Lancaster County Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'd like to call this meeting of the Lancaster County Council to order. I ask that the clerk note for the record that a quorum of council is present, that public notice of the meeting, including the meeting agenda, has been posted the required length of time in the lobby of the county administration building and on the county website, and that the news media was notified of the meeting time and place. I welcome you to your county council meeting. I would ask that you take a moment to turn off or place on vibrate any cell phones. Thank you for not wearing any hats or caps in the council chambers. And please be considerate of others in the room by refraining from conversations during the meeting. I ask that you please stand and join council for the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by the invocation given this evening by Councilmember Bryant Neal.

Let us pray. Our gracious Heavenly Father, God, we just want to thank you for this day, God. Thank you for the many blessings you've given us. Thank you for each one that came out today that cares enough about our county, God. Thank you for them. Just lead, guide, and direct us during this meeting that we'll make the best decisions for the citizens of Lancaster County. In Jesus' name we pray, amen.

Amen. Okay, do we have any changes to the agenda as submitted? Hearing none, I'll call for a motion to approve the agenda. So moved. I have a motion from Ms. McGriff. Second. I have a second from Mr. Luis. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. All those opposed, it's unanimous. Okay, now we're going to go on to citizens' comments. We now come to citizens' comments. Please bear in mind that this is not a period of dialogue with council or a question and answer period. This is your opportunity to address council with your concerns. I ask that you address your remarks to council as a body and not to any individual council member. Please speak into the microphones, state your name and address for the record, and you will have up to three minutes to address council. Your time will not start until you have provided your name and address. Mr. Paul Kohlberg.

Can you hear me all right? Paul Colberg, I live in Sun City. Is that enough? OK, yes. I live in Sun City, and I'm here to talk about the development along 521. I'm not opposed. I'm talking, and I'm not opposed to it. In fact, in some respects, I'm quite in favor of it. We are, though, respectfully asking city council to postpone the third reading of the zone changes ordinance until some outstanding public safety and zoning issues are fully addressed. took the opportunity to review the MOUs C.F. Smith submitted to county council on 7-20 and 8-10. Both versions of the draft MOUs protect the interest of C.F. Smith, but not the interest of Lancaster County, its residents, and businesses. the council should consider some revisions on this let's go on issue one buffers between sf smith shopping center and adjacent single-family homes we need to correct the mou and concept plan to read 80 feet in depth that runs the entire length of the rear of the shopping center two 1.2 current language for the laurel hill park apartments Developer also commits to the dedication of approximately 4.7 acres located at the north end of the property open space and the dedication of approximately 4.6 acres located at the south end of the property as open space with trails and amenity features. Residents of Laurel Hill single family homes and parks and apartments should have the same peaceful use as the Shellywood single family homes. Correct the MOU for both developments to read. 2. Extend the same buffer requirements to Shellywood single-family homes, and 2. Laurel Hill Parkstone to the north and south of the proposed shopping center. Add a 40-foot wide buffer that runs east and west of the C.F. Smith shopping center along Laurel Hill and Murphy of the rear border of the shopping center on 521. Finally, add a 20-foot berm of Evergreen's palisade-style fence eight feet high along Laurel Hill and Murphy Road to the exterior rear border of the shopping center on 521. Issue two, road improvements. Current language for the traffic signal on 521, Murphy Drive in Halifax. To the north of the intersection on Laurel Hill and Charlotte Highway, developers propose to install and subject to SCDOT approval, signalized full movement intersection serving the property that will locate opposite Halifax Drive and available to the public. This language needs to be removed and all specifications in the approved SCODT preliminary traffic plan need to list line for line on CF Smith's MOU and concept plan. Finally, perhaps the required external internal improvements must be completely renegotiated to improve traffic circulation and prevent accidents. again i'm asking you to please postpone the third reading until these outstanding safety issues can be resolved and included in the mou thank you thank you miss jane mccoy

Thank you. My name is Jean McCoy. I live at 9213 Whistling Strait Drive in Indian Land, South Carolina, 29707. I am here again asking you, as many others have done and have been ignored as I have been, to please vote no on Ordinance 2026-2012. We have given you a litany of valid reasons in the past months which all boil down to We do not have the infrastructure in place to accommodate this rezoning. If you truly cared about the wishes of the people who elected you, you would have voted against this before now. Please don't ignore the request to vote no again. Thank you. Thank you.

Ms. Jane Alford.

I have something for you.

You can give it to the clerk.

Hi, my name is Jane Alford and I'm here on behalf of the Lancaster County Council of the Arts at 201 West Gay Street, Lancaster, South Carolina 29720. What I'm passing out is some fans and photo pages from our last public art event. And that's what I'm here to talk about. I want to share the Lancaster County Council of the Arts' newest public art projects on the Lindsay Pettus Greenway. On July 11th, we unveiled the first phase of the Greenway Art Columns, honoring the textile heritage of Lancaster County. It included 12 art columns, which are 4 by 4 inch vertical posts wrapped in nature-themed designs by local and regional artists. They're topped by steel bees, butterflies, birds, and leaves designed by local sculptor Bob Doster. About 75 people, including the artists and their families, braved the heat to see and hear all about the new art columns from Kathy Phillips, the curator of the Baxter Mill Archives, which provided the textile inspiration for the columns. We were happy to see Elle Close, whose family helped fund the first phase of the project, along with Tyson Wright from the Duke Energy Foundation and Lancaster County Council Chairman Brian Carnes there too. Thank you for coming to the event, Chairman Carnes. The first 12 columns are placed in groups of three along the Greenway, with signage indicating the artists and names of their artworks, and a QR code for more information on the project and the artist's statements. Each artist's design was inspired by a historic Springs industry textile pattern, and each column includes a swatch of that source material. The Arts Council is seeking more artists to complete the next phase of the project, which includes up to 28 more columns to be installed next spring, so that walking along the Greenway becomes a journey through our county's textile history, told through color, pattern, and contemporary art. For generations, Springs Industries shaped the economic and cultural life of this region, with the Lancaster Mill once the world's largest cotton mill under one roof. This project celebrates the intersection of contemporary art, community identity, and industrial heritage in a vibrant open-air gallery that connects Lancaster's county past to its future in a free, accessible public setting. The LCCA has also embarked on a new project that will showcase the Lindsay Pettus Greenway in a hardcover children's picture book. Acclaimed children's author Derek Wilder and illustrator Annie Gregoire have met with local children on the Greenway to gather their impressions of it and use nature materials from the Greenway to paint pages for the collages that will illustrate the book. We've seen the first draft of the book and are impressed with the way they have made the Greenway's plants, animals, and public art come alive in the book, which will debut at our two-day literary arts festival in the spring. Free copies of the book will be distributed to children at the festival and to local libraries and schools, and it will be available through the Arts Council and the Greenway. We've secured some funding for both projects, but are still seeking additional support from individuals, local corporate partners, and public stakeholders, including the county and the city, for the next phase of the art columns and the children's book projects, which will both be completed next spring. These are the projects that we are seeking funding for through the county's upcoming accommodations tax grants, and we encourage the council to fund them this year. By investing in these projects, Lancaster County is preserving its heritage, expanding access to the arts, and positioning the county as a vibrant destination for generations to come, enhancing both tourism and economic development. Public art is a proven driver of both tourism and economic development, since people want to visit and live in beautiful places. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Janine Clifton. I missed one.

Shadeen Clifton, 2023, Oliver Terrace, Indiana, South Carolina. And I guess what would a Monday here be without me, right? So I'm back again, speaking on behalf of the neighbors concerned in Melanie Lane and the Barberville development. I guess it's my official update. And I have several neighbors here with me today because what I have given to you is 125 separate issues. of potential violations of the UDO and of state and federal law governing wetlands, streams, and stormwaters. So right now we're sitting at a point and I hope everybody understands this isn't a couple of misunderstandings on the UDO. So before we get into individual comments, I have other colleagues and neighbors who are going to be summarizing verbally tonight some of the items or highlights in there. but at the end of the day this matter is beyond one project every property owner who has ever followed the udo who has paid for a site analysis preserve buffers built to the required road standards did it because the rules apply to everyone if these many unresolved issues can sit and to be honest i've been coming over a year now since it was cleared for a year without any consequence every future applicant is learning that this is optional We also want to flag something before it happens. If this applicant comes back asking for a variance because they've already done it, right? They've cleared the land, removed the trees, no plats are approved, but they're moving on. This is awesome. They were just denied after an appeal. Please remember that they're spending the money on their own and a variance granted under that kind of pressure teaches every future applicant that denial is a starting point. This county, and also don't forget, and many of us haven't, you're already trying to unwind something pretty familiar with the precedent on impact fees that shifted the growth to cost on taxpayers. So please don't build a barrel on here, please look at these issues. Beyond our complaints to the county, we've also filed a complaint directly with the US Army Corps of Engineers and the state NPDES permitting agency and received confirmation that both are actively investigating the site relevant to permits and potential violations of the Clean Water Act. So we're not here tonight for a polite hearing. We're asking you to act on what you hear and have received in the packets from the rest of us. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Nancy Cedaya.

Good evening. Nancy Dedea, 1029 Sugar Creek Road, Indian Land, South Carolina. I am a resident of the estates at Sugar Creek Community. My home directly faces the proposed Bridgepoint Charter School across the Sugar Creek Valley off Harrisburg Road. I want to begin by being clear. I support changing this property zoning from light industrial to institutional. I believe institutional zoning is more compatible with the surrounding residential community than the industrial uses currently permitted. I also support education and educational choice. My comments are not intended to oppose the school or the zoning change. They are intended to ensure that as this proposal moves forward, its impact on the surrounding community is fully understood and responsibly addressed. The proposed school has been described as potentially serving approximately 800 to 1,000 students. A school of that size will create significant daily activity, including buses, parent drop-off and pickup, employee traffic, lighting, noise, and vehicle headlights during early morning and evening hours. As I understand it, a full traffic impact analysis would not be required until the civil site design stage. I recognize that this may be a normal sequence in the development process. However, it means that some of the most important information about traffic and infrastructure is not yet available. Because of that, I respectfully ask this council to ensure that the traffic to impact analysis is thorough, transparent, and responsive to the real conditions along Harrisburg Road. it took me five minutes today to leave my street to get onto harrisburg road no traffic lights lots of traffic i also ask that particular attention be given to the property's topography my home and others in the estates at sugar creek have a direct sight line across the valley to this site A standard type A landscape buffer may meet the technical requirement, but it may not adequately address lighting, noise, visibility, and the intensity of activity associated with a school of this size. Supporting the zoning change and asking for responsible planning are not opposing positions. Both can and should happen together. I support the change from light industrial to institutional. At the same time, I ask the council, county staff, and the applicants to work closely with the surrounding community as the site design process proceeds and to ensure that traffic, buffering, lighting, noise, and safety concerns are meaningfully addressed. Growth is important, educational opportunity is important, and thoughtful implementation is what will allow both to succeed.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Calpit Shavari.

Thank you. I'm Kalpit Javeri. I live at 6498 Ancient Way, Indian Land, South Carolina. Neighborhood is Overlook at Barber Rock. So as Janine shared the list of violations earlier, I too would like to continue voicing some specific ones and collectively prepared by our neighbors and be their voice today. So this is about the Melanie Lane-Bubbleville Road development project. The Planning Commission denied this subdivision because it didn't meet the UDO requirements. But I'm not here tonight about the subdivision application. I'm here about what has already happened on the ground right now in violation of this county's ordinance and of state and federal law. Starting with UDO 9.2.10B.2, it says no land disturbing activity may take place until a preliminary plat is approved. Every preliminary plat for this project was denied unanimously by the Planning Commission, and land was disturbed anyway. Grading happened after a unanimous denial, not before one. That's not a paperwork gap, that's construction proceeding in direct defiance of a legal prohibition. On the adjoining GB zoned lot, the principal use has been changed from residential to a wireless communication tower without ever obtaining the zoning permit that UDO 9.2.7A requires for any change of use. UDO 1.4.7 makes it unlawful to erect a structure like this without that permit. There is currently a functioning cell tower on this site with no permit authorizing it as what it is right now. And on the stream itself, both the UDO and the federal permit cap, how much of that channel can be filled? The evidence indicates potentially more streambed has filled than U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have authorized. With sediment discharge offsite into the surrounding watershed. The kind of violation that triggers federal, not just local jurisdiction. None of this depends on how clearly the UDO is written in general. These are hard, bright lines, a plat that was denied, a user with no permit, and a stream filled past its federal authorization. The UDO requires the county to act on each one. I'm asking the council to act on it. Thank you.

Yes, ma'am. I apologize for the mispronunciation.

Good evening. My name is Geeta Balan, and I live at 6507 Ancient Way, Indian Land, South Carolina, 29707. I want to talk about why this case matters beyond one developer and one piece of land on Barberville Road. every property owner in this county who who has ever followed the udo everyone who paid for a site analysis before clearing a lot everyone who put in the required tree preservation buffer Everyone who screened their utility boxes, everyone who built a road to the width the ordinance requires, did that because they believed the rule applied to them. And it applied to them because it applies to everyone. If this county allows a developer to grade a site before its plat was ever approved, add an entirely new principal use to a parcel with no permit at all and fill a federally regulated stream beyond what was authorized and faces no real consequence, then the UDO stops being a rule. It becomes a suggestion and only for the people who choose to follow it. That's not a hypothetical concern. It's a direct incentive. The next developer watching this process is learning exactly what happens if you build first and negotiate later. Nothing. No stop work order enforced, no penalty imposed, no consequence beyond denial. You can simply build around and then argue for forgiveness afterward. The UDO's enforcement provisions exist precisely so that the compliance isn't optional for whoever decides it's inconvenient. UDO 9.4.8 states plainly that violations shall be subject to civil and or criminal penalties, not maybe, shall be. That word matters because it's the only thing standing between a UDO that means something and a UDO that means nothing. I'm not asking you to punish one developer out of spite. I'm asking you to protect every other property owner and applicant in this county who is currently doing it the right way at real cost to themselves because they trust that the rules will be enforced evenly. If they are not enforced here, they won't hold anywhere. Thank you.

Thank you. Shannon Hanksman.

Close. Hankinson.

Thank you. Good evening, my name is Shannon Hankinson and I reside at 6408 Ancient Way, The Overlook at Barber Rock. I too am here about the Melanie Lane-Barberville Road development. I want to share something simple with you, a timeline. Formal complaints on this project go back to August of 2024. The most recent written complaints filed in May and June of this year documented many of the specific violations you've heard about here tonight from our neighbors. grading that proceeded with with the after the preliminary plat was unanimously denied a change of principal use to a wireless tower with no zoning permit extreme fill exceeding federal authorization and more As of tonight, we are not aware of any enforcement action having been taken on any of these items. That is not how a UDO is supposed to work. This isn't a matter of county discretion to decide whether enforcement is worth the trouble. UDO 9.4.3 gives the administrator authority to issue a stop work order the moment a violation is found. UDO 9.4.8D.1 allows the county to seek an injunction through the county attorney. UDO 9.4.8H allows the county to revoke the stormwater permit outright when there's been a failure to comply or when work has substantially departed from what was originally approved. Every one of these tools exists today, ready to use, and none of them require waiting for a subdivision appeal to resolve. We should not have had to file two complaints three months apart to get the county's own ordinance enforced. Citizens shouldn't have to do the county's compliance work for it, and we shouldn't have to come back a third time. There's also a simple issue sitting in the file right now. UDO 9.2.8B.7 says a stormwater permit becomes null and void if a building permit isn't secured within one year of approval. From what we can determine, that window has already passed with no building permit obtained. If that is correct, the work happening on the site today isn't operating under a permit that's slightly out of compliance. It may not be operating under a permit at all. So our ask tonight is direct. Please use the tools the UDO already gives you. Investigate the complaints that are sitting on file. Confirm the violations that are, by the county's own record, still uncorrected. And please take enforcement action the ordinance requires, not eventually, but now. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Gwen Hill.

Thank you for allowing us to come here today. I'm going to read this so that I won't go over time. And maybe I have a couple of minutes to say a couple of things. Good evening, council members. I live in the retreat community, which has about 350 homes across from the proposed CF Smith Shopping Center. I am not here to stop the development. I am respectfully asking the County Council to postpone the third reading of the zone change ordinance until outstanding public safety issues are fully addressed. The C.F. Smith concept plan number eight you have been given includes two big box stores toward the back of the shopping center with several other storefronts closer to 521, probably 521. there are about 8 1 000 parking spaces planned also planning department reports dated may 31st 2026 show that there are 846 unbuilt single-family homes 174 unbuilt apartment units off shelly mullis road this would add an estimated 1800 more vehicles traveling near the proposed shopping center Highway 521 and Shelly Mother's Road are already heavily congested throughout the day, but especially during peak hours. And that includes commute time and school entrance and exits. The increased traffic from the proposed shopping center would make it even more unsafe for us if the county does not require C.F. Smith to implement specific internal and external road improvements in the MOU and include a concept plan. additional cars generated by the shopping center would make it almost impossible for lancaster county our first responders to do their jobs in the retreat or laura hill communities park stone residents and customers and and cf smith's customers to safely make left turns onto probably 521. therefore the two most important road improvements are as follows a traffic signal a uh that controls vehicles across highway 521 between halifax and murphy drive with a right turn lane turn left lane straight across lane in each direction both east and westbound that would enable lancaster county sheriff ems ambulances fire trucks school buses cars and other large vehicles to safely make turns out of there a continued connection with Park Common Avenue to Murphy Drive to enable Parkstone residents and customers to safely make left turns onto southbound Highway 521. Again, please postpone the third reading until these outstanding public safety issues are resolved. Thank you. Thank you. Indian Land is an unincorporated area. And we are dependent on you because you are our only government, local government, to take care of us. Since I've moved here six years ago, I've heard that's going to be a light. That's going to be a light. That was supposed to be 2015.

That's going to be a light.

So please represent us, too, also. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Susie Prosher.

Susie Prosher, 2290 Hartwell Lane, Indian Land. Good evening, County Council. I live in Sun City, which is about 3,200 homes. We are across and just south of the proposed C.F. Smith Shopping Center. I am not here to stop the development. I am respectfully asking the County Council to postpone the third reading of the zone change ordinance until outstanding public safety and zoning issues are fully addressed. I have two issues. Regional business allows multi-family units and commercial businesses. To take the concerns about the development of more apartment units, please ask the county attorney the following questions. Could C.F. Smith change the zoning request from regional business to general business without starting the entire zoning change process over? If yes, could the county council direct staff to coordinate the zoning change from regional business to general business prior to the third reading? If not, what other options does the county have to resolve this issue if C.F. Smith sells the property to another developer? We know the regional business zoning designation would remain on the property. Issue 2. During the 7-2026 Lancaster County Council meeting, CF Smith attorney Mr. Johnson stated, the SCDOT traffic planning engineer for Lancaster County approved the traffic signal at Highway 521 at Murphy Drive, Halifax Drive, and the Laurel Hill realignment. CF Smith paid for and received a traffic impact analysis for the proposed shopping center. CF Smith was in the final stages of writing the agreement with the owner of the Parkstone Center to connect Park Commons Avenue behind Culver's to the CF Smith Internal Service Road at Murphy Drive. I am asking the County Council to require CF Smith to add the following documents to the MOU. Number one, the approval SCDOT preliminary traffic plan. Number two, the C.F. Smith traffic impact analysis. And number three, the executed agreement between C.F. Smith and Wide Waters allowing the connection of Park Commons Avenue behind Culver's to the C.F. Smith Internal Service Road at Murphy Drive. And finally, require C.F. Smith to add the following verbiage to the MOU. all road improvements to be completed and open for public use prior to the start of construction of the remainder of the shopping center. Again, please postpone the third reading until these outstanding public safety and zoning issues are resolved and included in the C.F. Smith MOU and concept plan. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll wait for a moment until they're passed out so we can see what we're talking about.

Thank you.

My name is Barbara Scannell. I live at 81016 Carolina Lakes Way in Sun City. Good evening, County Council. I live in Sun City. I am not here to request the C.F. Smith development not be go forward. I am, though, respectfully asking the County Council to postpone the third reading of the zone change ordinance until outstanding public safety and rezoning issues are fully addressed. I worked for three cities for 20 years. I was responsible for developing and updating first responder communication systems, including coordinating communications capabilities between city, county, and state and federal agencies. I served on technical review committees like what you have here, and traffic engineers were also on that committee. Over 20 years, I listened and learned a lot. Do I have the ability to go through and actually write up the specifications for a new road or a traffic signal? No. but I do have an understanding and can recommend improvement in traffic circulation concept plans. So, again, we are requesting that all road improvements be completed and open for public use prior to the state start of construction and the remainder of the shopping center. The purpose of these improvements is to provide improved public safety, decrease traffic along 521 and to reduce traffic accidents along Shelly Mullis and Byway 521 from unsignaled left turns from both residential and commercial centers. So this will benefit everybody. Our first responders, who right now, boy, they have to do some dangerous maneuvers to try to get around traffic. And we've seen them have to go into the opposite lane and cut back. That's really scary. It helps all the residents, it helps the businesses, and it actually, and the C.F. Smith contractors. So for the external traffic improvements, we're asking for these things that are listed right there to be as specific as possible and go into the MOU and the concept plan that's included in the packet. So we want to see external realignment of Laurel Hill Road. Already saying they're doing that. Realignment of Murphy Drive to connect with Halifax. They're saying they're already doing it. The traffic signal at Murphy Drive. And the MOU right now is very general. We're asking you to have them specify right turn lane from Murphy Drive onto North Brown Highway 521, left turn lane. same thing, straight across lanes for 521 between Murphy Drive and Halifax. We're asking for, to the addition, as you can see on this paper, to add some right turn merge lanes along 521 because that will help get the traffic off of 521, the main lanes going that way. Right now in Parkstone, the first entrance is actually turns into the where the apartments are but the rest of the way there is no right turn lane and it totally stops so the we're looking for those purge lanes we're looking for crosswalks and we're asking for the continuation of Park Commons Road to Murphy Drive with connection to that truck we're also asking for internally traffic circles that will help get the traffic going and not stopping. We're also asking for roundabouts for that purpose. It really does help to go. And we're also asking for a one-way truck delivery road that would come in from the traffic circle at Murphy Drive and go up, across, down, and back to the traffic circle. so again please postpone the third reading until all these outstanding public safety issues are resolved and included in the cf smith mou and cons concept plan thank you for your time thank you bob's canal good evening this is about the cf smith proposal as well

Bob Scannell, 8016 Carolina Lakes Way, Indian Land, South Carolina. I live in Sun City, and in full disclosure, I should mention that Barbara is my wife. I think you know her fairly well. In addition to attending county meetings, she's been volunteering for the Sheriff's Department for about five years. Sergeant Murphy once asked me if I was keeping Barbara in line, and my reply was that nobody can. I'm a retired police detective and served for 25 years in the Los Angeles metro area so I'm very familiar with explosive growth and traffic issues. In fact for two years I was assigned to the traffic division as a traffic accident investigator where I investigated over 1200 injury and non-injury collisions. I'm also recognized in California Superior Court as an expert in the field of traffic accident investigations. never come to these meetings before but i did this time because i think the traffic plan proposed by the cf smith development while more cost efficient is not as safe or as efficient as the ideas proposed by barbara obviously she's not a traffic engineer but in my opinion if lancaster county embraced some of her ideas such a plan would reduce accidents and allow traffic to flow in a safer more efficient manner than the cf smith proposed plans Please note that I'm not here to ask you to stop the development. I only ask that you postpone the third reading until these outstanding public safety issues are resolved and included in the MOU and concept plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yashmat Madadi.

Good evening, everybody. I'm Yashmat Madadi and I live in 6405 Ancient Way, Indian Land, South Carolina, 29707. I'm here to extend my support and continue the points that Janine, Kalpit, and Geeta, and Shannon has mentioned about the neighborhood development that is happening next to us. I'm here about the Bobberville Road development. I want to address a specific claim that keeps coming. The idea that because this project holds a state permit, county enforcement doesn't apply or has to wait. That is not correct. It's not a matter of opinion. It states statute. SC Code Section 6-29-960 says that When county regulations impose more restrictive standards than another statute or regulation, the county regulations govern. The UDO says the same thing in multiple places. 1.1.8 A, 1.1.8 B and 8.3.5. All state that wherever this ordinance is more restrictive than state or federal requirements, the UDO controls. A state permit is a floor, not a ceiling, and it does not obviate a stricter local requirement. That matters here because the state and federal permit themselves are not settled. The evidence indicate the stream impacts on this site already exceed what USACE authorized under nationwide permit 39. And that sediment has been discharged offsite beyond the boundaries. either the corps or the state authorized. We personally filed complaint with the US Army Corps of Engineers and with the state agency that administers NPDES permit specifically. raising this concerns compliance issues. We have received confirmation from both the investigations are currently in the progress. Even if you believe a state or federal permit could excuse a UDO violation and it can't, you would be relying on permits whose validity itself is under active government investigation right now. Triggered by our own complaints. The UDO doesn't leave room for discretion once a violation is established. UDO 9.4.8 says any person who violates this ordinance shall be subject to civil or criminal penalties, not maybe or shall. You cannot have it. confirmed violation on the books and simply decline to impose any penalty, that's not the option the ordinance gives you. And under UDO 9.2.7 , no use may receive an occupancy permit unless it complies with every applicable regulation. That means parcel one cannot legally receive an occupancy permit until every one of these violations All of them, not the convenient ones, is fully corrected. I'm asking you to apply the statute as written, not as applicant would prefer to iterate. Thank you. Thank you.

We have some electronic submissions.

Yes, Mr. Chairman and council members, you each have copies of these comments at your seats. The first is from Pete B., no address given, wrote in regarding issues with resolution 1329-R2026 located at 423 Rocky River Road. Next, Larry and Janice Bennett from Indian Land, South Carolina, wrote in regarding grading proceeding at Melanie Lane and Barberville Road. even though the Planning Commission denied the preliminary plat, which is a troubling precedent. The next is from Charles Anthony, Indian Land, South Carolina, regarding a commercial development at Barberville and Highway 160 intersection and the apparent violations of permits. Number four was from John Saul of Indian Land, South Carolina, regarding his opposition to Ordinance 2026-2012, and he asked that council rezone the property to general business. Karen Saul from Indian Land, South Carolina, wrote in regarding her opposition to Ordinance 2026-2012. That's it, thank you. Thank you.

And we're gonna move on to item 6A, a special presentation. In recognition of Joan Walding for 15 years of dedicated volunteer service to the Sheriff's Office, we'd like to ask Ms. Walding to come up and we have a few presentations for her. I'd like to present a proclamation today. Whereas Joan Walding has faithfully and selfishly served as a volunteer with the Lancer County Sheriff's Office for 15 years, contributing countless hours in support of the agency's mission to serve and protect the citizens of our county, And whereas throughout her tenure, she provided invaluable assistance in the records division, helping ensure the efficient operation of the sheriff's office, and then served in quality assurance where her contact with victims and complainants helped provide meaningful feedback that helped strengthen community trust and improve service delivery. And whereas she also supported whenever needed the Sheriff's Office community policing initiatives to help foster positive relationships between law enforcement and the community. And in her later years worked as an integral part of the crime scene unit and conducted research on cases and assisting with determining the proper retention or disposals of evidence. And whereas she has exemplified loyalty, dependability, professionalism, and a willingness to serve wherever needed, and all with a positive attitude. And whereas county council and the sheriff's office family extends its best wishes and recognizes the remarkable dedication and selfless service and enduring legacy of excellence of Ms. Walding. and now therefore Lancaster County Council hereby expresses its sincere appreciation and gratitude to Ms. Walding for her 15 years of exemplary volunteer service to the Sheriff's Office and the citizens of Lancaster County and do hereby proclaim August the 10th, 2026 as Joan Walding Day in the County of Lancaster.

if I could just say a few words about miss Joanne as well you don't find many people like miss joanne she's been at the sheriff's office for 15 years on a voluntary basis working one to two days a week every week always bringing joy to the sheriff's office you know there's sometimes the lord just puts people in your path that makes you a better person and this is one of them right here miss joanne i have a sheriff's commendation i'd like to read as well whereas for 15 years you have faithfully and selflessly served the lancaster county sheriff's office with professionalism integrity and unwavering commitment to others your willingness to volunteer your time and talents has strengthened this agency and positively impacted the citizens of our county Whereas throughout the years of service, you generously supported numerous divisions within the Sheriff's Office, whether assisting the Records Division, helping ensure accuracy and organization of imported documents, serving in quality assurance by contacting victims and complainants to help improve our service to the community, or supporting community policing initiatives, or becoming an invaluable member of the Crime Scene Unit through research and evidence management, you consistently demonstrated excellence in every task entrusted to you. Whereas your dedication was never measured simply by the hours you volunteered, but by the care, compassion, and professionalism you brought to every assignment. You willingly stepped forward wherever help was needed, earning the respect, admiration, and friendship of deputies, civilian employees, and fellow volunteers alike. Whereas the Lancaster County Sheriff's Office is a much stronger agency because of your service, your commitment to our mission, and your genuine concern for the people we serve day in and day out, leaving a lasting impression on the office. and created a legacy that will continue to inspire others for years to come. Whereas on behalf of every member of the Lancaster County Sheriff's Office, I extend my deepest gratitude for your 15 years of faithful volunteer service. Thank you for your loyalty, your friendship, and your unwavering dedication to our agency and to the citizens of Lancaster County. Therefore, your service will always be remembered, your contributions will always be appreciated, and you will always be a valued member of the Lancaster County Sheriff's Office family, given this 10th day of August 2026, signed by myself. So thank you.

Bless you.

I'll make a shameless ad for the sheriff tonight. He will always take free help. Okay, we're going to move on to item seven, our consent agenda. Do we have a motion to approve?

Mr. Chair, I move to approve consent agenda item 7A, 7B, 7C, 7D, 7E, 7F, 7G, and 7H.

Second. We have a second from Ms. McGriff. Any discussion? All those in favor, please raise your right hand. All those opposed, it is unanimous. Okay, we're gonna move on now to item 8A. We have a public hearing and second reading of ordinance number 2026-2047. ordinance title and ordinance to authorize and provide for the issuance and sale of not to exceed 23 million principal amount Lancaster County, South Carolina, Roseland residential improvement district assessment revenue bonds in one or more series to provide for the execution of a second supplemental indenture, a bond purchase agreement, a continuing disclosure agreement, and other related documents for the new bonds to approve a preliminary limited offering memorandum and authorize a limited offering memorandum, each related to such bonds, to make other covenants and agreements in connection with the foregoing and to provide for other matters related thereto. This passed six to zero at the July the 20th, 2026 County Councilmember Brian Carnes absent. Mr. Michael Season, before we get there, there were no one signed up for public hearing, so we will move on to the presentation.

Good evening. This is Ryan Gentry. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. I'm a partner with Michael Season at Byrne Foreman. He unfortunately had to step out at 7 o'clock or 6.55, so he just signed off. But he asked me to present this ordinance on his behalf. As you mentioned, it's up for second reading and public hearing. It's the same ordinance that you looked at back in July, on July 20th. The only change, I think it's in your packet, there is an update to the amount of funding and installation that Lenoir has spent in Roslyn District. I think it went up from $25 million to $32 million. But other than that, it's the same ordinance that was presented before. I'm happy to answer any questions that y'all have.

Is there any questions? Hearing none, I'll call for the vote.

We're going to have a motion.

motion to approve second uh i didn't write them down so i don't we don't have one okay we need a motion to approve sorry have a motion from mr harper a second from mr mcgriff any discussion all those in favor please raise your right hand all those opposed it is unanimous okay we're going to move on to item 8c third reading of ordinance number 2026-2048 an ordinance of the County Council of Lancaster County, South Carolina, extending ordinance number 2025-1992, the nine-month... I'm sorry. I wrote down the approval on that one by B. Third reading of ordinance number 2026-2012. An ordinance to amend the official zoning map of Lancaster County to rezone approximately 71.1 acres. Task map number 0013-00-067.00. and 0013-00.067.01 and 0013-00-067.02 0013-00-067.03 and 0013-00-135.01, which is located at Charlotte Highway and Laurel Hill Road. From the low density residential district to the regional business district for the purpose of developing a commercial center. Planning Department case number is RZ-2025-2538. The planning staff recommended approval of the rezoning request. However, Planning Commission recommended denial by unanimous vote. This ordinance passed five to two at the February 9th, 2026 County Council meeting with Stuart Graham and Jose Luis opposed. At the February 23rd, 2026 County Council meeting, council meeting, council voted to postpone the second reading until March 9th, 2026. County council meeting by a vote of six to one with Billy Moistler opposed. At the March 9th, 2026 council meeting, second reading was postponed until the connectivity issues were resolved, but not later than 60 days. At the May 11, 2026 County Council meeting, second reading was postponed until the July 20, 2026 County Council meeting. That motion passed 4-2-1 at the July 20, 2026 County Council meeting. Stuart Graham and Jose Luis opposed, and Brian Carnes was absent. Do we have a motion?

Motion to approve.

I have a motion from Mr. Mosteller. Do we have a second? Second. I have a second from Mr. Neal. Ms. Cato.

Thank you, Chairman and Councilman. This is the third reading of a property that's located off Charlotte Highway and Laurel Hill Road. We have met with the applicant and his representatives last week and worked through the MOU. And I believe that's attached to your packet. The applicant is here, the representative here. If you have any questions, that might need to be answered. And I'll be able to answer any questions if you have those, if you have any for me.

All right, thank you, Mr. Cato. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Chair?

Go ahead, Mr. Vernon.

Just to be clear, we had a couple of citizen comments around changing it from RB to GB. Can you just, what would that require if we change the zoning from RB to GB?

I don't think you would have to start over.

It would start over. Okay, I just wanted to be clear since that was a question.

I have a few questions.

Go ahead, Mr. Luis.

On now? As I was reading this, I thought I had understood from staff that the 2040 comp plan was kind of important as part of the review and the approval of this. How important is that 2040 comp plan showing the growth of this particular area?

So the growth part of the comp plan that we used to recommend the zoning is what we use and it shows the growth area for this

And is that a critical part of your review as you're reviewing these projects? Yes, sir. And the more the zoning changes, the more critical that kind of becomes. So as you're going from LDR to RB here, it's fairly significant in importance.

When we have a request for a rezoning, the first thing that we're looking at is the comp plan that just recently got adopted. That's leading us into what the future holds. And that comp plan is also what we've used to update the new UDO.

Okay, and just like how important, like if you had to weigh it, how important is the comp plan to that? Is it like a 40%, is it 60%, is it just about?

I don't know that there's necessarily a percentage that we would attach to that. I think it is one of the variables that we would consider going through any kind of rezoning change. I mean, it's certainly a critical part of the equation. I think every rezoning would be different.

Okay. And then, too, as I understand it from my reading, the MOU, because one of the questions that came up was residential uses. the MOU now restricts residential uses on the site, and the zoning is conditioned on that MOU. Is that correct? Mm-hmm. Okay.

Your mic's off, Mr. Tucker. How about now? There we go. One of the major changes between second and third reading is we've actually incorporated the MOU into the ordinance and recognized that The rezoning as it sits before you requires examination. Again, we've heard some of the comments about public safety concerns. The public improvements that have been proposed and offered by the developer should weigh heavily into your decision in the rezoning. And so trying to figure out how to tie those so closely together, I think that was one of the major concerns after second reading, is how do you tie those things so closely together? So we've incorporated the MOU into the ordinance, number one. Number two, our attorneys added language that allows this body to revert this zoning if they don't fulfill their obligations to create those public improvements.

Yep, and I appreciate that, and I just wanted to give the kudos to the developer for doing that and listening to some of the concerns that I in particular had about the strength of that MOU and tying it to that ordinance. So in connection with that, Has Ms. Scannell reviewed the revisions that she's talked about with you all? I have not. Okay. So I'm just going to make, just for the... since there's been a lot of requests for it, I'm gonna make a motion to postpone until we review the matters that have been brought up by residents today. So move it for the next council meeting.

Second. And we have a subsidiary motion by Mr. Lewis and a second by Mr. Graham. Any discussion? Hearing no discussion, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor of the motion, please raise your right hand. All those opposed, please raise your right hand. Motion fails two to five. We're back to the original motion.

I have no further comments.

Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Hearing no discussion, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor of the ordinance, please raise your hand. Signify by raising your right hand. All those opposed, it passes. Okay, we're gonna move on to item 8C, third reading of ordinance number 2026-2048, an ordinance of the County Council of Lancaster County, South Carolina, extending ordinance number 2025-1992, the nine-month residential development moratorium. for an additional 90 days, reaffirming the findings of County Council, providing for severability and providing for an effective date. This passed six to zero at the July 20th, 2026 County Council meeting. Brian Carnes absent. Passed seven to zero at the July 22nd, 2026 County Council special meeting. Do we have a motion to approve?

So moved. Second.

I have a motion from Mr. McGriff, a second from Mr. Louise. Ms. Cato, is there anything that's changed?

There's been no changes to this ordinance.

Okay, do we have any discussion? Hearing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. All those opposed, it is unanimous. And we'll move on now to item eight. D, public hearing and resolution 1329-R2026. A resolution to approve the favorable recommendation with conditions of the Lancaster County Planning Commission of a conditional use application to permit a vehicle rental and leasing sales used to be located upon tax map number 0071-00-006.00 at 423 Rocky River Road, Planning Department case number CU-2025-1674. The Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions by a vote of six to zero, and the planning staff also recommended approval of conditional use application. No one signed up for public hearing, so I'll take a motion to approve. Move to approve. I have a motion from Mr. Mosteller and a second from Mr. Harper. Any discussion? Hearing none, we'll call for the vote.

I'm sorry. Go ahead. I'm sorry. I did have a brain delay.

You better get in there.

I think this goes back to the question that I was asking earlier because one of the things that I had looked at when I was reviewing the documents was the comp plan for this has it as agricultural. but the staff is recommending approval, so I'm trying to understand why.

So this isn't a rezoning, this is a conditional use to the RUB. The applicant changed the zoning, he had a rezoning about a year ago, I believe, I could be wrong, thought that was gonna change. But he's also, because he's a non-franchise car salesman, then he has to ask for a conditional use.

right now i'm not necessarily in favor i'm not necessarily against that i'm just trying to understand so the concept is still there about the uses and what it's supposed to be and what we're intending to be with the comprehensive plan so that's why i was asking on the conditional uses we don't look at the comp plan based off the conditional use we look at the zoning and under the zoning that allowed him to ask for conditional use okay go ahead mr monster

Ms. Cato, the Planning Commission did have buffers for this area, correct?

Yes, sir. So the applicant will have to submit a commercial outfit for the building. He will also have to submit a commercial site plan for the site. He will also have to meet those, and they also added hours from 8 to 6. And he will have to, the Planning Commission added that to the specifics. So he'll have to get all those approved, get all those inspected before he gets the CO to operate the business.

Ms. Cato, does that include Sundays?

So they did not put the specific dates on there. They were going to allow the applicant to decide if it was going to be Monday through Sunday or Monday through Saturday. But they only just limited the hours of 8 to 6.

have any other questions hearing none i'll call for the vote all those in favor please raise your right hand all those opposed it is unanimous we're going to move on to item ae public hearing and third reading of ordinance number 2026-2042 an ordinance of Lancaster County, South Carolina authorizing the execution of an intergovernmental agreement by and between Lancaster County, South Carolina, and the city of Lancaster, the town of East Springs, the town of Kershaw, and the town of Vanuak, South Carolina, and other matters relating thereto. This passed seven to zero at the June 22nd, 2026 County Council meeting. passed six to zero at the july 20th 2026 county council meeting brian karnes absent do we have a motion to approve we have no one signed up for public hearing so do we have a motion to approve so moved i have a motion from mr mcgriff and a second from mr luis mr cato

Mr. Chairman, members of the council, there has been no change to this by from the prior reading.

All right, if we have any questions. Hearing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. All those opposed, it is unanimous. We move on to item 8F, public hearing and third reading of ordinance number 2026-2044. An ordinance to approve a temporary construction and permanent easement grant to Duke Energy upon real property owned by Lancaster County and located off of South Carolina Highway 9, bearing tax parcel number 0068L-0F-023.02. And to authorize county officials to take such actions as are necessary to effectuate the grant of the easements and to effectuate the purpose of this ordinance. This passed 7-0 at the June 22, 2026 County Council meeting. Passed 6-0 at the July 20, 2026 County Council meeting. Brian Karnes absent. We again had no one sign up for public hearing. I'll call for a motion to approve.

Move to approve.

Mr. Meyer-Stellard, we have a second. Second from Mr. Neal. Any discussion? Hearing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. All those opposed, it is unanimous. Okay, we're going to item 8G, public hearing and third reading of ordinance number 2026-2045. An ordinance to approve a temporary construction and permanent easement grant to Comporium Communications upon real property owned by Lancaster County and located off of South Carolina Highway 9 bearing tax parcel number 0068L-0F-023.02. and to authorize county officials to take such actions as are necessary to effectuate the grant of the easements and to effectuate the purposes of this ordinance. This passed 7-0 at the June 22, 2026 County Council Meeting. Passed 6-0 at the July 20, 2026 Council Meeting. Brian Carnes absent. Again, no one signed up for public hearing, so we'll move on. Do we have a motion to approve? So moved. I have a motion from Mr. McGriff, a second from Mr. Harper. Any discussion? Hearing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. All those opposed, it is unanimous. We'll move on to item 8H, public hearing and third reading of ordinance number 2026-2046. an ordinance to approve a temporary construction and permanent easement grant to Lancaster County Natural Gas Authority upon real property owned by Lancaster County and located off South Carolina Highway 9 bearing tax parcel number 0068L-0F-023.02 when to effectuate county to authorize county officials to take such actions as are necessary to effectuate the grant of the easements and to effectuate the purpose of this ordinance. This passed seven to zero at the June 22nd, 2026 County Council meeting. Passed six to zero at the July 20th, 2026 County Council meeting. Brian Carnes absent. Again, no one signed up for public hearing. Do we have a motion to approve? So moved. I have a motion from Mr. McGriff. Do we have a second? Second. Second from Mr. Lewis. Any discussion? Hearing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. All those opposed, it is unanimous. We'll move on to item 8I, second reading of ordinance number 2026-2054, an ordinance to amend ordinance number 2026-2036 relating to the appropriation of funds and the approval of a detailed budget for Lancaster County for the fiscal year beginning July the 1st, 2026 and ending June the 30th, 2027, our fiscal year 2026, 2027, to further provide for revenues and expenditures during the fiscal year and to provide for matters related thereto. This passed seven to zero at the July 2026 County Council Special Meeting. Do we have a motion to approve?

So moved.

Have a motion from Ms. McGriff, do we have a second?

Second.

Second from Mr. Lewis. Any questions? All those in favor, please raise your right hand. All those opposed, it is unanimous. Thank you, Ms. Harris. Okay, we move on to item 8J, resolution 1331-R2026. a resolution authorizing the execution of a dedication agreement conveying certain water infrastructure associated with the Lancaster County Detention Center water main extension to the Lancaster County Water and Sewer District. Do we have a motion to approve? So moved. I have a motion from Mr. Neal and a second from Mr. Nosteller. Mr. Tucker.

Kind of let you just keep going. As we finish the new detention center, the sheriff felt it would be important if we had running water and a sanitary sewer system that works. So we need to dedicate these utility infrastructure components to the water and sewer district for operation.

Have any questions? Hearing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. All those opposed, it is unanimous. We move to item 9A, receive information and take desired action regarding appointments and or reappointments to various boards and commissions. Ms. Simpson.

Mr. Chairman and council members, these vacancies and expirations are just information, no vote required. And I would say that on the next item, status of items table, recommitted or deferred, I ask you to draw your attention to item E, Which was referred to the ad hoc committee first reading of ordinance 2025, 2011, which was a development agreement between Lancaster County and the Inspiration Network. This has been withdrawn by the applicant. Their withdrawal letter is attached to the agenda packet. So they will no longer appear under items tabled, recommitted or deferred or held.

Thank you, Ms. Simpson. That brings us to, we have no executive session tonight, so I will entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. I have a motion to adjourn. We stand adjourned.