|
Developer gives up Rifle Range project, alleges politics
By Rachel Pleasant
Staff Writer
I’On developer Vincent Graham has put aside plans to develop 107 acres along Rifle Range Road in Mount Pleasant, saying he doesn’t want to deal with a biased town council.
The town mayor and several council members, meanwhile, are bristling over Graham’s accusations.
In a letter dated Aug. 29 and addressed to town Mayor Harry Hallman Jr., Graham said his company was in the process of purchasing the Rifle Range land, which is near Hungryneck Boulevard, from McAlister Development Co. I’On had envisioned a mix of homes and commercial space for the land, though the town never received any official plans, said town administrator Mac Burdette.
Those plans were scrapped after a recent council vote regarding an I’On request to amend its planned development ordinance, Graham explained in his letter.
According to Mary Jane Blatchford, the town planner who reviewed the I’On request, I’On wanted to increase the amount of allowed commercial square footage, increase the maximum building height from 38 feet to 40 feet and eliminate eave height requirements in the neighborhood.
The town council voted the request down by a 5-to-4 margin, despite the fact that the planning commission had voted unanimously for approval and the planning committee approved it 3 to 1.
In his letter, Graham said council members Kruger Smith and Gary Santos, both of whom voted against the request, have “consistently opposed I’On.” Smith and Santos were joined in their vote by council members Bobby Utsey, Larry Carr and Hallman.
“It is a shame when politicians allow absorption in their political prejudices to interfere with the general welfare of the town or the availability of choices to its citizenry,” Graham wrote.
Graham called the council vote an injustice and reiterated I’On’s contributions to the community. I’On serves as an example for developers nationwide as well as internationally, its residents sponsor community events and I’On has contributed $450 million to Mount Pleasant’s tax base, he said in the letter.
“We expect no special attention for what most feel is an example of good citizenship,” Graham wrote. “However, one hopes such public spiritedness would at least entitle us the decency of a courteous and professional hearing.”
The council vote, Graham wrote, led I’On to reconsider its plans for the area off Rifle Range Road.
“Unfortunately, the discourse, or lack thereof, at the last council meeting gave us pause,” the letter said. “Not wishing to risk the time and money of the sellers—Anthony McAlister and his partners, or that of our investors, consultants, planning staff, planning commission or council—we have chosen to forego this endeavor.”
An exasperated Hallman said in an interview last week that planned development ordinances are deals between the town and the developers, and both parties have to stick to that deal.
As for Graham’s accusations of bias, Hallman said, “I don’t respond to things like that.”
Council member Smith said he opposed I’On when it was initially proposed years ago and would do the same today.
“At the time, it was completely surrounded by single-family lots. There was nothing multifamily or high-density in site. It was zoned single-family,” Smith said.
Regarding I’On’s most recent request, Smith said it represented a further departure from the surrounding community. That was the basis for the council’s vote, not a prejudice against the development.
Furthermore, Smith said Graham and I’On have been given plenty of leeway from the council.
“We’ve given an awful lot of concessions. He got commercial zoning. He got alleys. He got a much higher density. He got a lot of things that are inconsistent with the surrounding subdivisions,” Smith said. “He kept asking for more and more deviations. I felt like we had been very generous, and I couldn’t see any compelling reason for this change.”
As for Graham’s letter, Smith said unless Graham can show proof “the council and the mayor did something wrong, it’s insulting.”
Council member Gary Santos took offense to Graham’s accusations that he has consistently opposed I’On.
“To me, that’s crazy,” Santos said, adding he has coordinated activities at the development, has relatives who are residents of I’On and friends who own businesses in the development.
Santos said when considering a change to a planned development ordinance, it should be a change that will benefit the community.
“I don’t consider changes that are for convenience or private gain,” he said, adding that I’On is a fine community. “He didn’t like it, so he called it politics.”
Council member Utsey defended his vote against I’On’s request and denied any bias against Graham.
“I don’t know Vince Graham socially. I think he’s got a fine project. The reason I voted against the changes is that when a developer brings a project and gets it approved, you live with that,” Utsey said. “My vote has nothing to do with any political reasoning.”
Utsey went on to say he was disappointed that Graham had decided to abandon the Rifle Range project, a sentiment echoed by Hallman.
“It was disappointing to hear him say that,” Hallman said. “It’s like, ‘if you don’t give me something over here, I’m not going to develop this over here on Rifle Range Road.’”
Graham and McAlister did not return phone messages left by the Business Journal.
Rachel Pleasant is a staff writer for the Business Journal. E-mail her at rpleasant@charlestonbusiness.com.
|
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Version