Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Five minutes to give another member a chance to get [Music]

This is the town of Batesburg, Leville regular planning commission meeting for October the 20th, 25. We have our roll call. Laura Gillespie, she's here. Shawn Bryant here. Jennifer Edwards. Ljourna Williams. Rachel Taylor here. Riley Adams here. Johnny May Lemon here. Old business. You know, we're missing one thing on here. Approval of the minutes. Yeah, it's on that. You got an early copy, don't you?

Yeah, I did. Okay. So, approval of the minutes for August 18th. We'll do that one first. Motion to approve. Make a motion to approve. Second. Mo approval of the minutes for September 15, 2025. All those in favor? I I I All right. Now do the Okay. Old business. This is I know we have No, we got September 15th. Hey, we just did it, didn't we? You did 18. September 15, 2025. Motion to approve. Second. All those in favor? I I

I old business.

Finally, a conservation subdivision to include cluster housing preliminary plat for Woodlon subdivision submitted by Samford Enterprises Vista Carolina LLC. And this is located on Woodlon Street, Pinewood Drive, Brookwood Drive, Amos Street, and Lakeside Drive. It's TMS number 00700 0-1-11 and 000700-1-38. The proposed subdivision consists of 20.95 acres with 115 lots.

Make a motion to discussion. Second. a motion to consider first, but okay, we'll just jump right to it. We want to discuss it. Okay. So, we'll go ahead with um district two wants to go ahead and discuss. Discuss it. Yeah. Do we have somebody here with Woodland? And if you'll just introduce yourself, please. Good evening, commission. I'm Nathan Kemper. I am the representative of Sanford Enterprises and Vista Resources. I serve as the project manager for both entities. Good evening.

My first first question, have you re reviewed the road repair agreement that was submitted by the town of Batesburg? We have and we submitted some modifications to your uh city manager as well as the attorney.

Do we have the the modifications? So, the copy that you have is the latest copy and that was what was agreed to by council uh last week at the the council meeting. Um, and so you've got one copy that I put on your desk uh just a few minutes ago with had a few highlighted sections that were some of the main points, but that is the agreement. There have been some back and forth and then the copy you have is the the final version that was agreed to by both parties. Should I go ahead and read out those highlighted areas for um our witness? Well, we've all got it. Everybody's got Okay. Has it been signed by either party? No, ma'am. It has not.

We are willing to sign it as soon as there has been a consensus. We didn't feel like it was appropriate to go ahead and sign it until there is that consensus. There's been a lot of questions, a lot of back and forth, a lot of dialogue until we have what we consider an agreed to agreement. you know, we just didn't feel like it was prudent to go ahead and sign it for there just to be further changes.

And and from the the town perspective, uh council uh voted on this and then it comes back to you because planning commission was the one that set the stipulation uh during the review process. And so I may I may word this incorrectly, but the stipulation was for the roads to be brought up to standard and transferred to the county. I believe those were the two main points. And and correct me if I'm wrong on that. I think it was contingent upon them bringing up to the county standards, not necessarily trans so that they would adopt them.

And so so this is a little bit different. the they the agreement does bring them up to uh the standard uh in in the duties of VISTA item one u it does talk about uh the design and engineering and item two it does refer to the professional engineer register with the state of South Carolina so they would be brought up to state standards u the the item that is a little bit different and I'll I'll defer to Nathan with regards to that because uh we had specifically talked about it being transferred to the county. This document is transferring ownership to uh Vista Carolas uh with the intent that the HOA would be uh maintaining them through a private ownership. U the uh blue section uh it does talk about the easements uh to make sure that the easements would allow us for utility purposes. Uh we have water and sewer in the area uh to continue the access there and then also public access as there is a Babcock center uh uh an apartment complex and then a single family residence that is outside of the the project that those entities would still have access even with the private ownership. So that was um the the things that the town and Vista Carolinas had worked on that was a little bit different than what was set in the stipulation. But the main main thing is Vista Carolina ownership as opposed to transferring it to the county. And I'll defer to Nathan on that.

Yeah. So the intent is to either give it to the county, which is preferable, or to the HOA. Um the more we have investigated this with the county, there's really not a good mechanism for city roads to go to the county. That's not to say it's impossible, but it's an uphill battle. Quite honestly, that is the preferable situation there. But we have done a lot of research. You know, there are a number of neighborhoods throughout the state of South Carolina that the HOA does maintain the roads.

Um, you know, the roads are owned by the community. You know, we do believe the roads need to be brought up to a modern standard and make sure that works for everybody. You know, we believe this agreement demonstrates that intent. Um, you know, we did the math on what it is. I'm not going to disclose that fully yet, but we have done the math on the impact to the residents of the community and it's negligible. It's it's a couple extra bucks over the course of a month of HOA dues. It's not something that's going to break the bank. You know, the road's going to have to be resurfaced at some point. The HOA budget will factor that in. So, it's something that's going to be disclosed to the buyers on the front end. You know, again, this is a very, very normal part of community development throughout the state. You know, it may not be the ideal preferred outcome, but the more we do that research, the more we interact with the county staff, you know, we're still going to pursue it, but, you know, we want to at least have two options that we know works. you know, we want to respect you guys request in order to get these roads out of the city maintenance program and we feel like this is the best possible agreement to satisfy all parties.

So, question for you. The Babcock Center that's down there, they're not going to be part of the HOA. How how do you get them to pay their fair share? Honestly, you know, this is kind of off the cuff, but as long as the roads are being maintained, I don't think it comes down to quote unquote fair share. You know, the HOA is going to budget for the roads, therefore the budget's there. You know, it would be nice if they contributed, but history has shown that those types of agreements are very difficult to work out, and it's better for the HOA to just assume that very negligible cost rather than have a protracted back and forth about who's paying. Anybody else?

Well, again, back to my only concern was the quality of of of the roads that they will be brought to the level that should down the road. And I know it does say that you can you choose the third party if you were to um turn them over, but they will be the quality the same that Lexon County would require should that ever happen.

Yes, as per this agreement, we will bring the roads to a modern standard. We have a number of subject matter experts that we have commissioned and that we will continue to commission to make that happen. You know, honestly, they're waiting for the go-ahad based on the results of this vote. You know, those consultants are very, very expensive, and it just didn't seem like a prudent step for us to continue in that design until we all have something concrete. You know, once we have those results, they will be shared with the city staff. That way, they can see them and make sure that everybody's in agreement. But they are professionally licensed, statelicicensed, reputable engineering firms. Okay.

And I will point out this, you know, doing infrastructure is something I've done a lot of. I have a lot of relationships with people in the industry. You know, these these are people who care and they want to make sure it's done right because their names are being put down that it has to be right. Okay.

So, the only thing I have an issue with, and I'm not saying that I won't approve it, but the agreement, and I understand why it would be um for Woodlons, you know, for Vistas um for their interest, but it doesn't technically require you to affirmatively make those repairs within a certain period of time or anything like that. It just says you will undertake the cost of repairing. It doesn't actually say you will repair within, you know, whatever period of time or before the construction commences. So, so in reality, that work needs to be done after the bulk of the construction has been completed. Mhm.

You know, putting a time frame on there is honestly detrimental to all parties. Is if we say, "Hey, we're going to do this work within 12 months. Construction and the community is only at 25% complete." You know, we could comply with the letter of the agreement and say, "Well, it's done. We're hands off. That's not fair to you guys. And that's not fair. And they would still have construction vehicles coming in on those roads until Could you not have it say that after construction is completed on the last house that you have 6 months, 8 months, 12 months, whatever.

There's nothing in the agreement that prevents like the construction from being completed and then assigning ownership of the roads to the HOA without actually repairing the roads. based upon my reading of this.

I think in our minds like I I acknowledge that concern that was something we discussed when we were formulating it, but we feel like the fairest outcome is to go ahead and agree to it and you guys are going to hold us to that agreement and we're going to honor that agreement. You know, we could put some kind of timeline in there, but again, you know, what if construction does take longer than anticipated? you know, it could go faster, it could go longer, then it gets into a position where the roads are falling apart from that active construction traffic and then everybody's like, well, now we need the roads remediated faster. So, this, you know, again, I'm not well, I'm not trying to be flippant. I'm not trying to be dismissive, but it's almost a chicken and egg problem at that point. What comes first? So having an agreement in place that satisfies that we will do that work we think is the fairest outcome to everybody involved so the work's done when it should be done and in the way that it should be done because we don't want to delay something but we also don't want to do it too early.

No I understand that but it doesn't actually bind you to do the work. It just says that if you do the work, you will pay for it, but that you have the right to assign it, which means you could not do the work and still assign it to the HOA and the roads were not repaired, but everything has been built and you guys are all How we read that is we have to do the work. And if we assign it to the HOA, the HOA is not going to accept it if it hasn't been signed off. HOAs have to, you know, protect themselves and their interest. But basically what you're saying is that the roads will be repaired after the the completion of the the housing area. Correct. Is that what you're saying?

Yes, ma'am. And and Riley, if I may ask just for a point of clarity, does two not address the road repairs talking about A2? A2 A2. I mean, it gets into road repairs and construction, but I think it's a little vague to be honest. I I agree with you on that. Okay. And then on also Pinewood Drive, are you going to what are you what is going to be paved on Pinewood Drive? Is that going to be all the way from number one all the way back and around or what all is going to be because it just collectively throws in there just Pinewood Drive. Um, so

and Nathan may not be familiar. Part of that is a stateowned road and then it becomes a municipal. We would go up to the stateowned portion. Unfortunately, when it comes into state responsibilities, legalities start getting crossed. So, we could go up to the stateowned portion, but we can't go any further. Should that wording be put in there up to the state? It's pretty defined. You can I mean, there's a a sign there that says DOT versus the private. So I don't I feel like this agreement does factor that because this is an agreement between the city of Batesburg, Leville, Vista. So obviously the state portion is excluded as a matter of legality.

Town council has signed off on it too. Well, I think the second whereas uh Woodlong contains six roadways that are currently owned and maintained by the town. these roadways are named and and so I think perhaps that section and Riley you're the attorney so you're more in dep in tune with that but obviously we can't transfer the stateowned and we're just talking about the municipal portion of Pinewood correct I mean I'm good with that I just I mean again it goes back to like Riley said there's a lot of I don't want to say gaps but

there's a couple of gaps where it's not necessarily if it's not in writing had it did you know when I was when I was a cop it's not in writing it didn't happen

I understand that completely but again we're operating in an area where timing matters and if we wait too long there's impacts if we don't wait long enough there's impacts so again we don't want to be in a position where we go ahead and do the work because we're under a defined timeline then all of a sudden everybody's like this is not what we thought we were getting you guys need to redo it like well you know we we satisfied the letter of the agreement and we don't want to have that kind of confrontational adversarial relationship with you folks. You know, everybody's been great to work with. It's, you know, we're trying to solve the problems here and we just feel like the more we clearly specify things, the more everybody's going to regret potentially how it's worth it. What if we approved it subject to adding in a provision that you can't transfer ownership until the construction's been completed? That doesn't define a time period or anything that it has to be completed by, but you can't assign it to the HOA or a third party until the repairs are done. I would be willing to say for the HOA, but I don't think it's uh fair to say any other third parties because if we sell our ownership stake in this to another developer, for example, if somebody else comes in and says, "Hey, we want to assume this project, you know, we have to have the ability to navigate that circumstance."

Well, they could always just assume the obligation under this agreement if they did purchase your interest in the development. See?

Yeah. I don't know. And this is a complicated scenario. You know, it's not something that's usually done. You know, we're trying to navigate the paths between all parties to have the best possible outcome. So, I definitely understand your concerns, Commissioner. Our goal is to make this as simple for everybody long term as possible. And you understand our standpoint. We are trying to protect not just the residents over there, but the town, the residents. I mean, y'all, everybody.

So, I mean, that's all right. I want to make sure everybody has asked all the questions that you have or All right. Do do we want to have a motion to accept this agreement on the road repair agreement? Do we enter today's date or do we enter it when they sign with you? Well, I think what are we just making it it

if y'all are are willing to accept this agreement that council has approved to meet the stipulation set forth uh several months ago. Uh I think that that is meeting the the intent of that's right that it we are stipulating that the contingency we placed on placed it on hold that this satisfies that and therefore it can move forward. Correct. Isn't that So how would you like me to work word the motion? Well, I won't be making the motion but the Well, I think Rachel I think she worded that well. I I'm not a words by any means. I I do think that um accept hers then

we we accept it that it does meet the contingency that we placed on uh the the um project and that that was at the preliminary plat stage, wasn't it? Um and that uh if we accept then since it satisfies our contingency then that's our vote whether it does or does not. So your motion is that is that your motion then? Yes. That this agreement is this agreement meets the requirements and contingencies that we put on it. A great move. Okay.

Motion. You got that motion to accept. I guess my question, and I don't want to step in too much here, but does that satisfy the town's requirements for us to proceed with engineering and design based on that wording? If they adopt if they agree to this with the motion that was just set forth, council has voted. So then it would it would pick up again with the planning commission to move forward at that point. Uh you would go back to whatever point y'all had put the pause on it. Uh was that the preliminary plan? Is that what you were just saying, Rachel? I I'm sure it was at the preliminary plan stage and so it will resume at that point

and and it it then it goes to be signed by y'all and the town planning commission doesn't sign it. Yes. And and at that point, you know, the the next step from town council would be an ordinance uh that would require two readings in a public hearing to transfer ownership, but that that would be down the line a little bit. So So this satisfies the ability for us to move into design. Correct. Once we vote once we vote if an affirmative vote. Yes. It if it if they take the stipulations off. Yes. All right. So we're good with the motion that I made. Okay. So So we need a second on the second.

All right. You just restate it. Yeah. Motion to vote to approve the agreement made between the town and Vista resource resources LLC LLC for road repair. For road repair. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Rachel. Okay. So, um it's been moved and second. Motion carries. We just No, we haven't voted. We'll go with the vote first. District two votes no.

Rachel, I vote yes. Um, [Music]

six votes yes. Vote yes. One votes yes. [Music] So it has been moved and second and motion and the motion carries uh the vote. So we so the vote does carry. Okay. Thank you time this evening. Thank you.

Thank you for your time. Y'all spent a lot of months on this. Okay. We're going to new business. So we'll start with a. This is a request by Claudia Donnelly Old House Properties LLC to reszone property located at 413 Hartley Street. It is TMS number 007020 05 004 consisting of.37 acres requesting the property be reszone from C1 general commercial to R3 multifamily residential. Do a motion to place this request for consideration.

Motion. Do I have a second? I second the motion. Riley seconds it. Okay. So, everybody can see the map up here. And I know y'all reviewed that map over and over again this weekend. Any discussion? We don't have anybody here from No, nobody repres. So, we do have a motion to discuss it though. I make a motion that we discuss. Second. Thank you. Okay. All right, Rachel, would you like to kick us off? Well,

of course. Um, my concern was the fact that it um is for multif family dwellings as well and the acreage is 37 acres. Uh, first of all, for those that this is con the property now is zoned C1. All of that property along there is C1. Um the only property close to it is across the street and it's about three acres that has uh a zoning of R3 which is what she's asking for because it's to be used as a residence. My discussion is um it it's allowed uh for single family, two family um but not group housing until there's a change in the square footage. But if we zone it R3 and they sell it later, are we is it coming back before us? Um, I know the the intent of the buyer is a single family residence,

but once we've reszoned it and something happens and they sell it, then it's reszoned as our three and it would allow that other designation. Correct. Yeah. Once we reszone it, um, you we can't just pull it right back. Um,

so I agree with you there. if they're planning on using it, I would like to see a zoning request for for a different uh district. And if I may, the the reason the uh applicant requested R3 is there is no R1 or R2 contiguous. R3 was the only option and it does allow for single family residential. on the map on the screen, all of that orange is R3 and I don't know why all of that is zoned multif family, but but that is the the zoning designations in that area. So that was the reason for the request. It is a an older home. The reason it it was grandfathered as residential, but it sat vacant for so long, it is now deemed commercial and for her to uh restore it to residential, it needs to be reszoned back to our to a residential

and everything from Perry Street to Fair Avenue on that side of the street has is uh zoned C1.

Everything I don't understand why when it is all residential. And again, referring back to the map on the screen, all of the red is is commercial C1. Uh, yes, there there is a lot of residential in that area that's zone commercial. Um, I I assume that goes back to some planning commission actions um way before my time. Um, again, there it was a wide paint brush of R3 and and C1 in that area. That doesn't quite make sense, but that's neither here nor there. How we got here is is not the point. But um just just to provide clarity, that was the request. Um again, uh one of the questions have been raised about the acreage. It's I believe it's 37.37.

Um the minimum uh acreage or square footage is 6,000 foot lot for R3 for one housing unit. So it does meet the minimum requirement. Uh it does not meet the minimum requirement for group housing. So uh that doesn't mean they couldn't turn it into a duplex. They certainly could. Uh but again uh uh from staff's opinion, it it met the the minimum qualifications to be brought to you for that reasoning request. Again, we don't we're not saying preference. We're just bringing it to you that it does meet the the requirement to be considered and it's not close enough to the historic district to come under any of that.

I would think not several blocks from any of the historic buildings. So, who's the applicant again? Donnelly. Mhm. Okay. But it's an L. She's got an LLC that it's actually in. Yeah. I mean, I'm curious why if she's planning on living there, she's got it transferred into Old House Investments LLC. If she's just um if she's going to live there, if she was going to flip it or something, you know, rehab it and then flip it, that makes more sense. But that's what my question was. I mean, I think she's probably going to turn it into a duplex.

Yeah. Well, I wish he was here to answer some of those those questions that we could delay. We can delay this. We could delay this. Yeah, if y'all I mean we've done this before. Um I'd say vote on it. Is that your motion? Um I I have one more question about this. So studying other communities that have some historic properties, you know, you think about the charm of the town and everything else and you look at that and I I would say that's probably what Rachel you you figured 1910 1920s in there that house

probably. It's a southern vernacular definitely. Um, so do we take that into consideration or Well, I you know, it would certainly be an enhancement to that area for it to be rehabbed. That's uh something that I also feel like we need to consider. Um, some communities are doing exceptions for things like this. Um, I think Bufort's one that's doing it. Um,

don't there was another community in South Carolina, but it's not in our ordinances. I couldn't find anything in our ordinances that allow for that, right? If if I may, I assume you could table this matter and and we reach out to the property owner and and say you really need to attend the next uh I don't think the word is tableabling. I think Yeah, I'm not as me one moment. I'll get the right word motion to postpone indefinitely.

We would just have to pull it pull it back then. Yeah. So, I mean, so the LLC is registered in her name, right? So, I just think it's you're not planning on living somewhere that you transferred out of your name into an LLC and then apply for resoning request. To me, that's a a business move. So, um I would like to see it renovated, but I think it's probably going to end up being a a flip. Yeah. Like an apartment complex or something. A duplex. I wouldn't have an issue. Well, without her being here, it's I I just think we should a lot of those historic Let her come back. Yeah.

A lot of those homes were do turned into duplexes temporarily like during World War I, World War II. Well, I I do think this is an area that we need to look at when we're talking about resoning as well of why this section, which is all residential. I don't ever see it within our lifetime of being commercial on that part of the street. And maybe that's something that that we can revisit about reszoning uh what's already there now um from C1 to R1. [Music] All right.

So, has that motion been made? Do no to table it? No. Is that Do do you do y'all want to do that? It wouldn't be tableabling, right? No, it's not going to be table. It's going to be because that would kill the motion if we um table it. It would be a motion to postpone indefinitely or we could post we could set an exact date of next whatever the next date is the next to the next meeting. What's the date? Jay, do you think that somebody could reach out or Becky to and so that that she has a representative here? I think we have questions.

Excellent. Okay. So, I need someone to make a motion to post postpone till the next meeting. Well, I think I make a motion that we postpone till the next meeting and preferably have someone here as a representative. That that date is November the 17th. Okay, I second the motion. Okay. Do we need to vote on that? I want to postpone it. I think we should go ahead and vote just to tie it in. Okay. District two votes yes to postpone. Yes. Six votes yes. Yes.

And one votes yes. The motion carries to po to postpone in um till the next meeting of the planning board. All right. So we got that request. Uh let's go to B. That's a request from Batesburg Leville Investors LLC for an annexation to parcels located on Line Street, Lexington County, TSM, TMS number 05900 0805. It's in and then Saluda County is TMS number 183- Wait. Yeah, that's right. The next one's in like uh Saluda County TMS number 1830901 and O3. And then the next one is TMS number 18309104. The petition requested the property have a zoning of R1 single family residential. Do I have a motion to place this request for consideration?

Motion. Second. Thank you. Do I have a motion to open this request for discussion? Motion a second. Thank you. All right, Miss Lemon, do you have any discussion on that? No, I'm not really familiar with the area, so I'm not sure. Do we have anyone here on behalf of this request? No.

No, we do not. Um and I we may not have communicated that to the uh the property owner. Uh they have come and met with us before and as laid out in the packet uh the vast majority of these properties already lie within the town limits and this is to bring the rest of those parcels into the town limits. Um and the acreage uh total is 51.3 acres but the portion to be annexed is roughly 20 acres. So 31 acres already lies within the town and the portion that is already in town is already zoned R1. So this would be

and pretty much everything around there is R1. Correct. So this this would be the same zoning that the rest of that parcel is. So the Lexon County one is 19.5. The Saluda County there are two of them. One is 0.05 acres and the other one is 0.5 acres more or less. The majority of all three parcels are already located within town limits. The total acreage of the three parcels is 51.3 acres. But the bulk of that already being 31 31 acres is already in town,

right? That is already. So we are just making annexing that that smaller approximately 20 acres the the remainder of of that that has not been annexed. Any more discussion? Okay. make a motion to to vote to approve the annexation for the property as an R1 single family residential. May I have a second on that, please? A second. Okay. Motion to vote.

District two votes yes. Member at large votes yes. Mr. Adams. Um, six votes yes. Votes yes and one votes yes. So, um, the motion carries and it's accepted. Any more? Not on my list. All right. I make a motion to adjurnn. Second. All those in favor? I I Thank y'all for

Thank you everyone. Thank you and thank y'all.