Rezoning for Industry
WINNSBORO – The Fairfield County Planning Commission voted unanimously last week to recommend that County Council approve the rezoning of more than 462 acres of county-owned property from rural residential to industrial to make way for a proposed industrial park.
The commission voted 4-0 following a public hearing on the request to rezone 462.5 acres located on East Peach Road and Devil’s Race Track Road. The property, identified as Tax Map No. 183-00-01-024-000, is owned by Fairfield County. The request had previously been tabled during the commission’s May 28 meeting. County Administration called an online planning commission workshop on July 8 to make its case to commissioners why it wants the property zoned industrial.
At the July 23 meeting, Planning Manager Joseph Toledo told commissioners the county is seeking to rezone the property from RD-1 (Rural Residential) to I-1 (Industrial) to allow development of a county-owned industrial park.
“The applicant (Fairfield County) is requesting to rezone the property for the establishment of an industrial park,” Toledo said.
Although the surrounding area is primarily zoned RD-1, Toledo said industrial zoning exists about 2,600 feet to the east and that the county’s Comprehensive Plan identifies the area for both industrial and low-density residential uses.
“The proposed rezoning from RD-1 to I-1 would therefore be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the established zoning pattern in the area,” Toledo said, reiterating that county staff recommended approval of the request.
Several nearby residents spoke during the public hearing, expressing concerns about how an industrial park could negatively affect their homes and quality of life.
Dallas Murphy, a longtime Peach Road resident, told commissioners his family’s roots in the area stretch back decades.
“I want to share with you a little love story,” Murphy began, explaining that he met the woman he would later marry after both families moved to Peach Road. The couple has now been married for 44 years and returned to the area nearly three decades ago to care for their aging parents.
Murphy said he understands the county will probably move forward with the project anyway, but asked commissioners to consider its impact on neighboring residents.
“My concern continues to be what’s it going to do to our quality of life?” he said. “What’s it going to be like for noise? Is our groundwater going to be safe? How much lighting is there going to be coming over the top of that hill?”
Murphy also cited concerns about truck traffic, air pollution and highway safety, noting that another major accident had occurred earlier that day at the intersection of Peach Road and U.S. Highway 321.
“Living next door to an industrial park wasn’t something that we planned on,” he said. “We came home not just to care for our parents, but to retire there.”
He urged the county to establish protective measures for the seven homes and two vacant residential lots located near the proposed development.
Property owner Hezekiah Jenkins said he had only received notice of the meeting shortly before it began because he had been out of the country. He asked how the rezoning might affect his property taxes since he owns land along both Peach Road and Devil’s Race Track Road.
Ridgeway resident Randy Bright questioned whether the proposal was consistent with the county’s own planning goals.
Reading from the Comprehensive Plan, Bright cited Goal No. 9, which calls for “orderly, efficient and equitable development of land that accommodates future growth while protecting natural resources, enhancing the quality of life, and preserving the rural character of the community.”
“Does this meet all those criteria in our comprehensive plan?” Bright asked. “Only you can answer this.”
Planning Commission member Christopher Pullen asked whether additional buffers or easements could be provided around the property’s perimeter to protect neighboring homes.
“It seemed like during the first meeting and even this one, that a main concern of the neighbors—they weren’t necessarily against this totally—but they wanted to ensure that there would be a protective easement and some privacy around there,” Pullen said.
Toledo dismissed the concern, responding that county land development regulations already require landscape buffer yards between industrial and residential uses, but he did not say what the depth of those buffers is.
“If there was interest in wanting to do something above and beyond that, then that’s something that could be looked at and considered in the covenant restrictions that would be put into place when the park is formalized,” Toledo said.
He noted that the commission was to only consider the zoning change at this meeting, adding that future development plans, subdivision approval and site-specific details would come before the Planning Commission during a separate land development review process after the rezoning is already finalized.
Following the discussion, Pullen made the motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request to Fairfield County Council. The motion passed unanimously, 4-0.
The recommendation for the county property now moves to Fairfield County Council for consideration.
Requests for Housing
FAIRFIELD COUNTY – Planning and Zoning Director Joseph Toledo announced at the conclusion of last week’s planning commission that a proposal to build a 100-home conservation subdivision near Ridgeway was postponed after Commissioner Ashley Mills cast the lone vote and argument against the project, calling the density “insane” for that rural community, prompting the commission to table the matter until a larger quorum is present.
Immediately prior to the vote to table, however, commissioners voted 3-1 that the proposal move forward with a recommendation to county council to approve the site plan for the subdivision. Following the meeting, a number of people questioned Toledo’s call on the vote. The Voice has been unable to reach Toledo for comment, and no announcement has yet been made concerning a final decision on which of the two votes was correct.
The Commission met to consider a request for a preliminary site plan submitted by Stanley Martin Homes for the proposed Long Road subdivision on approximately 140 acres owned by Davis Family Real Estate LLC. The property is located near Long Road, Cater Road, Irwood Road, and Smithies Road in the Ridgeway area. Rezoning is not required because the property is already zoned RD-1 which allows for the conservation district.
County Planning Manager Joseph Toledo told commissioners the proposal complies with Fairfield County’s Land Management and Heritage Ordinance because it is designed as a conservation subdivision. Under that designation, standard one-acre lot requirements are waived in exchange for preserving significant open space.
“The proposed preliminary plat for 100 residential lots and the conservation of 56.2 acres aligns with the county’s regulations governing land use,” Toledo said as he recommended conditional approval. Conditions included completion of a traffic impact study meeting South Carolina Department of Transportation requirements before final plat approval and obtaining required Department of Environmental Services permits before building permits are issued.
Luke Boatwright, representing Stanley Martin Homes, said the subdivision would average 1.4 homes per acre and include houses ranging from approximately 1,300 to 2,400 square feet.
“Our target price point… is anywhere from the low $200,000s, possibly getting over $300,000,” Boatwright said. “We’re very excited to get into the Ridgeway area.”
Several Ridgeway-area residents urged the commission to delay or reject the proposal, citing concerns about traffic, wildlife, environmental impacts, septic systems, and lack of proper public notification about the meeting.
Longtime resident Tomi Richards criticized what she described as inadequate notice and urged the county to preserve the area’s rural character.
“We need to be stewards for our environment,” Richards said. “These deer don’t have a vote…If you’re going to build this, don’t level every piece of land. Leave those trees there and make the developer build around them.”
Ridgeway resident Randy Bright asked that future planning documents, including traffic studies and other technical reviews, be posted online before hearings take place so residents can better evaluate the proposed development.
Benjamin Singleton, who owns nearby property, questioned how individual septic systems would function on the smaller lots after learning the Town of Ridgeway could not provide sewer service to the development.
“I’m worried that the sewage is going to end up on my property,” Singleton said. “I’m thinking about the welfare and benefit for the community that’s already there.”
Toledo responded that although the average residential lot would be about one-half acre, approximately 52 acres of the property would be permanently protected through a conservation easement, preserving mature pine forests and limiting future development.
He also said the subdivision conforms to Fairfield County’s 2024 Comprehensive Plan, which designates the area for urban expansion.
Regarding septic concerns, Toledo said the Department of Environmental Services will determine the location and suitability of each septic system and leach field before any construction proceeds.
He added that a preliminary traffic study found no turn lanes are currently needed, but SCDOT requires a final traffic impact study after schools reopen in the fall to account for school traffic. Any road improvements required by SCDOT would have to be completed by the developer.
Toledo said the conservation design represented a compromise between development and land preservation.
“If this was a traditional subdivision…they could have proposed maybe 130 or 135 lots,” Toledo said in favor of the proposal. “By going the conservation route, more of the land is going to be protected and more of those natural, mature pines are going to stay in existence.”
Commissioner Christopher Pullen also acknowledged residents’ complaints about public notification, saying the county should examine whether its notification process could be improved in the future but he did not call for changes for the development currently before the Commission.
Toledo noted that the county publishes legal notices in the Country Chronicle, posts them on the county website, mails notices to nearby property owners and places an orange sign on the property involved in the request. Fairfield County does not publish its legal notices in The Voice, which is circulated throughout the county each week.
Pullen then made a motion for the Commission to approve the preliminary site plan with the staff’s recommended conditions. Commissioners Pullen, Brendell and Miller voted in favor, while Mills voted against.
Because only four commissioners were present, the motion failed for lack of the votes needed for approval, according to Toledo. But no other explanation was made. According to Robert’s Rules of Order, three votes out of four is a majority vote.
Toledo asked commissioners if they would rather table the vote until the next meeting.
Mills explained why she opposed the project.
“The problem I have with it is that we’re talking about the community of Ridgeway,” Mills said. “A hundred houses is a lot of houses in Ridgeway. That’s insane.”
She said she wanted more time to speak with a landowner near the proposed development before the commission acted.
“I don’t think Ridgeway should look like Lake Carolina. If they want to build houses like in Columbia, then go back to Columbia. But you’ve already maxed out Columbia, so now you’re trying to move in on us.”
Mills moved to table the application until a future meeting with a larger quorum present. The motion to table was seconded and approved unanimously. Toledo said the vote would be delayed until the next meeting.
As of press time, The Voice has not been able to determine which of the two votes was ultimately accepted on the applicant’s request.