Blog

BLYTHEWOOD – The Town of Blythewood has rejected the initial sketch plan by developer D.R. Horton to construct additional homes on what residents say was promised to remain green space in the Primrose area of Cobblestone Park, Town Administrator Gary Parker told the Planning Commission Monday night.

According to Parker’s letter to the developer, from which he read during Monday night’s meeting, “The zoning map amendment approved by Blythewood Town Council via Ordinance 2015.001 on (April 27, 2015) allows 143 additional single-family residential lots to encroach on the currently remaining open space. Your Sketch Plan proposes 158 new lots on that land.”

Parker recommended removing the 15 additional lots and asked the developer to “maintain more of the existing tree cover buffering existing Primrose lots and homes from I-77 noise and air pollution.” Parker also asked D.R. Horton to “provide more separation of new lots and homes from I-77, and to help handle naturally some of the storm water caused by the development.”

Cobblestone resident Lenore Zedosky told the Commission that residents in the Primrose area had been told by the developer when they purchased their homes that the section now targeted for new development would always be green space. Residents there, she said, paid premium prices for homes close to what they were led to believe would remain an undeveloped area.

Doko Manor was filled to capacity with Cobblestone residents Monday, most of whom had questions for Ben Lewis, Project Manager for the Blythewood Road widening project, during his presentation on the project earlier in the evening – specifically concerning the proposed roundabout planned for Blythewood Road near the Cobblestone entrance. But Zedosky’s urging of the Commission to give careful consideration to even the 143 new homes in the green space, “before they clear-cut any more of the area we live in,” she said, brought a rousing round of applause.

Parker’s letter stated that D.R. Horton, if they disagreed with the rejection of the sketch plan, could appeal at Monday’s meeting. And while no such appeal was issued Monday night, Parker told The Voice Tuesday that their appeal would be on the Planning Commission’s December agenda.

Council approved zoning for the 143 new lots in April 2015, Parker said, but the actual land development – location of streets, open space, etc. – would have to be approved by the Planning Commission before D.R. Horton could begin construction.

Pelican Snoballs

Earlier in the evening, the Commission voted to forward to Council a recommendation to deny a request by Brian Keller to rezone from Multi-Neighborhood Office to Multi-Neighborhood Commercial at lot at 10711 Wilson Blvd. where Keller has designs on erecting a Pelican Snoballs franchise.

Bryan Franklin, Commission Chairman, said his desire was to table the request. The Commission, however, voted 3-2 to recommend denial.

 

WINNSBORO (Nov. 3, 2016) – Two of the three candidates for the District 4 County Council seat – Bertha Goins and Quincy Pringle – and all three of the candidates for the District 6 seat – Gwen Harden, incumbent Mary Lynn Kinley and Cornelius Robinson – answered questions from moderator Ron Smith, Chairman of the Fairfield Chamber of Commerce, during the last Candidate Forum on Oct. 31 at the Winnsboro Woman’s Club. The forum was sponsored by the Chamber.

Kamau Marcharia, the District 4 incumbent, did not attend.

After the candidates introduced themselves, Smith began asking questions, many of which most candidates were, to some extent, in agreement:

• That property taxes in Fairfield County are too high (only Kinley disagreed, insisting taxes are just right);

• That the county needs more and better paying jobs;

• That the County should continue providing necessary financial support to Fairfield Memorial Hospital;

• That businesses and industries in Fairfield County should attempt to hire Fairfield residents first;

• That the County should enforce code enforcement ordinances to make the county more attractive;

• That the construction of the football field at Drawdy Park is a prime example of County projects that were a waste of taxpayer money (Harden: “Half a million dollars and it doesn’t even have lights”) and

• That the County needs to cooperate with Winnsboro to solve its water and sewer problems.

Why are you more qualified than the other candidates?

Gwen Harden (District 6) has served 14 years on the Board of Disabilities & Special Needs, 15 years as Secretary of Friends of the library and worked 25 years in the Winnsboro office of the S.C. Department of Juvenile justice. “I’ve been coming to Council meetings for a long, long time. I’ve been involved. We need a new vision for the County and I have one. We need a new way to operation County Council.”

Mary Lynn Kinley (Current District 6 Councilwoman) is a former District Governor of Rotary and was the Director of Public Relations for Fairfield Memorial Hospital for 23 years. “In the next four years, this county is going to change. Experience matters. Do you want people on the team without experience?”

Cornelius Robinson (District 6) served as a Deputy Sheriff for Fairfield County for 15 years and served in the Marine Corps. “I have the energy, the drive and the desire to go door to door. It’s time for change in Fairfield County.”

Bertha Goins (District 4) has served her District 4 community as a member of the Board of Directors of the Jenkinsville Water Company and is a former employee at both V.C. Summer and Fairfield Central High School. “This county is at a point of needing someone to bring change. I know what it is to struggle, to face challenges, to be a mother who has to go 15 miles to the laundry. I know the struggles of my district in Western Fairfield County. We have to do better and we will do better.”

Quincy Pringle (District 4) has been a coach at Fairfield Central High School for 20 years and serves as Chairman of the Behavioral Health Board of Directors. “I am willing to act for all the citizens of my district. We need a fresh outlook on Council with a different way of thinking. This seat is more than a pay check. I will represent the whole district.”

Do you feel the Council has been transparent?

Harden: “Transparency has been one of Council’s biggest problems. I attended an out-of-town Council workshop last year with only about 30 people in the room. I understand that the Chair held it out of town because a large enough room could not be found in Fairfield County. I feel it was held out of town to discourage the public from attending. I’ve seen this Council go into executive session without even a quorum and no explanation. The Chair signed a contract without a vote and without the public’s knowledge. I would like to see Council follow the advice of attorney Jay Bender, the Guru of the Freedom of Information law. I attended one of his seminars and if elected I will suggest Council have him come and explain to us what freedom of information is about and what we can and cannot discuss in executive session. A lot of what goes on in executive session could actually be discussed in front of the public.

Kinley: “I disagree. We (Council) are as transparent as we can be. There are rules to go by and Council follows them. Ordinances direct our meetings. We cannot tell the public everything. I think we have changed a lot. But a lot of the things must be confidential, and I’m not going to go to jail. I apologize if you feel like we haven’t been open. A lot of people don’t come to our meetings because they don’t care.

Robinson: “It’s difficult to judge what goes on behind closed doors. County Council members need to be more transparent. They need to be more open. There are too many times people don’t know what’s going on in Council. That core you have isn’t what you think it is. That’s vitality I’m talking about; youth and energy I’m talking about and one on one I’m talking about. That’s what I can bring to Council.

Goins: “Some things discussed on Council cannot be shared with the public, but the way to solve a problem is usually for those things that can be shared, should be shared. To be even more forthcoming, if elected, I plan to have quarterly meetings in District 4 to keep my community informed as much as possible. And I will encourage all in my district, including the young people, to attend Council meetings. Whatever costs I incur (with community meetings) will be covered with what I get paid as a County Council member. I might consider using ROBO calls to remind people and increase attendance.”

Pringle: “Transparency is much needed on Council. We need to give the voters the power back. We need to get more people, the community, involved and regain the trust of the people, let people know if Council is meeting tonight so they can see for themselves what’s going on. A lot of people don’t even know we have a County Council and don’t take it to heart. We have to change that.”

What should Council’s long range goals be for the County’s economic development?

Harden: “The long range goal should be to lower property taxes in the County. If we want people and businesses to move here, we must make changes. Fairfield County has the third highest property taxes in the state. That doesn’t look good to people who are thinking about coming here.

Kinley: “My vision is to get more jobs and a better quality of life. Some families don’t have lights because their electricity has been turned off. We have a lot of people without education. The health care industry has been the biggest problem here. We brought in Midlands Tech so people could take classes and get better jobs. I keep hearing taxes are high. If we reduce taxes, SCANA will get the biggest tax reduction. (Residents) would only get maybe a $100 tax reduction. Plus we don’t have to pay any fees in this county as other counties do. If you want to cut taxes, what services do you want to do without? I think our taxes are OK. They aren’t that high. The only way to reduce taxes is to bring in more industry.”

Robinson: “We need better jobs and industry, better schools, better housing, better health care and better fire and police protection. Why won’t businesses come into Fairfield County? Experience (on Council) may be good, but it’s not working. We need a new way of doing things. Experience has got us in this predicament we’re in today.”

Goins: “I agree with Ms. Harden. Go back and lower taxes for the folks who live here and as a way to attract businesses and new residents. What are we getting for our taxes? Your young people are leaving because jobs are not available. We have to lower our taxes so we can attract these businesses and bring jobs to the county. When things are working well people will be attracted to us. We also need to renovate our community, fix up the houses and clean things up.”

Pringle: “Once we get ourselves together, lowering property taxes will get our economic development going and we can see what we can do to get project management in here. We need change.”

 

WINNSBORO (Nov. 3, 2016) – While the Oct. 24 County Council meeting agenda was light, it was not without controversy over how to fund infrastructure for Phase II of the Commerce Center.

County Administrator Jason Taylor introduced the agenda item, a request of action from the Administration and Finance Committee that read: “Phase II on-site roadway, water and wastewater improvements to serve Fairfield Commerce Center.”

Taylor fleshed out the agenda item and explained that a funding shortfall exists for the project.

“We had $5,970,000 budgeted (from the $24 million bond) for this, but the bid came in at $6,542,214.50. With (bid) alternates of $497,120, the total comes to $7,039,334.50,” Taylor told Council. “That leaves a shortfall of $1,069,334.50.”

To cover that shortfall, Taylor reviewed Council’s options to include applying for a $500,000 Rural Infrastructure Authority grant and a $300,000 Site Enhancement Grant from the S.C. Department of Commerce. He suggested Council could choose to take an additional $400,000 from bond money.

“If they did not give us that total sum of grant money and if a match is required, then I would be erring on the high side in the additional bond money request. If we get full funding in the grant request, then the additional bond money needed would be less, by $130,666,” Taylor told The Voice.

Another option to cover the shortfall would be to use the $1.1 million the County received this year from its Multi-County Park agreement, Taylor said.

Council member Marion Robinson (District 5) ‘so moved,’ with the only discussion coming from Councilman Billy Smith (District 7).

Smith said he could not vote in favor of the request for two reasons, the first being that Council did not receive the 400 pages of information on the agenda item to be voted on until Friday before the Monday meeting. He said he needed more time to read through it.

Council recently had issues with the (construction of two) fire stations because documents were probably not looked at to the extent they should have been and then remediation work had to be done on retaining ponds, Smith said.

“I don’t want something like that to happen here. Between Friday and today is not enough time for me to look at this document,” Smith said.

Secondly, Smith said that while he was in favor of the Phase II infrastructure work at the Commerce Center, he had reservations about using bond money at this time.

“Another thing that concerns me is the Courthouse and what we’re going to do to remediate the issues there,” Smith said. “The Courthouse is a top priority at this time. Considering we have the Caterpillar building about to come open and the spec building and other buildings and infrastructure that are open at this time, could this (bond) money be re-routed for use on the Courthouse if it was needed? Otherwise, I don’t know how we’ll pay for the fixes at the Courthouse and build another one.

“If we plan to do that (Courthouse repairs) in the next three years, and if we spend this (bond) money now . . . you’re going to see another bond issued by this Council to pay for the Courthouse. That’s the only way it will happen,” Smith said. “That considered, I am in support of this (Phase II infrastructure work), but I can’t see us doing it at this time.”

Robinson’s motion passed 4-1 with Smith voting against the measure. Councilman Dan Ruff (District 1) was absent, and the District 3 seat is currently vacant.

Other Business

Council voted unanimously to pass first reading, by title only, of Ordinance 673, authorizing an amendment to the master agreement governing the I-77 Corridor Regional Industrial Park to expand the boundaries of the park to include property in Richland County for Project Alimex.

Taylor introduced Bob Ennis as the new Fairfield County Animal Control Director, taking over from former Director James Hill who was hired in July. Taylor praised Ennis’ background in animal care, explaining that Ennis came to the County three weeks ago from Pets, Inc. a non-profit rescue organization in West Columbia where he served as Executive Director.

“We’re glad to have him here with us,” Taylor said.

Council voted to go into executive session to discuss a contractual matter regarding Fairfield County Airport, a personnel matter (Clerk to Council’s position) and a pending legal matter regarding purchase of property. Parker Poe attorney Ray Jones was included in the executive session. No votes were taken when Council returned to public session.

 

RIDGEWAY (Nov. 3, 2016) – An Oct. 18 work session with attorney Danny Crowe reinforced what Town Council had acknowledged during their regular meeting just days earlier – that errors were made in a recent rezoning request, and that Council has some undoing to do.

The original request came last summer from Russ Brown, who was looking to rezone .82 acres at the fork of highways 21 and 34 from R1 residential to C2 commercial. That request cleared the Planning Commission by a 5-2 vote on July 12. But when Council took the matter up for first reading at their Aug. 11 meeting, it was discovered that the property did not meet a 2-acre minimum requirement for C2. Councilman Heath Cookendorfer suggested, and Brown agreed, to amend the request to a C1 zoning, which passed first reading 3-2.

Second reading on Sept. 8, which came on the heels of a formal protest by nearby property owners, failed 1-3, as Council members struggled with the definition of “contiguous,” what constituted a three-fourths vote of Council (which is required in the event of a protest) and if the protest itself should have been made in July before the Planning Commission.

Crowe confirmed that the protest was indeed valid as it was signed by the owners of at least 20 percent of the properties contiguous to the Brown lot. Crowe defined “contiguous” as property touching, or that would be touching the Brown lot were it not for a road or a body of water.

And while “contiguous” is good enough for a protest, Crowe said rezoning a property requires something more, per the Town’s ordinances. For a property to be rezoned, he said, it must be an extension of an existing district boundary, and that means the property must physically touch another property with the zoning classification for which the property owner is applying.

In which case, Brown’s rezoning efforts may have been wasted over the last several months.

“The big caveat on all that is that’s my opinion,” Crowe told Council. “You could probably find another lawyer who had a different opinion.”

Council’s vote on a C1 classification, after the Planning Commission had approved a C2, was invalid, Crowe said.

“As I see it, the Town Council could really only consider, up or down, the recommendation of the Planning Commission,” Crowe said. “It could not include in a lesser included zoning or come up with another zoning, but had to act on the recommendation of the Planning Commission, because that was the matter that the planning commission had considered, whether it could be C2.

“You’re left with a situation where Council is voting on a C1 zoning that had never been before the Planning Commission,” Crowe said. “In my view, that is an error. Also the Council never voted, up or down, on the C2 recommendation that came from the Planning Commission. There’s still time to do that. There’s no time limit on that.”

Crowe said Council would need to withdraw the C1 vote, then send the matter back to the Zoning Administrator to determine if Brown’s property meets the minimum acreage requirements for C2. And since Brown’s property is less than 2 acres, it would not meet that minimum – except . . .

“That creates a little bit of a wrinkle,” Crowe said, “because that’s a request by Council and not by the owner, so the minimum acreage provision would not apply in that situation.”

Contiguous property owners wishing to protest would have to file new papers, Crowe said, protesting a C2 classification, in which case second reading of the rezoning would require four votes.

Council is expected to take the matter up once again at their Nov. 10 meeting.