Category: Government

BLYTHEWOOD – After some intense questioning by members of the Town’s Accommodation Tax (A-Tax) Committee about how some organizations have spent money awarded to them from the A-Tax fund in past years, Committee members tightened up the rules last week for organizations applying for those funds in the future. The Committee voted unanimously June 3 to require all applicants to start providing receipts for all expenses for events receiving A-Tax funding.

According to the motion, if applicants fail to attach those receipts to a financial report 90 days following the close of the funded event, 20 percent of their approved funds will be withheld and they will not be considered for future funding.

In the past, the Committee has required recipients of A-Tax awards to report only generally on the event for which the money was awarded. The reports contained information such as copies of advertising, how the Town of Blythewood was recognized, a list of sponsors and a general summary of the event results. While awards are limited specifically to those events that draw tourists, a review by The Voice of final reports from last year’s events revealed some subjective accounts of the number of tourists in attendance but rarely any corroboration for those numbers.

“We need to see (a financial reporting) when these applicants come back,” Committee Member Carol Coston said, “because only then can we evaluate whether there is value in continuing to fund them.”

Moving on from questions about past reporting, the Committee awarded the full amounts requested by all of this year’s applicants.

The Committee approved $15,000 for the Doko Rodeo after some clarification by applicant Buck Coggins as to whether the number of estimated ticket sales ($20,000) matched the 5,000 – 6,000 people he estimated would be attending the rodeo. Ticket prices for adults are $15 at the door and $12 in advance; tickets for children ages 6-12 are $5, and children under 6 are admitted free.

Coggins said at least 1,000 of the tickets issued would be complimentary, another 1,000 attendees will be children and about 500 of the attendees are the rodeo workers.

While the Committee approved $10,000 requested by the Tournament of Bands, Committee member Ken Shettles questioned how the event managed to have a profit of only $5,000 on concessions over a 12-hour period with a $12,000 expenditure.

“You are making less than a 5 percent profit,” said Committee Chairman Davis Garren . “You should be making at least 30 percent with this expenditure.”

Blythewood High School band director Jim Bonner, representing the Tournament, said that was an area he was trying to improve on.

The Committee approved $400 for music at the Christmas Tree Lighting and $2,000 for the Big Grab event in September. The Holiday Market, under the umbrella of Bravo Blythewood, asked for $4,000 this year, $2,000 more than last year to be spent for advertising.

The largest payout was to the Diamond Invitational baseball tournament in the amount of $20,000 – $10,000 more than requested last year. Committee members questioned the $10,000 increase while the Tournament’s expenses were increasing only $4,000. Dennis Ballentine, representing the group, explained that the Tournament was adding two more teams for a total of 12 teams next year.

The Committee funded the upcoming July 3 Independence Day celebration in Doko Park with $7,500 to cover the cost of tents, sheriff’s deputies, entertainment, advertising, an event planner and decorations. The fireworks were already paid for since the New Year’s Eve fireworks event in the park was cancelled (due to inclement weather in January) and moved, instead, to the July 3 date. Ken Shettles, owner of Chuggers and co-sponsor of the event with the Town, said he expects an attendance of about 2,000.

In other business, Steve Hasterok, Director of Events at The Manor, said the Town is in the preliminary planning stages for a barbecue competition for local vendors in late October. He said the event would include certified S.C. barbecue judges and that more information would be forthcoming.

The seven members of the A-Tax Committee are required by state law to include two people from the hotel industry, one from a cultural organization and the remainder a mix of hospitality businesses such as restaurants.

 

Mayor Asks for Financial Records

BLYTHEWOOD – The Town of Blythewood is in “excellent” financial shape, but the Chamber of Commerce is not.

At a special called meeting of the Blythewood Town Council on Tuesday, the future development of The Manor, the financial problems facing the Greater Blythewood Chamber of Commerce and the future finances of the municipality were discussed.

The Chamber has been struggling financially and wants Town Council to increase funding in an effort to continue the momentum of their work, President Wendy Broderick told Council at the meeting.

“We are on the cusp of something really great,” she said. “Our activity has grown, participation has grown. We want to get to the point where we are self-sustaining.”

To do that, Broderick said the Chamber needs $19,000, the majority of which will go to fund staff and administration.

“We feel strongly, with that level of support, you are going to see the growth we have seen in the last 18 months,” she said. “We are looking at twice that. It (the funding) would be a real shot in the arm.”

The Town gave the Chamber $9,000 last year.

Mayor J. Michael Ross questioned the larger amount of funding being requested, while commending the work of the organization. Ross asked that the Chamber’s books be made available.

“That’s a lot of money, $19,000,” he said. “I’d like to see the revenues of the Chamber. What is the operating budget?”

Broderick said the Chamber’s financial situation sees the Chamber unable to meet the obligations of their scholarship fund and will see their meeting schedule truncated.

One matter the Chamber is trying to transition away from – one that Broderick said has previously funded scholarships – is that of the Blythewood Christmas Parade. The Chamber receives about $7,000 from the Town’s Hospitality Taxes each year, which is about the same amount of money they give out in scholarships.

“The Board had a discussion to see if another organization would be a better fit to take (control of the parade),” Broderick told Council. But the business advocate organization has failed to find a replacement host for the Parade.

The Budget

Council passed first reading on a $1,316,534 budget for FY 2015-16, down from the current $1,447,651 budget.

“It certainly is a substantial change from the current year budget,” Town Administrator Gary Parker said. “I believe it is a realistic budget. It shows you what the costs are.”

In the budget analysis, Parker highlighted the costs associated with the running and upkeep of The Manor which came to $210,000. With $84,855 revenue from rental and equipment fees, it is proposed to transfer $10,000 from the General Fund and $115,895 from Hospitality Taxes for the Manor to break even. The most significant changes for the Manor were above-budgeted salary expenditures for operations staff, specifically those setting up events and cleaning staff.

The 2015-16 Operating and Enterprise Fund Budgets were also passed on first reading. Council asked for a breakdown of the costs of professional services at the June 29 meeting for individual service outlays for Economic Development, information technology consultants, VC3 IT consultants and others.

“Personally, I would like to see a much more detailed plan for what they plan on using this money for,” Mayor Pro Tem Bob Massa said.

New Offices

Parker led discussions surrounding the proposed construction of two offices at The Manor complex. On one side of the argument, it was said that the offices are necessary for the competitive running of the facility. Some councilmen expressed fear that business would be lost with no physical presence of the Town at The Manor.

On the other side, Councilman Tom Utroska, describing himself as the “doubting Thomas,” said he felt the offices were not necessary and should not be a priority with other, outstanding capital projects.

“We need to pay for those capital projects before we do this,” he said.

“There is no question on the money,” Parker explained, describing the financial health of Blythewood as excellent. “We have more than the money to do this. We can easily proceed with this.”

Parker said the project is a relatively small one, with a cost of around $50,000. The project will be discussed more at the next full council meeting to include engaging an architect to examine proposals.

It was also discussed whether the offices could be paid for with $340,000 Utility Tax Credit Grant Funds left from the Town’s now defunct restaurant project. However, Town Attorney Jim Meggs said he believes that these funds can only be used for projects specifically related to economic development purposes. He said the grant must be used by the Town and that the project must be approved by the South Carolina Department of Revenue before it begins.

“How soon can we have a project identified and ready for proposal?” Utroska asked. “I’m scared to death it (the money) will sit there for two to three years and then we will have to give it back, pay taxes on it and pay interest. And I don’t want to leave it for another, quote-unquote, administration.”

“Certainly it is in our best interest to move forward with this,” Parker added.

Analyzing the Manor

Events and Conference Center Director Steve Hasterok explained that he has undertaken a competitive analysis for The Manor, looking to maximize revenues from rental of the Manor, comparing it to similar facilities and competitors.

“The whole idea is to price the manor competitively. Not the most expensive, not the cheapest,” he said.

Priced around $3,000 for 12-hour weekend day rental such as a wedding would require, Hasterok said he was confident that the facility would have paying customers 40 weekends a year. He also proposed raising the rates for business use and changing Sunday rental costs to be in line with weekday rates, rather than more expensive weekend rates, in order to attract more Church and social groups.

The competitive analysis will include nearby venues, such as the Cobblestone Country Club Ballroom, The Farm at Ridgeway, the Columbiana Center in Irmo; and downtown Columbia venues such as 701 Whaley and the Capital City Club. Hasterok will bring his proposed changes before the June 29 Town Council Meeting.

All-Star Tournament

Finally, Council agreed to fund the Blythewood Baseball/Softball League with $1,000 to host an All-Star Tournament for teams of 8- and 9-year-olds, but had significant reservations regarding the care of the fields and surrounding areas.

“Let (the organizer) know what he can do, and that is keep the fields clean,” said Councilman Eddie Baughman. “I want to see that additional overflow parking used. I think the trash is an issue. The parking is a definitive issue. I’d like to see somebody take responsibility for those. They need to know that if they do not follow through, it could jeopardize their funding.”

 

Ordinance: Raise Must Include Countywide Officials

WINNSBORO – A 2 percent cost of living increase for County employees that excluded countywide elected officials in the second reading of the 2015-2016 budget was revised by Council during a May 26 work session after administration uncovered a five-year-old ordinance that tied Council’s hands.

Interim County Administrator Milton Pope recommended the pay raise during a May 7 work session, but Councilman Billy Smith (District 7) balked at including the elected offices of Probate Judge, Tax Auditor, Treasurer, Clerk to Court, Coroner and Sheriff.

“For the elected officials,” Smith said, “they knew what the salary was when they ran and they don’t have to run again.”

Four of the seven Council members, including Mary Lynn Kinley (District 6), agreed. However, during a continuation of those discussions on May 11, Kinley asked Council to hold off on a final decision until the administration could present a comparison with other counties.

“We need to keep a good relationship with our elected officials,” Kinley said. “I’d like to see what other counties, neighboring counties and counties our size, do first.”

The elected officials were excluded from the pay increase in the version of the budget that passed second reading on May 11. During the May 26 work session, however, Deputy Administrator Davis Anderson produced a 2010 ordinance that requires Council to include those offices in any cost of living increases granted to County employees. Anderson also told Council that, according to his conversations with the S.C. Association of Counties, no other counties excluded elected offices from cost of living increases.

“Unfortunately, with that ordinance out there, if we’re going to give anybody that 2 percent cost of living, then the elected officials have to get it, in my mind,” Smith said.

Pope said the County was preparing to embark upon a compensation study, which he said would reveal a large portion of County employees earning salaries below market value. A small 2 percent increase now, he said, would help move those salaries in the right direction and do so incrementally, avoiding a huge jolt to the payroll all at one time in the near future.

Pope also said the County was planning to move toward a performance-based system for pay increases in the future, once the compensation study had been completed. Councilman Walter Larry Stewart (District 3), however, suggested any pay increase could wait on the study to be completed.

“The more you talk, the more uncomfortable I become with this 2 percent and your study and all those things that are going on,” Stewart said. “I think we’ve gotten a little ahead of ourselves. If we are going to implement a performance-based salary system where the raises come through that, then maybe that’s what we need to do.

“But then the other point becomes,” Stewart continued, “why go throw a 2 percent out there and go back and do a performance based system after? We’ve got to get some things lined up first before we go throwing money out there.”

The issue on the table, Pope said, was the 2 percent cost of living increase he had recommended in the 2015-2016 budget. A performance-based system, he said, would have to come before Council as a separate item that Council would then have to fund.

“This is not, in my opinion, in any way putting the cart before the horse,” Pope said. “We are doing something at a minimum now, just to address that the county hasn’t had any type of (cost of living increase) for the past five to six years.”

“You’re talking about giving a 2 percent increase right now,” Stewart said. “Then you’re talking about looking at the performance based … then if we implement that, then we’re talking about another raise.”

“That’s prospective,” Pope replied.

“You just sat there and said we are way behind on this,” Stewart countered. “It’s a little bit puzzling to me about what we’re trying to do.”

“If we do the 2 percent (cost of living increase) for everybody now,” Chairwoman Carolyn Robinson (District 2) broke in, “and then what we’re talking about down the road is this study and a performance-based system, that’s called long range. It’s not going to be hammered out overnight. That’s something we put on our check-off list to start working toward for another year.”

Anderson told Council that administration would be meeting with the County’s department heads next month to begin putting an evaluation system back in place, one that would evaluate employees over the fiscal year to coincide with the budget.

“We’ll wait on our compensation study, and next budget come back to you with a full-fledged plan on how we’re going to roll this out,” Anderson said.

“If you don’t get the compensation study done, you really cannot have a plan,” Councilman Marion Robinson (District 5) agreed. “You’ve got to know where you stand.”

As Council considered the 2 percent increase for the elected offices, Councilman Dan Ruff (District 1) questioned the $60,000 salary of the County Coroner.

“That one really sticks out,” Ruff said. “We’re more than double most other like-sized (counties), and not too far from Richland County.”

Chairwoman Robinson said Council last year elected to bring the Coroner’s Office in line with the other countywide elected offices.

“Well, we’re not in line with other counties,” Ruff said. “None of that makes sense to me.”

Smith, while he said he did not necessarily disagree with Ruff, said the Coroner’s salary itself was a separate matter and urged Council to focus on the 2 percent at hand and the implementation of that increase across the board, elected officials included.

“I do believe our employees are deserving of the 2 percent,” Pope said. “And we’re doing this within a no tax increase budget. Hopefully that’s not being lost.”

The question, then, boiled down to raising everyone’s salary or raising no one’s salary.

“We need to do what the ordinance says,” Smith said. “We hold people accountable based off our ordinances, we ought to be held accountable based off of them also. Whether I agree with the end result or not is another topic for another day.”

Council agreed to include the pay raises in the June 8 third reading of the budget.

Council Balks at Funding Alternatives

WINNSBORO – A move by three freshmen County Council members to kill a proposed road maintenance fee recommended for the 2015-2016 budget failed to garner enough support during work session talks Monday night, with the majority of Council members looking unfavorably on alternative methods to raise the funds.

Talk of the fee first surfaced during Council’s May 7 budget work session, and came at the suggestion of the County Transportation Committee (CTC), according to Milton Pope, Interim County Administrator. The proposed $5 a year on personal vehicles and $10 a year on commercial vehicles, which would be added to Fairfield County car tax bills, would raise an estimated $123,570 to provide maintenance on County improved roads and dirt roads.

The fee was included in the second reading of the budget, which cleared Council on May 11. Councilman Kamau Marcharia (District 4), while voting with the majority on second reading, indicated some hesitancy to fully support the fee.

“You can call it a ‘fee’ if you want to,” Marcharia said after the May 11 meeting, “but it’s still a tax.”

But by the May 26 work session, Marcharia was fully on board.

“I want Council to know that I do support it after studying it for a while,” Marcharia said. “From what I understand in this county, we have over 300 miles of dirt roads. That’s enough to take you to Washington, D.C. and probably halfway back. I think it’s a service to the community to have this service.”

The effort to squash the fee and replace it with savings from within the budget came from Council members Walter Larry Stewart (District 3), Dan Ruff (District 1) and Billy Smith (District 7). Stewart, during the May 26 session, said the road maintenance fee violated Council’s promise of a “no tax, no fee increase” budget.

“But we have passed a fee increase on that road use situation,” Stewart said. “So we either need to go back and find some money to cover that or we have violated the original guidance.”

Chairwoman Carolyn Robinson (District 2) noted that there was a difference between a tax and a fee, a legal difference also pointed out by Pope following second reading. A ‘tax,’ Pope said, goes into the general fund of a governing entity, to be comingled with other funds and used at the discretion of that entity. A ‘fee,’ he said, is assigned to the specific use for which it was adopted by ordinance.

Pope added on May 26 that, while he had told Council at the outset of the budgeting process that a responsible budget would be possible without a tax increase, the fee was a different matter.

“The fee was something that came about primarily after the CTC meeting,” Pope said, “and we were asked to invest and create some kind of fund . . . to be able to treat these secondary roads we’re improving.”

“But it’s still an increase,” Stewart said.

Ruff said that although he saw the need for road maintenance fund, he would rather find the funds from within the existing budget.

“We need to create a fund to maintain roads. I get that,” Ruff said. “I just don’t want to burden taxpayers more. If we could get it from within, I’m OK with that.”

Pope and staff were tasked with finding those potential savings, which he presented to Council Monday. The cuts included a reduction of nearly $40,000 in fuel expenses for County vehicles, as well as a reduction in unemployment insurance by $10,000. Pope also said allocations to the Good Samaritan House, the Board of Disabilities and Special Needs, the American Red Cross and the Chameleon Learning Center had been pared back to 2014-2015 levels.

“I see nothing wrong with this, with the understanding as we go through the year, if we have to go back and re-look these, then we’ll do it,” Stewart said. “But as it stands here, this looks good to me.”

Councilman Marion Robinson (District 5), however, said fuel cuts made him uncomfortable.

“Just in Fairfield County today, the prices went up 10 cents a gallon,” he said. “If it came up during the year and this stuff spikes like I think it’s going to do, where are we going to get that money from?”

Pope said additional cuts in spending could handle a small increase in fuel prices, but any significant spike would require Council to revisit the budget.

Both Marcharia and Councilwoman Mary Lynn Kinley (District 6) questioned the wisdom of cutting into social programs in order to offset the fee, and both Council members said they had received no negative feedback on the proposed fee after discussions with their constituents.

“The Good Samaritan House, they’re the only ones in town who give money to folks who need it for their utilities,” Kinley said. “There are a lot of good services here. The Board of Disabilities, they run a very, very tight budget. I hate for us to cut these services and disturb this many accounts in this county. I feel like we need to leave that alone, let everybody pay this $5 or $10 charge and take care of our roads and move on. We don’t need to upset the lives of a lot of other people.”

But Ruff and Stewart pointed out that the proposed changes to the allocations were not cuts.

“We’re not cutting their budgets,” Stewart said. “All we’re doing is freezing them at the 2015 level. We’re letting the stay the same as they were.”

When Smith asked why allocations of $5,000 each to the Boys and Girls Club, Harvest Hope and the Eau Claire Health Cooperative had not been touched, Pope said, “The simple answer is that when we got to the number $123,570, then I stopped.”

“I’m not so sure we shouldn’t go and do the same with all of them,” Ruff said. “Make it fair.”

Smith agreed, suggesting the $15,000 could go back into the fuel account.

Council was facing difficult and unpleasant choices, Chairwoman Robinson said; choices she blamed on unfunded mandates handed down to the County from the state. The CTC, she said, is appointed by the local legislative delegation, and is in control of funds raised by the state’s gas tax.

“We’ve been told there was no more money to go back and resurface any of the roads,” Robinson said. “Guess who’s the closets person who’s going to hear the complaints about these resurfaced roads? County Council. And our hands are tied. If the state does not soon put some money into these county and state roads, we’re going to be back to horse-and-buggy days where it’s nothing but dirt again.

“Five dollars won’t even buy a pack of cigarettes,” she said. “It might buy a good cold beer. A lottery ticket. You’re talking about (paying it) one time in 365 days.”

With the final consensus split evenly between Smith, Ruff and Stewart in opposition and Marcharia, Kinley and Marion Robinson in favor, Chairwoman Robinson threw in with the proponents of the fee.

“And I know that I’m fixing to get the seventh threat from somebody in here about my election,” the Chairwoman, after her decision, said.

Third reading on the budget, which will include the road maintenance fee, will be held during Council’s June 8 meeting.

 

COG: Cultivate Relationship with Winnsboro

BLYTHEWOOD – Blythewood’s Planning Commission took its first look at the town’s updated Comprehensive Plan Monday. Highlighting the major challenges of a residential, commuter community that has grown tenfold since 2000, the Plan looks at the needs of the area where population increases and the demand for water and sewer capacity have outstripped estimates.

The document is the story of future development in the area and was summarized for the Planning Commission by Central Midlands Council of Governments Director of Research, Planning and Government Gregory Sprouse.

“This gives us a look at the existing conditions on the ground today, what we see and what we do not see . . . and seeing how we want the town to grow in the following years,” Sprouse said, outlining the document’s scope. “You are in a unique situation. The town does not own water and sewer infrastructure and relies on other entities. It is imperative that water and sewer development goes hand-in-hand with (continued expansion).”

Affordable housing and control over water and sewer capacity were the two areas of most focus Monday. With a high average income, an aging population and quickly expanding residential developments, but no ownership of water and sewer infrastructure, Sprouse stressed the importance of “cultivating the relationships” with current water supplier, the Town of Winnsboro, current sewer provider Palmetto Utilities and potential sewer provider, the City of Columbia.

The first viewing of the long-awaited document, which must be updated every five years, was an introduction to changes by Sprouse and more of a summary for the Commissioners than a thorough examination.

“It’s just nice to see something. It’s been two years,” said Commissioner Mike Switzer.

Commission Chairman Malcom Gordge suggested that “work groups” come together to polish the document over the next weeks, so an error-free version could be offered to town council following the Planning Commission’s July meeting.

Outside of the overview of the Comprehensive Plan, the Commission also voted unanimously to rezone 636 acres of land, which runs along Community Road, to Light Industrial 2 (LI2). There was little discussion before the vote.

“This is a subject that has been discussed since I arrived here a year ago,” Town Administrator Gary Parker said. “It seemed reasonable to me to bring this up and make this proposal. I think we are all pretty versed with this.”

Finally, the Commission addressed the Town’s Landscaping, Buffer Yard and Tree Preservation Ordinance. Several tweaks to the expansive, extant ordinance have been discussed and minor changes to the language recommended. The changes would allow monies from the Town’s Tree Fund to be used for professional services directly related to the ordinance. Another change looks to document the removal of healthy trees by residents on their property.

 

Rimer Pond Developer Held Back by Provision

COLUMBIA – The Richland County Planning Commission voted on Monday to rewrite a portion of the County’s Rural Commercial zoning ordinance that has so far impeded Patrick Palmer, Chairman of the Planning Commission, from moving forward with his own request to rezone 5.23 acres of property on Rimer Pond Road from Medium Density Residential (RS-MD) zoning to Rural Commercial (RC) zoning.

The property is part of a larger 31.23-acre property owned by Sycamore Development LLC. Palmer’s father, Hugh A. Palmer, is a principal in Sycamore Development LLC, and Patrick Palmer, a commercial realtor with NIA Avant Commercial Real Estate in Columbia, is representing his father’s company in the sale of the property, which is listed at $350,000 per acre.

While the County planning staff recommended on April 6 that the Planning Commission vote to recommend to County Council that Palmer’s request for commercial rezoning be granted, the Planning Commission balked, citing the official ‘summary’ statement attached to the Rural Commercial zoning district ordinance. The summary, or purpose statement, describes areas best suited for Rural Commercial zoning. In describing those areas best suited for Rural Commercial zoning, the ‘summary’ identified, among other things: “the more isolated agricultural and rural residential districts and residents located beyond the limits of services of the municipalities . . .”

At the April 6 meeting, a large group of residents opposing the proposed commercial zoning pointed out that the summary inaccurately described the area surrounding the property for which Palmer, the applicant, was requesting commercial zoning.

Commissioner Beverly Frierson, one of four commissioners who voted against the commercial zoning request, agreed that the area in question is not isolated or located beyond the limits of service.

“They are already well served by commercial conveniences,” Frierson said.

Because of his conflict of interest in the property, Palmer recused himself from voting at that meeting and the Commission, with a 4-1 vote, sent the zoning request to County Council with a recommendation for denial. When the issue came before County Council on April 27, Chairman Torrey Rush stated that a large contingent of residents were there in opposition to the rezoning and asked that the issue be deferred without discussion until May 26 to allow the developer time to explain the proposed commercial development to the residents, even though the developer had at that time made no attempt to contact residents.

The County planning staff then delayed the zoning request another month, to be heard at Council on June 23. The reason for that delay, as explained by County officials, was to allow the Planning Commission to review the wording of the summary section of the Rural Commercial zoning ordinance, which had been the culprit in the Commission’s recommendation for denial of the zoning request on April 6.

After another month-long delay by the Planning Commission in reviewing the summary (because Palmer said he was not able to be present for the discussion), it was finally reviewed on Monday with the Commission’s unanimous recommendation for a rewrite of the summary at its July 6 meeting.

Monday’s meeting was dominated by conversation between Palmer and County Planning Director Tracey Haigler, whose staff had backed Palmer’s rezoning request on April 6. Haigler’s microphone was inexplicably turned off at times during her discussions with Palmer so that her part of the conversation was inaudible to the audience, and she was asked by some Commission members to turn it back on.

“Are we looking at modifying the code as a whole?” Palmer asked Haigler.

“We are,” Haigler said, explaining further that, “the purpose statement has been used to either approve or deny something and we want to be sure it actually meets the intent of the Planning Commission.”

While Haigler said she had requested funding for an outside consultant to rewrite the summary, she said funds were tight and that the rewrite would probably have to be done in-house by the staff and suggested the staff could work on that at the July meeting.

Palmer argued that “This (summary) part of the code, it’s more of a theoretical issue.” He asked, “Should those (summaries) even be in the code?”

“I agree that the intent is more of a theoretical intent of the code,” Haigler said, “but I’m just saying it’s been used as the basis for denial or approval (of zoning requests).”

“Maybe we need to get a more definitive classification like, say, road classifications where we use vehicle trips per day,” Palmer suggested. “The term ‘isolated’ could mean anything less than 3,000 vehicle trips per day or maybe less than 12,000 trips per day.”

The Planning Commission will next meet at 1 p.m. on July 3. A public hearing before County Council is scheduled for Palmer’s commercial zoning request at 7 p.m. on June 23.

The zoning change requires three votes by council, each usually taken at a regular Council meeting. The public hearing, when the first vote is taken, is the only time the public is allowed to address the issue. If the Council votes to deny the request on any of the three votes, the request is not allowed to come back before the Planning Commission for a year.

Both Planning Commission and Council meetings are held at the County Building at 2020 Hampton St. at the intersection of Hampton and Harden streets. To receive agendas and meeting packets for Planning Commission and Council meetings, call Suzi Haynes at 803-576-2176, or email her at haynessu@rcgov.us.

 

BLYTHEWOOD – A year after the Planning Commission revised and combined the Town’s Landscaping, Buffer Yards and Tree Preservation Ordinances into one ordinance and sent it to Council for a vote, the proposed ordinance continues to be held in abeyance as the Town operates under a tree preservation ordinance that Town Administrator Gary Parker declared at Monday night’s Town Council meeting to be complex in its requirements and difficult for staff to administer.

“The current ordinance places more burden on the individual homeowner and developer than is reasonable,” Parker told Council.

He said it also burdens the Town Administrator with too much discretion in making decisions about compliance. He said it is time for Council to consider the revised ordinance because “the ordinance isn’t workable as a practical matter. It requires so many trees to be replaced that it is impractical to place them on the particular lot or lots in question or in the common area.”

As an example, Parker said that under the current ordinance the developer must replace the removed trees with actual trees that are to be placed in a tree bank at some location.

“The proposed revised ordinance allows the developer to write a check for the equivalent value of the required replacement trees,” Parker said, “and the money is deposited in a tree bank account for later purchase of public area trees.”

Parker said another improvement in the proposed ordinance is that instead of a tree replacement formula based on the number of trees, the formula is based on tree density, which is giving credit for the cumulative size of trees being saved and compensating for any shortfall by replanting. The tree diameter threshold for removal/replacement in the proposed ordinance increases from 6 to 8 inches.

A provision in the proposed ordinance that quickly became controversial at the meeting requires Town Center District businesses to comply with the planting/landscaping ordinance within five years after the ordinance is adopted. Malcolm Gordge, Chairman of the Planning Commission, spoke up from the audience to say he felt that the requirement to comply within five years would place too great a burden on businesses.

But Councilman Bob Massa disagreed, asking Gordge, “What hardship would there be?”

“Perhaps there is concrete in the way,” Gordge answered.

“That’s where your Town Administrator comes in with some common sense,” Massa told Gordge. “You don’t want to water the ordinance down until everyone plants concrete and therefore does not have to comply with the ordinance.”

“The current code calls for compliance only when the property is developed or expanded by a certain amount,” Gordge said, “not at a point in time when you have to comply with all the requirements of the ordinance regardless of the situation. Rather than get into the same situation we got into with the signs, it should be addressed now. It’s just an unnecessary burden on businesses to comply with the ordinance, in my opinion.”

“No offense,” Massa said, “but we created the sign problem, not the businesses. The ordinance was clear – businesses had seven years to come into compliance and then we (Council) started to debate whether we should allow them to come into compliance.

“We caused the problem,” Massa said. “If you look at our Master Plan, it was based on our being green, not concrete. The Administrator has the discretion to make adjustments when certain landscape requirements are not possible. The businesses have five years. It’s not like they have to comply tomorrow.”

Councilman Bob Mangone agreed.

“The businesses in town helped write the new sign ordinance and then we (Council) started debating whether or not to enforce it. I certainly don’t want to pose a hardship on anyone, but perhaps if a business has a lot of concrete, there is a way to substitute some form of greenery that would at least add to the ambience,” Mangone said. “There are some places on Blythewood Road that could stand a few hedges. I don’t know that we want to completely beg off the question and not require compliance with the ordinance.”

Notice of Election

In other business, Council authorized a Notice of 2015 Election for Mayor and Three Members of Town Council to be held on Tuesday, Nov. 3, at Blythewood Park, 126 Boney Road in Blythewood. The election will be for mayor, two council members for terms ending in 2019 and one council member to fill the unexpired term of Robert Massa whose term ends in November 2017. Massa has resigned his seat effective the end of June.

Candidates can file for office from Aug. 5 – Sept. 2.

Traffic Impact Study

Council passed first reading on a zoning amendment that requires a traffic impact study to be done for any proposed subdivision development of 90 or more dwelling units and for group developments of 150 or more dwelling units.

New Industry Heights

Council voted to approve first reading of an amendment to change the height limit to 100 feet in all industrial zoned districts in the Town. For all structures in excess of 40 feet in height, an additional 6 feet of setback from a residential zoning district boundary is required for each additional foot in structure height.

“In other words,” Parker said, “if the structure will be 100 feet in height, then it will have to be set back an additional 360 feet from the residential boundary.”

The 100-foot height has already been approved for the Light Industrial 2 and the Light Industrial Research Park Districts.

 

Decision Could Impact Rimer Pond Road Question

BLYTHEWOOD – An agenda item that could affect a rezoning request for Rural Commercial (RC) zoning on 5.23 acres on Rimer Pond Road is scheduled to be discussed and voted on Monday during the meeting of the Richland County Planning Commission.

At issue is the wording of the ‘summary’ paragraph that appeared on the Commission’s agenda for the Rural Commercial (RC) zoning request. The ‘summary’ serves as a guideline for how the County staff makes recommendations on zoning requests to the County Planning Commission, which in turn makes recommendations on zoning requests to County Council, the chamber where zoning requests ultimately become law or die.

When the request for commercial zoning on Rimer Pond Road came before the Commission on April 6, residents along Rimer Pond Road showed up at the meeting to protest that, among other things, the summary’s guidelines for where to establish Rural Commercial (RC) zoning are flawed and should not be applied to Rimer Pond Road. Several members of the Planning Commission agreed, pointing out that while the opening sentence of the summary states that the RC district is suitable for “residents of the more isolated agricultural and rural residential districts and residents located beyond the limits of service of the municipalities,” another section of the summary sates, “the RC district is proposed to be within or adjacent to residential neighborhoods.”

Commissioners Heather Carnes and Beverly Frierson said the two sections are not consistent, convincing the Commission to balk at the staff’s recommendation that favored the request for Rural Commercial zoning on the road. The Commission voted 4-1 against what would become, if it were granted, the first commercial zoning on the road.

The zoning request with a recommendation for denial was subsequently sent to the County Council for a public hearing and first vote on April 27, but was deferred by the Council chairman until May 26. In the meantime, the ‘Summary of Rural Commercial (RC)’ popped up on the agenda for the May 5 Planning Commission meeting as an action (vote) item. But when the Commission met on May 5, Chairman Patrick Palmer, who is also the broker for the 5.3 acres on Rimer Pond Road for which Rural Commercial (RC) zoning is requested, asked to have the item deferred until the June 7 Planning Commission meeting because he said he had another appointment and would have to leave the meeting before the item came up. The deferment was granted.

While Palmer has told The Voice that he is not an owner of the property, which he has listed at $350,000 per acre, Palmer’s father, Hugh A. Palmer, is listed on the S.C. Secretary of State’s website as the registered agent for Sycamore Development, Inc., and Sycamore Development, Inc. is listed as the owner of the property.

“As it stands currently,” Rimer Pond Road resident Trey Hair told The Voice, “the summary favors our position against commercial zoning being brought into our area. Rural Commercial is not appropriate for our area.”

Hair said he fears, however, that the summary could be changed to favor the developer in the case of the commercial request on Rimer Pond Road. To take advantage of such a change, the developer would have to start over with his request and bring it back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation, Suzi Haynes, Coordinator of Richland County Planning and Development Services told The Voice last month.

The Planning Commission meets at 1 p.m. on Monday, at the County building at 2020 Hampton St. in Columbia. For more information or to receive an agenda and packet, contact Haynes at 803-576-2176.