Lancaster County Council - Special Meeting

Good afternoon. I'd like to call this meeting the Lancaster County Council to order. I ask that the clerk note for the record that a quorum of counsel 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 or pagers. Thank you for not wearing any hats or caps in the council chambers, and please be considerate of others in the rooms 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 afternoon by Council Member Charlene McGriff.

Let us pray. Heavenly Father, as we move forward tonight to do and look at the proposed revisions of our UDL, please guide us and fight us with wisdom to make the right decisions for our county. I ask you this in your name. Amen.

Amen. I'd like to welcome everyone here today. Is there a motion to approve the agenda? So moved. I have a motion from Mr. McGriff. Is there a second?

Second.

Second from Mr. Harper. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. All those opposed, it is unanimous. We don't have any citizens' comments, so we're going to move straight to item 6A on our non-consent agenda. First reading of ordinance number 2026-2059, an ordinance to repeal and replace appendix B of the Lancaster County Code the Unified Development Ordinance of Lancaster County to adopt the comprehensive rewrite of the county's zoning subdivision development review, design, transportation, infrastructure, environmental protection, administration, and enforcement regulations to adopt revised official zoning and overlay maps, including the official highway corridor overlay map, to provide for prior approvals pending applications, nonconformities, development agreements, vested rights, continuity of law, codification, administrative implementation, severability, conflicting provisions and effective date, and to provide for other matters related thereto. Do we have a motion to approve?

So moved. I have a motion from Ms. McGriff. Is there a second? Second.

Second from Mr. O'Neill.

Okay. Mr. Tucker. I'll take this away. We discussed last week, we're asking you to take action on first reading tonight. Special called meeting to approve the UDO as the draft you have before you. This draft is... an amalgamation at this point of our consultant, UDO, ad hoc committee, staff, and there's basically two different documents here. There's the UDO document itself, but then there's the matrix that we've been referring to in trying to reconcile some of the still outstanding questions or recommendations. We went through this a little last week and had some time. You all have had some time with it. My suggestion would be, for efficiency sake, is— If there are items in the matrix that you have in front of you that you want to pull out, you disagree with the recommendations that are listed in that matrix, let's go through those and anything we need to pull out, let's pull out. If we can get a consensus on which item, then once we get a consensus, we'll move on to the next item and we will do that until we have addressed everything that you want to pull out of the matrix. Once we get to the end of that, then we can have council provide some edits and recommendations, and if we can get a consensus on that, then we will be ready for a vote. So obviously, This can be as simple or as complex as you all want it to be. And we can talk about it as long as you want to talk about it. This is obviously a big deal that has been in the making now for quite some time. So we want to make sure we get it as right as we can tonight, recognizing that it's not going to be perfect. And it's not going to be perfect for a lot of reasons. But the primary reason is every one of you disagree on what perfect looks like. And so this is a very complicated Detailed document and we need to just get a consensus and move ahead again Go back through the timeline just just for the public's benefit Planning Commission is scheduled to have a special called meeting next week. They will take up whatever changes if by some miraculous effort you all just want to accept the matrix exactly as is and you don't want to make any changes then Planning Commission doesn't need to meet again next week. I don't think that's going to be the case. We're anticipating a Planning Commission meeting next week. It will then come back to you for second reading and then third reading by October the 12th, which gets us an approved UDO before the moratorium expires, which is really the critical deadline here. So with that, I will just ask you to refer to the matrix, and we can do this page by page, or you all, if there's a particular recommendation in the matrix that you have a heartburn with, just call it out. So do we want to go through page by page, or do you have? Page by page. All right. Anything on page one that you want to pull out?

got we got most of those are planning commission recommendations with one staff recommendation anything of concern there on page two item number 11. you just moved on to page two okay we're moving on to page two now i agree with the planning commission the the carolina hill splitter overlay is that gonna be a issue with the, with the no credits available?

I don't have an answer to that. You have to create a new bank. We have to create a new bank.

So I, I don't. Well, what's the process for somebody if they want? You, you gotta have an approval process, uh, if you're gonna have that district. You can't, uh, I think the county would leave itself wide open if you have a overlay district and you don't have an avenue for approval. I mean, that's my concern.

Fantastic. Get the tough ones over with the strong ones. Yeah, I was about to wing that one.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Again, I'm Sean Skookmeyer with Whitesmith Cousineau. Mr. Harper, you raised a very good question, and we had talked about this in the ad hoc committee meetings several times. And I think that for the committee's purpose, we decided to carry forward the existing heel splitter overlay. And the county was going to separately contract with us to revise that as a text amendment after the adoption of this UDO. But I think that the planning commission's concern was a little bit more about the timing and not even the structure or the procedure. Their concern was what if somebody comes with a development proposal in November the 1st and This says we're supposed to require this bank and credits. They don't exist. What do we do? And so that was really their concern. And I think that what they would need to do is hold off until we come up with a new plan for the heel splitter. Or if you all want to make a different decision on the heel splitter now, then you can.

That still does not answer the question as far as what will we be in any type of legal jeopardy if we don't. Because some years ago we really got in trouble dealing with those hill splitters. Don't want to go there again.

We have been evaluating the legal framework, and I think that at the end of the day, the question of whether you could get in legal trouble either by protecting them or not protecting them is really a question for your county attorney. I hate to put it on her, but, you know, so we can structure a program focused on the preservation of the heel splitter. and it may require significant changes from the way that it is now, depending on, I mean, it sounds like the program hasn't really worked in the county's, in the way the county would like it to for many years. I think, as I've always understood it, the county would prefer that money from the Heel Splitter overlay go into remediation projects related to the streams in Lancaster County And a lot of this money, as I understand it, has gone to the US Fish and Wildlife Service that's made grants to put heel splitters all over the place, some in Lancaster County, but also throughout other counties in Northern South Carolina and Southern North Carolina. I'm afraid that's about all I know about that.

I think, I mean, as we went through this in the subcommittee, I think this is a, this isn't a simple subject. This is complex. And I think we have to address it, but I don't think we can address it in this setting here. And we've got to, it's got to be addressed, I mean, as a text amendment.

So if the options would be to remove it, or to leave it as is or to change it. Those are basically the three options. I think the concern with removing it is what to do with the money that's been paid into this bank.

I guess the legal question is, do we need to save it and do a tax amendment? Would that be best for us at this point? Jenny.

I mean, you don't have any, they're saying they don't have anything to change it at this moment. So if you want to leave your heel splutter in here, we've got to have something. They don't have any recommended language at this point. So a text amendment is necessary to do that if you want to keep that. And we also have to create the bank. The bank has been, to my understanding, we've been out of credits for some time from Fish and Wildlife. So we need to create a process for the bank as well And part of the issue that I think was brought up with this also was we were kind of giving the PC unfettered discretion over this, and we didn't want that either.

These are all very good questions. I wish I had better answers.

Just want to make sure we're, you know, doing and planning and making the right decisions until we get to that point.

And the fundamental question is, you know, what is the legal responsibility to protect the heel splitter? and it has been unclear throughout this process the inception of the program and what the nature of that requirement is.

Did we have any developments that paid monies after we ran out of credits to the county? I thought we had. I'm getting nods from staff.

We have. It's my understanding and have. an email and a letter form from our Evolve system, Shanda Kirkland, that it was to continue to keep collecting those credits. They were put into some sort of reserve. I'm not sure. I'm not a financial person, but we can get that for you. So it is there, and we collected those without having any credits.

Well, do we need to leave that language in there and collect and put in escrow and put, we have five years to get this figured out or they're refunded their money. I don't know.

From what I'm hearing, it sounds like we leave it in there, but this is one of the first items that we resolve on the back end. I don't think it can just disappear. So if it can't disappear, then it either gets changed or it gets left alone. We don't have anything to change it to, so that would bring us back to leaving it in, leaving it alone, and then reestablishing the program and the bank. I don't think it's a five-year window, but as quickly as possible.

At the ad hoc committee, I think there was discussion from prior that they wanted, prior staff wanted to be able to have a separate, the way we collect the hill splitters and separate financial credits and that type thing, and we were consulting. That was a separate thing that Tyson and those were going to look into later on how we were collecting those and if we needed to collect those and put a procedure in place.

Leave it in. Leave it in.

So if we've got something like number 12 where it says consider adding highway 5 to the highway corridor overlays since it's a general connection to Rock Hill and York County. I mean if we're saying that I mean by not saying anything we're saying it carries.

Yes. Councilman Graham, so your statement there is just confirming that you would like to leave Highway 5 in the HCO.

It's not in it now. Well, add it. I'm sorry.

Leave it in the matrix, which adds it into the HCO. That's a lot of doubles, but yes. Okay. All right. Anything else on page two? All right. Page 3. Anybody running for the microphone? Page 4.

Let me back up to page 2 right quick just for some clarification. All right. On the item 14, remove reference to Highway 9, what part is it? Is that going toward Chester or is that going toward Pace? Which part of nine is this? Anybody know?

The Chester end, yes. The Chester, okay.

That's from the Chester County line to the Lancaster Western City limit. Okay, good, thank you. That's all I need. All right. And there are approximately four or five parcels in that stretch that this would apply to in theory because of the industrial being excluded. Thank you.

Go ahead. All right. Fours, fives. I'm going to zip through here quick until y'all tell me to slow down. Six, seven. No jokes. Eight. Eight. 9. All right.

We're on the record. Let us catch up. Told you I was going to move fast.

Moving right along.

We're on 9. Yes, sir. Good. If I go on to 10. All right, any takers on 10? 11. 12. 13. 14, 15. So close. 94. 94, 94.

It's saying consider allowing septic with larger lot sizes. so my question is you know is that how is that is are we leaving that to the planning commission to define that or how how do we want to do that we could you can give them a definition to take back or you can leave it to them to define so i mean that it's

um you know we've had this we did have this conversation after last week and we think there is there is a balance there that that would make sense i mean it's um i would i would defer to you or to planning commission to put a number to it um is there something that you have in mind i mean i i would be okay with a third of three-fourths of an acre minimum allowing

septic and RN conservation where public water is available. And I don't, I mean, obviously not allowing shared septic and not allowing those individual septics to be in, I guess, community spaces. Like it can't count towards your open space. or anything funny like that i mean it would be creative i don't know if there needs to be language in there referencing um des or their standards or their review process or is that already part of the process and there's no need to add teeth into something that's already existing we

Are we gonna require, we're not gonna let them put one septic for four or five houses. I saw that. The community, yeah.

No community.

One per lot.

One individual per lot. That's right.

It needs to be clear that... One system per lot.

no less than three quarters of an acre where water is provided, okay. Staff, any feedback on that?

And then LDR is the same? I don't know if it matters. I mean, I guess you know what, that's fair enough. And LDR, I mean, I don't, if something's currently zoned LDR, I mean, that's probably a really good point. If they do conservation, it currently says that they can't do septic. So, I mean, you know, I guess you would duplicate it for LDR.

Otherwise you're forcing rezoning. Most of the LDR don't have sewer available.

That's right. I would do it for LDR. Yeah. Just leave it as that.

Otherwise you're going to force the rezoning down to RN, which wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, I don't think.

I'm kind of hearing two different questions. The first one is, can you have community or shared septic? And under the draft as written, it prohibits community and shared wastewater systems, which is septic. So it requires that each lot is served by public sewer or an individual onsite wastewater treatment system. community or shared wastewater systems including community septic systems are prohibited.

And that's across the entire UDO. Anything that would have allowed, so that's already not allowed.

Yes. And that was an addition with a recommendation from the ad hoc committee. And the second part is how minimum lot sizes relate to DES approval of septic. And they're different and they're done at different times and can be done for different reasons. In general, kind of the worst case scenario is, let's say that you have quarter acre lots and septic. You can approve a subdivision plan, great. And now the developer has their subdivision plan approved. And so now they're gonna go on to get their next permit. So they need to get a septic permit from DES, but they can't get it.

Right, they're stuck.

And so they're stuck. And so then they're gonna have to, you know, recombine the plat and just undo the deal. And so, you know, when you set that minimum lot size, thinking about the next step of what could match up the needs of septic makes some sense. And there would even be ways to require the developer to propose specific sites or have the planning staff select particular lots and see if they'll perk and sort of run a test. So like if you've got 200 lots, you have to do 5% of them or something. Now that takes a little bit more staff time. There's a little bit more leeway. And we talked about this I think a little bit in the ad hoc committee meeting. committee meetings and decided that it was better to just have one bright line rule. But you know, with three quarters of an acre, it is, it is very possible that you would be able to serve that with septic, especially with public water, but it's not guaranteed.

Sure.

But at the end of the day, it's on the developer to get the permits. And if they can't get the permits, then they gotta go back to the drawing board anyway. Correct.

Okay. Does that answer everybody's question?

It's going to require them up front maybe to try to do some PERT tests before they purchase the property. So that would be something the developer has to do.

Is there any, is there, well, no, I won't ask that question. I'm good.

They have these high tech. septic systems now that they're putting in areas that wouldn't perk before. They're wildly expensive.

Yeah, they're really expensive. So what's the discussion?

So Jenny makes a good point. Right now we have a motion and a second on the floor to adopt as is. Once we start making these amendments, we're going to have to table that motion and we will come back with an additional motion to approve with these changes. So for right now, we need to table the motion. Table or withdraw?

Either one.

Pick one. I would say withdraw the motion on the floor. We will continue the conversation. We will come back with a modified motion that then lists all of the changes that we are making. We will just simply say we make a motion to approve the UDO with changes to the matrix specifically outlining the change in item 94.

then we'll just go down to me we are capturing a list over here that we will help you read back when we get ready to make that motion so for now we need a motion to withdraw and a second well miss McGriff made the original motion mr. Neal made the second so they need to both withdraw their motion I just like it you just okay so they've withdrawn their motion now do we have to have a motion to have this on the floor to discuss

No, you need to make motions. If you change, like if number 94 is changing, then we need a motion, a second discussion on that. So each item you change out of this matrix, because it is part of your discussion this evening, you have to make motions for that. Cause that's all going to be included into the revised UDO. That's going back to the PC.

We make the motions after discussions, right?

Yes, so as you go through this, if you decide on this number 94 that you're making these changes that Councilmember Graham's talking about, we need a motion for that, a second, and then a vote on that so that that will be included in your first reading of the UDF. You've got to have consensus on each of these items. We can't just say, yeah, we're all good with that. Or you can do them all at the end, however you want to do it. But we've got to make sure you've got consensus on each matter that you're making a change to.

Yeah, agreed. And so I'm going to be the one to make sure we've got consensus on each of these items. And then we will collectively have a motion at the end with a combined amendment.

Naming each one. Yes. Okay. Again, question, do we have to have a motion to have this on the floor for discussions?

No, sir.

Okay. All right.

So you're keeping track? I'm keeping track. Yes, sir. I'm keeping track as well. Fantastic.

Well, then you'll be the one responsible for making the motion. I've got it. So I've got that we'll have to approve the motion with all the revisions in the matrix. In addition to that, there's a Carolina Hill splitter overlay district come 11, leave it in for now, create changes to the text amendment later and establish the banking process and procedures. Item number three, leave adding highway five to the highway corridor overlay district, comment 12. And then item number four, consider allowing septic for larger lot sizes, comment number 94, allowing three quarter acre minimum septic in RN and LDR where public water is available, not allowing it in shared septic and not allowing it to be located in open spaces. It has to be on the lot.

And I still want to, if we had this phased clearing and grading restrictions, You need to look at that. This thing could have unintended consequences. If you're going to limit to 30 acres of development, this is 10.3.2.

What number are you at?

10.3.2. When you start phasing, limiting them to 30 acres, that's going to be, that's the page 20 or 20.

He skipped all the way to page 19, or actually page 20.

20 you're you're you're gonna have people move in if uh we're gonna have trucks and all going through established neighborhoods have we gone through all the recommendations we need to do that steve before we get to that back page okay okay we're on page 14 to 20. any additional comments all right so we are

on to page 15.

My question would be 96 says confirm SEDOT will allow mass arms. So how do we sort that one out?

My I mean we've got some intersections with mass arms but my recommendation is that we not require mass arms because If somebody runs into it and falls into it and their insurance won't pay for it, they are wickedly expensive and the county doesn't want to be on the hook for those.

So it sounds like we have an agreement that we do not want to require masked arms on 521.

I mean, it says aesthetic is the primary reasoning. Is that a fair statement for masked arms?

Yeah, it's the aesthetics. So if I'm reading it correctly, it's not saying that it's going to be required, but we'll allow it.

And from a staff standpoint, we struggle allowing it because it requires an obligation on us to maintain and store X number of masked arms for that particular area. Yes, they are aesthetically better, but they are higher maintenance and the cost to replace is significant. So staff's recommendation is to not require masked arms.

I agree with that.

We're saying, I think we're saying the same thing. They are.

My question is, do we need to do anything with 96 or is it?

I don't have the actual link.

It says, if not, delete it from the table. It says, confirm SCDOT will allow massed arms and intersections HCO, if not, delete from table. So there's no action there.

Well, there might be, if you don't want to require mass storms to the, the table of required improvements requires mass storms in the highway quarter overlay district.

So if we want to remove them, then we need to make a amendment to our motions.

Yes. I don't hear anybody object. I don't hear, I don't hear anybody advocating for requiring mast arms.

No, I don't.

I like the idea, but I don't like the idea of replacing them. Understood.

Well, one comes with the other. There's not a magical mast arm fairy. All right. Councilman Louise, you have that one tracked. Okay.

Then how do we address 99 then? Because it's just a statement. Concern that interconnectivity is now only required in HCO. What's the discussion around that? Sean, can you lay that one out and just make sure we understand what they're saying?

Yes, so this was a topic of discussion with the Planning Commission. They discussed it really at length, and they in general favor connectivity, especially for residential neighborhoods. As the kind of UDO committee worked through revisions to connectivity, I think that there were some concerns about you know, the topography of the land and the requirement that you make public road, that you make private roads accessible to the general public through interconnectivity. And so really the decision was that it would be limited to the highway corridor overlay district. And I think that the, and so this is a change from the way that it's written now. And the planning commission just had concerns about that. And that's, That's really what this note says, that they would in general prefer connectivity. And obviously I can explain the benefits of connectivity, but basically you take the ability of somebody to get from point A to point B without having to get on the primary road, maybe Highway 521, that would over time reduce traffic.

And I think part of the concern that I have with how it's being phrased in the matrix is that it's saying the current you do already requires interconnectivity between neighborhoods. When what I thought we were talking about during the ad hoc committee was between commercial parcels and those types of establishments good. So it's not just neighborhoods, it's really among commercial parcels and it's to prevent exactly what you said, entry point, every single, you know, stop along the way from 521 for every single center. Correct.

I will say that RFATS pushes in connectivity very heavily between neighborhoods and into the commercial development to try to keep people off in the main corridors, um,

So I think this would probably be an expansion of what we're currently doing, it sounds like to me, because now we'd be requiring it on not just neighborhoods, but other parcels as well.

So what's the flip side of that? What's the downside of requiring an interconnectivity?

Well, that's what they're saying.

And again, this is my understanding. I think when we go from encouraging to requiring, there's an obligation there that doesn't take into consideration the topography, the geography, all of the other things that could make a project cost prohibitive, right? And maybe that's okay. Right, but I mean, that would be the only downside is sometimes it's not physically possible. And if we require something that's not physically possible, where does that leave us?

Is there an out? I mean, is there a process where they can request I guess a waiver of that requirement? Or is that going down a bunny trail we don't wanna go down?

I would think it would be subject to possibly variant standards. I'd really have to look at where it's located. I think we removed the waiver from the UDO, we did. So really you probably couldn't waive the requirement. And so in looking at the draft, just to, as a sort of a point of clarification, the external connection requirement for residential subdivisions has been eliminated in this draft. And so it would only apply in the HCO.

Can we make the requirements so that there's an interconnectivity between an adjacent parcel? along the highway corridor overlay district. So they're either gonna go north or they're gonna go south. They can choose. The likelihood that there's gonna be an issue that's cost prohibitive on both sides is greatly reduced in that scenario. And then it gives them an opportunity to connect and then that way everyone can start doing it. And at least you're linking multiple parcels at that point.

I think that's what I'm understanding you saying is that in the highway corridor overlay require interconnectivity of fronting parcels so that the traffic is reduced and people could go from target to public.

We want to stop the ingress and egress from 521 every single time there's a shopping center that's built.

Right. That is exactly what this accomplishes, but it does not hit residential subdivision. So there would not be interconnectivity for residential development in the draft.

Residential to commercial?

Or residential to residential?

Yeah, we need to promote interconnectivity.

Yeah, because I think right now, to their point, it does require interconnectivity between neighborhoods. Right. That has been removed from this draft. So the comment that currently exists in the matrix is saying add it back in for neighborhoods as well as commercial, correct? I think we're all in favor of that. So I think we leave the matrix.

So we don't have to do anything with that one. Okay, thank you.

15. Just to be clear, in the highway corridor only?

Yes. We're comfortable with 95. Okay.

What does 100 mean then? It just says consider adding stronger wording, so... That's not really an action, that's just considerations. So I don't know what that means.

And there were several instances in the Planning Commission review where there wasn't There wasn't a definite direction given. It was have we thought about.

So is this a scenario where we let them come up with their language, if that's something that's, or do we take a stab at it?

This is my general answer for the rest of the night. If you feel like you, if you feel like you have an opinion, you need to voice your opinion now because this is your bite at the apple.

DOT controls the entrances to the federal highway, state highway, and traffic studies are required by South Carolina engineer, whatever. And they base theirs on site distance, speed limits, and we don't have the expertise on staff. to start requiring additional turn lanes if we're not qualified to make a professional opinion. That's my thought.

I mean, we've gotten burned on this a couple of times. I mean, Shelly Mollison 521 is the best example where we've got an absolute nightmare at Shelly Mollison 521, largely because we don't have a right-hand turn lane. So I don't know if this is the answer to that, but I just know that putting something, if we have an opportunity within the UDO to lay over the TIAs, then at least in the highway corridor, I would be, we should look at that.

The struggle there is going to be if we include that language in the UDO, but we don't control, we don't control access to that road, then it's, then it's pointless. Uh, you know, it's, it's a struggle.

I think the solution is, is that we need to work with SCDOT and say, you know, when, when we approve a development that frontal 521, we would like to have a turn lane put in and would like for y'all to approve one since this is your highway.

I agree with that 100%.

It doesn't always work out, but they're getting better at it.

Let me clarify, because I think what comment 100 is about is the alternate compliance language, which is 9.5.4.D, which what they're talking about which is really, it really is E at this point. It's alternate compliance when the planning director deems a required external street connection impractical due to severe topography, existing development, or other natural features, the county may require pedestrian bicycle access ways in lieu of the required street connections. This is an administrative decision that does not require additional review. And I think we just said we were taking that out because we're gonna make it a requirement for either one of the connections that they have. I think I followed that, yes. So it's comment 100 just remove the alternate compliance.

Steve the next one's yours.

I mean I'm just concerned when you uh is this a 30 acres on any development or is this if It says the maximum unprotected continuous area undergoing active mask clearing and grading at any single time shall not exceed 30 contiguous acres. Does that mean they can leave a 50 foot buffer and do another 30 acres? This is 10.3.2 phase clearing and grading restrictions. You have to worry about a lot of these projects. Your sewer would come off the back. Your water would come off the front. And your first phase on these projects has to be the front. Then do you want mass grading after people have already moved in? I just think you gotta be careful because the, you know, when these developers phase this stuff in, our phases and water and sewer phases don't always come, you know, end at the same place. I just think you need to be careful Because you're gonna have a lot of construction traffic possibly through subdivisions, especially if you don't let them clear it to start with.

All right, so let me, just a clarifying question for me. Are you saying that we should remove that altogether or we should change that 30 to some other number?

I think we should remove it and study it more and add it back in.

Sean? So this is not currently in the draft. This was proposed by stormwater staff, and they wanted to raise this for your attention. Really, the purpose of it, and I recognize and agree with your comments. I mean, there are many practical difficulties with doing this. The goal, as I understand it, is to limit the... the visibility of mass grading to general residents. When you see a 300-acre tract, it's all been mass graded at once. It's very shocking if they do 30 acres here and 30 acres there and 30 acres there and 30 acres there. It is not as upsetting is the theory. There are probably also some technical stormwater-related reasons for it, but I can't really get into the details of that because...

It is primarily the optics, but just to clarify...

I'm going to disagree with that. I don't think it's primarily the optics. I think it has a lot to do with stormwater runoff and things like that, and then drainage into streams and waterways and... Because when you have that much of mass grading, it is very difficult to then protect all of that and to make sure that you have the erosion control measures adequately in place. And when a developer is going through that, they're maintaining those that were initially installed and ensuring that issues are not arising later on. And I think that's what they're talking about with this. It's not necessarily aesthetics, although yes, it looks terrible and you get a lot of complaints, but part of that is because it is causing subsequent issues.

And this was not proposed by the aesthetics crew. This was proposed by the stormwater crews.

And so, for clarification, this language is not currently in the draft. So if we wanted to adopt something like this, we would need to add this language tonight? Correct. Okay.

I would propose this could be one of the first amendments with further study. Okay.

You're good. I'd really like to see it not in there. It hadn't been in there before.

And I'm OK with studying it, as Mr. Harper and Mr. Neuhoff said, just kind of putting it in as a text amendment. I think it is something that we need to address. I think it's just going to involve some additional conversations. And I think developers aren't going to object to things like this necessarily, because there is a maximum number of acreage that they want to develop at a certain time, because they don't want to lose control of stormwater issues and things like that themselves. So I think it's just probably additional conversations and then add it into a text amendment later. All right. We will track that.

All right, that was, yeah, I think we were on 17, unless somebody else has a problem with being on 15 or 16. All right, 17. A lot of this is cleanup. 18. All right, and now 19.

Let me just let's go back to 120. I was just looking at that on these extensions. You had to have vested rights. And there's a state law. Does that apply to like what the council? approved first reading or is this something different?

Two separate things. This is related to something that's already... Well, 120, as I read it and as I have understood it, Planning Commission is asking that Planning Commission approve any DA extensions.

I think that still needs to be canceled responsibility.

The attorney's clarification is there's a distinction between the development agreement and vested rights. How are we feeling about 120? Or Sean, do you want to add to that?

I can provide a little bit of clarification on what the Planning Commission is really saying. What they're saying is that there are two separate provisions that they think are in conflict. One says that they may approve vested rights extensions, and one says that they must. And the statute says that they must in certain situations. In theory, there are other situations where Maybe they may. But I think that they want some clarity and would rather just have it be must, is the way I was taking it.

Okay. So the conversation here is being consistently must or having may and must. Okay. So must. So are we... Are we in agreement that it should be consistently must?

That follows state law.

It does?

It would have followed state law, yeah. Okay, all right.

Councilman Harper, that answer your question?

Should we just delete two then? Should we delete 14.9.3 .

Shawn is shaking his head yes. Yes, okay.

So. I'm gonna include it as a note, even though the matrix then says that we recommend deleting it, because there's still a question above it, so.

All right. Anything else on page 18? If not 19. All right. That brings us to the end of the matrix as it was provided to you.

You got a comment on 124?

124. Explain that 124. Yeah, thank you. All right, so this is a...

question that the Planning Commission raised really about both the materials and the documentation that they received for preliminary plat review and also their scope of authority in reviewing and approving the layout of a subdivision and so that they kind of work like this in the current standards For subdivision plats, building locations and parking locations are required to be shown. And in the context of changing the residential subdivision parking requirements for individual lots, they were thinking practically, how are we gonna do this? Are we going to have to look at a subdivision plat and determine if there are enough parking spaces per lot to meet the requirement? which led into the question of currently the preliminary plat requirement makes you show buildings and parking areas. It is more common not to require that kind of site plan for a preliminary plat. Generally, you would be required to show the subdivision lots, the easements, well, I'm gonna say the easements, the roadway, the infrastructure, and then lots, individual lots are all platted out, and then setbacks, so sort of buildable area would be shown, but not specific building locations. And in some ways, it's kind of the next approval, right? It's the building permit or zoning permit. There are several other reviews and approvals to get you to the point where you're gonna have to decide where to put the buildings. And in theory, it could prohibit you from, let's say that I owned some land and I just wanted to subdivide it. I didn't have a particular purpose in mind with it. I was going to sell them to some people, to some other people for whatever they wanted to do with it. At the point that I'm trying to subdivide it to sell it to these other people who we don't know who the other people are yet, nobody knows where the buildings are going to go or what the use is or what parking is going to be required. And so there are certainly counties and cities in the state that require this kind of specificity but i think that just for the general context of a subdivision approval process it makes a little bit more sense not to include kind of level of specificity of buildings and any more questions on the matrix what so what do we

What's the outcome of that? What are we doing?

Trying to get back to see exactly how it's worded now. Again, that was one of those situations where that was simply capturing a conversation between two different planning commission members. What does the UDO say now is required for a preliminary plot?

So the current UDO and the draft both require buildings and parking to be.

And I think the problem that we've seen is that when they're putting the buildings on a preliminary plat, then opens the door to conversations about setbacks and all these other issues which we are requiring. So if we want to open the door, for those additional issues and we're requiring that, then this would seem to indicate to me that it requires that obligation. That we would have to review those things as part of the preliminary plat because we're requiring them to show the building. So if we want to approve just a preliminary plat, we should be reviewing a preliminary plat. No buildings, we just have the calculations.

So currently the UDO on a preliminary plat, we do not look, you don't have to place your buildings or your parking because it's a preliminary plat subdividing lots. The proposed UDO, we had a planning commission member wanting on a preliminary plat to have buildings and parking and those type things. And a lot of times they don't, you know, they can have the building envelope, but they're not going to have parking and that type thing on a preliminary plat.

It's in the draft UDO right now. There is a requirement for those buildings and all that. Right. It's not just that the Planning Commission had said it's in that. It's in the current draft. It is in this draft.

Yeah, in this. How do you address that if you subdivide a piece of property and sell it where you don't have a building that goes on it?

yeah so if they come in and have a preliminary plat or do a subdivision like this typically they just show the the property if they have a building on it um you're going to have to have them show setbacks and you're going to be basically reviewing a civil construction plan the whole the whole nine yards and i mean that's probably buildings you do parking you got to know what the grades are and what the fall is and everything else yeah Yeah, you have to know a lot of the topo and all that and know exactly where it's going to go. If not, you're going to keep having revisions and you're going to have to amend that plat.

What does the state require for a preliminary plat review or approval?

I got you on that too. I think what we should probably say on preliminary plats is that the preliminary plats should show what is required pursuant to applicable law. Got you.

Jenny you got and that's a problem also the just applicable law doesn't necessarily encompass a list of things that you could show an applicant and so really what this Planning Commission comment is about is this discussion that some of them think it would be useful to see required parking areas and Where the building locations will be and some of them thinks that's onerous burden and not related to the subdivision process But to your point, but to your earlier point all of that information will be shown at some point Right.

And so this is it is a preliminary

And I think the biggest risk in including buildings and parking in the subdivision plat is that that is not the purpose of the subdivision review. Correct. And the subdivision and the planning commission doesn't have the authority or purpose to review that level of specificity and detail in site planning. Is the general consensus to remove those?

Okay. I think Councilman Luis's point of just referring back to what is the minimum requirements per state law.

that correct okay all right and i'm gonna so i'm gonna have a rain delay so going back to comment 120 that had to do with the vested rights and i think probably what we should say in that one as well is refer back to applicable law that way if the law changes our udo is consistent with that provision i think i'm comfortable with that

All right, any more comments on our matrix?

I got a couple. I wanna go back to 13. Concern that district standards are found throughout the UDO rather than the HCO section. I'm not sure what that means. Or what's the action that's supposed to happen or not happen?

I think the planning commission's concern there where there were stuff smattered around, that would point back to the HCO. They were asking that it all be consolidated into a single spot, and I don't know that that's possible.

That is the conversation, maybe not the entirety of the conversation. Some, I think, preferred the HCO standards all being in one place. They are all in one place now. It would be possible to put them back together, but right now they're generally... with whatever that topic is. So signs, standards are with signs. Access and connectivity, they're with access and connectivity. It was organized that way really through staff concerns and applicant concern is just very difficult when you're planning a specific thing whatever that like everybody has kind of their different field of you know expertise and so maybe your stormwater person is doing a plan and your engineer is doing a plan and you know your traffic people are doing something so each one of these different groups is kind of looking at their section but then they don't also look at the hco Separate section so by putting everything together that relates to the regulation of a particular topic I think there's some better Ability for the applicants and their designers to find the information that they need in the code.

That was the purpose of it It can exist in either way And folks will eventually adjust to however we decide to communicate the information. So this is really a matter of preference for you and for the Planning Commission. Exactly.

I have no preference at all. I just want to make sure we're capturing whatever. I don't know if there's any action there.

unless nothing necessarily has to be done with that, we can leave it as is.

Okay, I wanna make sure, so I think it's 48, the horse. I just wanna make sure I understand where do we end up with the horse thing? Or do we need to take any action or is that? How many horses are allowed per acre? How is that working?

The horse allowance per acre is a half an acre per horse. We will restore that. There was a glitch in copy and paste.

I just want to make sure I understood that. For clarity and capture, do we need to specifically say that here?

Yes.

I would feel better if we go ahead and call it out on the record.

To say we're going to do a half acre?

Half acre per horse and go ahead and... We were lucky there was less horse owners in the county than there were chicken owners.

It was one horse and two ponies. What was it?

Miniatures or whatever that is.

Miniature horses or...

They called it miniature horses.

Miniature horses or ponies. Okay. Per half acre.

And the bees were taken care of as well? I believe so, yes.

Okay.

All right. Anybody else? Are we doing anything with 13?

I don't think so. No. No.

So what's the comment if we're adopting the matrix? Because it's really not giving anything. We're deleting comment 13?

I don't think you necessarily ‑‑ there really is no recommendation in 13, so if you'd like to delete it, that's fine. I mean, that's one of those scenarios where ‑‑ and make sure I don't say this incorrectly. As of right now, HCO requirements are spread out throughout the UDO. If you would like to change that, then I would ask for you to amend it. If you don't want to change that, I would either delete that ‑‑ delete 13 or just leave it silent.

Could you put where the HCO is, the listing, or is this the way it is, the listing where all the things are?

Say that again.

If you've got one section that's covering the highway corridor overlay, but you've got different specifications in different sections, can you not list where those are under that section?

We probably just cross-reference it probably.

Cross-reference, and that way they can move, they know where it's at, but it's not all together there.

Councilman Luis, did you capture that? Okay.

You're doing very good over here. Taking good notes.

Arlene might promote you to a list. I might. Top of what list? Our favorite Republicans.

That won't happen. All right.

Okay. UDO matrix going once. Any other changes?

I'm just confirming the language in all the comments just to make sure that there's nothing that's...

I do have one more discussion item. I do think we should have a conversation around development agreements and make sure that we're on the same page of what we're thinking or not thinking about development agreements.

All right, can we pause that conversation and get through? Yeah, so section 21 or comment 21 is the recommendation in the matrix to delete this section in its entirety?

Say yes.

So we should make that an affirmative comment because right now it's just talking about this list and then it just says this recommendation. Or do you think if we just refer, Jenny, if we refer generally to the matrix and the approvals, do you think we're okay with that language? Okay, so we're okay.

Sean's getting a workout.

So 23, comment 23, it's saying reconsider allowed uses in BT district, but there's no decision on that one. So are we saying to do that?

That's another one without any specificity. That's why I'm asking, what do we want to do with that one? I don't remember the context for that. 23.

Sorry, I do have a little bit of additional insight into what that comment means. So in the business and technology district, which is a new district, hasn't been mapped anywhere. The planning commission was a little bit concerned that the really kind of two things, either the range of uses was a little bit broad and leaned a little bit more into industrial manufacturing than they would have hoped, or it didn't include access requirements onto an arterial road in a way that it would satisfactorily address concerns with those industrial sites. And so I think it's kind of a trade-off. Would you want to remove some of the uses, like electronic equipment manufacturing, or would you want to require an arterial road It seemed like to me that the Planning Commission really kind of came down in general on the side of just requiring arterial access, which is very common for a lot of the other use standards in districts.

So it was the recommendation to just make it a requirement to have arterial access? Yes. Are we, does that sound okay? Hold on, let me write it down. And then in 32, it's saying consider allowing vehicle services.

That's a yes or no.

So does the staff want us to have vehicle services minored as PR in NB? So we want to allow it, okay. 36, consider deleting government offices.

Oh, 36.

So do we wanna, so delete, the recommendation is delete it. I'm just gonna say delete it. Yes, yes. 38, consider consolidating fairgrounds with outdoor amusement. So 38 is consolidate. Yes. I'm just gonna move forward. I'm assuming that's a yes. Sorry. 56, it's consider reducing the 500 foot separation distance in paragraph E1 for kennels.

Say that, what number was that again?

56. I'm in 56. 310.2, kennels outdoor, consider reducing the 500 foot separation distance.

Did staff have a recommendation of what they wanted to reduce it to?

Yeah, is there a recommendation?

can we have someone come up so the doubt that they have to be located in a parcel that's at least two acres so 500 feet it seems to be a lot so I would think to 250

I have no reference.

I have no reference either.

250 it is.

60, it's saying paragraph B3 says insert graphic on site configuration, need to add graphic or delete. So that's for, yeah, that's for you all. We have a graphic that we can add there. Common 60 is add graphic. Same thing for 62. Yes. 66 instead consider adding separation distance between hives. That's where you were talking about the bees.

I don't know about that.

As background, I'll say that there are folks on the Planning Commission that know a lot more about beekeeping than I do. I'm sorry, I don't bring that skill set to the table. So I think that their general concept was the UDO adds a minimum lot area. Their thought was that a minimum lot area is maybe irrelevant because the bees don't recognize lot lines and they fly all over everywhere. A separation distance between hives, that is a very standard thing for uses that you could put too many of one thing in one place, but also it could be very hard to police.

Yeah, I think we should just delete this, frankly. I mean, how in the world are we gonna keep that up and how are we gonna, I think that's something we just, we're trying to solve a problem that I don't know if it's a problem.

I would be fine deleting it until it's a problem.

Have there been any mass bee casualty events?

No, but we want to eat bee police.

I mean, we have... Yeah, I don't think we'll, I don't wanna go down the chicken. I know Jose wants to go down a chicken.

I do not wanna go down. I said everything I needed to say about chickens. All right, so we're comfortable deleting comment 66.

I think we should do that.

So delete the minimum lot requirements.

Yes. Basically what I was hearing you all say was that you would prefer that Bs just not be regulated.

Correct, just remove the section or reference.

Okay. Next up is 69. It says concern that required buffers between commercial and residential uses are insufficient.

and there's no recommendation there. And I don't know that Planning Commission had a specific recommendation. I think that's, for some of these that are ambiguous.

So just delete the requirement and let them come back and I mean, if they're gonna change something, because I don't know how to.

Yeah, I would see how that's written.

I mean, the way it reads, we already have required buffers, but the concern is, are they large enough?

I could just leave it unless we're gonna.

Yeah, you could just simply say for item 69, the current draft of the UDO is sufficient and can be studied at a later date.

So the buffer yard is changing the requirements. We're gonna go by the use instead of the adjacent property, what it was on, but that's how we currently do it in the UDO. But I think the buffer yard table that we are proposing, it doesn't just say commercial, it has it all listed out by retail, restaurant, office, and that type thing. So the buffer from residential to what would be a retail, you have three options that you can do, but I don't think that they thought that was enough. And I think the highest being 40 foot, a 40 foot, and then they could reduce it down to 30. And the plantings, the more they reduced it down, the more the plantings were, the larger the buffer, the width of the buffer, the less plantings.

I don't recall that conversation and reducing that. during the ad hoc and maybe it was discussed. It was not discussed? This is a new topic raised by the planning committee.

Okay. My recommendation at this point would be leave it as is and let them address it leave leave this section as the udo currently is and i think you may have to state you may have to actually state that yeah i i've got that okay and then 70 is adding the 20-foot option from the current udo is that the recommendation yep yep

Is that the recommendation? Add back the 20 foot option. Okay. 72 in paragraph E2, a type C buffer for manufactured home parks adjacent to other residential uses seems excessive. What's the recommendation?

That's a staff comment. Yep.

Okay, so just delete that comment.

Okay. 75, there was a planning commission comment that the commercial development is not generally required to provide open space, but the table includes commercial requirements. This is a bit misleading. So what's the recommendation?

As Sean comes back up, can we go back to how you have verbalized item 72 or you? Delete that comment from the matrix. Okay.

So on comment 75, comment 75 goes kind of hand in hand with comment 76. First comment is that the section says generally open space isn't required for commercial development. And then the table requires commercial districts to provide open space. So the section, the paragraph after generally not required is unless it is a master-planned, I'm gonna have to pull up the exact language, but a master-planned commercial development involving multiple lots and users. Let me get to the right place. all right and so really what is needed here for clarity between as is there needs to be a footnote in the table that says that the commercial requirement only applies in situations where there is a master planned hold on let me when there is a master plan commercial development that includes multiple parcels or buildings intended For more than one tenant or user, they must provide the open space provided in the section. And so generally the concept was that, and this is, I'll kind of bring us back to the ad hoc committee's discussion, The concept was that open space will generally not be required even in the HCO where it is required now, but it would be required in master planned commercial developments where there are gonna be many different users of the site. That's generally what that comment means.

So what I'm gonna say for 75 and 76 is add the appropriate footnote to clarify. Okay, 77 is just a consider removing the minimum sizes for the different types of open space. It's section 4.4.3.

I think our concern was that these minimum sizes were, some of them were a little troubling. It would be hard to regulate. So I think we could make the half-acre for a car, but leave the description and the type, but to take away the minimum size would be to regulate it on the plane rather than have it be referred to in the computer. And then give us the calculations.

thought but I thought we had during the conversations I thought we had specified the minimum sizes for open spaces so there yes so the draft includes minimum sizes for open spaces and in particular in the committee we talked about a minimum size for natural open space so that you didn't end up with kind of like a buffer string between the lots you know like the lots that front this street and then a little skinny street and so basically There are standards like that, dimensional standards, minimum area, sometimes minimum width or whatever, for each one of the different open space types. It already existed before that conversation, but we added that in particular for natural open space to ensure that the shape isn't just a little skinny string. I think to keep that As a requirement, you'd probably have to keep at least some of the minimum dimensional standards.

I think I'd prefer to keep those minimum requirements. They're there. Are we okay with deleting that comment? Hear no objection. 82 was concerned with significant increase in parking required for single-family homes.

And for that one, either council wants to keep that standard or not. And if you would like to change it, we just need something to change it to.

What do you think, Steve? Keep it as is?

I need to look at that. What What do we increase it to?

It says consider.

What does it read, or how does it read now, Sean?

5.2.2. What does that say?

What are the current parking requirements?

Shannon, can you hit what the current, you mean the- No, what is the draft?

What is the draft? Sorry.

You can do that.

Yeah, sorry. What is the draft?

This is the one that had to do with the bedroom conversations and all that. Yeah, I think we leave it as what we had discussed during the ad hoc committee, which is what I think is in the draft. That should be the case, yes.

I just don't remember what it was. Right, so it is the greater of two per dwelling unit or one per bedroom, which is what we talked about on the committee. But for a five-bedroom house would require five parking spaces.

I don't think we said that. I think there was probably a cap or a limitation.

I don't think so. I think we need to add something.

All right. So read the draft.

We either need to cap it or come up with a... That's right.

So the draft as written is the greater of... Oh, it's the greater of.

Yeah. So if you had six bedrooms, you would have to have parking spots. Right.

I don't think we had discussed the greater of. That's what I was saying.

Yeah, I think we just need to come up with.

Hold on a second. There's a footnote here. Let me. All right, hold on. The footnote says at least two spaces must be provided on each lot. In addition, spaces may be provided on the lot or as on-street parking. All existing parking spaces must conform with the SCD, on street parking must conform with the roadway design manual.

I'm gonna recommend that we have it at two, then one per bedroom capped at four. Cause it's not just within the lot, but it's also off street or on street parking, right? Is that okay? The only thing we're adding there is capping it at four. Capping it at four.

We do have issues in these neighborhoods developments where they're parking in the streets and fire trucks can't get through. And we had talked about this earlier of having parking lots for overflow because now people's using their garage for man caves or storage or whatever and they can't pull their cars in. So if they got a couple kids with cars and their driveway won't hold but two, you got two that's gonna be parked on the street that's creating issues. I think that's where we're talking about this.

I think in the newer developments though, the street standards have changed from some of the older.

It's the width of the road.

There's some developments up in Indian Land that you have to weave in and out because you gotta drive down the middle of the street.

It's okay for a car to get through, but big, wide fire trucks and stuff, it's an issue.

But the street standards have changed since then, so I think that accommodates it.

I'm not sure if I can answer it, but I think when we talked about the parking, we were talking about town homes and apartments and those type things. And then we were talking about also for single family dwelling, the driveways being larger and wider. And then also giving them an option of having a separate place to where they could have extra parking within that subdivision or within that development. Um, that's, um, as I remember that we talked about on the committee and with the planning commission, but it was the concern of a single family dwelling that had five cars or five people that could drive. Where would they put those five cars?

Yep. So I think the likelihood is that not that many homes are gonna have four cars. So even if we did cap it at four, that one home that had the five, if we're requiring it and capping it at the four, they will have additional spaces somewhere. Either we did it along the roads that would then be widened or we had specific areas that would be parking areas for the community. If I recall correctly, I think that's what we had said.

That's what I remember.

Those will be shared parking places. Correct. So how are you going to calculate who gets, if you got five bedroom houses, are you going to have to have five additional, you'll have to have five additional parking spots?

No, we would cap it at the four.

That's the garage, if you have a double garage, that's two places.

Okay, 83. I'm just saying that we're going to go with a WSC recommendation. Yes, 84. I don't have anything there.

Staff didn't want it to say no minimum, but that staff would provide an equation. We were going to do a little research between surrounding counties and give an actual equation. Because the ones that were requiring a parking demand study, which we'd like to stay away from, are like the very large facilities like convention centers and conference centers. And so we felt that we could pull an equation from the surrounding area.

So what should be the recommendation?

Yes, similar uses. But off the top of my head, I couldn't tell you.

So we didn't want it to have, because we currently already have a lot of no, the minimum parking. We don't have that. It's just blank. So we would like to be able to have the minimum. So when someone comes in, so we're going to look at, and of course we can't think of all the uses, but we're going to calculate those in similar uses as far as restaurant retail, what kind of groups in with the same type of use.

For the purpose of today, you don't have the equation yet. The current draft requires the parking demand study. my suggestion would be we leave the parking demand study in the draft as is, and there's a directive that this needs to be one of the first items we take up on text amendment afterwards. That work? Yes.

Thank you for, that's what I needed.

I'm tracking, tracking.

So 88 is a consideration to relocate or just reduce, eliminate conflicts. That's section 5.6, I guess.

Is there... It's item 88. 88. Sean.

The comment as I understand it is suggesting that the standards all be relocated into one place for driveway access requirements.

I would say that makes sense. So the feedback you need from council is consolidate or not. Okay.

I would recommend consolidating. That seems like it's probably the easiest to have it all in one section for one review. Is that?

I agree. Unless I'm

91, there is a consider prohibiting pylon signs. If they are prohibited, reconsider the setback for illuminated signs.

We had, the staff wanted to remove the pile on signs or if they're going to continue, I mean, if we're going to have them there, because currently the UDO and the proposed UDO says five feet. So we would like for it to set back, especially if it's going to be located on arterial road to at least be out of the road right away and off the side.

So what would be the setback that you'd recommend?

I was 50 feet from the road right away.

50 feet?

Mm-hmm. from a major arterial road.

From that property line?

No, from the road right away. That is a property line is a right away.

Well, you could have the, it could actually be further in because the right away could actually go into the property line. So that's a lot.

Well, I'm just wanting to make sure I'm clear. So are you saying 50 feet beyond the right away? from the right from the road right away so it would be you know wherever the road right away is which is in the hat you know half of the road half of are you just so center line 50 feet from center line okay 50 feet from center line that makes more sense okay that's what i was trying to get to okay yes that's not the way correct i interpret right away

I'm gonna suggest that we probably hold this one off for a text amendment and just delete the comment for now. Very good with that.

So if I could plug in, as the person that reviews sign permits, we would like to not have pylon signs. We currently don't allow them anywhere, and I would be okay with continuing that, like we continue to not allow pylon signs.

Let's revisit that one.

Okay.

I mean, I'm okay with removing the pylon signs.

They're not allowed in the highway corridor.

So delete pile on sides. 94 we've already covered.

I think all the other ones we've already covered. 120 we did.

So I'm gonna go back for 121 and 122. there's a question in the definitions of planning director and zoning administrator that it would include or their designee, I'm not comfortable with that. Like I would rather have it be the person who is authorized to do that should be the person authorized to do that. Because I don't know who is gonna be the designee. Okay. If we wanna have a secondary person, if we don't have one, I would say then we put in the county administrator. Sorry, Brian. And that's, yeah, I hear you.

And I was afraid that's where you were going with that. I saw that one coming. The struggle is the practical application of the dispersion of work. And the planning director isn't always the one physically making that decision. Just as a matter of, again, just delegation of work. Sean, I can defer to you on that one.

Well, I don't necessarily need deference on this, but I was going to at least say that in the current draft, under both, so not in the definition, but in the draft, Chapter 13, administration section for both planning director and zoning administrator. It basically authorizes those people to designate other county employees to perform tasks. And that's very common. Your building official is authorized to go out and do building inspections, but the building official doesn't have to do every building inspection by himself, right?

And that's sort of where I was headed is, Just because the planning director has a designee doesn't mean the planning director is not responsible for the decision. There are a lot of folks in the county that make decisions. Ultimately, I'm going to be the one responsible for those decisions. Yeah. And so there's just a practical delegation of work. that if the planning director is the physical body that is responsible for making all of these determinations, is that doable? And I think that's where the challenge comes in.

I understand your... I think my problem is putting it in the defined term itself. I would rather look at specific instances where a designee would make more sense as opposed to... And that's where I'm... Because once you put it into a defined term, you're opening up... a pandora's box because it could be it could be anything and it could actually get us in trouble with some things that it may not be allowed to be assigned so i think we probably either need to review it as a text amendment afterwards or i think we leave it as is and then have the planning commission have them go through it and then look at every defined term

I think I would rather have this as a text amendment. Because I think we need to sit down and look at the practical application of it. And that just takes some case by case scenarios.

Yeah, exactly. OK. So I'll put those as comments. And I think we're done.

We're done with that part.

I did.

I'm going to pass this out to you all, if you could take one of those and pass it down. You all received an email earlier today from our attorney. My recommendation on the items listed in Section 12 here is to instruct Planning Commission to take up and consider these recommendations and to make these changes at the Planning Commission level. That gives you all time to review the email you got this afternoon. They did not get that email today. I got that email today. How about that? The request would be that whoever's making the motion direct Planning Commission to consider and incorporate these recommendations into the draft UDO. Yes, okay.

And this is the administration section?

Yes, this is the administration section.

And Mr. Chairman, for the record, I'm happy to explain to council that these are based upon statutory requirements that the draft UDO has currently written and proposed to you is in conflict with state law. So those are why these are must fix for that administration section.

Great, thank you. Anyone have any comments or?

Okay. I'm making a comment as the last comment to revise the UDO to add the county attorney recommended revisions.

If you would that would be great and I will be happy to provide the language or I believe Sean may already have that language to propose when it goes back to the PC exactly what it should say to make sure it's in compliance with state law.

I just want to make sure that phrasing it that way is going to be sufficient for the motion.

What we will do is this will now since you have considered it during your meeting it will become a part of the minutes so it becomes a part of the official record so yes sir.

All right. I think I'm good.

Now we're going to, Mr. Chair, make the motion, second it, and he will read out the list.

I think I'm going to make the motion and include the revisions. And then a second. Yes. Okay.

Before we do that, does anybody else have any more comments on any other sections that we haven't covered?

With this matrix, no, but I do think we need to have a discussion on development agreements. If we want to handle that, do this first and then come back to that or?

Yeah, we need to have that conversation first and if there's any action that needs to be a part of that. So let's have that conversation and then we will make the motion.

So Mr. Chairman, if I may, so I can explain so you understand. When you send this back to PC, they're gonna look at what you're recommending, what you're saying in response to what they've done. They could potentially come back and give you new language. as long as you've provided them something, if they change it, they have considered your language, even if they come back with something different. But if you provide them nothing and they come back with something and you don't like it, we're doing another volley back to the PC, which continues to delay your adoption of this UDO. So that's why it's imperative that you get to them what you want them to consider. So on this matrix where you remove things, that's absolutely fine. That's out of it. They're not considering it. But if you send language back to them, and they change that language and send it back you don't necessarily have to accept that you've already sent them what you want but if you change it again it's going back to pc there's no definition of substantive it is if you change text or maps in this udo from these volleys it keeps going back to pc and back to you so oh god so there's

I think one of the concerns that the Planning Commission had was just making sure that all the references in tables were consistent with what was in writing in the UDO.

Those are not substantive changes, as long as if they're procedural, grammatical, things like that, just making those kinds of consistencies, that's not it. But if you were to say, send back, let's consider 20 acres, or let's say what we were just talking about, 50 feet from the right of way. You send that and they come back and they say, no, we want to reduce it to 25. And it comes back to you as 25. But you say, no, we want 50. That doesn't need to go back to them. They've already heard your 50. But if you were to come back and say, OK, well, we'll split the baby here and we'll do something in between 35, it's going back to PC again. So that's where we have to be very cautious with what you're sending them. So they've considered something. Even if they send you something back different, you don't have to take it as long as they've considered what you've suggested.

So go ahead.

So on a development agreements and requirements, I just want to make sure I'm understanding a couple of things. One is, does it still refer back to roof? So it, it looks, there's two seat, two times a development agreement is required. One, it refers to a cluster subdivision, but I don't know if we have a cluster subdivision in the draft. actually one of the comments is to remove that portion so in that scenario so we would remove the cluster subdivision because there isn't a cluster subdivision correct and i get the the other one is if it's a planned development district it would require um a development agreement right does it require it

So Sean can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think 12.4.5.1 right now says the DAs are mandatory for every cluster subdivision and every planned development district rezoning.

Right. So I think the planned development district, that makes sense, but I want to make sure we understand what we're doing on the other situations. So if someone comes in a highway, if they come along 521 and they're going to go from RN to LDR or something else, that would not trigger development agreement in our current draft UDO. My question to council is, is that what we want or do we want to trigger something? Because otherwise we have no mechanism to negotiate any terms with any kind of development other than planned development district. I personally think we need to do something.

That's going to be easier to do than try to collect impact fees over a long period of time that so far have really not collected enough to do anything.

Well, I mean, currently we don't have impact fees. Yeah, I know.

I was talking about the school and any land.

Yes, I mean, I'm primarily focused on those areas to the south of the current areas that we are collecting and have impact fees in place. So my concern is that if we, I think we need to put some language in there that triggers the development agreement.

So if I may, again, the state code 63110 at SEC says a DA is allowed for property that contains 20, it must contain 25 acres of highland. Now that could be residential subdivisions, commercial developments, industrial developments, mixed use development. You could, much like you've done other things, you could refer to state law on what triggers a DA or what could be there instead of naming out all these different types of zonings. Obviously the PDD, you had the cluster before, but the state law says 25 acres or more of highland, a DA is allowed for that.

So, I mean, I guess the question is, do we require that or do we say that this, I mean, what would be good language to put in that? that says may right okay so i mean that's that's discretion so if we i'm just trying to walk through a scenario someone comes in uh an applicant comes in they say i want to rezone these 50 acres they they see the they see talk to planning staff and planning staff is going to say we say may i mean i guess it's up to the developer and and to have conversations with the planning staff but i'm trying to figure out like what How do we stay out of trouble in those scenarios where one 50-acre parcel doesn't do a development agreement and then another one we come on the front end and say, hey, you might want to do a development agreement. I think we're asking for an issue there.

I think you need to be consistent in what you're doing. Whether it's at least having the conversation about a development agreement and then it if you get into it and you think, well, this is not going to work or they're offering something better than what you thought you were going to get. So, I mean, it's not.

The development agreement.

So, which, I'm sorry.

Go ahead, is developer will only ask for one or if there's additional density.

you know by if it's by right sure right right if it's if they if they're proposing a project and it's they they already got ldr i mean and it's ldr like i'm i'm not sure how if there's any mechanism that we can use i would love to hear it so making them categorically mandatory could be

issue what you could do is have something along the lines of the county may enter into a development agreement pursuant to South Carolina law of 631 10 exec only with respect to property satisfying eligibility requirements and it nothing would authorize the DA inconsistent with the county's comprehensive plan you could tie it to your comp plan or land development regulations except to the extent otherwise expressly authorized by applicable law and then you're negotiating with these properties because that's what it is that DA is a negotiator So it leaves it open to you all to kind of decide with these developers how they want to do that. Do they want a DA that's going to protect them? Do you? I mean, that's what a DA is. It's a contract negotiation between you and that developer. Much to your points about getting impact fees, getting the monies, et cetera. That's what it comes down to.

But to be clear, it could only be triggered in a rezoning situation.

Not necessarily.

I want a clarification on that. So in the current draft... the so there is a requirement excuse me for development agreements for 20 for developments that are 25 acres or more for multi-family multi-family age restricted triplex and fourplex and cottage cores that is a decision that came out of the ad hoc committee it's a requirement i honestly i think that it's something that you really may not want to require because you might not want a development agreement in every you might not be able to come to a development agreement in a number of those situations. It is much more common with planned development districts. And I think that the concept of if you change the applicability to say that the county may enter into these, I think that that leaves it open. for what that's worth.

And note, it's not triggered by the rezoning. They're two categorically separate things.

So if somebody comes in, they have LDR, they submit a project for that LDR land, for that property, they enter a negotiation, but they already have, what are we negotiating at that point? Because they already have it by right. So if there's a negotiation, I'm not understanding what the negotiation

Nor do I. And I don't know the history of how we have used DAs to the extent we have. In my mind, the trigger for a DA is when a developer is asking for anything that's not by right. Anything outside of by rights. Whether it's a rezoning, whether it's a density increase, whether it's any other... variation off of the zoning ordinance that that that historically is when i would have considered a da so i mean i mean is that a fair way we need to determine what public benefits being received to do a da that that's really what it comes down to i mean

Yeah, I mean, if there's nothing to negotiate and they have it by right, it's really council deciding to do impact fees or not. Like to me, that's the thing. And if you're not gonna do impact fees, then you're only gonna go through a development agreement when someone is trying to request higher density or typically than what they're currently zoned for. I mean, that's most of the negotiation.

should we just put a general comment that the county may require a development agreement in accordance with applicable law that that would be my recommendation okay i just wanted to make sure we had the conversation yes that was that was my my question to you was who who gets to decide whether or not there is a development agreement that language that language allows us to be the one to it it does but i think

what Mr. Graham is trying to say is that if we can establish some parameters to have consistency so that it's not just different decisions that are being made at different times,

so so for your point if they're by right if they come in and they say i want longer certainty or i want you know better statutory vesting then that's where the negotiation starts because they want something a little bit more than what they have by right and then you can come back and say okay well what are you willing to give us in return to do that correct it's a contract negotiation that's what a da is yep so in the in the udl if we use the the general terms there if we develop an internal

policy or procedure that walks through. I just don't want us to have a 50 acre lot sitting next to each other and this one has a DA and they have this similar project, they look the same, this one does and this one doesn't. I think we're asking for a problem.

And I don't know if we wanna manage. I think we could. I think we could do a separate policy that's not part of the UDO that's managed then by staff. that sets apart those parameters.

So let me make this suggestion. I think we can add the language that you just recommended. I think we already have a DA ad hoc committee. The DA ad hoc committee could take up creating a policy around that. Great idea.

Dang. I was afraid you were going to say that.

I got a question. I knew that's where you were going, and I was OK with it.

I got a question. The only reason, you know, the main reason a developer would want a development agreement would be for additional density or smaller lot sizes. Can that be written into a development agreement without redoing all the regulations? If somebody has a project that gets will approve?

where the only thing we would be giving on is either unit count or lot size. Is that what you're asking? Yeah. I don't know.

I mean, you still have limits on two and a half units per acre in EMDR. I think in that, and I'm way out of my league.

My assumption would be The DA can be as simple as we choose for it to be. We could simply say these are the two areas, three areas, five areas that we are conceding on. All other components of the UDO apply. And the public benefit in exchange for this are ABCD. I mean, is that a fair way to think about that?

So I would say in general that the concept of the development agreement is most clear and understandable in the context of developing infrastructure related to a development project. Roads, stormwater, and to the extent that the county isn't in the road business, I'm not sure that these would really be as applicable as you might think, because what is it that you were giving the developer? If it's this negotiation, you have to give them something, but what do you have to give them?

It's like rezoning with higher density.

Correct.

I mean, some of the development agreements we've gotten, they have agreed to provide property for fire stations, EMS stations. They've agreed to pay a fee for each house to go to building those fire stations and things like that.

I think the general rule of thumb is that the DA can go more restrictive but still has to comply with the UDO.

So in other words if the lot size is an acre you can't lower it to a half an acre in exchange for the DA and payment of

school funding or something is that correct okay i think that's something the other point we might want to come back and review after we well i'd like to have the da at least a general term in the udo right now because i don't want to come out of this and and have a flood of

Yeah, I mean, I think if we include the language that we just talked about that is in alignment with the state statute and makes reference to the state statute and gives us the discretion of engaging in a DA, then it's on this body to establish what the policies need to be or the ad hoc committees recommendation to this body on what the policies and essentially a rubric would be for what the DA would look like.

essentially the da locks in the development standards so for example if a da comes up right now and you've got this udo rewrite but you change something by text amendment or you change it again later they're locked in now to what that was you can't override the udo with a da you're locking it in so that they are developing in accordance with the standards that they came at that time.

Which is the benefit and the burden of a development agreement, because then you have to go back and reanalyze what those ordinances were at that time with whatever text amendments were in existence at that time.

For example, Edgewater, et cetera, those are very old and applying to UDOs that existed way back when that we have to pull out and read through that are very different from the standards now.

So my preference is that we reserve the right to have the development agreements and add the language that we're talking about but really I think we need to go in the direction of the impact fees to have it as a whole solution as opposed to trying to go piece by piece and then putting more work on staff to then have to decipher what ordinance we were looking at, what were the applicable provisions, because I've seen some of those books, Shannon. Yeah.

Are we ready? From a staff standpoint, that is the struggle with the DAs is we're having to evaluate four different UDOs on a development that we agreed to 10 years ago. It's hypothetical, but yes, that is a challenge.

Well, I think the timeframe of that period of that development agreement obviously is very important and probably something over 50 years is probably not a great place to be.

No, it's not.

Are we ready? I'm ready. Ready to make the motion. You gotta make the motion. All right. So I'm going to make a motion to approve with the following amendments revisions. revise the UDO to add the county attorney recommended revisions, add a provision to the UDO that the county may require a development agreement in accordance with applicable law, We're going to approve the general matrix revisions with the following conditions. Comment 11, Carolina Heel Splitter Overlay District, leave it in for now, create changes through text amendment later and establish the banking process and procedures. Comment 12, add Highway 5 to the HCO. Comment 13, revise to add cross references to other sections in the HCO section. Comment 23, require arterial access. Comment 32, allow vehicle services uses as PR in NB. Comment 36, delete it. Comment 38, consolidate it. Comment 48, correct the error to require one horse and two miniature horses per half acre. Comment 56, revise to 250 feet. Comment 60, add graphic. Comment 62, add graphic. Comment 66, delete the minimum lot requirements and B regulations. Comment 69, the current draft of the UDO is sufficient and leave it as is. Comment 70, add back the 20 foot option. Comment 72, delete the comment from the matrix. Comment 75, add appropriate footnote to clarify. Comment 76, add appropriate footnote to clarify. Comment 77, delete that comment. Comment 82, capping it at four parking spaces per single family dwelling. Comment 83, go with the WSC suggestion. Comment 84, leave the parking demand study and address in a text amendment later. Comment 88, recommend consolidating and confirm consistent with the rest of the UDO. Comment 91, delete pylon signs. Comment 94, consider allowing septic for larger lot sizes. Sorry, comment 94 is allow for three fourths of an acre minimum septic in RN and LDR where public water is available, not allowing shared septic and not allowing it to be located in open spaces. It has to be on the lot. Comment 96, remove requirement for mast arms at intersections in HCO. Comment 100, remove the alternate compliance provision. Comment 102, remove this and add as a text amendment later. Comment 120, delete section 14.9.3.8.2 and revise 14.9.3.8.5.B to require approval of vested rights in accordance with applicable law. Comments 121 and 122, delete comment and use as a text amendment. Comment 124, revise the change that the preliminary plat is required to show what is required by applicable law.

And you'll email that to Lauren, right? We have a motion and a second, is there any discussion? Who was the second? Mr. Mosteller was second. We have a motion and a second, is there any discussion? Hearing no discussion, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. All those opposed, it is unanimous. Okay, that is it. I'll take a motion to adjourn. We stand adjourned.