The Aiken City Council on Nov. 10 approved second reading of an ordinance to annex 38.9 acres on Edgefield Highway, Williams Lane and Union Church Lane and approved the project's concept plan while amending the ordinance to allow a one‑time building‑separation waiver reducing the required separation from 20 feet to 15 feet for multistory structures.

Staff described the project as a planned residential development of about 38.9 acres with roughly 3.37 lots per acre, lot widths of 47–67 feet, a minimum house size near 1,500 square feet, seven acres of common open space and on‑site stormwater ponds. Planning staff told council the Planning Commission recommended annexation and approval of the concept plan but did not include the developer’s requested separation waiver as a recommended condition.

At the public hearing, resident Peter Messina urged council to reject the waiver, arguing smaller separations create narrow shaded areas between buildings that are hard to landscape and pose fire‑safety and privacy problems. “The fire marshal … recommendation from the planning commission … does not help fire safety by having buildings this close,” Messina told council, citing the planning commission’s concerns about a 15‑foot gap.

Staff and planning clarified how the city’s code treats separation and setback: two‑story or story‑and‑a‑half structures are treated as two stories and are subject to a 20‑foot building‑separation standard (10 feet from each property line). Planning staff also presented a comparison of other South Carolina jurisdictions showing a range of side‑yard and building‑separation standards.

During council discussion, several council members said the PR zoning language needs review so council doesn’t repeatedly face ad‑hoc waiver decisions. Motion records show the council first moved to approve the ordinance as presented and then adopted an amendment to condition number one to permit 15‑foot building separation for this subdivision only. The mayor announced the tally as 6‑0 in favor with one council member out of the room.

The council’s action: second reading passed with an amendment granting the applicant’s requested reduction in building separation for this project; the Planning Commission’s previously stated condition that the developer comply with zoning defaults was superseded for this parcel by council action. The development will still be subject to building‑inspector and fire‑marshal review during permitting.

Next steps: the ordinance was approved on second reading with the amendment; further site planning, permitting and construction approvals will follow planning, building‑inspection and fire‑marshal review.