Category: News

WINNSBORO – With progress at the old Mt. Zion School slowing to a crawl over the summer, the Friends of Mt. Zion Institute (FOMZI), the community action group committed to the preservation and restoration of the site, once more finds itself under the gun and facing the potential of demolition.

During their Sept. 1 meeting, Town Council discussed in executive session FOMZI’s progress and their looming deadline – the first of two deadlines stipulated in the March 2014 agreement that transferred the property at 205 N. Walnut St. from the Town to FOMZI.

According to the agreement, FOMZI purchased the property and its four buildings (the Mt. Zion School, the auditorium and gymnasium, the cafeteria and the Teacherage) for $5, but with the caveat that the buildings had to be stabilized within 18 months to meet Winnsboro’s Dangerous Building Code or be torn down.

Winnsboro Mayor Roger Gaddy said after the Sept. 1 meeting that the Town had not seen much activity at the site since faux windows were installed on the front of the school building last May, and the 18-month deadline was rapidly approaching.

That deadline came and went last Friday, and Gaddy told The Voice this week that while a code enforcement officer had not yet made an inspection of the site, it appeared that the buildings were not up to code. Although the faux windows had been installed on the front of the school, Gaddy said, windows on the back of the building and on the gym were still open.

“The reality of the situation is we’ve been dealing with Mt. Zion for 10 years,” Gaddy said. “The residents in the neighborhood think it’s an eyesore and we’ve had complaints of rats and snakes. I don’t think it’s up to code. If we get a written opinion (from code enforcement) that it’s not up to code, then we’ll have to abide by the terms of the agreement.”

And those terms mean demolition.

Vicki Dodds, FOMZI Chairwoman, admitted that progress has been slow over the summer and that her group has not updated Town Council on where renovation stands. But, she said, she feels like FOMZI is in line with the agreement.

“Our understanding was to get it cleaned up, improve the appearance and get it secured,” Dodds said. “That would meet the 18-month benchmark. We got the grounds cleaned up and we keep them cleaned, and we completed the windows project. If that doesn’t meet the requirements, we’re in a boatload of trouble.”

Dodds also said the roof on the school building has been repaired, but the roof on the auditorium was in much worse shape and would be three times as costly to replace. A smokestack rising from the auditorium also needs repair, she said, but couldn’t be addressed until FOMZI could begin on the roof. And all of that will take a lot more money than FOMZI currently has in the bank.

“So much of what we’re running into,” Dodds said, “as far as grants and interest from developers – the first question they ask is ‘Do you have the backing of the Town and the County?’ The Town is happy for us to do whatever, but the County has said they don’t want anything to do with it.”

Dodds said she plans to lobby County Council for their support of the project.

FOMZI’s 30-month benchmark, which comes around one year from now, calls for the group to hire a contractor or developer for the historic rehabilitation of the buildings. Dodds said she may have some developer interest, but, she said, “We have to make sure it’s the right developer for the right thing.”

Red Clay Development, a North Carolina firm that purchased the property for $100,000 in 2009, made a run at developing the old school as a retail hub. Those plans fizzled, and when Red Clay failed to even maintain the property the Town retained ownership in 2012.

While Dodds and FOMZI search for a more appropriate developer, she said she plans to update Council at their Sept. 15 meeting.

“I don’t think they’re going to take it away and tear it down,” she said.

Gaddy, however, was less optimistic.

“Everybody knows what’s expected. Everybody knows what the agreement is,” Gaddy said. “If everybody knows what the process is, that (demolition) is what FOMZI should expect. That’s what we have the agreement for.”

Gaddy said he fully expects to hear from FOMZI at the next Council meeting.

“Now that it appears that they did not meet their benchmarks, they’ll probably come plead their case,” Gaddy said. “We’ve bent over backwards to try to be accommodating to save those non-historic buildings on an historic site. When I became mayor, I said Mt. Zion would be torn down in 90 days.”

That was 10 years ago, Gaddy added.

Council meets at Town Hall, 207 N. Congress St., at 6:15 p.m. on the first and third Tuesdays of the month.

 

WINNSBORO – More than a year after the S.C. State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) opened the case, and after a month under review by the state’s top prosecutor, the S.C. Attorney General’s Office announced this week that it would not prosecute Fairfield County administrators for alleged improprieties in the County’s procurement practices.

“The evidence did not support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime had been committed,” a spokesperson for the Attorney General’s Office told The Voice Tuesday.

SLED opened the investigation in February of 2014 and sources inside the County said then that agents had interviewed County employees and reviewed checks and invoices in the County’s Procurement Department. Shortly after news of the probe leaked out, former County Council Chairman David Ferguson said SLED was focusing on the County’s relationship with S2 Engineering, a firm with which the County spent more than $8.76 million between December 2009 and September 2013.

Documents obtained by The Voice last year indicated that S2 projects over that time period ranged from improvements to the HON Building, to construction of the new Voter Registration offices, work at the County Courthouse and much more. Work also included the football field at Drawdy Park and its retaining wall, a portion of which collapsed in January 2014.

Records indicate that the S2 projects were not put out for bid. Instead, S2 was selected for the projects from a pre-approved list of firms maintained by former County Administrator Phil Hinely. At the time the investigation first came to light, Ferguson said that while those procurement practices may have been unusual, he did not think they were illegal.

In a declination letter regarding Hinely, and an identical letter regarding Deputy Administrator Davis Anderson, Assistant Attorney General Brian Petrano wrote SLED “I have concluded that criminal prosecution is not appropriate given the facts and circumstances presented.”

Anderson told The Voice Tuesday afternoon that while he, like many other County employees, had been interviewed by SLED agents during their investigation, he was not aware that he was personally one of the focal points of the inquiry.

“If people thought I had done something wrong, I hope this vindicates me,” Anderson said. “I always follow my leadership and the direction of County Council. I only do what my bosses and County Council tell me to do. I’m glad the investigation is over and that the Attorney General’s Office understood the facts as they were.”

Hinely, who resigned in June 2013 and is now retired and living in North Carolina, said he was also glad to see the case come to its conclusion.

“I knew that sooner or later when all of the facts were presented and the hysteria was over, I would be vindicated,” Hinely said. “It’s a shame the state had to expend all of this time, effort and money, but I’m glad it’s over. There was nothing to it to begin with.”

SLED concluded its investigation in July and forwarded their findings to the Sixth Circuit Solicitor’s Office in Lancaster for a determination on whether or not the County’s practices merited a criminal prosecution.

Citing a potential conflict of interest, Sixth Circuit Solicitor Randy Newman forwarded the matter to the Attorney General’s Office.

“The case involves a lot of County officials,” Newman told The Voice last month, “and I sometimes make budget requests from the County.”

 

COLUMBIA – A proposed 202-acre residential development in Blythewood that could contain as many as 529 homes in an area bordered on two sides by Langford and Heins roads received a 5-3 recommendation for rezoning from Rural (RU) to Residential Estates (RS-E) from the Richland County Planning Commission Monday afternoon. Under the proposed zoning, which calls for single family homes, lot sizes would be reduced from three-quarters of an acre per lot to less than half an acre.

While the County’s Deputy Planning Director/Zoning Administrator Geonard Price reported that the Planning Department staff recommended the rezoning because they felt it complied with the County’s Comprehensive Plan, which calls for Neighborhood Low Density, a number of neighbors spoke out against the rezoning, asking the Commission to leave it zoned Rural.

Carol Ward, who lives on 12 acres across from the proposed rezoning, told the Commission that 400-500 homes across the street would affect the quality of life in that rural area and recalled what had happened in Hunters’ Run, a similar but smaller nearby development that is zoned Rural.

“They came in and clear-cut the land and then put up street lights that cause light pollution,” Ward said. “There’s sign pollution all up and down Langford Road directing people to Hunter’s Run. Because of that development, we’ve already had to alter our route to work and take all the back roads to be able to get through the traffic to Blythewood.”

Ward, along with several other neighbors who addressed the Commission, took exception with the lots in the proposed zoning classification being described as ‘estate’ lots.

“That’s misleading,” she said. “Those lots will be less than half an acre. I’m not opposed to thoughtful development, but building 400-500 homes in this rural area is not thoughtful development.”

Commissioner Wallace Brown Sr. asked Price if the reason the developer wants to change the zoning from RU to RS-E is to be able to build more homes.

“As it stands, three-quarter-acre lots are what’s permitted on that property,” Brown said. “Given the rural nature of all this property that’s out here, I question if that (RS-E) zoning is in the best interest of the neighbors and the county, just to be able to build more homes.”

Patrick Palmer, Chairman of the Commission, answered Brown, saying, “The staff says ‘yes’.”

When Brown asked if there were other RS-E developments in the area, Price said the nearest one is Cooper’s Pond, which is located on Rimer Pond Road near Highway 21.

When Commissioner David Tuttle started to make a motion to recommend the rezoning, Commissioner Heather Cairns said she was against rezoning the property to RS-E with lots less than half an acre.

“The Comp Plan calls for (this area to be) Neighborhood Low Density, which is three-quarter-acre lots,” Cairns said.

She was also critical of calling the RS-E lots ‘estate’ lots, agreeing with Ward that ‘estate’ is a misnomer.

“This is a part of the county that is predominately rural with very large lots,” Cairns said. “So I don’t believe the Comp Plan supports this (property) becoming less than half-acre lots. I don’t support it.”

The request will next be heard by County Council during a public hearing on Sept. 22 at 7 p.m. in Council Chambers in the County Building at the corner of Hampton and Harden streets. Those wishing to address Council concerning the issue must arrive early to sign up to speak.

To receive a packet containing detailed information about the rezoning request, contact Suzie Haynes at 803-576-2176 or haynessu@rcgov.us. Packets for both last Monday’s Planning Commission meeting and the upcoming Council meeting can also be found at richlandonline.com.