Richland County committee reviews neighborhood master plan program, seeks clearer goals and regular updates

At a Richland County Development and Service Committee meeting, staff reviewed the county's neighborhood master plan program, described gaps between older neighborhood plans and the county's comprehensive plan, and proposed policy changes to make master plans more useful and actionable.

County staff said the neighborhood master plan program began in the 2003'04 fiscal year and grew from council-directed reinvestment areas rather than an explicitly enumerated set of goals. Director Sunithia Williams told the committee that the original program authorized a neighborhood planner and later funding for plans but did not set specific, durable goals when it started.

Director Williams said the planning process for neighborhood master plans mirrors that of the comprehensive plan on a smaller geographic scale and includes public meetings, population and housing analysis, and draft goals and recommendations. She said some of the original priority areas were identified by county council in 2005 and have not been substantially updated since.

"The program was established back in the 02/2003, 2004 fiscal year," Director Sunithia Williams said, and added that staff has developed operational goals over time. She said, "It follows a very similar process to the comprehensive plan just on a smaller scale for that specific neighborhood area that was identified." Williams also noted that some earlier neighborhood plans now conflict with the comprehensive plan because they were prepared at different times.

Why this matters: Committee members said inconsistent criteria and aging documents make it harder for residents and staff to interpret plan guidance on rezoning and development. Council members pressed staff for clarity about what a neighborhood master plan can and cannot accomplish, and for better communication with residents so expectations align with the program's legal and funding limits.

Key staff recommendations discussed included: - Adopt a regular schedule for reviewing and updating master plans (staff suggested review intervals aligned with comprehensive plan updates, e.g., review every five years and update at least every 10 years); - Revisit the program's selection criteria (current criteria, established in 2016, include a one-quarter-mile scale that some members called too narrow for certain priority investment areas); - Use more targeted policy tools where appropriate, such as corridor overlays, sign or façade ordinances, or a neighborhood character overlay instead of a full master plan for issues that do not require a comprehensive neighborhood study; and - Strengthen interdepartmental coordination so capital-scale recommendations (for example, parks or sidewalks) include identified maintenance responsibilities and funding pathways before they are advanced in a plan.

Director Williams highlighted examples of outcomes from past master plans: many implemented projects were small-scale community investments such as murals, monument signs, pocket-park grants and streetscape cleanups, while larger capital recommendations often stalled for lack of an identified maintainer or funding. "We are starting to have those conversations," Williams said, noting the county does not operate a parks and recreation department and that neighborhood groups or other providers may need to commit to long-term maintenance if capital projects are pursued.

Committee members asked staff to identify whether some older plans should be retired, consolidated, or updated, and to estimate costs; one council member observed that updating every older plan could exceed staff budget capacity. Committee members also noted the Sandhills plan (adopted June 2021) as the most recent neighborhood plan, while several others date back to the mid-2000s.

Related, discrete items discussed under the same agenda section included an upcoming draft moratorium and neighborhood character overlay for the Olympia neighborhood and a staff-led review of possible corridor or water-resource overlay measures for the Ballantyne area designed to protect Lake Murray.

The committee did not take a final vote on program-wide policy changes at the meeting. Staff said it will return with recommendations for priority areas, suggested review schedules, and potential ordinance or overlay language for council consideration.

Next steps noted at the meeting: staff will incorporate the committee's guidance into the county's comprehensive plan update process, present recommendations for review schedules and selection criteria, and return to council with draft overlay language and program changes. Planning commission review was scheduled for overlay/district drafts referenced in the discussion.