Category Archives: Planning & Development

Aiken County Government, August 2026, Editorials, New Development & Industry

Transparency and Openness Needed In Aiken County Council Public Hearings

August 16, 2026 chroniclesguestcontributor 2 Comments

Transparency and Openness Needed During Aiken County Council’s Public Hearings on Ordinances Involving Fee-in-Lieu-of-Tax and Incentive Agreements

By Vicki Simons
August 16, 2026

If you learned that people elected into office — purportedly to represent you — have been making decisions without transparency and openness, how would that make you feel?

Furthermore, if you knew that there was something that you could do to change that situation for the better, wouldn’t you want to do it?

The Eye-Opening Series of Events

In 2023, Aiken County Council approved by majority (not unanimous) vote an ordinance regarding a Fee in Lieu of Tax and Incentive Agreement for an entity referred to as “Project Sabal.”

When at-that-time Councilman Kelley Mobley (District 4) and current Councilman Mike Kellems (District 2) objected to the ordinance, the eyes of my understanding were opened:

Regarding at least Project Sabal — and who knows how many projects before that — Council members had been kept in the dark regarding the entity with whom they were preparing to enter into a legally binding contract.

What Is A Fee in Lieu of Tax Agreement?

Before I proceed, I need to back up and cover some background.

According to the South Carolina Department of Revenue:

A FILOT is a Fee in Lieu of Tax agreement, which is a contractual Property Tax incentive between a company and the county where the company’s project is located.

Industries that invest at least $2.5 million in South Carolina may negotiate for a fee-in-lieu of Property Taxes. This can result in a savings of about 40% on Property Taxes…

In this article, I shall refer to all of the following as FILOT Agreements (or FILOTs):

“Fee In Lieu of Ad Valorem Taxes Agreement”;
“Fee in Lieu of Tax Agreements”;
“Fee in Lieu of Tax and Incentive Agreements”; and
“Fee in Lieu of Property Tax Agreements.”

Where is Documentation About Fee in Lieu of Tax Agreements?

As it concerns counties within South Carolina, at least 3 places in the South Carolina Code of Laws cover Fee in Lieu of [Property] Tax agreements:

Regarding FILOTs in Aiken County, they are extended:

either to businesses that already exist here and are looking to expand;
or to businesses looking to set up shop here for the first time.

According to Aiken County’s Code of Ordinances (aka Code of Laws), Sec. 2-63. – Legislative action.,

“(a) The council shall take legislative action by ordinance. …”‘;
“(b) With the exception of emergency ordinances, all ordinances shall be read at three (3) public meetings of the council, on three (3) separate days, with an interval of not less than seven (7) days between the second and third reading; provided that a verbatim reading of an ordinance shall not be required unless such reading is requested by a member. Public hearings may be held on the same day as a reading of the ordinance is made. …”; and
“d) Public hearings, after reasonable public notice, must be held before final council action…”

How Are FILOT Ordinances Worded?

In the past, in Council’s agendas, the titles of ordinances involving FILOT Agreements have typically been written similar to (or exactly like) this, with the project name completed:

Ordinance Authorizing (1) The Execution And Delivery Of A Fee In Lieu Of Tax And Incentive Agreement By And Between Aiken County, South Carolina And A Company Identified For The Time Being As Project ___________ (The “Company”) With Respect To The Establishment Of Certain Facilities In The County (The “Project”); (2) The Benefits Of A Multi-County Industrial Or Business Park To Be Made Available To The Company And The Project; (3) Certain Special Source Revenue Credits In Connection With The Project; And (4) Other Matters Relating Thereto.

To get the details — which can be dozens of pages long — one has to dig down into the “CC Docs” document that accompanies the meeting agenda where the Public Hearing is listed.

Information Withheld from Aiken County Citizens Regarding FILOT Agreement Details

In my speech during the May 2, 2023, meeting of Aiken County Council — which followed the vote on Project Sabal — I posed the following question and comments:

How are Aiken County citizens supposed to talk intelligently during Public Hearings regarding various “projects” when the company’s name and the scope of those “projects” are withheld from them?

… During the April 18, 2023, Regular Session, numerous Council members spoke during a Public Hearing about “Project Sabal.”

… by the time a “project” makes it to a Public Hearing, it is my opinion that the mystery, the secrecy, and the lack of transparency must be stripped away so that the public can speak intelligently before Council on this matter.

I feel compelled to remind you that Article I, § 1, of The South Carolina Constitution says: “All political power is vested in and derived from the people only, therefore, they have the right at all times to modify their form of government.” (6)

Furthermore, we read in Title 30, Chapter 4 of the South Carolina Code of Laws, The Freedom of Information Act, in Section 30-4-15: “The General Assembly finds that it is vital in a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner so that citizens shall be advised of the performance of public officials and of the decisions that are reached in public activity and in the formulation of public policy. …” (7)

Therefore, I am requesting that in every future meeting, before there is a Public Hearing about any “project,” that the name of the company and the scope of its business be made known so that the citizens of Aiken County — and even Council members — can make fully informed decisions and speak intelligently about the business that may be about to happen in our own backyard.

FILOT Details?

If one searched online for something like “SC Department of Revenue list of Fee in Lieu of Tax agreements”, one would possibly receive a result like this:

“The South Carolina Department of Revenue (SCDOR) does not maintain or publish a centralized public statewide list or database of individual Fee in Lieu of Tax (FILOT) agreements.”

In order to find specific FILOT Agreements, one is directed to:

either contact county offices;
or search County Council records.

So, on May 15, 2023, I requested pursuant to Section 30-4-20 and Section 30-4-30 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina (the Freedom of Information Act), specific information regarding FILOTs in Aiken County.

In one June 6, 2023, speech before Aiken County Council, specifically during the Public Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2023 – 2024 Budget, I said:

What bearing do Fee in Lieu of Tax Agreements passed by Aiken County Council have on the Fiscal Year 2023 – 2024 budget?

During the May 16, 2023, Aiken County Council meeting, I informed the Council that I had submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to learn some very specific information about “Fee in Lieu of Tax” agreements that Aiken County Council has passed by majority vote over the last 10 years. (1)

I asked for:
— a list of the agreements;
— the votes cast by the Council;
— the fees that were paid; and
— a calculation of the total taxes that would have been paid by each of the project names, businesses, and other entities — from the time they came into Aiken County through Fiscal Year 2022 – 2023 — had they not paid the fee up-front.

I have received from the County Attorney enough information to be able to summarize some things for you.

From his first email:
(1) The County would have all of the individual documents that are part of economic development projects, a list of which were named, and from which information would need to be gleaned and put into the format I requested.
(2) The County is not believed to have a comprehensive listing of projects, as each agreement is “a distinct economic matter for the County.”
(3) Furthermore, “the FOIA does not require a public body to create a document (such as a list or a spreadsheet) it does not have at the time of [an] FOIA request.”
(4) I understand that each entity’s potential tax payment outside a Fee in Lieu of Tax agreement would have been hypothetical and is not something the County would calculate and set forth in a record.

From his second email:
(1) He reached out to the President of the Western SC Economic Development Partnership, who provided him with information.
(2) There were numerous attachments to his second email, including:
— a spreadsheet containing a list of 24 entities with “investments” ranging from $2.5 million to $400 million; and
— 9 PDF documents, for each of the years 2013 through 2021, each of which was entitled “South Carolina Department of Revenue Fee In Lieu of Tax Status Report.”
(3) For each of the Status Reports, the columns are entitled [with my notes in brackets]:
— SID/SFX [undefined]; – Owner/Operator [entity’s name];
— Schedule [a code, also undefined];
— Term [in years, usually ranging from 15 to 40 years];
— Type [“Little”, “Big”, “Simplified”, and “Super”];
— Investment Years [beginning through ending years];
— Status [“Open” or “Closed”];
— Certified [date]; – Contractual Amt ($);
— Gross Cost ($); and – Fee ($).

I received for each of the years 2013 – 2021, a South Carolina Department of Revenue Fee ln Lieu of Tax Status Report.

Please note that the time frame (“Term”) for each FILOT in the Reports that I received ranges from 15 to 40 years.

So, it is no trivial matter that a company can request — and Aiken County Government can enter into — a FILOT Agreement spanning 4 decades!

Limits of Non-Disclosure Agreements?

During my second June 6, 2023, speech to Aiken County Council — and regarding a different entity with whom the Council was about to enter into a FILOT Agreement — I said:

While I understand that a Non-Disclosure Agreement (or “NDA”) (5) requires contracting parties to keep material, knowledge, or information confidential, by the time a proposed “Fee in Lieu of Tax” agreement makes it to a Public Hearing, it is my opinion that any and all mystery, secrecy, and lack of transparency must be stripped away so that the public understands what may be about to happen in our own backyard.

On behalf of the citizens, taxpayers, and voters of Aiken County, South Carolina, I am requesting — before Aiken County Council takes a vote on this — that Council reveals the entire nature and scope of what is behind and concerning “a Fee Agreement By And Between Aiken County, South Carolina And [Entity Name] Providing For A Payment Of A Fee In Lieu Of Taxes And Other Matters Related Thereto.”

The reason why I am asking for this information is because during the April 18, 2023, Regular Session of Aiken County Council, numerous Council members spoke during a Public Hearing about a project, during which it became apparent that Council members were NOT familiar with the company, the nature, or the scope of the project on which it was preparing to vote.

I feel compelled to remind you that Article I, § 1, of The South Carolina Constitution says: “All political power is vested in and derived from the people only, therefore, they have the right at all times to modify their form of government.” (6)

Again, I am requesting that the nature and scope of the business behind this proposed Fee in Lieu of Tax agreement be fully disclosed before Council votes on it.

Explanation of FILOT Ordinances by Aiken County Council

Over time since 2023, I have observed that Aiken County Council’s Chairman has been slightly more transparent and open regarding FILOT ordinances.

It has also been my observation that a number of economic development opportunities — that give rise to FILOT agreements — have been brought before Council by the director of the Western SC Economic Development Partnership (WSCEDP).

Since 2023 — and I think in direct response to the speeches I have made calling for transparency and openness regarding FILOT Agreements — I have also observed that the WSCEDP director has been a little bit more forthcoming with details about the entities with which Aiken County are preparing to enter into a legally binding contract.

In my March 5, 2024, speech before Aiken County Council, I said that:

the Project Sabal name hid the company name;
there were many unknowns; and
in spite of all of that, [a majority of] Council voted in favor of the FILOT ordinance.

In my September 17, 2024, speech before Aiken County Council, I addressed the “big reveal” that “Project Sabal” was actually Meta and I further said:

Regardless of the size of the investment and the number of new jobs that any company will be bringing to Aiken County, the highest importance is to uphold the self-evident truths that we have a Creator, that all men are created equal, and that He endowed each of us with certain unalienable Rights, among which are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (9)

Recall that:
— Article I, § 1, of The South Carolina Constitution begins: “All political power is vested in and derived from the people only…”; (10) and
— The First Amendment to The Constitution of the United States secures our God-endowed rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. (11)

In my opinion, Aiken County Council and Aiken County Government must revise Chapter 17 of the Aiken County Code of Ordinances about Planning, such that all future economic development here honors and upholds these precious truths. (12)

About Public Hearings in General

I have observed that Aiken County Council’s Public Hearings on various matters have taken place during the First Reading, Second Reading, or Third Reading.

I do not know why Public Hearings are held during different readings on different kinds of ordinances.

When it comes to FILOT ordinances, I have observed in the past that each one’s related Public Hearing takes place during the Third Reading (when there is no further time to consider the matter).

During my June 17, 2025, speech to Aiken County Council, I said:

How can Aiken County Council increase transparency and public trust when it comes to Public Hearings?

Per the definition that I gave in my February 4 speech (A), Public Hearings have two purposes:
1. Citizens, taxpayers, and voters can express their opinions about the ordinance; and
2. Aiken County Council needs to answer questions from their constituents.

Second, when Aiken County Council is considering an ordinance that requires a Public Hearing — especially one that offers a financial incentive — Council needs to ensure that there is adequate time for research, meaning that the Public Hearing for said ordinance needs to be held during the Second Reading, not the Third Reading.

A clause from Aiken County’s Code of Ordinances, Section 2-63, paragraph (d), reads: (B)

“A public hearing will be held on all pending ordinances no later than prior to the meeting at which third and final reading is scheduled…”

It does not read that a public hearing will be held prior to the third and final reading during the same meeting.

Third, Aiken County Council members need time on these ordinances to consider input from all Aiken County voters (your bosses), including those who:
— Either are unable to attend the Public Hearing in person;
— Or become aware of information that was not known when the Public Hearing took place. (C)

In 2023 and 2024, I called on Aiken County Council to ensure that there is adequate time between Public Hearings and Third Readings of ordinances. (D)

During Council’s June 3, 2025, meeting, a Public Hearing on an ordinance offering a financial incentive for a “project” took place during the Third Reading, not the Second Reading. (E)

That makes three such situations this year: Project Wisteria, Project Calypso, and Project Sunflower. (F)(G)(E)

This lack of transparency is unacceptable to me!

So, let’s fix it!

Please note that the Code of Ordinances may have been updated on this matter since I read this speech.

However, I have pressed more than once for Aiken County Council to hold Public Hearings for FILOTs on the Second Reading instead of the Third Reading.

To-date, Aiken County Council has made no move to make this happen.

Questions Remain Regarding FILOTs

Since I was so concerned about the lack of transparency and openness concerning FILOT agreements entered into in Aiken County, I compiled a list of what I considered to be “fundamental questions” that I believed Council needed to answer — or have answered — during FILOT Public Hearings.

I delivered the most recent iteration of these fundamental questions during a Public Hearing on a FILOT on June 16, 2026, in my speech before Aiken County Council, part of which is as follows:

By way of reminder:
— The Aiken County Organizational Chart (C) shows Aiken County Voters at the top, over entities including Aiken County Council;
— and – From The Declaration of Independence (D), we read that to secure our Creator-endowed, unalienable rights, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Per the definition that I gave in my February 4, 2025, speech (E), Public Hearings have two purposes:
1. Citizens, taxpayers, and voters can express their opinions about the ordinance; and
2. Aiken County Council needs to answer questions from their constituents.

Per my March 4, 2025, speech (F), the Freedom of Information Act within the South Carolina Code of Laws completely allows answering constituent questions in public.

Note that I give the phrase “Fee in Lieu of Tax Agreement” and similar such phrases the acronym F-I-L-O-T, which I pronounce “FILOT”.

On behalf of all Aiken County Voters (your bosses), I am requiring you to answer all of my questions tonight before you vote on this ordinance.

Let’s read these questions…

Aiken County Council
1. Has every member of County Council read and understood ALL of the documentation regarding this ordinance in the CC Docs document that accompanies this reading?
2. Will you as a member of County Council vow never to vote in favor of this ordinance — that is, “rubber stamp” it — merely because:
— a. you have always — in the past — trusted the entities who brought it before you;
— b. you don’t want to mar your record of supporting economic development; and/or
— c. your habit has been to vote the same way someone else on Council votes?

Personnel
3. As it concerns this ordinance, will Aiken County Government provide complete lists of:
— a. the names of any and all persons — by his/her level of government — who has received advice or input; and
— b. the names of all persons — together with their titles and organization names — from whom the advice and input has come?

Company
4. What is a brief overview of this company’s history?
5. Is this company domestic-owned or foreign-owned?
6. What are all of the products/services that this company plans to manufacture/provide at this new or expanded location?
7. How will offering the company this FILOT Agreement affect or influence the Creator-endowed and unalienable rights of Aiken County Voters?

Fee In Lieu of Tax (FILOT) Agreement
8. Can you explain both the pros and the cons of offering a FILOT Agreement to this company at this time?
9. What is the projected “investment” that this company plans to make as a result of this FILOT Agreement?
10. In years, what is the length of this FILOT Agreement?
11. In dollars, what amount of taxes will this company not have to pay?
12. How will Aiken County compensate for this lost tax revenue?

Resources
13. What resources will this company require on a monthly basis, including, but not limited to:
— a. electricity,
— b. water, and
— c. sewage treatment?
14. Does Aiken County have the resources to meet the needs of existing residents and businesses — as well as this new company/location?
15. Has a traffic study been done that shows the increase in traffic by types of vehicles?
16. What commitments has the company made for infrastructure maintenance and improvements?

Environment
17. Once operational, what are the anticipated impacts of this new/expanded location, including, but not limited to:
— a. emissions into the air;
— b. effluents into the water;
— c. waste solids that will be produced; and
— d. odors that can be detected by the human nose?
18. How often will testing of water and air be done to assure Aiken County residents that there is no contamination?

Jobs
19. Once construction is completed, how many new employees will the company employ at this new or expanded location?
20. Will these new employees come primarily from within Aiken County?
21. How many of these jobs will be categorized as:
— a. skilled labor; and
— b. unskilled labor?
22. At start-up, what wages — or ranges of wages — will the company pay to:
— a. skilled labor; and
— b. unskilled labor?

I have done the homework for you by asking fundamental questions, so that when they are answered, you will not be voting blind on this ordinance.

Your constituents deserve answers to all of my questions.

To make answering these questions easy, I have printed and had distributed enough written copies of this speech for each of you, a company representative, and the County Administrator.

Thank you for answering all of my questions before you vote.

To-date, every time I have asked questions like this during a Public Hearing, they have not been fully answered.

In fact, it has been my experience that Council members never engage at all with members of the audience regarding questions about FILOT Agreements during Public Hearings.

Does Council Ever Talk About FILOT Agreements in Public?

Up to June 2023, I confess that I:

Had never attended any of the Council’s Committee meetings; and
Was naively under the impression that all Council members totally understood all of the details associated with every agreement upon which they voted.

Could it have been the case that Aiken County Council members were talking about FILOTs during Committee meetings?

I began to attend a number of Council’s Committee meetings — Administrative, Development, and Judicial and Public Safety Committees — particularly when something on the agenda caught my attention.

I have observed that these Committee meetings are generally held within either 15- or 30-minute time frames.

One wonders how a legally binding agreement — like a FILOT that spans up to 4 decades — can adequately be discussed during a 15- or 30-minute meeting.

I credit Don Moniak for sharing with me that ordinances are not discussed during Aiken County Council’s Committee meetings!

He further shared with me that the Aiken City Council does discuss potential ordinances during their Work Sessions; i.e. the proposed hospitality tax increase and the proposed transfer of the Shaw Creek Preserve to the South Carolina Forestry Commission.

So, I went digging for information on Aiken County Council’s most recent previous FILOT Ordinance — regarding “Project Synthesis” — to see if any Committee or Work Session covered this topic and here’s what I found (from oldest to newest):

May 19, 2026:
Development Committee Meeting Agenda (no mention)
Administrative Committee Meeting Agenda (no mention)
Aiken County Council Work Session (no mention)
Aiken County Council Agenda (Introduction of Ordinances for First Reading, #2, Project Synthesis)

June 2, 2026:
Judicial and Public Safety Committee Meeting Agenda (no mention)
Aiken County Council Work Session (no mention)
Aiken County Council Agenda (Old Business, #3, Second Reading, Project Synthesis Company Named)

June 16, 2026:
Development Committee Meeting Agenda (no mention)
Administrative Committee Meeting Agenda (no mention)
Aiken County Council Work Session (no mention)
Aiken County Council Agenda (Public Hearing, #1, and Old Business, #2, Third Reading, Project Synthesis Company Named)

So, it appears that Aiken County Council never discussed any details regarding Project Synthesis during any Committee meeting or any Work Session.

And I know that they didn’t talk about this FILOT ordinance during Aiken County Council’s meeting!

This seems to be a repeated pattern:

Aiken County Council members almost always have zero discussion about FILOT ordinances in public.

Why?

At the top of every Aiken County Council Agenda, we read: “Council Administrator Form of Government”.

The question follows then: If the Aiken County Council leads the charge on government, why don’t Aiken County Council members lead — or at least respond — with transparency and openness regarding FILOT ordinances during Public Hearings?

To me, this practice of being mute during Public Hearings on FILOTs is not acceptable; however, it is going to take more than just one Aiken County Voter to change things.

Citizen Awareness and Involvement

Over the years, I have seen these examples of citizens who have shown up en masse at Aiken County Council meetings and stood up for their Creator-endowed and unalienable rights in one way, shape, or form:

2024.04.16: “Standing-room-only” sized crowd showed up at the Aiken County Council meeting over the House of Raeford Farms, Inc. (“Project Sunny” or chicken slaughterhouse) issue
2026.04.23: A huge crowd showed up to support the Comprehensive Plan.
2026.06.19: Aiken County residents were persistent in voicing their concerns about the planned construction of a 115-kilovolt transmission line.

I would like to see many more of Aiken County’s citizens, taxpayers, and voters regularly attend Aiken County Council’s meetings and stand up for their Creator-endowed and unalienable rights on issues, including Public Hearings on Fee in Lieu of Tax Agreements.

Call to Action

During my January 16, 2024, speech to Aiken County Council, I said:

Some time back, I was informed of the difference between “transparency” and “openness,” which I want to describe for you:

— “Transparency” is when someone shows you an envelope;
— “Openness” is when someone tells you what’s in the envelope.

In my opinion, Aiken County Council and Aiken County Government need to do a much better job of demonstrating transparency and openness during Public Hearings on Fee in Lieu of Tax Agreements.

Wouldn’t you agree that if a FILOT is all that it needs to be, it should hold up well under scrutiny?

Here is what I would personally like to see happen regarding Aiken County Council’s handling of FILOT ordinances:

All FILOT Public Hearings are held during the Second Reading, not the Third Reading, of the ordinance;
Every Council member is required to read ALL of the documentation regarding every FILOT ordinance;
Every Council member is required to understand ALL FILOT documentation;
Every Council member is able to answer the fundamental questions that I — and others from within Aiken County — have raised regarding a FILOT ordinance; and
Before a FILOT ordinance is passed on Third Reading, all answers from the pubic are answered during the Public Hearing.

I would not be opposed to the Council Chairman calling upon either the County Administrator or County Attorney to answer FILOT ordinance questions, as long as they are all answered.

In my opinion, if the questions cannot be answered about a FILOT ordinance, it should not be passed. Period.

Opportunity to Act

Researching SCPublicNotices.com, one sees that on Tuesday, August 18, 2026, Aiken County Council will be holding a Public Hearing described as:

“There will be public hearing at the regular meeting of County Council on Tuesday, August 18, 2026 at 6:00 pm, in the County Council Chambers, Third Floor, Aiken County Government Center, 1930 University Parkway, Aiken, SC 29801 concerning the following matter: … 3. Ordinance Authorizing an Amendment of That Certain Fee In Lieu of Ad Valorem Taxes Agreement by And Between Aiken County, South Carolina and Project NEXGEN, Relating to, Without Limitation, The Extension Of The Investment Period Under The Agreement; And Providing For Other Related Matters.”

The FILOT ordinance for “Project NEXGEN” was introduced under First Reading on July 21, 2026 and was not listed on the agenda for either of the Special Called Meetings on July 28 or August 4.

Even if this Public Hearing will be held during the Second Reading, I do not see a company name associated with “Project NEXGEN” online and won’t be able to see Aiken County Council’s Agenda for August 18, 2026, until it is published for the public on Monday, August 17.

If you believe that greater transparency and openness are needed during Aiken County Council’s Public Hearings on FILOT ordinances, please do 2 things:

Contact your Aiken County Council member and the Aiken County Chairman regarding this matter; and
Speak up regularly at Aiken County Council meetings about this matter, including during Public Hearings on FILOT ordinances.

_____________________

Planning & Development

Pascalis Part IV: The Downtown Properties Enter the Fifth Year of City Control

May 27, 2025 donaldmoniak 3 Comments

Project Pascalis was first announced in March 2021. The City of Aiken secretly gained control of the Pascalis project properties in May 2021. Since May 2021, there have been three redevelopment proposals that failed to move forward on the downtown properties. The City of Aiken is due, in the next few weeks, to announce a selection of a new developer.

by Don Moniak

May 27, 2025
Updated June 11, 2025

In May 2021, Aiken city officials secretly decided to gain control, via the use of the Chamber of Commerce as a surrogate holding company, of the seven downtown properties that formed the footprint of the $75 to $100 million demolition and redevelopment plan known as Project Pascalis.

Four years later, only one of the properties, Newberry Hall, has been resold; but a major announcement is pending on the fate of the six remaining Project Pascalis properties (Figure 1) that have been offered for sale and redevelopment as a single block. At the present time, the future alternative plans for the properties are officially known only to an unofficial selection committee; as Aiken City Council has not announced any recent closed-door Executive Sessions to discuss the findings of the committee.

Also in question is the future of any sales proceeds, which include the $1.15 million already earned through the sale of Newberry Hall. The properties were acquired through a $9.6 million general obligation bond, and that bond was paid for by SRS/Plutonium Settlement funds legislatively allocated to “Downtown Aiken and Northside Hwy 1 Corridor Redevelopment and Development Funds.” Rightfully, any sales proceeds would be returned to their original purpose.

This upcoming decision will constitute the sixth major announcement involving the properties since March 2021.

Figure 1: The six Pascalis project properties offered for sale in December 2024. They are, in order, the Hotel Aiken, Beckman Building, Holley House motel, Taj Aiken Restaurant, McGhee Building (5 and 6), and Warneke Cleaners. Newberry Hall was the only property to be sold separately, as the business’s owner had the right to purchase in their long-term lease.

March 15, 2021: The First Pascalis Announcement

The existence of a Project Pascalis was announced by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) with some fanfare but few details in mid-March of 2021.

During that same month, City Council approved the Strategic Economic Development Action Plan, aka The AECOM Plan, which contained this justification for the Pascalis project:

“One of the major barriers to new development/redevelopment in downtown Aiken are the small parcel sizes and fragmented property ownership. This makes it difficult for both public and private entities to assemble land for larger-scale redevelopment.“

The project was described as a public-private partnership involving an “experienced and well-capitalized” private developer that was “recruited and identified” by the AMDC. Though not disclosed until nine months later, the Pascalis effort began with negotiations by WTC Investments, LLC to sign contracts to purchase six properties owned by the Shah family—and later one property (Newberry Hall) owned by the Anderson family.

By mid-April 2021, a redevelopment concept plan was completed that included properties in The Alley— but that plan was never made public by city officials.

Instead, this first rendition of Project Pascalis collapsed during the first week of May 2021 when the experienced and well-capitalized developer backed out of the project. During the next two weeks, city officials scrambled to preserve the project by gaining control of the seven properties. After that, an effort was made through an informal Request for Letters of Intent process to secure a developer for the properties and salvage Project Pascalis. The general public remained in the dark.

Three months later, Aiken City Council approved a $10 million general obligation bond issuance on behalf of the AMDC. At that time, it was known by numerous city officials, but not the general public, that the properties in question were the Shah and Anderson parcels. However, the City Manager’s supporting memorandum masked that fact by describing the bond as supporting purchases of properties within the much larger “Parkway District.”

November 9, 2021: The AMDC Purchase

After the AMDC failed to find a buyer for the property, and with the deadline for purchase nearing, the Commission, with the general obligation bond funds in hand, purchased the seven properties on November 9, 2021, for $9.5 million. A public announcement was made and the second rendition of Project Pascalis finally began in public view.

In a February 2022 email from AMDC Commissioner David Jameson to other AMDC members and staff, he implied that the city admittedly paid a higher than market value in order to “keep the project alive.” (Figure 2)

Figure 2. The email was in reference to a proposal to pay the tenants of the Newberry Hall property to forego their right of first refusal if, or when, the building was sold to RPM Development Partners.

December 4, 2021: The Purchase and Sale Agreement with RPM

Just under a month after the AMDC purchased the properties for $9.5 million, the Commission signed a contract with RPM Development Partners to sell the properties for $5 million and pursue a master development plan and cost-sharing agreement.

Ten days after the contract was signed, the AMDC released an RFP (Request for Proposal) for the properties, a post-dated act that eventually was a contributing factor, if not a root cause, to the cancellation of the project.

Two amendments to the Purchase and Sales Agreement (PSA) were made in 2022, that added a penalty clause of up to $150,000 if the AMDC withdrew from the contract without good cause.

September 29, 2022: Cancellation of Project Pascalis

In September 2022, the PSA was terminated by RPM, and then two weeks later by the AMDC. The cancellation occurred almost three months after the filing of a lawsuit to stop the project.

Over the next three months, the AMDC and City of Aiken received several letters expressing interest in the Hotel and other Pascalis properties. These included a letter from Tommy Tapp of Colliers Real Estate to City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh expressing an interest to market the property.

January 22, 2023: The National Lab Announcement

Within a month of the Project Pascalis cancellation, the City Manager and Economic Development offices secretly moved forward with a salvage effort for some of the properties. This effort involved locating a T-shaped, $20 million workforce development office building for the Savannah River National Laboratory on two of the properties—Warneke Cleaners and the Holley House motel. At that point, any effort to redevelop the Hotel Aiken was put on hold; and stayed on hold.

After holding two closed-door meetings in December and early January, City Council waited until late January 2023 to announce the new plan, albeit without any catchy project name. During the same “State of the City” public address, Mayor Rick Osbon promised that a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Hotel Aiken would be forthcoming within a few months. A draft RFP was completed by April, but it was never issued.

For the next eight months, the future of the properties was held hostage by the lack of decision-making on the lab project. In September 2023, the Aiken Corporation recommended locating it on their property on Newberry Street, NW. After Aiken City Council declined to formally approve the location, the recommendation stood as a decision. By this time, the project was termed the “Aiken Mixed-Use Building,” a bland moniker that has remained to this day and continues to indicate the project is more of a “spec” building for the Aiken Corporation (built with no specific buyer or lessee in hand) than a facility for SRNL’s contractor.

December 2023: The Divestment Decision and the Ensuing Colliers Contract.

As reported in City of Aiken to Move Forward on Pascalis Properties, on December 2023, City Manager Bedenbaugh sought approval for a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for real estate and marketing services for four of the properties- the Hotel Aiken, Holley House, Taj Aiken, and McGhee Building (old drugstore). Warneke Cleaners was added to the mix at the behest of Council.

Bedenbaugh’s proposal had one caveat: that if an entity sought ownership of the Hotel and motel only, that would be acceptable. That caveat was absent, however, in the RFQ that was issued just one week later by the city’s procurement department. (Figures 3 and 4). Thus, the AECOM Plan’s recommendation to consolidate properties and avoid small downtown inholdings continued to guide the process.

(Figures 3 and 4 above. Proposed offering presented to City Council and public (left) vs proposed offering in RFQ. Click to enlarge)

The City received two responses to the RFQ, and in April 2024 City Council approved the Colliers’ contract (pages 110-116) to serve as the city’s realtor for the Pascalis properties.

Colliers then began to market the properties as a single entity. Anybody wishing to purchase only a portion of the properties, such as the Hotel Aiken, was told that only bids for all the properties would be accepted.

Meanwhile, in January 2024, the City Manager’s office brought forth to Council a proposal for a five-year lease for the three tenants in the Beckman Building. The first lease proposal included a right to purchase clause, but this option was shot down by Council. Two months later, Council approved the leases.

In June 2024, the City Manager’s office announced to Council that Colliers had requested that the Beckman Building also be added to the sale package. Council agreed to the request.

For the next several months, Colliers interviewed and hosted tours for prospective buyers. Appraisals were made, but the City has declared them to be exempt from disclosure under FOIA (Figure 5)

Figure 5: FOIA request response from City of Aiken pertaining to appraisals of the Pascalis properties.

In November 2024, Colliers representative Tommy Tapp provided a status update to Council; he described how more than twenty 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, Tapp stated that, of the twelve parties that were interested enough to request tours, half were hotel developers, and half were 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.” (At the time, Congressional appropriations of historic tax credit funds did not appear to be in jeopardy, as they are now .)

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 Offers 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 done, he would turn those over to the City Manager, with the offers being specified as “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 criteria is ingenuity and creativity, and what they can do with the project.”

Six offers were submitted by the December 23rd deadline, and the committee of unknown origin was formed to select a preferred developer; no effort has been made to adhere to Freedom of Information Open Meetings provisions.

According to the Colliers’ offer package, the submissions would be evaluated based on eight criteria (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Selection Committee criteria in Collier’s 22-page prospectus.

However, according to information obtained via a FOIA request, the interview portion of the selection process was based on a somewhat different set of evaluation criteria and rankings, one which added purchase price and parking plans as concrete criteria (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Interview “scoring rubric” used by the Selection Committee during interviews. Obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request. Interview questions

In addition, the committee used a set of nine interview questions to help formulate the rankings (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Selection Committee’s interview questions.

In mid-April, the City announced that the six developers had been reduced to two finalists; who were then charged with updating their proposals by April 30th.

On May 16th, the selection process took a turn for the strange when one of the spurned developers, Winter Colony Development Group, issued a public plea for support, stating in the comment section of a You Tube video that:

”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!”

A second You Tube video, this time a musical arrangement, was circulated on social media that directly appealed to the citizenry of Aiken, stating in a twangy song, “if it speaks to what you feel, call the City. Let’s make it real.”

On May 19th, the City informed the Aiken Standard that the Winter Colony group’s proposal was no longer under consideration.

The June 9, 2023 Announcement

On June 9, 2025, Aiken City Council held a 1.5 hour closed-door Executive Session to discuss the proposed sale and redevelopment of the group of properties.

Following the Executive Session, Council voted 6-1, with Councilwoman Andrea Gregory in dissent, to approve a Motion “that the staff and City Attorney work with the Oliver Group for the sale and redevelopment of the Hotel Aiken and adjacent downtown properties.” (25 minute mark)

Interestingly, the vote came four years and one day after another Executive Session regarding the same properties, one in which the potential developer remained a secret.

On June 8, 2021, following an Executive Session, the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) unanimously voted, in regard to Project Pascalis, to “authorize the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Municipal Development Commission to enter into negotiations with a potential developer related to Project Pascalis. The motion was unanimously approved.” (Page 5 of Meeting Minutes)

That negotiation process took six months before a tentative agreement with the AMDC’s “preferred developer,” RPM Development Partners, was reached in early December 2021.

Four months into that process, City Attorney Gary Smith unofficially stepped aside due to possible conflict of interest due to his law partner’s involvement in the project; and was replaced as the AMDC’s attorney by the law firm of Pope and Flynn. Since there is no real or perceived conflict involving the Oliver Group, Smith will again play an active role in the sale and redevelopment process.

Likewise, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, who was also involved in the 2021 negotiations, will play a prominent role in these negotiations.

There is no timeline for the upcoming negotiations. If an agreement is reached with the Oliver Hospitality group, there will be a seventh major announcement–likely one involving a conceptual plan and purchase price. At a minimum, City Council will then have to conduct two public hearings to approve any property sales, and the city’s Design Review Board will have to approve any proposed demolition and all concept plans.

(Update, June 27, 2025: Th e City publicly disclosed an April 2025 appraisal completed by Colliers)

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

The Up and Coming North Aiken Housing Boom

May 25, 2025 donaldmoniak 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.)

Development	Units	Acres	Type
Lokay Lane	80	10	Apartments
Parker at Aiken	336	30	“Luxury” Apartments
Highlands Bluff	226	44	Single Family and Townhomes
University Townhomes	160	53	Townhomes
Rutland Place	269	46	Single Family and Townhomes
Portrait Hills	146	41	Single Family
Rivers Crossing	200	53	Single Family
Bridge Creek	705	212	Single Family
Sundy Street	144	17	Apartments
Fox Ridge Terrace	192	19	Apartments
York Street	202	40	Single Family
Palomino Acres	316	47	Duplexes
May Royal Drive	185	52	Single Family
Woodhaven	165	240	Single Family
Cooper’s Place	157	112	Single Family
Bedford Place	725	214	Single Family
Creighton Meadows	284	87	Single Family
Totals	4,492	1,397

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).

Development	Developer	Location	Jurisdiction
Lokey Lane	Taft Mills Group	Gregg Hwy	In City
Parker at Aiken	Parker-Aiken LLC	Gregg Hwy	Annexation
Highlands Bluff	Highland Bluff LLC	University Parkway	County
University Townhomes	Southern United Development	University Parkway	Annexation
Rutland Place	VIP Riverside	Rutland Avenue/Hwy 19	In city
Portrait Hills	Great Southern Homes	Hwy 19 North	Annexation
Rivers Crossing	KD Owner 3 LLC	Hwy 19 North	County
Bridge Creek	D&M Partners	Hwy 19 North	County
Sundy Avenue	Ulysses	Sundy Avenue	In city
Fox Ridge Trace	Tafts Mill Group	Rutland Avenue	In City
York Street	QOZB2 LLC/MK Land Development	York Street	In city
Palomino Oaks	Great Southern Homes	York Street	In city
May Royal Drive	Midland Valley LLC/Ivy Homes	York Street	Annexation
Woodhaven	Beazley Homes	Wire Road	County
Cooper’s Place	Georgia Southern	Wire Road	County
Bedford Place	Beazley Homes	Hwy 1N /Airport	County
Creighton Mdws	H & A Development	Hwy 1N /Airport	County

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)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, Planning & Development, Traffic & Safety

More Development, More Congestion Enroute for Highway 19 North

March 10, 2025 donaldmoniak 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).

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.

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, Planning & Development, September 2024, Traffic & Safety

Living Near Gas Stations

September 15, 2024 donaldmoniak 3 Comments

Parker’s Kitchen’s Simplistic, Single-Variable Approach to Residential Neighborhood Concerns.

by Don Moniak
September 15, 2024

The Savannah-based Parker’s Kitchen gas station and convenience store chain is making a big splash in the Augusta-Aiken market. The company’s expansion into the area involves at least ten new stores—five on the Augusta side of the river, five on the Aiken County side.

The design of Parker’s gas stations and convenient stores are typical of our modern landscapes. The company’s standard store has eight fueling stations and ~5,000 square-foot, 24-hour convenient stores that feature fried chicken and hot-bar breakfasts and lunches—similar in size and amenities to those found at new or updated Circle K’s, Sprint, Pilot, and QT stations.

In Aiken County, the company has obtained approval from local governments to open four stores—two in North Augusta and two in Aiken (Figure 1). All four stores share the trait of being located in existing, well-established commercial and/or industrial districts relatively distant—500 feet or more— from residential neighborhoods. These Parker’s locations have been established without any citizen outcry.

(Figure 1 below: The four approved Parker’s Kitchen locations in Aiken County. The Richland Avenue store has opened for business, the Edgefield Road location in North Augusta is in the site preparation process, the Hwy 1/I-520 store is preparing to open, and the East Pine log location remains in the pre-development stage. Click to enlarge.)

Parker’s Kitchen has only encountered organized citizen opposition at sites that were too close for comfort for residents of older, well-established neighborhoods. In the past year, both Columbia County and the City of Aiken rejected proposed Parker’s locations on South Belair Road and Whiskey Road, respectively, due largely to formidable neighborhood opposition.

In June 2024, the company failed in its attempt to establish its presence in South Aiken at the busy and dangerous intersection of Whiskey Road, Powderhouse Road, and Stratford Drive. There, six months of sustained opposition centered on a myriad of concerns that included noise and light pollution, exposure to benzene and other chemical hazards, Whiskey Road’s chronic traffic congestion at an already dangerous intersection, the risks of fuel truck accidents that could block the only access to two large neighborhoods, incidences of crime at 24-hour convenient stores, a complex zoning issue, and proximity to nearby homes—in this case ~300 feet.

After losing the Stratford and Whiskey Road fight to a well informed and organized community that already had three years of experience fighting city hall, Parker’s sought a new location on Whiskey Road.

This time around, the site is a half-mile to the south, at the corner of Chukker Creek and Whiskey Roads (1). Although some of the same issues as the Stratford location remain, this latest effort is very likely to gain local governmental approvals.

Unlike the abandoned Stratford and Whiskey location, the intersection of Chukker Creek and Whiskey Roads has the advantages being at a less complicated and safer intersection, and being in the unincorporated portion of the county within a zoning district—Urban Development (UD)—that has minimal restrictions on commercial and light industrial developments.

The City of Aiken’s only role is to approve a simple water and sewer service request—which are rarely denied—and not a zoning change and development concept plan. Another advantage for such developments is that, except for traffic issues, City Council approval does not directly impact any city voters.

At the same time, several issues that drew opposition to the Stratford and Whiskey proposal will remain. Most notable is the increased traffic at a busy intersection which, in this case, is the only routine access point to Whiskey Road from Chukker Creek Elementary School— a concern already raised by a nearby resident during the City’s Planning Commission meeting on September 10th (15:40 mark).

The proximity to homes (Figure 2) also remains an issue. The nearest neighbor, whose home is only 150 feet away from the site boundary (Figure 3) wrote a letter of concern (page 46 ) to the Planning Department and Commission.

(Figure 2, below. Parker’s Kitchen proposed locations near existing residential neighborhoods. Click to enlarge).

Figure 3, above. Comments by an Aiken County resident to City of Aiken Planning Department. The resident’s property is adjacent to the proposed Parker’s Kitchen. The only separation will be a ten-foot buffer. The developer has agreed to a (six to eight foot) privacy fence. Click to enlarge. See Page 41 for conceptual layout of the proposed gas station and convenient store. Click to enlarge.

Parker’s Simplistic Answer Regarding Life Near A Major Gas Station.

In April of 2023, Parker’s responded to the issue of the proximity of homes to gas stations by submitting a simplistic, single-variable analysis to Aiken City Council (2).

The motivation behind the company’s submission was a singular public comment:

“A comment has been mentioned that there are no convenience stores located near residential properties in Aiken. The following is some examples of several that are. There are pictures of the measurements from the Aiken County GPS maps included.”

The report that followed cited five gas stations in and around the city that are closer than 300 feet to at least one neighboring residential property. Parker’s looked only at one variable—the distance between existing gas stations and the nearest home; but not necessarily to the nearest residential neighborhood.

The company’s submission to Council ignored the numerous variables directly related to residential proximity to gas stations that were repeatedly raised by concerned citizens; including access to and from neighborhoods, operating hours, impacts on property values, the prevalence of crime, routine exposure to chemicals, and the consequences of a fuel truck accident during deliveries.

The company’s implication was that if people live near another gas station, then it must be acceptable to site a new gas station near where people live.

A second set of variables ignored in the “analysis” were facility size and age— the five comparison fueling sites are one-eighth to one-half the size of the standard Parker’s Kitchen eight-pump gas stations and 5,000 square-foot stores (Figure 4).

Four of the five comparison gas stations were built in the 20th century before the City’s current zoning ordinance was in effect. With few exceptions, current nearby residents chose to live near a gas station; whereas Parker’s was, and is, choosing to establish itself near residents who did not op to live near a major gas station and 24-hour convenience store.

Parker’s Comparison Gas Stations

The first Parker’s Kitchen to locate in Aiken County is at the intersection of Richland Avenue and the Hwy 118 bypass, site of the former Dick Smith auto dealership. The development was welcomed by, and faced zero opposition from, a community accustomed to viewing an increasingly blighted property at the western gateway into Aiken.

The station is typical of modern Parker’s facilities—eight fuel stations and a 5,600 square-foot convenience store and restaurant on more than three acres. (Figure 4)

Figure 4: The new Parker’s Kitchen at West Richland Avenue/Jefferson Davis Hwy and the Hwy 118 bypass/Hitchcock Parkway on the edge of the city limits. The business replaced a vacant, blighted auto dealership.

Figure 5: The two-pump, diesel-free, Shell station and convenience store at Huntsman Drive and Hitchcock Parkway. (Google Earth photo)

The characteristics of this typical Parker’s facility contrasts sharply with the five gas stations company representatives chose to prove that some people do live close to gas stations.

The first example (Figure 5, above) was the “Huntsman Shell on the Hitchcock Parkway (which) is contiguous to the residence at 70 Deerwood Dr.”

The Huntsman Shell station at 1830 Huntsman Drive was constructed in 1986, has two fuel pumps ( but no diesel), and is located on 0.42 acres—but within a larger shopping plaza of 1.5 acres. The convenience store itself is only 2,000 square feet.

Figure 6. Sprint on East Pine Log. Note the tree buffer in the rear. The only access points are on East Pine Log Road itself. (Google Earth photo)

The second example (Figure 6, above) was the newer “Sprint store on (912) East Pine Log Rd….contiguous to two residences in the Gatewood neighborhood.”

Built in 2008, it is the only one of the five comparison facilities that was subject to the existing Zoning Ordinance.

The size is comparable: six pumps spread across three fueling stations; and a 3,500 square-foot convenient store.

But the business only occupies an acre of land, there is no vehicle access to the adjacent Gatewood community, and a sixty-foot forested buffer separates it from the nearest neighbor.

In comparison, Parker’s proposal at the Chukker Creek location is a ten-foot buffer that may or may not involve a vegetative screen.

Figure 7. The Circle K at Banks Mill and East Pine Log. (Photo courtesy of Aiken County land database.) The house in the background is the City’s Parks and Recreation Headquarters. (Photo courtesy of Aiken County Assessor’s Office).

The third example (Figure 7, above) was a “Circle K store located only 150′ from the ‘swimming pool’ located at 332 Woodbridge Road.”

The facility is located on 1.72 acres at 1011 East Pine Log Road, at the junction of Banks Mill and East Pine Log Road. It has four fueling islands and four pumps, no access to nearby neighborhoods, and was built in 1996. The convenience store is 3,345 square feet.

There is no direct access to the nearby Gatewood Community, and a 0.72 acre forested parcel with a detention pond sits between the Circle K and the “swimming pool” property, providing a 110 foot buffer.

Figure 8. Circle K on Hitchcock Parkway. (Google Earth photo)

The fourth example (Figure 8, above) was the “Circle K store located at 315 Hitchcock Parkway…contiguous to the residence at 70 Augusta Rd.”

This gas station is not even within the city of Aiken and there is only the one resident within 500 feet.

Located on 1.6 acres, the facility has only two fueling islands with a total of four pumps, no access to and from any nearby neighborhoods, and features a convenience store of only 1815 square feet.

Figures 9 and 10. The City of Aiken’s small fueling station at the Engineering and Utilities Department on Dupont Street; within an open and and parklike landscape. (Photos by Don Moniak)

The final, and most comical, example (above) was “The City of Aiken’s gas & diesel pumps (that) are only 120′ from the residence at 915 Jones Dr. and also only 145′ from the residence at 916 Jones St.”

The city’s fueling station at 240 DuPont Drive has two fuel pumps on a single fuel station island. The property was developed in 1974 for the engineering and utilities department.

It is within a shaded, scenic, well-managed landscape. There are two lights above the pumps—not much brighter than a street light. There is no convenient store associated with the fuel pumps, and the fueling station is generally only used during daytime hours.

Summary

As Parker’s Kitchen has grown throughout this area, substantial opposition has emerged to its plans only when the company has tried to shoehorn a large modern gas station and convenience store close to established neighborhoods.

The company’s analysis in 2023 of older gas stations that are within 300 feet of homes offered only that single variable—distance to a home—while ignoring the justifications for citizen concerns.

Essentially, unless a neighbor can prove an older, smaller gas station has made them sick or damaged their property values—both very hard cases to prove even when true—then Parkers views as appropriate the siting of substantially larger and louder gas stations/convenience stores near other neighborhoods.

Figure 11. The Racer’s gas station and convenience store at the junction of Vaucluse Road, Trolley Line Road, Hampton Avenue, and Shore Drive (Six Points). It too is within a few hundred feet of several nearby residents, but is a fraction of the size of a Parker’s Kitchen. In the early 2000’s it was plagued by robberies until it ended 24-hour service.

Footnotes

(1) The two properties are:

A 1.8-acre forested parcel that is zoned Urban Development by Aiken County. The property is classed as Agricultural use, resulting in a market land value of only $420 and tax assessment of only $20. This is despite the fact that agricultural usage requires a minimal of five acres.

A 2.0-acre forested parcel that is zoned Urban Development and classed as Commercial use by the County Assessor’s Office. The land value is listed as $350,000.

(2) The comment first appeared as an anonymous source on pages 80-84 of City Council’s April 24, 2023, meeting agenda informational packet (below).

It was then only referenced as being the handiwork of Parker’s Kitchen during the first, and only Public Hearing that evening.

The submittal reappeared in the June 12, 2023, informational packet, that time with Parker’s identified as the author. It was at the June 12th meeting that the concept plan Ordinance “died” for lack of a Second to a Motion to approve.

Past Stories Regarding the Parker’s Kitchen at Stratford and Whiskey, and Gas Stations in General

Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus

From Fuel Tankers to an Overdue Report.

Gas Stations, Vice Stores, and Public Safety.

“The Zoning Has Been in Place Forever.”

Waves of Protest

The Eye-Opening Series of Events

What Is A Fee in Lieu of Tax Agreement?

Where is Documentation About Fee in Lieu of Tax Agreements?

How Are FILOT Ordinances Worded?

Information Withheld from Aiken County Citizens Regarding FILOT Agreement Details

FILOT Details?

Limits of Non-Disclosure Agreements?

Explanation of FILOT Ordinances by Aiken County Council

About Public Hearings in General

Questions Remain Regarding FILOTs

Does Council Ever Talk About FILOT Agreements in Public?

Citizen Awareness and Involvement

Call to Action

Opportunity to Act

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: