Planning Commission (Work Session) - November 2, 2026
Richland County planning commissioners held a November 2 workshop to review proposed updates to commercial and mixed-use zoning, focusing on the Institutional (INS) district, recommendations to keep/limit/remove specific uses, and implementation options (special requirements vs. special exception). Staff will revise the matrix for further review by the planning commission.
Discussion Points
•Accessory parking should be on the same parcel and subordinate to principal institutional use
•Adjournment motion and voice vote concluded the work session
•Clarify administrative SR process vs SE/Board of Zoning Appeals hearings
•Clarify when indoor shooting ranges qualify as ancillary to institutional public‑safety uses
•Commissioners debated accessory vs principal uses and size/scale criteria for supportive uses
•Define size and scale metrics for campus‑supportive uses
•Distinguish accessory rooftop solar vs large ground‑mounted solar as principal uses
•Frequency of use (e.g., game day) affects classification
•How to measure 'size and scale' for keep-with-limitations recommendations
•Staff presented the INS purpose statement and a use matrix listing keeps, keeps-with-limits, and removes
•Staff will update notes to change some ‘remove’ recommendations to ‘special requirement’ and add clarifying definitions
•Whether removals should instead become special requirements
•Whether some removed uses (animal shelter, funeral home) are better defined as accessory or specialized use
•Whether supportive retail (grocery, personal services) should be considered accessory to campus use
•Whether to create new definitions to capture small nonprofit shelters
Decisions
•Adjournment motion approved
•No formal action taken; direction given to staff for the next iteration
Directions
•Commissioners to mark up paper packets and send notes to staff for compilation
•Staff to define contiguity and frequency thresholds for accessory parking in revised notes
•Staff to draft SR language and examples distinguishing accessory campus uses from independent commercial uses
•Staff to include explicit scale/proximity thresholds and propose special requirement language where appropriate
•Staff to preserve solar definitions and propose SR language for institutional ancillary uses such as police training ranges
•Staff to research Palmetto Lifeline, Greenlawn and similar examples and propose revised language
•Staff to revise materials and return to planning commission
•Staff to revise the use matrix and staff notes, correct missing data columns, and define accessory/supportive thresholds
Celebrating Community Planning Month with Caleb McBride of the Inspections Department
Deputy Building Official Caleb Bridal introduced himself and described the building inspection department's role enforcing minimum building codes in Richland County and expressed enthusiasm for new residential and commercial construction.
Discussion Points
•Department enforces a minimum building code to ensure safe construction in Richland County.
•Speaker expressed enthusiasm for new residential and commercial construction.
Richland County Council held a zoning public hearing on Oct. 27, 2026, addressing a series of rezoning requests, including contested proposals along Winsborough Road that drew multiple resident objections about traffic, emergency response and infrastructure; the council approved most requests and deferred two items.
Discussion Points
•Applicant absence from town hall cited as primary reason for deferral of 26-033MA.
•Applicant cited comprehensive-plan designations and location benefits.
•Applicant cited family history and intent to manage property.
•Applicant said fewer than 300 lots expected and required mitigations will be followed.
•Council approved rezoning.
•Councilmember Cooper cited town-hall outreach and an overlay with Blythewood.
•Council voiced support and made a motion to approve.
•Ministry described property acquisition and rehabilitation work; requested office designation for staff presence.
•Most hearings had no public speakers; council moved to approve each item.
•No opponents signed up for this item.
•Residents cited traffic safety, emergency response delays, school capacity and loss of rural character.
•Residents raised concerns about infrastructure and pace of rezoning in the 29016 area.
•Signposting and compliance under county ordinance cited for deferral of 26-031MA.
•Staff/council summarized planning-commission findings and context for each item.
Decisions
•Both items deferred.
•Multiple rezonings approved as recorded.
•Rezoning approved.
•Rezoning approved (AG to R-3).
Directions
•Development subject to normal permitting and infrastructure review.
•Development to follow county permitting and DRT review.
•Ministry to coordinate permits and interior office changes with county staff.
•Proceed with standard permitting and site-plan review.
•Staff to enforce required traffic mitigations and DRT conditions; continue overlay development with Blythewood.
•Staff to reschedule hearings and confirm compliance.
Richland County Detention Center ad hoc committee received updates on renovations, security-system installations and population trends at the county jail; staff reported current bed space, long stays for many detainees, timelines for a new housing tower and roofing work, and recent facility site visits.
Discussion Points
•Attendance at South Carolina Jail Administrators Association conference with sessions on staffing and confinement conditions
•August site visits to comparable facilities in North Carolina and Georgetown County
•Estimated construction timeline 8–9 months with completion ~October 2027
•High share of long‑stay detainees and those charged with violent crimes
•Moseley Architects provided review notes
•Most housing units renovated; one remaining unit under renovation
•MTS contracted to install security equipment
•MTS to provide on‑site working demonstration this month
•Operational concerns about classification and capacity
•Planned new tower would add roughly 300 beds; council funding indicated
•Population increased to 1,132
•Renovations phased to minimize operational disruption
•Roofing consultant completed drawings and specs
•Solicitation expected within 30 days
Directions
•Bring design and solicitation plan to council committee for approval
The Richland County Development and Services Committee reviewed revisions to the Land Development Code (exterior lighting), approved the lighting ordinance with a one-year compliance/amortization period for existing businesses, directed staff on several research items (animal noise enforcement, tenant belongings disposal, Olympia overlay), requested more information on solar farm classification and zoning, and adjourned.
Discussion Points
•Attorney advised retiring is permissible; a recorded motion can document ongoing enforcement.
•Attorney is reviewing legal implications; staff prepared initial recommendations.
•Councilmembers discussed whether one year is sufficient or whether a 1–3 year amortization is typical; concerns about communication and administrative burden were raised.
•Deputy Director Price presented enforcement language and proposed one-year amortization for existing businesses; Planning Commission had recommended removal of subsections f and g.
•Members debated whether 'solar farm' is a misnomer and whether agriculture zoning is appropriate; education and mapping requested.
•Motion to research disposal parameters for tenant belongings after evictions; Branham suggested including foreclosure/magistrate contexts.
•Staff met twice with the county attorney and will rearrange the language for clarity and enforcement; council recommendations will be incorporated.
•Staff to return with options on classification and potential rezoning implications.
•Whether to retire the item or make a recorded motion so the public sees follow-up.
Decisions
•Committee voted unanimously to approve the ordinance language as provided and send to full council.
•Motion passed to make no changes and continue enforcing current ordinance; item retired.
•No committee-level policy decision recorded; item referred to staff and attorney for further review.
•No final decision; staff directed to prepare revised draft.
•No immediate zoning changes; staff to return with information.
Directions
•Administrator to provide recommendations and attorney to advise on legal implications.
•Forward approved ordinance language to full council for consideration.
•Staff to prepare communications summarizing enforcement posture for constituents.
•Staff to proactively notify affected businesses through business service center and land development staff.
•Staff to return in December with revised overlay text and style guide.
•Staff will prepare resource information and recommended options for council consideration.
The Richland County Transportation Ad Hoc Committee met to approve minutes and the agenda, authorize contingency increases for Atlas Road and the Crane Creek neighborhood improvement projects, approve land acquisition (including use of condemnation where needed), review monthly project updates, and discuss a sidewalk funding SOP tied to the 2024 transportation penny program.
Discussion Points
•Clarification requested about whether other government entities must go through condemnation process.
•Committee noted negotiations have been ongoing for more than a year on some parcels.
•Discovery of 36-inch force main under CSX in detention basin requires design change for ~500 feet.
•Immediate $38,900 change is possible but staff recommended $150,000 contingency for potential additional needs.
•Monthly status of projects, right-of-way challenges, and upcoming bids/groundbreakings.
•Phase 2 at Bluff Road adjusted to preserve five-lane geometry and truck movements.
•SCDOT slope standard change from 3:1 to 4:1 increases flood-plain impacts.
•SOP establishes annual allocation of pedestrian-safety funds: $4.1M to sidewalk infill, $12.3M to larger projects.
•Staff recommended condemnation option to complete acquisition where negotiations fail.
The Richland County Administrative Finance Committee met Oct. 27, 2026, and approved staff recommendations on several procurement and program items: a proposed update to animal-licensing fees, a consultant for MS4 stormwater permit support, renewal of a home-detention electronic monitoring contract, a seven-year renewal with Axon for cameras/tasers/cloud services, and reprogramming of a 2015 HUD disaster grant for generators and stormwater work. All listed motions were approved by recorded voice votes.
Discussion Points
•Committee asked about fines; Pitts said none at present and renewal timing is set by the state.
•Committee asked about the term length and fiscal details; staff asked to confirm figures in packet.
•Committee asked whether fees apply only in unincorporated areas; staff said interlocal agreements determine applicability.
•Pitts explained permit renewal and consultant scope: monitoring, outreach, inspections and stormwater plan update.
•Procedural motions to approve minutes and agenda; multiple items approved as presented.
•Procurement described sliding-scale pricing and prior monthly cost estimate (~$80,000).
•Staff explained program funding source and procurement ranking.
•Staff held public notice and a hearing with minimal attendance and warned of obligation risk if the amendment is not advanced.
•Staff noted the grant dates to 2015 and identified unmet needs; projects include generators for sheriff/EMS/ESD and a stormwater project.
•Staff said licensing is primarily to create a pet-owner database; enforcement is citation-based when responding to calls.
•Staff said the omission was an administrative oversight and recommended approval.
•Staff said the seven-year term helps amortize costs for cameras and cloud services.
Decisions
•All motions on the agenda were approved by the committee and will proceed to the next procedural steps.
•Committee approved award to highest-ranked vendor.
•Committee approved forwarding the amendment to council for final action.
•Committee approved moving the recommendation forward to council.
•Committee approved renewal recommendation to proceed to council for funding consideration.
•Committee approved staff recommendation to procure consultant services.
Directions
•Procure consultant services and prepare contract terms for committee/council oversight.
•Procurement to finalize contract and return documents as required.
•Staff to clarify jurisdictional applicability with interlocal agreements and circulate to council.
•Staff to confirm and report precise renewal costs from the packet and coordinate budget inclusion for FY28.
•Staff to finalize and submit the substantial amendment and continue HUD coordination.
•Staff to prepare ordinance language and schedule required public hearing and readings.
Proposed Substantial Amendments to CDBG-DR Disaster Recovery Action Plan - Substantial Amendment #8
Richland County held a virtual public hearing on a proposed substantial amendment (No. 8) to its HUD CDBG-DR disaster recovery action plan to reallocate roughly $1.4 million of unspent disaster recovery funds into public infrastructure projects, including three emergency generator replacements and one stormwater improvement; public comment is open through Nov. 6 and the proposal goes to committee Oct. 27 and council Nov. 10.
Discussion Points
•26‑day public display and comment period (through Nov. 6)
•Need to demonstrate eligible tie back to 2015 flood per HUD requirements
•Newcastle Watershed project intended to improve drainage conveyance and reduce localized flooding
•Oral comments allowed at in‑person hearing; two‑minute limit per speaker
•Project presented as disaster recovery‑eligible tieback to October 2015 flood
•Projects intended to improve reliability of essential equipment and emergency communications
•Proposed projects include three emergency generator replacements and one stormwater improvement
•Several previously approved programs have unspent balances that the county proposes to reallocate
•Staff will forward a summary of comments to HUD
•Three generator replacements scoped to support EMS, detention center and sheriff's department
Decisions
•No final project approval at hearing; further HUD review and county processes required
•No formal council action at this hearing; process to continue through committee and council review
•No formal funding decision at hearing; proposal to proceed to committee and council review
•No formal vote taken at the public hearing; amendment to proceed through committee and council review
Richland County Council Meeting - October 20, 2026
Richland County Council held a regular session that included a proclamation for Breast Cancer Awareness Month, a presentation by the Richland Soil & Water Conservation District, several fee-in-lieu economic-development approvals, a wetlands mitigation-credit sale, citizen comments largely about solar panels and rural development, and a motion directing staff to study a possible 10-mile moratorium on solar installations around Eastover.
Discussion Points
•Affected parties have 60 days to request a contested hearing with the Administrative Law Court.
•Committee recommended approval of fee‑in‑lieu agreements; council recorded votes and noted recusals.
•Council briefly discussed and approved the recommendation; a reconsideration motion failed.
•Council recognized an individual and approved a ceremonial resolution; members emphasized human stories behind awareness months.
•Council suggested exploring equipment rental expansion and partnerships with schools.
•District described funding sources, staffing equivalents, and program outputs (grants, seed distribution, youth programs).
•Mayor and commenters urged protecting farmland and requiring public hearings when impacts are significant.
•Residents asked for more notice and a work session to discuss solar siting and health/environmental impacts.
•Some members asked for clarification on how a 5% reallocation under the Scout Motors master agreement would be used before supporting final approval.
•Staff recommended approving purchase of mitigation credits at $20,000 per credit.
•State geodetic program clarifies county boundaries and issues written notices to affected parties.
Decisions
•Approval of 5.5 mitigation credits purchase for $110,000.
•Motion referred for committee analysis; no moratorium enacted at this meeting.
•Multiple fee‑in‑lieu agreements approved; revenue distribution amendment advanced on first reading.
•Resolution proclaiming October as Breast Cancer Awareness Month was adopted.
Directions
•County staff to coordinate with neighboring counties on service impacts where boundaries change.
•District to follow up on equipment‑rental and outreach possibilities.
•Refer motion to analyze a 10‑mile moratorium to the D&S committee.
•Staff/attorney to provide more detail on the 5% allocation for subsequent readings.
•Staff to complete administrative steps to finalize sale.
Affordable Housing Ad Hoc Committee - October 20, 2026
Richland County Affordable Housing Ad Hoc Committee reviewed revised application procedures for the Home Rehabilitation Program and the Down Payment Assistance Program, debated how to define "public safety" for eligibility, and received a detailed update on a 55-property single-family redevelopment project with COVID-funded deadlines and HUD disposition steps.
Discussion Points
•Alignment with 15% accommodations-tax criteria; program remains for first-time homebuyers.
•Disagreement over whether public safety should be defined narrowly (first responders) or broadly (budget-classified public safety, including coroner and building inspections).
•Eligibility now mirrors accommodations-tax down payment assistance criteria and clarifies conflict-of-interest language.
•Members requested dollar estimates and assurances procurement maximizes funds used on construction rather than overhead.
•Request for outreach materials and education requirement for applicants.
•Staff noted overlap between county employees and public-safety classifications.
•Staff to issue an RFP for a short-term project manager to coordinate COVID-funded rehabs and rebuilds.
•Staff to issue RFP for project manager and provide maps and lists post-DOT release.
•Two executed contracts underway for two rehabs; prioritization of COVID-funded units; HUD DOT/environmental release pending; estimated rehab costs ~$100,000 per unit.
Directions
•Issue RFP; update committee after DOT release; prioritize COVID-funded units for completion and occupation.
•Prepare RFP; provide timeline and cost estimate to committee before posting.
•Staff to bring back department list and counts for both definitions.
•Staff to draft a one-page outreach flyer and return with public-safety clarifications and counts.
•Staff to return with county\u0002s public safety department list and counts to show impact on eligibility.
Richland County Transportation Advisory Committee met virtually on Oct. 18, 2026; members heard agency ridership and small-business reports, reviewed a multi‑million dollar road and greenway project portfolio, and approved forwarding a Broad River/Bridal Road widening recommendation to an ad hoc committee.
Officials held a groundbreaking for the Pine View Road widening in Richland County, describing plans to widen the corridor between Garner's Ferry Road and Shop Road from two lanes to three to improve safety and traffic flow. Speakers highlighted the project's benefits for residents and businesses in Lower Richland; funding and schedule were not specified in the remarks.
Discussion Points
•Project will widen Pine View Road from two lanes to three in sections between Garner's Ferry Road and Shop Road
•Speakers emphasized safety and improved connectivity for residents and businesses in Lower Richland
Richland County Council held its regular session on Oct. 6, 2026. The meeting included proclamations honoring planning month, library service and custodial staff; public comments raising concerns about the DSS and family court; updates on conservation/open-space strategy; approvals of several development incentives, transportation awards, and purchases; and multiple executive-session authorizations.
Discussion Points
•Administrator described allocation: majority returned to penny program and a $4,200 fee to Eco Capital Management, LLC.
•After returning, council moved to authorize specific administrative actions (MOU, children's advocacy coordination, call‑center contract negotiation).
•Attorney Wright previewed executive session topics; council entered executive session and later returned with no action taken in session.
•Average wage for Project Blue Steel reported as $29.64/hour; minimum wage not on hand and to be provided later.
•Council questioned grant amounts and county spending share; administration confirmed grant purpose (storm/debris response) and noted previous approval of funding.
•Crane Creek award amount and bidder announced; committee recommended approval.
•Credits requested: 3.576 at $20,000 per credit; total reported $71,520.
•First readings for ROW transfers to SCDOT for Harbison and Polo Road sidewalks were advanced.
•Multiple recusal statements were entered on the record for members with employer/parent company ties.
•Public commenters alleged violations and harms tied to DSS and family court; they urged systemic reform.
•Quote shown: $213,575.82 for air burner model S223 from sole‑source vendor; funding from a previously approved state grant.
•Resolutions recognizing Community Planning Month and long‑service employees were read and discussed briefly.
•Speakers were limited to two minutes; requests for additional time were denied.
•Staff reported project is ~31% complete, public engagement ongoing, 27 potential conservation opportunity areas identified.
Decisions
•Agreements authorized as recorded.
•Authorizations passed in open session for items discussed in executive session.
•Contract award approved; first readings advanced.
•Purchase approved; motion to reconsider failed.
•Resolutions 4a, 4b and 4c adopted by voice vote.
•Sale approved; motion to reconsider failed.
Directions
•Administration to proceed with procurement and document grant reporting.
•Administrator to execute MOU and negotiate contracts as authorized.
•Advance public engagement and complete GIS analysis toward final strategy.
•Staff to follow up with requested wage details.
•Transportation staff to complete contract and ROW conveyance paperwork.
Strategic Planning Ad Hoc Committee - Oct. 6, 2026
At a 4:00 p.m. meeting on Oct. 6, 2026, the Strategic Planning Ad Hoc Committee reviewed informational drafts for a sports and recreation tourism study and a small-business economic development strategic assessment that staff will use to develop RFPs; no policy action was taken and procurement timing may slip to early 2027. The committee approved minutes, adopted the agenda, heard staff explanations from ACA Thomas, and adjourned.
Discussion Points
•A committee member insisted on practical deliverables suitable for budgeting and procurement.
•Committee members requested that vendor deliverables be practical for budgeting, procurement, and program initiation.
•Staff presented goals heard from the committee and the intended outcomes for a small-business assessment.
•Staff presented informational drafts summarizing council feedback on the sports and recreation tourism study and the small business assessment.
Decisions
•No formal committee action or vote taken on the study documents.
•No formal vote; item received for information only.
Directions
•Staff to develop scope of work and issue an RFP.
•Staff to prepare RFPs and engage procurement.
•Staff to return results to committee following procurement and vendor selection.
•Staff to return with vendor responses and recommended next steps.
Richland County Planning Commission held a public meeting on Oct. 5, 2026, to consider several rezoning and map-amendment cases (multiple R‑3, RT, RC and MU‑1 requests). Commissioners recommended approval on multiple cases and referred items to county council for final action on Oct. 27.
Discussion Points
•Applicant said request is to enable future family transfer while maintaining agricultural uses.
•Applicants argued for coordinated development and SCDOT access; residents highlighted road capacity limits and school traffic; commissioners asked staff to confirm GIS/zoning history.
•Clarify mapping and future land use wording (suburban vs. mixed density). Staff to update packet verbiage.
•Clarify which portion of the parent parcel is subject to the rezoning and whether access/paving (North Chelsea Road) is feasible.
•Packet showed mixed signals between suburban residential and open‑space conservation; staff illustrated wetlands/floodplain layers and said most of parcel is outside conservation areas.
•RC district intended to be isolated commercial at intersections; staff warned about creating contiguous RC designations that would spread commercial uses.
•Staff could not locate a historical file for an adjacent parcel’s zoning change, prompting record‑checking.
•Staff described plan compliance and infrastructure availability; residents raised traffic safety and rural‑character concerns; commissioners probed GIS/zoning history and level‑of‑service data.
•Staff explained that multifamily development requires an access drive while single‑family subdivisions require road access; applicant will provide a meets‑and‑bounds description.
Decisions
•Commission recommended approval; forwarded to county council on Oct. 27.
•Commission recommended approval to council.
•Commission recommended approval to council despite staff classification as noncompliant.
•Commission voted to recommend approval.
•Commission voted to recommend approval to county council; item scheduled for Oct. 27 at 7PM.
•Motion to recommend approval passed by roll call despite staff caution.
Directions
•Applicant to provide meets‑and‑bounds legal description for the rezoned portion prior to subdivision.
•Staff noted county transportation safety action plan and public input session Oct. 7 at Richland County Main Library (4–6 PM) for crash data and safety feedback.
•Staff to confirm GIS records and clarify map discrepancies noted by public commenters.
•Staff to correct mapping and replace ambiguous verbiage in packet; communicate updates to council staff.
•Staff to document adjacency concerns and include related notes in council packet; commissioners may submit dissenting opinions to council.
•Staff to ensure packet maps are corrected and clarify exact parcel boundaries for council.
•Staff will change packet language to reflect mixed density residential.
Staff presented proposed updates to multiple commercial and mixed-use zoning districts, focusing first on the Rural Crossroads designation: which uses to keep, remove or limit, scale thresholds (including a 15,000 sq ft ceiling noted), and follow-up mapping and a second work session were requested.
Discussion Points
•15,000 sq ft maximum cited as a relevant threshold for Rural Crossroads commercial uses.
•Commissioner argued public services (libraries) should be allowed if similarly scaled uses like gas stations are allowed.
•Commissioners agreed to a dedicated follow‑up work session and suggested dates.
•Commissioners requested maps and real‑world square footage comparisons to inform scale thresholds.
•Commissioners requested sample square‑footage data for local stores to benchmark scale.
•Convenience store definition (5,000 sq ft) cited and staff will provide real‑world examples.
•Current vehicle fueling station definition excludes EV charging as an accessory role; commissioners asked staff to revisit this.
•Staff emphasized the materials are proposals for discussion, not final recommendations.
•Staff presented approach to reclassify allowed uses in commercial and mixed‑use districts; commissioners raised scale and mapping concerns for Rural Crossroads.
•Staff said institutional uses are often better sited in residential/institutional zoning and will provide mapping and usage history.
•Staff to send survey of acceptable dates and times and include proposed locations/time slots.
Decisions
•Commissioners agreed to proceed with reviewing keeps/removes/limits approach and requested a follow‑up dedicated work session to continue the exercise.
•Follow‑up work session to be scheduled; adjournment motion passed.
•No code amendments made; review to continue at follow‑up session.
•No code change adopted at this meeting; staff to return with data.
•No immediate change; follow‑up mapping and discussion scheduled.
Directions
•Staff to compile permitted convenience store sizes and review vehicle fueling and EV charging definitions for potential SR designation.
•Staff to compile square‑footage examples for permitted convenience stores and grocery stores and share before next work session.
•Staff to email date options and run a survey; provide maps and square‑footage examples before the next session.
•Staff to identify appropriate alternative zoning destinations for institutional uses.
•Staff to provide a map overlay of Rural Crossroads parcels and indicate current uses and application dates.
•Staff to provide examples and mapping to aid adoption of measurable scale standards.
•Staff to provide parcel overlays showing current Rural Crossroads application and existing institutional uses.
•Staff to send a date survey and proposed dates/times for a follow‑up work session (commissioners asked for availability within 3 days).
Richland County OSBO Hosts Thrive 10X Business Conference
Richland County's Office of Small Business Opportunity opened its eighth annual Thrive 10X conference and trade show, where county staff outlined goals to increase resources and corporate partnerships and small-business owners testified that the office helped them access government contracts.
Discussion Points
•Conference purpose and networking opportunities
•Emphasis on networking over formal procurement announcements
•OSBO's role in connecting vendors with buyers
•OSBO's stated goal to expand resources and partners
•SLBE certification and OSBO outreach increase vendor visibility
•Testimonials lacked specific contract awards or figures
Development and Services Committee - Sept. 22, 2026
Richland County Development and Services Committee discussed proposed exterior lighting restrictions and enforcement, animal-noise (nuisance) enforcement under existing code, and several items pending analysis including tenant-item disposal after eviction, an Olympia Mill Village overlay, and solar-farm zoning definitions.
Discussion Points
•Chair moved several items into analysis status including tenant-item disposal, an overlay and solar-farm zoning.
•Chair noticed packet included minutes from a different committee.
•Committee members requested clarity on enforcement mechanisms, whether existing businesses would be grandfathered, and whether brightness (lumens/lux) standards should be added.
•Committee moved to defer approval of June 23 minutes.
•Council members pushed for clearer enforcement and for staff to prioritize outstanding cases.
•Councilmembers underscored enforceability and constituent impacts.
•Deputy Director Geo Price presented ordinance language to prohibit certain lighting types and exceptions for signage and temporary displays.
•Director Hill stated that existing nuisance-animal ordinance covers barking and other noises.
•Magistrate courts decide penalties after summons and hearing.
•Planning commission recommended approval 5–3 subject to removing two subsections.
•Staff said items were newly received and asked for time to prepare.
Decisions
•Items remain in pending analysis; no policy votes taken.
•Motion to defer passed by roll call.
•Motion to keep the ordinance in committee passed; no final ordinance action taken.
•No ordinance change made; matter remains in staff follow-up and committee oversight.
Directions
•Clerk to provide correct minutes at next meeting.
•Staff to prepare analyses, timelines and draft language for committee review.
•Staff to prioritize current cases and report back with enforcement plans; consider engaging magistrates for guidance.
•Staff to provide enforcement section of code, existing lumens/brightness language, examples of allowed vs prohibited signs, and legal opinion on grandfathering options.
Richland County Council held a zoning public hearing on Sept. 22, 2026, that accepted two withdrawal requests, deferred several first readings to allow town halls, and heard multiple rezoning requests where residents raised traffic, flooding and cemetery preservation concerns. The council approved several rezones and denied one commercial rezoning after public comment and deliberation.
Discussion Points
•Applicant emphasized family ties to community and proposed single-story triplexes to support generational wealth.
•Applicant expressed disappointment; district representative argued against more commercial sprawl in District 9 and cited comprehensive-plan priorities.
•Applicant presented a concept of ~180 lots and said wetlands buffers and open space will be preserved.
•Council adopted the agenda and approved consent items including several rezoning requests.
•Council voted to deny the rezoning despite the planning commission's recommendation for approval.
•Director Price clarified the requirement that council accept the withdrawal on record.
•Neighbors disputed traffic capacity numbers and raised concerns about historic graves and flood/runoff impact.
•No public speakers signed up for several items; applicants or councilmembers indicated outstanding issues were resolved.
•Residents reported blocked drainage, filled ponds and recurring flooding that would be worsened by commercial development.
•Speakers also cited traffic congestion on Wilson Boulevard and public-safety concerns near existing commercial outlets.
•Staff reported withdrawal letters for cases 26-025MA and 26-028MA filed within 15 days of the hearing.
•Supporters asked the county to consider sewer and water upgrades; a resident raised flooding and access concerns.
Decisions
•Approvals recorded by roll call for 26-022MA and 26-023MA.
•Council accepted the withdrawal letters by roll call.
•Council approved the rezoning request by roll call.
•Public hearing closed; first-reading deferred to Oct. 6.
•Public hearing closed; planning commission recommended disapproval and first reading scheduled for Oct. 6.
•Rezoning denied by roll call.
Directions
•Staff to ensure traffic/capacity data and stormwater impacts are clarified for the first-reading packet.
•Staff to review drainage history, easements, and hydrology for the site and present at the Oct. 6 first reading.
•Staff to review drainage, setbacks and utility needs during permitting.
The Richland County Administrative Finance Committee met Sept. 22, 2026, and approved a slate of contract awards and ordinances, including renovation of courthouse restrooms, a plan for Decker Boulevard, and a donated riverfront conservation parcel; members also advanced an ordinance tightening vape-shop siting near schools.
Discussion Points
•A committee member asked whether the $30,000,000 project was included in the bond package and staff confirmed it.
•A committee member calculated ~ $50,000 per bathroom from a discussed $800,000 project and asked about heavy doors and circulation for mobility device users.
•Alpha Tree Services bid was cited as approximately 38% lower than FY26 rates for debris grinding.
•Committee members asked about adjacent boat ramp and recreational opportunities.
•Director Williams clarified the 1,000-foot limit applies only to elementary and secondary schools, not colleges.
•Director Williams stated upgrades will meet current accessibility codes.
•Most contracts were approved with limited discussion; staff answered brief questions on bidder selection and price escalation for the fire-protection contract.
•Quentin Epps reported title review found no defects and described river frontage and conservation benefits.
•Staff confirmed MBcon selected via RFQ as most qualified.
•Staff described added licensing and location restrictions for vape shops.
•Staff outlined expected deliverables including land-use recommendations, incentives and placemaking approaches for Columbia Mall and Decker Boulevard.
•Staff said Planning Next was highest-scoring among 15 proposals.
Decisions
•Committee approved acceptance of the Metz property donation.
•Committee approved ordinance amendment to chapter 18-6.
•Contract award approved to ME Contracting for restroom renovation.
•Contract awarded to Planning Next; project to be delivered within nine months after notice to proceed.
•Contract award to MBcon approved.
•Multiple contract awards and a contract amendment were approved by recorded votes.
Directions
•Clarify timeline and milestones for committee review.
•Finance to confirm contingency and contract payment procedures.
•Proceed to finalize contract and issue notice to proceed; initiate public engagement.
•Proceed with closing; staff to handle monitoring under existing capacity.
•Procurement and departments to execute contracts and provide follow-up schedules.
•Procurement to finalize contract and bond draw schedule.
•Staff to finalize ordinance text and coordinate enforcement details with clerk and county attorney.
•Staff to provide a construction schedule to the committee (follow-up task added).
