Letters: I am honest, credible, truthful

After reading your article in the Voice, I was very disappointed.  During my service on Richland County Council, I’ve made it a point to be honest, credible, and truthful.  I’m enclosing my original conclusive summary of the July 2 meeting of which can be substantiated be the stenographer’s report whose services were retained by Dr. Cooper.

Mr. Russ Ste. Marie presented the plan that was presented to Richland County Council of which I adamantly opposed from the onset at which time I attempted to reach a compromise by asking the applicant if he would consider giving an additional 100 foot buffer to the his 150 foot plan to provide the adjacent community with a 250 foot buffer as an alternative which would require a reconfiguration to allow for 205 homes.

The enclosed copy of the email will support my account of the dialogue between the pros, cons, applicant and myself. [That email, which is too long to print here will be included with the story on The Voice’s website.] As stated in summary, you can clearly see that I stated that I would proceed with 2nd reading; thus between 2nd and 3rd reading negotiations the applicant would redesign the plan to demonstrate how the 250 ft. buffer would coincide with the 205 homes on the property.

Yes, I did state that I would share the conversation with council; however, I did not specify when I would share the information because I was trying to maintain a degree of confidentiality prior to the meeting.  I was shocked when I received a copy of an email sent to members of Council after the “cons” had a meeting following the July 2nd meeting stating their continued opposition to the rezoning prior to the 2nd reading of which was totally contrary to the discussion on July 2nd.  It was inappropriate because there was no way that the applicant would have time before 2nd reading to reconfigure/redesign the zoning request that is why it was discussed that I would let members of Council know that I met with the community and the applicant and move to proceed with 2nd reading and the 3rd reading would be predicated upon the following:

  1. Redesign the plan to provide a 250 foot buffer to be offered to Richland County Conservation Commission.
  2. Reconfiguration redesign plan to allow for 205 homes.

The discussion included that the redesigned plan would hopefully be agreed upon prior to the first Council meeting in September.  There was never any discussion that a meeting would transpire before the 2nd reading.

I apologize for writing such a long response to the article; however, I deemed it necessary because, I believe that truth will always prevail.

 

Joyce Dickerson

Richland County Council