Blythewood Online 691

Category: Government

  • Rezoning Effort Dies on First Reading

    An effort to rezone nearly 7 and a half acres of land on Toatley Road in Winnsboro died at Monday night’s County Council meeting when the first reading of the ordinance failed to garner a second.

    The property is owned by Melvin Stevenson, who sought to have the land rezoned from RD (Rural Resource District) to B-1 (Limited Business District) in order to make way for the Williams Center for Counseling. Stevenson was represented at the meeting by his brother Al Stevenson, who told council that the proposed Williams Center would cater to at-risk children, between the ages of 5 and 18, in the county. The clientele would be recommended to the Center by the School District, Stevenson said, and would include children who had not yet entered the legal system, but were at potential risk for doing so. The Center would have served between three and five children a day, Stevenson told council, and would be headed by Dr. Karen Williams.

    Councilman Kamau Marcharia placed the motion on the floor after council heard from Stevenson as well as several members of the Toatley Road community who spoke against the rezoning.

    “I was a little dismayed, that when folks come forth and speak about trying to do something to prevent something before it happens – not just when someone is a criminal or has gotten in trouble – we’re going to try to prevent this,” Marcharia said near the close of the meeting. “No more than three children a day would be (at the facility), who had never been in serious trouble, and try to keep them out of trouble, and that was denied. We either pay now or we pay later. I don’t understand it, that when it comes down to looking out for our children, there’s such apathy, indifference. I would like each council member to tell me, what was really the harm, if that place was put there, what was the danger to the community? Who is going to be hurt by that? How could we stop these kids from getting some kind of service they really need and probably deserve? We just passed it by and didn’t really act on it. It’s kind of embarrassing.”

    Carrie Matthews, who lives in the community, spoke against the facility.

    “This is not a mom-and-pop store or a backyard beauty parlor that would be fulfilling the needs of the community,” Matthews said before presenting council with a petition of signatures against the zoning request. “These are clients who have a history of behavioral problems. There is a concern among vulnerable people in the community. We feel strongly there are surely other services available in town, and if not, Winnsboro would be the more logical place to locate such a facility.”

    The possibility of increased trespassing, crime and traffic, Matthews said, were major concerns among the residents of the isolated, quiet community.

    Ron Stowers, the County Building and Zoning Department Director, told council that B-1, while consistent with other land uses in RD zoning, also includes 71 other uses.

    “Anything that is permitted use in B-1 would be allowed to go in there,” Stowers said, “either in lieu of what they’re talking about or in addition to that.”

    “That makes you stop and think about it a little bit,” Council member Mary Lynn Kinley said.

    “Once it’s zoned, that’s what it is,” Council Chairman David Ferguson said. “If that business goes in and ceases to operate there, that piece of property is still zoned in that new zoning area. That’s also a concern of mine. You have to look past that one initial thing that it might be because it could turn into some other things. And 70 is a pretty big list.”

    Ferguson said some questions about whether the proposed clinic would be offering services not offered elsewhere in the county would have to be addressed before third reading of the ordinance. However, with the failure of the first reading, those questions will remain unanswered. After the meeting, Marcharia said he was surprised the ordinance did not at least pass the first reading and move on to the next phase where questions such as those could have been debated.

  • Civil Liberties Group Launches Probe into School Districts’ Use of Prayer

    It is no secret that the Fairfield County School Board of Trustees opens their meetings with a prayer, but a January ruling against a S.C. school district in U.S. District Court and new efforts by the American Civil Liberties Union may spell the end of that practice.

    Bolstered by their legal victory earlier this year over the Chesterfield County School District, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has launched the Religious Freedom Goes to School campaign, aimed, they say, at strengthening religious freedom in South Carolina’s public schools. As part of that campaign, the ACLU sent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to school districts statewide in an effort to determine if policies are in place to preserve the First Amendment rights of all of their students.

    Since their victory in the Chesterfield case, Victoria Middleton, executive director of the ACLU of South Carolina, said the ACLU has received a number of complaints from across the state. Two weeks ago, the Fairfield County School District received that FOIA request from Susan Dunn, legal director for the ACLU of South Carolina.

    “(This program) is an effort to get an idea of what the policies are at the districts,” Middleton said, “if they do have policies, and the way they can comply with the First Amendment in regard to freedom of religion.”

    In addition to policies, the FOIA request seeks records of all programs, schedules, itineraries, calendars, agendas, minutes or news publications referring to, relating to or reflecting the inclusion of prayer, invocations, benedictions, blessings, proselytizing or other religious remarks or exercises in any school-sponsored event, including (but not limited to) graduation exercises, athletic events, school board meetings, ceremonies and banquets, baccalaureate services, school event calendars, daily announcements and school newsletters.

    This latest campaign by the ACLU is not an effort to prevent individuals from freely and publicly expressing their faith, Middleton said, but an effort to prevent the government – which includes public schools – from imposing faith upon anyone. The government cannot impede, prevent or promote or impose religious exercises, she said.

    “We have children of all faiths, and children of no faith, in our schools,” she said. “A child can pray at school. The ACLU has defended the rights of children to pray in schools. But public schools are not Sunday schools.”

    Middleton would not comment specifically on whether or not the practices of the Fairfield County School Board constitute a violation of the First Amendment, but said opening meetings with a prayer could pose a problem.

    “We’re trying to get the information into us in a systematic way, look at their policies and look at their practices,” she said. “Yes, opening board meetings with a prayer can be problematic, without making a judgment on a particular case.”

    Reached for comment on their policies Friday morning, the Fairfield County School District issued the following statement:

    “The FOIA allows 15 business days within which to respond. The district is still within the time line. A reply is being prepared by Childs and Halligan (attorneys for the district).”

    A phone call to the offices of Childs and Halligan was not returned at press time.

    In Chesterfield, Middleton said, a middle school student was the victim of religious coercion. Teachers were praying over him, she said, and he was being sent to detention for not attending an evangelical pep rally.

    “It’s hard for a 12-year-old to stand up for their rights on their own,” she said.

    In December 2011, that student’s parent sued the Chesterfield County School District, and in January of this year, U.S. District Court judge R. Bryan Harwell ruled in favor of the parent. As a result, Chesterfield was issued a permanent injunction against prayer at school events, and school officials were enjoined from promoting their religious beliefs to students. The Chesterfield School District was also stuck with the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees.

  • BZA OKs home business in Ashley Oaks

    The Blythewood Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) granted a land use exception Monday night to a homeowner in Ashley Oaks, allowing him to operate a business out of his residence.

    The BZA voted unanimously to allow Garolyn Forrest to operate a Web-based medical supply business out of his home located at 118 Ashley Ridge Road.

    Forrest’s business had to satisfy five criteria in order to receive the land use exception. Those criteria had to do with the impact the business might have on the surrounding neighborhood: traffic; vehicle and pedestrian safety; potential impact of noise, lights or obstruction of air flow on adjoining property; adverse impact on aesthetic character of area and orientation and spacing of improvements of structures.

    Because the zoning exception goes with the land and can be used by a subsequent owner, Forrest had to swear that his business would adhere to the following six conditions on a continual basis:

    1. It must be conducted inside dwelling by resident family members with no more than two non-resident employees.

    2. It must utilize no more than 25 percent of total dwelling floor area or 50 percent of an accessory building.

    3. There can be no change of exterior appearance of dwelling.

    4. There can be no outside dis play of products.

    5. The business must not create any health of safety hazard, noise, offensive emissions, traffic hazard, unsightly condition or nuisance.

    6. The business’s activity may not be visibly evident outside dwelling, except for a wall-mounted non-illuminated nameplate not over two square feet.

    Forrest swore to uphold the six conditions.

    Prior to approving the exception, the BZA elected new officers, who will serve in an interim capacity until the first meeting in 2013. The election was necessary to officially replace the former chair of the board who resigned late last year when he moved out of the town. The Board elected vice chairman Bob Massa to serve as the interim chairman and board member Sabra Mazyck to serve as interim vice chairman.

  • Blythewood Council partners with County, State to lure industry

    In a special called meeting last Monday night at Town Hall, the Blythewood Town Council acted on a heavy agenda, beginning with a resolution that authorized Mayor Pro-Tem Roger Hovis to sign a joint memorandum of understanding with Richland County and the S.C. Department of Commerce in reference to a development they call “Project Resolve.”

    While the project was shrouded in secrecy, it was disclosed to be an economic development project that involved the expansion of a bearing manufacturer into the Blythewood area, to be located in a multi-county industrial park within the county.

    The project would be a united effort between the Town of Blythewood, Richland County and the Department of Commerce.

    The memorandum stated that these governments and the Department of Commerce desire to provide economic incentives to the manufacturer in order to induce it to expand its business into the unnamed proposed site.

    The resolution states that Project Resolve would result in substantial investment and the creation of 175 new jobs over a period of five years. The memorandum also said the company would invest a minimum of $130 million at the facility within that five years.

    According to the memorandum, the Commerce Department  is agreeing to:

    • Grant job tax credits;

    • Grant $750,000 for site preparation and infrastructure for the facility;

    • Provide $350,000 to the County for job training assistance;

    • Give an investment tax credit for taxes that range from Tier IV of 100 percent to Tier I of 55 percent of wages for five years. This formula is based either on the hourly wage rate or other factors whichever is lower; and

    • Give an enterprise zone credit based on the $130 million and 175 new jobs to be created.

    The County is agreeing to:

    • Purchase 9.5 acres, transfer it to the company and make it part of the joint county industrial park;

    • Agree to a fee-in-lieu of property taxes based on a fixed millage of 405.5 mils for 30 years (not to be effected by rising property taxes over that period of time).

    • Give a special source revenue credit of 60 percent of the fee-in-lieu of taxes for the first 10 years and 40 percent of the fee-in-lieu of taxes for the next ten years; and

    • Collect business license fees from the company if more than 50 percent of the company’s buildings square footage is in the county.

    The Town of Blythewood agrees to:

    • Collect business license fees from the company if more than 50 percent of its buildings’ square footage is in the Town.

    In other business, Council approved a bonded plat  and a surety bond of $394000 for Abney Hills, Phase I.

    The meeting ended with an executive session in which Council discussed negotiations incident to proposed contractual arrangements.

  • Fairfield County Council extends grants data deadline

    During their Aug. 27 meeting, Fairfield County Council received an update from Steven Gaither, the County’s grants writer, on the response his department has received from county residents on the most recent Community Needs Assessment evaluation. The data provided by the questionnaire is necessary for the County to apply for federal grants in the future, and Gaither said the response from the community has been luke warm. The deadline for residents to return their questionnaire was Aug. 28, but given the tepid response, Council authorized Gaither to push that deadline back to the end of September.

    Council also heard a presentation from Tony Hill, Fire Marshal, who informed council of plans to construct a burn building for fire training on a plot of land just outside the Winnsboro town limits on Highway 321 N. Burn buildings can cost up to $250,000 to construct, Hill said, a figure that exceeds his budget. However, Hill told council three to five used cargo containers could be purchased and stacked together to be used as a burn building for approximately $70,000.

    Council also nominated an unnamed individual to serve on the County’s Airport Committee.

  • USDA finances street sweeper

    Tuesday night’s Winnsboro Town Council meeting began with the presentation of a gift. This gift was in the form of a large check, large not only in size, but also in the dollar amount. The Town was bestowed with a $50,000 donation from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, represented Tuesday night by Nancy McElroy, to help purchase a new street sweeper for the town.

    Afterwards, Richard Winn Academy made a request to park vehicles and horses on the Mt. Zion green. RWA is planning their annual Patriots Day event for Oct. 25. During the event, fifth-graders will be able to experience life as a patriot during the Revolutionary War. After school on Oct. 25, the students will attend a formal reception at the Cornwallis House on Zion Street. The request was passed unanimously.

    In old business the Council was set to nominate the new municipal court judges. Jonathan Goode was named municipal court judge, Vanessa Hollins was named chief judge and Trey Spong was named judge.

    Mayor Gaddy congratulated the full slate of judges and was especially grateful to Hollins.

    “Vanessa, we appreciate your hard work and what you’ve done of the last several months,” Gaddy said. “You have gone above and beyond the call of duty and we deeply appreciate it.”

    Hollins had been handling a full load since the retirement of two municipal judges. Gaddy then turned his attention to Goode.

    “Mr. Goode, we look forward to having you as a municipal judge, taking care of our citizens, protecting the ones that need protecting and locking up the ones that need to be locked up,” Gaddy said.

    Finally, Council announced they would hold a work session Sept. 13 to discuss the International Property Maintenance Codes. At a work session on Aug. 27, Councilman Bill Haslett stressed the need for the Town to follow the County’s lead on cleaning up derelict properties.

    “The look of a property has a direct impact on the value of a property,” Haslett said Aug. 27. “As people come through town we need to put our best foot forward.”

    The County has adopted parts of the International Property Maintenance Code, which Town Council has considered doing as well. For the Town to get on board, however, it could be required to hire at least two code enforcement officers.

    “It seems to me there has got to be some sort of compromise,” Gaddy said Aug. 27. “I think the codes need to be looked at and maybe not passed in total.”

    Gaddy said violations of the code could not simply garner a recommendation from enforcement officers to clean up property, but that there would have to be consequences associated with violations.

    “There would be fines with some teeth in it,” Gaddy said.

    The next regularly schedule town council meeting is on Sept. 18.

  • New buildings in Town Center must have two or three stories

    In sweeping legislation, Town Council has passed an ordinance to establish three new commercial zoning districts (for a total of six), establish regulations pertaining to those districts and to amend and conform the current Blythewood Town code ordinances to reflect all of that.

    Among the most noticeable changes and additions in the ordinance is that all new buildings on existing public streets in the Town Center would have to be at least two stories tall.

    Three-story construction would be required for buildings on six specified street corners along Blythewood Road: Blythewood Road at Wilson, at both McNulty extensions, at Creech, Boney, at University Village Drive and at Community Road.

    The amendments would affect primarily commercial and some non-commercial uses, such as apartment buildings and condominiums, so that those buildings would also be subject to the Board of Architectural Review.

    The 145-page document will soon be available on the Town website.

  • LongCreek residents appeal DRT ruling

    It was reported in the Aug. 16, 2012 issue of The Voice that, on Aug. 9, the Richland County Development Review Team (DRT) had approved an application by LongCreek Associates, LLC to develop 332 housing units (including high density cluster homes and duplexes) on 100.7 acres within LongCreek Plantation subdivision. The developer applied and was approved for Green Code status under Richland County’s Green Code standards. The project, called The Villages at LongCreek, is opposed by many in the residential subdivision because they say the County’s Green Code ordinance has been misapplied to this project.

    To that end, two LongCreek Plantation residents – Sam Brick and Monica Iskersky – have appealed DRT’s decision to the County’s Planning Commission, which may meet Oct. 1.

    Brick explained that appeal to The Voice in the following Q & A session.

    The Voice: What, specifically, are you appealing about DRT’s decision?

    Sam Brick: Basically, we are appealing DRT’s rubber stamp of the developer’s sketch and concept plans, which do not actually meet the Green Code requirements. LongCreek Associates wants to develop three villages on this 100.7 acres, each one being a major county subdivision. They want to develop under the Green Code in order to get special treatment as a reward for setting aside, from development, some conservation areas. While the developers in this case have set aside some land in two of the villages so as to get relief from some development standards, they have then proposed building without consideration of any zoning standards.

    V: What do you mean ‘without consideration of any zoning standards?’

    SB: One of the villages/subdivisions has no primary conservation areas and is basically no different than any other subdivision in LongCreek. It has buffers that are already required by code and two neighborhood greens similar to many other neighborhood greens throughout LongCreek. They get credit for the greens as secondary conservation areas but there is nothing green about the third village. In actuality, it appears to look very similar to other areas in LongCreek and seems to follow the Single Family Residential-Low Density district in which it resides. There may be some minor changes to lot sizes, etc but otherwise it is a vanilla subdivision of approximately 59 houses alongside Longtown Road near the entrance to Long Creek Plantation.

    V: What are some other ways you feel the developers fail to follow requirements for green development?

    SB: There are several ways. First, they propose 80 or so duplexes in two of the villages on ultra small lots. In a low density-single residential community, there can only be one house to a lot, unattached, and set up in a side-by-side design. The developer did not do this and the DRT said nothing.

    LongCreek Associates’ designs feature minimum lot widths that do not comport with the requirement for the zoning district. The green code does not mention lot widths as a reward but the builders took it anyway. Again, the DRT turned a blind eye to this important requirement of the Green Code.

    Parking in any green development is a big thing, and the County’s Green Code requires the developer to address parking. It does not. In the RS-LD zoning district two parking spots are required for each dwelling unit. Whether the area is pervious or impervious means a lot in water management. Green is, among many other environmental practices, supposed to minimize erosion and manage water flows. The developer’s plan says nothing about this. To the contrary, this developer piles up dwelling units with no rear entries which would appear to increase erosion. This area of LongCreek Plantation consists of rolling hills that already exhibit substantial erosion on the little dirt roads that traverse it. The land obviously is not permeable.

    While applying for green, these developers do not seem to appreciate the full significance of Green in their plan. There is very little they have included in their concept/sketch plan that shows green practices.

     V: What significance is density in the County’s Greeb Code standards?

    SB: Density is a major column upon which the Richland County Land Development Code leans.

    Density changes with the different zoning districts and the County Council manages our zoning maps through the application of these density provisions. The County’s Green Code rewards a developer who sets asides conservation areas by authorizing a bonus density. In other words, the developer can build densely in one area by setting aside conservation areas.

    The developers have turned a blind eye to this provision and have tried to substitute another development provision in the Green Code that takes away the requirement for square footage minimums in exchange for proper green code developments. That provision is not to be exchanged with the otherwise very clear density requirements for the zoning districts involved.

     V: Are there inherent problems in the Green Code that lend themselves to developers skirting the requirements.

    SB: Density is stated in the Land Development Code as square footage per acre with the square footage changing throughout the different zoning districts. The two provisions obviously conflict. The Land Development Code understands this problem and cured it with a provision that states when such a circumstance occurs, the more stringent provision applies. The County Council has seen this problem and they directed the Planning Department to come up with changed legislation to fix it. So far the Planning Department has not acted. Maybe this initiative on our part will help nudge them in the right direction.

  • Deport Replica Could Become Business Park

    Town Council passed a resolution at its Monday night meeting to pursue an economic development project in what it called the town’s “municipal business park,” which Town Administrator John Perry explained is the site of the train depot replica long proposed to be built in the town park near the railroad track in front of Town Hall.

    The resolution stated that the Town could “use funds paid by a utility to fund certain, eligible infrastructure projects owned or constructed by the Town.”

    The resolution identified the construction of the depot as part of that infrastructure.

    Perry told The Voice that the utility paying the funds for construction in this case would be Fairfield Electric Co-op.

    The depot was originally scheduled to be built out of the $5.5 million park bonds. When those funds fell short, town officials said an offer had been made by an unidentified source to donate or build the depot, but would not name that source.

    At one point last spring, the mayor’s park review committee was held up from deciding whether to go forward with the park because of certain ‘data points’ that Perry said could influence their decision. He would not disclose what those ‘data points’ were.

    But Perry told The Voice prior to the council meeting that the entity that would be affiliated with the proposed depot for economic development purposes had to do with those certain ‘data points.’

    Perry told council that the Town would also like to set the boundaries for a Doko Meadow Municipal Business Park on the site of the proposed depot and the grounds around it.

    “Along with other funds and loans available to the Town, the Town would like to use funds paid by a utility to fund the project,” the resolution stated.

    Council authorized the Town Administrator to seek a determination from the S.C. Department of Revenue regarding the eligibility of the depot under the Utility Tax Credit Act.

    Council also delegated authority to Perry to determine the best way to develop and finance the depot and other projects associated with it in the proposed Municipal Business Park

    The resolution also established a General Repealer that repealed all rules, regulations and resolutions that conflicted with this resolution.

  • Fairfield County Considers Water Authority

    With a deadline for committing to a proposed countywide water authority a little more than a month away, Fairfield County Council held a special called meeting Aug. 15 to weigh the benefits of participating and the risks of turning their backs on the effort.

    Under the proposed plan for a water authority, members will be expected to contribute $5,000 to a Charter Committee bank account to raise capital for incorporating costs. If at least $15,000 hasn’t been raised by the Sept. 30 deadline, the entire project goes up in smoke.

    “If we haven’t raised that money by the September deadline, then the Town will probably have to look at phasing distributors off the system,” John Fantry, special counsel to the Town of Winnsboro, said earlier this month. “It is a ‘pay to play’ system. If Winnsboro is the only one putting up any money to do this, if other people aren’t committed, then we’re going to have to take care of ourselves, and that means cutting people off of wholesale water.”

    County Councilman David Brown, who said he has, in the past, been a proponent of the County establishing its own water and sewer service, said a water authority appears to be a much more viable option.

    “How can we justify speeding millions of dollars with no customer base, other than the industrial park?” Brown asked. “How can we go out and tell our constituents were going to spend $100 million on water and sewer when we don’t have a single customer? That’s my concern with us getting in the water business.”

    “I suggest we go along with it,” Brown added.

    Council vice chairman Dwayne Perry said he was concerned with the apparent lack of participation by other water providers in the county.

    “If we’re going to make this a partnership, we’ve got two purveyors who are not at the table, in Jenkinsville and Mitford,” Perry said. “If we’re going to look at growing this entire county, we need to be joined as partners. If we don’t have all the stakeholders at the table, I think we’re missing a great opportunity.”

    The Town of Ridgeway and Mid-County Water are the only two water providers to have so far expressed any positive interest in joining the Town of Winnsboro in forming the Regional Water Supply Authority for Fairfield County. The Jenkinsville Water Company (JWC) purchases approximately 50 percent of its water from Mid-County, which in turn buys water from Winnsboro; but Gregrey Ginyard, president of the JWC Board of Trustees, said two weeks ago that his company is not interested in joining the authority.

    “At this time, we don’t feel like that would be beneficial for us,” Ginyard said. “We can’t see turning the Jenkinsville Water Company over to someone else.”

    Ginyard added that he was not overly concerned about the possibility of being cut off from Winnsboro water.

    “We’re working on other water sources,” Ginyard said. “We’re looking at putting in more wells and we’re applying for grants for a treatment plant so we can pull water out of the river.”

    The Mitford Water Company said they would like to have joined in the project, but were locked into a contract with Chester County for the next 30 years or more. Mitford Water serves approximately 900 customers in Fairfield County.

    David Ferguson, Council Chairman, suggested Council ask Margaret Pope, of the Pope Zeigler law firm, to come before Council and present on an overview of how a water authority would work and what the benefits would be. Pope’s firm is assisting Santee Cooper and the Town of Winnsboro in forming the proposed water authority.

    “If we don’t get in on this, we’re shot in the foot,” Brown said. “There’s got to be some mechanism (to get water throughout the county). It’s going to either be through the water authority or we are going to have to get into the water business, and how much is that going to cost?”