Blythewood Online 691

Category: Government

  • Board Extends Superintendent’s Contract

    WINNSBORO (Dec. 25, 2015) – In its last regularly scheduled meeting for the year on Dec. 15, the Fairfield County School District Board of Trustees voted to extend Superintendent Dr. J.R. Green’s contract for another year. This rolled forward the ending date of Green’s six-year contract to June 30, 2022, and was seen as a vote of confidence in Green, although not all board members were in agreement.

    Shortly before the public meeting began, the board members completed individual written evaluations of Green. The board used an evaluation instrument that provides three possible rankings (Exemplary, Proficient or Needs Improvement) for each of five performance criteria – Community Engagement, Student Achievement, Leadership, Learning Environment and Fiscal Management. According to Board Chairwoman Beth Reid (District 7), this evaluation instrument has been used each year since Green first came to the district.

    Board member Annie McDaniel (District 4) raised the issue that the evaluation instrument does not include any goals or objectives for the superintendent and is not what the School Board Association recommends for superintendent evaluations.

    “There should be more specific goals listed under each of the different categories,” McDaniel said, noting that the board “did not receive any information in advance about Dr. Green’s accomplishments and what goals Dr. Green would have set for himself, which would have helped if we could have received that in advance and had the opportunity to review it so we could ask educated questions tonight.”

    Reid moved the proposal forward, and the Rev. Carl Jackson Jr., Board Vice Chair (District 5), recommended extending Green’s five-year contract for another year.

    When board member Paula Hartman (District 2) asked to see Green’s contract, Reid responded, “I can get you a copy, but not tonight. The contract is not being presented, just the amendment to extend the contract to 2022, making it a six-year contract.”

    Hartman said that in her experience, the average length of a school district superintendent’s contract is three years and asked, “If he (Green) leaves the district, what is the amount that the board would have to pay out?”

    Green responded that, if he left voluntarily, “the district is not obligated to pay me anything.”

    McDaniel also expressed concern that the board was voting on a contract amendment without a written document in front of them.

    “Was there a reason for not having an amendment drawn up so we could have an opportunity to review it before voting?” McDaniel asked.

    “The action under the agenda item is clear,” Reid said. “There is going to be a recommendation to extend the contract. In the past four years we have done the same.”

    “But last year, we had the actual amendment in front of us so we could review it,” McDaniel said.

    Board member William Frick (District 6) pointed out that last year the board also amended the superintendent’s buy-out clause, so it was not a simple contract extension.

    “We can continue to do this kind of reckless stuff on this board,” McDaniel said, “but we should have the amendment in front of us.”

    Board member Henry Miller (District 3) said that he was in favor of a contract extension.

    “Mr. Green is doing a great job,” he said.

    The amendment to extend Green’s contract to 2022 passed 4-2, with McDaniel and Hartman voting against the extension.

    There was no discussion on the results of the superintendent’s evaluation or how that tied into the contract extension.

    Reached after the meeting, Green told The Voice that his current salary stays the same under the amended contract, but with automatic annual increases built into the contract.

    In other business, the board heard from Frick on the recommendation of the board committee to study board members’ compensation.

    Frick noted that Fairfield County School Board members, under Act 191 from 1991, are prohibited from receiving compensation but do receive a $35 per diem for each board meeting they attend. After several months of analysis and review, the recommendation of the committee is for the board to ask the Fairfield county state legislative delegation to amend the law to allow the board to set its own compensation.

     

  • Pellet Plant Rezoning on Hold

    WINNSBORO (Dec. 25, 2015) – Third and final reading to rezone two parcels of property near White Oak for the controversial AEC Pellet 1 USA wood pellet plant is officially on hold, Interim County Administrator Milton Pope said during County Council’s Dec. 15 meeting.

    But that does not mean, Pope added, that the project may not ultimately move forward.

    “The parent company, Abengoa, does have financial challenges,” Pope said during his Administrator’s report. “They’re looking at financially restructuring. The project itself is pending. The project has not been shelved.

    “As far as the rezoning request, that has been placed on hold,” Pope added. “I do not know what the final determination of the company will be on that particular matter, but I would anticipate during the first part of the year maybe having some official statement regarding that.”

    Spain-based Abengoa reportedly filed for preliminary creditor protection under Spanish Insolvency Law on Nov. 24. In early December, the company began implementing layoffs at facilities worldwide. Abengoa’s Arizona offices have been closed, according to media reports, with staff at its corporate offices in St. Louis down to a bare minimum. The entire staff, save for a handful of upper-management positions, at the company’s cellulose ethanol plant in Kansas has reportedly been put out of work and the plant has been idled since November.

    Council passed first reading on Oct. 12 of an ordinance to rezone from RD (Rural Resource District) to I-1 (Industrial District) 2.01 acres owned by Rosezenna Cason White at 137 Cason Road, and 180 acres owned by Wateree Holdings LLC c/o Forest Investment Associates, also on Cason Road.

    Second reading passed on Oct. 26, but not before 10 neighboring landowners spoke out against the plant.

    Council announced the tentative arrival of AEC Pellet 1 during their Aug. 24 meeting, when they also passed third reading on and disclosed the details of the company’s incentives package.

    Pope said during the Aug. 24 meeting that the terms of the Fee-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (FILOT) agreement included a $125 million investment by the company, as well as the creation of 75 new full-time jobs. AEC Pellet will be assessed at a ratio of 6 percent, Pope said, and will pay a fixed millage rate of 423.3 mills for their first 30 years. They will also receive a special source revenue credit of 60 percent per year for the first 10 years.

    But in 10 years, there may be no market for what the plant produces, according to Emily Zucchino, a campaign organizer with the Asheville, N.C. environmental advocacy firm Dogwood Alliance.

    “This market is based on European policies, which we know with working with policy makers in Europe will change in the next 10 years,” Zucchino told Council before the Oct. 26 second reading. “The wood pellet industry is an extractive export market to feed power plants in Europe, and is in a transitional market until these power plants switch to wind and solar. So my question for you is what happens to Winnsboro in 10 years when there are no longer subsidies in the market for these wood pellet facilities?”

    Pollution is also a concern with wood pelleting plants, Zucchino said, with facilities generating fine particulate matter into the atmosphere. In N.C., she said, communities living near similar facilities have seen increases in respiratory illnesses, bronchitis and asthma.

    According to DHEC documents, and as first reported in The Voice on Aug. 29, emissions generated by the facility would include particulate matter (less than 10 micrometers in diameter and less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter), nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP). The notice states, “a federally enforceable facility-wide limit of less than 250 tons per year” of the particulate matters, the carbon monoxide and VOC “would be established, thereby enabling the facility to be below Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) major source thresholds.”

    Federally enforceable limits of 10 tons per year would also be established “of any single HAP, or less than 25 (tons per year) of total HAPs,” the documents state.

    An air quality permit (permit number 1000-0039-CA) was issued to AEC Pellet on March 16, DHEC said.

    White Oak resident Carrie Matthews presented Council during the Dec. 15 meeting with a petition she said was signed by 294 residents of the community opposing the plant.

    “We’re not happy for the Abengoa plant company, that they are in such dire financial straits,” Matthews told Council, “but do hope that because of that situation the AEC Pellet company will be dropping plans altogether to locate in the White Oak community.”

     

  • Cambridge Point Gets Water Deal

    WINNSBORO (Dec. 25, 2015) – Town Council during their Dec. 15 meeting gave the green light for water for a Blythewood subdivision on which developers plan to break ground in the spring.

    Council voted unanimously to approve 3,000 gallons of water per day in a willingness to serve letter for 100 planned homes in the Cambridge Point subdivision on Boney Road. The vote comes just two weeks after Council met in secret with developer Bucky Drake to discuss the project. A commercial aspect to Cambridge Point, which may require even more taps, is still slated as tentative.

    Cambridge Point is taking precedence over Drake’s other development, Red Gate, to which Winnsboro has already committed water for 100 lots. Red Gate, sources told The Voice, is running at least a year behind Cambridge Point, and in addition to the already approved 100 taps may need 240 more if developers opt for an apartment complex in the subdivision.

    Other Business

    Council also gave the OK to a 1-year contract with Coral Springs Aquatic Management, at $200 per month, for the maintenance of the pond at Fortune Springs Park. The company has recently restored the pond for the Town.

    “I’ve ridden by there and the pond looks about as good as it’s ever looked,” Mayor Roger Gaddy said.

    Accepting the recommendation from the Finance Committee, Council OK’d $103,761 for a boom truck as well as $21,000 for a meter-reader truck for the Electrical Department.

    Gaddy said the Town’s current meter-reader truck is only valued at $3,800 but needs more than $7,000 of repair work, making the purchase of a new truck a better option. Town Manager Don Wood said the cost would be shared between the gas, electric, water and sewer departments.

    Councilman Clyde Sanders pointed out that the meter-reader truck was not a budgeted expense. However, he said, Council had budgeted $120,000 for the boom truck, making the unbudgeted financial impact $4,761.

     

  • Offices Get Conditional OK

    The proposed medical office building, slated for Blythewood Road.
    The proposed medical office building, slated for Blythewood Road.

    BLYTHEWOOD (Dec. 24, 2015) – The Board of Architectural Review (BAR) gave conditional approval for a certificate of occupancy (COP) Monday evening for construction of a 6,500-square-foot medical building on Blythewood Road across from Companion Animal Hospital.

    The approval is conditional on plans for lighting, landscape and signage being presented and approved at the BAR’s Jan. 19 meeting.

    The building is being constructed by Cohn Construction Services for pediatrician Dr. Frank Dorn and optometrist Jim Eddis, who will be the only two occupants.

    Matt Davis, architectural consultant to the project and to the Town, said he expects construction to begin as soon as the owners receive the final approval for a COP.

    “The building looks fine,” Town Planning Consultant Michael Criss told the Board. “It meets codes and there appears to be no need for any variances.”

    “I would expect construction should be completed by the end of the summer,” Davis told The Voice.

     

  • B.A.R. Silences Critics

    BLYTHEWOOD (Dec. 24, 2015) – In a move to stem citizen dissent over The Pointe, a low-income apartment complex proposed for downtown Blythewood, Michael Langston, Chairman of the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) opened Tuesday night’s meeting with the announcement that citizen testimony that evening would not be allowed on agenda items slated for discussion.

    “Tonight, when we get to citizens’ testimony,” Langston told the audience, “citizen testimony can only be raised concerning action items.”

    The action items listed on the agenda were for Certificates of Occupancy for expansion of The Manor and a new medical building proposed on Blythewood Road. The Pointe was on the agenda for discussion only, eliminating it from the possibility of being addressed by the citizens in attendance.

    Looking in the direction of two of those citizens, Langston said firmly, “I just want you to be aware of the structure and procedure, and we’ll go from there.”

    The announcement was a departure from how the BAR had conducted meetings in the past when no specific limitations had been placed on citizens who wished to address issues before the Board. Following the meeting, The Voice asked Langston about the new rule.

    “We’re coming into alignment with exactly what the procedures (BAR bylaws) say and how the procedures give us direction. And so, yes, we’re tightening up,” Langston said.

    Explaining why the procedure was not evoked until now, Langston said, “We’ve never had anything as contentious as this particular project.”

    Earlier this month Prestwick Development, LLC successfully sued the Town after the Planning Commission voted not to grant approval of the site plan for the Pointe. On Dec. 11, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Prestwick, ordering the Town’s administrator to issue a letter of approval to Prestwick so that the project could proceed.

    Once that was settled, some neighbors of the development turned their concerns from potential traffic congestion that could be caused by the development to the appearance of the project, asking why the developer was being allowed variances to avoid meeting the Town’s building codes. At the October BAR meeting, the developer had come before the Board asking for 13 variances to avoid having to meet some of Blythewood’s ordinance requirements for new construction.

    Following the conclusion of the lawsuit and in response to concern about the design of the building’s façade, which proposed little elevation, no porches and minimal door and window treatment, all of which leaned toward a more basic look rather than a higher end design, Langston told The Voice that he had been in negotiations with the developer about these concerns.

    “I asked the developer why the building design of the Blythewood project was different (more basic) than the same type of housing project the developer had built in Greenville,” Langston told The Voice.

    That project had been highly praised by the developer as an example of what Prestwick would bring to the Blythewood community. Some in the community had visited the Greenville site, bringing back to Council glowing reports of the Greenville project. Both sites are built from the same basic design, Langston said, but Greenville’s development has more detail, giving it a more upscale appearance than the one proposed in Blythewood.

    “We wanted the developer to upgrade the building to be more than what was proposed,” Langston said. “I’ve been on the phone to them the last couple of weeks to get them (Prestwick) to come up to our codes instead of us giving them variances so they would not have to meet our standards. They have met us about halfway.”

    To that end, Prestwick came to the meeting prepared to add some upgrades including:

    • Raising the elevation of the building so that it does not set flat on the ground;

    • Upgrading architectural details on the building façade, windows and doors;

    • Camouflaging several unsightly drainage areas with plants and other decorative landscape materials; and

    • Changing fencing (that will be installed on the sides and back of the property) from chain link to wrought iron or other suitable fencing material approved by the Board.

    “When the item is on the agenda for a vote for approval of a Certificate of Occupancy,” Town Administrator Gary Parker said after the meeting, “then citizens will be able to address the architectural design issues at that time.”

    That vote is expected to be on the agenda at the Jan. 19 BAR meeting when Prestwick will present final architectural proposals and renderings to the Board.

     

  • Attorney General: No Crime in Dennis Probe

    WINNSBORO (Dec. 18, 2015) – More than a year after the S.C. State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) opened the case, the S.C. Attorney General’s Office cleared Dan Dennis of any criminal wrongdoing in connection with allegations by Former Fairfield County Administrator Phil Hinely that Dennis had blackmailed him, according to documents released by SLED last week in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

    Those documents detail an investigation that opened on June 14, 2014 after Hinely alleged that he (Hinely) had been the victim of a blackmail and extortion plot by Dennis.

    Hinely resigned as County Administrator in June of 2013 amid a firestorm of controversy and public criticism over allegations that he used his County computer, during working hours, to disseminate pornographic images via email. An initial SLED investigation of the pornography allegations evolved into a second investigation of whether Hinely disseminated obscene images, a crime under S.C. Code Section 16-15-305. In a final report on that investigation, Sixth Circuit Solicitor Doug Barfield stated in a letter dated Oct. 20, 2013, that for obscene material to be illegal, it must, among other specifications, have been disseminated. Barfield said his agent, Britt Dove, concluded that Hinely had not sent the questionable files to anyone else after he received them.

    According to Sen. Creighton Coleman (D-17), who requested the investigation, Barfield’s letter only indicated that Hinely did not forward illegal material. Coleman maintains that Hinely did forward pornographic material, and noted that, in law, there is a difference between pornographic and obscene.

    “He sent stuff out,” Coleman said. “You know it and I know it.”

    According to Hinely’s statements in the SLED documents, that firestorm resulted from a disagreement between Hinely and Dan Dennis.

    Between 2006 and 2009, Hinely’s testimony states, the Dennis Corp. had experienced a cost overrun on a County project. Hinely blamed this overrun on Dennis’s lack of quality control. In his own testimony, Dennis said the overage was due to changes made in order to meet the standards of multiple agencies involved. Nevertheless, Dennis gave the County a check for $15,000 for the overrun, and in 2009 the County renewed their contract with Dennis Corp. But two years later, when the contract expired and went to another firm, Hinely told SLED, Dennis came to his office in Winnsboro to ask for the return of the $15,000 and threatened to expose Hinely as a racist and a pornographer.

    Hinely told SLED that he (Hinely) had received ‘inappropriate images’ via email from a Dennis Corp. employee and that he (Hinely) had, indeed, forwarded some of those emails, which he said were neither illegal nor policy violations at the time. Hinely said he asked the Dennis Corp. employee to stop sending him the emails.

    Dennis’s testimony stated that it was Hinely who sent the images to the Dennis Corp. employee and that Dennis asked Hinely to stop sending them. But Dennis denied making any attempt to extort, threaten or blackmail Hinely. Dennis stated in his testimony that he only wanted the $15,000 back that he paid for the overage. When Hinely refused, saying Dennis had made an engineering error, Dennis’s testimony states that started a domino effect and the pornographic photos were later leaked to the public. The SLED report does not suggest who leaked them.

    After interviewing several county employees, elected officials and citizens concerning Hinely’s accusations against Dennis, SLED closed their investigation on Aug. 28, marking it “Cleared.”

    “I have concluded that criminal prosecution is not appropriate given the facts and circumstances presented,” Brian T. Petrano, Assistant Attorney General, wrote in a declination letter, dated Aug. 21 regarding Hinely’s allegations against Dennis.

     

  • Toy Company Files for Bankruptcy

    WINNSBORO (Dec. 18, 2015) – After only a little more than a year in business at 1 Quality Lane in Winnsboro, Enor Corp. has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

    In documents filed Dec. 2 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey, the manufacturer of toys and games said they faced more than $5 million in liabilities, while claiming only $248,659 in assets with cash, cash equivalents and financial assets totaling just over $11,595.

    According to the documents, the company claimed $10,722,094 in business income between Jan. 1 and the bankruptcy filing date. That figure was up from earnings of $7,869,878 between December 2014 and October 2015, but off slightly from the $10,740,037 earned between December 2013 and November 2014.

    On the list of Enor’s top 20 creditors, according to the documents, is the Town of Winnsboro’s Utility Department, to whom the company owes $135,029.

    John Fantry, Winnsboro’s utilities attorney, confirmed this week that Enor had defaulted on their payment arrangement with the Town after making their November payment. Winnsboro will file a claim in Bankruptcy Court, Fantry said, to recover the funds.

    Total claims against the company come in at just over $2,352,717. According to an accounts receivable schedule included in the documents, the company is owed more than $596,111, nearly half of which is more than 90 days past due. Walmart Stores owes the company $177,362, while Wal-Mart Canada Corp. owes Enor more than $175,894.

    In addition to a long list of local individuals to whom Enor owes anywhere from between $350 and $1,700 each, several local merchants will also have to file claims for debts accrued. Topping the list of local merchants is Innovative Plastics SC in Ridgeway, to whom Enor is in debt to the tune of $12,935.

    Brice Plumbing and Hobgood Electric & Machinery Co. in Winnsboro, and Midlands Fire Protection, Inc. in Blythewood are also among Enor’s local creditors.

    Enor was introduced to Fairfield County in a ceremony in August 2014 at the Midlands QuickJobs Center in Winnsboro. Recruited to the area by Fairfield County Council and the S.C. Department of Commerce under the code name “Project Leprechaun,” Enor received a $300,000 Rural Infrastructure Fund grant from the S.C. Coordinating Council for Economic Development. Those funds were used to retrofit the 78,000-square-foot former Ruff & Tuff building at 1 Quality Lane, off Highway 321 S. Operations at the Winnsboro location began a month later.

    The company was also the beneficiary of a Fee-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (FILOT) agreement with the County. Under the agreement, Enor committed to invest a minimum of $2,500,000 in economic development property and a minimum of $3,870,000 in property subject to ad valorem taxation over a 20-year period. Enor also agreed to create at least 151 new full-time jobs at the plant over a five-year span.

    Enor’s payments to the County in lieu of taxes were capped at a 403.5 mills, with a 6 percent assessment ratio on economic development property.

    Milton Pope, Interim County Administrator, said the Chapter 11 filing would have no immediate impact on the incentives package.

    “However, the County and the Department of Commerce are closely monitoring this situation,” he added.

    Phone calls to the Department of Commerce were not returned at press time.

    Bankruptcy proceedings are not listed in the FILOT documents among the terms of default. A cessation of operations, including a closure of the plant or cessation of productions and shipment of products to customers for a continuous period of 12 months, however, is.

    A spokesperson for Enor told The Voice last week that there were no plans to shut down operations in Winnsboro.

    Enor is being represented in Bankruptcy Court by Jeffrey A. Cooper of the Livingston, N.J. law firm of Rabinowitz, Lubetkin & Tully. The first meeting of creditors is Jan. 6, 2016 in room 3B of the Martin Luther King Jr. Federal Building in Newark, N.J. The last day for creditors to file a claim is April 5, 2015.

     

  • Council Approves, Kills Grants

    WINNSBORO (Dec. 18, 2015) – After a lengthy and arduous debate Tuesday night, County Council approved and then summarily killed their annual community enhancement grants, both on unanimous 6-0 votes (District 5 Councilman Marion Robinson was absent for health reasons).

    “This has gone on for the last two or three years and we’ve talked back and forth and didn’t want to do this,” Councilwoman Mary Lynn Kinley (District 6) said before making the motion to end the grants, “but I think the time has really come that we need to go back to the drawing board for this.”

    Kinley then moved to terminate the grants after this year’s round of funding and replace them in the 2016-2017 budget with “specific funding that goes toward the support of community based programs or agencies that either develop or promote the improvement of quality of life activities for youth, adults and seniors.”

    At the behest of District 3 Councilman Walter Larry Stewart, the motion was amended to include “adequate controls” over the program.

    An amending motion by Councilman Billy Smith (District 7) to exclude religious organizations from future County funding garnered little more than the sound of chirping crickets before Kinley spoke up in defense of churches.

    “We have found that there are 93 homeless students in the high school,” she said. “A lot of the churches have gone to bat for them when nobody else has offered to do that. I think sometimes in the small towns you kind of have to depend on the churches to be there when the families are not. I think it’s our duty to scrutinize and see what’s good or bad about the program they want to do. With all of our connections with all seven of us we would be able to tell if that was a legitimate program or if it’s something that’s not good for the community.”

    Smith withdrew his amendment, replacing it with the caveat that religious organizations could only receive funding if the money would not be a direct benefit to the organization itself, but instead was passed on to the community.

    “If they’re giving out clothes or paying a light bill or giving out food, they’re a facilitator,” Smith said. “That’s a way we’re helping those citizens and they (the churches) are just a pass-through. But I don’t think it should benefit the religious organization itself.”

    With the amendments, the motion passed without dissent.

    Chairwoman Carolyn Robinson (District 2) said Council would hammer out the details in a work session before next year’s budgeting process began.

    The debate over the grants began when Smith put forth the motion that organizations receiving this year’s round of grants should have to spend the money up front, then produce receipts to the County for reimbursement. Stewart seconded the motion.

    “They’re asking for money that they don’t have,” District 4 Councilman Kamau Marcharia said. “Are you asking that they pay out of their coffers and then submit a receipt to the County?”

    Smith confirmed that he was, and said the County had encountered “considerable difficulty” in tracking down receipts from grant recipients in the past.

    “I only know of two incidents where folks did not return their receipts out of 25 or 30 people who applied,” Marcharia said. “Did you think that was really significant, or do you have information that that many groups did not submit their receipts?”

    Smith said his information came from discussions with administration and staff.

    Milton Pope, Interim County Administrator, said the County had encountered some difficulty in getting receipts from grant recipients in the past, before Council revamped the grants process more than a year ago.

    Last year Council transformed what had been “discretionary funds” allotted to each district into the Community Enhancement Grants program. According to the criteria adopted by Council in 2014, “After the project is completed, receipts must be submitted to the Finance Department along with a Receipt Submission Form. . . . If any questionable or unauthorized purchases are made, the organization will not be eligible for future grants. . . .”

    Nevertheless, Council voted 5-1 to override their existing policy and require this year’s round of recipients to pay first and seek reimbursement later. Marcharia voted against the motion, even after Kinley added the amendment that if the organization could demonstrate a difficulty in paying up front, they may receive the funding in advance.

    Grant Recipients – $500

    District 1

    Tiger Totes Family Literacy (purchase of books to distribute to young people).

    District 3

    Fairfield Educational Training Complex (camping equipment, free youth program).

    District 4

    Little River Baptist Church food pantry (purchase food for pantry).

    Mount Moriah Baptist Church (youth activities, gifts for elderly, installation of handicapped ramp).

    St. Luke Baptist Church food pantry (purchase food, supplies).

    St. Peter Community Church (youth program, reach out to elderly).

    District 5

    Ebenezer AME Church (back to school supplies).

    Fairfield Arts Council (student writing contest).

    Blackjack Baptist Church (back to school bash, gifts for nursing home patients).

    St. Mark Baptist Church (serve food to elderly and children).

    District 6

    First Church of the Nazarene (advertising for Judgment House).

    Midlands STEM Institute (playground equipment).

    St. Paul Missionary Baptist Church (youth, adult and elderly health and wellness programs).

    Zion Hill Prevention Save the Kids (back to school supplies).

    Other Grants

    District 5

    New Hope AME Church (back to school supplies) – $250.

    New Hope AME Church Angel Tree project (school supplies) – $250.

    District 6

    Ward 1 Community Association (back to school supplies) – $425.64.

    District 2 & 7

    Streetlights – $2,500.

     

  • Judge Rejects ‘Will of the People’

    COLUMBIA (Dec. 17, 2016) – The ‘will of the people’ has been soundly rejected by 5th Circuit Court Judge L. Casey Manning as a reason for the Blythewood Planning Commission’s refusal on Nov. 9 to approve a site plan for a low-income housing project on Main Street in the center of town.

    Eppes & Plumblee of Greenville, attorneys for the developer of The Pointe housing project, Prestwick Development of Atlanta, filed a legal action on Nov. 23 and an amendment with stronger language on Nov. 30 asking the Court to: 1) overturn the Commission’s Nov. 9 vote; 2) mandate its members to approve the development plan and 3) require the Town to pay attorneys’ fees, court costs and such other relief as the court deems just.

    Judge Manning “concluded that the stated ground for refusal is arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion and the decision of the Planning Commission must be reversed.”

    The court ordered the reversal of the decision of the Planning Commission and that the Zoning Administrator of the Town provide his letter of approval of the site plan as submitted by the Plaintiffs. But the judge did not order the Town to pay for Prestwick’s attorneys’ fees and costs, stating instead that, “This action is dismissed with the parties to each bear their own respective attorneys’ fees and costs.”

    “It is undisputed that the site plan submitted by the Plaintiffs conformed in all respects with the Town’s Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Regulations,” the ruling stated. “Nonetheless, the Commission voted to refuse approval of the site plan. The only reason articulated by the Commission in voting to refuse approval was that the project ran afoul of the ‘will of the people’.”

    Commissioner Don Sanders, who made the motion to deny approval of the site plan, said he was moved to do so by a number of residents who spoke passionately against the housing project because they felt that particular location would increase the already congested traffic in downtown Blythewood and that the low-income homes could impact the resale value of surrounding homes.

    Councilman Bob Mangone, who has since resigned his Council seat because he said he will be moving away, said at the Nov. 17 Town Council workshop that he was dismayed at the bigotry, bias and racism displayed by the residents who opposed the project at the Nov. 9 Planning Commission meeting. Mangone, who did not attend that meeting, told The Voice that he considered the residents’ complaints about traffic and low cost housing to be veiled racism. But two of the three Commissioners who voted against the project were African-American as were several of the residents who spoke out against the development.

    In response to Mangone’s comments, the Oakhurst Home Owners Association president, Michael Rescigno, told The Voice, “Mr. Mangone is spinning it the way he wants it to sound. He lives in Cobblestone on the other side of the town. He doesn’t have to sit in our traffic. I guess he did not considered it veiled bias when some residents of Cobblestone, including himself, objected to the traffic congestion and lower home values that they feared would result from D.R. Horton building in that neighborhood.”

    When contacted for comment on the ruling, Commissioner Marcus Taylor, who voted against the site plan, said he feels something is terribly wrong when a community can’t carry out how they want their community to grow or not grow.

    “This really surprises me,” Taylor said.

    Taylor also said he was surprised that the town’s attorney Jim Meggs did not let members of the Commission know that the suit was going to be heard on Nov. 11.

    “I knew nothing about the court date until I received an email from Mr. Meggs dated Tuesday, Dec. 15. By that time it was over.”

    In that email, Meggs wrote, “The conclusion of the Court brings into clear focus the need to adhere to the Town’s ordinances relating to land development without regard to unsubstantiated fears or considerations that are not demonstrated by the record (or properly before) before the Commission.”

    Meggs stated further, “I would recommend that comment, if any, be respectful of the Court’s Order and that we move on with the project review in a calm and deliberate manner.”

    “We respect the Court’s ruling and will comply promptly,” Mayor J. Michael Ross said in an email to The Voice. “The project will now be reviewed by our Board of Architectural Review and we hope a tasteful addition to the town will result.”

    Ross said he is going to ask the town attorney to offer additional training sessions to the Town’s boards and commissions.

    “This will aid all of us in understanding the legal framework for site plan review and other land planning decision making,” Ross said.

    Next stop for Prestwick Development will be the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) on Monday, where the developer will submit its plans for approval of 13 variances needed for a certificate of appropriateness, the Town’s Planning Consultant Michael Criss said.

    “The BAR has complete authority over the building’s appearance,” Criss told The Voice. “That could not happen until the site plan was approved by the Planning Commission or the Court.”

    Planning Commissioners Don Sanders and Ernestine Rogers, who both voted against the site plan could not be reached for comment at press time.

    The BAR will meet at Town Hall at 7 p.m., Dec. 21.

     

  • Chairman: Blythewood Key to Economic Development

    BLYTHEWOOD – “As we move Richland County forward, Blythewood is definitely an important part of the process,” Richland County Council Chairman Torrey Rush said in a presentation to Blythewood Chamber of Commerce members at a breakfast meeting in Cobblestone Park Clubhouse Tuesday morning.

    He equated that forward movement with growth and touched on the three areas he sees as most important in the county’s growth – economic development, new fiscal policies and community engagement.

    Commenting on the progress the county is making with economic development, Rush said he thought it was very good considering the county only recently, in the last three or four years, designated its own department for economic development. He commended Blythewood’s town government for having the foresight to recently rezone a large parcel of land bordered by Ashley Oaks subdivision, Community Road and I-77 for an industrial park.

    “We’ve got Shop Road extension for a major industrial park,” Rush said, “and now up here on this side of town, it’s tremendous to have an industrial park here as well. It’s extremely important. And just to reassure residents, today’s industry does not mean smokestacks. It’s new technology, things you wouldn’t hear or see if you didn’t go by it. Having this industry in your city will be tremendous to this region.”

    Commenting further on the importance of preparing industrial sites, Rush said, “Everybody’s looking for the same industries, the BMW’s of the world, all the tire companies, the manufacturers. It’s important to have the infrastructure in place to make sure we’re competitive.”

    Rush said the penny tax is a necessary step to having that infrastructure in place. He also touched on the county’s tax rate, saying it’s one of the highest in the state, which can deter economic development.

    “We’re going to have to stabilize our tax rate in order to compete,” he added. He said he has some ideas that he would be putting forward later this year.

    On the initial tenants in the mega development at Killian and I-77, Rush clicked off a few of the businesses that have recently opened – Applebee’s, Panda Express, McDonalds – and those in the works – more auto dealerships including BMW Columbia and McDaniels’ Porsche and Subaru.

    “A Chick-fil-A is coming, more big box retailers, lots of things,” Rush said.

    Rush said that one of the most important aspects of moving the county forward is to have an informed citizenry.

    “The community must be engaged. It must be informed and in the know,” he said. “We saw that a couple of weeks ago when a Blythewood group showed up at a Richland County Council meeting to protest a zoning issue. It seemed like we had all of Blythewood down there,” he said with a laugh. “But that means that you care about your neighborhoods, about your community and you want to make sure we’re growing in a smart and productive way.”