►
From YouTube: Aiken Planning Commission Meeting: December 12, 2017
Description
View the live stream of the City of Aiken Planning Commission Meeting for December 12, 2017.
A
To
order
the
December
12th
meeting
of
the
city
of
Aitkin,
Planning
Commission
for
I'm
pleased
to
see
that
we
have
so
many
residents
joining
us.
If
you
have
not
joined
us
at
a
previous
meeting,
let
me
share
a
few
of
our
guidelines.
First
thing
I'd,
like
to
ask:
is
that
everyone
please
check
their
cell
phones
to
make
sure
that
they
are
offer
on
mute
and
I'll
share
our
process.
This
meeting
is
going
to
be
a
little
bit
different
than
our
regular
meeting
and
we'll
have
an
explanation
of
why.
A
A
B
A
Second,
all
in
favor,
okay,
all
right.
Our
first
application
is
application.
18
2,
0,
0,
0
9.
It's
an
annexation
request.
The
property
is
at
11:23,
Williams,
Drive
and
the
applicant
and
owner
is
racial.
Lega,
more
I
say
that
right
is
there
anyone
here
who
would
like
to
speak
on
behalf
of
that
application.
So.
A
B
A
All
in
favor
passes
unanimously
and
we
will
let
them
know
to
check
with
the
city
manager's
office
for
the
scheduled
City
Council
meeting
all
right.
Our
next
item
is
application.
18-4,
zero,
zero,
zero.
Three!
It's
a
minor
subdivision
request:
the
location
is
215
Grace
Avenue
southeast
the
applicants
and
owners
are
mr.
and
mrs.
William
Moore.
Anyone
would
like
to
speak
on
behalf
of
this
application.
D
This
is
a
bit
unusual
in
that
it's
a
variance
request
heard
by
the
Planning
Commission.
Most
variance
requests
go
through
the
Board
of
Zoning
Appeals.
However,
we
have
a
special
provision
in
our
land
development
regulations
that
assigns
a
a
variance
to
a
subdivision
to
the
Planning
Commission.
So
the
Planning
Commission,
in
the
case
where
there
is
a
variance
request,
has
specific
criteria
in
the
code
on
which
it
may
judge
the
various
requests.
D
Those
are
the
granting
of
the
variance
will
not
be
detrimental
to
the
public
health,
safety
or
welfare
that
the
request
of
the
variance
is
based
on
a
particular
condition.
Size
of
property,
shape,
topography
of
the
property
which
are
not
generally
applicable
to
other
property.
Strict
compliance
would
impose
particular
hardship
and
not
a
mere
inconvenience.
The
variance
would
not
violate
the
provisions
of
any
other
ordinance
and
the
request
is
not
solely
to
alleviate
financial
hardship.
Those
are
the
criteria
on
which
the
Planning
Commission
will
be
asked.
D
To
judge
this,
the
ability
of
the
other
requests-
and
this
item
does
not
is
a
final
decision
by
the
Planning
Commission.
It
does
not
go
to
the
City
Council
as
many
items
do.
Any
appeal
would
go
through
the
Court
of
Common
Pleas
as
any
similar
to
the
BCA
items,
the
Board
of
Zoning
Appeals,
it's
additionally
in
the
code,
it
requires
the
Planning
Commission
to
approve
a
resolution,
either
approving
a
resolution
of
approval
or
approving
a
resolution
of
denial,
which
is
somewhat
unique
to
this
process.
D
So
in
this
case
you
have
just
a
brief
kind
of
discussion.
You
have
a
an
approximate
nine
acre
residential
single-family,
stable,
RS
s,
property
in
which
minimum
lot
size
is
three
acres.
The
applicants
are
requesting
variances
to
lot
size
on
two
Lots.
Both
those
Lots
are
approximately
an
acre
and
then
a
variance
to
an
accessory
unit.
Setback
on
one
of
the
parcels,
so
those
are
the
three
variances
from
the
approved
from
the
submitted
subdivision
request.
C
E
E
Suppose
first
I'd
like
to
emphasize
that
this
is
a
minor
variants
for
subdivision,
there's
quite
a
bit
of
misinformation
in
town,
a
good
bit
of
anxiety,
which
we
think
is
been
unnecessarily
stirred
up.
I
have
one
email
here
that
says:
if
this
is
granted,
it
will
be
the
end
of
the
horse
district
as
we
know
it.
Let's
focus
flood
the
meeting.
We
think
that
that
sort
of
thing
is
completely
unnecessary.
Given
this
as
a
minor
subdivision,
we've
been
on
this
property,
we
have
lived
at
this
property
since
1985.
E
When
we
bought
the
property
it
was
unquestionably
in
distress.
There
was
a
number
of
parts
of
the
garden
that
had
been
overgrown.
The
previous
owner
handed
Williams
did
not
live
there
for
about
five
or
six
years
that
he
was
the
owner.
He
was
a
single
owner
and
that
might
actually
give
us
some
indication
that
just
one
owner
of
a
nine
acre
property
may
not
be
sufficient
for
its
long
term
maintenance
and
sustainability.
I
think
his
major
contribution
of
the
property
was
golf
balls.
E
We
still
find
them
occasionally
underneath
various
trees,
the
property
other
than
that
was
in
severe
disrepair.
There
are
17
structures
on
this
property,
each
one
of
them
over
the
course
of
our
32
years.
30
29
33
years
has
been
renovated,
with
the
exception
of
the
main
house,
every
structure
that
was
on
the
property
when
we
arrived,
has
been
maintained
and
is
still
existing.
E
It's
important
to
know,
as
you
look
at
this
map,
that
as
I
think
one
of
the
commissioners
Vikon.
We
pointed
out
Bob
that
when
you
see
the
property,
when
you
view
the
property,
this
comes
to
light.
These
are
not
simply
lines
Andrew,
you
know
drawn
arbitrarily
on
a
map
each
one
of
these
lines.
Each
one
of
these
lines
represent
a
natural
division
in
the
property,
a
pre-existing
division.
They
are
in
a
sense
of
natural
divisions,
of
not
only
the
geography
of
the
property,
but
also
the
uses
of
the
property
on
the
property.
E
E
E
E
The
future
use
of
parcel
three
would
would
be
primarily
two
well
would
be
exclusively
to
retain
those
three
structures
they
would
not
be
torn
down.
They
are
in
very,
very
good
condition.
There
are
available
online.
If
you
want
to
look
on
our
website,
it's
akin
luxury,
rentals.
You
can
see
the
interior
pictures
and
the
exterior
pictures.
E
The
future
use
of
parcel
three
would
be.
We've
agreed
to
the
city,
the
parcel
three
that
what
what
has
been
the
garage
and
it's
partially
renovated,
the
only
thing
run
not
renovated
is
the
lower
bays
and
those
could
be
renovated
and
make
that
into
the
primary
residence
of
part.
Three
there's
absolutely
no
intention
of
creating
any
other
main
structures
on
that
building.
The
only
option
that
we've
asked
for
because
we
are
trying
to
increase
the
the
viability
of
the
equestrian
use
of
the
property,
not
decrease
it.
E
We
must
emphasize
that
there
will
be
an
increased,
balanced
use
potentially
of
the
equestrian
aspect
of
this
property,
not
a
discrete,
not
a
decrease,
we're
asking
only
that
there
could
be
the
potential
of
a
small
to
stable
to
stall
stable
there
in
order
to
preserve
the
equestrian
use
to
encourage
equestrian
use.
Let's
talk
continued
to
talk
about
parcel
three.
There
are
now
four
tenants
at
different
households
on
parcel
three.
They
are.
They
are,
as
I
said
earlier,
legal
tenants
we
pay
tax
instead
of
those
four
I
should
say.
E
E
The
carriage
house,
which
is
there
would
probably
be
used
as
an
office
to
an
owner
and
the
other
house
could
be
a
rental
house
or
or
perhaps
a
guest
house,
that's
the
best
and
highest
use
for
that
property
once
the
best
and
highest
use
is
reached
for
each
and
one
of
these,
it's
one
of
those
properties
they
become
sustainable,
they
become
viable,
they
don't
fall
apart.
When
we
came
to
the
property.
All
of
those
buildings
were
ready
for
demolition,
every
single
one
of
them.
E
Okay,
if
it
goes
to
one
owner,
it
does
not
ensure
the
viability,
the
stain
of
sustainability
or
the
use
of
the
property.
It
cannot
be
stated
with
a
with
any
more
emphasis
than
that,
so
partial
parcel
parcel
3,
which
would,
instead
of
being
primarily
tenants,
would
become,
would
become
centered
around
that
owner.
Ok,
let's
go
to
parcel
to
parcel
to
is
only
at
the
moment
the
only
there
are
three
structures
on
parcel:
there's
the
historic
laundry
house
and
there's
two
little
utility
side
structures
there.
E
When
we
move
to
the
property
in
1985
we
lived
in
that
laundry
house.
We
renovated
that
laundry
house
when
we
move
just
as
we
moved
here
and
we
live
there
for
approximately
three
to
four
years
and
we
have
subsequently
renovated
that
several
times
in
addition,
again
the
photos
for
that
or
online.
Please
have
a
look
at
it.
It's
a
very,
very
high
standard.
Okay,
we
foresee
that
a
future
owner.
It's
now
rented
its
to
an
executive,
the
Savannah
River
Site,
a
great
individual,
but
he's
moving
on
to
Washington
State.
Because
of
the
changeover
at
Savannah.
E
River
he's
not
a
permanent
resident
of
Aiken.
He
doesn't
pay
income
tax
in
the
state
of
South
Carolina.
He
pays.
No,
he
pays
no
yeah.
You
know
religious
acts.
None
of
that
he's
here
for
a
while
he's
gone.
We
would
propose
that
that
could
become
the
main
house
that
could
become
the
main
house,
a
main
structure
for
an
owner,
a
stake
owner,
and
is
there
a
question,
sir?.
E
That
could
also
be
a
horse
equestrian
property.
We've
also
asked
for
a
similar
potential
for
a
small
two
stall,
maybe
a
little
storage
stable.
We
have
a
lawyer
that
we're
going
to
work
with
he's
going
to
testify
that
we
are
as
if
in
the
future,
these
properties
are
a
sold
or
otherwise
just
given
over
to
other
ownership.
This
would
be
on
the
deed.
We've
discussed
this
from
the
very
beginning
for
some
time
now
of
what
we
would
do
to
ensure
that
the
architectural
integrity
of
any
additional
stables
on
the
property
would
match
the
existing
architecture.
E
It
would
not
be
a
shed.
It
would
not
be
a
shack
and
there's
plenty
of
places
on
all
these
Lots
to
hide
a
stable
from
public
view.
Remember
that
there's
a
brick
wall
that
runs
all
the
way
all
the
way
around
this
property.
It's
very
very
hard
to
see
inside
there
are
historic
gardens
in
this
property.
Then
you
also
could
be
preserved
on
your
art
plan.
There's
absolutely
no
need
to
take
out
any
of
the
garden
space.
If
we
go
to
other
plans,
there
could
be.
E
You
know,
fairly
radical
changes
to
the
garden
and
certainly
in
the
future,
even
a
one
owner
person
might
be
tempted
to,
as
did
Andy
Williams,
to
turn
the
place
into
basically
a
golf
course.
Okay.
So
let's
go
to
parcel
number
one.
That's
the
present
main
house,
there's
a
driveway
that
comes
to
the
front.
That
would
be
the
that
would
be
the
primary
and
means
to
access
parcel
number
one.
The
main
house
obviously
would
stay
as
it
is.
Let
me
just
note
right
now:
there
are
two
entrances
to
the
property
surrounded
completely
with
a
brick
wall.
E
If
you
were
to
stand,
and
either
one
of
the
entrances
say
five
years
from
now,
if
our
plans
enacted,
we
believe
that
you
would
see
a
well-maintained
property
and
virtually
see
no
change
whatsoever
to
this
property.
So
anyone
who
talks
about
it
can
being
destroyed
has
to
tell
us
why
a
property
that's
visually.
The
same
is
gonna,
destroy
the
city.
It's
it's
a
leap
of
logic,
so
alright,
so
parcel
number
one.
You
have
a
driveway.
It
remains.
E
The
same
main
house
remains
the
same
if
I
may
say
so,
the
gardens
are
almost
on
there
and
they're,
not
necessarily
the
best
in
town,
but
they
are
very
unusual
and
special
there's
a
lot
of
very
unusual
trees.
There
we
invited
a
number
of
people
who
have
been
writing
these
emails
in
town
to
come
visit
the
property
before
they
spread
any
more
discussion
about
what
we
had
in
mind.
We
wanted
to
show
people
this,
but
all
of
our
invitations
went
unanswered.
That.
E
Parcel
remains
the
same
again
like
parcel
three
and
parcel
to
who
are
asking
for
the
potential.
We
would
not
build
anymore
stables,
but
if
there
were
future
owners
who
wish
to
build
stables
and
to
increase
the
the
equestrian
aspect
of
the
property,
we
would
ask
that
that
parcel
number
one
also
have
a
to
state
a
to
stall,
little
storage
component
to
it,
which
would
be
completely
hidden.
There
would
be
no
further
driveways
anywhere
under
our
plan
under
this
plan.
E
No
further
driveways
anywhere
at
all,
not
on
Magnolia,
not
on
grace,
certainly
not
on
whiskey
Road,
don't
really
see
the
need
for
it
in
the
future
as
well.
There's
plenty
of
we've
been
living
with
this
with
this
arrangement
for
years,
and
in
fact
we
have
never
even
used
the
front
driveway
all
right
again
parcel
one
basically
remains
the
same.
If
I
may
say,
I'm
gonna
address
this
and
a
little
bit
further
about
the
hardship
to
aspect
of
this.
We
do
not
intend
to
sell
positive
here,
at
least
in
the
short
run.
E
We
want
to
stay
on
the
property.
If
we
were
to
sell
parcel
one,
we
would
either
move
to
partial
four
three
or
two.
We
have
no
financial
need
to
abandon
this
property.
Okay,
we'll
discuss
that
in
the
future.
One
person,
I
might
say
we
call
my
wife
spoke
to
is
evidence
of
financial
distress.
There
was
ivy
growing
upon
the
wall,
that
was
evidence
of
financial
distress.
That's
the
level
of
the
conversation.
That's
been
going
on
and
Aiken
okay.
So
now
our
parcel
for
this
is
critical.
E
E
E
If,
if
people
would
take
the
time
to
read
our
full
proposal,
instead
of
letting
be
a
subject
to
rumor
to
actually
read
the
proposal,
you'll
see
that
what
we've
done
is
it's
since
there's
not,
there
are
18
stalls
in
the
stable
context
right
now
that
is
more
stalls
than
what
the
property
has
required
for
a
number
of
years.
What
what
somebody
could
do
there
are,
there
are,
as
I
say,
a
number
of
stalls
without
really
changing
the
the
stable
complex
visually.
E
They
could
take
the
the
tack
room
of
the
main,
stable
and
the
end,
though,
and
that
the
stalls
that
are
behind
it,
which
are
now
used
only
for
storage
and
turn
it
into
a
very
nice
cute
house,
and
that
would
be
the
main
resident
if
they
did
that
there
would
be
no
visual
change
to
the
story.
Part
of
the
question
part
of
this
property
is
that
is
that.
F
E
A
lot
yes,
we
use
some
of
the
storage
and
so
on
so
forth.
I
think
it's
18.
If
somebody
didn't,
if
somebody
wanted
to
keep
all
18,
leave
the
tack
room
good
for
them.
There's
plenty
of
room
over
on
this
side.
Without
any
event,
without
the
requirement
of
any
variances
that
little
structure
over
there
is
a
swimming
pool,
it
could
easily
be
turned
into
a
house.
No
one
would
see
it.
Okay,
no
one
would
see
it.
E
No
additional
structure,
that's
not
necessarily
the
case
okay,
so
that
would
depend
McGill's
the
flexibility
to
keep
that
historic
aspect
of
the
property
intact.
Okay,
so
in
terms
of
use,
what
you
have
its
parcel
to
is
a
tenant.
You've
got
tenants
and
parcel
three.
We
in
the
wintertime
this
winter,
we
will
have
nine.
Ladies
with
nine
horses
in
the
stables,
there
will
be
a
lot
of
it's
completely
legal.
We
have
within
fact
of
three
years
ago.
We
went
through
all
this
in
terms
of
because
we're
the
only
compost,
legal
composters
in
town.
E
We
we
we
we
want
to
maintain
that.
That's
the
main
thing
about
what
you
want.
Let's
say
that
we
want
to
maintain
that
aspect
of
the
property
that
question
aspect
of
the
property
and
as
I
say
in
terms
of
traffic.
We
know
that
there's
been
some
inquiries,
sister
traffic
there
will
be
and
I
know
people
have
scoff
the
gist
because
they
don't
want
to
come
and
talk
to
us.
There
are
this
winter
again,
just
to
repeat
nine,
ladies
nine
horses
and
they
come
and
go
all
day
with
their
grooms.
E
You
have
to
be
logical,
at
least
a
bit
to
recognize
that
a
new
stake
owner
somebody
coming
and
paying
South
Carolina
taxes
and
and
engaging
themselves
and
all
their
question.
Clubs
and
activities
of
Aiken
joining
in
the
civil
life
of
Aiken.
Those
people
are
not
likely
to
have
nine
horses,
that's
not
likely,
but
even
if
they
did,
one
owner
will
not
have
anywhere
near
the
amount
of
traffic
as
nine
okay,
because
they'll
come
in
and
sleep
there
and
they'll
have
their
Center
grooms.
E
E
What
would
be
replaced
by
that
there's
stakeholders
and
if
people
are
interested
in
this
I've
got
a
letter
from
from
somebody
who
wrote
to
the
local
newspaper
concerning
life
in
Charleston,
and
they
are
concerned
about
tenants,
hotels,
tourists
and
so
on
and
so
forth,
and
they
say
you
need
permanent.
This
letter
stays
that
you
need
permanent
residence,
so
it
happens
to
be
somebody
who
is
on
the
other
side
of
this
issue
and
maybe
they'll
argue
a
different
point
of
view
tonight,
but
the
community's
ever
all
across
the
world,
communities
seek
permanent
residence
ownership.
E
That
ownership
is
key
to
a
community
spirit
and
life,
and
we
think
that
that's
going
to
be
very
much
increased
by
this
so
hardship.
We
do
not
intend
to
leave
akin
unless
things
get
worse,
yeah.
What
we
have
been
both
of
us
have
been
ill
over
the
south's
last
few
years
my
wife
has
recovered
from
cancer.
I've
had
several
surgeries.
We
are
not
the
same
as
when
we
moved
here
in
1985.
We
do
not
disguise
that
we
are
not.
Is
that
a
good
health
as
we
were,
then
we
were
not.
E
We
were
young
and
foolish
at
that
time.
We
are,
we
still
may
be
foolish,
but
not
young,
and-
and
so
we
we
are
trying
to
establish
something
at
this
property.
A
shame.
Nobody
wanted
has
wanted
to
hear
this,
and
you
know
we
have
to
do
it
here.
We
we
have
tried
those
that
are
trying
to
establish
a
sustainability
and
viability
to
this
property.
We
think
we
have
spent
a
lot
of
time
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
do
this
with
a
minimal
amount
of
impact
to
the
city.
We
want
sustainability
viability.
E
We
want
to
follow
the
comprehend
planet
akin
which,
which
asks
for
the
increased
or
present
use
of
equestrians.
We
think
we've
done
that
in
spades.
We
have
reduced
the
number
of
tenants
and
replaced
them
with
stakeholder
stakeholders.
We
think
we
have
done
that
in
spades.
That's
a
major
problem
we
are.
We
are
also
members
of
the
Aitken
Council
of
neighbourhoods.
We
would
welcome
other
people
in
this
room
who
have
expressed
great
interest
in
the
future
of
akin.
E
We
would
ask
them
to
join
the
community
organizations
who
are
interested
in
the
whole
city
of
Aitkin,
not
just
grace
Avenue
but
the
whole
city
to
join
the
Council
on
neighborhoods.
They
will
find
out
some
of
the
other
problems.
They've
existed
even
with
tenants
and
poor
quality
landlords
people
who
are
not
paying
their
taxes.
We
with
these
are
plenty
of
problems
in
Aitkin
that
we
can
address
besides
being
obsessed
with
this
one.
So
in
that,
in
terms
of
why
we
are
doing
that,
we
are
not.
E
We
are
not
really
capable
of
maintaining
either
having
the
energy
to
maintain
on
this
property.
We
have
two
children
who
were
raised
in
Aitkin:
they
live
in
Northern
California.
They
both
have
jobs.
One
of
them
is
also
a
part-time
student
in
mathematics
at
Stanford.
They
have,
they
have
an
interest
in
a
life
in
California.
They
don't
want
to
abandon
Aitken.
They
would
like
to
keep
the
presence
here.
We
would
like
to
as
much
as
we
can
physically
to
hold
on
to
least
some
portion
of
this
property.
E
We
have
never
discussed
this
division
with
any
single
real
estate,
agent
and
town.
You
know
there
is
no
way
than
anybody
can
claim
that
we
are
gonna.
Just
if
we
put
these
up
for
sale.
We
probably
we
are
gonna
figure
out
a
way
it
went,
and
if
we
do,
we
want
it
to
be
organized,
we
don't.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
it's
viable
for
the
future
and
and
then
those
decisions
can
be
made
and
again,
we've
discussed
with
Bill
Tucker
how
to
establish
all
this
in
terms
of
covenants.
E
It's
a
future
viability
of
this,
so
we're
trying
to
look
down
the
road.
A
lot
of
people,
I,
think
people
have
said
before
a
lot
of
these
big
estates
have
been
inherited
by
people.
It's
dumped
their
laps.
They
don't
know
what
to
do
with
it.
They
panic
with
it.
They
don't
have
the
time
to
sell
it
and
it
turns
into
a
mess.
We
want
to
avoid
that.
E
E
C
I
J
I
Opposite
side
of
this
matter,
but
that's
the
way
it
goes
when
you
practice
law
I
was
the
closing
attorney
for
Bill
and
sent
me
back
in
1985
when
they
bought
the
property
from
Andy,
Williams
and
I'm
sitting
here,
having
a
hard
time
believing
it's
been
32
years
so
but
Susan
to
answer
your
question
when
the
Moores
came
to
me
initially,
with
this
concept,
I
had
probably
the
same
reaction.
A
lot
of
people
sitting
in
the
audience
had
I
thought.
Oh
my
gosh,
you
know,
but
the
more
I
thought
about
it.
I
This
is
the
realistic
way
to
ensure
viability
and
sustainability
for
this
property,
which
is
going
to
be
a
difficult
property
someday
to
sell
as
a
9.04
or
eight
point,
nine,
seven
or
whatever
the
proper
acreage
is.
But,
to
answer
your
specific
question,
yes,
the
intention
would
be
that
before
any
one
lot
is
sold
either
by
a
free-standing
declaration
of
restrictive
covenants.
I
But
it's
somewhere
of
course
right
under
where
it
says:
Grace
Avenue
and
along
the
the
proposed
boundary
between
parcel
2
and
parcel
3,
but
the
the
shared
driveway
would
be
have
to
be
covered
and
the
maintenance
of
that
driveway
would
be
covered
in
the
restrictive
covenants.
I've
also
discussed
with
Bill
and
Simmi,
which
should
be
of
comfort
to
the
neighborhood
that
we
would
also
certainly
look
at
a
possible
facade
easement
for
all
or
some
of
the
major
buildings
on
the
property.
I
Much
the
same
way
that
the
Wilcox
has
a
facade
easement
in
favor
of
Historic
Aiken
foundation
to
preserve
the
buildings.
I
think
bill
touched
on
I
want
to
emphasize
that
that,
under
the
proposal
that
they're
talking
about
there
really
would
be
no
physical
change
at
all
in
the
property.
The
buildings
you
see
there
now
would
still
be
there.
The
gardens
that
are
there
would
still
be
there,
and
instead
of
having
tenants,
you
would
have
owners.
You'd
have
stakeholders
who
theoretically
would
be
more
committed
to
akin
and
to
the
neighborhood
and
whatever.
I
Then
then,
somebody
who's
just
occupying
space
is
a
tenant
now,
so
there
would
be
no
physical
changes.
I
think
bill
makes
a
good
point,
you're
likely
to
see
less
traffic,
where
you
don't
have
as
many
people
coming
in
and
out
of
the
barn
right
now,
and
so
you
know
for
it
for
a
whole
lot
of
reasons.
I
think
that
makes
good
sense
and
again
I
would
emphasize
that
he
he
was
correct
there.
There
is
no
pending
matter,
there's
no,
no
potential
sale,
there's
no
listing
of
the
property,
but
the
first
step
to
even
get
toward.
I
That
would
be
to
do
what
they're
doing
here
tonight
and
that
is
to
request
this
minor
subdivision.
But
I
want
to
assure
the
Commission
and
I
want
to
assure
the
audience
that
that
none
of
this
would
happen
without
heavily
restricted
covenants
being
put
in
place
before
there
was
any
sale,
and
that
would
be,
of
course,
expressed
to
any
potential
buyer
of
the
property
and.
C
I
F
We
would
love
to
be
able
to
come.
You
know
if
we
were
to
move
away
eventually
long
enough
to
come
back
in
15
years
and
and
look
at
it
and
say
wow,
it's
still
the
same,
we've
just
put
so
much
of
ourselves
into
it.
We
would
just
we
would
more
than
anyone.
I
know,
everyone
loves
a
key,
and
everyone
loves
a
historic
district,
but
we,
it
was
really
hard.
I
If
it's
appropriate
it
and
I
don't
want
to
cut
off
any
any
comment
from
the
people
in
the
audience,
but
I
think
in
the
work
session.
The
question
of
precedent
was
mentioned,
and
I'd
love
to
speak
to
that
very
briefly
and
I
loved
the
fact
that
my
friend
Lucy
Knowles
and
Jane
Creighton
Davis
walked
in,
and
it
made
me
aware
of
the
fact
that
Lucy's
family's
home
would
be
comparable
to
what
this
was.
That
was
the
old
Dolan
property
on
Barry
Road
and
when
the
Knowles
family
bought
it
about
the
time
I
was
born
there.
I
It
was
fifteen
acres
and
then
over
time,
many
of
the
out
structures,
the
outbuildings
were
sold
off
and
believe
Jane
lives
in
one
of
them
and
the
what
was
formerly
15
acres
has
shrunk
down
to
the
main,
the
principal
residence
where
Lucy's
sister
Alice
lives
and
they
share
a
driveway.
And
it's
it's
very
comparable
to
what
we're
talking
about
here.
Another
one
that
comes
to
mind
would
be
the
carriage
house
in
the
former
FRU
estate,
right
by
the
entrance
to
the
Palmetto
Golf
Club,
where
Greg
and
Betty
Rydberg
now
live
in
the
carriage
house.
I
But
that's
been
split
off
from
the
main
house,
since
1971
Elka
and
Mel
Haas
bought
the
prot
the
carriage
house
and
made
that
their
principal
residence
and
they
shared
a
common
driveway.
Until
very
recently,
when
the
the
main
house
created
a
new
freestanding
driveway
farther
to
the
east
and
I.
Think
Betty
and
Greg
now
have
sole
access
of
the
original
driveway.
I
But
that
was
a
another
example,
not
quite
as
big
as
this,
but
an
example
of
a
I
think
was
five
point:
six
to
five
acre
parcel
where
the
fruits
lived
and
that
carriage
house
was
sold
off,
but
shared
driveway,
shared,
shared
amenities
and
then
and
then
the
the
green
boundary
corporations
selling
three
acres
to
the
city.
The
northern
pasture
of
the
green
boundary
Club
property
that
if
we
walked
out
there
right
now,
it
looks
just
like
it
has
for
years,
but
that
northern
three
acres
is
now
owned
by
the
city.
But
physically.
I
C
I
H
E
I
Know
I'd
prostate
I
consulted
with
them
during
the
work
session
and
and
I.
If
this
is
appropriate,
we'd
love
to
amend
the
application
to
assure
the
Commission
or
you
can
make
it
a
contingency
that
that
the
Platteview
adjusted
to
make
that
parcel
three
a
full
one
acre
and
then
there
wouldn't
have
to
be
any
further
BZ.
A
variance
request
for
if
a
future
owner
wanted
to
have
courses
there
and
and.
E
E
Actually,
the
first
surveyor
the
first
survey
we
had
had
it,
but
it
was
too
far
down
and
it
was
gonna
interfere
with
with
the
larger
equestrian
area,
which
we
did,
which
was
a
priority
of
ours,
to
make
sure
that
that
larger
equestrian
area
stayed
visually,
absolutely
the
same
as
much
as
possible,
as
I
say
just
to
repeat.
Even
if
there
were
to
be
a
main
house,
there's
plenty
of
foliage
and
garden
to
even
disguise
that,
for
the
most
part,
even
even
hardly
ever
see
such
a
building.
B
B
Judgment
so
conceptually,
what
you
want
to
do
is
go
from
something:
that's
already
functioning
as
a
four
parcel
property,
with
renters
to
a
property
for
for
parcel
property
with,
as
you
call
them,
stakeholders
and
people
who
would
have
well
a
stake
in
keeping
the
property
up.
I'm
wondering
it
right
now
you
have
a
lot
of
renter's
and
does
that
make
maintenance
more
difficult?
Yes,.
E
Another
aspect
of
the
division,
as
I
say
there
are
there,
are
uses
and
there's
a
geographic
layout
of
the
property,
I've
sort
of
talked
about
the
uses,
there's
the
but
also
geographically
the
the
divisions
that
were
made,
and
this
really,
as
I
think
bob
has
pointed
out
several
times,
really
almost
needed
to
visit
the
property.
I
think,
maybe
everybody
sort
of
knows.
Well.
E
When
you
visit
the
property,
then
it's
not
just
lines
drawn
arbitrarily
on
a
piece
of
paper,
because
you
could
divide
this
property
into
three
just
take
it
just
take
a
pencil
and
put
it,
you
know,
put
it
any
way
you
want,
but
it's
not
what
we
wanted
to
do.
We
wanted
to
try
to
I,
follow
natural
divisions
and
also
try
to
a
group
uses
of
the
property
together
and
so
just
to
briefly
explain
it
to
everyone
parcel
to
you
and
parcel
one
is
divided
by
a
fence
that
was
established.
E
E
So
that's
not
arbitrary
and
you
cannot
really.
When
you
stand
at
the
front
gate
on
Magnolia
you
really
even
you
can't
even
oversee
you
can't
even
see
into
parcel
2
visually.
You
can't
because
there's
so
much
even
in
the
wintertime
there's
so
much
vegetation
and
and
Cedars,
evergreens
and
so
and
so
forth
of
you
it's
completely
obscured
into
parcel
two
and
parcel
to
now
goes
all
the
way
to
the
front,
to
the
front
of
the
property
and
and
those
who
have
seen
it.
I
think.
E
On
nice
days
we
have
seen
have
seen
that
that's
actually
quite
a
functioning
property,
there's
a
good
bit
of
space
and
parcel
too,
and
it
has
functioned
as
I
say
as
a
separate
part
of
the
properties
from
really
day
one,
because
when
we
first
moved
here
we
put
dogs
into
that
area.
We
had
five
dogs
when
you're
first
moved
here,
and
they
were
all
in
that
area,
so
they
were
fenced
in
and
then
and
then
running
along
the
middle
of
the
property.
E
The
line
that
starts
with
grace'
Avenue
there's
a
line
that
divides
parcel
three
from
parcel
two
and
it
continues.
If
you
see
it
continues
behind
the
main
house
and
then
and
then
and
then
legs
off
to
this
side.
So
what
would
be
the
west
side
and
comes
down?
That's
not!
That
is
not
at
all
arbitrarily
marked
out
that
other
line
is
a
sidewalk,
but
that
line
from
there
all
the
way
up
to
to
almost
into
the
driveway
there
past
the
main
house
that
is
a
that
is
a
brick
wall,
a
solid
brick
wall.
E
It's
a
double,
coarse,
brick
wall.
That
goes
all
the
way
through
there.
That's
not
a
that's,
not
a
line
just
simply
drawn
on
the
map.
That's
a
that's
a
brick
wall!
That's
been
there
since
we
moved
there,
so
that
sounds
like
a
30-year
old
plus
brick
wall,
okay,
so
that's
totally
of
natural
boundary.
If,
if
we
started
to
go
in
other
configurations
that
wall
would
be
blocking
blocking
people's,
it
would
be
right
in
the
middle
people's
other
parcels
it
just.
It
would
be
a
disaster,
be
a
disaster.
E
You
have
to
start
tearing
that
wall
down,
which
would
be
a
great
pity.
Okay,
this
boundary,
the
southern
boundary,
is
another
brick
wall
which
we
share
with
with
adjoining
property
and
then
there's
another
brick
wall.
That
goes
all
the
way
down
whiskey,
Road
now
the
brick
wall
that
comes
all
the
way
down
grace
and
the,
and
that
only
leaves
the
the
separation
between
parcel
four
and
three,
which
is
which
is
which
is
not.
It
is
not
a
natural
bound,
but
it
would
it
really
doesn't
matter
because
of
those
those
squares.
E
There
are
paddocks
and
if
we
do,
if
pointing
this
plant,
all
those
remain
as
paddocks
they
don't.
They
don't
go
away,
they
remain
as
paddocks
okay
and
then
then,
that
only
leaves
from
right
over
the
top
of
the
number
four
there's
a
line
that
comes
to
almost
partial
and
then
goes
to
Grace
Avenue,
that's
a
driveway
and
along
the
driveway,
there's
also
a
fairly
low
but
substantial
brick
wall.
E
That
goes
all
the
way
from
that
area,
all
the
way
to
the
to
Grace
Avenue,
and
that
becomes
another
boundary,
so
it
divides
in
terms
of
its
use.
You
have
you
have
rentals,
you
have
the
main
house
and
you
have
their
question.
These
are
these.
Are
these
are
abuses
you
could
say?
Well?
Why
don't
you
put
parcel
two
with
parcel
three?
If
you
did
that,
you
would
have
a
driver
line
running
right
through
the
middle
of
the
parcel
and
then
and
then
one
of
these
properties.
E
One
of
these
properties
would
be
neglected
because
you
do
want
a
main
house
with
a
stakeholder
in
every
single
corner
of
the
property.
Divided
by
a
driveway
parcel
two
will
fall
into
disrepair.
It's
just
a
certainty,
okay,
so
that
was
the
reason
we
went
for
four
instead
of
three
for
uses.
We
would
much
rather
have
a
stakeholder
parcel
than
just
leave
it
as
a
rental.
It
would
be
really
great.
We've
had
a
number
of
people
who
stayed
there.
E
Our
horse
people
who've
loved
staying
there
and
they
put
their
horses
in
the
stable
they've
had
great
times
and
they've
they've
expressed
that
how
wonderful
would
be
if
that
were
also
an
equestrian
part
of
the
property.
So
it's
been
thought
out
for
a
number
of
years,
and
and
since
we
were
getting,
the
hardship
is
our
age.
Unfortunately,
and
we
can't
turn
that
back
and
we
have
worked
with
Bill
onions
for
several
months
to
try
to
fine-tune
this.
That
would
be
acceptable
to
everyone
in
the
community,
as
I
say
to
repeat
myself
on
this.
H
A
G
I'm
barbara
price
I
resided
at
223,
Trafalgar,
I'm,
an
architect
and
a
planner
I
believe
that
the
minimum
lot
size
is
a
critical
component
of
the
comprehensive
master
plan
of
the
zoning
ordinance
and
is
an
integral
part
of
the
character
and
the
flavor
of
this
district.
Reducing
that
from
three
acres
to
one
acre
is
a
major
change.
It's
not
insubstantial,
and
for
that
reason,
I
opposed
I
oppose
this
request.
Thank
you.
H
G
Decide
but
the
size
is
a
is
a
was
carefully
considered
in
in
a
critical
requirement
for
this
district
and
changing
it.
You
know
from
three
acres
to
one
acre
is
a
major
shift.
It's
not
minor
or
insubstantial,
and
so
for
that
reason,
I
believe
that
it's
that
it's
a
change.
So
without
some
you
know
additional.
A
G
G
G
Doesn't
change
the
fact
that
it's
a
major
variance
from
a
three
acre
lot?
Three
acre
requirement.
You
know,
that's
you
know
it's!
It's
a
beautiful
important
piece
of
this
community.
Everyone
cares
very
deeply
very
respectful
of
what's
been
done.
You
know,
no
one
is
saying
that
it
has.
You
know
they
we
care
very
much,
and
so
we
want
to
maintain
it
and
we
want
to
be
a
voice
in
how
its
maintained,
because
it's
our
community.
B
G
J
Evening,
my
name
is
Randi
Walcott
I
reside
at
two
to
one
third
Avenue
and
I
am
in
the
similar
zoning
district.
Rss
I
strongly
agree
with
the
prior
speaker
that
the
changing
it
to
one
acre
is
a
major
difference
of
what
is
designed
from
the
beginning.
I
think
that
you
have
to
think
about
that.
This
was
one
of
the
three
equestrian
zones
that
we
have
in
the
Catholic
City.
We
have
the
RS,
RSS
and
I.
J
Don't
remember,
horse
district
there's
a
reason
why
the
three
of
them
were
designed
in
the
way
that
they
are
the
racetrack
needed
to
have
lots
of
horses.
So
the
horse
district
can
have
as
many
horses
as
they
want.
The
residential
single
stable
was
for
private
residences,
which
this
is,
but
it
also
had
to
have
room
for
horses,
so
you
can't
have
an
RSS
on
one
acre,
because
you
can't
have
horses
with
driveways
and
houses
and
your
outbuildings
and
have
any
room
for
the
horse.
J
We
had
a
similar
situation
where
a
gentleman
tried
to
put
two
houses
together
in
our
neighborhood
thinking
that
he
had
a
pool
and
two
houses
and
driveways
and
thought
that
he
could
get
one
acre
so
that
he
could
make
it
worth
more
by
making
it
a
horse
property.
But
it
wasn't,
it
didn't
make
actually
one
acre,
so
it
didn't
go
through,
but
the
situation
makes
it
more
valuable.
J
J
Dreaming
that
you
know
it's
a
beautiful
dream
and
I
agree
that
there's
problems
with
these
big
estates,
but
we've
sold
these
big
estates
in
towns,
I'm
a
real
estate
agent.
We
sold
the
sandhurst,
which
was
a
beautiful
big
five
acre
property.
It
didn't
have
to
be
split
and
it's
being
enjoyed
beautifully
now
and
it's
a
kept
up
and
better
than
it
was
before.
There
are
Brunton.
There
are
market.
There
are
people
who
would
purchase
these
properties,
it's
a
lovely,
lovely
property,
they've
done
an
incredible
job,
fixing
it
up
and
they
should
be
commended
for
that.
J
But
the
idea
that,
because
it
split
up
now,
it
needs
that
it
functions
and
works,
isn't
what
we're
talking
about
today
and
Bob
I.
Think
again,
you
were
talking
about
the
one
acre
or,
as
you
said,
about
a
one
acre
again.
It's
about
the
horses.
This
is
the
horse
district.
You
know
it's
a
residential
single
sustain.
You
know
stable
it's
an
equestrian
property.
It
you
can't
have
horses
on
smaller
than
that
and
again
I.
Think
that
you
know
making
into
one
acre
is
just
wrong
for
RSS.
It
will
change
RSS
forever.
J
So
those
were
well-thought-out
at
the
time.
A
lot
of
think
of
the
examples
that
were
given
we're
prior
to
the
zoning
change,
where
we
made
these
three
zoning
horse
equestrian
districts
and
sure
there
are
a
lot
of
grandfathered
ones
that
are
small
and
they're
problems.
You
need
to
have
more
land
with
you're
going
to
have
horses
and
I.
Think
the
historic
nature
of
the
buildings
with
their
outbuildings
is
a
great
component
of
akin
I.
J
K
Okay,
Jennifer
Hamson,
my
my
neighbor
and
my
opposition.
This
is
the
first
time
I've
heard
about
splitting
it
up
into
four
parcels,
and
my
opposition
is
the
size
of
the
loss.
It's
just
too
small
and
it
divides
the
property
and
I
think
we
should
stick
with
the
three
acre
and
that's
all
I
have
to
say
Thank
You.
L
Charlotte
Weidman
66
Payne,
Avenue
I'm,
the
president
of
the
historic
Aiken
foundation,
I'm
opposed
to
this
and
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
historic
Aiken
foundation.
Since
1974
the
historic
Aiken
foundation
has
been
an
advocate
for
the
protection
and
preservation
of
it,
Eakins,
just
historic
homes,
buildings
and
districts.
We
believe
that
the
preservation
of
historic
estates
is
tantamount
to
our
mission.
The
presence
of
these
large
estates
from
an
integral
part
of
Aikens
history
is
a
key
component
in
maintaining
our
city's
unique
charm
and
identity.
L
The
historic
Aiken
foundation
opposes
a
subdivision
of
historic
properties,
especially
when
it
involves
a
division
of
outbuildings
dependencies
and
structures
from
their
main
house.
Additionally,
the
foundation
opposes
a
division
of
large
estates
that
will
destroy
the
character
of
the
district
for
which
the
original
zoning
was
assigned.
These
properties
must
be
maintained
as
a
whole
if
we
are
to
preserve
and
protect
our
very
special
place.
M
I'm
Lesley
gob
on
up
at
5:41,
grace
avenue,
and
I
would
like
to
I
would
like
to
start
off
by
commending
bill
and
sue
me
for
the
beautiful
job
that
they
have
done,
and
maintaining
your
beautiful
property,
but
I
have
to
say
that
the
acreage
that's
listed
in
the
document
says
it's
over
nine
acres.
It's
actually
eight
point,
eight
seven
acres
because
you
were
including
the
right
away,
which
you
cannot
build
on
and
use
so
you're
talking
about
less
than
that
in
the
horse
district.
M
The
horse
district
is
is
booming
right
now,
in
years
past
it
contributes
on
average
three
million
dollars
a
year
in
revenues
to
the
city,
and
then
the
tax
is
on
top
of
that.
There's
a
horse
trainer,
that's
got
approximately
100
horses
in
training.
Dogwood
has
moved
to
Bert
Schuster's
property
so
that
a
new
trainer
could
come
in
to
the
track.
That's
at
the
training
track.
There's
the
stables
at
the
training
track.
A
Heidi
white
I
just
spoke
with
Heidi.
Earlier
today
she
has
19
horses
in
training
Heidi.
M
You
know
she
made
the
Olympic
team
that
was
which
go
to
Hong
Kong.
They
had
to
withdraw
because
her
horse
was
not
up
to
it
at
the
time
and
she
also
came
in
second
at
Rolex.
She
was
the
top
ranked
writer
American
writer
at
Rolex
sounds
like
12
years
ago.
Anyway.
She
has
19
horses
in
training
they're
trying
to
buy
the
bar
next
door
because
she's
in
the
market
to
buy
more
horses,
she's
got
more.
M
Students
coming
in
you've
got
high
caliber
riding
and
horse
training
going
on
it's
it's
a
very,
very
vital
part
of
the
Aiken
history
and
the
Aiken
economy.
And
if
you
start
letting
properties
be
subdivided
down,
then
it
will
eventually
all
just
go
away,
and
this
is
a
very
important
part
of
Aikens
history.
It's
also
a
very
important
important
part
of
Aikens
economy.
Now
I
was
on
the
phone
just
a
couple
of
weeks
ago.
M
M
Now
they
have
a
big
co-op
on
the
Upper
East
Side
and
they've
got
a
horse
farm
in
Bedford,
New
York,
they
say,
come
on
down,
check
out,
Aiken
they're
gonna
be
coming
down
and
he
could
jet
in
and
jet
out
for
the
weekend,
and
she
could
be
down
here
with
their
horses
and
whatever
whatever.
So
there
are
buyers
for
these
properties
and
we'd
rather
see
them
kept
together,
because
they
are
such
beautiful
special
properties
and
the
buyers
are
there
and
I
think
they
will
be
in
the
future.
M
A
N
N
N
N
That's
you
know
it
can't
be
determined.
It
says
that
it
would
require
demolition
of
existing
structures
to
divide
it.
The
way
it
is
you
can
that
can't
that's
not.
We
can't
determine
that
I
I,
think
one
of
my
major
concerns
is
like
most
people
here
that
you're
going
to
begin
precedent
and
you
discuss
it
in
your
work
session
that
other
people
will
then
want
to
divide
their
properties
there
into
smaller
pieces
too,
and
that
is.
N
N
Some
of
his
points
and
comments
made
in
other
in
relation
to
other
applications
in
2009,
the
Planning
Commission
considered
an
ordinance
to
increase
the
minimum
lot
size
in
the
RSS
zone,
not
decrease
it,
but
increase
it
to
the
potentially
affected
property
owners,
objected
mightily
and
the
Moores
were
one
of
them
and
their
2009
letter
to
the
Commission
resonates
with
this
meeting.
I
won't
read
but
a
few
lines,
but
under
the
under
the
heading
of
greater
good
of
the
community,
there
later
stated
this
ordinance
pits.
N
This
is
the
ordinance
to
increase
the
size,
Pitts
property
owner
against
property
owner
each
marginal
increase
in
per
the
permitted
divisible
acreage
unit
arbitrarily
creates
winners
and
losers.
Not
only
is
this
not
equitable
or
fair,
it
creates
an
adverse
relationship
between
property
owners.
This
hardly
contributes
to
the
greater
good
of
the
community,
and
I
would
argue,
he's
not
contributing
to
the
greater
good
of
the
community
by
asking
you
to
give
him
these
variances.
He
also
quoted
in
in
that
letter
we're
asking
for
no
special
consideration
or
favors.
N
We
just
want
the
zoning
to
simply
remain
the
same
and
to
be
left
in
peace,
no
more,
no
less,
and
it
was
signed
by
william
and
shallow
matt
moore.
If
we
replace
the
zoning
ordinance
with
zoning
variances
did
the
same
sentiments
apply.
Doesn't
this
request
for
variances
pitt
property
owner
against
property
owner
and
aren't
the
Moores
asking
for
special
considerations
with
this
request
for
a
variance
the
minutes
of
a
2011
BCA
meeting
regarded
a
proposed
subdivision
on
call
and
the
minutes
recorded
mr.
Moore.
Thus
he
agrees
with
some
of
the
sentiments
made.
N
N
Just
two
months
ago,
at
a
city
council
meeting
regarding
maintenance
of
properties,
the
minutes
recorded
mr.
Morris
saying
the
rules
need
to
be
the
same
for
everyone,
and
there
should
not
be
exceptions,
a
variance
to
allow
for
Lots
at
two
trees.
Two
of
those
Lots
much
below
three
acres
is
a
very
bad
precedent
to
set.
If
the
Moors
are
going
to
continue
to
push
for
fairness
and
the
same
rules
for
everybody,
then
we
can
assume
they
would
support
every
RSS
parcel
being
divided
into
any
size.
Lots.
The
owners
desire
and
I.
N
Ask
you
to
please
stop
that
before
it
starts,
please
deny
any
division
other.
What
is
currently
allowed
an
RSS
zone
which
would
be
two
acres?
Why
would
that
be?
What's
the
hardship
in
dividing
this
into
two
acres?
What's
the
definable
harsh
hardship?
Not
all
these
things
that
they
suppose
might
might
happen,
I
think
it
is
a
very
slippery
slope
to
begin
dividing
these
Lots
smaller
and
asked
you
to
refrain
from
doing
so.
If,
for
some
reason
you
decide
that
you
must,
you
must
allow
these
variances
I.
N
D
O
O
P
It
talks
about
the
smaller
parcels
and
grasping
to
that
one-acre
parcel
division
about
the
parcels
across
the
street
and
when
you
think
of
the
horse
district
as
a
much
larger
area
than
what
we're
talking
about
and
you
consider
the
RSS
and
the
RS
h
and
the
r
and
the
HD,
and
you
look
at
those
in
capsules
of
about
160
acres
or
140
acres,
and
you
run
it
down
that
side
of
whiskey
all
the
way
over
to
powder
house.
The
the
variance
of
size
of
parcel
does
concentrate.
P
So
when
we
look
at
quadrants
within
that,
so
clearly
the
comprehensive
plan
functioned
and
you
see
especially
between
whiskey
and
to
not
CH
grace
to
Knox.
You
see
that
concentration
of
about
46
properties
when
you
go
knocks
to
price
to
to
not
CH
to
whiskey.
You
you
see
that
septuple
into
the
600
parcels
when
you
cross
over
whiskey
Road.
We
see
in
that
same
footprint
of
acreage.
We
see
60
parcels
so
the
the
interplay
of
size
of
lot,
while
we
think
it
might
be
less
defined.
P
The
idea
of
wanting
to
grant
sub
division
based
on
use,
because
it
makes
sense
logically,
isn't
necessarily
what
we
do
in
Aiken.
What
we
do
in
a
tin
is,
we
sometimes
have
to
take
the
bullet
for
the
bigger
cause,
which
is
understanding
that
our
historic
character
in
our
horse
community
is
an
integral
part
of
what
makes
a
can
Aiken,
and
there
are
a
couple
of
things
that
I
would
like
to
ask
questions.
If
I
can,
is
there
a
special
exception
for
the
commercial
stable
on
this
property.
P
Lot
so
we
have
a
lot
of
idiosyncrasies
related
to
this
particular
parcel
because
of
the
wall.
Any
of
the
acreage
outside
of
the
wall
is
no
longer
considered
viable
use,
division
ibly
within
the
wall,
because
the
wall
is
now,
but
the
reason
why
the
uniqueness
exists.
Therefore,
you
have
to
take
the
acreage
within
the
wall
for
the
subdivision.
P
So
therefore
it
does
drop
below
the
nine
acres,
so
it
would
only
be
two
parcels
rather
than
three,
that
it
could
maximum
get
and
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
talk
about
three
parcels
and
you're
asking
for
four.
So
that's
twice
as
many
as
what
would
be
allowed,
so
I
just
wanted
to
bring
that
up.
Thank
you.
E
I
think
the
elephant
in
the
room
is
fairly
obvious.
All
the
preceding
remarks
essentially
have
been
a
method
to
not
allow
any
subdivision
of
the
property
whatsoever.
It's
a
shame
that
people
who
live
an
echo
chamber
who
convinced
themselves
of
certain
positions
can't
look
beyond
that
is,
is
the
historic
district
of
Aiken
in
good
shape.
E
E
Anyone
who
knows
anything
about
real
estate
knows
that
that's
a
sign
of
distress,
mm-hmm
there
they're
easily
accessible.
We
can
go
through
it
on
another.
Another
time.
Maybe
you
can.
Council
of
neighborhoods
might
be
interested
in
hearing
how
well
things
are
going
in
Aiken.
There
are
significant
problems.
Mrs.
Branson
who's
been
a
great
neighbor.
We've
enjoyed
having
her
as
a
neighbor
over
the
years,
but
it's
quite
obvious
that
there's
there's
difficulty
in
maintaining
properties
there's.
There
are
certainly
maintenance
issues.
There.
A
E
If
they
have,
people
need
a
tour,
they
can
come
and
take
a
tour
of
our
property.
Again,
we
ask
them
on
numerous
occasions
to
do
that.
Maybe
they
maybe
they
have
no
reasons
to
be
closed-minded
towards
that
I'd
like
to
read
in
terms
of
their
husband
reference
to
the
issue
of
whether
or
not
this
becomes
a
precedent.
E
E
K
E
Are
extraordinary
and
exceptional
conditions
pertaining
to
this
property?
It
is
commonly
noticed
two
trees,
a
historic
winter
colony
estate.
It
is
enclosed
by
a
masonry
wall
that
is
approximately
eight
feet
tall,
although
the
minimum
lot
size
for
RSS
zone
properties
is
three
acres,
most
RSS
is
owned.
Properties
in
this
vicinity
were
likewise
grandfathered
in
with
much
smaller
sizes,
ranging
from
one
to
five
acres.
So
this
is
an
official
document
in
the
city,
acknowledging
that
that's
the
range
of
horse
properties
permitted
in
the
in
the
district.
This
is
this
is
a
city
document.
E
As
far
as
I
know,
it's
law.
Okay,
these
and
again
she
writes.
There
are
extraordinary
and
exceptional
conditions
pertaining
to
this
property.
People
have
raised
it
as
a
as
a
precedent
in
order
to
open
the
door
simply
to
not
allow
any
change
to
the
property
whatsoever.
It's
just
a
different
way
of
saying
that
I
wasn't
also
I
might
say:
I
wasn't
aware
that
to
seek
a
variance
in
this
form
is
seeking
special
conditions.
I
didn't
realize
that
that
when
you
come
here,
you're
speaking
you're
seeking
special
favors
and
so
and
so
forth,
I
didn't
know.
E
E
The
proposal
was
that
had
been
limited
to
five
five
acres,
and
that
was
defeated,
and
my
recollection
is
that
that
motion
was
defeated
unanimously,
so
that
was
defeated
then
and
I'm
sure
it
would
be
defeated
again.
The
proposal
really
on
the
docket
is
no
change.
The
one
acre
is
obviously
just
a
way
to
slow
this
down
this.
It's
not
even
essential
to
the.
If
we
had
not
put
it
in,
then
they
would
be
saying
that
we're
taking
property
away
from
horse
use,
it's
not
the
end
of
the
world.
It's
we're
hoping
that
being
used.
E
That
way.
If
those
who
visited
the
property
again,
the
invitation
was
extended,
we
would
have
treated
everyone
with
respect
and
courtesy.
You
you,
those
who
have
viewed
the
property,
know
that
that
that
acreage
back
there
is
large
and
works
as
a
coherent
whole.
Now
there
would
be
the
idea
that
somehow
another
just
one
acre
above
a
lot
is
just
purely
a
smokescreen.
E
I
think
that's
fairly
obvious
in
terms
of
a
stork
akin
I'm,
very
disappointed
that
they
would
come
and
basically
represent,
that
position
that
no
division
at
all,
as
allowed
of
any
of
these
properties,
when,
when
they
we've
made
our
case
of
how
these
properties
can
be
maintain
more
effectively
by
multiple
ownership,
we
we
would
think
that
you
would
welcome
those
sorts
of
stakeholders
in
town
that
would
add
to
the
community
that
would
add
to
the
tax
base.
We
would
think
that
would
be.
E
We
were
shocked
that
that's
not
become
part
of
the
problem
again,
I,
don't
think
people
in
the
I
say
this
with
respect
I,
don't
think
they're
aware
of
the
tenancy
problem,
that's
existing
in
this
town
and
getting
worse
by
the
moment,
it's
a
real
problem.
Maybe
they
maybe
they
should
check
that
out
again.
E
They're
welcome
to
come
to
the
neighborhood
council
and
I
think
it's
finally
enlightening
to
be
there
just
to
summarize
I
think
as
I
say,
I
think
all
the
I
know
what
I
wanted
to
say
about
historic,
Aiken
I
think
they
should
be
aware
of
taking
an
extremist
position.
There
should
be
no
divisions
of
any
property.
I
mean
large
properties
in
Aiken
is
a
dangerous
position
and
take
these.
E
E
Historic
agents
should
be
aware
of
that.
In
fact,
storage
historic
Aiken
gave
me
and
my
wife,
the
President's
Award
for
historic
preservation
in
the
year
2013,
and
so
it
it
would
have
been
nice
had
they
picked
up
the
phone,
giving
us
a
call.
I
asked
what
was
going
on
and
just
in
that
regard
also
someone
who
called
the
Pratt
someone
called
the
newspapers
and
depressed
anonymously,
saying
law,
sorts
of
things.
They
had
a
call
from
the
particularly
TV
station.
E
You
know
repeating
things
that
were
just
wild
and
so,
and
it
was
an
anonymous
tip,
it
is
I,
don't
think
everybody
in
the
room
is
aware
of
quite
all
the
the
very
very
unwholesome
and
I.
Don't
helpful
responses
they've
been
to
this
and
I
really
hope
that
going
forward
in
this
community,
the
people-
and
there
should
be
some
respect
and
some
courtesy
to
extend
into
people
with
whom
they
have
some
disagreement.
E
H
A
E
I'd
rest
a
little
bit
that
we
have
thought
about
it
intensely
the
reason
that
we
did
the
separation
of
3
&
4.
The
way
we
did
is
we
we
really
wanted
to
make
the
equestrian
part
the
main
historic,
equestrian
part
of
the
property
as
large
as
we
possibly
could
get
away
with,
while
we're
maintaining
some
sort
of
space.
E
We
have
committed
to
the
I,
mean
there
there's
a
lot
of
skepticism,
perhaps
even
of
our
lawyer,
that
that
we
we
don't
intend
to
deliver
this,
but
haven't
we
already
committed
to
you
in
this
proposal
that
we
returned
if
any
change
is
ever
made
to
parcel
three
where
their
garage
is
that
that
would
be
the
main
house.
We
are
on
the
record
for
that
is
sort
of
my
right,
correct
yeah.
We.
E
For
each
okay,
so
in
that
respect,
if
people
had
come
to
us
and
said
you
know,
we,
we
you're
not
tearing
down
anything
so
that
they
can't
say
we're
done
demolishing
anything.
Let's
try
to
take
it
step
by
step
and
what
could
have
been
a
conversation
with
people
on
this
issue?
Okay,
we
are
not
tearing
anything
down.
We
are
not
changing
any
visible
lines
on
the
property.
The
only
additions
to
the
property
were
just
these
little
stables,
which
which
increase
the
viability
of
the
equestrian
use
of
the
property.
E
It
is
an
utter
mystery
to
me
why
people
would
not
be
welcoming
of
other
people
coming
to
town
sharing
their
interests
and
and
and
and
having
the
same
sort
of
lifestyle
they
do
and
adding
real
talent
to
this
community.
It's
utterly
utterly
preposterous,
except
under
under
some
obstinate
view
of
this
community,
to
say
that
that's
not
helpful
to
community
and
that
and
for
you
to
applaud
that.
Is
it
beyond
amazing
to
me.
So
in
that
respect,
we
we
have
tried
to
increase
that
okay.
E
Now,
if,
if
we
were
to
join
a
parcel
to
with
parcel
three
there'd,
be
a
driveway
coming
right
through
the
middle
of
the
property
and
then
and
one
of
them
would
be,
one
of
them
would
be
the
stepchild
of
the
property,
so
so
the
I
so
that
and
if
we,
if
we
put
it,
we
could
even
parcel
three.
Let's
talk
about
parcel
three.
That
seemed
to
be
the
concern.
If
you
want,
we
won't
even
allow
it
to
be,
and
we
could
say
no
horses,
no
horses,
okay!
Is
that
what
people
want
they
don't
want
to.
E
A
Moore,
you
have
spoken
a
great
deal
about
the
proposal
and
the
vision
and
what
you
all
want
to
have
happen
and
you've
talked
about
sustainability
and-
and
we
certainly
all
recognize
the
difficulty
in
today's
economy
and
market.
Yes,
I
know
there
are
people
who
might
be
available,
but
I
think
they
all
recognize.
It's
it's
limited
and
it's
expensive
to
support
a
property
that
size
so
you've
told
us
what
will
happen
if
we
approve
this,
what
will
happen
if
we
do
not
well.
E
What
would
happen
is
we
would
go
back
to
the
drawing
board
and
see
and
see
where
we
stood
legally
in
terms
of
the
issue
of
the
three
or
the
two
we
bought
over
nine
acres.
We
have
a
deed,
we
have
a
deed
and,
and
our
bill
Tucker
can
testify,
he's
the
one
who
prepared
that
document.
We
we
bought
more
than
nine
acres,
it's
9.2,
something
that's
what
we
have
is
a
registered
deep.
E
The
reason
that
that
that
that's
come
back
this
way
is
the
surveyor
thought
that
that
somebody
might
question
aspects
of
that
corner
property
down
there,
and
so
he
basically
left
that
to
the
corner
out
of
the
equation.
But
we
would.
What
we
would
do
is
go
back
and
see
what
we
could
do
and
perhaps
come
back
with
no
no
environment,
no
variances
whatsoever,
but
it
will
not
be
pretty.
It
will
not
be
pretty
yeah.
Well,
you
know,
and
then
we'll
then
we'll
have
to
then
we'll
have
to
see.
Thank.
B
B
J
I'm,
mentioning
I
think
I
have
to
speak
for
those
who
can't
speak.
Our
equestrian
partners
are
family
members
that
we
love
as
horses,
which
is
a
big
part
of
akin.
They
need
room
to
graze
and
walk
around.
It's
part
of
their
physiology
to
move
to
work,
their
guts
and
everything
there's
all
kinds
of
stuff
about
it.
But
one
acre
is
very
small
to
put
on
horses
and
there
is
an
awful
lot
of
property
there.
That
is,
if
you
put
up
the
areal
of
the
all
the
parcels,
sure
there's
lots
of
RSS
in
that
area.
J
So
I
think
that
is
again
why
these
zones
were
created
to
have
three
acres
in
these
areas
and
I
think
that
a
lot
of
these
properties
were
already
those
size
before
this
overlay
zoning
was
put
on
there,
so
they
don't
really
conform,
but
they
have
other
ordinances
to
protect
the
horses
from
being
slotted
into
those
properties.
So.
J
J
J
You
couldn't
take
it
away
from
people
who
had
horses.
There
were
other
people
who
had
polo
sports
like
polo
that
usually
have
to
have
more
than
two
or
three
horses
they'd.
You
only
have
seven
horses,
so
they
had
to
figure
out
how
those
people
couldn't
continue
to
do
what
they
were
doing
with
their
horses
on
a
property
that
may
have
been.
You
know
only
three
acres
or
two
and
a
half
whatever,
but
they
were
given
at
that
time,
they
grandfathered
in
I
believe
to
continue
the
use
that
was
sustainable
yeah.
J
Our
neighborhood
has
a
number
of
them
and
they're
very
difficult
and
a
lot
of
them
really
don't
I
mean
they
cannot
horses,
they
have
to
keep
them
very
clean
and
we
have
a
mechanism
in
the
city.
For
that
also,
we
have
on
our
equestrian
management.
I
forget
what
it's
called,
that
they
have
a
group
of
that
we'll
go
and
look
and
make
sure
that
the
paddocks
are
picked
up.
Can
the
maneuvers
taken
care
of
and
the
horses
are
healthy
and
clean
and
fed?
Well
so
yeah.
J
H
Not
looking
for
an
exact
number,
it
would
be
difficult
even
for
our
planning
department,
to
get
that
for
us
quickly,
but
guesstimate.
How
many
one
acre
lots?
Are
there
the
people
that
are
you
know
not
even
set
up
for
exercising
that
are
just
stabling
horses,
because
I
know:
there's
lots
that
have
just
stables
on
them
and
people
are
stable,
eating
them
and
it's
in
the
RSS.
So
how
many
would
you
guess
to
me
I'm
not
looking
for
exact
science.
J
J
H
H
Just
I
was
wondering
you
know
how
many
other
one
acre
lots
are
people
keeping
horses
on
not
necessarily
for
exercise
other
than
just
stabling
or
whatever
within
that
area,
and
so
somebody
from
the
audience
and
I
don't
believe
it
was
this
paper
I'm,
not
sure
I
said
in
our
assess
it
might
be
less
than
six
I
was
just
trying
to
find
a
number
I
know.
There's
not
an
exact
science
would
be
very
difficult
for
Ryan
to
pull
that
up
moment's
notice.
But
what
do
we
have
I'd
like
to
have
just
some?
J
Important
issue
is
I:
don't
think
that
any
properties
have
been
formed
or
sub
trunk
to
one
at
less
than
three
acres
and
allowed
to
have
horses
so
that
they
could
have
horses
I.
Don't
think
that
since
the
zoning
was
created,
the
three
different
groups
for
horses
that
anyone's
been
able
to
subdivide
and
still
have
horses
on
it
when
it
was
less
than
three
acres.
D
C
C
They
do
exist,
my
concern
is-
and
this
is
what
I
was
gonna
say.
My
concern
is,
is
because
the
Moores
owned
this
property
is
their
property.
They
can
do
whatever
they
wish
with
it
by
and
large.
So
if
they
were
to
divide
it
straight
down,
the
middle
into
you're
gonna
lose
the
historic
flavor
of
the
main
house
and
the
gardens
and
a
lot
of
the
work.
You
run
the
risk
of
that
wall
being
torn
down
by
future
owners.
I.
A
A
B
I
I,
don't
know
whether
it's
better
or
worse,
I'm,
just
I,
think
that
that
this
presents
a
realistic
way
to
sustain
this
property.
The
way
it
is
now
by
having
shared
ownership.
You
know
there's
another
possibility
here,
which
I
haven't
even
discussed
with
the
Moores,
and
it
would
be
very
unusual,
but
you
could
come
back
as
with
us
as
a
condominium
project.
I
I
don't
mean
condominiums
in
the
traditional
sense,
I
mean
break
it
up
into
four
parcels,
with
a
master,
deed
and
it'd
be
a
different
kind
of
condominium,
but
our
plan
type,
you
heard
somebody
say
about
the
Planned
Unit
development.
You
could
actually
do
that,
and
and
really
there
would
be
no
no
way
to
to
prevent
I
mean
it
would
still
be
highly
structured,
highly
restricted.
You
know
the
with
a
condominium
when
a
master
deed.
You
have
to
file
it
with
the
records.
The
county
records,
the
Register
of
Deeds,
and
it's
got
to
be.
I
I
But
it's
a
it's
a
similar
situation
where
there
was
a
15
acre
parcel
that
has
had
parts
of
it
deed
it
off
to
individual
owners
and
they
still
share
a
draught,
the
old
original
driveway
and
that's
right
there
on
Barry,
Road
and
then
and
then
to
a
lesser
extent,
the
carriage
house
and
then
the
main
house
of
the
fru-u--
estate
on
Barry
Road
right
by
the
interest
to
Palmetto.
So
you
know
it
has
been
done
before.
I
Long
before
the
current
zoning
regulations
were
in
place,
but
you
know
it's
it's,
there
are
different
ways
to
do
it.
The
Moors
sitting
back
in
the
audience
with
me
if
it
becomes
a
situation
where
it
means
not
doing
this
or
doing
this,
they
are
prepared
to
withdraw
the
request
that
the
the
horses
be
allowed
on
the
pond
parcel
three.
It
would
just
be
a
purely
residential
parcel
if
that
would
make
any
difference
to
anybody,
but
they,
as
you
heard
bill
very
correctly
state.
I
The
goal
was
to
try
to
increase
equestrian
usage
and
and
I
can
think
of
to
answer
Bob's
question
I
can
think
of
several
very
small
parcels
of
property.
That
and
I
agree.
It's
probably
not
the
best
for
the
horse.
I
think
Randy
is
absolutely
right,
but
better
for
worse
people
do
have
one
or
two
pleasure
horses
in
a
very
confined
space,
and
it's
probably
not
ideal,
but
it's
it's
it
exists.
So
am
I
responding
to
your
question
absolutely
I
very
much.
C
G
H
Q
Think
this
is
the
toughest
I
think,
with
all
the
potential
fencing
and
so
forth.
That's
up
I
think
it
does
limit
the
what
you
can
do
with
this
property
in
a
true
historic
fashion,
I've
been
adding
these
sizes
and
paddocks
up
in
my
head
for
the
last
week
and
a
half
it
it's
tough
and
that's
what
I'm
torn
on
is
this.
This
section
of
the
various
criteria
is
B,
because
I
would
like
to
see
it
done
differently,
but
I
think
it
is.
It
does
lend
itself
to
some
issues
being.
H
H
C
D
Way
shape
or
form
yeah.
There
is
a
provision
and
again
I
think
we
talked
about
this
in
workstation,
be
worth
talking
about
here.
So
under
normal
residential,
like
RS
8,
RS,
10,
Rs
15,
a
special
exception
may
be
granted
by
the
bza
Board
of
Zoning
Appeals
to
allow
the
the
two
horses
on
the
first
acre:
okay
under
the
RS
h
residential
single-family
horse
you're
allowed
that
buy
right
and
then
at
the
RSS
district
you're
allowed.
D
The
variant
that
what
the
variance
section
does
allow
is,
it
does
have
a
language
that
that
the
Planning
Commission
in
granting
of
variance
may
impose
any
conditions
that
would
even
appropriate.
So
there
is
that
statement
in
there
that
you
could
place
some
limitations
on
on
a
conditional
approval,
essentially
of
the
application.
If
you
were
to
go
that
direction,.
H
I've
just
heard
a
lot:
the
people
talk
about
horses,
well,
a
lot,
it's
one
acre,
and
that
would
certainly
be
one
resolution
to
that
and
we
not
allow
that
and
the
other
portions
of
that
property
could
in
fact
have
those
horses
and
could
sustain
them.
They're
doing
it
now,
it's
the
property,
not
changing.
It's
just
three.
D
It
so
yeah,
just
just
to
review
madam
chair-
is
that
we
there
was
a
couple
of
things
discussed
one
as
included
in
your
packet.
You
would
essentially
be
approving
that
as
a
residential,
only
property
that
would
have
to
go
that
parks
whole
three.
You
would
essentially
be
approving
it
as
a
residential,
only
property.
At
this
time,
then
it
would
be
up
to
the
Board
of
Zoning
Appeals,
at
which
time
any
future
owner
were
to
want
to
staple
horses
on
that
property.
D
A
D
A
K
B
B
A
C
Q
D
So
you
can,
you
can
like
I
said
you
can
place
conditions
upon
the
variance
and
you
and
you
would
be
up
to
the
board
as
to
how
they
would
be
comfortable
with
those
being
enforced,
and
so
one
logical
way
would
be
to
place
certain
limitations
in
a
covenant
like
we
described
that
there,
the
staff,
would,
you
know
you
know
a
typical
subdivision
application
that
would
be
similar
to
this
and
would
be
you
know
already
in
compliance
with
all
the
rules.
That
would
be
an
administrative,
lea
proved.
D
We
would
essentially
ask
for
a
covenant
to
make
sure
that
access
is
maintained.
So
those
sorts
of
things
need
any
sort
of
reasonable
condition
like
that,
may
be
placed
on
the
board,
and
maybe
you
play
required
to
be
as
part
of
the
covenant.
If
that
would
make
you
more
comfortable
with
what
some
certain
aspects
and.
D
D
C
C
D
You
were,
if
you
were
to
require
certain
things
as
part
of
a
governor
would
like
to
see
certain
things
as
a
part
of
the
Covenant
you,
you
would
have
the
option
if
there
are
specific
things
and
limited
in
nature,
it
might
be
something
that
would
be
signed
off
administratively
by
staff
that
those
would
have
to
be
included
in
there
before
the
planning
director
could
sign
off
on
the
actual
plat
document.
Otherwise
you
could,
if
you
know,
if
it's
weird
detail
about
that,
you
would
like
to
see
it
come
back
to
you.
Q
A
I
C
C
D
Madam
chair,
so
the
the
difference
would
be
is:
if
there
are
the
regulations,
zoning
concerning
the
RSS
zone
district
would
apply
right
to
the
property
and
the
additional
oversight
to
the
historic
district
things
like
that
would
apply
whether
you
conditioned
it
or
not.
Those
are
current
rules,
but
you
would
be
looking
at
conditioning
is
if
there
are
certain
components
of
it
that
would
warrant
some
additional
restriction,
such
as
number
of
number
of
horses
on
certain
properties.
I
B
A
B
0:03
and
be
approved
for
the
following
reasons:
pursuant
to
Article
two
there's
two:
would
you
like
me
to
read
the
whole
thing?
Yes,
pursuant
to
article
2,
paragraph
2,
3,
1,
dot,
B
of
the
land
development
regulations,
any
unique
or
particular
conditions
of
the
subject.
Property
are
not
sufficiently
limiting
as
to
prevent
the
subdivision
of
the
subject
property,
as
prescribed
in
the
land,
development
regulations
and
zoning
ordinance
and
number
2.
Strict
compliance
with
the
land
development
regulations
and
zoning
ordinance
would
not
pose
a
particular
hardship.
B
I'm
not
100%,
conceptually
against
subdividing
this
property
I
want
that
to
be
on
the
record.
I
do
have
some
issues
with
it.
After
hearing
from
some
of
the
people
in
the
crowd
and
doing
quite
a
bit
of
analysis
on
the
one
acre
parcels
and
then
removing
the
question
used
from
a
one-acre
parcel
when
it
was
supposed
to
be
for
equestrian
use
and
so
forth,
but
I'll
state
for
the
record
I'm,
not
necessarily
conceptually
against
subdivision
of
this
property.