From: Lisa Smith <lasusuk@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, May 10, 2025 at 12:40 PM
Subject: DRB special meeting Thursday May 8
To: Lisa Smith
bcc: all interested parties
I was 5 mins late and left after 1:15, so missed a little. David, Lucy, Lessie, Gail, John Butera, Linda Johnson, Katy, the DRB, DRB lawyer, Marya, an Aiken Corp guy, and a few others were there for a slide presentation from Houseal Lavigne’s Nicole Campbell.
The pretense for the meeting with the DRB was that the DRB guidelines are vague and open to misinterpretation, which, I think, is true.
This is a part of a two year process to rezone the city, called the Unified Development Ordinance (key word being development). This meeting pertained to DRB purview and just the overlay district. I have pics of the maps as they are and as they are being proposed.
The overlay would be reduced in size to exclude east of Marlboro Street and three new districts would be drawn over the existing one.
The presenter/consultant showed slides that listed their preliminary conclusions, then another slide with same info and one or two vague leading questions added. The DRB was supposed to chime in with happy ideas, implying that the conclusions were the accepted path forward and the DRB’s input would be limited to trivial “what name would you suggest for this district” types of questions.
Well…the DRB was having none of it. Most agreed that the current standards need to be made more clear for everyone’s understanding and therefore more enforceable, but that was about the end of the agreement.
And it got loud.
The DRB repeatedly said that they had not had enough info or time to be making any suggestions. They were happy to listen, then needed time to study, meet again and discuss. It was mentioned that they were excluded from meetings held previously. The idea of a second meeting was met with resistance from the city’s planning department.
Unfortunately for her, the presenter/consultant was preprogrammed to conduct her meeting without deviation from her script.
A few of the points of contention were:
*The consulting firms lack of understanding of Aiken as it exists.
*Poor quality graphics in the presentation made it difficult to understand, like maps with no street names, and comparisons that were not shown together.
*The incentives offered for high density projects
*The two story minimum but also the “maximum set back” and “minimum lot coverage” requirements for new construction. The goal being to build high density with minimal open space. This is described as “bulk, mass and design standards”.
*The presenter/consultant stated the 55’ maximum height restriction would remain, and that would allow five story buildings.
*A preliminary conclusion that “Aiken staff” would relieve the DRB of any authority over “non-historic” buildings. Apparently the city has a list of the “historic buildings”. All other and all new buildings would be approved only by “Aiken staff”.
*The DRB would also be allowed to make decisions when “the applicant chooses not to meet design standards”.
*New standards will “be designed” for each of the new overlay districts.
*”Cottage courts” will be allowed/encouraged.
* “Incentives for high priority development”
*”Offer density bonuses in targeted sub districts for affordable workforce housing.”
As seems to often be the case, the city planning department was allied with the consultant in an oppositional defensive position against their own design review board and citizen input.
The DRB members are all volunteers appointed by elected officials and are very knowledgeable experts in building, the law, the current guidelines, and our city. At least one member was involved in writing the current standards. They are a savvy bunch and conducted themselves admirably.
I have FOIA requested the following info:
*The RFP that resulted in the contract awarded to Houseal Lavigne and the responses from all other applicants, the complete contract awarded, the cost of the study
*The full scope and details of the “United Development Endeavor”,
*The scope and results of “Related Outreach Feedback”, citizens input specifically from 1. A meeting of elected officials and staff and 2. A public open house.
*The names, experience, qualifications and salaries of all planning dept employees and the director, who I assume are the “Aiken staff” who will be making the decisions currently made by the DRB
*The city’s “list of historic buildings”
Please add or correct any info that I might have missed or misinterpreted.
Lisa
P.S. The upcoming election is vitally important if we want any change from our current path.
Did you know? Planning Commission Edition
I was curious, so spent a little time reviewing the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings available for 2024 and 2025 on the City's site.
The Planning Commission has 7 volunteer citizen members serving 2-year terms.
Here are their names and their District of residence: Charles Matthews (non-resident), Peter Messina (4), Dr. Simmons (1), Clayton Clarkson (4), Sam Erb (3), Caleb Connor, Ryan Reynolds, Chairman (3).
Interesting to note that Matthews is not a resident of the City and Clarkson is listed as a resident of District 4, at least according to the City's published info. Matthews, Simmons and Connor's terms expire 12/1/25, Erb's term expired on 12/1/24.
Two current members of the Planning Commission are running for City Council. Peter Messina (R), District 4 and Clayton Clarkson (R), District 6.
"The Planning Commission is responsible for recommending to City Council policies of how the city should grow and develop with the primary tool for doing so being the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission also makes recommendations to Council on requests for annexations, rezoning, City services and on proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Regulations."
**Please note there is no mention of determining or recommending the historic status or designation of any structure within any overlay district.
Below are some facts and statistics from my review:
Sixteen meetings of the Planning Commision during 2024-2025 are listed
Over the sixteen meetings Simmons, Connor and Clarkson have missed 4 meetings
The Commision voted 71 times
The Commission voted unanimously 67/71 times (94% )
Reynolds, Connor, Simmons, Clarkson, Mathews, Messina each cast one dissenting vote over the 15 month time period
The Commission denied one application; two or three applications were withdrawn. The Commission can approve applications with conditions.
Here are some of the major decisions during 2024 and early 2025 made by our Planning Commission:
Friendship Baptist Church was designated as a Historic Landmark in 1994. The church is 150-year-old, the parsonage is 100 years old. The parsonage is not handicapped accessible and could require $200K to be brought up to useable standard. The DRB voted to keep the Historic Landmark Status associated with the entire property. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to reduce the historic status of the parsonage from Landmarks Status to Historically Contributing which allows "partial demolition or relocation"
The Hitchcock Barns were built in 1902 and are clearly historically significant. The DRB voted 4-3 that the barns should be considered as Historically Contributing. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to recommend to the City Council the stables be designated as Non-Contributing allowing complete demolition. Messina seconded the motion.
The Planning Commission approved City water and sewer service be extended to a new housing development off of Wire Road. 113 acres, 157 houses. 5-2, Simmons and Connor dissenting ** Then, next item, City water and sewer service to 206 acres, 705 dwellings and 96 townhomes with a density of 3.41 dwellings/acre. Clarkson motioned and the Commission voted to approve unanimously** Next motion City water and sewer to 31 acres (phase 1) proposed residential development. Ten citizens all spoke against this and the Planning Commision approved it unanimously. These developments are all outside the City limits. This list is long.
Mr. Messina has stated that the Commission has approved 1000 housing units in the last 6 months.
Midland Valley Dev. requested annexation and rezoning. 90 acres, 338 lots, and two commercial parcels with a density of 3.84 dwellings/acre. 5/5 citizens expressed concerns. Simmons motioned for approval. Application passed 4-3 with conditions. Dissenters Clarkson, Matthews and Messina.
This information is being sent to the Aiken2025 circulation list only at this time.