WINNSBORO – Winnsboro is taking Fairfield County to court.
On March 30, the Town of Winnsboro formally filed suit
against the county, claiming in court papers that the county’s solid waste fee
shouldn’t apply to Winnsboro town residents.
The suit seeks a declaratory judgment that the $63 per ton
fee is “invalid and illegal”, according to court documents.
Winnsboro also seeks a refund of any solid waste fees it has
paid or will pay. The town agreed, under protest, to temporarily pay the fee on
the condition that payments are held in trust pending disposition of the case,
the suit states.
Fairfield County was served with the suit on April 4, and a
deadline of October 26 has been set to complete mediation.
Reached by telephone Tuesday evening, Fairfield Council
Chairman Moses Bell kept interrupting as a reporter for The Voice tried to seek
comment about the Winnsboro suit.
“I can’t believe you called me with all the lies you tell on
me,” Bell said. “That’s all you do, is tell lies. That’s all you do. All you do
is lie. Why do you lie so much?”
Once The Voice mentioned the lawsuit, the call suddenly
disconnected.
Winnsboro Town Manager Jason Taylor could not be reached.
In prior interviews, Taylor has said the county fee amounts
to double billing. The litigation makes the same argument.
Fairfield County has enacted a commercial solid waste fee
for years.
In its 2021-2022 budget, the county expanded the fee’s
applicability to the town and the Fairfield County School District. Neither had
previously been charged the $63 per ton fee.
“The County budget failed to set out the factual and legal
basis upon which the solid waste fee to be charged the Town was established,”
the lawsuit states.
According to the suit, Fairfield County violated state law
by not allowing the town to participate in development of the fee.
The Town cites sections of state law it says require the
inclusion of local governments in developing solid waste plans. Failing to
follow that process also explains why the court should invalidate the fee, the
litigation states.
Winnsboro’s suit further notes the town conveyed real estate
to the county in the furtherance of providing solid waste services. The County
breached that agreement by “unilaterally” imposing the solid waste fee,
according to the suit.
“The County has failed to act in good faith and deal fairly
with the Town by failing to attempt to renegotiate any provision of the
parties’ cooperative agreement,” the lawsuit states.
As of March 28, the Town owed nearly $62,000 in unpaid solid
waste fees, according to Fairfield County Administrator Malik Whitaker.
Whitaker has stated without evidence that Taylor “suggested,
supported and approved this uniform user fee during his tenure as Fairfield
County administrator.”
Taylor has denied ever creating or lobbying for the fee.
It was actually Councilman Mikel Trapp who motioned to
insert the solid waste fee as a line item into the county budget on April 26,
2021, according to council meeting minutes.
Councilwoman Shirley Greene seconded that motion, and Bell
voted in favor of it.
The only comment Taylor made in reference to adding the fee
into the budget was a request for council members to vote individually on each
line item, according to a meeting recording.
In addition, the recording shows Councilman Neal Robinson also feared the fee amounted to double charging. “A concern was brought to me by a few constituents that we’d possibly be charging county citizens who live in the city almost like double,” Robinson said. “If you kind of think about it, it is true. We typically don’t charge the citizens in the county for trash services.”
Blythewood resident Janet Robinson spoke in opposition to the mass rezoning.
Blythewood resident Dave Cather (waving a copy of The Voice) spoke in opposition to the mass rezoning.
COLUMBIA – Richland County Council chambers were packed Monday afternoon with residents from throughout the county. They were there to express their concerns, fears and objections to Richland County’s proposal to rezone all 375,000 acres of unincorporated land in the county. Unincorporated land is all land that is not within the town limits of a city or town.
The commissioners’ task was to hear from the county’s
residents and then make a recommendation to council as to whether to adopt,
deny or defer the proposed county-wide zoning map. The map is the second part
of the county’s newly proposed Land Development Code. The first part – the new
zoning codes, or classifications – have already been approved by council last
November, but they are not effective until the zoning map is approved.
Echoing the public comments made at the March 7 planning
commission meeting on the issue, more than two dozen residents spoke vehemently
in opposition to the rezoning map. None spoke in favor.
The proposed mass rezoning is driven by county staff while
council has made a number of attempts to slow the train down over the last year
and a half.
Of those who spoke before the commission Monday, the main
objections to the rezoning were that the new zoning will make it easier for
developers to bring dense subdivisions to rural areas of the county without the
requirement for developers to go before county council for rezoning, By not
being able to go before council, the public loses the right to have input about
what goes into or next to their neighborhood.
Blythewood resident Janet Robinson and fourth-generation
owner of family property, told commissioners that, right now, 400 homes are
proposed but not yet approved to be built behind her property. Currently, she
and her neighbors will have a chance to persuade council to see things their
way in a public council rezoning meeting.
Without a public rezoning process that is currently in
place, Robinson said, she would no longer have a voice in what developers bring
next to her property.
“To me, the message being sent is that the rural voice is no
longer wanted or needed,” she said.
Robinson implored the commission to deny the map or, to at
least defer it to allow creative conversation to “keep Richland County a great
place to live.”
“What smart growth looks like to me is being respectful of
the homes in the community and the people who have supported and have been the
cornerstone of this very county,” she said.
Matt Neece, the policy coordinator with Carolina Farms
Stewardship Association – a two-state nonprofit that serves and advocates for
small and medium-sized family farms in both Carolinas – said members from Eastover to Blythewood who
have 15 to 25-acre multi-generational farms that were farmed for the last
100-150 years, recently alerted him to letters they received from Richland
County inferring that their farms would no longer be farms under the new
zoning.
In a sarcastic interpretation of the county’s letters, Neece
mocked, “You (farmers) must be mistaken.
This is not a multi-generational farm you have here. This is, in fact, a hobby farm. Those 20 pigs you have on your property may
look like livestock, but they’re actually pets.”
The audience laughed, but the county’s message seemed
painful to hear.
Neese said that South Carolina’s Right to Farm Act prohibits
counties from implementing stricter regulations than the state legislature
imposes on what farmers can do with their property. Neece warned of possible
lawsuits that may come if small family farmers are forced out of business. He
cautioned the planning commission to keep the existing “agri” zoning
classifications.
A number of speakers and others in the audience from the
Ballentine area near Lake Murray wore “No Rezoning” T-shirts. They expressed
the concerns of many others that infrastructure in their area is already
inadequate to support the density that exists today, and that the proposed
zoning to an area already established with single-family residences is not appropriate
for multi-family duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes.
Pam Selkinghaus and Donna Cole from that area submitted “No
Rezoning” petitions with 1,334 names.
There were also speakers from within towns and cities who
feared the rezoning of county “donut holes” within their municipalities.
Forrest Acres town councilman Tommy Andrews expressed
concerns related to multi-family units being built in “donut holes” in Forest
Acres neighborhoods already established with single-family residences.
“I don’t think this is a lake problem or rural problem or a
Forest Acres problem. I think it’s a
Land Use Table and Map problem,” Andrews said.
Shawn Greenwood, city administrator for Forest Acres and
Andrews also expressed procedural concerns related to the effective date of the
new code. The code has already been
passed, eliminating RU, for example, but the map is not and won’t be decided
for some time. That leaves both residents and developers in a conundrum about
how properties are currently zoned. The codes do not go into effect until the
map is approved.
Several citizens in the real estate business spoke against
the plan, including one who develops small rural subdivisions with large lots
to the west of Blythewood.
“With all the “regs”, realtor Vanessa Patrick said, ”I can’t
make it work. Kill the map, do a re-write.”
Because of density restrictions to be imposed in more rural
areas, an Eastover resident stated that privileges currently tied to land zoned
RU (rural) would be removed and would prohibit subdividing to create ¾ parcels
to give as heir property to their children.
A frequently repeated concern of those attending was that approving the new map, which would result in rezoning all parcels in unincorporated Richland County, would strip county council’s ability to approve or deny much of the new development, thus limiting council’s ability to manage growth.
Richland County Planning Commission listened to more than two dozen citizens opposed to the county planning staffs’ mass rezoning plan.
Following the public comment period, planning staff stated
that council is currently scheduled to have a first reading and zoning public
hearing on the proposed zoning map on April 26.
When Chairman Jason Branham called on commissioners for
questions and comments, most expressed serious concerns related to the map and
the proposed zoning classifications.
At the end of the meeting Branham read a lengthy prepared
statement (posted on The Voice’s website at blythewoodonline.com) identifying a
number of discrepancies and issues he saw in the Land Development Code as well
as an aggressive increase in density.
Branham said the result of approving the map would be
“materially modifying existing practices, which involve the naturally increased
time given to a typical individual rezoning application. [That time] involves a
site-specific application, communications with staff, review and input and
recommendation with the planning commission, hearing from the community and
review and input and vote by council, which is often accompanied by community
meetings and site-specific agreements as to development.”
Branham stated that he could not “in good conscience vote to
approve the proposed map…”
Commissioner Frierson then made a motion to defer action
until the commission could have additional work sessions prior to their regular
May 2 meeting. The vote was unanimous.
What is not known, is how the delay of the approval or
denial of the proposed map will affect the dates of when the new zoning codes
will take effect.
WINNSBORO – Fairfield County Administrator Malik Whitaker
falsely blamed his predecessor for an ongoing dispute over solid waste fees.
On Monday night, Whitaker called out Jason Taylor, now town manager for Winnsboro, for creating the fee and including it in the county’s 2021-2022 budget.
Whitaker
“It should be noted that former County Administrator [Jason]
Taylor suggested, supported and approved this uniform user fee during his
tenure as Fairfield County administrator,” Whitaker stated.
Whitaker’s claim, however, is incorrect.
Council minutes reviewed by The Voice state that council
members, not Taylor, voted to insert the solid waste fee into the current
county budget.
“I did not create the fee. That fee was not instituted by
me,” Taylor said. “That fee was put on a list of things that county council
wanted to include in the budget.”
Whitaker’s gaffe comes in response to the town seeking a
meeting with the county to try to resolve the solid waste dispute.
The Town of Winnsboro has not paid the fee since the fee’s
adoption July 1, 2021. Fairfield says the town owes nearly $62,000, though the
town has said it doesn’t plan to pay.
Last month, the town adopted a resolution vehemently
objecting to the county fee, saying it’s essentially a double charge since town
residents also pay county property taxes for solid waste services.
Whitaker took issue with the town requesting a meeting only
after refusing to pay the fee and adopting a resolution hinting at legal
action. Whitaker said he thought the town should have paid the fee first, and
then requested a meeting.
Taylor said the town was following the advice of its
attorneys.
“We structured our actions after consulting our legal
counsel,” Taylor said.
Whitaker gaffed further by questioning why Taylor only now
opposes the solid waste fee without providing any evidence that his predecessor
[Taylor] ever supported it.
“He has not told me why this uniform fee was appropriate in
the budget ordinance when he was Fairfield County administrator, but now as
town manager of Winnsboro, it is now inappropriate,” Whitaker said. “I think it
is important for him to clarify his change in position.”
Taylor said there is no position to change, reiterating that
he never created, supported or proposed the solid waste fee in the first place.
“[The fee] was not in the budget that I presented, but they (council members) voted to put it in,” Taylor said.
How the fee really originated
During typical budget years, individual council members add
items to the budget under what’s called the motions list.
On April 26, 2021, Councilman Mikel Trapp requested to add
the $63 per ton solid waste fee to the motions list, according to council
meeting minutes from that date.
Councilwoman Shirley Greene seconded that request, minutes
show.
“County council members request things to go on the motion
list. The staff puts together the budget,” Taylor said. “That [the fee] was one
of the items one of the council members wanted to include.”
On April 26, Councilman Neal Robinson raised similar
concerns about the fee being a double charge.
“A concern was brought to me by a few constituents that we’d
possibly be charging county citizens who live in the city almost like double,”
Robinson said. “If you kind of think about it, it is true. We typically don’t
charge the citizens in the county for trash services.”
During that meeting, Council Chairman Moses Bell countered
that the fee is justified.
“The Town of Winnsboro, as I understand it, charges for
trash pickup,” Bell said. “Because they charge for trash pickup, the only thing
they’d be doing here is, just like any business owner, they’d have to pay for
it.”
Winnsboro, however, doesn’t charge for trash pickup. The
town only charges a nominal fee to cover the cost of transporting curbside
trash to the dumping site.
In the end, Fairfield County Council voted last spring to
add the solid waste fee. The overall budget ordinance vote passed by a slim 4-3
margin.
During the last year, Council has voted to allocate $3M for new recreation centers. Monday night they voted 5-2 to lease land where they plan to build another recreation center. Pictured above is the site for the District 1 complex coming to Highway 21 in Ridgeway. | Contributed
WINNSBORO – Mitford’s community center averages one to three
people a day.
Monticello’s averages three to five. Nobody visited either
center at all in November.
With $3M already earmarked for three rec centers in the county, council wants to spend more taxpayer money on parks and recreation.
On Monday, council voted 5-2 to lease 8.12 acres in the North Monticello and Ladd Road area from Dominion Energy for another recreation center.
Council members Doug Pauley and Clarence Gilbert opposed.
“I ask this council to open your eyes and see what is needed
for Fairfield County and its citizens, and not what is wanted by you for
political reasons,” Pauley said.
While the cost of the lease is only $5 annually, per the
lease, Fairfield County must purchase several insurance policies to cover the
property. Those policies are valued at $3 million, documents state.
The county is also responsible for costs associated with
adding any libraries, playground equipment or other amenities, the costs of
which have yet to be determined.
Pauley said the lease vote represents another instance of
the council majority building projects for campaign purposes and putting them
above what the county really needs. He rattled off a laundry list of those
needs.
He said the daily operating budget of the public works
department was cut by 50 percent, yet the employees in that department have to
do daily operations and make repairs to five county bridges that are out.
“That department lacks adequate gravel, piping and other
materials to maintain county roads,” Pauley said.
“The Sheriff’s office and fire service must make do with
antiquated vehicles. And what about the rising cost of gas for these vehicles?”
he asked.
“Fire service has been asking for tankers for three years,”
Pauley said. “They have two with over 35 years on them. One of them caught fire
while responding to a fire recently and another has a transmission problem. If
the ISO came tomorrow and a tanker was not at a station, it would not qualify
as a station.
“We’ve needed a fire marshal for two years and we need four
firefighters,” he said.
“EMS needs three ambulances, and three of the ones they
have, have over 350 miles. We have cut on-the-road paramedics who provide
life-saving support,” Pauley continued.
“We don’t even have a full time director to manage all these [recreation] facilities because we can’t afford to hire them,” he said.
Without responding to Pauley’s statement, Council Chairman
Moses Bell called for the vote which was 5-2.
Later on, Bell once again took aim at the Mt. Zion contract,
the subject of an unrelated agenda item following the lease vote.
“The reason we have to spend all this money is the
disastrous contract. Even lawyers advised us not to get into this contract,”
Bell said, without identifying the lawyers or the circumstance.
WINNSBORO – During county council’s meeting Monday night,
County Administrator Malik Whitaker doubled down on the county’s position that
the Town of Winnsboro owes over $60,000 in unpaid solid waste fees.
In a letter to Winnsboro Town Manager Jason Taylor, dated
Nov. 15, 2021, Whitaker wrote, “For the current fiscal year, the County has
invoiced your organization approximately $35,612.01 for solid waste delivered
to the County transfer station during the time period of July 1, 2021 to
October 31, 2021. As of today, we have not received any payment for these waste
services. We ask that you remit payment covering the balance of $35,612.01
within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter.”
On Monday night, Whitaker said Winnsboro now owes
$61,881.75.
“Fairfield County will be sending notice to the Town of
Winnsboro that if they do not pay the fee by the end of March,” Whitaker told
council members, “Fairfield County will not accept the Town’s solid waste at
county facilities. So that is the county’s current position.”
“Fairfield County charges solid waste service fees for
services provided to all commercial users of the county’s solid waste transfer
station,” Whitaker said. “The fees are service fees owed based on the amount of
services provided and they are not a tax.”
Winnsboro Town Council recently adopted a resolution sternly
opposing the surcharge the county council had quietly inserted into the county
budget.
According to the resolution, the fee is tantamount to double
billing since the county already bills Winnsboro residents for solid waste
disposal via property taxes. State grants further augment the county’s solid
waste budget, according to the resolution.
For a small fee, the Town will transport the residents’
solid waste to the landfill. Fairfield County Council members did not comment
further on the solid waste fees following Whitaker’s presentation.
WINNSBORO – Several things don’t smell right with a roughly
$60,000 solid waste disposal bill that the Town of Winnsboro said it recently
received from Fairfield County, according to town officials.
Town Administrator Jason Taylor says the bill represents a
double charge for a service municipal residents already pay via county property
taxes – the right to dispose city-generated waste into the county landfill.
Until now, the only extra charge town residents pay is a
nominal fee to Winnsboro to recoup costs of transportation to the landfill.
Taylor said the town actually loses money on the
transportation fee. He said Fairfield County’s solid waste surcharge unfairly
targets town residents while exempting county residents.
“Outside the power plant, our citizens collectively pay more
property taxes than anyone in the county,” he said.
Taylor noted that DHEC grant money further subsidizes
Fairfield County solid waste operation costs, which he said makes its surcharge
all the more egregious.
“That’s triple dipping essentially. We think this charge is
invalid and inappropriate,” Taylor said.
In response, the town recently adopted a scathing resolution
that protests the fee and lays the groundwork for possible legal action.
“The content of this particular resolution is important,”
Taylor said. “We’ve crafted it in anticipation of potential legal action that
may have to occur.”
Fairfield County Administrator Malik Whitaker could not be
reached for comment.
The solid waste surcharge quietly found its way into the
county’s 2022 budget last spring.
The Winnsboro resolution says the county failed to give town
officials an opportunity to participate in creating the fee, which violates
state’s Solid Waste Policy and Management Act.
It also says the county has failed to contract solid waste
services with the town. Further, the county is engaging in double taxation of
town residents, according to the resolution.
“[T]he Town vehemently protests the implementation of a
solid waste disposal fee as imposed by the Fairfield County Council,” the
resolution states.
A source familiar with the surcharge said County Council
Chairman Moses Bell discussed the billing issue during executive session of the
Feb. 14 council meeting. Bell also directed Whitaker and county attorney
Charles Boykin to craft a letter demanding payment and threatening to cut off
the town’s landfill access if Winnsboro leaders fail to pay, the source said.
Bell couldn’t be reached for comment.
On Tuesday, Bell answered when The Voice telephoned him but
the call immediately disconnected when the reporter identified himself.
Taylor said he hadn’t received any demand letters as of
Tuesday. He did say he’s discussed the surcharge controversy with Whitaker, but
declined to delve into specifics.
“It was a productive conversation where we both stated our
arguments,” Taylor said.
Directing county officials during executive session to write
a demand letter and send it to the town likely violated provisions of the S.C.
Freedom of Information Act, according to a media law expert.
At the Feb. 14 meeting, the only vote Fairfield County
Council members cast after exiting executive session involved the expenditure
of federal stimulus money, according to a video posted on the county’s official
YouTube channel.
“No action was taken in executive session,” Bell stated in
the recording.
However, directing county leaders in executive session to author a demand letter violates FOIA in at least two ways, said Jay Bender, an attorney with the S.C. Press Association, of which The Voice is a member.
Committing to a course of action in executive session –
whether directly or via straw poll – violates FOIA. The directive to pen a
demand letter also should’ve received a public vote, Bender said.
“It doesn’t matter if you call it a straw poll or you call
it scratching your nose, if you’re committing to a course of action, that’s
illegal,” he said. “I think the Town of Winnsboro has a claim and citizens have
a claim against that process.”
NOTICE – CORRECTED DATE OF TACO BELL appearance before BW Board of Architectural Review The Blythewood Board of Architectural Review will consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for a Taco Bell Tuesday, Feb. 22 (not Monday, Feb. 21 as printed in the Feb. 17 issue of The Voice) at The Manor.
BLYTHEWOOD – Plans for a Taco Bell with a drive-thru will go before the Board of Architectural Review on Tuesday, Feb. 22, to be considered for a certificate of appropriateness.
The applicant, National Restaurant Designers, is
representing the owner, Flynn Restaurant Group, in its request to develop
approximately 1.1 acres for the construction of a 1.944 square foot restaurant
with a drive-thru lane, according to the application.
The property, located at 209 Blythewood Road, is in the Town
Center (TC) District.
If approved, the restaurant will sit between Zaxby’s and
Blythewood Dentistry.
The Town requires a buffer between adjoining commercially
zoned lots in the Town Center District to be a minimum of 10 feet in width, or
7 feet if a wall, fence or berm is used between adjoining properties on both
sides and to the rear.
This will be the second time since 2018 that Taco Bell has
considered opening a franchise in Blythewood.
The Board of Architectural Review will meet at 5:30 p.m., Monday evening at the Manor to review the application. The meeting is open to the public and will be live streamed and available on YouTube via the town’s website, townofblythewoodsc.gov.
RIDGEWAY – Five candidates have filed to run for two council seats and for mayor in the Ridgeway general election to be held April 5, 2022.
Hartman
Martin
Johnson
Former council member Robert Hartman, Rick Johnson and current councilman Dan Martin will be vying for the two open seats on council. Mayor Heath Cookendorfer and former Mayor Rufus Jones have filed to run for mayor.
Both council seats and the mayor’s seat are for four year
terms.
Heath Cookendorfer
Rufus Jones
The election will be held at the Ridgeway Fire Station, 350
U. S. Hwy 21 S. Those desiring to vote in the election must be registered by
March 5, 2022, at the Fairfield County Board of Voter Registration.
This is a nonpartisan election and no party affiliation will
be placed on the ballot.
The polls will open at 7 a.m. and close at 7 p.m. on
election day. The process of examining return-addressed absentee envelopes will
begin on April 5, 2022, at the Fairfield County Voter Registration and
Elections Office at 315 S. Congress Street in Winnsboro.
On Friday, April 8, 2022, at 10 a.m., the Fairfield County
Voter Registration and Election Committee will hold a hearing at 315 S.
Congress Street in Winnsboro to determine the validity of ballots challenged in
this election.
WINNSBORO – Fairfield County is facing a financial “mini
crisis” after failing to timely file required financial statements. That
failure has resulted in the county’s FY2021 audit being held up, according to
emails obtained by The Voice.
In an email to council members, County Administrator Malik
Whitaker said the county is six months tardy in submitting its audits,
potentially jeopardizing critical infrastructure projects dependent on state
money.
“We have a
mini-crisis situation with our audits being six months behind,” Whitaker wrote
in an email to council members on Feb. 1. “Our team is committed to getting us
through this situation with lessons learned so this will not happen again. Your
patience is appreciated. I will keep your [sic] posted.”
However, the S.C. Comptroller General’s Office is
withholding payments to Fairfield pending receipt of the required financial
statements, according to the S.C. Rural Infrastructure Authority, or RIA.
Among the Fairfield County projects potentially impacted is a proposed water main project at Peach Road, said Kendra Wilkerson, a program manager with the RIA.
“We have been informed that the [Comptroller General’s]
office is currently withholding state payments to a number of counties,
including Fairfield, pending receipt of FY21 financial statements,” Wilkerson
said via email to Fairfield County leaders.
“So, if you submit a request for payment to RIA for the
Peach Road Water Main project (RIA grant R-21-2057), that payment will be
withheld until this situation is resolved with the CG’s office,” the email
continues. “RIA does not have any control over this situation, but we wanted to
make sure you were aware of it.”
Whitaker said the county is working on an 18-day action plan
to bring its financials up to speed.
“I have committed our finance team to a February 28th
deadline for submitting our audited statements to the State,” Whitaker said.
“We now have an action plan with weekly steps and two accountability meetings a
week.”
Council chairman Moses Bell called the county’s predicament
“unacceptable.”
Councilman Doug Pauley suggested that the loss of top tier
county employees over the last year has exacerbated matters.
Since the installation of the current council, there have
been a number of high profile resignations. Those resignations were most of the
top county administration officials.
They include former County Administrator Jason Taylor,
former Assistant Administrator Laura Johnson, former county attorney Tommy
Morgan, former Clerk to Council Patti
Davis, former Community Services Director Chris Clausen, former County Parks
& Recreation Director Russell Price and former Building Official Chris
Netherton.
“We lost Laura, who was a big help in getting things like
this done, and now all of it falls on [Finance Director] Ann [Bass],” Pauley
said. “She now has to answer the many demands for information from council
members and new members of the administration.”
During citizen comments, Ridgeway resident Randy Bright
blamed council’s willy-nilly approach to budgetary and planning matters.
“We don’t even know where we stand financially. We haven’t
done an audit in over a year,” Bright said. “Now and then we quote a one-day
figure of the fund balance, which is mostly meaningless.”
Though not directly addressing the money being withheld by
the state, Councilman Clarence Gilbert said on Monday that employee morale is
worsening.
Gilbert suggested hiring an outside firm to anonymously poll
staff about morale issues and how to solve them.
“It’s obvious that our county government is suffering from
low employee morale,” Gilbert said. “Good or bad morale is contagious. If the
soldiers are not happy, then the generals will fall on their face.”
BLYTHEWOOD – Blythewood planning commissioners recommended approving one commercial zoning request and postponed another during Monday’s monthly meeting.
The commission unanimously voted to recommend rezoning 4.1
acres at Wilson Boulevard and Farrow Road from Rural District to Community
Commercial District/Architectural Overall District.
Blythewood Town Council will have the final say.
Shannon Burnett, an outside attorney for the Town, represented
property owners Cheryl and Carlos Bullock. She said they want to build possibly
a nice sit-down restaurant at the site.
Burnett told the commissioners that the landowners’ business
plans would “offer something of value” to the town.
“When we look at things that Blythewood wants, one thing we
hear is possibly a nicer restaurant or something that would be a good gathering
place,” she said. “It’s a good hook in that area that could be beneficial for
our town.”
Burnett noted her clients have lived in the town for decades
and have only the best intentions in mind.
“They have no desire to use this in a way to diminish the
value of anybody’s property or bring any ill-repute to the town,” Burnett said.
“It could be a good entryway into our town and it could be well-used.”
Commissioner Edward Kessler voiced concerns about traffic
congestion. He suggested a professional office building might be a better
alternative.
“It’s a busy intersection. It’s a heavily trafficked area,”
he said. “Another restaurant or facility going in could pose some traffic
concerns or issues.”
Burnett said an office building is “definitely on the
table,” but added her clients are primarily interested in building a
restaurant.
“I’ve had so many people over the years say it would be nice
to have a sit-down restaurant that’s not a chain,” Burnett said, adding that
the proposed restaurant would have two entrances to alleviate congestion.
Town Administrator Carroll Williamson said the town’s
comprehensive plan future land use map classifies the area as commercial
neighborhood retail. He added the requested zoning is listed as a compatible
zoning district.
“It does meet the requirements of the comprehensive plan and
future land use map,” Williamson said, adding the town’s board of architectural
review would also have to sign off on the proposed building.
In other business, the commission postponed a similar request that would rezone 7.08 acres in the 11000 block of Wilson Boulevard. Commissioners said the applicant wants to build a self-storage facility on the property.
Rhett Kelley, an agent for the contractor, said his client
couldn’t attend the meeting due to illness.
Kelley couldn’t provide many details about the proposed land
use, prompting commissioners to postpone voting. He did stand in support of his
client’s proposal.
“The best use, in my opinion, is a commercial use,” Kelley
said.
The property to the north of the site is zoned Rural, to the
east is Neighborhood Commercial, to the south is Community Commercial and to
the west is Development District.
Williamson said the town’s comprehensive plan doesn’t list
the Community Commercial zoning as a compatible zoning district, but he also
noted the plan’s land use map lists some nearby properties as commercial.
“It’s just a concern to be looked at,” Williamson said.
The Community Commercial zone does allow self-storage
facilities.
Blythewood resident Robert McLean, who said he has purchased
land adjoining the proposed self-storage site, spoke in opposition to the request.
While McLean said he thinks the town needs self-storage
facilities, he didn’t think the proposed Wilson Boulevard site is proper.
“I would implore the planning commission to take into
consideration the existing rural nature of that particular part of Blythewood,”
McLean said. “Let’s look at retaining the rural charm that we have. I honestly
can’t think of anything that is more of an antithesis of what Blythewood
represents in terms of development than a possible storage unit or use of space
such as that.”
Commission chairman Malcolm Gordge said the panel would
likely revisit the self-storage development in March.
