|
Sections Opinion County Obituaries Wandering Minds Announcements Classifieds Legal Notices Crime Blotter Off The Wall School System EC District Office School Board Strom Thurmond Fox Creek High School News Student News Public Offices Edgefield County Edgefield Johnston Trenton Public Forums To enter you must read our Terms of Service Pundits Neal Bortz Townhall.com National Review Online The New Republic Add your online favorite by e-mailing it to us here. News links Edgefield Advertiser Aiken Standard North Augusta Star The State Augusta Chronicle Atlanta Journal United Press Associated Press FOX News Reuters CNS News WorldNet Daily Newsmax Drudge Report GoogleNews Yahoo!News New York Times New York Post Los Angeles Times Washington Times Washington Post |
Zoning
Issue stirs anger towards county Edgefielddaily.com web posted March 2, 2005 Staff reporting The contentious issue of zoning in Edgefield County has been given new life recently. Land owners along Sweetwater Road have received a notice to attend an Edgefield County Planning Commission work session. Under the proposal there would be a new zoning district with its own classification and encompassing all property along a 2000 foot “right of way” (1000 feet from either side of the present 66 foot right of way for a total of 1033 feet on either side) along Sweetwater Road starting at The Oaks subdivision and continuing to Republican Road. The “information packets”, accompanied with a short letter, were mailed out Friday, February 25th to all affected property owners. The meeting, to be held March 10, 2005 at 6:30 PM at the Council chambers on Jeter Street, is to take “comments in as information” according to planning commission member Bernadette Hudson. Hudson stated that commission members as well as herself have been in contact with land owners and if those who are affected show up at the work session, it will not continue, “…if they (land owners) show up and don't want it, it will not pass, I can assure you of that” she stated. Zoning Administrator Howard Gibson agreed, “if the people don’t want this it will be a dead issue”, he said. However he also noted that some individuals want zoning, a word he said he dislikes having to use. “You would be surprised to know what some people are wanting to put along that area,” Gibson said and referred to a “drag strip” and “chicken farms” as reasons for the concern. Some say that threat rings hollow as the “pig farms” and “video poker” scare tactic of the 2000 debate in Merriwether, which most all involved admit was a huge mismanagement of the situation in the 1999-2001 battle. Planning commission member Bernadette Hudson said, “even (council chairman) Monroe Kneece and Dan Vismore (advisor for zoning) have admitted they went about zoning in the wrong way. We don’t plan to make that mistake again.” Hudson stated the letter sent to land owners asking for their input was meant as a way to let the people affected make the call as to the direction the county went. “I’m not surprised some people think this is a ‘done deal’”, she said. “It’s not. We wanted to hear what they have to say.” The issue arrived, according to sources within the process, by planning commission member Jim Oliver and County Administrator Wayne Adams. The original plan submitted would have increased the county restrictions to all property from Merriwether north along Martintown Road to Trenton and everything in between. That plan fell short without the support of the entire planning commission. Oliver and Adams are not alone in supporting the idea and the protection of Mount Vintage. Commission member Tracy Freeman also supports the idea. He and Oliver both are on record in meetings stating this was to “protect” Mount Vintage, a residential golf community owned by developer Bettis Rainsford. A vote by Freeman would conflict with the personal interest he has as a builder. Residents along the affected area are not as supportive of the plan. Beverly Reece said she and her husband Jim do not want it, “we just don’t like the idea of someone telling us what to do with our property,” she said. That seemed to be the general consensus of everyone we spoke with in the area. One man, who did not want to be named, had comments for the county which are not suitable for publication. He stated he has plans for property he has purchased between his house and the affected area which would not be allowed by his reading of the information provided. We continue to interview residents. So far we have been unable to find support for the propsed plan, not that there is not support among residents, we have just not reached any at press time. EdgefieldDaily.com will follow this more in depth as the issue continues. If you would like to have your thoughts on the plan heard contact the Editor by e-mail Return to
Headlines
Contact us All original material is property of Edgefield Daily.com and cannot be reproduced or distributed without the expressed written permission of Edgefield Daily.com |
Advertisements
|
| Contact us: Editor |
|
|
 |