Meeting 6:00 PM
Joel Presley – At Large
Rodney Ashcraft – Dist. II
Tracy Hamilton – Dist. III
Karlene Butler – Dist. IV
Todd Brown – Dist. V
TBD – County Council Liaison
The next Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled for May 13, 2021
Table of Contents April 14, 2021 Planning Commission Work Session Agenda .............. 1
April 14, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda ....................... 3
Southern Felt Re-Zoning Application Memorandum ........................... 5
Hollow Oak Subdivision Application Memorandum ............................ 9
Heritage Place Planned Development Application Memorandum ..... 15
Land Management Ordinance Small Group Meeting Agenda Draft ... 23
March 11, 2021 Planning Commission Work Session Minutes .......... 25
March 11, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes .................. 31
1
Edgefield County Planning Commission Work Session Agenda County Council Chambers
April 14, 2021 5:00 PM
This agenda may be modified at any time prior to or during the meeting described herein.
The meeting may begin after the advertised start time if a reasonable adjustment to the
advertised start time is needed for any reason.
I. Call to Order
No Guest Speakers III. Old Business
A. Rezoning Application Rural Residential (RR) to Industrial Development (ID) Parcel IDs: 145-00-00-(063, 064, 085, 086, 087, 088, 089)-000, Rainbowfalls Rd. by William Ellis and Southern Felt Company. John
Lewis the President of Southern Felt Company is here to join the Planning Commission during the work session.
IV. New Business A. Subdivision Application (Hollow Oak) Parcel ID: 176-00-00-018-000,
Sunnybrooke Rd. and Sable Ln. by JSMG Development, LLC. Gary
Thigpen the developer with JSMG Development, LLC and Philip Green the project P.E. with Southern Partners, Inc. is here to join the
Planning Commission during the work session. B. Planned Development Application (Heritage Place) Parcel ID: 163-00-
00-001-000, Edgefield Rd. and Williams Rd. by Crowell and Co., Inc.
Lamar Crowell the CEO of Keystone Homes and David Banks the project P.E. with Southern Partners, Inc. are here to join the Planning
Commission during the work session. C. Prospective Planned Development Application (P&J Development PD)
Parcel ID: 208-00-00-008-000, Edgefield Rd. by P&J Development.
John Henderson and Glenn Gentry the developers with P&J Development, and Mackenzie Poston a Project Engineer with Bluewater
Civil Design, the project engineers, are here to join the Planning Commission during the work session.
V. Adjourn
Chair: James Burt – Dist. I District Seats: Rodney Ashcraft – Dist. II Vice-Chair: Brett McNeill – At Large Tracy Hamilton – Dist. III
At Large Seats: Joel Presley Karlene Butler – Dist. IV County Council Liaison:
TBD Todd Brown – Dist. V
2
County Council Chambers
April 14, 2021 6:00 PM
This agenda may be modified at any time prior to or during the meeting described herein. A
vote may be held on all agenda items. The meeting may begin after the advertised start
time if a reasonable adjustment to the advertised start time is needed for any reason.
I. Call to Order
B. Pledge II. Approval of Agenda
A. Approval of April 8, 2021 Meeting Agenda III. Approval of Minutes
A. Approval of March 11, 2021 Work Session Meeting Minutes
B. Approval of March 11, 2021 Meeting Minutes IV. Guest Speakers
No Guest Speakers V. Reports
No Reports
VI. Old Business No Old Business
VII. New Business A. Rezoning Application Rural Residential (RR) to Industrial Development
(ID) Parcel IDs: 145-00-00-(063, 064, 085, 086, 087, 088, 089)-000,
Rainbowfalls Rd. by William Ellis and Southern Felt Company. i. Public Hearing
ii. Planning Commission Recommendation B. Subdivision Application (Hollow Oak) Parcel ID: 176-00-00-018-000,
Sunnybrooke Rd. and Sable Ln. by JSMG Development, LLC.
i. Public Hearing ii. Planning Commission Review
C. Planned Development Application (Heritage Place) Parcel ID: 163-00- 00-001-000, Edgefield Rd. and Williams Rd. by Crowell and Co., Inc.
i. Public Hearing ii. Planning Commission Recommendation
D. LMO Small Group Meeting Agenda Draft
i. Planning Commission Direction
Chair: James Burt – Dist. I District Seats: Rodney Ashcraft – Dist. II Vice-Chair: Brett McNeill Tracy Hamilton – Dist. III
At Large Seats: Joel Presley Karlene Butler – Dist. IV County Council Liaison:
TBD Todd Brown – Dist. V
4
IX. Comments by the Planning Commission Chair X. Adjourn
5
Memorandum
From:Kevin Singletary, Edgefield County Planner Date: April 14, 2021 Re: Re-Zoning Application (Parcel IDs: 145-00-00-(063, 064, 085, 086, 087,
088, 089)-000
Applicant: William Ellis and Southern Felt Company Property Owner: William Ellis and Southern Felt Company Location: Rainbowfalls Rd., near intersection with Edgefield Rd.
Parcel IDs: 145-00-00-(063, 064, 085, 086, 087, 088, 089)-000 Property Size: 4.42 (combined)
Land Use: Suburban Density Residential Zoning: Rural-Residential Development District (RR) New Zoning: Industrial Development District (ID)
Purpose of proposed re-zoning
For the expansion of the existing industry at the intersection of Edgefield Rd. and Rainbowfalls Rd., Southern Felt Company Inc.
Compliance with County Comprehensive Plan • Permitted Land Use - Not Allowed
Staff Analysis The Comprehensive Plan identifies this property’s land use as “Suburban Density
Residential”. This land use per table 7.4 on page 7.11 identifies; all single family residential zonings as acceptable, commercial uses zonings as conditional, and
industrial zonings as not allowed. Re-zoning this property form RR to ID would not be in compliance with the identified land use in the Comprehensive Plan, to a zoning identified as not allowed from a zoning identified as acceptable.
Staff Recommendation
Staff views this as an error within the Comprehensive plan, specifically that the properties already owned and used by Southern Felt Company Inc. were identified as Suburban Density Residential when they should have been identified as Light
Industrial/Office-Distribution. Staff believes that they should have been identified as Light Industrial/Office-Distribution given that Southern Felt Company Inc. has
operated there for over 30 years, expanded their operation before, and done so without issues to surrounding residents. Staff also believes that it was not the
intention of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to specifically identify the Southern Felt Company Inc. properties as Suburban Density Residential, but rather was overlooked as it is an isolated industrial property in a residential area.
Given that Southern Felt Company Inc. is not a new business at this location and is applying to re-zone properties in order to expand their current operation, Staff
would recommend that Parcel IDs: 145-00-00-(063, 064, 085, 086, 087, 088, 089)-000 be re-zoned from RR to ID, as applied for. In addition to re-zoning these
6
applied for properties, Staff would recommend that the properties already owned and used by Southern Felt Company Inc. and Oxmoor Valley Sales LLC (Parcel IDs:
145-00-00(003, 011, 070, 091, 134)-000 be re-zoned from RR and GD to ID as it is both the most appropriate zoning for the current use of the property, and will be in
keeping with the purpose of the re-zoning application; conformity with zoning district. In order for said re-zonings to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, Staff recommends that the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map be amended so
as to show these properties, at the intersection of Edgefield Rd. and Rainbowfalls Rd. as Light Industrial/Office-Distribution. A final Staff recommendation to the
Planning Commission is that the Commission ask the applicant to combine all of their properties into a single parcel.
Planning Commission Action Following Public Hearing the Planning Commission shall evaluate the proposed
amendment relative to the following: 1.How it relates to and affects the comprehensive plan. 2.Changes in conditions since the adoption of the plan or ordinance.
3.The need to correct an error or deficiency in the ordinance or the plan. 4.Any benefits which would be derived from the amendment.
5.The relationship of the proposed amendment to surrounding land uses. The Commission shall forward its recommendation for either denial or approval to
the County Council for final action.
7
To: Edgefield County Planning Commission From:Kevin Singletary, Edgefield County Planner
Date: April 14, 2021 Re: Subdivision Application (Hollow Oak)
Applicant: JSMG Development, LLC Property Owner: JSMG Development, LLC
Location: Sunny Brook Rd. & Sable Ln. Parcel ID: 176-00-00-018-000, 045-00-01-007 (Aiken County) Property Size: 57.17 Acres in Edgefield County, 29.55 Acres in Aiken County
Land Use: Suburban Density Residential Zoning: Rural-Residential Development District (RR)
Number of Lots: 79 Total (42 in or mostly in Edgefield County) Lot Size: .55 Acres Average Total (.57 Acres Average in Edgefield County) Sewer/Septic: Septic
Water: Well
Major Subdivision Description JSMG Development, LLC is proposing the development of a subdivision. This subdivision would be located near the intersection of Sunny Brook Rd. and Sable
Ln. along the Edgefield County Aiken County line. The development is on Parcel ID: 176-00-00-018-000 in Edgefield County and 045-00-01-007 in Aiken County. The
developer is proposing 79 lots, 35 entirely in Edgefield County, 30 entirely in Aiken County, and 14 split by the line in both counties, with 7 of those being a majority in Edgefield County. The smallest lot size is .4 acres, the largest lot size is 1.08 acres,
and the average lot size is .55 acres. The average lot size of lots just in or partially in Edgefield County is .57 acres. The average density of the development is 1.09
acres per unit. The average density of the development just within Edgefield County is 1.36 acres per unit. The development will be on septic systems and well water. Access will be via Aiken County, Sunny Brooke Rd. Per Aiken County regulations the
unpaved section of Sunny Brooke Rd. from the subdivision ingress/egress will have to be paved to the intersection of Dragon Lair Rd. Lots split by the County line will
pay property tax for the portion in each respective County. Income tax will be calculated by the location of the master bedroom.
Compliance with County Land Development Ordinances • Permitted Use in Zoning District - Compliant
• Minimum Lot area requirements in Zoning District - Compliant • Application process for Land Development - Compliant
Compliance with County Comprehensive Plan
• Permitted Land Use - Compliant
10
Approval by Other Regulatory Entities • DHEC Storm Water / Sediment Control - Pending PC Approval
• DHEC Waste Water Control - Pending PC Approval • Aiken Electric Cooperative - Pending PC Approval
• Aiken County Road Encroachment - Pending Aiken County Review • Aiken County Preliminary Plat Approval - Pending Aiken County Review
Planning Commission Action Following Public Hearing the Planning Commission may vote on Preliminary Plat
approval for Murrah Estates. The proposal will receive automatic approval on 5/10/2021 if no decision is reached by that time unless both the applicant and the Planning Commission agree to an extension. As sighted in the Edgefield County
Code of Ordinances Sec. 24-251 “In its deliberation, the planning commission shall approve, approve conditionally, or disapprove the plat. If the preliminary plat is
disapproved or approved conditionally, the reasons for such action shall be conveyed to the applicant. The reasons for disapproval shall refer specifically to those parts of the comprehensive plan or ordinance or regulation with which the
plat does not conform. On conditional approval, the commission may require the applicant to resubmit the preliminary plat with all recommended changes before
approving the plat. If the preliminary plat is found to conform to all requirements of this chapter, approval shall be given by the planning commission and shall be noted
in writing by the chairperson on at least two copies of the preliminary plat. One copy shall be retained by the planning administrator and one copy given to the applicant.”
Major Subdivision Area
To: Edgefield County Planning Commission
From:Kevin Singletary, Edgefield County Planner Date: April 14, 2021 Re: Planned Development Application (Heritage Place)
Applicant: Crowell and Co., Inc.
Property Owner: Glenn W. Whitlock Location: Edgefield Rd. & Williams Rd. Parcel ID: 163-00-00-001-000
Property Size: 77.59 Acres Land Use: Neighborhood Commercial
Zoning: General-Agricultural Development District (GD) & Un-zoned (UZ) Number of Lots: 202 Total (146 Single Family Lots & 56 Town Home Lots) Lot Size: 8,025 sf (Single Family) & 3,660 sf (Town Home) Average
Sewer/Septic: Sewer Water: ECWSA
Planned Development Description Crowell and Co., Inc. is proposing a Planned Development (PD), Heritage Place.
This PD would be located off of Edgefield Rd., near the intersection of Edgefield Rd. with Bettis Academy Rd., Parcel ID: 163-00-00-001-000. The developer is
proposing 202 lots, 146 single family lots and 56 town home lots. The town home lots are an average size of 3,660 sf, the smallest is 3,360 sf, and the largest is 3,960 sf. The single family lots are an average size of 8,025 sf, the smallest is
6,000 sf, and the largest is 9,750 sf. The table below details minimum lot size and widths as well and their quantity.
40 ft. x 150 ft. Single Family Lot 44 lots Minimum Lot Size: 6,000 sf
Minimum Lot Width: 40 ft. at front setback line House Size Range: 1,200 sf to 2,200 sf
57 ft. x 150 ft. Single Family Lot 73 lots Minimum Lot Size: 8,550 sf Minimum Lot Width: 57 ft. at front setback line
House Size Range: 1,500 sf to 2,700 sf 65 ft. x 150 ft. Single Family Lot 29 lots
Minimum Lot Size: 9,750 sf Minimum Lot Width: 65 ft. at front setback line
House Size Range: 2,300 sf to 3,300 sf Per the submitted PD Narrative approximately 20 acres will remain as greenspace,
or 25% of the property. 1.6 acres in the southwest corner are reserved for commercial development. The concept plan identifies two locations for stormwater
detention, one shared with a sewer lift station. The concept plan also identifies an area for a dog park, an area for a park/playground, and walking trail connecting the
16
two through the greenspace, that is also interconnected to the road network. 5 ft. wide sidewalks set back from the back of the curb with a 2 ft. grass strip are
proposed to be installed on one side of the street, with handicap ramps and painted and signed crosswalks. Street trees are proposed for planning in common areas
and/or along fronting lots. The development is identified into 5 separate phases. Heritage Place PD Zoning Requirements
Per the submitted PD Narrative the following are the zoning district requirements for the proposed PD District.
Single family detach lots Setbacks: Front 25 ft. minimum from front property line
Side 5 ft. minimum from property line Rear 10 ft. minimum from property line
Structure Height: 2.5 stories plus basement, maximum Driveways: 25 ft. minimum depth from back of sidewalk to front of
garage
Town home lots
Setbacks: Front 25 ft. minimum from front property line Side 0 ft. between units in the same building
Side 20 ft. between buildings Rear 10 ft. minimum from property line Structure Height: 2.5 stories plus basement, maximum
Driveways: 25 ft. minimum depth between the sidewalk and the street, or the sidewalk and the front of garage,
depending on the final location of the sidewalk Permitted Uses
Buildings, structure Fire protection Satellite dishes, and the like Police protection
Horticulture, gardening Historical sites Home Occupation Ambulatory health care services Auxiliary shed, workshop Tutoring and in-home instructions
Swimming pool, tennis courts Sewage collection Storage buildings Water supply transmission
Private garage and carport Natural gas distribution Noncommercial greenhouses Electrical transmission Domestic animal shelters Forestry
Bathhouses and cabanas Forestry and logging Single-family detached
17
Conditional Uses
Solar electric generation As defined by Edgefield County Ordinance Sec. 24-84
Communication towers and antennas As defined by Edgefield County Ordinance Sec. 24-75
Townhouses As defined by Edgefield County Ordinance Sec. 24-66
Warehousing and storage • Must be screened from public view by an opaque fence or wall or vegetative material, excluding
points of ingress or egress, at least eight feet in height.
• Is not located in any required setback area.
• No material shall be place in open storage in such a manner that it is capable of being
transferred out by wind, water or other causes. Otherwise it shall
be enclosed. • Enclosed storage buildings shall
be of a like architectural
character of nearby residential buildings.
Family day care home • Not more than two persons not residing in the residence shall be
engaged in family day care provision.
• No traffic shall be generated in
an amount above that normally expected in a residential
neighborhood. • No parking is needed above that
required by the principal
of the residential character of the building and/or premises.
Compliance with County Land Development Ordinances
• Planned Development eligibility requirements - Compliant
• Application process for Planned Development - Compliant
Compliance with County Comprehensive Plan • Permitted Land Use - Compliant
18
Approval by Other Regulatory Entities The preparation of engineering documents for DHEC, ECWSA, and SCDOT are
pending Planning Commission recommendation and County Council approval of the PD.
Staff Analysis The major aspects to the proposed Planned Development that staff has identified
are: • Appropriate location for the sitting of high density residential due to the
available infrastructure and ability to provide setbacks and buffers. • Varied housing types and lot sizes to meet market needs and generate a
visually diverse residential development.
• Provision of homes for growing local and regional population. • Allocation for commercial development, infrastructure to support commercial
growth, and possibility for commercial redevelopment in future. • Preservation of open space along with communal areas and trails. • Project is estimated to generate an additional 1,722 trips per day based on
estimates generated by the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Rates, 8th Edition. This is based on 10 trips per day for 1 singlet family
detached dwelling, and 6 trips per day for 1 Townhouse. This does not account for traffic potentially generated by the commercial property.
Staff Recommendation In review of the submitted documents staff has a few recommended changes.
These changes are listed in bulletins below. Some are also shown in the descriptive text in this memo.
• Text above in Blue is text that staff recommends be added to the uses identified as conditional.
• Text in Green are uses identified as permitted uses that staff recommends be
identified specifically as accessory uses. • Staff recommends the list of commercial uses be identified as conditional
within the area of the development designated for Townhouses. Said condition being that the master plan alteration is subject to Planning Commission review and recommendation, and Council approval.
• Staff recommends that for future potential interconnectivity a space be left open on the northeastern portion of the property where the road network
could be extended to the adjacent properties. Ideally at the sacrifice of the minimal number of lots.
• Staff recommends that somewhere in the development a designated covered
bus stop be located for the purpose of facilitating school bus pick up and drop off. This should be done so as to maximize safety and ease of pick up and
drop off. • Staff recommends that the tree caliper for the street trees be increased as
necessary to achieve an average starting tree height of 16 ft.
• Staff recommends that the language in section 8.0 specifically state that vinyl siding is not to be used on street facing veneer.
• Staff recommends language be added in section 10.0 that all street design standards will meet the requirements of the SCDOT.
19
• Staff recommends that a section be added in Section 10 for electrical utilities, specifically that they will be underground.
Planning Commission Action
Following Public Hearing the Planning Commission may make a recommendation to County Council for further public hearing and final action. The Commissioners should consider the description of the PD District as defined by the Edgefield County
Ordinance Sec. 24-39 (3) “The Planned Development District provides a mechanism for the planning commission, the county council and the applicant to agree on the
scope of the proposed development. Some concepts will be more appropriate than others will, and the approval of an application in one location does not necessarily indicate the development will be acceptable in other locations.”
The Commission should also consider the intent of the PD District as defined by the Edgefield County Ordinance Sec. 24-29 (3) (a.) “Encourage flexibility in the larger
scale development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; Improve the design, character and quality of new development; Facilitate the provision of streets and utilities; and Preserve the natural and scenic features of open areas.”
As is stated in the ordinance, a PD is a mechanism for the Planning Commission, County council, and the applicant to agree on the scope of the proposed
development. This gives the Commission stake in the details of the proposal. The Commission may recommend that County Council approve the PD, recommend that
County Council not approve the PD, or recommend that County Council approve the PD upon specified conditions and/or amendments.
20
Other Documents
Exhibit II – Heritage Place Master Plan Exhibit III – Heritage Place PD Narrative Exhibit IV – Heritage Place Property Plat
Exhibit V – Heritage Place Phasing Plan Exhibit VI – Heritage Place ESRI Executive Summary
Exhibit VII – Heritage Place ESRI Site Map Exhibit VIII – Heritage Place MarketNSight Demand & Supply Exhibit IX – Heritage Place Sample Covenants
Exhibit X – Heritage Place Permitted Uses Exhibit XI – Heritage Place Permitted Commercial Uses
23
Location
Month DD, YYYY 0:00 AM/PM
This agenda is to serve as a general outline and framing by which to hold a naturally flowing
conversation on the County’s Land Management Ordinance (LMO) draft and related topics
and issues. The discussion should not be led by the agenda, but by those in attendance.
I. Introductions
II. Meeting Goals
A. Share input on the LMO draft. B. Answer questions on: LMO draft, current ordinance, Comprehensive
Plan, land development, and related topics.
C. Discus the challenges related to land development and land development regulations facing Edgefield County.
D. Discus the LMO draft, how it does and/or does not address those challenges.
E. Discus possible edits and changes to the LMO draft, and other ideas and solutions to address the challenges.
III. Open Q&A
IV. Open Discussion V. Consensus on what was discussed and identified
VI. Adjourn
March 11, 2021 5:00 PM
The Edgefield County Planning Commission Work Session was held on Thursday March 11,
2021 at the Edgefield County Council Chambers at 225 Jeter Street in Edgefield at 5:00pm.
Notice of the time date and agenda of this meeting was provided to The Edgefield Advertiser
and others when requested. Any questions regarding the Planning Commission should be
directed to the County’s Planner Kevin Singletary ksingletary@edgefieldcounty.sc.gov
Members present: Burt, McNeill, Presley, Butler, and Brown.
Members late: Ashcraft.
No votes held during work session.
I. Call to Order
A. Prospective Subdivision Application (Hollow Oak) Parcel ID: 176-00-
00-018-000, Sunnybrooke Rd. and Fish Farm Rd. by JSMG Development, LLC. Philip Green the project P.E. with Southern
Partners, Inc. is here to join the Planning Commission during the work session.
Singletary noted that an interesting aspect is that the property is
located in Aiken and Edgefield Counties and it has to be approved by
both Planning Commissions.
Green went over some points about the subdivision saying that the
main access will be off Sunnybrooke and will require some paving with
Chair: James Burt – Dist. I District Seats: Rodney Ashcraft – Dist. II
Vice-Chair: Brett McNeill – At Large Tracy Hamilton – Dist. III At Large Seats: Joel Presley Karlene Butler – Dist. IV County Council
Liaison:
Aiken County, the storm water will runoff toward Sunnybrooke, and
they are proposing minimum one acre lots. Singletary clarified that the
concept plan shows .5 acre lots. McNeill asked how many lots in
Edgefield County and Green said about 43 counting the ones that the
majority is in Edgefield County. McNeill asked about water and sewer
and Green said no water and sewer, they will be on septic and well
water. Presley asked the total acreage of the site and Singletary said
57.17 acres. Presley asked about the area labeled detention and Green
said yes he would put the detention close to the road and leave the
back area natural. There was some discussion about the roads and
how it will only be accessible through Aiken County. Brown asked how
it works being in two different counties and Singletary said it has to be
approved by both Planning Commissions and the taxes are based off
the master bedroom, which determines what county they will be taxed
to. There was some discussion about underground or overhead
electricity. McNeill asked if there were any plans yet and Green
apologized saying the developer couldn’t be there because of Covid
quarantine. Singletary pointed out that it was the same developer of
Anslee Cove and is associated with Carbon at Governors Landing.
Brown asked if the current plan meets Edgefield County requirements
and Singletary said the concept plan is in compliance with the zoning
of the property. McNeill said from his stand point he would like to see
a lot more details if they do apply.
Ron Steve spoke up from the audience and asked about the
moratorium and Singletary addressed the Commissioners saying if
they do apply there will be a Public Hearing at the next meeting in
April and the moratorium is currently not under effect. Steve asked
when will it be and Paradise said as long as the Edgefield Advertiser
goes out as planned it will be next Wednesday.
B. Rezoning Application Rural Residential (RR) to Industrial Development (ID) Parcel IDs: 145-00-00-(063, 064, 085, 086, 087, 088, 089)-000, Rainbowfalls Rd. by William Ellis and Southern Felt Company. John
Lewis the President of Southern Felt Company is here to join the Planning Commission during the work session.
Lewis said Southern Felt has been there 33 years and they’re
purchasing 3.4 acres next door and would like to have this rezoned so
they can expand. Burt asked if it was just vacant lots and Lewis said
yes, just woods. Singletary showed the property on a map. Presley
asked what the expansion would be and Lewis said they are under
27
strategic planning but think its going to be about 80,000sqft expansion
and add roughly eighty jobs to the County. There was a discussion
about what is immediately around the property. Brown asked what the
buffer requirement was and Singletary said this would be a non-
affluent producing industry and the buffer requirement for single-
family dwelling that is in the proximity of that type of industry would
be 25’ buffer, 6 large trees and 36 shrubs per one hundred feet.
Singletary went on to note that this would be a rezoning application
that Planning Commission would recommend to County Council and
they would have three readings along with their public hearing on the
item and then when they are ready to actually do the construction
they would come through the Building and Planning Department to get
building permits and since it would be the expansion of an existing
use, they would not need to get Planning Commission approval for the
expansion.
Ashcraft came in late so Burt asked if he had any questions. Ashcraft
asked if they had any plans to combine the parcels and Lewis said yes
after the closing, they plan to get it surveyed and added to the
existing parcel. Singletary added that since this property is identified
in the Comprehensive Plan as Suburban Land Use and that doesn’t
permit Industrial zoning, if the Commissioners recommend to County
Council to rezone the property, they will also have to recommend an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use on the
property.
C. Comprehensive Plan Reexamination per County Council Resolution Number 20-21-1136 at the March 2, 2021 County Council Meeting.
i. Resolution “This resolution is a request for the Planning Commission to reexamine the section of the Comprehensive
Plan that were changed at third reading and approval of the current plan in June 2019. Specifically, The Estate Residential element and the Suburban Residential element. The Planning
Commission is being asked to provide a recommendation concerning should these sections be changed to the original
wording.”
Ashcraft asked Singletary if those two sections in the packet
were the only parts that were changed in that meeting and
Singletary said yes, that is his understanding and he also noted
that this was the specific recommendation they are looking for.
Ashcraft said in the regular meeting he will make a motion that
everything gets changed back to its original wording.
28
Ashcraft went on to read his prepared document. He said he’s
been to meetings that refer to both versions as flawed and he
feels it should be changed back
Marine explained that County Council asked for the
recommendation because it doesn’t start with them, it starts
with the Planning Commission. He said they have several
options, they can reexamine and make changes, or reexamine
other parts of the Comprehensive Plan but County Council
specifically asked them to look at these changes. He said they
can also make no changes and that would be the
recommendation given to Council and they can decide on
matters but the action actually starts with the Planning
Commission and that’s what this is. Ashcraft said he feels like
they were asked to carve a statue and were given a mountain.
He said the Steering Committee was basically the Planning
Commission, plus a few people and he would like to weigh a
new Steering Committee heavily to the citizens side. He added it
is just a Steering Committee and then the Commissions can
decide on what they do. He said he would like to have
representatives from all the people that are so concerned on a
Steering Committee to take this whole thing back and let them
carve and cut this out with the Commissioners direction but
what they were left with shouldn’t be in their laps. He said the
LMO was absolutely huge. Singletary clarified that he is referring
to the LMO and not the Comprehensive Plan and Ashcraft
realized that he crossed subjects and he apologized. Singletary
said in the memorandum during the staff analysis, their
viewpoint and advise would be to give a specific
recommendation on what Council has asked the Commissioners
to review however he’s aware of other aspects of the
Comprehensive Plan that Commissioners on an individual level
are interested in possibly fine tuning and making adjustments to
and then advised that at a future meeting they could put those
together as a separate recommendation to Council for their
consideration to the Comprehensive Plan. Brown asked
Singletary about the original text on the Estate Residential,
which says the overall density of residential development is
projected to be about one house in five acres, however the
minimum lot size is assumed to be approximately two acres,
and asked Singletary to explain what that means. Singletary
29
said he would reference John Ford’s letter and one of the things
he’s requested is once Council passes that resolution to get John
Ford the author of the document’s perspective on it. He went on
to say there’s been an extreme amount of confusion caused by
the language used in both versions for those sections in the
Comprehensive Plan and maybe the Commissioners would like
to consider either a rewrite of those sections to provide more
clarity but references Ford’s last paragraph in his letter, “the
density numbers in the original 3.17.19 text were not intended
to be minimum lot size, the intent of identifying the average
density was to help guide applicants, decision-makers and utility
providers with information regarding the level of services that
should be provided over the next twenty years by multiplying
the land area by number of units that can be expected to be
developed.” Singletary went on to say, what you have in the
Comprehensive Plan is a recommendation for an average
density for that entire Land Use area and then the specific item
of what the typical average min lot size you would see is within
that land use area. He said an important thing to remember is
zoning dictates minimum lot size not the land use plan, so its
really supposed to inform what zonings you locate within that
land use area.
Brown asked if that was the same aspect for Suburban
Residential and Singletary said he would say yes.
Burt said that from speaking to people he feels like they just
need to fine tune it a little more to get understanding for
people. He went on to say he was shocked to found out the
number of people in the County that don’t read or receive a
newspaper or watch the news and he can’t see why they
couldn’t get information in these times. He said there’s no
excuse for ignorance to the law, that’s what they say in court
and he didn’t know the solution to people not taking
responsibility to get information.
Brown asked Ashcraft about the text they’re asked to choose
between and Ashcraft said both versions are flawed but he
thinks the original text is less flawed so they need to backup
and start over again and all the changes originate from the
Planning Commission like they should then we can move
forward and make better decisions. Singletary added that the
30
first version was the version that was recommended by the
Planning Commission to Council. Burt said the more he looks at
it the more he’s convinced that recommending to Council that
they change it back is the best thing to do.
There were no more comments.
V. Adjourn Burt adjourned the Work Session at 5:43pm.
31
County Council Chambers
March 11, 2021 6:00 PM
The Edgefield County Planning Commission Meeting was held on Thursday March 11, 2021
at the Edgefield County Council Chambers at 225 Jeter Street in Edgefield at 6:00pm.
Notice of the time date and agenda of this meeting was provided to The Edgefield Advertiser
and others when requested. Any questions regarding the Planning Commission should be
directed to the County’s Planner Kevin Singletary ksingletary@edgefieldcounty.sc.gov
Members present: Burt, McNeill, Presley, Butler, Ashcraft, and Brown.
Members Absent: Hamilton.
I. Call to Order
B. Pledge
Burt led the pledge of allegiance.
II. Approval of Agenda A. Approval of March 11, 2021 Meeting Agenda
McNeill made a motion to approve the March 11, 2021 agenda.
Ashcraft seconded the motion. Burt put the motion to a vote. All voted
in favor (6-0). Motion passed.
III. Approval of Minutes A. Approval of January 27, 2021 Work Session Meeting Minutes
McNeill made a motion to approve the January 27, 2021 Work Session
Meeting Minutes. Butler seconded the motion. Burt put the motion to a
vote. All voted in favor (6-0). Motion passed.
B. Approval of February 11, 2021 Work Session Meeting Minutes McNeill made a motion to approve the February 11, 2021 Work
Session Meeting Minutes. Butler seconded the motion. Burt put the
motion to a vote. All voted in favor (6-0). Motion passed.
Chair: James Burt – Dist. I District Seats: Rodney Ashcraft – Dist. II
Vice-Chair: Brett McNeill – At Large Tracy Hamilton – Dist. III At Large Seats: Joel Presley Karlene Butler – Dist. IV County Council
Liaison:
C. Approval of February 11, 2021 Meeting Minutes McNeill made a motion to approve the February 11, 2021 Meeting
Minutes. Butler seconded the motion. Burt put the motion to a vote. All
voted in favor (6-0). Motion passed.
IV. Guest Speakers No Guest Speakers
V. Reports A. Land Management Ordinance (LMO)
i. Community Small Group Meetings Update from staff on the
number of individuals who have signed up to participate in the to be scheduled District level meetings.
Singletary said currently they have 112 individuals signed up
and he probably has a couple more emails not logged but the
period is still open and as stated in the next item, post cards are
planned to go out so that should make the number go up as
well. McNeill asked if the post cards go out to every resident in
the County and Singletary clarified by saying every property
owner. Burt asked when they will be sent out and Paradise
answered saying the County has executed the contract with the
vender and they’ve been told they should go out in the next
couple of weeks. Brown asked Singletary when the deadline to
sign up was and Singletary said he believed it was 30 days but
now they want to give people the chance to respond to the post
cards. He said he wasn’t aware of a due date yet. Paradise
added that the intent on the small groups is to let every one
who wants to participate do so and they will make every
accommodation they can to make that possible.
ii. Post Card Notice at the March 2, 2021 County Council Meeting County Council authorized the County Administrator to mail
notice to property owners regarding the LMO and community small group meetings.
Burt went to the next item since they discussed the post card
notice with the small group meetings update.
B. Moratorium On Major Subdivisions at the March 2, 2021 County Council Meeting County Council approved the first reading of
Ordinance Number 20-21-1137 as amended. i. Ordinance “This ordinance would prohibit Edgefield County from
receiving any new plans for major subdivision for 90 days. The
ordinance would not affect the issuance of building plans or final
33
plat approval for subdivision that have previously been approved by the Planning Commission.
Singletary clarified that the moratorium would technically go
into effect at the moment the Public Hearing is announced for
the second reading and stated the original text, what the
amendment was, moved minor subdivisions from the
moratorium and made it exclusively major subdivisions. McNeill
clarified that being announced means when it’s put in the
newspaper, Marine said correct it’s a pending ordinance once
that ad runs.
VII. New Business A. Comprehensive Plan Reexamination per County Council Resolution
Number 20-11-1136 at the March 2, 2021 County Council Meeting. i. Resolution “This resolution is a request for the Planning
Commission to reexamine the section of the Comprehensive
Plan that were changed at third reading and approval of the current plan in June 2019. Specifically, The Estate Residential
element and the Suburban Residential element. The Planning Commission is being asked to provide a recommendation concerning should these sections be changed to the original
wording.” ii. Planning Commission Review
McNeill said he knows the wording didn’t really change as far as
what could or couldn’t be done but the original wording is what
the Planning Commission recommended to County Council and
he feels like it shouldn’t have been changed without coming
back to Planning Commission so therefore he feels like they
should go back to the original text because that’s what was
recommended to start with. The other commissioners agreed.
McNeill made a motion to change the text back to the original
text from March 17, 2019. Presley seconded the motion. Marine
asked for clarification and McNeill said the motion was for both
paragraphs that they had before them right now.
Burt asked for discussion, hearing none, Burt put the motion to
a vote. All voted in favor (6-0). Motion passed.
34
VIII. Comments by the Planning Commission Chair Burt made an analogy of the Commissioners being like a hamburger in the
middle of two buns with the mustard and ketchup causing it to slide, he said
they have to hold tight with all the pressure and don’t throw in the hat but
make decisions together and hold it together during trying times. He
mentioned that he made it through the rough times when it was brought up
before and they will make it through again and make the best decision. He
said he’s interested to see the percentage they get from different areas
because they can’t let one area dictate the whole county.
IX. Adjourn
Burt made a motion to adjourn. McNeill seconded the motion. Burt put the
motion to a vote. All voted in favor (6-0). Motion passed. Meeting adjourned
at 6:14pm.