Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All Lexington County committees are being broadcast live on the Lexington County Spectrum channel 13 o two and Lexington County's website meeting portal. As such, this commission meeting filmed today will be available for viewing anytime on demand at our county website. In invocation?

Yes. If you would, let us pray. Heavenly father, we thank you for this day. We thank you for all that you provide us. And during this holy week, as we approach Easter, we thank you mostly for the gift of salvation that you give us. Pray that you will be with us this morning, guide our hearts and minds, and continue to bless those who serve our county, our nation in uniform. All these things we ask in the name of our risen lord and savior, Jesus Christ. Amen. You.

We stand for the pledge of allegiance. Moving to Tab A, minutes from last month. Have a motion.

Motion approved. Second.

Commissioner Price?

Yes.

Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto?

Yes.

Commissioner Frost?

Yes.

Vice Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

Abbe, activity reports.

Thank you and good morning everyone. We've got quite a bit of catching up to do, so I'll try to move through it as quick as I can. So we didn't have the activity reports for the last few months and we didn't have a meeting last month, so we're just a little behind, but we're catching up. So in January, we had a 177 site built permits and 50 manufactured permits that month. In February, we had a 122 site built permits and 41 manufactured.

And in March, we had 163 site build permits and 51 manufactured permits. So this is our total for the year. So this is our first quarter is complete. It's at four sixty two. Interestingly enough, you will notice that it is the second highest number for the last five years, highest number being six fifteen in the 2020. So we have had quite a

few permits in this first quarter, and we'll see how that goes.

Same thing for our manufactured home permits. We're at 142 in this quarter, which is actually the highest number or quarter in the last five years. So we're installing manufacturing homes out. On the pipeline projects for, let's see, the last three months, we've had quite a few. The first one, in January, earlier, this year, it was Cedar Ridge, 72 lots on 12 acres.

It is a new project utilizing the new ordinance that's on on near Longspawn Road, in I 20. It's a Mungo home project that's in Council District 5, which is our new one of our new council people, councilman Fisher. We moved to February. First project in February is Crystal Park. It's a small project, three lots on four and a half acres.

It's a new project with the new ordinance. It's on Crystal Springs Drive. That's North of Pillion. That is the HomeMax Corporation, which is a manufactured home installer. That's District 1, and that's another council person, councilman Bishop. Third, I guess second in February was Ferry Grove. It's it's a phase project, phase 322 lots on 36 acres. That's using the new ordinance off of Cox Ferry Road and North Of I 20. The developer there is Ferry Grove Corporation. It's in District 2, just councilman Brigham.

Next, have Hollow Ridge, four lots on 5.5 acres. That's a new project under the new ordinance on Quattlebaum Road, South Of I 20, Franklin Road, out also, North of Fairview Road, which is pretty far out and South of Batesburg Leesville. That is another Homax project. Next, have Kaiser Road. That's 91 lots on 53 acres.

It's a new project under the new ordinance. That's in Red Bank, North Of Platte Springs, West Of South Lake Drive. That's District 5. Again, Councilman Fisher, and Kaiser Development is the developer. Next Summerlin Place, that is a phased project.

This phase three, forty three lots on 18 and a half acres the town of Batesburg, so it's using their, land development and zoning ordinances. Off of Town Pond Road, East of Fairview Road. So again, South Of Batesburg Leesville District 2 and Councilman Brigham, and that one is Amazon International Trade Corporation. Couple more. Timber Chase, 216 lots, a 105.5 acres.

Again, new project, new ordinance off of Emmanuel Church Road and Old Barnwell Road. So in Red Bank, Council District 41 of our new council people, councilman Cockrell, lines at White Knoll is is a developer there. Lastly, number 31 on our pipeline project map is Vista Oaks, 114 lots, 21 plus acres. That's a new project with the new ordinance on Cromer Road, near Oak Grove. So over toward, West Columbia, but South of I 20, District 4, that's Councilman Cockrell, investment company.

There were no pipeline projects in March. That's the pipeline list month or the last two, three months. I have another graphic for you that I clipped out of the newspaper the other day. There was an article about, whether or not Lexington was in the top 10 counties in growth for the last few years. So these are twenty two and twenty three population estimates.

So as you can see there with the Excel spreadsheet, Jasper and Berkeley were really high up there, so was Ori. Slide on down and Lexington was not in the top 10, but we were top 20 at about number 15. Our population at the end the year was three zero five, one hundred five and five twenty eight. I haven't quite gotten the 24 numbers yet. I suspect there'll probably be an estimate coming out pretty soon, and I'll try to put that together.

5% growth. Basically, that's our pipeline and development activity report for the month. If there are any questions, I can try to answer them.

One request, when you get the numbers for '24, could you send us that spreadsheet once you add those numbers? Sure.

I've been doing a spreadsheet for the administration for the last few years. Comes out from the Census Bureau. Facts, but it takes a little while to come around. So as soon as I do, I I can get that out to you all.

Thank you. All

right. Tab G, access policy variance.

Good morning. Today's variance request is regarding property owned by miss Sandra Murdoch, and she is here today in attendance. She owns approximately four and a half acres on Neely Wingard Road near the Gilbert area. This is a sketch of her existing property there with those four and a half acres. Miss Murdock lives on the property and would like to subdivide a portion of her land that includes her home and gift the remaining portion to her daughter.

Her daughter plans to build a home in the future and is required to have ownership of a parcel that's separated from her existing dwelling. Her parcel is accessed by a 50 foot flag lot driveway that is already providing an easement to an adjoining property. Therefore, she's requesting a variance to item three of the access policy, which states if an access easement is used to provide a driveway for a landlocked parcel, that access easement may not serve another landlocked parcel. This is a aerial photo showing the area of where she is at. You'll see this is I 20, Pond Branch Road, and the her property is accessed off of Neely Wingard.

This one is just a view of her area. You'll see that it's labeled and I apologize. I'm gonna turn around so I can see. You'll see that her driveway is labeled Omega Stables Lane. However, we don't have any record where she officially created a private road there. The GIS department does show where they documented a name for her driveway, but it has not been established as a Private Road. Miss Murdoch does not want to pursue that. We did discuss those options with her. She would rather pursue, the access policy variance. This is just a closer view of her property.

You'll see that this is her parcel with the flag lot driveway and this here at 1264 is where she's allowing that easement. Her property grants that easement. Here, we're just noting the two landlocked parsers that would be in place if the variance is approved. Her property would be labeled as a and the existing property b is where the 1264 Neely Wingard Road address is. We do have some photos.

These first two photos are at her driveway looking at Neely Wingard Road. The next one is going up through her driveway. You'll see that she does have some signage in place for Omega Stables Lane and, privately maintained road. This is along the driveway. The home that you're seeing is miss Murdoch's home.

This next one is, just another view of her property, and this is the driveway to that adjoining piece of property. And that just takes us back to her sketch, and she did send a letter. In her letter, she addresses the standards for a variance, and so I'll read that into record. To whom it may concern, I wish to be put on the agenda for the April meeting which I plan to attend. A, extraordinary and exceptional circumstances.

I wish to petition the committee for a variance to the access policy for an additional easement to Neely Wingard Road so I can split my property and give part to my daughter so she and her family can build a house. The mortgage companies will not give her a mortgage if there is already a home on the property. Otherwise, I would gift all of this parcel to her. I plan to also add her name to the piece that I retain so it will all be hers upon my death. There is already a legal access through my property by one landlocked parcel.

I cannot split my parcel because it would be landlocked. B, these conditions do not apply to other properties in the vicinity. They have their own access roads. C, because of these conditions, the application of this ordinance to this particular property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the building of a house on this property. D, the approval of this variance would not be a detriment to the adjacent properties or the quality of life for the residents of the county.

It is a private driveway, but we also allow others to use it because this road has been here for decades. E, when deliberating a variance request, financial hardships alone cannot be considered for the basis of a variance. The basis for this request is so my daughter and her family can build a house beside me. I am 71, and it would be good for me to have a family member close in case I become unable to care for myself. Thank you for your consideration on this matter, Sandra Murdoch.

Do y'all have any questions?

Yes. I do.

Yes, sir.

What's prohibiting miss Murdoch from making Omega Staples Lane a privately maintained road legally and

Yes, sir. Let me go back to the photo that we have that kinda shows her entire parcel. Alright. That way we can see all of those parcels involved. So we did discuss that with her.

So it would require her to actually formally dedicate those areas as a road right of way. It would require for her to plat a turnaround. And so when we discuss those ideas, she would rather pursue the access policy. There the private road policy does stipulate that a private road that is, accessed from a paved public road must also be paved and her driveway is not paved. So, she would not meet all of the requirements for, to be able to establish a private road without also asking for a private road variance. So she elected to pursue the access policy variance.

So either way there would be

a request for a variance? Yes, sir.

Yes, was just I mean,

that you think that's a bigger burden?

Why are you all looking at me?

You do it so well.

I'll give it a shot. Madam chair, I make a motion that we approve based on the fact that I feel miss Murdoch has met the five standards of our variance. I do believe there's extraordinary and exceptional circumstances here. This really doesn't apply to any other, properties in the vicinity. The application of this ordinance in particularly would not prohibit any use of any adjoining property or there is no financial hardship here that I can see. And most of all, it just makes sense. This is what she wants to do. I feel like she should be able to do it. So with that, I make a motion to approve. Second.

Motion and second. Call for vote.

Commissioner Price?

Yes.

Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto? Yes. Commissioner Hutto? Yes. Commissioner Frost?

Yes.

Vice Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

It passes. On to tab H. Thank you. Hi, Murdock.

Welcome. Thank you members of planning commission. We have two reviews this morning for concurrency. One in Lexington School District two, one in Lexington School District one. Just as a reminder, the concurrency reviews are simple sketch plan reviews that go through our office, to determine that the minimum density in open space standards are met.

These are sketch plans and not intended for, formal review and approval. The intent of sketch plans is to provide those to fire service, law enforcement, EMS, solid waste management, and the local school districts to review for set concurrencies, matrixes to ensure adequate public facilities are met. The last step prior to this going for council is the school district reviews by the Planning Commission. School districts provide information regarding these projects and have a design questionnaire that was approved and developed through our administration and all superintendents with the five school districts in Lexington County. There are additional questions that have been added to the questionnaires based on feedback and recommendations from Planning Commission.

Again, this is a recommend recommendation to counsel based on the information provided by the school district. The counsel is gonna be the final authority whether the project needs to move forward or not and based on the recommendation from counsel. So the first one I have for you this morning, well, just reading the records again, public schools cannot provide a yes or no answer in terms of adequate adequate public facilities. And again, administration community development staff work with all five public school districts development questionnaire to provide information for consideration of new developments. Per council's adopted policy, planning commissions review and make a recommendation to council who in turn makes the final decision based upon planning commissions response and all available information.

Within your packet, again, is a copy of the questionnaire which I will read into record and a copy of the location and sketch plan that has been reviewed by staff. Just some background on this project, it is located north and south sides of Pleasant View Drive and Bluff Ridge Road, is East of Old Orangeburg Road, West Of Edmond Highway near Lexington or South Of Lexington. Taxmat numbers are 779801017 and O25. These properties are within Council Districts 1 And 5, which is council councilman Bishop and councilman Fisher. The development type is single family residential and duplex type residential units.

The total acres for development is 221.17 acres. The proposed development has 624 total units, 424 single family, 200 are duplex. The overall density calculation is 2.821 dwelling units per acre. 39.97% of this project is in dedicated open space or total of 87 o eight acres, and this exceeds our 20% requirement for open space. Please note this is a revision to original concurrency approval from June 2024.

Council approved the original concurrency because this project was submitted during the moratorium, so it was a modified review for concurrency that did not go through school districts and planning commission. That approval had 316 single family units on a 181.15 acres. The reason for this request is developers acquired additional properties and has modified the design of this project. Per the developer, the project is gonna have approximately six to 12 phases with approximately 50 to 100 units per phase and the estimated total build out is six to ten years. Site construction will be again immediately following land development open space approvals, which again that may be several months out depending on the outcome of today in council.

And just to read into record, the questionnaire that was received by Lexington School District two, it's prepared by Matt Warren who is their deputy superintendent. Just facility considerations, schools that currently serve this location for the proposed development, the Congaree Elementary and Wood Elementary, Fulmer Middle, and Airport High School. Approximately, how many additional students could each of these schools listed above serve without adding portable classrooms? 70 at Congaree depending on programming, two hundred two hundred and seventy at Wood again depending on programming. Middle school, a 170 dependent upon programming, and high school, 270 dependent on programming.

Can portable classrooms be added to each site if necessary? Elementary, yes. Congaree, only two to three. Middle school, yes. High school, yes. If portals can be added, how many portals will be necessary for additional 20 students attending each of the schools listed above? One per elementary, middle, and high school. If you predict portables must be added, what is the approximate cost of acquiring and installing portables at sites at necessary schools? Elementary is 120 to a $150,000. Middle school, 120 to 150,000, and high school, 120 to $150,000.

The average cost of moving, setting up, and equipping equipping a portable to meet local and state codes is currently a $120,000. Lexington two currently does not have any portables available to be moved, so the cost of purchasing a portable is approximately a $150,000. If portable classrooms are likely to be added, how many months are required from decision to add their readiness to serve students? To gain approval from various agencies involved, prepare the site and provide necessary infrastructure, it takes approximately twelve months to complete the installation of a portable. Do you predict new construction will need to occur as a result of this proposed development?

No, as a result of this one development, but continued development in the area of our school district will result in the need for a new school construction. If new construction would likely be required as a result of this development moving forward in today's dollars was estimated cost of construction, not applicable for elementary, middle or high. If feasible, please estimate the cost of construction catalyzed by this development in dollars and capital millage. Again, non applicable and zero mills. They did comment that no construction at this time.

That's the reason for no development dollars and mill increase. However, if the area continues to grow and develop, more capacity will eventually be necessary in this area. However, it will be very challenging to quantify the cost impact of one development for a school district. Operational considerations to estimate a number of teachers requested will be nine. Estimated number of other staff requested two instructional assistants to support staff with more staff required if there are students from this development with specific special needs.

Transportation impact, this development will not likely create the need for additional route or driver. However, that will be all determined by the number of students resulting from this development and how many of these students choose to be bus riders. If a substantial amount of new students ride the bus, it could create the need for an additional driver. District estimated possible total operating cost, 1,184,000.000 in salaries and fringe benefits. Additional considerations, we asked them to confirm the number of existing classrooms that use at the schools, which is zero for elementary, middle, and high.

Is there a method the school district uses to track the cumulative effects of developments? Not at this time. Are there any current facility expansions planned for the schools affected by this development or bond referendums? A rebuild or relocation of Congre Elementary School is included in our long range facility plan. How the number of students estimated per grade level, they distribute them evenly among grade bands. What is the estimated number of students per dwelling? Point six. Is there a matriculation rate use? Concerns of flooding the next level of education from lower levels have been expressed by the Planning Commission. Typically, matriculate rates are consistent across grade bands.

For example, the number of students in fifth grade is typically comparable to the number of students in fourth grade, etcetera. We do not use a specific rate to track matriculation. Additional assumptions by Lexington district two is three zero eight dwellings would bring 185 additional students to Lexington two, again the point six multiplier. Students will be distributed evenly among grades k through 12. Grades k through one are at Wood Elementary, grades two through five are at Congre Elementary, grades six through eight are at Fulmer Elementary, grades nine through 12 are at Airport High School.

Bus fuel repairs are paid by the state department and the district would have to pay for the new driver salary and benefits. Estimated two cars per household and average cost of $20,000 per vehicle for operating millage, so approximately $246,400 in annual revenue. And the value of operating mill is $230,049. Again, that's the questionnaire and information that was provided by Lexington School District two. I sent the information out to the Planning Commission well in advance of this meeting to see if there are any additional questions or concerns or data that any commissioner wanted to receive from the school district.

I did not receive any questions or any additional information necessary from the schools. Again, this is information provided to the Planning Commission to review and make a recommendation council whether to consider to move forward with, allowing this development to continue with the approval and review process.

Robbie, if I may, one nugget I did find out about this is that the division of the elementary school, because since they list two, this is a large project, so the line does kind of run-in the middle. The way I understand it, majority of this development, should it be approved, would attend the Wood Elementary School. Also, I had a question, Robin. Could you repeat what you said? Because you talk fast for a Lexington County boy. Could you repeat what you said about the prior approval just so the commission fully understands? There was a moratorium and before this process was in place.

Well, I wouldn't say moratorium. I apologize. I spoke incorrectly. It was a pending ordinance for our proposed development standards which include concurrency. Council had a backlog of projects that were submitted during the time of pending ordinance.

In order for council to move through that backlog of projects, they agreed upon to do a modified concurrence review. That modified concurrence review encompassed all of our agencies within the count within the county that will review for certain matrices for developments. So that went directly before council once those matrices were determined by those entities. The first approval was in June 2024 and it went through council, directly through council. And at that time, it was only tax map seventy seven ninety eight one and '17.

It was only for single family residential. The acreage is a 181.15 and it was approved at 316 units. Now keep in mind, these sketch plans again are not approvable plans. They are simply to get this process started. At the time the developers begin engineering, looking at some of our various design standards, that number can fluctuate and generally it may be lower.

If the number is increased by their design standards, it will come back to the full concurrency review. So this is a good estimate on what a worst case scenario so to speak that the developers are submitting for for consideration to move forward. So one time it was three sixteen, now it's a total of three twenty four. The acreage has increased by approximately 40 acres. And it's a new type of residential product as well, not just single family, but also duplexes.

Thank you, sir. And to follow-up on that, mean, and I don't wanna get into the weeds where we probably shouldn't be, but they gained 40 acres and they're doubling the number of units. I assume that still complies with our density standards. Okay. It just seems like a

a large a large

increase for a little bit of property gain.

The meeting with the developers, there was a confusion as far as access and allowed number of units per access. Their calculations were a little off because they're accessing a road classification that get could get them a higher density. They did some reconfiguration. They had the duplex units to, receive the the density they have currently, which I believe, they will be allowed three dwelling units per acre, and they're below that threshold.

Okay.

I did notice that there was a lot of comments about at this time, but additional growth remains to be seen. I'm not trying to add more work for staff, but is there a way that we're mapping or tracking these as they come in because we're on the front end of it so that we kind of have a snapshot of how many of these come in per district.

I think

We know for future reference because if let's say the recommendation is it's all good as as stated.

Mister Leje can probably touch on that. He's requested some information from our department to start that mapping process.

Okay. Good. Okay.

Yes. The report from from school district two. We've been working on a map very similar to the pipeline map.

Okay.

Two categories. So the first category would be those that actually went through the I was gonna have it today. Having looked at it carefully, we should have it next month and I think you'll appreciate it.

Yes. And I mean, think as we move forward, looking at these per district, that'd be helpful because know growth is coming, right? Can't really predict it. So if we're given a recommendation on current, knowing that there's stuff coming, that may affect the recommendations in the future for that district.

I think too, and Holla and I had brief discussions on this, is there is a plethora of data out for these school districts and other entities within our planning commission packets. The pipeline maps are specific to when projects are actually submitted, so you know those lots are actually forthcoming. This is a little bit ahead of that because it could change. I know I've had personal conversations with other school districts. Their main concern is when building permits can actually be pulled. So I've directed them to the bond and plat statuses. That's when, again, the developers can actually start pulling permits. So there there's a again, an abundance of data out there. And again, I think this just adds to to what resources they can potentially use.

Right. Right. I

have a question, and it's with regard to the multiplier that these various school districts are using. Is there any standardization on that? And for example, you know, it would be helpful to know if, for example, this was a a subdivision of of starter homes because you would probably have more kids coming from starter homes, let's say.

We can't we cannot inquire with that information for our developments. We have to base it on land and land use. We cannot ask as far as market rate. We cannot ask as far as target audience. We we can't go to those details when we review it. In the future, if you would like me to ask how they get the ratio for students, I'll be more than happy to ask that. I just didn't didn't have that information prior to the meeting to get that information to you.

I'm just curious because I see different multipliers being used by different school districts, And I was just wondering if there's any standardization of that.

We can we can find that out present at the next meeting. Again, I could have potentially got that information if I'd known prior to this meeting.

Anything else? Any recommendations?

It doesn't appear that the school district is concerned at this point that they are going to have to add any additional buildings and or, portables, right?

For now.

Yeah. For now. So I don't know. I guess I guess we'd have no other basis to do an approval or a disapproval except for an approval. I mean, are are we looking for a motion on these items?

Basically, you will make a recommendation to counsel whether you've received this project moving forward or not. It's a simple it's a recommendation.

So I make a motion we recommend the counsel that the project be approved or move forward, allowed to move forward.

Commissioner Price?

Yes.

Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto? Yes. Commissioner Hutto? Yes. Commissioner Frost?

Yes.

Vice Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

Okay. The next we have before you is in Lexington School District one. This is phase two of Walker's Trail, which is a townhome subdivision, which is for a 118 additional dwelling units. Phase one, which has 61 dwelling units or townhomes, was approved prior to concurrency. This mills came in prior to the pending ordinance for the need

for

concurrency. Just some details on this project. Again, Walker's Trail Phase 2, the general location of North Of 378 East of Lavender Lane and West of Camden Mill Court. This is just west of the town of Lexington. Tax map is 42002011. Development type is townhome attached units. Development acres for this phase is 37.41 acres. Proposed number of units is a 118 dwellings. The density is 3.154 dwelling units per acre. Open space is fifty eight point o 3%, which is 21.71 acres of open space, which again almost doubles the the minimum standard we have for open space.

This is again phase two per the developer. Engineering plans will be submitted for review approximately one month following council approval. Estimated construction will begin in November 2025 with home construction starting in the 2027, and the estimated build out for the entire project is 2029. You're looking at four years before the build out for this project. Lexington School District one provided a a detailed summary with their questionnaire.

Again, just to read their their questionnaire in the record which you have in your packets is the capital outlay consideration schools that currently serve location for the proposed development are Lake Murray Elementary, Beechwood Middle, and Lexington High. Approximately, how many additional students could each of these schools listed above serve without adding portable classrooms? Elementary is one twenty four, middle is one sixty eight, high school is zero. Currently, they state they are 321 students above capacity. Can portable classrooms be added to each site if necessary?

Yes for all three school types. If portables can be added, how many portals would be necessary for per 20 additional students attending each of the schools listed above? None for middle and elementary, three for high school. If you predict portables must be added, what is the approximate cost of requiring and installing portables at sites the nest at the necessary schools? For the high school, 300 to 450,000.

Again, the average cost of moving and setting and equipping a portable to meet local and state codes is currently 100,000. If we purchased the portable, total cost is approximately 150,000. I think you'll notice that the cost is similar to district two. The setup is a little little less than what district two quoted as a 100 and like, and 20,000. The portable classrooms are likely to be added.

How many months are required from decision to add the readiness to serve students? To gain required approvals from various agents involved, repair the site, provide necessary infrastructure takes probably twelve months for the decision point to complete installation of a portable classroom, almost identical to district two. Did you predict do you predict new construction will need to occur as a result of this proposed development? No. Not as a result of this single development.

However, if other developments occur in the same attendance area, new construction would be required at both middle and high school sites. Again, there's no estimated timeline of new construction work to begin. If new school construction is required to resolve this development today's dollars, what is the estimated cost of construction? Again, no new construction required due to specific development, but obviously Lexington High School is already over capacity at this time. If feasible, please estimate the cost of construction catalyzed by this development in dollars and capital millage.

Again, no or minimal capital cost required for this development. It is the only new housing development in the attendance area. If it is only new housing development in the attendance area, We again note that Lexington High School is over capacity as of March 2025. Operational considerations to estimate number of teachers requested, pre k through five, four, six through eight, two, nine through twelve, three. Estimated number of other staff required, one instructional assistant, the transportation impact and one additional elementary route, one additional secondary route.

The physical impact, the district impacts, the district estimates a potential total operating cost of $828,433. What is the estimated total impact on millage? An increase of two point o seven mills mills to cover operating cost. Additional comments and concerns, Lexington one district's leadership assumptions is 75% of the 118 residences will be occupied by families with two children, so that's a 177 students. Students will be equally distributed among grades, pre k through grade 12.

This means we will prepare for 13 additional students per grade. Grades pre k, k one, two, three, four, and five, that's 78 students at Lake Murray Elementary School. Grades six, seven, and eight is 39 students at Beechwood Middle School. Grades nine, ten, eleven, and twelve is 52 students at Lexington High School. Bus fuel repairs are paid by the state department. The district will have to pay for the new driver salary and benefits. Two cars per household average cost of $20,000 per vehicle for operating millage. So it's approximately $46,142 in revenue. The value of an operating mill is $378,000 and that's a pre rollback calculation. They addressed the additional questions that I posted them in the questionnaire.

Confirming the number of existing portables used at the affected schools. There are four portables at Lake Murray Elementary School and they're for storage and not used for classroom space. Is there a method the school district uses to track the cumulative effects of developments? Lexington School District one is contracted with demographic analysis advisors to complete a demographic study. The information that was shared with Lexington one board of trustees on on 12/17/2024 has a link which is included in your packet.

So they have a democrat demographics review as far as future development. Are there any current facility expansions planned for the schools affected by this development or bond referendums? No. The school district is wrapping up projects from the 2018 bond referendum. None of the remaining projects span current capacities at schools impacted by the proposed development.

Although a new bond referendum may be proposed at some point, none is in the pipeline at this time. How are the number of students estimated per grade level? For purpose of the concurrence report, we assume 75% of the 118 residents will be occupied by families with two children totaling 177 students. Students will be equally distributed among grades pre k through grade 12. The district uses an allocation formula of x number of students per teacher at various grade levels. They have a table attached within your package. I'm not gonna go through the entire table. The following table shows how Lexington one determines the number of teachers and assistant principals required. There are also staffing ratios for other positions. These are just a few examples in order to demonstrate how a handful of new students can impact the number of employees needed.

And that is actually on page next to the last page from the questionnaire submitted by district one. Is there a matriculation rate used? Concerns are flowing the next level of education from lower levels have been expressed by the commission. They use a matriculation rate based on the number of students who enrolled on the hundred and thirty fifth day of the school year. This comports with the enrollment figure used to calculate a portion of state funding provided to Lexington one schools.

Please provide any other details not included within questionnaire you wish to elaborate upon. Because Lexington one is considered one of the wealthiest districts in South Carolina based upon the index of tax paying ability, our district receives a smaller portion of funding for state allocations. Act three eighty eight forced the school districts raise operating funds by increases taxes on 6% property, not owner occupied houses. And again, there's a link to their tax paying ability report. I did not include that in your packet. I believe it was included with the with the email I sent out earlier regarding this project. And that concludes staff's presentation regarding this this request.

Thank you, Ravi. I

have a couple questions. First, and I think this highlights the the question that was asked earlier about the assumptions. Based on Lexington one's assumption, you know, if you use the point six per household that Lexington two uses, you come up with 70 students. Lexington one guesses a 177. That's a large difference.

Yes, sir.

So I I I don't know how we standardize that or or how we work through it. And and I assume the whole process here is for the county as well as the school districts to have sufficient information to do the necessary planning and see what's coming because, you know, project by project, you're not gonna see large influxes, but they add up. And it's curious here that Lexington One indicates that there are no current plans for expansion, but yet we have a high school that's already overcrowded.

Yeah. I think what I mentioned to the planning commission on our last meeting that we had several concurrence reviews is all they though they didn't go into it and then their details, school districts have the ability to also resolve. I know Lexington five went through this process, has been going through this process over the last few years, where if you have schools that are overcapacity, then they can rezone and and provide a location for other students to go to to meet capacity needs. The last concurrency reviews we had for district one, if you recall, one was in the River Bluff attendance area and one was in the White Knoll attendance area. River Bluff was above capacity, White Knoll was not. Again, we don't get into the rezoning for students for the school districts, but they have tools in their toolbox, so to speak, that they can use to to help offset these as well.

Yeah. And and recognize they have flexibility. My my, I guess, at least looking forward concern is, you know, where Lexington High School is at, it's still a somewhat undeveloped part of the county. There is a ton of land out 378. You know, we have Target coming. There's a lot of things moving out that direction that, you know, it's gonna be difficult to rezone those folks somewhere else, in in the near future. Future.

And what I can do also, we actually have two more coming before the planning commission next month, potentially in their District 4. Just to add on to the additional questions that we submit to school districts, we can pose two additional questions. As commissioner Pike mentioned, we can determine if there's a standard multiplier. I will add that to the list. And also, I may just pose a question, any overcapacity schools, is there a potential for rezoning? Just to include that for your information that goes before planning commission.

Okay. Thank you.

Madam Chair, I would like to point out something Ms. Pike spoke on earlier, with regards to the previous project and how it affects this one. And I know we can't, as Robbie said, we can't include the target audience or the target customer for these things, but townhomes is this is a townhome development. And I know in my head where my mind goes, who is the typical target audience for the or customers for townhome type developments.

Old people?

I didn't say that.

Senior level. And I guess that that leads into question. I don't wanna get too far outside of this because I know it's we were looking at concurrency, but I noticed this is adjacent to several well, the whole property is pretty much adjacent to town of Lexington. I assume the town's providing them services. I'm curious as to why they wouldn't have annexed. Is is there a difference It's

not it's not contiguous. It's not It's not contiguous. It was not contiguous at the time it's the middle and town would not annex it.

Okay. Okay. I that's that's just curious because I I said, I know Nightingale, the back there is, I know Madison Park. Madison Park is. So I'm curious as it looks like they've touched.

And generally, what we'll do is when projects are submitted for development review meetings, which is the first step before we even review anything. If it adjoins the municipality, we send the information to municipality and see if annexation is required. If annexation is required, then that municipality generally takes over the development review process. And this is when they return back to us to to complete the development review process for this project.

Why would it be required unless they were in the utilities or something form?

Generally, there are different standards that the municipalities have. In most cases, it is utilities. If they supply the utilities and are contiguous, they will require annexation to gain access to those utilities.

I just I I just assumed it was it look it looks very contiguous, but there's a couple of small properties, I guess, that aren't. Yes, sir.

When I see something that has zero a high school here with zero capacity and there are 321 students already above capacity, that's very concerning to me in terms of this development. And I don't think that we can assume at this point that they're gonna redistrict anybody. I mean, we don't have any any basis upon which to make that determination.

No. And we don't know if they have plans in the works on building a new school in that area.

Well, they're saying no. I mean, so I mean, this is what we have to go on.

This development. Yeah. Every single one is that that might be different. Can only base the recommendation off of This development. This That's right. Development for now.

Yeah.

And that's it does get difficult. That's why I was asking about the tracking but Yeah.

What do what do we

do with information that basically says we we have no capacity. We're already over We

can get you through middle school, but

So, yeah. So so we just keep approving developments over and over and over again even though they're well over

Why don't we not

I'm I would vote not

to just to approve this development unless we can do something about the high school students.

Yeah. Yeah.

Or maybe they could tell us, you know, whether or not rezoning is actually gonna be the solution if it is approved or

Keep in mind, this body can make additional recommendations as part of their their vote. So if your vote, whatever it is to go to council, it may be if it is no, and this is the reason why, and that may be something council staff to look at in the future to to work with the school district bond, see if they can have some additional information provided.

I was gonna say the conditions could be going back and maybe asking school district. They had could give us a little more of a snapshot of their future plans. How they were aside from this development, how were they planning to address the overcapacity at the high school? And then maybe that would be a little

Well, in this

more helpful.

In this particular case, they don't even have a bond referendum out there for Right.

Or They're not gonna be doing anything anytime soon.

That's exactly right.

And if you all want, we can pose these questions to the school district and and we can bring this back to the May agenda to provide that additional information. You all don't have to make a a decision on this today. So if you want additional information which how the school district will address the capacity, the overcapacity, and the potential for rezoning, I can get that information from school district and bring that back to this body.

I feel like that would address your concerns a little bit, maybe maybe not, but it's helpful and then still provide a recommendation to cancel that.

So what would be our recommendation today not to approve

the Oh, we just If we could

I think what I'm hearing commissioner Otto is this board wants us to get some additional information based on rezoning and overcapacity and bring that information back and continue its discussion in in May or potentially June whenever I get this information from the schools.

So is that like a continuance or how do you

Postponents.

Postponents. Postponents. Yeah.

There are a motion for that?

Yeah. I mean,

I I think we can carry

it over.

Let me ask this. Okay. So let's just say that they come back to us and they say, oh, yeah, we we can resume this. So we're pushing this this these additional students into someplace else, which are also going to have development issues. So aren't we just it's sort of like having an employee that's a problem and you just move them over to another to another job and let them

sit there. They're spreading them out. I mean

They're spreading them out, but when they spread them out, you're gonna create problems in the next

one I mean, you're

assuming Technically, we don't know what capacity is gonna be. So maybe we put that out there and we revisit it in May.

I I I do understand your concern that I think we're kicking a can down the road. Yeah. And That's exactly right. And that's the reason I asked, you know, the questions is, you know, you you I assume this is supposed to be so folks can do planning and long range planning. And you based on this, you're right. There doesn't seem to be a lot of long range planning right now at Lexington 1, at least in this area. And this is a area ripe for development. So I think carrying it over and and asking them what is their plan. Again, they may not resent these kids. You know, this this the line for Lexington and what and and River Bluff isn't very far from here. So they may shift another neighborhood and do some of that work. Or Gilbert. So but again, I think we need to understand do they have a plan.

Well, maybe it's thought provoking. Maybe they don't necessarily have an urgency for a plan right now, but maybe if we get more information and under concern, maybe they will come up with one.

I don't know how you're not concerned for 300 kids.

I will go back to Lexington School District one and I'll ask what their long term plan is, even short and long term plans for overcapacity, reiterate if they have a plan to potentially use rezoning as a method for the overcapacity of the high school, and just kind of gauge what their urgency is for addressing these scenarios in their future planning. And I'll get that reported back to you as soon as that information is is returned to me. I will hope to have this back at the May meeting. Again, depending on the timing I get this back from the school district, may dictate how soon I get this back to the planning commission. But I'll I'll go back to them for this information.

Thank you. And and I didn't I didn't mean to say there's no long range planning at Lexington. Well, I know they like to keep a lot of things close to the vest, but we're some of this. It'd be nice to have a little bit of information that they are they do have a plan.

And again, it's it's it's really a difficult situation for us to review. Like you said, commissioner Frost, the intent of this is to assist with long range planning, not from a county perspective, but also from a local school district perspective. And unfortunately, we're not in a position that we can do the planning portion for the school districts. But I think it's good because it does get the data out for everybody to kinda see what issues we have to all account for moving forward. Do we need

to make a formal recommendation or is that it? Are we done? I think it's it. Know what to do?

You need to vote for the

To carry it over.

Press payment?

The motion to carry it over?

Let's go ahead and do that.

Okay.

I appreciate it. And hopefully, Ravi has the questions.

I've got I

think it was Pike and Hutto, wasn't it?

First and second? Go ahead, Pike.

Okay. I I make a motion that we postpone any decision with regard to this pending additional information with regard to, planning for new schools and how they would address any overcapacity issues.

Commissioner Price?

Yes.

Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto? Yes. Commissioner Hutto? Yes. Commissioner Frost? Yes. Vice Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

Madam chair, before any more business is taken care of, I'd like to excuse myself. I need to get going to some other commitments. So I apologize for leaving early.

Next, subdivision bonds. Tab I.

I do have some information to report. So as you may recall, we allowed projects for subdivisions to be bonded for a total of three years to finish the work for bonded plat approval. So we have a project, it's Woodland Crossing Phases five and six. This is a Doctor Horton project. Because the three years has expired, in lieu of a demand on their letter of credit, they gave us certified funds to hold and trust.

They are an active project. They are working towards the final. So in lieu of a demand, they gave us the cash instead. So we will continue to hold 121,121 thousand $239.69 until project completion and final plat approval. And that's all.

Fab K, rig classifications. Motion to approve them. I'll second.

Prefer if you did it one at a time. So February and March, a separate motion,

yeah. Okay.

I make a motion to approve February.

Second. For February?

Commissioner Price?

Yes.

Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto? Commissioner Hutto?

Yes.

Commissioner Frost?

Yes.

Vice Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

And Tab L. March? I make a motion to approve. I'll second.

Commissioner Price?

Yes.

Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Hutto? Yes. Commissioner Frost?

Yes.

Vice Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

Ab m? Turning plug?

Ma'am, we've got about half of you completed the training. Just this is just a reminder. I'll keep putting it on the agenda so that everybody is aware and has the links and information to go ahead and take care of the training. Hold on. I got candy.

I got candy for being the first one, Megan.

What?

M and M's. Peanut. That's

messed up. I didn't know there was candy involved. Would have at least come in

He even wrapped it like a Christmas present.

Did you get mine? My certificate?

I did.

Okay. Good.

I'll see what I can do by getting you some candy.

Alright. If that is all.

You want me to prep you for next month because we're gonna have a busy agenda. We have two potential concurrency reviews next month, both are in Lexington School District four. We'll have a zoning map amendment before planning commission for a project off of Bush River Road going from potentially c one to c two. And we'll have a text amendment, potentially two text amendments to the zoning ordinance. One is the mining hours of operation allowing mining operations to be able to ticket load and stage prior to 7AM.

The other is the proposed amendments to patio home developments, meeting the ability the requirement to go forward with board zoning appeals for special exception, allowing staff to approve those developments as well as revising the voting standards for board zoning appeals from a super majority to a majority vote. So you could have several agenda items from from us next

month. Excellent.

Oh, and they have two subdivision variances also.

Looking forward to it. It's a working working lunch. Alright. What do

we know about the the new exit, the bypass?

I will defer that to Brent Hyde, director of public works. He's kind of our point of contact working on that study. I know he's reported to counsel some updates on it recently. The state has some funds earmarked for that study. That to my knowledge, that's that's the only information I

have

at Thank this time. Yes, you. Alright. I'm adjourned. Thank you.