In a July 26, 2022 letter to the Historic Aiken Foundation (HAF), Aiken Municipal Development Chair (AMDC) Keith Wood attributed a slowdown in the “tireless” work to “find a suitable permanent solution that would elmininate any and all” fire risks associated with the Hotel Aiken and surrounding properties to three week old litigation involving the HAF and eight other plaintiffs. (1)
The AMDC bought the Hotel Aiken and six other properties for $9.5 million in November, 2021, and intends to demolish its investments and remake the area into a complex of new apartments, parking garage, hotel, retail, and conference center. Apparently, litigation filed eight months after the purchase is a cause for an absence of fire inspections and an alarm system.
Wood’s letter was in response to a July 22, 2022 letter from the HAF requesting specific maintenance and safety measures by the AMDC due to a concern “that adverse conditions at the hotel lead to further deterioration of its condition.”
Sapling-sized tree in the second story window above Beyond Bijou. This sapling was in the window in November 2021 when the AMDC bought the property, and is still there today.
The letter named six specific actions ranging from monthly inspections to fire monitoring and sealing of hatches and other access points; and asked the AMDC to “remove debris around the exterior of the building both for safety and to improve the general character of the area.”
In his response, Mr. Wood committed to no changes from the status quo and assured the HAF that “all reasonable measures are in place to ensure” the integrity and security of the Hotel Aiken. He then proceeded to falsely infer ownership of the existing fire detection system, failed to acknowledge an unauthorized intrusion into hotel last week, and implied a part-time caretaker constitutes a full-time fire watch. The AMDC’s confident demeanor is further undermined by the fact that no fire inspections have occurred since the commission purchased the building.
Wood did not comment on the HAF’s request for monthly fire inspection system. According to Aiken Public Safety records, the last inspection by the City of Aiken was on February 17, 2021; and a freedom of information act (FOIA) request for all fire inspections since March 2, 2021 yielded no documents. March 2, 2021; Aiken Public Safety fire marshalls conducted three thorough inspections between early 2019 and February of 2021.
Click image to view full size
The existing fire detection system involves more than 100 heat detectors. It was installed by ADS Security for the previous owner, Historic Hospitality, LLC (Agent: Neel Shah) to meet criteria for city approval of an interior demolition permit issued in 2018. While describing the system as a “robust set of smoke, heat, and fire sensors placed throughout the structure,” Wood failed to acknowledge the system was in place when the AMDC bought the property and signed a contract with ADS to continue the system. The commission is only paying $65 a month for the basic service and has not incurred any installation charges.
The hotel “fire watch” involves a single “APS Cadet” who receives free rent from the AMDC in return for the following work services:
General public safety and fire watch works;
to monitor the area of the adjacent city properties on a regular basis and report any suspicious activity to public safety for further investigation;
other duties as assigned. (3)
The fire watch/caretaker is not assigned to assist with cleanup behind that hotel that contributes to a blighted appearance the AMDC is chartered to address. City of Aiken officials will not respond to specific questions pertaining to the percentage of time the property caretaker is on site, or to what other duties have been assigned.
The extent to which an APS fire cadet, who is also being trained elsewhere on critical emergency response procedures, is monitoring the area “on a regular basis” is unknown, as city officials have not responded to such questions. It is now known that it is clearly not regular enough to prevent unauthorized intruders from entering the hotel.
While Mr. Wood did not cite any recent intrusions, AMDC Executive Director Tim O’Briant has acknowledged an intrusion last week, just a few days after HAF President Linda Johnson reported “the gate in the rear chain link fence was wide open.” The intrusion was noted only after the fact during a “routine security check by staff.”
Recent photos of the open gate, as reported by HAF President Linda Johnson. The interior chain link that can be seen is just a fence section, not a complete fence, so someone can just walk around that part when the gate is open. (Photos courtesy of Linda Johnson)
As a result, “an additional intrusion security is being added to the contract with design of the sensor layout taking place this week and installation in the near future.” However, in Mr. Wood’s version of events, any time the rear gate was open “an authorized key holder is present on the property.”
So Wood provided no reason for the AMDC to engage ADS Security to “add motion and intrusion alarms to the system;” while O’Briant admitted that a break-in was the reason.
But the saddest part of this story is that the AMDC loves to tout Aiken’s Economic Master Plan when it is convenient to do so. The plan (2) was prepared by the AECOM Corporation (Now part of Amentum, Mr. Wood’s employer) and adopted by City Council in March, 2021, about the same time that Project Pascalis began mostly in secrecy. In the plan that commissioners love to cite and discuss is this passage:
“Aiken also has the unique challenge of preserving its notable historic architecture, while making room for new growth, so the City will need to partner with the Historic Aiken Foundation and other stakeholders to ensure that the downtown’s charming historic character is preserved, while also encouraging new growth and development and higher densities where appropriate.”
Yet, the Historic Aiken Foundation has never been invited to an AMDC meeting, and this week the AMDC chair stiff-armed the concerns of the foundation and chose antagonism over cooperation.
Project Pascalis is the name for a proposed $100 million plus demolition and redevelopment project targeted for downtown Aiken. The project is being directed by the Aiken Municipal Development Agency (AMDC), which in December 2021 officially announced RPM Development Partners, LLC (agent: Ray Massey) as the project developer. RPM represents the three primary investors and developers: Raines Company, Lat Purser and Associates, and Ray Massey.
Information obtained yesterday regarding an extravagant taxpayer funded dinner featuring shots of premium whiskey reveals that the Mayor of Aiken, the City Manager, the city’s Economic Development Director, and three Aiken Municipal Development Commissioners participated in a “social business gathering” with three members of RPM Development Partners. A separate check was provided to the latter group. Most of the participants also attended a City of Aiken Design Review Board (DRB) workshop just prior to the gathering.
On July 13, 2022 I emailed (1) Aiken City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh with concerns and questions regarding two issues on the “transparency page” of Aiken Municipal Development Commission’s (AMDC) website:
The existence of copies of AMDC checks within invoice and billing files with routing number and account number not redacted; and
A January 10th check from the AMDC to the City of Aiken for a $620 bar and dinner bill dated January 4, 2022 from Prime Steakhouse in downtown Aiken. On that bill were seven orders of premium whiskey worth $130, four orders of steaks, one order of short ribs, one order of veal piccatta, and an appetizer of Calamari.
Within a few days, all files containing copies of compromised AMDC checks were removed from their “transparency page,” and have yet to be returned.
In regard to the Prime Steakhouse bill, one question posed was:
Can you identify the people in the party who dined on fine steaks along with premium whiskey that afternoon?
After two weeks without any further response, on July 25th I filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the expense report, the meeting notes, and a listing of all attendants including those on a referenced second check.(2)
On July 27th Aiken Economic Development Director and FOIA officer Tim O’Briant responded with another copy of the dinner and bar tab and a copy of the AMDC check, with banking information redacted.
Copy of AMDC check and City of Aiken purchasing card statement
In an emailed response, Mr O’Briant explained that the City’s purchasing card was used “because the restaurant does not accept checks as the AMDC intended to pay;” and the city was later reimbursed by its commission. O’Briant also explained the following regarding attendees and meeting notes:
Those from the City of AIken present were Stuart Bedenbaugh, Rick Osbon and Tim O’Briant. From the AMDC, attendees were Keith Wood, Chris Verenes and David Jameson.
There was no record of discussion and no agreements were made during this business social gathering following a day of stakeholder meetings held by RPM, LLC and Raines, and followed by the AIken DRB meeting earlier in the evening
Neither the City nor the AMDC maintains a record of those attending from RPM or Raines, but by memory it included David Tart, Ray Massey and Brandon Graham. Ticket number two was for their meals and the City of Aiken nor the AMDC maintain a record of the charges paid by RPM/Raines.
David Tart is a managing partner of Raines, Brandon Graham is a project manager for Raines, and Ray Massey is a lead investor and agent for both Project Pascalis developers RPM Development Partners and Aiken Alley Holdings.
Prior to the Prime Steakhouse dinner and drinks, Stuart Bedenbaugh, Tim O’Briant, David Jameson, Chris Verenes, Ray Massey, and Brandon Graham all reportedly attended the City of Aiken’s Design Review Board Workshop (DRB), but not its monthly public meeting.(3) Mayor Osbon was not listed as an attendee at that important workshop.
The following two questions posed to Mr O’Briant at 4:30 p.m. today went unanswered:
If this was not a meeting, why was it paid for with city funds?
Under what city procurement authorization is this type of party of six allowed?
___________________
Next: The “Stakeholders Meetings.”
__________________
(1) The email read:
“Mr. Bedenbaugh,
I have some questions and comments regarding two issues:
1. I suddenly realized that the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) has been published sensitive city financial information online. Specifically, the AMDC has published copies of its checks to various consultants, vendors, utilities, etc that contain the routing number and account number of the checking account.
1a. Can you explain why this routing and account number information was not redacted? Even with a banking executive on the commission?
1b. If this information was released via a Freedom of Information Request (FOIA) before being placed on the AMDC site ( as it appears to have been since no recent payments are posted) did the failure to redact violated any city or state FOIA rules or policies?
You all really should go back through and redact that account number before somebody goes out and buys some premium whiskey online; which provides a segue to item 2.
2. Pertaining to the $620 bill from Prime Steakhouse on January 4, 2002, identified as “City of Aiken payment for Prime 011022” on the AMDC “transparency page” of its website:
2a. Can you identify the people in the party who dined on fine steaks along with premium whiskey that afternoon?
2b. Was this considered a meeting under state open meetings law?
2c. Was the dinner and drinks related in any way to the structural assessment of the Hotel Aiken also conducted that day by a consultant for RPM Development Parters, LLC, or is that pure coincidence?
Thank You,
Don Moniak
Eureka Fire Protection District
Aiken County, SC.”
Mr. Bedenbaugh responded that day: “I will review.”
(2)A FOIA request was submitted on July 25, 2022 for: “1. The expense report that was submitted for the steak and whiskey dinner at Prime Steakhouse on January 4, 2022; as required by City of Aiken statutes and policies governing reimbursement of expenses. 2. The memo for record (or other document) that recorded the discussion and agreements reached at the Steak and Whiskey dinner, and a listing of all attendants at the meeting, including those on the second check cited on the dinner and whiskey tab.”
(2) From the DRB January 4, 2022 Workshop Meeting Minutes, the following people were listed as present: “City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, Assistant City Manager Mary Catherine Lawton, Planning Director Marya Moultrie, Planner Mary Tilton, Zoning
Official Mike Dennis,Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant, Erica
Sanders, Ray Massey, Grey Raines, Brandon Graham, Stephen Overcash,
Susan French, David Blake, Mandy Drumming, Mark Chostner, Philip
Merry, David Jameson, Christopher Verenes, Martin Buckley and other
interested parties”
Although the meeting minutes state the workshop began at 5:30 p.m and ended at 6:30. The bar and dinner bill time appears to be 19:55 (7:55 p.m).
Omissions, Distractions, and Inaccuracies Plague Latest Aiken Standard Report
A front page story in the Sunday edition of the Aiken Standard (“Aiken businesses in footprint of Project Pascalis share reactions to redevelopment plans,” by Matthew Christian, July 23, 2022) (1) devoted considerable space to discussing the private business information of eight businesses still operating within the proposed Project Pascalis demolition zone.
Project Pascalis is the name for the City of Aiken’s $100 million plus endeavor to demolish and redevelop more nearly half of a major downtown block (2) and the businesses are being compelled to relocate. The businesses are located on five of the seven properties purchased by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) in November, 2021 for $9.5 million and each property is proposed for demolition and redevelopment.
The issues with the story include:
It is unnecessarily littered with guesswork about the private business information regarding individual rent schedules;
Omits the fact that one business, On Board Realty, also operates as property manager; which one citizen’s investigation has revealed to be a no-bid contract;
Failed to recognize a separate leasing arrangement held by another business, Newberry Hall;
Did not report on the non disparagement clause in the proposed relocation agreement between the AMDC and the demolition zone tenants.
The Distraction of Rent Payments
The July 24th Aiken Standard story contains unnecessary and intrusive speculation based on a single document, which Standard reporter Matt Christian defines as “a redacted document on the transparency page” on the (AMDC) website. This document can be found at:
The Standard is apparently unaware the actual rent information was available prior to July 13th, contained within several files involving the property manager. These files are no longer available for a good reason: unlike the redacted lease list, the names of businesses were not redacted from the document on file.
On July 13, 2022, I emailed City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh with concerns and questions regarding the security of AMDC checking account data and the $620 bar and dinner tab at Prime Steakhouse amassed by the AMDC on January 4, 2022. I made that email public on the Do It Right! Facebook page, but did not make this subsequent email public:
Mr. Bedenbaugh,
Along the same lines, the checks at the AMDC transparency page have the info redacted, but the invoices do not. The City also needs to go through and redact the important business information related to AMDC tenants. The names of tenants are redacted on one document but they are not in the invoices from On Board Reality.
Now maybe it is time to find a new FOIA officer for the city?
Within a few days of these two emails, the documents containing the routing and account numbers on copies of AMDC Security Federal checks, and the documents containing the names of AMDC tenants were properly removed from the its “transparency page.” Unfortunately, the documents, with properly redacted information, have not been restored.
There is one rent that is of public interest, as it does involve a city contractor. On Board Realty pays $450 a month.
An Undisclosed, No-Bid Contract
The AMDC’s property manager for the Pascalis properties is On Board Reality, a fact that the Standard either did not uncover or chose not to disclose.
The Standard did disclose that On Board Realty is “another business owner operating under a month-to-month arrangement with the Aiken Municipal Development Commission.” Its owner, Patricia Lucas, was the only person interviewed to express pleasure with Project Pascalis.
On Board Realty handles the property management under contract to the AMDC, including collecting more than $19,000 a month in rent payments; a fact easily discernible by viewing the commission’s bank statement, located at the same AMDC “transparency page” as the redacted lease list:
This contract was not obtained via a competitive bid, as required by the city’s municipal code. This lapse in procurement compliance was uncovered by Aiken resident and concerned citizen Kelly Cornelius. On July 15, 2022 Ms. Cornelius filed a FOIA request for, “the RFP or bid proposal notice that went out for the position that On Board Realty now holds as the collector of rent for the Pascalis Properties.”
Two days later, one of the city’s FOIA officers, Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant, replied:
“The AMDC selected the firm for property management based on prior experience managing the same properties. The firm is also one of the tenants impacted by the purchase of the properties. There was no RFP or bid.”
Mr O’Briant did not cite an existing lease agreement assigned to the AMDC during the sale closures to justify the no-bid contract, and tenants at the 106 Laurens property paid their rent directly to Shah Enterprises, LLC prior to obtaining the city as their new landlord. It is possible, though unlikely, that property manager Neel Shah would hire a property manager to manage his monthly rental properties.
City of Aiken’s municipal code requires bids on “purchases of or contracts for supplies, materials, equipment, or services” exceeding $2500:
if between $2,500 and $5,000, “oral bids from at least three suppliers on the bidders list, whenever possible, should be obtained.”
if greater than $5,000 but not exceeding $25,000, “bids from at least three suppliers on the bidders list, whenever possible, must be obtained in writing.”:
if greater than $25,000 a written contract is mandated and a more complex set of rules apply.
The Aiken Standard devoted considerable efforts guessing at the rent payments of each business, information that is exempt from disclosure under FOIA. The redactions in the document cited was proper. The lack of redactions in documents removed was not proper.
Newberry Hall
Newberry Hall is the only affected business whose owners were involved in negotiating a lease arrangement during the early phases of Project Pascalis, when the only meetings being held were behind closed doors in executive sessions. This information was made public on the AMDC “transparency” page only after another FOIA request by Ms. Cornelius.
That request yielded the signed, closing purchase and sale agreement between the Wyatt family’s WTC Investments, LLC and Newberry Hall’s owner, Myrtle Anderson; and the “agreement regarding lease and option” between WTC and Newberry Hall’s business owners, Patrick and Natalie Carlisle. (3) This lease agreement remained in effect when the Aiken Chamber of Commerce took “assignment” of WTC’s purchase contracts on June 3, 2021, and when the AMDC finally purchased the properties on November 9, 2021 (4).
The lease agreement included options for compensation for lost income, purchase of a new building, and taking over operations of the new conference center. As reported in The Aiken Chronicles on July 16th, the status of negotiations between the AMDC and Newberry Hall are unknown; but in response to a FOIA request for a contract to operate the new conference center, the city has declared that no such contract exists.(5)
While the Aiken Standard devoted considerable energy and space to the issue of compensation to businesses formerly paying rent to Shah family enterprises, the AMDC’s lease agreement with Newberry Hall received scant attention.
The No Disparagement Clause
The Standard interviewed most of the business owners, but either failed to recognize or decided not to report an important clause in the proposed relocation assistance agreement the city has offered tenants. Section three of the clause reads:
“Section 3 Non-Disparagement. The Tenant agrees not to make any negative, defamatory, disparaging, or derogatory public comments about the Commission concerning the termination of the Tenancy.”
This may be standard boilerplate legal language, but in this case the landlord is not a private property owner, the landlord is currently a branch of city government that is responsible for pursuing and managing Project Pascalis. How does a tenant agree to not disparage the project without disparaging the project’s commission seeking to terminate the tenancy?
Commentary
On June 13th I also wrote the following to Aiken City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh:
“I have always accepted some exemptions to FOIA. We do not need to know what day Tenant x paid their rent and how much they paid.
“I think it was 21 years ago that I encountered a travel report for a Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff member on its cumbersome ADAMS web site. It included his passport information. I informed him right away and the agency took down the letter and redacted the sensitive information.
“There are many stories just like that. In fact we have one here on the AMDC website, in which info we have little right to, and no need to know, is posted, but information that may be released that we have a right to know is redacted or withheld.
“Obviously I am referring to the list of developers who submitted proposals in response to the May 2021 AMDC RFP; as well as the entire body of that request.
“This serves as another appeal for the full release of those documents.”
The City of Aiken has yet to release these documents that, under SC FOIA law, they “may” release but can also withhold. The redacted document referred to in that email is here:
This story illustrates how we are often treated to information we do not need to know and is even generally exempt from FOIA requests; while important information pertaining to the common good is routinely withheld from public view.
At the April 20, 2022 Project Pascalis public meeting, moderator Tim O’Briant took offense to a question posed by Aiken resident and concerned citizen Lisa Smith: “How many businesses have been evicted?”
Mr. O’Briant correctly noted that no businesses had been evicted, but did not elaborate on the legal meaning of eviction or the possibility of future evictions. It is this kind of disingenuousness that earns government the wrath of its citizens.
The Aiken Standard yesterday devoted considerable space to discussing the private business information of the Project Pascalis Evictees, as I now sometimes refer to the businesses that are being compelled (subject to legal interventions) to relocate and make way for the Mayor and City Council’s idea of progress. While nobody has faced any legal eviction proceedings, the fact is that threat does loom in their future unless they play ball with the city.
In yesterday’s story, the Standard treated people to what they did not need to know while neglecting issues of much greater importance. The Standard owes its readers and the businesses a correction pertaining to its speculation, and an apology for its omissions of known information and a general failure to investigate using all the tools at its disposal.
Recently obtained documents reveal the City of Aiken has declared no insurance value for the historic Hotel Aiken, and is paying an annual insurance premium of only $441 on the hotel. (1) The City of Aiken has provided no reason for the decision to leave the hotel nearly uninsured.
Hotel Aiken: No Value, Barely Insured
The City of Aiken’s Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) purchased seven properties at a cost of $9.5 million in early November, 2021. The purchase was funded by a bond issuance approved by Aiken City Council three months earlier. (2). Two of the properties, the Hotel Aiken and the adjacent Holley House Motel, were vacant at the time of the purchase. The combined purchase price for these two properties was $4.25 million.
Photos from 5-star reviews of Hotel Aiken in 2017
The properties form a substantial portion of the proposed, but evolving, demolition and redevelopment endeavor in downtown Aiken called Project Pascalis. The project is promoted and led by the AMDC, which was formed in 2019 and has no prior, largescale institutional development experience.
After the original developer GAC, LLC (agent: Weldon Wyatt) exited from the project in May, 2021 for unknown reasons, the AMDC eventually selected RPM Development Partners, LLC (agent: Ray Massey) as its replacement in December 2021. The AMDC signed a conditional purchase and sale (PSA) agreement for the seven properties, pending a final master cost-sharing and development agreement. That PSA remains confidential and exempt from a Freedom of Information Act request. The AMDC has stated that it will offer “a discounted price for the property upon which they will build the hotel and apartments.” (3)
A request for proposals (RFP) leading up to RPM’s selection occurred in May, 2021 and was not publicly advertised as required by South Carolina Community Development laws. A legal advertisement for RFP’s was placed ten days after the selection of RPM. As a result, the legitimacy of RPM’s status as the developer has been challenged in court. (4)
The Hotel Aiken was placed on the city’s historic register in 2018. The designation remains despite the city’s Design Review Board (DRB) approval on March 1, 2022 of a demolition application from RPM for the hotel and the adjacent building titled 106 Laurens St, SW. The permission to demolish, approved by a vote of 6-1, is conditional, and demolition will not occur until RPM has a final agreement to purchase the property, has a final master agreement with the AMDC, and final designs are approved by the DRB.
In a document titled “Property Schedule,” attached to the first page of the property declarations portion of the city’s property insurance policy, no value is assigned to the Hotel Aiken. This zero value was assigned months prior to the demolition application being filed.
The annual insurance premium for the hotel is only $441, less than the premium for the average 1200 square foot home. The total insurance value is only $284,060, even though in 2021 the Aiken County Assessor appraised the market value of the land at $562,000 and the hotel improvements at $987,000 for a total appraised market value of $1.549 million.
Another way of looking at the value of the Hotel Aiken is by examining the offers the AMDC received in 2021. According to a redacted review of bidders (5) involved in the May, 2021 RFP process, one developer was rejected for only offering $1 million for the hotel property, described in the review as a “deeply discouted (sic) price.”
Cropped to show $1 million offer
In contrast, the adjacent Holley House motel, which is also vacant and part of the Project Pascalis demolition zone, has an assigned value of $2.25 million and an annual policy payment of $3493. Every other building in the demolition zone also has an insurance value matching the AMDC’s purchase prices. (See Property Declarations Table).
Property Declarations Table
When asked about the lack of insurance value for the Hotel Aiken, city officials declined to comment. The question as to why the AMDC spent more than $2 million on land and improvements, describe a $1 million offer as a “deeply discounted” value, and then chose not to insure the improvements against fire or other losses also remains unanswered.
____________________
Coming Soon: Part 2: Less Protected: A before and after comparison of fire protection programs for downtown AMDC properties.
____________________
(1) A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was filed on July 11, 2022. The request was for:
“Copies of the Property and Building Insurance Policies for the following AMDC owned properties 121-21-09-001: 106 Laurens St 121-21-09-002 : Hotel Aiken 121-21-08-001 Holley House 121-21-08-002: Taj Restaurant + 121-21-08-003: Old Johnson Drug Store 121-21-08-004: Warneke Cleaners 121-21-08-004: Newberry Hall. These commercial property and building insurance policies should be readily on hand and retrievable within fifteen minutes.”
The City of Aiken responded on July 18 with a $16 charge for 1.25 hours of search and retrieval labor. After receiving payment on July 18th, the city waited until July 21st to release three documents:
The insurance policy is titled “SOUTH CAROLINA MUNICIPAL INSURANCE and RISK FINANCING FUND COVERAGE CONTRACT 2022.”
Only a portion of this document, the “property declarations” chapter, was provided in the FOIA response. The city claims that the remaining portions do not apply to AMDC owned properties. Chapters detailing coverage declarations for liability, crime, and casualty coverage were considered unrelated to the request for entire insurance policies.
The issue is presently under appeal to Aiken City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh.
Recently obtained emails between City of Aiken officials further reveal bias and irregularities in the legal process for the controversial Project Pascalis. The emails to and from City of Aiken Design Review Board Chairman McDonald Law were obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (1), and are dated between March 1st and June 22, 2022. They indicate:
a strong bias in favor of the entirety of the project, illustrated by a dismissal of dissenting viewpoints, and a disregard for public input. Most notably, Chairman Law wrote that local historic preservationist contractors Bill and Bernice McGhee “have unfortunately been activated to oppose the entire project based on misinformation about efforts to preserve the corner.”
back channel efforts to influence the project outside of the legal process.
a tendency to steer the process towards approval instead of conducting fair and open meetings and hearings.
Aiken’s Design Review Board
The City of Aiken’s Design Review Board (DRB or Board) reviews all applications for any architectural change and enforcing the zoning ordinances in the city’s historic districts. Essentially, it’s purview is to protect the historical integrity that makes historic district neighborhoods some of the most financially valuable in South Carolina and certainly in Aiken County.
The Board’s deliberations are described as “quasi-judicial,” meaning it functions as an administrative court of law in which fair, full, and unbiased hearings are expected. Since the Board’s decision can only be appealed in the courts, it is arguably the most city’s powerful arbiter regarding proposed changes to the historic district; making its Chairperson one of the more powerful appointed positions in the city.
This year the Design Review Board has reviewed a wide array of proposed property changes in the historic district, including the following modifications to private homes:
construction of a stone driveway,
removal of two chimneys,
window and garage door replacement
a front porch enclosure
construction of a pool guest house
replacement of a roof and windows
This category of seemingly minor requests dominates the Board’s proceedings, but larger projects are also heard. The two most notable this year were scheduled on March 1st and July 5th.
The final item on the Board’s March 1, 2022 agenda was “hearing for demolition of 235 Richland Avenue and 106 Laurens Street.” These are the vacant Hotel Aiken, long a subject of dispute, and the adjacent building, also of 1920 origin, to its south housing a trio of active businesses: Beyond Bijou, Vampire Penguin, and Ginger Bee.
The buildings were acquired by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) on November 9, 2021, following a complex and tangled web of transactions spanning eight months. (2) The AMDC is a redevelopment agency established by Aiken City Council in 2019.
106-108-110 Laurens St SW / Beyond Bijous-Vampire Penguin-Ginger Bee (Photo courtesy of Donald Moniak)
The March 1, 2022 hearing proceeded as planned, and the first demolition approval was made by a 6-1 vote, further inflaming an already contentious debate about the largest redevelopment project in downtown Aiken since the 1953 gas explosion. The DRB’s approval of that demolition request was an essential first step in the City of Aiken’s downtown demolish and redevelop endeavor called Project Pascalis, an effort involving more than three acres of a city block of seven and a half acres.
The Pascalis project will displace eight small businesses (3) and place Newberry Hall, the only business hosting and catering to large downtown meetings and conferences, on hiatus during the three plus years of construction. Large outdoor events will need to be relocated from the popular Newberry Street festival area that is also threatened with demolition.
A second hearing for demolition of the remaining four buildings owned by the AMDC, as well as a former State Farm Insurance office owned by Aiken Alley Holdings, LLC, was scheduled for July 5, 2022. The hearing was cancelled after the city’s chosen developer withdrew the application on June 30th. (4) Instead of a demolition hearing, a lawsuit seeking an injunction to halt the project was filed on July 5th, and prominently features the DRB among the many allegations of legal misconduct. (5)
Warneke Cleaners (Photo courtesy of Debbie Traves Brown)
The four buildings owned by the AMDC and subject to the cancelled demolition request are the Holley House motel (currently vacant), Newberry Hall (6), Warneke Cleaners, and the building known as the old CC Johnson Drug Store.
The corner business in the McGhee Block of buildings has housed a number of businesses over the past 100+ years, including the old CC Johnson Drug Store, (1920-1940), Cloud 7 Gift Shop (1960s-70s), and, most recently, Playoffs Sports Bar. (Photo courtesy of Michael Aiken)
The latter was built in 1920 by McGhee and McGhee general contractors to house the historic CC Johnson Drug Store. This business was an important Aiken feature in at least one edition of “The Negro Motorist Green Book.” More recently the building housed Pat’s Restaurant and lastly the Playoffs Bar.
Marginalizing A Popular Viewpoint
After the building was threatened with demolition during a previous downtown redevelopment proposal in 2017, Bill and Bernice McGhee expressed a desire to maintain the building.(7) Bill McGhee’s grandfather William McGhee, along with A.G. McGhee, owned and operated McGhee and McGhee, which also constructed the first Aiken Hospital in 1917, (no longer in existence), and notable Aiken landmarks including the Fermata Club and the iconic serpentine wall at Hopelands and Whiskey.
Newspaper clipping of 1918 advertisement for McGhee & McGhee Contractors and Builders of Aiken, SC
With a business motto of “restoring Aiken, one brick at a time,” the McGhee family remains prominently and deeply involved with historic preservation projects. The AMDC itself has proudly described them as partners in the commission’s Williamsburg Street redevelopment efforts. If you see an old house being moved on an Aiken street, it is likely to involve the McGhee family businesses.
In January 2020 Bill McGhee received The Aiken Award “for his restoration work of old residences on the city’s Northside.” After that honor, Bill and Beatrice McGhee also received the second lifetime achievement award ever bestowed by the Historic Aiken Foundation.
These efforts also made the McGhees regulars before the Design Review Board. For example, in January 2021 the Board unanimously approved their application to relocate and restore two historic homes to 222 Williamsburg, St, SE. One of the homes, at 147 Newberry Street, NW, had been previously approved for demolition, but the owner agreed to donate the structure to the McGhees.
The McGhees advocacy for preserving the CC Johnson Drug Store was not well received by Chairman Law. In a March 20, 2022 email exchange, Mr. Law wrote to Aiken Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant:
If the parking structure is rotated 90 degrees, the Richland Ave building frontage can remain its current length. Another advantage, and not a small one, is that the side of the McGhee and McGhee building can also be preserved. The McGhees have unfortunately been activated to oppose the entire project based on misinformation about efforts to preserve the corner.
This marginalization of the family’s concerns continued into April. On April 4th Mr. McGhee wrote to City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh:
Sir
We have been in contact with Brent Leggs’ office of the National Trust African American Cultural Heritage Action Fund about the Dr. C. C. Johnson Drugstore/McGheeBuilding. We have provided Ms. Tiffany Tolbert, Associate Director, with information about the proposed demolition and the historic significance of the property to the City of Aiken. Ms. Tolbert has offered to examine options other than demolition and guidance from NTHP. When may we arrange a conference call with Ms. Tolbert, your office and members of the Concerned Citizens group?
Mr Bedenbaugh responded:
Bill,
The property is owned by the Aiken Municipal Development Corporation, which is governed by its own board. You will need to work through Tim O’Briant [cc’d above] to schedule a meeting with their officials.
Mr. O’Briant then asked Mr. McGhee:
Can your group and the Trust folks be available for the April 12 Commission meeting at 3:30 pm? Let me know and I can set it up.
A presentation slot was set up for the April 12th meeting. Normally presentations from outside parties are placed at or near the top of city council, board, and commission agendas. For example, at its November 9, 2021 meeting the AMDC placed presentations by consultants Joseph Minicozzi of Urban3 and Chris Brewer of AECOM at the top of the agenda and before commission business.
On April 12, the “presentation regarding CC Johnson Drug Store Recognition and Proposed Facade Preservation—Bill McGhee” was sixth on the agenda. An “Economic Development Master Plan Implementation Update” by $4,000-a-month consulting program manager Tom Hallman was at the top of the agenda. It was Mr. Hallman’s second update on the same master plan in six months.
The AMDC’s meeting minutes for that day are long on detail for Mr. Hallman’s presentation and devoid of detail for Mr. McGhee’s presentation. Six pages of minutes are devoted to Mr. Hallman’s update and associated commissioner questions and comments. It was at this meeting that the issue of the Hitchcock Woods arose, with Chair Keith Wood asking:
Mr. Wood noted that the Commission had talked about working with Hitchcock Woods to make the Woods more open for public use and for marketing. It is a huge resource for the city. He asked if anything had developed there yet, and if the Commission should revisit that.
The Hitchcock Woods are a large privately owned and managed “urban forest” mostly outside the physical jurisdiction of the AMDC, and entirely outside its legal jurisdiction.
In contrast a short paragraph was devoted to the McGhee’s presentation regarding the CC Johnson Drug Store.
The minutes merely read:
Mr. Wood stated the next item is a presentation from Mr. Bill McGhee regarding recognition of the CC Johnson Drug Store property on the corner of Newberry Street and Richland Avenue which is a part of the Pascalis Project.
Mr. McGhee stated he had been talking with the National Trust for historic preservation called Saving Places . He said he planned to have someone from that group to talk to MDC today , but he had not been able to make those arrangements. He is still working with them to see what they can do to help us save as much as we can of the Johnson Drug Store. He pointed out that presently the plan is to destroy the building and to leave a wall. He said he was looking to save the whole building.
If there were any comments or questions that day from Commissioners, they were not recorded in the minutes. McDonald Law was also at the meeting and received the email exchange leading to the presentation, but no other DRB members attended the event and it does not appear any other members were notified. According to the minutes, Mr. Law’s only comment that day, just a month after describing Mr. McGhee as “activated” by “misinformation” was:
McDonald Law stated following up on the comment about DRB input on Pascalis , they had a work session and received a good many comments from the public and Commissioners. The developers responded very quickly to DRB’s comments at their last meeting.
On April 20th, Project Pascalis developers presented their latest renditions. A compromise was proposed to repurpose the existing storefront facade as the entrance to the proposed luxury apartments, with the idea to “tell the story of of the CC Johnson Drugstore and and that’s really the most important thing.” (8)
On May 3rd, the DRB held its monthly meeting. On the agenda was another demolition proposal, this time for the house at 147 Newberry St, NW which the McGhees had been methodically salvaging and preparing to move. The applicant this time was the Aiken Corporation, which had a contract to buy the property and two adjacent vacant lots. According to the application:
The Board previously gave its consent to Bill McGhee to move the house to another location. Upon information and belief, Mr. McGhee was unable move the house due to the required removal and substantial trimming of a number of trees and abandoned all efforts to move it.(9)
The Board voted unanimously to approve. Bill and Bernice McGhee were not present at the hearing. Two months later Bernice McGhee was listed as a plaintiff in the lawsuit to stop the Pascalis project; and McDonald Law was named as one of thirty defendants.
________________
Next: Part 2: The Chairman’s Bias: A Demolition “Home Run,” evasion of the legal process, and the steering towards approval.
References
(1) On June 23, 2022 I submitted a FOIA request asking for “All email and paper communication between Design Review Board Chair McDonald Law Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant, and/or AMDC Chair Keith Wood between March 1, 2022 and June 22, 2022.” The intent of the request was to obtain information relating to Mr. Law’s advocacy for relocating the proposed conference center location to the recently vacated city hall building at 214 Park Avenue, West.
The city responded on July 8th with 15 email exchanges and 16 attachments.
(3) The businesses being forced to relocate or even close are Warneke Cleaners, Taj Restaurant, On Board Reality, Nationwide (already moved), Security Finance, Beyond Bijou, Vampire Penguin, and Ginger Bee.
(5) The Historic Aiken Foundation is one of nine plaintiff’s in the lawsuit. A book-style presentation of the lawsuit, as well as a summary of project issues, is at:
(9) FOIA request for correspondence since January 1, 2022 between the AMDC and the Aiken Corporation was met with a $112 cost estimate for more than seven hours of search, retrieval, and review of records. The estimate has been appealed.
