Eight Project Pascalis lawsuit motions to be heard March 1

Matthew Christian, Aiken Standard, S.C.
·4 min read

Jan. 30—Eight motions made by defendants in the July 5 lawsuit filed to stop Project Pascalis are set to be heard March 1.

Judge William Keesley, a judge from the 11th Judicial Circuit, will hear motions from Aiken Economic Development Director Tim O'Briant, the Aiken Municipal Development Commission, former development board Chairman Keith Wood, former development board Commissioner Catina Broadwater, RPM Development Partners, the Aiken Design Review Board, Aiken Mayor Rick Osbon and the city of Aiken at 2 p.m. March 1 via Webex.

The lawsuit was filed July 5, 2022. It challenged the actions of the Aiken Municipal Development Commission, Aiken City Council, O'Briant, the Aiken Design Review Board and RPM Development Partners on the downtown project named after one of the designers of the city's unique street grid.

Project Pascalis was a $75 million plus redevelopment effort involving the block surrounded by Laurens Street, Richland Avenue, Newberry Street and Park Avenue in the heart of downtown Aiken.

The Project Pascalis plan called for the demolition of the vacant Hotel Aiken and a building next to it on Laurens Street and the construction of a 100-room hotel in their place. The Holley House and several buildings located between it and Newberry Street, including most of the former C.C. Johnson Drug Store, would be demolished to make way for an apartment complex and parking garage. The city's former municipal building would be expanded into a conference center.

The Aiken Municipal Development Commission voted to stop the project Sept. 29. The proposed developer, RPM Development Partners, sent notice it was terminating its interest in the project Sept. 14.

O'Briant's motion asks the court to dismiss him from the lawsuit. Columbia attorney Michael Wren filed the motion on O'Briant's behalf Nov. 1, 2022.

Wren argues O'Briant is not a proper party to the suit as his actions were taken on behalf of the city or the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (O'Briant was also executive director of the commission) and therefore, the city and commission, not O'Briant, are proper parties to the suit.

The Aiken Municipal Development Commission motion asks the court to require plaintiffs David Blake, Luis Rinaldini, Dick Dewar, Jenne Stoker, B.B. McGhee, Gail King, the Historic Aiken Foundation, the Green Boundary Foundation and the South Carolina Public Interest Foundation to make a more definitive allegation in their complaint.

Specifically, Commission attorney David Morrison asks for more specific allegations of how the commission violated the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act.

The motion was filed Oct. 28, 2022.

Morrison also filed a motion Oct. 28, 2022 to dismiss Municipal Development Commissioners Wood, former Vice Chairman Chris Verenes, former Secretary/Treasurer David Jameson, Marty Gillam, Philip Merry and the Rev. Doug Slaughter from the suit.

He argues the commissioners were acting as alter egos of the commission, which is also a party to the suit and as such the individual defendants should be dismissed as duplicative.

Morrison filed a third motion Oct. 28 to dismiss former Commissioners Catina Broadwater, Stuart MacVean and Chad Matthews from the suit.

In this motion, he argues the three former commissioners should be dismissed because they are no longer commissioners, they have no intention of becoming commissioners in the future and their actions were taken on behalf of the commission, making it, not the individual members the proper parties to the suit.

Charleston attorney Charles Baker III — James Weatherholtz was later named Baker's replacement — filed a motion to dismiss RPM Development Partners from the lawsuit Sept. 30, 2022.

Baker argued RPM Development Partners should be dismissed from the suit because the claims are moot since the project was canceled by the Municipal Development Commission and RPM withdrew from the project in mid-September.

The Design Review Board motion asks the court for two things: Dismiss the suit because the plaintiffs did not file an appeal of the Design Review Board decision approving the demolition of the Hotel Aiken in time, that the suits against the individual design review board members should be dismissed as duplicative, and alternatively, to make more definitive allegations of how the board violated the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act.

Osbon's motion, made by Columbia attorney Daniel Plyler, asks the court for a protective order until the city of Aiken's motion is resolved.

The city of Aiken motion is similar to the motions filed by the Design Review Board and Municipal Development Commission in that it asks for the individual city council members to be dismissed from the suit as duplicative because there actions were taken as an alter ego of the city.