Category Archives: Planning & Development

Aiken County, City Government, Development Issues, New Development & Industry, Planning & Development

Better Advance Notice: January 2024

Leave a comment
Improving the chances for informed scrutiny of local government actions.

by Don Moniak

January 2, 2023

Public hearings require public notice. The latter are predominantly vague, uninformative, and inaccessible; part of a process that stacks the deck against meaningful and impactful citizen involvement in the decisions that affect their lives and their communities.  Without better notice, people are less likely to be able more adequately scrutinize proposals in their neighborhoods and community, and have less of a chance to influence decisions made during public hearings. This Better Advance Notice feature is an imperfect effort intended to help improve the chances for more informed reviews of proposed local government actions. 

Summary of Several Public Hearings Notices
  Powderhouse Connector Road development begins.
   Controversial Gregory Road high density residential development
   Aiken historic district roofs, chimney caps, and fences
   Economic Development Agreement
   Closed Door Meetings
A Note on Public Hearings
Review of Public Notices System
Complete Public Notices for January 2024, as of 12/31/2023

Summary of Several Public Hearings Notifications for January 2024

Powderhouse Connector Project Predevelopment Begins

The Powderhouse Connector Road project is touted as a traffic reduction solution for Whiskey Road. However, as reported in Development Road, the project also involves hundreds of acres of government subsidized residential and commercial development—with upwards of 2,000 new residences tentatively planned for the area.

Before road construction has even begun, approvals of the first major developments are already on the City of Aiken’s public hearing docket. The full details are not yet known due to a practice of the city’s planning department to withhold information until four days before public hearings—more than two weeks after the requisite public notices are published.

On January 9th, the City of Aiken Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on three proposals associated with the connector project:

1. The annexation and single-family attached (townhouses) and detached dwellings of 129 acres of property, presently owned by the James S. Watson Revocable Trust, by CSRA Development Company.

2. The annexation of 13.5 acres of land presently held by five property owners; with 2.78 acres of undefined commercial development (Planned Commercial zoning). 

3. Annexation of public right of ways between Whiskey Road and South Centennial Avenue, SE.

Figure 2: Annexation and development areas. 143-acre parcel bounded by red is ~129 acres for annexation and residential development. Area bounded by green is approximate locations for detention pond construction. 80-acre area parcel bounded by blue includes 13.5 acres for residential development and 2.8 acres of commercial development.
The Controversial Gregory Road Residential Development.

On January 16th, Aiken County Council’s first public hearing involves an an amendment to rezone 54.5 acres along Gregory Road, north of North Augusta, from “RC, Residential Single-Family Conservation to PUD, Planned Use District, Type B.”

The main parcel involved in the disputed rezoning proposal was purchased in 2019 by Gregory Lake LLC for $522,656. The situation is a another case of a development-minded new property owner attempting to create a zoning district island within a larger zone in which hundreds of residents have chosen over the years for their home and property investments (Figure 2). This is a recipe for conflict.

County Council is holding a public hearing because the Aiken County Planning Commission opted on December 21st to not to take action on the proposal. This is the second time a development on this Gregory Road property has been deferred to County Council, the first being in 2019. That project suffered a bureaucratic death when developers failed to submit a required traffic study; but other unreported factors undoubtedly led to its demise.

WJBF News of Augusta’s Nikita Dennis’ report on the Dec 21st ACPC hearing described a packed hearing room and a petition signed by 187 nearby residents. The parcel sizes in that area generally range from 0.4 to 2.0 acres and the area retains a considerable forest canopy. 

The threat of higher density housing that interrupts the existing conservation approach, along with a substantive increase in traffic, are motivating neighbors to speak up. The issue is not whether there should be a housing development, it is how it should fit into the existing neighborhood.

These types of higher density developments within or adjacent to older neighborhoods dominated by roomier properties were met with strong resistance in 2023. In the Aiken area, the most notable objections were to the proposed Henderson Downs (East Richland Avenue) and the May Royal Drive high-density single housing developments. The latter development was detailed in New Shopping Opportunity and Tiny Lots.

The hearing is expected to draw a large and lively crowd, the likes of which this County Council rarely witnesses. As with the vast majority of crowded public meetings, the atmosphere will probably remain civil, but whether outspokenness itself will be viewed as “uncivil” remains to be seen.

Figure 2: Map of project area (bounded in red), showing a continuous Rural Conservation (RC) zoning district which developers are seeking to disrupt into less protective Rural Development (RUD) zoning district.
Aiken Historic District Applications

The Aiken Design Review Board’s (DRB) January 2, 2024, meeting involves several small-scale applications for changes to structures and their surroundings in the historic district. These mini-projects typify the DRB’s workload and are generally devoid of controversy. The DRB’s system treats major developments like Project Pascalis in a similar manner as an application to change out gutters, replace roofs, or alter windows on single homes in the historic district. 

On the agenda for January 2nd are requests for Certificates for Appropriateness for new chimney caps (Figure 3) on a Colleton Avenue home, a “raised seam tin replacement roof with a 14.5″ wide raised seam with a pencil stripe instead of a 16″ wide raised seam” on an indoor tennis court structure on 3rd Avenue, and removal of an existing pergola, extension of a brick paved area surrounding a pool, extension of an existing wood fence, and conducting landscape work including removing five cedar trees at 100 Colleton Avenue SW, the historic Wilcox Hotel.

Figure 3: Hip and Ridge style chimney cap offered as an example by the DRB. 


City of Aiken Development Agreement

Only one public hearing is scheduled for the January 8th Aiken City Council meeting, the Second Readings of the Public Hearing for a six-figure development agreement with McGhee and McGhee LLC for a proposed 12-unit residential development adjacent to the Farmer’s Market on Williamsburg Street (Figure 4). 

While not being applied under the City’s Economic Incentives Ordinance passed in 2018, the conditions are similar—cost sharing for basic infrastructure deemed beneficial to the city. In this case, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds will be used as a subsidy for the development. CDBG funds are also allocated to the controversial Farmer’s Market Parkway redevelopment project that the City has pursued alongside with McGhee and McGhee’s redevelopment effort.

Similar incentives have been approved in recent years for other housing developments, including the Union Street development adjacent to Gyles Park, a water line extension for a Beazly Homes subdivision on Wire Road, and fifty-percent cost sharing agreements for permit fees and utilities infrastructure for two Great Southern Homes subdivisions.

Minimal incentives have been approved for existing retail businesses. An exception was the ordinance authorizing an incentive package for B&W Enterprises in 2019 to assist with the upgrade for the Betsy’s on Park restaurant. In that case, business license fees were reduced by fifty-percent for five years, and the City shared half of all permitting and utility connection fees—approximately $12,500. 

These incentives are available to any business that can promise increased revenue and jobs—such as another grocery store in the northern half of Aiken or any small business seeking to expand. But it is unclear how well incentives are made available, marketed, and monitored.  In response to a FOIA request in early 2023 for a listing and tracking of all incentive agreements to date, the City of Aiken responded that no such record exists—similar to a lack of tracking of city property sales and purchases. 

Figure 4: Memorandum describing development agreement



Closed Public Meetings

Controversy surrounding closed-door Executive Sessions deeply permeated the City of Aiken Mayoral election debates in 2023, with candidate Teddy Milner promising to avoid Executive Sessions whenever possible. As reported in Executive Session Backgrounder, at least one Aiken City Council justification for a closed-door meeting in the past four months was highly suspect.

The Design Review Board has an Executive Session on its Special Called Meeting agenda scheduled for 4:30 pm. The purpose of the closed door meeting is “the receipt of legal advice on pending litigation and other matters covered by the attorney- client privilege.”

More specific information is not provided at the present time, but are mandated prior to the actual session. The subject of the litigation should be identified, and in the spirit of openness any other matters falling under attorney-client privilege should also be identified.

The DRB is advised by Attorney James Holly, who since May 2022 has earned upwards of $100,000 in his part time role as DRB legal counsel. As reported in Project Pascalis Legal Costs, Mr. Holly’s fee is $275 per hour, and he has earned more than enough in the past year of half-time work to fund a full-time staff assistant city attorney. The same advice could also be provided by the City Attorney or the City Solicitor, both of whom would represent a major cost savings to taxpayers.

The matter of attorney-client privilege is itself controversial, as it is overly vague and subject to abuse. The law saws the closed-door session “can be” closed, not that it “shall” or “should be” closed.

At its October 2023 meeting, Aiken County Council took the unusual action of voting to waive attorney-client privilege, and air a legal matter in open session. The effort was led by District 6 Councilman Phil Napier, who proclaimed that “this is taxpayer money, and taxpayers deserve to hear about it.” 

Unfortunately, the eloquent and highly informative five minutes or so of otherwise “confidential and privileged” legal advice provided by County Attorney Brad Farrar is not publicly available due to the fact that County Council refuses to make even audio recordings of its meetings publicly available on the county website. Aiken County Council is the only major public body in Aiken County to not live-stream its proceedings, and routinely approves what can only be described as woefully insufficient and often highly inaccurate meeting minutes.

A Note on Public Hearings

This is the first installment of a bi-monthly to monthly summary of upcoming public hearings by Aiken County public bodies, with an emphasis on City and County Councils and Planning Commissions. The information provided in this report pertains to public notices available as of 12/31/2023.

Public Hearings notifications across Aiken County are characterized by a dearth of pertinent information (Figure 5), often accompanied by poor visual access on legally required neighborhood signage (Figure 5); and are inaccessible to anyone lacking a subscription to the local Post and Courier newspaper outlets. They are also seldom written in plain English.

Detailed information is lacking, and public bodies are loath to provide additional information until one to five days prior to the actual meeting; when agendas and agenda packets are published. Thus, developers have a 3-4 months head start and obtain taypayer-funded coaching by local government staff; while citizens are generally granted less than a week to prepare for a public hearing. The system is as transparent as lightly discolored water.

Figure 5: Typical public hearing published notice with vague descriptions of proposals.
Figure 6: Typical neighborhood signed notice of a City of Aiken Planning public hearing. These notices once omitted the fact that “work sessions” were held prior to the public hearing to discuss development applications. During these work sessions, citizens are only spectators, while developers/applicants can present their case. However, following objections to the former system, work sessions are now part of the notification process.


This notification system strongly favors developers, not citizens whose quality of life, property values, and safety are most affected by proposed developments. Developers meet with government staff well in advance and essentially lobby for their projects; whereas citizens can generally only guess at what is proposed in their neighborhoods—unless more conscientious developers hold advanced community meetings.

Details of applications for development are sometimes available upon request, but can be denied except via a FOIA request. Since government can take 30 days to respond with actual information, this option is impractical. In addition, some public bodies, such as the City of Aiken’s Planning Commission and Design Review Board, conduct “work sessions” where projects are discussed in public but citizens are deprived of the option to even ask questions. In these cases, the citizenry are mere spectators while developers are participants, and the matters discussed are often not repeated during the formal public hearing.

Thus, by the time citizens show up to a public hearing, de facto decisions are often already made. Unless compelling evidence can be provided by citizens, there is slim hope for a change in mind by elected or appointed officals.

In regard to notification meeting agendas and associated documents known as “agenda packets,” all City of Aiken public bodies go above and beyond mere compliance with the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act, which mandates 24-hour notice of agendas. The City routinely provides agenda information four days in advance.

At the other extreme, Aiken County Council and the Aiken County Planning Commission barely meet the requirements, with agenda notices generally provided close to the 24-hour deadline. In December 2023, County Council’s meeting notice was provided to interested parties only 15 minutes prior to the 24-hour deadline for compliance with the SC FOIA Open Meetings legal requirements.

Overall, the system does not come close to exemplifying openness in government, and is as “transparent” as lightly discolored drinking water. (Figure 7)

Figure 7: Turbidity is a measure of transparency in drinking water, analogous to political transparency. Even cloudy and lightly discolored water is somewhat transparent. (Photo from westlab.com)

Review of Public Notices System

Public notices for public hearings are mandated by law. A thorough Guide to Public Notices can be found on the South Carolina Press Association’s website.

Citizens can receive notifications of public meetings by requesting them via the appropriate public body. South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act, mandates that:

“All public bodies shall notify persons or organizations, local news media, or such other news media as may request notification of the times, dates, places, and agenda of all public meetings, whether scheduled, rescheduled, or called, and the efforts made to comply with this requirement must be noted in the minutes of the meetings.” (SC 30-4-80(E)).

However, unless a public body chooses to be more open in its notification process, public notices are only posted in public buildings and published in the local paper of record. In Aiken, notices are generally published in the Aiken Standard. 

The Standard is a subscriber-based newspaper. This means that public notices which are paid for with taxpayer dollars are not publicly available via its classification ads section—even though the paper does freely publish its commercially paid advertisements found in the print edition. .

Local public bodies have chosen not to provide these notices via their public websites. A search of Aiken County, City of Aiken, and City of North Augusta websites did not yield any up to date public notices. The City of North Augusta does have a public notice page, but as of 12/31/2023 it was not up to date.

However, public notices are available via a searchable, free service provided by the South Carolina Press Association simply called South Carolina Public Notices. This monumental resource does require a search, which can be conducted by county, municipality, publication, and date range.

The SCPA’s public notice database covers everything from public hearings to courts announcements to self storage auctions to liquor license applications, and more. In 2023, The Aiken Chronicles will attempt to provide monthly updates on upcoming public hearings in Aiken County via this valuable resource. 

Qualifier: These updates are not guaranteed to be complete. Mid-month updates are expected, but also not guaranteed. Any readers who wish to volunteer their assistance in this effort can write to eurekascresearch@gmail.com.

Complete January 2023 Public Notifications (as of December 31, 2023). 

January 2, 2023: City of Aiken Design Review Board (DRB) (meets regularly on the first Tuesday of each month)

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF AIKEN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MEETINGS

January 2, 2024 At 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 2, 2024, the City of Aiken Design Review Board (the Board) will hold a Regular Meeting and Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers on the third floor of the Municipal Building at 111 Chesterfield Street S., Aiken, SC 29801. 

The following items will be considered: 

Approval of Minutes Approval of the Minutes for the Work Session and Regular Meeting on October 3, 2023. 

Approval of the Minutes for the Special-Called Work Session and Meeting on October 12, 2023. 

Approval of the Minutes for the Work Session and Regular Meeting on December 5, 2023. Approval of the Minutes for the Special-Called Work Session and Special-Called Meeting on December 7, 2023. Old Business None New Business Election of Officers Application 

#CERH24-015: Applicant David Grant is requesting approval to remove an existing pergola, extend the brick paved area surrounding the pool, extend the existing wood fence, and conduct landscape work including removing five cedar trees at 100 Colleton Avenue SW (TMP 121-29-09-001). 

Application #CERH24-020: Applicants Michael Milano and Jean Armstrong are requesting approval to replace and add new chimney caps at 418 and 426 Colleton Avenue SE (TMP 121-09-07-005). 

Application #CERH22-042-AMENDMENT: Applicant James Brodie is requesting approval to amend the Certificate of Appropriateness for approval of a raised seam tin replacement roof with a 14.5″ wide raised seam with a pencil stripe instead of a 16″ wide raised seam at 125 Third Avenue SW (TMP 105-12-17-009). TAX28-AMENDMENT: Applicant James Brodie is requesting approval to amend the Certificate of Appropriateness for approval of a raised seam tin replacement roof with a 14.5″ wide raised seam with a pencil stripe instead of a 16″ wide raised seam at 125 Third Avenue SW (TMP 105-12-17-009). 

Special-Meeting (Executive Session) At 4:30 p.m., the Board will hold a Special-Called Meeting in Room 309 of the Municipal Building, at which time an Executive Session will be held on matters allowed by S.C. Code Section 30-4-70(a)(2) of the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act, including the receipt of legal advice on pending litigation and other matters covered by the attorney-client privilege. 

Work Session At 5:30 p.m. the Board will hold a Work Session in Room 315 of the Municipal Building, at which time there will be a brief preliminary review of matters on the Regular Meeting Agenda. Individuals needing special assistance or sign interpreter for the meeting, Please notify the Planning Department 48 hours prior to the meeting. Updates and other additional information may be viewed via the City of Aiken Website. Contact: City of Aiken Planning Department (803) 642-7608 December 30, 2023.

January 8, 2023: Aiken City Council (meets on second and fourth Mondays of each month):

PUBLIC NOTICE Pursuant to Ordinance 71276 of the City of Aiken, the following ordinance will be considered for Public Hearing at the meeting of Council to be held on Monday, January 8, 2024, at 7:00 P.M. in the Municipal Building, 111 Chesterfield Street S in the Council Chambers. The meeting will be available for public viewing via the City of Aiken YouTube channel. TITLE 1. 

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF AIKEN TO ENTER INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH MCGHEE REDUX, LLC. SUMMARY 1. An ordinance approving a development agreement with McGhee Redux, LLC for Market Row on Williamsburg Street SE. Individuals needing special assistance or sign interpreter to participate in the meeting, please notify the City Manager’s Office 48 hours prior to the meeting. Sara B. Ridout, City Clerk December 29 & January 2, 2024.

January 9, 2023. City of Aiken Planning Commission (meets on second Tuesday of each month).

PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING JANUARY 9, 2024 The City of Aiken Planning Commission will hold a regular meeting on January 9, 2024 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located on the 3rd floor of the Municipal Building, 111 Chesterfield Street South, at which time the following will be considered: 

Election of Officers 

Application #24-20011 

Annexation of 129.23 acres, a portion of tax parcel #122-15-01-004 (po), Powderhouse Road, by CSRA Development Company for James S. Watson Jr. Revocable Trust. 

Application #24-22004 Planned Residential (PR) Concept Plan for single-family attached and detached dwellings on 129.23 acres, being a portion of tax parcel #122-15-01-004 (po), Powderhouse Road, by CSRA Development Company for James S. Watson Jr. Revocable Trust. 

Application #24-20012 Annexation of 13.54 acres, being a portion of tax parcel #122-15-01-004 (po), Powderhouse Road, and 2.78 acres being a portion of tax parcel #122-19-01-001 (po), Athol Avenue, by CSRA Development Company for James S. Watson Jr., Mary Ann Fry, Fred Douglas McLean, Debra Murphy and Kathy M. McLean. 

Application #24-23005 Planned Commercial (PC) Concept Plan for commercial development on 13.54 acres, being a portion of tax parcel #122-15-01-004 (po), Powderhouse Road, and 2.78 acres being a portion of tax parcel #122-19-01-001(po), Athol Avenue, by CSRA Development Company for James S. Watson Jr., Mary Ann Fry, Fred Douglas McLean, Debra Murphy and Kathy M. McLean. 

Application #24-20010 Annexation of Public Street Right-of-Way between Whiskey Road and South Centennial Avenue SE; TMP #122-18-05-013 and portions of #122-14-01-003, 122-15-01-004, 122-19-01-001 and 122-18-05-014; 219Harco Drive, 2301 S. Centennial Avenue, Powderhouse Road, Athol Avenue and 2148 Oak Grove Road. 

Application #22-23001 Planned Residential (PR) Concept Plan amendment to amenity area on Bergamot Parkway, TMP #122-13-02-036, by Mark at Woodford SC, LLC. 

Application #22-23003 Planned Commercial (PC) Concept Plan amendment to signage at 140 Jefferson Davis Highway, TMP #087-18-11-002, by Drayton Parker Companies, LLC. 

Proposed amendments to Zoning Ordinance Sections 5.2.3.C.2, 5.2.3.D, 5.2.3.I.2, 6.1.3.D and 6.1.3.E, as applicable to the Design Review Board. 

(These Zoning Ordinance Sections currently read as follows:

5.2.3.C.2: Applications for a Certificate shall be accompanied by the following unless waived by the Secretary or otherwise specified on the application form provided by the Board.

5.2.3.D. Public Hearing and Public Notice. For any Certificate of Appropriateness application that it must consider, the Board shall conduct a public hearing not later than 30 days following receipt of a completed application form accompanied by all required information and documents. Public notice of each such public hearing shall be given at least seven days prior to the hearing by the posting of a sign by the City on each street frontage of the subject property clearly visible to the public stating the date, time, and place of the public hearing.

5.2.3.I.2: Appeals: From the Board. Any property owner, City official, or other person aggrieved by and seeking relief from any final decision of the Board on an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness may appeal that decision to the Circuit Court pursuant to Section 6-29-900, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976, by filing a petition with the court within 30 days of the filing of the written decision of the Board with the Secretary.

6.1.3.D: Application Deadlines.

1. Applications for which no public hearing is required shall have no application deadlines.

2. All applications for which a public hearing is required shall be completed and submitted to the appropriate official prior to the meeting at which the permit or approval will be considered in accordance with the following table unless waived by the Planning Director.)

January 16, 2023. Aiken County Council

There will be public hearings at the regular meeting of County Council on Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 7:00 pm, in the County Council Chambers, Third Floor, Aiken County Government Center, 1930 University Parkway, Aiken, SC 29801 concerning the following matters:

1. Ordinance to Approve an Amendment to the Aiken County Official Zoning and Development District Atlas to Rezone Tax Parcel 004-19-01-004 and a portion of Parcel 004-19-06-003 (approximately 54.5 acres) located on Gregory Lake Road (S-582), North Augusta, SC in Council District 5 from RC, Residential Single-Family Conservation to PUD, Planned Use District, Type B. 

2. Ordinance to Approve an Amendment to the Aiken County Official Zoning and Development District Atlas to Rezone Tax Parcel 122-13-08-024 (approximately 0.24 acres) located on Whiskey Road (SC-19), Aiken, SC in Council District 7 from RC, Residential Single-Family Conservation to LD, Limited Development District. 

3. Ordinance to Declare Certain Property, Identified as Aiken County Tax Parcel #050-16-05-002, and Located at the Intersection of Highland Drive and Jefferson Davis Highway, as Surplus and to Authorize Its Transfer to The Graybill Company, LLC. 

4. Ordinance to Amend Sec. 2-63 “Legislative Action” in the Aiken County, South Carolina Code of Ordinances. 

5. Ordinance to Confirm Responsibility for Maintenance of Streets, Ways and Bridges Annexed by City or Town Councils. Members of the Public who attend the Council Meeting need to use the rear entrance of the building. Individuals needing special assistance or sign interpreter to participate in the meeting, please notify the County Administrator’s Office at (803) 642-2012 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. December 30, 2023.









Editorials, October 2023, Planning & Development

“What is Reasonable?”

10 Comments
The Planning Commission’s recent struggle to answer this question while pushing a developer to comply with rules that don’t exist.

by Laura Lance
October 15, 2023

The elephant in the room at the Tuesday night City of Aiken Planning Commission public meeting and the work session that preceded it was the word, “Why?” 

On the table were two requests from Mr. Tracy Turner, the prospective buyer and developer for the old Aiken County Hospital property. One request was for a zoning change (from Office to Planned Commercial); the second request was for approval to send Mr. Turner’s concept plan to City Council for consideration. The zoning request passed 5-0 as expected because there was little choice, since past commissions had granted rezoning to two previous developers, whose similar projects were ultimately abandoned.

The concept plan was a different matter. And it was a different matter in ways that raised questions about the fairness of the proceedings.

Above: Mr. Turner’s Concept Plan for commercial and residential mixed-use development on the old Aiken County Hospital property. Click for larger view.

Above: A brief description of the plan. See the Planning Commission agenda packet, pgs. 51-73, for full details.

The level of scrutiny given to Mr. Turner’s concept plan was different from that applied to other developers’ plans observed over the past year. There were demands made of this concept plan that have not been evenly applied to other developers’ plans.

Why?

During one exchange, a Commission member told Mr. Turner that the plan needed “more parking closer to the buildings.”

Mr Turner asked, “Is there a requirement of how far parking should be from a commercial parcel? Does Aiken have a requirement for the walking distance from a —-“

Mr. Turner’s questions were twice interrupted by two or more Commission members, who were speaking all at once to answer him, “No,” and “It’s a mindset,” and, “It has to be  reasonable.” 

Mr Turner asked, “What is reasonable?” 

“Reasonable to me, 150 feet,” answered one commission member.  

Another member stated, in a line that could have come straight from the Mad Tea Party scene in Alice in Wonderland, “I mean, well, it’s almost easier to see what is unreasonable than it is to see what is reasonable.”   

A witness to this and other exchanges throughout the meeting could be forgiven for wondering if there weren’t perhaps a note or two of arbitrariness to the proceedings, as the Commission hammered the applicant on adherence to rules that don’t exist.

A similarly-themed exchange had a commission member asking Mr. Turner if his proposal included affordable housing and would accommodate economic diversity — standards that are not asked of all developers; criteria that are not required of this or any developer, as pointed out by citizen-attendee, attorney Margaret Tribert, in her public statement on Mr. Turner’s proposal:

“This guy is trying to do something beautiful, and he’s not under any obligation to give us affordable housing when he does that. That is not a requirement for a developer in this community, and, you know — that’s someone’s obligation but it’s not his. I don’t think he is offering public housing. I don’t think he is under any obligation that is not controlled by existing federal statutes.”

Here, several points must be mentioned. First, there was not a single voice of opposition to this concept plan from the public during the meeting — just the opposite. There were perhaps a dozen members of the public — a diversity of individuals — who rose to give their support of sending Mr. Turner’s concept plan forward. (Read a sampling at this page). There were even two City officials who came to the podium, not in support of the project per se, but in support of the process. These statements and, indeed, the entirety of this public meeting are worthy of hearing.1

Another point to be made is that two members on the Planning Commission are also members of the Aiken Corporation, which is arguably in competition with Mr. Turner for developing the $20 million SRNL office complex. This is a topic that has stirred no small amount of controversy since last month when the the Aiken Corporation — through the power of its contract with the City of Aiken to assess potential sites for the SRNL complex — abruptly and without notice or explanation disqualified the old hospital site from consideration during a public hearing in September.

Given this controversy, a question on potential conflicts of interest by those with the power to stonewall progress on Mr. Turner’s development was not only appropriate, but perhaps should have been circumvented by the recusal of those Aiken Corporation board members from even being in a position to make decisions on Mr. Turner’s requests. Certainly no member of a government body would want to be put into this position.

Top: Augustine Wong, architect, and Tracy Turner, developer, making their presentation. Bottom: Tracy Turner in discussion with the Planning Commission.

The public, whose interests are served by fair proceedings in these meetings, should not be put in a position where they’re left wondering if conflicts of interest entered into the discussion. But there we were on Tuesday night, and there was that elephant in the middle of the room: Why?

When, at last, that question was spoken out loud, it was received by some on the Planning Commission as an insult. One member was compelled to give character references for the two Aiken Corporation members serving on the Planning Commission, describing them as “good men” who “always act honorably.”

It should go without saying, but I’ll say it anyway. The fairness of one’s actions should be based, not on the purported honor of any individual, but on the fairness of their actions. Does the Planning Commission apply its scrutiny evenly to all developers who come before them? That didn’t appear to be the case in Tuesday night’s meeting.

Why?

Why was the Planning Commission taking such an adversarial stance toward a developer who came before them with a concept plan to redevelop a property that, second only to the Hotel Aiken, might be the greatest eyesore greeting newcomers to our City?

Why would the Planning Commission risk driving away a developer who has brought to the table the starting point of a viable plan — one that has been enthusiastically received by the public — to buy this long-neglected, much-vandalized, historic old Aiken County Hospital and restore its historic structures and preserve many of its old trees, while transforming this property into a beautiful, park-like campus with attractive housing, retail, and mixed-use buildings?

At the meeting’s end — and only during the final minutes and seconds of the eleventh hour — Mr. Turner’s concept plan was approved to go forward to City Council by a narrow vote of 3-2. Two of those three votes in favor came from the two Aiken Corporation members. The outcome of the meeting shows the power of citizen participation, which swung the vote to Mr. Turner’s favor. 2

The process for addressing the Planning Commission’s stated concerns was as easy to follow as it was to imagine. This is because the process was not rocket science. In fact, it took less than two minutes to accomplish the task. The hours leading up to those two minutes, however, left ample food for thought that will linger long after the heartburn subsides.

________________

Footnotes:

  1. Citizens are encouraged to watch this portion of the meeting, beginning just after minute 13:00 and continuing to the end of this YouTube video. Note, this is the public meeting. The work session that preceded the the public meeting was not recorded.
  2. Before there was a Motion to Approve, there was a Motion to Table the agenda item. That motion failed by a vote of 3-2.

    However, as Don Moniak will point out in an upcoming general review of the city’s planning process, even this Motion to Table was out of character and arguably unfair:

    “Before the 6 pm public hearing, there was a work session where the commission devoted a full forty minutes to discussing and dissecting the proposal. This intense level of scrutiny alone is unprecedented in recent years, which any review of work session meeting minutes would confirm. 

    “The discussion included the idea of a Motion to Table, or postpone, the concept plan approval until Turner Development could satisfy the demands of commission members. This too was highly unusual, but the worst aspect is there appeared to be a consensus on tabling—and decision making like this is not allowed or appropriate in work sessions which are outside the public eye.”

Over-development, Planning & Development, September 2023

Development Road

1 Comment

How will ~2,000 new residences provide “traffic relief” benefits on the new, planned Powderhouse Connector Road project?

by Don Moniak

September 11, 2023.

Construction on the long planned, debated, and delayed Powderhouse Road Connector is expected to begin as early as next month. The Connector consists of a new, 1.0 mile road connecting Whiskey Road to Corporate Parkway and Centennial Avenue ; and another new 1.7 mile road connecting Whiskey Road to Powderhouse Road south of East Pine Log Road.

According to a recent memorandum from the Augusta Regional Transportation Study’s (ARTS) South Carolina Policy Subcommittee, the current project costs are $38 million. The memo states the intent of the project is to “provide relief to the congested Whiskey Road corridor by opening additional routes to East Pine Log Road and Centennial Parkway.”

A City of Aiken memorandum released this past Thursday states that funding for purchasing road right of ways is derived from Capital Project Sales Tax revenues which are allocated for “Whiskey Road Corridor improvements and congestions relief.” (Aiken City Council Agenda Packet for September 11, 2023, page 412).

The Connector Roads have been, and continue to be, presented as a congestion relief project. But according to two Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) pertaining to right-of-way (ROW) acquisition, the rural, open character of the landscape between Whiskey and Powderhouse Roads is also destined to be converted to a suburban environment of moderate to high-density residential development.

Tens of millions of dollars will be spent to provide limited-access roads through nearly 400 acres of undeveloped farm and forest land in unincorporated Aiken County; and to those eventual, multiple residential developments. Any developments in unincorporated areas which utilize city water and sewer services will eventually be annexed into the City of Aiken.

In addition, the City of Aiken intends to subsidize development by constructing and maintaining two major stormwater retention or detention reservoirs, and constructing essential sewer and water infrastructure to insure adequate capacity for planned residential neighborhoods.

Top Photo: Powderhouse Connector Project new roads locations. From ARTS Memorandum. 

Bottom Photo: Anticipated development facilitated by project infrastructure. The 80-acre parcel is the “McLean” property, the 142-acre parcel is the Watson/Powderhouse Partners, LLC property, and the 37-acre property is owned by Clifford Place Partners. Powderhouse Partners, LLC is also the owner and developer for the new subdivision on the east side of Powderhouse Road called “The Sanctuary.” West of “The Sanctuary” is the Clifford Place Partners’ 37-acre property, which was purchased from James Watson in February 2023 for $820,000. Both Powderhouse Partners and Clifford Place Partners share the same address in County records: 3519 Wheeler Road, Augusta, GA 30909. Finally, Sycamore of Aiken, LLC, is planning to construct a 160-room hotel on four acres at the entrance/end point of the new Connector Road.


The Watson and Powderhouse Partners MOU.

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Aiken, James Watson, Jr. and Powderhouse Partners, LLC is on Aiken City Council’s September 11, 2023, meeting agenda. The MOU pertains to 142 acres presently owned by Mr. Watson. Powderhouse Partners has an option to purchase all or parts of the property for future residential and commercial development. Clifton Place Partners, LLC, which shares the same Augusta business address as Powderhouse Partners, is also shown as a signatory to the MOU.

The MOU lists the following “intended land uses” as future development plans:

  • 125 lots in “Sanctuary Residential Subdivision.” 
  • 500 townhomes
  • 440 apartments
  • 350 single family residential units
  • 12 Acres of Commercial development

Under the agreement, Mr. Watson will provide 100 feet of right-of-way property for the roads, and, if necessary, the City will purchase an additional 20 feet of right-of-way. At $17,500 per acre, the one-hundred foot right-of-way amounts to an estimated $180,000 contribution.

In exchange, the City will pay $170,000 for seventeen acres of land earmarked for two new “regional detention ponds.” (1) In total, the ponds will be nearly three times larger in area than the retention pond along the Pawnee-Nielsen connector road.

The ponds will be constructed, owned, and maintained by the City of Aiken. The City will also construct a walking track around the fenced stormwater reservoir, and all landscaping to “obscure any chain link fencing.”

Although the reservoirs are designed to manage stormwater from both the new roadway and the residential developments, the developer will bear no costs. The MOU states:

“The City agrees to construct at its sole cost and expense the detention and/or retention ponds thereon,” and to “design and provide future retention capacity in these retention ponds for the Watson Property that will provide for future development of the Watson Property for all intended uses and density of residential and commercial development.”

The MOU also contains a provision for the Sanitary Sewer Trunk Main Extension Powderhouse Road project (Highfill Project No. AIK2014) to be located “along an easement granted by Clifton Place Partners.” One intent of the project is to “insure adequate capacity” for future development.

The project bid package map shows the sewer line running into the Clifton Place Partners property. The project award was for $624,975, and is being borne entirely by the city.

Finally, the MOU agreement also confers the property owner(s) and developer(s) a degree of veto power over the City’s plans for road access points, green space, bicycle paths, storm drainage lines, and landscaping. For example, the agreement states “the location of the storm drainage lines must be in locations acceptable to Watson, based on future development plans.”

Location of planned stormwater management detention/retention ponds. From Page 422 of Sept 11th Meeting Information Packet.



The McLean Property MOU

On November 14, 2022, Aiken City Council approved an overlapping “Agreement” with four parties, referred to as the “McLean family tract.”

Under this agreement, the McClean Family will provide one-hundred feet of -right-of-way, and the city will purchase another twenty-feet if necessary. At $17,500 per acre, the 100 foot right-of-way amounts to an estimated $87,500 contribution to the project.

In return, the City committed to providing:

  • Stormwater capacity at the city’s new detention/retention ponds (on the Watson property) for any developments within that affected stormwater drainage area.
  • “All sewer and water service infrastructure, excepting tap fees,” which refers to the same Sanitary Sewer Trunk Main Extension Powderhouse Road project (Highfill Project No. AIK2014) referenced in the Watson/Powderhouse Parters MOU. The $624,975 extension will reach the McClain property.
  • Sufficient sewer capacity to facilitate development of “at least 600 residential units,” as well as undefined levels of commercial development. 
Location of Sanitary Sewer Line Extension within the Powderhouse Connector Road project area, as reported in the Project Bid Package. A $624,975 bid has been accepted but the project award is pending.(2)

Footnote:

(1) The MOU indicates confusion over both the intent and size of the reservoirs. The City uses the terms “detention pond,” “retention pond,” and “detention or retention pond” in both the singular and plural sense. The MOU also uses “detention” and “retention” interchangeably.

The basic difference between a detention pond and a retention pond is as follows:

  • Detention Ponds, also known as dry ponds, involve no storage of water. Water is detained a minimum period of time and then released, leaving the reservoir bed dry again.
  • Retention Ponds, also known as wet ponds, have a permanent pool of water throughout the year, barring severe drought.

    (2) Letter from City of Aiken Engineering and Utilities Department to City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh detailing the status of the Powderhouse sewer system extension project.

UPDATE:

In June of 2024 the email below was obtained within the response to a FOIA request to the City of Aiken. The email illustrates that traffic will also flow to Whiskey Road as new residents along the Powderhouse Road connector are encouraged to shop and dine along Whiskey Road; and that the redevelopment of the Aiken Mall property is a key dynamic for this traffic flow towards Whiskey Road.

Screenshot
City Government, Editorials, Planning & Development, September 2023

Waves of Protest

3 Comments

The Failure of Parker’s Kitchen at Stratford and Woodford Trace Apartments, Phase II

by Don Moniak
September 2, 2023

In early 2022, the $100 million plus downtown demolition and redevelopment endeavor code-named Project Pascalis was widely considered a done deal. Despite promises of “transparency” during the November 9, 2021, project announcement, not a single open, public meeting pertaining to any part of the project was held until March 1, 2022. That was the day when the demolition of both the vacant Hotel Aiken and the occupied Beckman Building on Laurens Street was approved.

The project was put on pause just under four months later, and then, three months after the pause, the project was canceled.

The reason for this cancellation? After March 1st, a movement to stop the project grew and intensified. Opponents filled public meetings, rallied with a petition with statutory teeth, posted yard signs, wrote letters to the editor, and supported perhaps the largest lawsuit ever filed against the City of Aiken—Blake et al vs The City of Aiken et al.

It was a wave of protest that swamped a confident City Council and its city-funded Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC).

In the first seven months of 2023, two more waves of protest and dissent caught Aiken City Council unprepared and overmatched. Overwhelming objections to the Parker’s Kitchen at Stratford project and the latest phase of the Woodford Trace Apartments complex along Dougherty Road both failed to move forward during their first public hearings when Council members failed to make the necessary motions to approve.

The process leading to these failures energized enough Aiken residents to help swing the Mayoral primary election in favor of challenger Teddy Milner; who won a runoff against incumbent Mayor Rick Osbon by a mere fourteen votes.


Parker’s Kitchen at Whiskey and Stratford Roads.





Parker’s Kitchen is a major fuel and convenience store chain based out of Savannah, Georgia. In 2022 the company sought to establish its presence in the City of Aiken by building three new, 24-hour gas stations and convenience stores with hot food bars.

The initial two projects sailed through the City’s approval process. Both locations are typical for a large, modern gas station/convenience store—at major intersections and a good distance from residential neighborhoods.

The first project involved demolishing the blighted and long-vacant Dick Smith auto dealership at the intersection of West Richland Avenue and the bypass. The approval process experienced zero objections. If anything, the redevelopment of the former dealership property was welcomed with a community sigh of relief. Demolition has since occurred.

The second project location is on a greenfield site at the junction of East Pine Log Road and Hwy 78. It is one-third of a mile from the nearest residential neighborhoods. Again, the approval process experienced zero objections.

The third proposed Parker’s Kitchen site was to be located at the junction of Whiskey Road and Stratford Drive. But this site was close to residential neighborhoods whose only access road is Stratford Drive.

Neighbors who had gained experience fighting city hall during an unsuccessful effort to stop a LuLu’s car wash responded quickly and efficiently. The voices of protest were not “Not in My Backyard,” they were “Not in Our Neighborhood,” and “Not in Our Town.”

The objections following the first public notification of the project prompted Parker’s Kitchen representatives to hold a community meeting. The event did little to quell the growing protests.

Planning Commission Approval

Parker’s Kitchen’s proposal then proceeded as scheduled to the city’s Planning Commission. The meeting was held on January 10, 2023. Thirteen citizens rose to speak against the project during an unusually long meeting. Voices of support were absent.

Concerned citizens at the meeting presented a long list of potential drawbacks to the project. They described the probability of aggravating existing traffic problems at one of the most dangerous and poorly designed intersections in Aiken; the threats of a fuel truck fire or explosion that would block the only entranceway into and out of their neighborhoods; the specter of increased levels of benzene, toluene, and other compounds contaminating the air and stormwater runoff; and the fact that zoning conditions approved for the property in 2003 do not allow for 24-hour gas stations and convenience stores nor car washes.

Citizen opposition was sophisticated, media savvy, informative, and persistent. Several current and former Savannah River Site employees described the difference between the “Defense in Depth” safety culture in their workplace versus an apparent lack of safety concerns, beyond vehicle traffic, during the project’s planning process. Residents caught the developer contradicting their own facts within the same meeting.

The Planning Commission voted 5-2 to recommend the project move forward for City Council approval. The condition for moving forward, though, was a finished traffic study. (1)

Two commissioners, Sam Erb and Charles Matthews, voted against the proposal. Mr. Erb also serves on the Board of the Aiken Corporation and is a highly respected member of the community who operated a popular restaurant in The Alley, the West Side Bowery, for more than thirty years. His dissent should have provided an additional clue to City Council that trouble was ahead.

Their rationale for dissenting was not expressed at the meeting and not in the city’s official record. However, Mr. Erb later told the Aiken Standard that he “wouldn’t want a gas station in front of his home either. “

Developer Objects to the Delay

On March 27th, the main Parker’s Kitchen representative, Daniel Ben Yisreal, appeared before City Council to argue for expediting the scheduling of a first hearing, claiming the company’s contractual deadline for their property purchase was soon to expire.

The discussion expended nearly five minutes of the thirty-minute agenda slot for “public comment on nonagenda items.” Although public comment on nonagenda items” is limited to three minutes, Mr. Yisrael— a former Planning Director for the City of Goose Creek— was allowed five minutes.

The move was highly unorthodox since the Parker’s Kitchen at Stratford project was going through the official, legal approval process. The conversation constituted a de facto pre-public hearing that was not a part of the project’s public record.

First Hearing and a Continuation

The first official City Council hearing was delayed until April 24th. Coincidentally, a fuel tanker fire had closed traffic on I-20 East just ten days earlier—fortifying the opponent position that such an event was a probability that required consideration.

By April 24th, opposition had intensified, not abated. Following a fifteen-minute Parker’s Kitchen corporate slide show and friendly Council Q and A, the wave of dissent and protest dominated the hearing. Support for the project remained absent more than three months after the Planning Commission’s meeting.

The April 24th hearing consumed more than ninety minutes and was marked by the same legal, environmental, public safety, and zoning issues as presented on January 10th. The common refrain amongst the speakers was for Council to care for its own taxpaying citizens instead of out-of-town developers.

In the end, Council appeared to be overwhelmed by the dissenting views, and stumped by the argument that the 2003 zoning ordinance for that location prohibited 24-hour gas stations and convenience stores.

When the time to vote arrived, Council took the completely unexpected step to “continue” their first hearing to a future date. This decision delayed any hope of a rapid, conclusive second hearing where stamps of approval preceded by anecdotes in support of controversial projects are the norm.

The Project Fails

This continuation of the first hearing did not occur until June 12th. It was at this hearing that, before a single citizen could speak, Council did the seemingly impossible.

After a motion to approve was made by Councilwoman Kay Brohl, the rest of Council sat in silence. No second to the motion was made, and the project died.

Following a short, stunned silence, there was a loud round of applause from a united audience. Mayor Rick Osbon then stated, at 41:30 of the meeting:

“This is not the way it is supposed to work.”

Actually, this process is exactly the way Aiken’s legislative process is supposed to work. Section 2-64(a)(5)b of the Aiken Municipal Code pertains to Legislative items, and states, in part: City code mandates
that an agenda item fails to move forward if it lacks the requisite motion:

“If no motion is made, or if the motion is not seconded, the presiding officer will move on to the next agenda item.”

The same process occurred on February 27, 2023, when a mere request by a property owner for city water service also failed due to a lack of a second motion to approve. There was no lecture that day to the audience about how the process should work.

Once an ordinance fails, a developer must wait one year before reapplying for approval—unless three Council members can be convinced to reintroduce the proposal after three months.

Less than three months after the Parker’s Kitchen at Stratford Drive failed, Mayor Osbon lost his reelection bid. But he does not leave office until after the general election. There is still time for his supporting cast of Council members to bring the project forward prior to his departure.

The moment when Parker’s Kitchen at Stratford failed to move forward.


The Woodford Trace Failure

In January of 2020, Aiken City Council approved the first phase of the Woodford Trace apartment complex. The project was the second set of new apartments in the Whiskey Road and Dougherty Road area.

A contentious debate preceded that approval. Numerous residents and long-time local businesses, including Aiken Motorcycle, Dixie Lock and Safe, and Glass Works, protested the project proposal in letters and during public hearings. Documented traffic, litter, and public safety concerns associated with a recently completed and occupied adjacent complex, called Palmetto Crossing, dominated the discussion

Council still approved the project by a vote of 5-2. The most common argument in favor of the project was the perceived need for an affordable apartment complex in South Aiken.

Since the Woodford Trace, Phase I approval, construction moved forward and the entire parcel was clearcut. The before and after aerial photos are below, and suggest a forty percent open space requirement is unlikely to be met.

Phase one of the Woodford Trace Apartment complex parcel. Palmetto Crossing apartments are to the east. (Aiken County property database)
Woodford Trace area, January 2023. The forested area to the south was proposed for the second phase of Woodford Trace apartments.


Woodford Trace Apartments Phase 2

Three and a half years after the first Woodford Trace development was approved, a second phase was proposed by the new owner, Wellers Ridge, LLC. (2). The project ignited a second wave of dissent and protest just a month after the Parker’s Kitchen at Stratford defeat was defeated.

When the Planning Commission held its July 11th public meeting for the proposal, four citizens spoke against the proposal, and only the developer spoke on its behalf. The PC voted 4-1 to recommend City Council take up the case. Commissioner Sam Erb was the lone dissenting vote.

A hearing was scheduled for August 14th, one week before the Mayoral runoff election. By then, substantial opposition had coalesced, assisted by a few recent veterans of the Parker’s Kitchen fight. Like Parker’s Kitchen at Stratford, the issue qualified as “Not in Our Neighborhood,” and “Not in Our Town.”

Signs protesting the proposal and encouraging people to write to Council and attend the hearing dotted Dougherty Road. The signs focused on the flooding problems affecting Dougherty Road. The exacerbation of existing traffic problems was another common concern.

Dozens of signs like this dotted Dougherty Road before the August 14, 2023 Public Hearing. Just before New Year’s Day in 2020, backed up storm drains caused the closure of Dougherty Road for two days, causing a detour and impacting local businesses.


More than thirty concerned citizens attended the meeting and almost fully occupied one side of the chambers.

During the “public comment on non-agenda items,” the history of Dougherty Road flooding was addressed by Aiken area resident Chris Johnson. He described how flooding problems were four decades old, and the foolishness of pursuing another development after forty years of failures to remedy the problem.

The second speaker to address the proposal during the “public comment on non-agenda items” was interrupted in mid-sentence, and asked by Presiding Officer Mayor Osbon to sit down and wait for the public hearing. His opportunity to speak never arose.

After the agenda item was introduced by Assistant City Manager Mary Tilton, City Attorney Gary Smith threw a wrench into the process. At issue was “Condition Seven,” which required the developer to finish an access road. Mr. Smith informed Council that a previous agreement required the city to build the road.

The Planning Commission had issued its recommendations two weeks prior that included Condition Seven. Mr. Smith, who routinely reviews all development applications and was absent from the PC’s meeting, had waited until the proposal was introduced before informing Council of the issue.

After confusion reigned as to whether an amendment to remove Condition Seven was necessary, Council then appeared to move forward. But the project proposal failed after no motion was made to approve it. The project had met the same fate as Parker’s Kitchen.

One difference this time was that Mayor Osbon did not describe the lack of a motion as “not the way this works.”

With the runoff election only a week away, debate over the controversial Woodford Trace Apartments proposal was curtailed by the inaction of City Council. A long hearing featuring project opponents was avoided, and another plan went down in defeat.

Like Parker’s Kitchen at Stratford, the project cannot return for at least another year; unless three City Council members propose to return it to a future meeting agenda after three months. But any attempt to do so is likely to strengthen the perception that the lack of a motion to approve was a means to avoid debate before the election.

It is unfortunate that it takes a large wave of almost unanimous citizen dissent and protest to open up Aiken City Council’s eyes to projects which are unpopular and ill-conceived, but that remains the current situation. It is only through strongly organized, thoughtful, and substantive opposition that the misguided projects of the future will be prevented.

The moment when the Woodford Trace Apartments project failed to move forward.



Footnote

(1) This traffic study condition stood in sharp contrast to the controversial Silver Bluff Shopping Center project adjacent to Village at Woodside. In that case, the condition for a traffic study has yet to be met one year after the Planning Commission unanimously approved that proposal.

(2) Weller’s Ridge, LLC purchased the Woodford Trace Phase 2 property from the Michael Rubin Family on May 15, 2023 for $1.8 million. The LLC was incorporated in March of 22.

Weller’s Ridge’s agent representative is Corporation Service Company at 508 Meeting Street in Columbia, SC.

Corporation Service Company’s agent representative is United States Corporation Company, 6650 Rivers Avenue, North Charleston, SC.

United States Corporation Company’s agent representative is Corporation Service Company, 508 Meeting Street.

This is not an unusual circle for newly companies.

* Aiken Chronicles stories and letters on Parker’s Kitchen at Stratford and Woodford Trace Apartments

Introducing: Parker’s Kitchen Convenience Store, and “Whiskey Road Apartments.”
Letter to the Editor: Regarding Parker’s Kitchen and Stratford Drive
From Fuel Tanker Fires to an Overdue Report
“Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus“
Local Residents Speak Out On Parker’s Kitchen
“The Zoning Has Been In Place Forever”
Gas Stations, Vice Stores, and Public Safety
Proposed Southside Development Raising Concerns of Flooding




City Government, Development Issues, Editorials, June 2023, Planning & Development

“The Zoning Has Been In Place Forever”

4 Comments

Parker’s Kitchen at Stratford and Whiskey – if approved would be more broken zoning promises

“The zoning has been in place forever.” That is what Aiken City Attorney Gary Smith told the Aiken City Council on the evening of Sept 28th, 2020 before Council approved a car wash on a parcel that was zoned to exclude car washes. Other conditions prohibited on that zoning included no 24 hour businesses, no fuel sales and no fast food restaurants among other things most people wouldn’t appreciate in their backyard.

Enter Parker’s Kitchen, a 24 hour fuel sales/ fast food joint, now applying for approval on that same parcel. The heavily opposed proposal is on this Monday night’s City Council agenda.

Stratford Drive off of Whiskey serves as the single entrance into the three subdivisions. In 2003 when the Springstone Villas portion was approved as the most recent of those subdivisions, it was done as a rezoning and the commercial portion of that rezoning had restrictions/conditions placed on it for future development.

The LuLu’s Experience

In 2020, despite hundreds of signatures on a petition protesting the LuLu’s car wash proposal; despite zoning conditions on the books since 2003 that included NO CAR WASHES, despite a lengthy and passionate public comment period without a single area citizen in support of the proposal, City Council nonetheless approved the request by a 5-2 vote to put a car wash on a parcel with zoning conditions prohibiting a car wash. Councilwoman Diggs and Councilwoman Price were the two dissenting votes.

The same level of resistance and lack of support characterize the debate over the Parker’s Kitchen at Stratford and Whiskey Road proposal.

To add further insult to the LuLu’s approval, Council members Kay Brohl, Andrea Gregory, and Ed Woltz blamed citizens for not knowing what the zoning conditions were when they purchased their homes. The citizens did know. The zoning was Planned Commercial with zoning conditions that included no car washes, as seen below.

Click to enlarge

The record also shows that Council Members Kay Brohl and Ed Woltz both voted to approve these conditions in 2003, when they were on the Planning Commissioners and Ed Woltz was the Chairman. The minutes from that meeting are here.

After the PC’s recommendation was forwarded to Council, Councilwoman Lessie Price seconded the motion to approve those 2003 conditions. City Attorney Smith signed the 2003 rezoning ordinance above with the conditions included.

So that’s a total of four City officials still in power today who either voted or signed the ordinance to approve those 2003 conditions, and who are now charged with hearing the Parker’s Kitchen proposal.

Former councilman Don Sprawls, who is the current real estate representative for the parcel, also voted to approve. So that’s five people involved today who were instrumental in approving the 2003 conditions.

The Parker’s Kitchen and LuLu’s Overlap.

At present, a portion of the LuLu’s parcel is for sale and under contract by Parker’s Kitchen, a 24 hour fuel sale business. What are the other exclusions on those 2003 zoning conditions? They are fuel sales, 24-hour businesses of any kind, and fast food restaurants — all of which fit the description of Parker’s Kitchen.

At the first city council meeting on Parker’s Kitchen, April 24th, 2023 meeting , Councilwoman Price was the only official who seemed to remember those conditions as she made the motion to continue the hearing until a later date.

To be clear, City Council has the power to vote to change the zoning on a parcel; and, as we learned after a 2020 appeal on the Lulu’s decision, City Council can apparently also blatantly ignore conditions on a zoning parcel. City Attorney Gary Smith and former-planning staff member,(now planning director) Marya Moultrie paved the way for Council’s 2020 vote to approve Lulu’s, assuring Council that those conditions did not exist. A similar path has been paved for Parker’s.

City attorney Smith told the council that same night in 2020 that the Planned Commercial (PC) zoning had been in place forever. He stated the concept plan for the parcel had expired, and then, in the same meeting, he told them that the Lulu’s application was to amend a concept plan.

Which is it? The 2003 zoning conditions on the parcel were clear. The concept plan may have expired, but the zoning conditions did not.

As the video below highlights. Mr. Smith, Ms. Moultrie and five council members ignored citizen’s input, ignored the zoning conditions, and then had the audacity to lecture residents for not knowing the zoning conditions when they purchased their homes.

So City Council was led to believe by Planning Commission Staff and City Attorney Gary Smith that they were approving a concept plan on a parcel that had PC zoning without conditions.

The City of Aiken got away with approving Lulu’s, and a Circuit Court Judge ruled in their favor on an appeal. But that was pre-Pascalis lawsuits, pre-Silver Bluff grocery store lawsuit, pre-flurry of ethics complaints, pre-Labscalis.

Back in 2020, only those affected by Lulu’s were paying attention. Up until now, there has been considerably less resistance to the demolishing of historic buildings across a half a city block, heavy-handed land-clearing and development, and the now ubiquitous Dollar Stores and Lulu’s.

Semantics Matter

In the City’s quest to assure those in attendance in the 2020 meeting, (as they approved Lulu’s) that the 2003 zoning conditions no longer existed — that the conditions had somehow magically vanished from the PC zoning — it appears they did not bother to actually remove the conditions or change the zoning because, recall, as Smith told us, “The zoning has been in place forever.” Indeed the PC zoning — with the conditions — has has been in place since then.

The new 2020 ordinance on the parcel approving Lulu’s reads ” Approve a Concept Plan”

While the 2003 zoning ordinance reads ” Approve a re-zoning”

Semantics matter, zoning is zoning, and the court of public opinion is turning. The latter was clearly evident in citizens’ statements made during the public comment portion of the May 22, 2023 City Council meeting to council members regarding matters of civility and having their voices heard. It certainly appears more people are paying attention. Maybe they’re finding more time to read up on local issues while parked on Whiskey.

The 2003 Zoning Conditions Still Recognized in 2014

More research uncovered that the zoning conditions had not fallen off in 2014 when another applicant put a concept plan in for this parcel. Then Planning Director, Ed Evans, put it right in the agenda packet.

The evidence showing that the conditions are ZONING conditions rather than concept plan conditions just continues to accumulate.

Parker’s Kitchen

During the April 24, 2023 meeting on Parkers, I asked Ms. Moultrie if those conditions were listed in the agenda’s Parker’s documents. Mayor Osbon redirected the question to himself. and then did not answer the question.

However, Mayor Osbon did make an issue of a sign that said ‘Shame’ that my 80 year-old aunt held up during my comments, and directed at Council. Law enforcement was called in handle the quite dainty, 80 year-old lady holding a small sign in a City Council meeting.

Now , in the June 12th, 2023 Memorandum from City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh in the agenda packet for Parker’s states that:

Since no building permits were issued within 5 years of the
original commercial component of the concept plan approval, the 2003 concept plan approval for the commercial component expired, but the PC zoning stayed on the property.

Mr. Bedenbaugh acknowledges in the memo that the 2003 ZONING stayed on the property, but what he failed to admit is that the 2003 PC zoning came with conditions (see the 2003 Ordinance )

The 2003 Concept Plan and Zoning Process.

Permits were issued under that rezoning for Springstone Villas. They are also zoned PC as shown on the map below. This was found in Lulu’s application packet.

Springstone Villas enjoy the same zoning as the parcel in question as it was all rezoned to PC at the same time, in fact, officials placed the conditions on the commercial portion of the PC because there was no definite concept plan for the commercial component for it at the time of the rezoning and this ensured the residential portion of the PC zoning (Springstone Villas) would be protected. The minutes of the 2003 meetings accurately depict this. From the July 14th, 2023 First Reading

Later in that same meeting Councilman Cunning confirmed there is no definite commercial plan.

Early on in those same July minutes it states Planned Commercial zoning requires approval of a Concept Plan. Again, the only Concept Plan ever approved to move forward for this parcel at that 2003 rezoning was that of Springstone Villas.

This seems to completely negate the City’s claim that the 2003 Concept Plan of the Commercial component has expired. According to the minutes, there never was a definite concept plan for the commercial component approved – the Concept Plan approved was for Springstone Villas and the commercial component was Planned Commercial with conditions.

The first PC zoning approval conditions read “only the residential portion will be allowed to proceed and that the concept plan for the commercial portion be reviewed by the planning commission and council prior to approval of any site plan for that portion” (credit to Stratford resident John Melvin for discovering this clause).

The Continuation of the First Parker’s Hearing

Well-organized citizen opposition to Parker’s Kitchen proposal will be presenting their positions to City Council on Monday night, June 12th. City Council will meet an informed, passionate and intelligent citizenry. The opposition is growing, not shrinking.

In addition to concerns over the City’s compliance with its own zoning conditions on Parker’s, there are concerns over issues of health and safety regarding siting a gas station next to a residential area. The City is well-advised to review the definitions of arbitrary and capricious before making their decision.

There is also a closed-door Executive Session scheduled Monday before the meeting to accept legal advice on the Parker’s Kitchen proposal. Although allowed, The Freedom of Information Act does not encourage Executive Sessions. The key word is that Council “can” enter closed door meetings under some exemptions. There is no “shall.”

There is no reason, especially after the legal discussion during the April 24th unfinished hearing, why the legal issues can not be discussed in full open view. There is no pending litigation that is one prerequisite for taking legal advice behind closed doors. The issue should be aired in open session, on-the-record, for every citizen to hear.

Springstone Villas and Aiken Resident Jean Greenwald speaking about protecting public health, quality of life, and property values at the April 24, 2023 public hearing, which can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvF4LcMG6iY&t=9703s



Full Disclosure: My mother was the plaintiff vs. The City Council in the appeal on the Lulu’s decision. My Uncle was the President of the Springstone HOA when the Hotel was built off Whiskey Rd adjacent to Stratford. He, along with others, worked hard to make sure that hotel would not affect the residential area. Due to the berm and tree buffers, the dedicated entrance at the opposite of the property off Whiskey Rd, and to not putting a curb cut on Stratford, you truly do not know that hotel exists when you enter into this residential area. They did it right.