Category Archives: Stormwater and Flooding

City Government, Development Issues, Over-development, Planning & Development, Stormwater and Flooding, Traffic & Safety

Dissent and Confusion in Aiken’s Land Planning Process

4 Comments

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

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

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

By Don Moniak

February 16, 2024

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

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

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

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

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.



City Government, City Parks and Recreation, Editorials, February 2024, Stormwater and Flooding, Trees and Deforestation

The Smith Hazel Story: What We Know

5 Comments

There is much misunderstanding surrounding the Smith Hazel Park project. Linked at the bottom of this page are some of the numerous articles published in the Aiken Chronicles over the past 16 months on Smith Hazel and other northside parks

To be clear …

The Smith Hazel story is not about choosing trees over people. It’s not even a story about trees, although that’s what is being discussed, since the loss of trees will be a huge part of the collateral damage from the project the City has planned for this park. Nor is the Smith Hazel story about amenities, although citizens advocating for a pause and a public hearing on this project have been accused of trying to keep northside children from receiving long-awaited amenities.

No, the Smith Hazel Park story, much like the Pascalis and Williamsburg Street stories that preceded it, is, at its root, about a city government that eschews established processes; a city government that makes decisions in a vacuum behind closed doors; a city government that withholds information from the public and denies citizens opportunity for input. It is no wonder that the output from this municipal apparatus has been a series of wasteful and destructive projects driving increasing number of local residents to rise up and say, “No more!”

The Obstructionists and Naysayers

Individuals who have spent the past two years pushing and advocating for the northside parks, and pushing to see some of the windfall plutonium money spent on the long-neglected northside, are hardly the obstructionists and naysayers in this equation, nor are they devoid of ideas and inspiration for solutions.

Destroying 68 trees, bulldozing the landscape of the Smith Hazel park, and creating expensive stormwater issues in order to cram all of the northside amenities into the 5-acre Smith Hazel Park is not the solution to the city’s long-term failure to provide amenities on Aiken’s northside.

Consider this: Across the street from Smith Hazel is the 25-acre Perry Memorial Park, (from which the City recently considered disinvesting, see articles below) — a park that could be utilized for the ADA-compliant City intends to bulldoze into 5-acre Smith Hazel Park. Out on Hwy 1/Columbia Highway are 118 acres of land the city purchased in 2015 to finally, finally provide the northside with those long-promised amenities. So where are those amenities? 

ABOVE: The City’s concept plan for the 118 acres of land purchased for a northside park in 2015 which envisioned a generosity of amenities including 4 baseball fields, 8 soccer fields, 6 tennis courts, a track and stadium complex, a multi-purpose gymnasium, a swimming pool, 2 playgrounds, and five parking lots. All of these amenities were left on the cutting room floor in the final product except for the detention ponds, a partial amphitheater, a piece of playground equipment, and some parking lots.

Forty Acres

For whom was the Beverly D. Clyburn Generations Park (nee Northside Park) built? The park is located on the outskirts of town on a 118-acre plot of land the City bought on which to build that long-studied, long-deferred Northside recreation facility and park. From this 118 acres, 40 were denuded of trees, laid with sod, left largely bereft of amenities (no money, said the City) and pronounced as a park.

The amenities include an unfinished amiphiteater whose components must be trucked in for events. Portable sinks and porta-potties must also be trucked in, as there are only two toilets (presumably due to the fact that the City could only afford a septic tank for the park). Shade must also be trucked in. Portable playgrounds are also trucked in. The park has a one-mile walking track and a water fountain. This is all good, but it is not what the City spent 25 years promising the northside and hiring a Clemson University consultant to conduct high-dollar surveys in order to state the obvious about the unfulfilled need for recreation facilities on Aiken’s northside.

ABOVE: So much open space at the Northside Park. The potential is enormous. Why is there not even a single basketball court in this park?

In the wake of creating this park, City Council stated, as generations before them have stated, that the City will one day find the money to provide the northside with some park amenities. One councilmember offered that perhaps a public-private development project could make it happen.

Cue in the greenway project, which will connect the Beverly D. Clyburn Generations Park (nee Northside Park) northward, away from the City and toward the thousands of acres of forested land between northside Aiken and I-20 that the city is opening for development to be peopled with future residents for whom the City is installing new water infrastructure.

It’s just as well the Northside Park go to someone else. After all, the distance is too far for northside kids to walk, and even if it weren’t, there’s no sidewalk to get there. What parent wants their child walking or riding a bike down the busy four-lane Columbia Highway to go and … do what?

We’re All Northsiders Now

An analogy for the Smith Hazel story appears: The City will provide sparkling clear water for future residents in Aiken’s new north — the I-20 lands. The in-town residents, whose concerns and input about their drinking water and boil-water alerts have fallen on the deaf ears of a City Council body that refuses to listen to the people they’ve been empowered to serve, will have brown water.

About the Purported Dozen or More Public Hearings on the Smith Hazel Park Project

They never happened. While the City has kept the public abreast of plans for the evolving interior improvements planned for Smith Hazel, this cannot be said about the plans for the extensive demolition, tree removal and grading work on the property about which a public hearing has been requested, but never held.

A recent video circulating on Facebook with statements to the contrary was posted this week by the Umoja Village CEO and shared by Councilwoman Diggs. It contains a timeline of purported public hearings running from November 2022 through December 2023. This individual is unfortunately confused over the difference between a public meeting and a public hearing — a common and understandable misunderstanding. We could all benefit from lessons in government jargon so that we could better understand the processes of government.

The most cogent response to the claims in this video may be found in the two emails from City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, which he sent on January 31, 2024 in answer to a request to, “Please provide evidence that the City has ever held a public hearing on the Smith Hazel Park project.”

A reading of the information provided in these two emails confirms that there has never been a public hearing on the plan for the Smith Hazel Park project.

About this Saturday’s Purported Public Hearing

In the above-mentioned video was an announcement that there would be “a public hearing, another public hearing, presented by the city of Aiken this Saturday.”

This is not true. Much of the confusion over the Smith Hazel Park project stems from the public’s lack of understanding on the difference between a public meeting and a public hearing, a difference that could be likened to the difference between an informal straw poll and an official election.

There will be no public hearing at Smith Hazel on Saturday if for no other reason that the legal requirement for announcing a public hearing has not been met.

Public Input

Over the past 7 days, the Mayor and City Council have received over 1240 letters and statements from local citizens calling for a pause on this project so that a public hearing — the first ever pubic hearing on the Smith Hazel Park — could be held.

An Impromptu Get Together

In response to the letter writing campaign, Mayor Milner sent emails to some of the letter writers inviting them to a meeting outdoors at Smith Hazel on Saturday, February 10 at 9:30 a.m. If it’s not raining, we can tell the Mayor or the City Manager our thoughts, opinions and wishes. It’s not clear just yet who will be there, but one thing is clear. No matter how closely or sincerely City officials do or don’t listen to our concerns, our words have zero impact on the course of this Smith Hazel Park project in the absence of a public hearing.

As Councilwoman Gail Diggs made clear in an interview with WFXG News yesterday afternoon, City Council is not prepared to bend in its determination to go forward with this destructive plan. “This project is going on,” she stated. “It will not come back to counsel for a vote.”

The City Manager has repeatedly stated as much. Our only hope, then, is that a vocal majority of the citizens arriving to the Saturday meeting will bring umbrellas and spend their energies urging the Mayor and any other Council members in attendance to use their authority to request a pause and a pubic hearing on this project. 

Whether or not trees are spared in the process is secondary. The important thing is the process itself, which is an established, democratic process and a process of which most people should be able to agree is necessary in a democratic society.

______________________

FOR FURTHER READING


Below is a history of but some of the articles published in the Aiken Chronicles over the past 16 months chronicling the advocacy of local citizens for our city’s parks, our parkways, our trees, our water, our quality of life.

September 21, 2022: Has it been only 18 months since the city was charging kids money to play basketball at Smith Hazel? (p.s. Citizens pushed back and won).
“Taking $2 from a child to play a game.”
September 22, 2022 Has it been only 10 years since the City was planning to build that long-promised, long-deferred northside Park on top of the city landfill? 
Editorial: A Northside Story
From September 27, 2022 by Don Moniak 
Divesting of Parks and Privatizing Open Space
October 11, 2022: A campaign to push back against the City’s move to disinvest of several Northside parks.
Aiken’s Disappearing Parks
October 11, 2022: A follow-up story to the above “Divesting of Parks and Privatizing Open Space.”
Aiken City Parks to Remain Open
From October 11, 2022.
Editorial: My Letter to Aiken City Council About Aiken’s Parks and Northside
October 26, 2022: In the wake of pubic pushback, the City waives the recreation fees it was charging children.
Daily Youth Recreation Fees Waived
October 27, 2023: Photos from April 2023 taken while following the unfolding Smith Hazel Park story and trying, unsuccessfully, to get information form the City, which spent 13 months making plans for Smith Hazel behind closed doors, without public input. 
The Smith Hazel Trees: A Photo Gallery
January 29, 2024: The title speaks for itself. I would add Pascalis to the list of unlearned lessons by our tone-deaf City government. 
The Unlearned Lessons from Williamsburg Street Now Being Visited onto Smith Hazel
February 1, 2024: We have been asking for a pause on the destructive Smith Hazel project to allow for a public hearing. In response, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh was quoted in the January 26 front page of the Aiken Standard as saying, “The city has held several public meetings to discuss the upgrades and tree removal, including a Sept 11 public hearing”.  Curiously, there is zero evidence that any such meetings took place “to discuss the upgrades and tree removal” much less a public hearing. What’s up with that? Read Kelly Cornelius‘ article on this. https://aikenchronicles.com/…/what-public-hearing-the…/
What Public Hearing? The City of Aiken’s Assault on Trees and Public Input Continues
February 2, 2024: The way out of this time loop, which has City leadership creating plans in a vacuum, (the citizens for whom they work too far removed from their purview to be seen or heard), is through public hearings. A public hearing should be the standard for any project that proposes to improve a place by destroying it. 
It’s Groundhog Day. Got Déjà Vu?
February 2, 2024 through today:Those of us who are trying to find solutions get accused of being against everything and never offer solutions. Yet the record (see the above thread of articles) shows that just opposite is true. Let’s all learn what we can about the issues before us so that we can give informed input and use our voices wisely. https://actionnetwork.org/…/pause-the-smith-hazel-park…&
February 7, 2024: At the latest count, 1144 letters have been sent by Aiken citizens to City officials requesting a pause on the project to allow for a public hearing and informed public input. Read some of what they have to say. https://aikenchronicles.com/citizens-speak-on-smith-hazel/
Citizens Speak on Smith Hazel

Aiken County, City Government, Development Issues, November 2023, Stormwater and Flooding, Traffic & Safety, Trees and Deforestation

New Shopping Opportunity and Tiny Lots.

6 Comments

Plans for another dollar store and suburban-style, high-density housing development along the Highway One gateway corridor.

by Don Moniak
November 14, 2023
Updated November 15, 2023.

Tonight’s City of Aiken Planning Commission meeting agenda includes two proposed new developments along U.S. Hwy 1 North: a request for city water and sewer service for a new dollar store across from Aiken Regional Airport, and a ninety-acre, 333-home subdivision with a typical lot size of 0.14 acres.

The two projects are likely to further stir ongoing debate and discussion over both the proliferation of dollar chain stores, suburban-style development, and how Whiskey Road-style sprawl occurs incrementally.

New Shopping Opportunity

Visitors flying into Aiken Regional Airport for the Master’s Tournament and other local pleasure and business activities will likely soon have a new shopping opportunity only one-third of a mile from the airport exit; and local residents will likely have an alternative to the nearby Dollar General.

Agenda item D on the Planning Commission’s agenda is a “City Services Request for Family Dollar Tree, 2530 Columbia Highway North, by Runway FDT.” Since Dollar Trees and Family Dollars have the same corporate owner, whether a Family Dollar or a Dollar Tree store is en route remains unknown.

(Update: The dollar store proposal passed without comment, and the future store was identified as a combined Family Dollar and Dollar Tree).

The proliferation of chain dollar stores across Aiken County is a source of both local amusement and disgruntlement. Contrary to popular perception, many of these newer stores are in the unincorporated lands in Aiken County, not within Aiken City limits.

For example, the new Dollar General stores on Hampton Avenue, at the corner of Chukker Creek Road and Whiskey Road, and on East Pine Log Road all enjoy city services but are situated just outside of city limits. One benefit to DG of these locations is the avoidance of paying city business license taxes—at least until the properties are annexed.

This latest dollar store, located on the northern edge of an established commercial stretch zoned as Urban Development by Aiken County, will be just under four miles north of the City of Aiken’s Generations Park. The property is directly across from Aiken Regional Airport, and within the airport’s restrictive noise and height zones. (Figure 1) While the most recent Aiken County market value appraisal of the 1.8 acre property was for only $35,110, it was sold this past March for $250,000.

The City of Aiken envisions the Highway One corridor as an attractive gateway into Aiken. While the airport provides a broad, pleasant vista, the presence of another dollar store 0.4 miles south of a Dollar General could add to the perception that the Highway One corridor, where locally owned businesses once prevailed, is becoming increasingly generic in nature.

Scene of proposed new Dollar General or Dollar Tree store.

A 2021 Consumer Reports article on the massive growth and presence of the two dollar store chains across the country also describes how some local governments have put a pause on these developments, or otherwise placed restrictions on dollar store densities and locations. At the same time, the authors reiterate the case that, in many areas there are few other choices as the prospects for locally owned general stores continues to grow dimmer.

Aiken County has minimal restrictions; and the one-two punch of lax restrictions and easy access to the Aiken water district’s water and sewer infrastructure further enables the corporate giants to expand their presence.

A Northside Annexation with Tiny Lots

Just under five miles along Highway One, a much more significant proposed development will be heard by the Planning Commission. Midland Valley Developers, LLC, a Fayetteville, Georgia based firm which incorporated in March 2023, is proposing to annex 90.45 acres of unincorporated lands classed as forestry and agricultural into the City of Aiken; and redevelop it into a 333-home subdivision. Two tracts totaling almost three acres and fronting Hwy 1 are proposed for commercial use.

The annexation involves five property owners whose parcels will be purchased and consolidated by Midland Valley Developers if the rezoning and concept plan is forwarded to, and approved by, Aiken City Council.

The subdivision will border Crosland Park, Osbon Drive, and Mayfield Drive. The latter two roads are flanked by 0.7 to 1.5 acre lots described by the Planning Department’s (PD) memo as “rural residential,” and are situated outside of city limits. Crosland Park is dominated by lots ranging from a quarter to one-third of an acre, and is entirely within city limits.

The design and engineering firm is Hussey Gay Bell, a regional engineering and architectural firm that boasts of “impactful projects” across the Southeast “that are the antithesis of mundane.” The company conducted a community meeting on November 9th in Crosland Park. Also attending was Midland Valley Developers representative Chad Gibson.

Tiny Lots

The Aiken Planning Department’s project description (Page 47) asserts a subdivision density of 3.68 homes per acre. However subtracting the minimum open space requirements of twenty percent (18.1 acres), and 2.7 acres of proposed commercial tracts, results in a density of 4.78 homes per acre for the remaining 69.6 acres. Subtract the land necessary for new roads and the lot sizes decrease further.

Concept Plan map for the new “May Royal Subdivision.” (Pages 47-78) The areas in light green represent proposed “open space,” which includes five stormwater management ponds (areas with black boundaries).


The density is closer to 7.1 homes per acre, since the concept plan map notes a “typical lot size” of 0.14 acres—about half the size of the typical Crosland Park parcel, and one-fifth to one-tenth the size of the parcels on Osbon and May Royal Drives. According to the community meeting notes, average home prices of $270,000 are anticipated, and neighbors were told that, “due to land costs and the current market and average demand, the smaller lots are needed.” (Page 78) .

In spite of the tiny lot size, the Planning Department (PD) contends in its memo that, due to the “more compatible” density found in Crosland Park, the proposed density provides an “appropriate transition” to the Osbon and Mayfield Drive neighborhoods it describes as “rural residential.”

In terms of housing density, the PD memo also describes Aiken County zoning rules as being more restrictive:

“The existing County’ s Rural Development ( RUD) zoning would allow for a single- family subdivision, but with a 30′ greater lot width than the proposed typical lot size denoted on the concept plan.”

Access Questions

The Planning Department’s memo and the developer’s application both identify three access points for the subdivision: one off Highway 1 North, and two off Osbon Drive. No traffic light is planned at the subdivision’s junction with the five-lanes wide Hwy 1.

Osbon Drive residents are, quite predictably, not excited about a major increase in traffic. One resident wrote to Hussey Gay Bell representative Keith Utheim that access should be off May Royal Drive, and not Osbon Drive:

“Osbon is a quiet, more narrow, less traveled street, and we would like to keep it that way. May Royal, however, is well-traveled seven days a week and is already equipped to handle this type of traffic. The residents are used to 24/ 7 365 traffic. We request that at least one of the entrances/ exits be placed on May Royal leaving only one on Osbon should this project come to fruition.”

Access off May Royal Drive might be hindered by the holdout by a single property owner of a 0.69 acre parcel with a 20-foot wide, 500-foot long access easement. (Figure 3). The property in the northwest quadrant of the proposed development is crossed off from the October 10, 2023, Hussey Gay Bell rezoning request (Figure 4).

Figure 3: Map showing subdivision boundary and inholding. (From Aiken County land database).
Figure 4: Listing of properties in rezoning request, with inholding deleted.

Forestland Buffers

Another key issue raised at the community meeting was that of existing and future forested buffers. Residents along both May Royal and Osbon generally back up to the forested lands proposed for clearcutting (Figures 5 and 6). The developer has offered a forested buffer of twenty-five feet, which is actually fifteen feet more than the “undisturbed buffer” required by the city’s zoning ordinance.

Figure 5: View into future development area from part of Osbon Drive. (Photo: Laura Lance)
Figure 6: View into development area from property along May Royal Drive. (Photo by Laura Lance).


Topography and Storm Water

Missing from the developer’s application is topographical information; a factor identified as a shortcoming during the Planning Commission’s review in October of the latest Old Aiken Hospital redevelopment proposal. (That proposal was unanimously approved by City Council last night.)

The prospect of the threat from increased stormwater runoff has been raised by at least one neighbor whose property is in the “downstream” portion of the drainage area that currently has a protective forest cover.
(Figure 7).

According to the PD’s memo to the Planning Commission, “ downstream stormwater analysis will be required,” but not until the permitting phase; and the same holds true for a probable sewer capacity review.

(Update: The proposal was tabled on Tuesday night by the Planning Commission and a summary of the issues are provided here.)

Figure 7: Topography of proposed subdivision. The property highlighted in red is downstream is one of several in the stormwater runoff path. The developer proposes to mitigate the expected increase in runoff with five stormwater management ponds; which will also double as “open space.”

The Family Dollar/Dollar Tree utility request is likely to be recommended to City Council, as the Planning Commission generally chooses to honor such requests. Residents of Aiken County can then joke about the latest profitable dollar store.

But the commission has recently shown a propensity for increased scrutiny of larger proposals, especially high-density residential plans with limited access.

In September the commission voted unanimously to deny recommending a high-density housing proposal with only one access point on East Richland Avenue. That proposal was strongly opposed by neighbors that included the Aiken Steeplechase Foundation.

In October the commission conducted a lengthy debate over parking, housing density, and affordable housing, among other factors, for the latest Old Aiken County Hospital property concept plan. As described in “What is Reasonable,” the plan was eventually recommended by a vote of 3-2; but the debate sparked a discussion over whether there is a new standard of review, or a double-standard of review. Residents along Mayfield and Osbon Drives, and other area residents who are discontent with the rapid rate of development without adequate infrastructure and conservation of natural areas, are hoping for the former.

Next: Dissent and Confusion in Aiken’s Land Planning Process.

Another example of the backyard views of Osbon Drive residents. (Photo by Laura Lance)
August 2023, Editorials, Over-development, Stormwater and Flooding

Proposed Southside Development Raising Concerns of Flooding

1 Comment

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.

Diane Salsitz
Aiken, SC