Columbia County commissioners reject proposed gas station near pickleball complex after residents’ pleas

On July 21, 2026 the Columbia County Board of Commissioners voted 3–1 to disapprove a major planned-unit-development revision that would have allowed a convenience store with gas pumps on Tax Map 078 Parcel 178, a site opposite the Dink pickleball complex.

Public speakers urged the board to reject the project. Dr. Troy Acres, a Columbia County physician, said planning staff recommended denial and the planning commission voted 4–1 to deny the application. “Your planning staff reviewed the application. They recommended denial on every criterion, and the planning commission held a full public hearing and voted 4 to 1 to deny,” he said, adding safety and traffic concerns and that the proposal would remove what he said were 71 parking spaces.

Lindsey Steinberg, who said she lives near the complex, asked commissioners whether building another gas station on Fury’s Ferry Road was consistent with the county’s recently adopted comprehensive plan, citing the plan’s guidance to diversify commercial corridors. Steinberg warned of added congestion and cited national data she said links gas stations to higher rates of violent crime and robberies. “In my 16 years in this region ... I respectfully ask you to consider rejecting this proposal to bring another gas station and allow our wholesome community to continue to thrive,” she said.

Brandy Consoles, who identified herself as a nearby business owner in Aiken County, described prolonged construction at a similar project that she said cost her business more than $15,000 per month and forced layoffs. “We were promised it would be over in 10 months. We are now going on month 12,” she said, urging the board not to subject Columbia County businesses to the same disruption.

A commissioner moved to disapprove the major PUD revision; the motion was seconded and carried by a 3–1 vote. The board’s action rejects the applicant’s conceptual plan to locate a convenience store with pumps at the referenced parcel.

The vote followed public comment and staff discussion; the record includes the planning staff’s recommendation and the planning commission’s 4–1 denial. The board did not adopt any mitigation conditions or approve an alternate plan on the record. The matter concluded with the formal disapproval vote.

The commission also handled other business during the meeting, including routine zoning requests and appointments (see separate summary).