial downtown demolition and redevelopment endeavor known as Project Pascalis, which dominated city politics in 2022, was cancelled by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) on September 29, 2022. After months of inertia followed by indecision, in May 2023 the AMDC was dissolved and ownership of the half-block of commercial properties known as the Pascalis properties reverted to city ownership.

At City Council’s December 11, 2023, regular meeting, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh presented Council with a detailed procurement plan to find a “real estate firm experienced in marketing property for adaptive reuse and renovation” for the Pascalis properties “primarily fronting the southern side of the 200 block of Richland Avenue West.”

Initially, four of the six remaining Pascalis project properties—the McGhee Building, the Taj Aiken restaurant building, the Holley House motel property, and the Hotel Aiken–were in the package. After some discussion, the Warneke Cleaners property was added to the mix and Council agreed to the approach; one that also was met with no public resistance.

The original plan presented to Council and meeting attendees did contain the caveat that the Hotel Aiken and Holley House could be purchased separately. The presented material stated that:

” Other evaluation criteria being equal, preference shall be given to a buyer who will provide a high-quality historic renovation and adaptive reuse for all of the properties listed above collectively. However, a buyer who proposes solely on the 235 Richland Ave W (Hotel Aiken) and 112 Bee Lane SW properties (Holly House) shall not be excluded.”

However, that thoughtful provision was absent from the Request for Qualifications that was issued only one week later. It will be all or nothing for potential developers.

Two firms submitted proposals for the job of marketing the properties, and the Colliers company was selected for the task. By the time Colliers put together a prospectus for potential buyers and developers, the Beckman Building at 106 Laurens Street SW (home of Vampire Penguin and Ginger Bee) had also been added to the bundle of properties (Figure 3); meaning that the same package as Project Pascalis, minus Newberry Hall, was in play.

In November 2024, Colliers representative Tommy Tapp provided a status update to Council; he described how more than twenty interested parties had expressed interest, and eleven tours of the properties for highly interested potential buyers and developers had been completed.

According to the meeting minutes (pages 9-11), Tapp stated that about half of the twelve parties that were interested enough to request tours are hotel developers, and half are apartment/condo developers; with all of them interested in harvesting historic tax credits. He told Council that the prospect of tax credits “is what is driving the project and the numbers.”

Tapp added that “one of the common questions, even from phone calls, is about parking in Aiken. The number one question that everybody has—what about parking and how much parking is available…Everybody is interested in talking about parking garages. That is a common theme that has come up.”

A Request for Proposals was then issued by Collier’s, and offers were due on December 23, 2024. According to Tapp, he would “collect the offers and review them to see if there is anything significantly missing or anything confusing and ask for clarification.” Once that is done, he will turn those over to the City Manager and “the offers will be for the city’s eyes only.”

Tapp had also stated, at the 16:40 mark of the meeting, that this need for discretion was due to “another concern, is their bid going to be kept secret? They don’t want it shopped around in the press or made public because one of the the criteria is ingenuity and creativity and what they can do with the project.”

Even though excessive secrecy was a contributing cause to the demise of Project Pascalis, no City Council members raised any concern about the perceived need for secrecy regarding final bids for a multi-million package of prominent, city-owned properties.

Elections

Since Project Pascalis, a common refrain on social media pages, and elsewhere, has been “We need new leadership.” That sentiment has commonly been accompanied by support for a “smarter growth” strategy that preserves Aiken’s status as one of South Carolina’s most desirable small cities to reside.

This year, City of Aiken residents who seek more change in leadership will have the opportunity to such change a reality; as four of the seven Aiken City Council seats are on the 2025 ballot. Those seats are currently held by Council members Lessie Price (District 2), Ed Girardeau (District 4 ), Ed Woltz (District 6), and Andrea Gregory (District 5). The latter three were all first elected in 2017 and have now served two terms; while Lessie Price has served her Northside district since 1988. No Council member faced a viable challenger in 2021.

However, the potential emergence of any viable candidates who favor divergence from the current status quo remains murky. Although the Mayoral race of 2023 featured three strong candidates, and ultimately an upset of incumbent Mayor Rick Osbon by only 14 votes, Councilwoman Kay Brohl (District 3) faced no opposition during the primary or the general election; while Councilwoman Gail Diggs (District 1) faced a weak challenger whose vote total was only in the double digits.

At the same time, since voter turnout during municipal elections is chronically poor, council members generally receive vote totals in the hundreds, not thousands. For example, in the 2017 Republican primary, Andrea Gregory won with only 220 votes; while Ed Woltz defeated incumbent Councilman Philip Merry with only 240 votes. Turnout in both the primary and general elections was only eight percent. The lesson is that any well organized campaign can stage an upset of an incumbent or establishment candidate.

The Election Schedule that was announced this week (page 395) is as follows:

July 7: Opening of filing for nomination petitions and other filing of
candidates for nomination in municipal political party primaries or conventions.

July 14: Closing of filing of candidates for nomination by political parties.

August 12: Municipal party primaries.

August 26: Municipal party primary runoffs, if necessary.

August 21: Closing of entries for nomination by petition.

November 4: Election Day.