Plan Discussion: A Thorough Review
In the grand tradition of local governance, wherein the deliberative process unfolds with the precision of a chess match and the occasional chaos of a county fair, the Kershaw County Planning Commission (KCPC) convened on February 10, 2025, to discuss, among other matters, the much-anticipated Comprehensive Plan. This document—ostensibly a roadmap for the county’s future—became the subject of rigorous scrutiny, passionate public comment, and no small amount of procedural maneuvering.
The Setting: Public Concerns and Commission Debate
The evening’s discussion was prefaced by a spirited public comment period in which multiple citizens voiced concerns about the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Lynn Conto, for instance, delved into the demographic breakdowns presented in the document, questioning the racial and educational data and their implications. She also pointed out inconsistencies in housing models and the portrayal of agricultural and equestrian lands. Of particular note was her insistence on stronger protections for rural and conservation areas, specifically in Hunt Country and other equestrian zones.
Echoing these concerns, Linda Kanatzar criticized the current draft for its aesthetic embellishments and apparent detachment from Kershaw County’s actual needs. She noted the omission of the airport from the plan and found it disconcerting that the consulting firm’s data sources—such as the Kershaw County Chamber of Commerce—were outdated. Another speaker, Linda Franklin Moore, lambasted the consultant for relying on public feedback to identify critical omissions rather than conducting a thorough, independent assessment.
These public grievances set the stage for the Planning Commission’s own debate, which revolved around three major themes: the accuracy and integrity of the data, the process for revising the draft, and the role of the consulting firm.
The Commission’s Debate: A Plan in Need of Revision
Commissioners expressed their own frustrations with the draft. Acting Chairman Jonathan Proctor sought clarity on whether the consultant had provided the raw survey data that shaped the plan. It became evident that this data was still forthcoming, raising concerns about whether the conclusions drawn were truly representative of community sentiment.
Robert Horton raised the issue of "where to start," noting that public comments had highlighted a broad array of discrepancies. The process, as outlined by Planning Director Joey Adam’s, would involve the commission producing a "redline version" of the draft, incorporating suggested amendments before presenting it to County Council. Given the timeline, a workshop was suggested as a means to efficiently tackle the necessary revisions.
Commissioner Chris Renfro delved into the document’s references to subdivisions and housing models, questioning whether the proposed “nodes” and “interconnected neighborhoods” aligned with Kershaw County’s character or if they were more reflective of urban planning ideals borrowed from the consultants' home base in Chicago. Planning Director Adam’s attempted to assuage these concerns, explaining that such terminology was broad and adaptable.
The future land use map also became a focal point of discussion. Some commissioners felt that it lacked specificity, especially in comparison to those of neighboring counties such as Lancaster and Richland. The question was raised: should Kershaw adopt a more granular, parcel-based land use approach? The answer, according to Adam’s, was one of cost. A more detailed map would require significantly greater financial investment, leading the county to opt for a more general framework.
A Consultant in the Hot Seat
One of the more contentious moments came when commissioners scrutinized the role of the consulting firm, which was paid a hefty $300,000 for their work on the plan. Commissioner Proctor voiced concerns about the consultant’s level of expertise in Kershaw County’s unique landscape, particularly when it was revealed that some members of the consulting team were unaware of major historical sites. This revelation sparked debate about whether future consultants should be required to possess more localized knowledge.
Commissioner Mason Wolfe asked whether any revisions had already been drafted based on public feedback, to which Director Adam’s replied that no updates had been made yet—the commission’s input was required first. This procedural rigidity did little to quell anxieties that public concerns might be sidelined in favor of expediency.
The Path Forward
By the end of the meeting, there was a consensus that a workshop would be necessary to methodically address the various concerns raised. The March meeting was tentatively targeted for a finalizing of amendments before submission to County Council.
One lingering issue was the Comprehensive Plan’s relationship with zoning regulations. Several commissioners underscored that zoning and land development rules must align with the plan’s vision. As a result, a more precise definition of land use categories, conservation protections, and infrastructure development priorities would be necessary to ensure that the plan serves as an actionable guide rather than a decorative exercise in urban planning jargon.
Final Thoughts: A Plan Worthy of the County?
The debate surrounding the Comprehensive Plan underscores a familiar tension in local governance—how to balance growth with preservation, progress with tradition, and expertise with local knowledge. What the commission seemed to demand—rightly so—was a document that reflects Kershaw County as it is, rather than an abstract urban planner’s vision of what it should be.
If the February 10th meeting is any indication, this document will not pass without serious revisions. The commission, backed by a vocal segment of the public, has made it clear that they will not rubber-stamp a plan that lacks clarity, accuracy, and a genuine commitment to Kershaw County’s future. The March workshop will reveal whether this ambitious overhaul is truly feasible—or if the Comprehensive Plan remains just another well-intentioned but disconnected piece of bureaucracy.
The stakes? Nothing less than the identity and future trajectory of Kershaw County itself.
