Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Advised all Lexington County committees are being Tax invocation.

Good morning. If you will, bow your heads. In heavenly father, we come to you on this beautiful day. We ask that you look over all of us here. We ask that you look over all the citizens for Lexington County and help this commission make good decisions on behalf of the county residents. In your name we pray. Amen. Amen.

And for the pledge of allegiance.

To the flag of The United States Of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Moving on to tab A, minutes from last month.

I move we accept the minutes as presented.

Second. We have a motion to second.

Commissioner Cox.

Yes.

Commissioner Beetenbaugh.

Yes.

Commissioner Pike. Yes. Commissioner Otto. Yes. Commissioner Hutto. Yes. Airwoman Mitchell? Yes.

Tab c, activity report.

Alright. Good morning, everybody. Thank you for being here. We do have a boat anchor of an agenda today. We'll, do our best to get through it.

There's a lot of information here, but I appreciate you all being here, and thank you for supporting Wet'suen County. Just, an an art of business, I suppose. I got a letter from, our our our past chair, miss Jordan, and she accepted another position with a different firm and, which is going to require her to travel some, and she's afraid that, her commitment to her employer would interfere with the commission. So every probably every other meeting, she would she, communicated with, Councilwoman Wessinger and decided to resign. So we will be looking for her other commission as another person in mind and hopefully we can fill that.

In addition, we will need to, have probably an election of officers again next month. I've already spoken to Mitch Mitchell about that. So we'll work on an election of officers next month to get a full With that, I'll move forward with the development activity report. So our permits are kind of holding steady for the most part. I'll I'll review a couple of past months.

In February, we had a 122 site built permits, 41 manufactured for a total of a 161. In March, a 163 site built permits and 57 manufactured for a total of 200 and In April, dropped a little bit, kind of similar to February, 130 site built permits and 43 manufactured permits for a total of 173. On the year, again, in the first month of the second quarter, 130 site build permits. Total on the year for residential, site build permits is $5.92, so we're keeping pace. We move forward to, manufactured home permits.

First quarter, 142 and for the first month of the second quarter, 43,000,000 for a total of 185,000,000 on the year. This is the pipeline projects map. It is what you have seen for years now. I'll go through, each of the new projects. We've had three new projects for, the month of April.

But a little bit of a change to that, we have been working on preparing some new mapping and tracking of projects for you all. You have asked for, the ability to track concurrency projects. So we've we've changed that map, the pipeline map up just a little bit. We've, identified the school districts on the pipeline map, which may help you, make decisions, and and analyze the data a little better on how development is taking place across the county with relation to the school districts. So again, in April, we've had three projects.

The first one is, Ridge Ridge Station. It's 37 lots on 9.5 acres. It's a new project in the town of Batesburg Leesville, located kinda southwest of the town, near the county line off of, West Columbia Avenue. That's, in district council district two, which is councilman Larry Brigham. The developer there is Advantage Holdings.

The next project is Rockville Rock Rockville Reserves. It's 18 lots, relatively small project, 29 and a quarter acres. It's a new project utilizing our new ordinance. It, it's located off of Wee Drive, which is near the town of Irmo, and near Lake Murray Boulevard and Lynn Creek Drive. That is Council District 6, so that is, Messenger, that's developed by Rockville Reserves, Investors.

And the last project for this month, is Trailhead Townhomes. It's 52 lots on 3.7 acres, so rather dense project as it's a townhome project. It's property. The property is currently a warehouse, and it's my understanding it's to be demolished and redeveloped. It's in the town of West Columbia using their ordinance, located on on Sunset Boulevard, where it meets Highway 1.

So it's right at the riverfront. Congaree River, District 8, Councilman Glen Conwell, and that's being developed by thirty five k. Well, like I said, we have, prepared some new mapping for you all. This is a map of the concurrency review projects that have been approved, since the ordinance came into full compliance. So eight projects there that have gone through the full review, by either the Planning Commission, our staff, our council.

They have been approved, and we will begin tracking those for you, in this manner. There are other projects that have been approved, but they were approved prior to full, adoption of the ordinance, so they were adopted under pending ordinance. We haven't listed those, because they haven't come to you all. We felt it would be most appropriate to do it in this meeting. Again, these are the projects and how they fall within the school districts. Hopefully, that will help you, in your, path of decision making development or in the future and concurrence. Have any questions? I'll be glad to try to answer them.

Moving on to the accidents policy variance, tab E.

So the first variance we have this morning is, on a parcel identified as TMS number 013200Dash01Dash033. This is a parcel that's currently owned by the Patricia r Rucker Trust. This parcel is approximately 16 acres, and it's located on Louis Rucker Court, which is east of Highway 21 near the boundary line with Calhoun County. The applicant today is, Patricia Rucker's son, mister Hampton Rucker. He's requesting to subdivide a 0.89 acre portion for himself and a one acre portion for his son.

This parcel is currently accessed by a flag lot driveway on Louie Rucker Court and is providing an easement to an additional property. In order to approve this, mister Rucker is requesting a variance to items number, three and two of the access policy. Item three states if an access easement is used to provide a driveway for a landlocked parcel, that access easement may not serve another landlocked parcel. And item two states if an access easement is used to provide a driveway for a landlocked parcel, that access easement may only be designated over one parcel. Do have, some aerial photos for you.

You'll see the star is where, the property is located at. This is, of course, the boundary with Calhoun County. That's just zoomed in a little closer. We do have, you'll see the flag lot driveway that this is the 16 acres that we're speaking of and it is providing an easement to this portion. This is showing where, the Track 2 C is the, 0.89 portion that mister Rucker currently has a home at, and his son is currently living at the 351 Address, which would be Track 2 B.

As some photos, this is the Louis Rucker Court at the driveway entrance. This is the beginning of that Flag Lot Driveway continuing along the driveway. This is where the property, where you're looking at actually the Rucker property. So this is going along that existing easement that goes to the, additional portion. This is from Mr.

Rucker's property now looking toward the Flag Lot driveway back to Louie Rucker Court. And this is where the current driveway to the two homes are located which would then be established as the easement to get to his son's property. This is the current home at 349 Louie Rucker Court and this is the driveway that continues to 351 Louie Rucker Court. And that's back to the survey that he has had prepared showing where those portions would be located. And we do have a letter that mister Rucker submitted, and I'll go ahead and read that into record.

My name is Hampton g Rucker. I reside at 349 Louie Rucker Court, Swansea. My son, Dustin g Rucker, resides at 351 Louie Rucker Court. My grandfather, mister Hugh d Rucker, purchased this land way back in 1924. After my grandparents passing, this one track of land, approximately 46 and a half acres, was divided into three tracks for my father and his two sisters.

My cousin Albert and Margaret Welch live on the Track Number 3. I originally moved to this land in the mid eighties at 351 Louis Rucker Court, which is located in the Track 2. My mom purchased the land below me from my cousin known as Track 1. One of my grandfather's wishes was that none of this land would ever be sold outside of the family. In 2017, my son, Dustin, wanted to move out to this property with his family.

I was living in a four bedroom double wide at the 351 location. I purchased a single wide mobile home and it's at the 349 location. My son moved into the double wide sometime in 2018. The driveway to that house was established back in the mid eighties. My mom passed away in November 2024.

Upon her passing, she had arranged for all of the land belonging to her, a total of four tracks to be placed into a trust. Her will stated that a one acre track was to be cut out for my son, Dustin, and the land where I reside at at the 349 Address was cut out for me. When I reach that time when I take my last breath, the plot of land that I reside at will be left to my son, Dustin. I would also like to inform this committee about the layout of the land. This is the Lexington County side of Big Beaver Creek.

The access easement road that comes down to Track Number one is all downhill. There are seven terraces with water runoffs before you get to this driveway that we are talking about here. I was told of an option to convert this driveway into a private road and could get up to 10 easements. That would pretty much be impossible. It's an accepted fact that after every heavy rain, I have to get my tractor out and maintain not only my driveway, but also the county dirt road, Louie Rucker Court.

It's a constant battle with trying to prevent washouts from rain runoff here. I would like to say that allowing this easement across the 349 plot would not affect any of the adjacent land. This would have no effect on any neighboring properties in Lexington County. I would like to state again that this has been the established access to the 350 1 plot for forty years. I established this access mostly back then because it's on a small piece of land that has been leveled and built up over the years to control the erosion from rain runoff.

Thank you in advance, Hampton g Rucker. And you'll also see in your packet that, you you did receive a, letter from miss, Susan Creech, who is the trustee of the Patricia Rucker Trust, and she is aware of the variance request and has given her consent. And mister Rucker is here today available if you have any questions, and then I'll try to answer any questions you may have as well.

Any discussion?

Do we have a response to the five points that we typically need for just determining if this meets the requirements of a variance.

Mister Rucker did, include some of those responses there with his letter that he submit that I just read into record. His letter was to, his explanation of those variant standards.

Do you understand what the, can you explain to us whatever the extraordinary and exceptional conditions are pertain to this request?

I can have mister Rucker come up if he would like I would rather that he would provide any further explanation. Rucker, would you

like to come up? Yes.

I'm Hampton g Rucker from 349 Louie Rucker Court. The one main reason here is in mama's will, she said to cut out one acre for my son. And he was living there, and I'm living at the 349 with, when I moved out there in the in the eighties, I got my septic tank in one place, and then I moved to another place, and I got a storage building. In order to get one acre cut out for him, it really didn't leave enough space to go all the way to the access road. Because like I say, the the road going to the 351, which is where I lived for years and years, was already established.

So when I bought the single wide, I just put it down beside my shop. I had built a shop back in the eighties, 24 by 60, that was basically a 150 yards from my house. So with the terrain of all going downhill, just using the established driveway that's been there since the eighties was the the main reason for doing this. And it's like I say, whenever I pass away, this parcel will go to my son. The reason mom put it in the trust was hopefully that it my grandfather's wishes was it would never be sold for any type of development or whatever.

So any other questions I can does that answer your question?

I I think so. Yes, Thank you. Anything else?

We've all had concerns over the years when these variances come up, mister Rucker. Ever had any emergency vehicles down your driveway? Yes, Is there room for fire trucks and ambulances and

Yes, emergency vehicles? Yes, sir. Matter of fact, I spent eighteen years on Sandy Run Fire Department, so they have come down there before.

There are further concerns, discussion?

I have just one quick question. And it's probably a stupid question, but I'm not. I see your practice at 03:49 and 03:51. Who owns that property around that?

All in the The

trust? Trust. Okay. So that's all part of your family's property.

Right. Even the

Rucker, if you could come to the the microphone, please. Thank you.

I'm not sure of the exact see. I guess it's this is number one here. Right? Yes. Track number one on the whole overall view, my cousin, he moved to Arizona, so we bought that land also. So everything around is is the Rucker land. It's all family. It will always remain family. So

So is it the intent that this other area will be subdivided into lots as well? No.

None of it is supposed to be subdivided. Most of the most of Plot Number 1 is in the, hundred year flood zone. So most of that over half of that, parcel is is unbuildable for any type of it's just good for food plots for deer. Okay. But the intention was, like I said, to never never sell the land.

So and as far as I know, there's no intention for anybody else in the family to ever wanna move out there. All of our families are well established. My sister's kids, they're all in Barnwell County. My kids are in Barnwell County except for Dustin. So he's been out there for a good part of his life. Thank you.

Anything else? I'll offer a motion. A little unorthodox, but I do think that the standards of variance were addressed in one way or another. And I do think that you have a different type of condition to your property between the topography and your limitations. My main concern also was any future subdividing or potential use of that road for other lots, even if it's not for development, to compound the problem.

With that, any question? Think the standards of variance? I do. Go ahead.

If may, just to try to help. On this part of the packet, on the yellow page, we have written a sample, motion, so you can begin to try to use that language if if you choose. I'll help you get through the, creating a motion for this.

Alright. I'll give it a shot. I move to approve the variance because the applicant has met the five criteria, such as a, their extraordinary exceptional conditions, which family division here, creates an extraordinary condition. Item b, these conditions do not generally apply to others in the vicinity as miss Rucker had explained, about his family's property and division. Item c, these the application's ordinance, would not effectively prohibit an unreasonably restrict utilization of the property or properties.

I don't see where it's got any restrictions or restriction restricting any utilization. Well, as authorization of this variance would not be a substantial detriment to adjacent property owners. I don't think based on what mister Rucker has said that it would affect, the quality of life for any other residents in his neighborhood. And I don't see where there's a financial hardship for mister Rucker or his family or or anyone else. So all that being said, I move to approve the variance, based on those conditions.

I second.

Variances there. Correct. We're gonna approve both of them.

Correct. So I would amend my motion to include items three and item two for the access variance.

With the same second. Second. Okay.

Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Beetenbaugh?

Yes.

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

Congratulations. Well, thank you all.

Welcome. You too. Thank you.

Thank you, Andy. Good job.

Tab f. The

next access policy variance that we have is, property owned by Tea and Pepper Properties LLC. They own a 2.7 acre parcel on Mickley Road in Lexington, which is north of Bluefield Road. This parcel is accessed by a flag lot driveway and is providing an easement to a landlocked parcel at 413 McLee Road. Matt McCauley is with Permit Expeditors of South Carolina LLC, and he is representing Tea and Pepper Properties LLC as the applicant. The owners are proposing to subdivide the 2.7 acre parcel and create a 0.8 acre portion.

This would require, several variances to the access policy to include item three, 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. Item two, which states if an access easement is used to provide a driveway for a landlocked parcel, that access easement may only be designated over one parcel. And item 14, which states no more than two three tiered groups of parcels served by access easements or flag lot driveways may be allowed at the same location as part of the same overall development plan.

This

is the survey that they have prepared, which shows you where the point eight acre portion would be. This is the current flag lot driveway that is providing an easement to this portion. That's just a aerial photo there kind of zoomed out. You'll see Bluefield Road to the south. That parcel closer and this is showing where the 0.8 acre track would be located.

Again, showing that you would then have four tiers. The flag lot driveway, would then be providing an easement to two landlocked parcels and this four thirteen portion would then have to cross over two parcels to get to the public road. These are some photos of Mickley Road at the driveway location. This is at the driveway entrance to the property, and these next photos just continue down that driveway. This is the current home that's at 407 McCleary Road that is owned by the Tea and Pepper properties.

This is where the driveway continues to the 413 address. And these two photos are looking into the portion of the property where that 0.8 acre portion would be. And then this is just showing the driveway continuing to the 413 address. Back to their, sketch. And we do have a letter that was submitted by mister McAuley on behalf of the owners, and I'll read that into record.

We respectfully request that the county's planning commission appeals consider varying certain provisions of the access policy as incorporated by reference in the county subdivision ordinance, specifically that one, an access easement may only serve one landlocked parcel, and two, no more than two, three tiered groups of parcels served by access easements or flag lot driveways may be allowed at the same location as part of the same overall development plan. The application of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship and the standards for a variance set outlined in section one seventy two dot sixty sixty standards for variances are met as follows. Number one, there are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the property or properties as follows. The property owner wishes to subdivide a vacant lot of approximately 0.8 acres, leaving a remaining parcel of approximately 1.9 acres with existing residents as shown on the enclosed plan. The purpose of the division is not to sell parcel, but rather for the present owners to build a second home on the property.

Although a second home is possibly allowed by zoning standards without subdivision as proposed, the requirements of a mortgage are to have a new home on a vacant lot necessitating the division of the property. Two, these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity as shown by. Upon information and belief, other lots in the vicinity of similar size are built upon, subdivided to their maximum density allowed by the county's zoning ordinance and or are subject to private restrictions not allowing for further subdivision of property. Three, because of these conditions, the application of this ordinance to that particular property or properties would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property or properties as follows. The application of provisions three and fourteen of the county's access policy unreasonably restricts the owners utilization of the property and that the property cannot be utilized to construct a second home separate and distinct from the existing residents.

It is also worth noting that post division, both parcels utilizing the existing 50 foot access easement TMS ending in two two three and two two four will be less than two acres and would only require a 20 foot access easement in accordance with the county's access policy. We are providing an access that is more than twice as wide as would ordinarily be required given the parcel size. Additionally, the property subject to this request is part of a three lot subdivision known as Backman Pines, whereas provision 14 of the county's access policy relates to have more than two tiered groups of parcels as part of the same overall development plan. Provision 14 may not be applicable in this scenario as other adjoining tiered division of property are part of a separate overall development plans, specifically Pointing Oak. Number four, the authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or the quality of life for the residents of the county for the following reasons.

Authorization of the variances requested will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or the quality of life for the residents of the county. Specifically, use of the existing access easement will not be elevated as there will be no change in persons using said easement. Additionally, the only impacted parcel is Lexington County TMS 007600 Dash 03 Dash 223, which is owned by the member managers of the same entity requesting variance herein. Number five, when deliberating a variance request, financial hardships alone cannot be considered for the basis of the variance. Financial hardships are not a part of the basis for the variances requested herein.

I trust this provides sufficient explanation of this request to vary the access policy standards outlined above. Explanation as to why the variances are necessary and evidence for why the variances requested is both appropriate and justified. However, please feel free to contact me with questions or should you require anything further. And that is, again, submitted by Matt McAuley who is here today if you have questions for him. And I also want to point out that you do have in your packet, a letter from the Tea and Pepper Properties LLC that did appoint mister McAuley to act on their behalf in the variance request.

I have a question for you. I I want to understand, what does it mean when it says no more than two, three tiered groups of parcels served by access easement?

I think if you'll, let's see. I believe in our packet. Let me go to the packet. We do have a copy of, item 14. And so you'll see it gives. Do you see that in your in your packet? I didn't label that as an exhibit, but it's a couple of pages after exhibit b.

That page. Go back one page.

Go back.

Okay. Right. This. Uh-huh.

Yes. So whenever you're looking at an overall development plan, it does specify about the two three tiered groups of parcels. But then you'll see in your no example, it shows some four tiers. And so creating this portion would create a a four tiers from the the public road.

I see what you're saying. Okay. Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Does the, do the lots and everything meet with without this division prior to this request? Do those lots meet current county standards?

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. The Flag Lot Driveway at 407 is providing an easement to what you see there is portion 3, which is I believe that addresses the 413 Muckley Road. So yes, currently it does meet the access policy.

Is there any way to meet the requirements of our access policy in some other manner to block out that new parcel?

Private road?

Private

Yeah, private is it can a private road or some other means be provided that would in fact meet all the requirements of the

Well, sure. They would have the option to create a private road, but a private road would have to be constructed to county road standards, including since it's accessed from a paved road, then the private road would have to be paved. So it could, even if they wanted to create it as a private road, then that could also, need some variance request to the private road policy. As it exists currently, it could not just simply be converted to a private road.

Why not?

Because it would have to be paved. It would require road maintenance agreements. Several other items. They would have to have signage, posting it as a private road.

The point of my questions is that if this

was residential

neighborhood development.

They would probably build the private road. So lowering our standards. For what reason?

And I don't let me see if I can go back to a more zoomed out version here to the

photo. Yes, I don't see the extraordinary

being

that subdividing a piece of property for a LLC. For instance, forty years that guy has been sitting on a piece of property surrounded by his family land. This is his property and putting more traffic on their driveway accessing county pavement.

And yeah, it appears that the they have stated that's one of their extraordinary conditions is that the mortgage company requires that. We understand that. We've had that happen many times. But is that our problem?

Right.

Lower To our our stated standards for that, then everybody could come and make that claim.

So what is the current use of the adjoining lot that's owned by T and Pepper Properties.

I'm

not certain of the full dynamics, but Matt, are you would you like to come you'll have to come down and speak at the podium.

Good morning. My name is Matt McCauley. My address is Post Office Box 4174 Irmo, South Carolina 29063. All of the current properties that are under the same ownership as well as the adjacent properties are developed with single family residential uses. To the I can address the point about a private road.

I wouldn't say that it's not an option. It's certainly not the financials, I believe, and I know those are not to be taken solely as a rationale for granting a variance, but I believe that that would be economically infeasible in this particular case. There is not the opportunity to further subdivide any of these parcels, the after effects if you were to

grant this

variance without coming back to the planning commission or rezoning the property. So there would be other opportunities for any more intense development on this or the adjoining parcels, to be reviewed at the county level. We are looking to provide a home for another family member of the current owner. I know that it's titled in an LLC, but it's not a development venture or anything of that nature. It's simply done that way just for legal protections.

But maybe I'm losing missing something here. So would Tea and Pepper Properties still maintain ownership of both parcels if we granted the variance?

Yes, sir.

Correct. Both of these are gonna be used for residential use and and and basically be rental rental rental

Yes, sir. Well, there will be a the intent is for a family member to live in a home that's on the new point eight acre parcel. So in the and effectively, the only I believe all of the properties that utilize that easement including if it were to be divided as we're proposing are it's all the same person, if that makes any sense. So we don't have any other outside parties that are affected by our party to that easement, if that makes any sense.

The 413 is part of the same family as? Correct. 407 and the new parcel.

Correct. Yes, so we're not looking at it like increasing traffic on easements that would create additional conflicts for other owners or anything of that nature.

We're not talking about family, we're talking about the LLC. I mean, is there going to be an individual that gets the 0.8 acre with the mortgage?

To that point, I mean, the the purpose of the LLC is simply to provide for legal protections of the owners. At the end of the day, these are two individuals, husband and wife, that own the 407 Parcels as as the 413 parcel.

They're living there?

Correct. At the 407.

Rent out the 413? Correct. Presumably their, intentions are to rent out the house that's in on the new lot.

That would actually be for a family member. Correct. Wait. Let me make sure I did you ask about the 413 parcel or the new

The new lot that would

be the The new lot is intended for a family member of the current owners.

So it would be basically sold and could be sold again and again and again? Exactly.

Presumably, I suppose anything that gets divided could, but those are certainly not owners' intentions in doing so.

I think it goes back to Commissioner Otto's point where the fact that they have to have a mortgage on it doesn't really affect us subdividing parcels and creating these multiple tier flag lots, which is something that we really try to conservatively approve in Lexington County. I don't know if it necessarily meets the hardship requirements, and I don't think that it meets the requirements for an extraordinary event taking place here, in my opinion.

Thoughts, discussion?

I'll just ask this again. You stated earlier that as configured now, it meets county ordinances.

Yes, sir.

We're debating whether or not we're going to allow the property to be now non conforming require variance.

Or they can put in a private road, meet the standards. So I guess that's kind

of Yes,

so everybody can jump in. I'm not prepared

to make a motion. So I don't know if anybody else.

Something that you would feel comfortable with if you were to put a condition on it that you look at alternative methods, like the private road? And maybe they maybe it has to come back at some point, but maybe But

it wouldn't come back to us if they met

Well, would come it would need some kind of variance, wouldn't it, for even zoning or private road?

For a private road. If they constructed a private road that met all of the applicable ordinances, then no, it would not need to come back to you. But I believe is, what Matt was referring to, as far as if they didn't want to pave it, then that is one of the requirements. So then that would require it to come back to you as a private road policy variance.

I I suggest, of course, just the discussion amongst ourselves. I'd I'd I'm not prepared to make a motion to approve it nor do I want to deny it. But should we ask them to come back with another request or whatever we're saying. I mean not come back, but to go back and reconsider and work with staff and see if they can meet the requirements of the ordinance or thereabouts.

That's kind of what I was getting at, maybe like a conditional or maybe a postponement or a continuance on it, get back to the table and

Right now, as it's presented, I don't think any of us are willing to approve it.

I mean, I think, essentially, we would like to but can't given the standards of variance and what's not met entirely and there's maybe some things out there on the table. There are other options.

I don't think that there's any I mean, from what we can review, I don't believe there's any options as far as meeting the access policy to create a parcel in this configuration. So, I mean, as far as if the access policy is is denied, the variance request is denied, then I believe they would have the option to immediately come forth with a private road variance. Am I correct, Rebecca? Okay. Because that would be a different request. If you deny the access policy variance, they cannot present that same request for an access policy variance for twelve months.

However, the property owner and taxpayer here could place another home on the property on that same parcel Mhmm. And have two rental incomes. Right?

If it met the zoning requirements for adding an additional home. Yes, sir.

Right. So based upon restrictions, I don't know. It's possible. Yes, sir.

They came back and asked the

same request in three months from now we're answer, right, because it's exactly the same request. So we don't need

for approval today, right?

Go for it. All right. I move to deny the variance for the access policy, specifically items three and items two. Based on the because the applicant has failed to meet each of the five criteria, I would say, again, repeating it's not an extraordinary or exceptional condition. The conditions do apply to other properties in the vicinity.

And because these conditions, it's not going to unreasonably restrict the usage of the property. If it were to move forward the way it is. And financial hardships alone also can't be considered. So I moved to deny the variances required in order to grant the variance. Thank you.

Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Beetenbaugh?

Yes.

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

Thank you. Moving on to Tab G. And Dean, you need to?

I'll step out.

Step out.

If I might add, Mr. Beadenbaugh has chosen to, recuse himself from discussion today as he has a conflict of interest, with the property involved in the mining and the text amendment request. So that's why he'll be stepping out of the meeting today.

Hey, Holland, if you want to proceed to those slides. I'm

Sleeping over here. Thank

you. I'm Walt McPherson, zoning administrator with Lexington County. I'm here in the day for Robbie Derek for the two text ordinance text amendments we'd be looking at. Briefly, the first one is ordinance twenty five zero four amendments to the zoning ordinance related to mining hours of operation, which we have one page in your packet this morning, and I'll read this verbatim as far as the intro memo. County council has initiated a text amendment to article eight chapter two section eighty two five o of the zoning ordinance in response to counsel's request to extend the allowable hours for mining operations to stage and load trucks outside of their current restrictions.

The following are the proposed changes with the new text denoted in red. The core content remains unchanged with a specific focus on extending the hours of truck staging, loading, and ticketing between five a. M. And seven p. M. During weekdays for each mining operation. This adjustment would allow these activities to take place earlier in the morning, possibly to accommodate operational or logistical needs. So if you note, thousand two hundred fifty hours of operation at currently State Senate techs with the three activities of mining limited, intermediate and extensive. And in red is the proposed change, truck staging, loading, and ticketing only is permissible between the hours of five a. To seven p.

M. During the weekdays prescribed for each mining operation, unless otherwise exempted from these restrictions based upon zoning district. The purpose of this agenda item is for Planning Commission to review the proposed text amendment and provide a recommendation to counsel on how to proceed. So this is the only slated text change to the mining chapter article. It's before you for your consideration. And you'll make a recommendation to approve or deny. And that recommendation will be taken back to County Council at the next committee meeting. So any questions for staff?

I have some.

Yes, ma'am.

I'm just curious how close I don't even know where mines are around Right. In Lexington County. How close are these mines to residential areas?

Some are close, some are not so close. For instance, the sand mines in the southern part of the county have been in existence for thirty, forty, fifty years. A lot of residential areas have built around them after they've been in existence. I think the issue here is is that they're trying to get trucks in. Two different things here.

Number one, if they're subbing out the transportation companies, it costs money for those trucks to sit there for an hour or two before they get loaded up. So what they're also trying to do is get the trucks in, loaded up, and get out on the highways prior to rush hour traffic, school traffic, and that type of thing. So we have ordinances in place regarding mining activities, but this would not apply to just one mine. It would apply to whether it be a rock quarry mine, sand mine, whatever it may be. This is not for operations.

In other words, if they get the earthmoving equipment out there at 05:00 in the morning, no. This is just for bringing the trucks in, allowing them to load, ticket, and then once the hours open, then they can get on the highway. But to answer your question, some are closed, some aren't. But this county is blessed whether you want to say fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at mines to be honest, with sand and rock. So they're looking logistically to have this slight change.

Again, it's not the operation hours, it's for loading of the trucks. We did have public hearing Tuesday evening, this past Tuesday evening. No one signed up to speak for or against, but counsel gave first reading. We had public hearing Tuesday night and here we are for their Planning Commission recommendation.

I guess what I'm thinking about is if you're loading trucks with rock, imagine the noise level from that for the surrounding areas.

And that's something to consider. And again, you as a planning commission body will make the recommendation to approve this or deny it.

I just honestly, I think that's a quality of life issue and to have those trucks loaded at 5AM in the morning or between five and 7AM in the morning is that's a lot.

That's disturbing. Unfortunately, there's not it's not a one size fits all. So like some are not close to residences and it won't affect anybody except helping their operations. Right?

So

Well, I wonder if there couldn't be some sort of variance process for those as opposed to just a one size fits all here.

If if I can add, earlier you asked about where the mines were and the reason probably one of the reasons why you don't know where the mines are is there are significant buffers between roads and the mine itself. Know, Walt might be able to address that a little more, but same thing goes with the loading of rock and this sort of thing. There's a significant buffer between the road and or the property boundaries to separate residences and property surrounding from the noise and from what goes on in the mine. I I don't know the buffer distance.

They they can vary and they can be very large. The the current mines that we have in place, to my knowledge as far as the buffer restrictions, number one, either nonconforming, they were established before zoning was in place, or the ones that were permitted after zoning went in place meet those requirements. But if concerns of Ms. Pikes about noise, I mean, that's something you can make in the motion if you like. Again, this is just a recommendation to counsel. So depending on how this body wants to vote and taking consideration of your concerns, it would be reported back to counsel at our next council committee meeting. So obviously interested in your feedback.

I will say, I mean, this is something that what you had due public notice or

Yeah, we had public hearing. Just had public notice, public hearing past Tuesday. No

for or against. I mean, so I imagine if there are people who are at least made aware of this and were outraged. There was come up. Which is just just facts, just a good sign that it's probably

But I guess the question I have is, where was the public notice post? I mean, I'm sure it's out on the the Lexington County site, but are those citizens that are around there, how were they notified?

Well, in one particular instance with one man, they actually had a basically a community meeting. In particular, the Vulcan Quarry. We're looking at expanding some of their operation hours. And before you became on Planning Commission, Ms. Pike, I was heavily involved in the permitting of that quarry for over five years.

Was There a lot of community outrage in the beginning, community concerns, still community concerns. But the coalition out there, the Ridge Protection Coalition, had met with operators out there, with county numerous times. And in fact before this ever received first reading, this actually location, the County Council member, Lair Brigham, had reached out to the coalition of the property owners around there regarding this and they seemed to be okay with it. So they proceeded and it's not just for the Vulcan mine, it's going to be for any mine, whether it be Silica Sand, Martin Marietta, you name it, Western Area, Central Lexington, wherever it may be. So in that particular case But again, I can sit here and answer questions for you.

If you've never been to a mine, maybe contact one of those mines as a Planning Commission member and say you would like to maybe tour the facility or reach out to them. But again, I'm just reporting here where we at and what's transpired. Okay? So if you do have concerns, can put it in a motion and whatever your concerns are, I can report that back to County Council at the next committee meeting. I'll be glad to.

First reading already? Oh yeah. Yeah. And just a reminder with these map amendments and text amendments, when it gets to you, like this one here, it's already had first reading and it's already had public hearing. So the procedure is first reading, public hearing, then it comes before you guys as a body to make a recommendation to approve or deny.

Then it goes back to county counsel in a committee report. Council could possibly decide, nah, we don't want the amendment. We'll disapprove it or we'll consider it and maybe next meeting bring it out for second reading and proceed to third reading. So every amendment that we have, whether it's map amendment, which I'll get to here shortly, and I've got another text amendment behind this one, all require three readings and a public hearing before it is enacted in the ordinance.

And and if I can add, I I think I heard councilman Brigham, who represents the Western side of the county and and where the the, the newest, probably most busy, mine has chosen to locate on Highway 1. I think I heard him say that he has met with the community over the last few months, and they and they didn't have any opposition to what was simply because I think what's happening is far enough from the adjoining property owners in the boundary of the

So is he the only councilman that has a mine in his district?

They're they're like like mister McPherson. No.

They're they're scattered all over.

Yeah.

They're scattered all over. At some point, miss Pike, if you're interested in mine locations as zoning administrator, I've been here a long time. I'll be glad to meet with you at some point if you want to come into the office and we can take a look at mines and look current locations. I'd become more than happy to do that. But again, you as a body have these concerns and you know, they'll be reported however you vote whether to approve or deny. And with the concerns, we'll be reported back amendment back to counsel and to connect committee meeting.

I get the deal about getting these these trucks out on the road early and that kind of thing to to alleviate some of the traffic concerns. But I also have some significant concerns about noise levels and, you know, five to 7AM, that's that's pretty doggone early.

I would go back to what Tracy said where, you know, stating the fact that we had nobody against it at our public hearings. And and Walt's right. I mean, they've got a commission that they're very active and vocal where where there's an issue. They make sure that they communicate with Councilman Brigham and and works with staff on all the issues that come up with the mining.

I just question how I mean, maybe Brigham went out, but what about these others? Have these other are the other communities that are around these mines, have they really been informed about this?

I would say they all stay pretty informed. But I I understand what you're saying, and 5AM is is definitely but you're also talking about a lot of buffering restrictions being put on these particular locations. I don't think that they're behind your house like you're thinking they are.

Maybe make a motion of recommendation with your concerns, and then that will go back to counsel. It may be an approval with conditions of concerns that might need further investigation.

I'll make that motion. I'd like to move that we approve this with concerns, and with the hope that counsel will further investigate noise levels, with regard to these operations that early in the morning affecting quality of life.

I'll second that motion.

Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

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

Okay. And we'll move to our next agenda item. And I'll let

Oh, Sorry.

I forgot all about this.

How does that work?

Yeah.

And we do have a long agenda today. So if we need to take a break.

Lunch.

Something else. They slashed my budget, so they're not getting lunch today, but not even snacks. But we do have water.

Thank you.

But again, if we need to take a break, can certainly do that at some point here.

Okay. Do we want to move forward or you want to take a break?

I'm good.

Good for

one other one. Good. Okay.

Our next ordinance is County Council initiated a zoning text amendment to amend the current special exception process for residential detached limited land use activities. These developments, which are commonly referred to as patio homes, must obtain approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals in the form of a special exception after all other applicable design standards have been met. Council also initiated zoning text amendment to restore the simple majority vote for the Board of Zoning Appeals. The zoning ordinance currently requires a two thirds majority vote of voting members for a motion to carry. The following are excerpts from the zoning ordinance specific to these two amendments.

New text is notated in red and text to be removed has been struck. So just sampling a residential detached limited several years ago when we had the comprehensive updates with the overlays, density, that type of thing in our zoning ordinance, we created an article for residential limited detached developments that carried basically a system of checks and balances that kind of varied from what the normal density requirements were after we changed it from the zoning ordinance from, I guess, more restrictive to excuse me, less restrictive to more restrictive. We created a step that if all the checks and balances would be met, then that type of development would go before our Board of Zoning Appeals in a special exception request. So basically what we're looking at now per council's direction is looking at taking the special exception request out of the loop approval and we can approve it at staff level. Mainly because if we do have all these systems of checks and balances in play in place, to be frank, what would be the point to take it before the Board of Zoning Appeals to stamp it approved or not approved if they've taken all the measures to put these things in place?

The next part of this is with the vote for BZA. I've been here since 1999, involved zoning since then, and for years and years our BZA voted a majority, just like you do, just like County Council does. Here about a year, year and a half ago there was a change County Council at that time initiated for the, I guess you won't call it a super majority, for votes for BZA. And I think the concern was when we had a very limited membership, where if you had nine members and maybe only five are showing up, you might have a three to two vote, which is almost a tie so to speak. So I think they were looking to beef that up as a super majority.

They went from that, which a majority is 50 plus one to the super majority, which was 66%. For example, if you had five members and you had a super majority, you would have to have four to carry a vote rather than three. Just like there's six of you here now, if you have a majority, in this case it would be four, so it wouldn't be about our super majority. But if it was only five of you, a three to two vote wouldn't carry, it would have to be a four to one vote. Okay?

So council's looking to kind of change that back to just a majority vote, since we're getting pretty well staffed now with BZA members. So that was one of the things we're taking a look at. And keep in mind, Planning Commission is a majority vote. County Council, the elected body who appoints you and the BZA members is a majority vote. Okay?

So now we're looking at taking the BZA back to majority vote. And so that's the point of this text amendment here is to just take out the special exception approval process for the Residential Limited. Now, we've had the Residential Limited and the ordinance for several years now. I have yet to have one come through and approve. I actually have one come in and review.

So I just want to put that out there. So you got the information in your packet, I'm sure you've read through it. That's basically a short summary of where we're at. If any staff, any members has questions, I'll try to answer those for you. I can't speak for County Counsel personally, but this is where we are with ease. So I'll try to entertain any questions you have. Ms. Pike, do you have one, I'm sure?

Yeah. Maybe more than one? I

don't have any questions, I have some comments. Sure.

Glad to hear them. First

of all, I don't think that we can properly consider this until we get the full language of the zoning ordinance because the portions regarding residential residential detached limited Mhmm. Are throughout that zone zoning ordinance. And so if we are removing a part of this with regard to the BZA, I think you need a full understanding of what what this does. And I've looked at this pretty much in-depth because I was trying to figure out what the angle was here. I would like for us to continue this until next month and have staff to provide us with a complete copy of the zoning ordinance in here so that we can review this in-depth.

And I'll be happy to lead that discussion at that point in time. But I think that it there are certain portions in here. For example, if you go to section 22.3, and I'm looking at one twenty two dot 11 density. If you go to section 22.3 of that ordinance, well, guess what? 22.3 does not does not apply to residential detached limited.

So I mean, there's some issues here that I think that the special exception review should probably handle. But we can't really consider that because we don't have the full zoning ordinance here. So I'd like to make a motion that we continue this until next month so that staff can provide us with a full copy of the zoning ordinance and we can go from there with full information.

Okay. Just for reference, 02/2030 is just references the entire residential density in our zoning ordinance just as general. Also, this residential limited was created as a separate article. Okay? So if that's if that's what y'all want to do, we certainly as a body, we certainly can do that. But that again, I'm gonna leave that up to you guys.

It was pulled out as a separate section. However, it is referenced in numerous portions of the entire zoning ordinance.

Okay.

And I think we've got to consider all of that and the impact that this would have and and the Board of Zoning's function with regard to that, And that was the purpose of my motion. So

I'm sorry, were

you going say something? Okay. So but basically our goal here is to not repeat a process or not do this twice. Right? I mean

Yeah. This would this yeah. And again, keep in mind and not not disallowing or anything miss Pike has said. But I would just say this, again, this is an amendment that has received first reading. This also went to public hearing Tuesday evening with no comments for or against. But if this is body's wishes to bring this back to you next month with the full ordinance, we can do that if it's if it's your vote. Again, this is just again, this is just a recommendation that you have to counsel. So if your recommendation is not to vote on it and want to bring the entire ordinance back and we can take a look at it next month, we can. That is an option.

I mean the ordinance is there and online and ready to be read at any point in time. I've you know, I've been on this board for quite some time. I think I've read these ordinances more times than I want to. But they're there for for reading, you know, online. Walt's got copies of them as well if you wanted if you want to read them. And if we want to bring this back, I don't have any issues with that either. But I think the goal here is to get rid of variance portion of the board approving it when staff can do it on their level because they've already because they've met those requirements. It seems kind of

Yeah, this one here is just taken that that's pretty much sums it up. It's just taken that exception.

That it

that exception step by b

z out. Need to be done because they've checked all the boxes. Need to come in front of us or in front of the other board when all those requirements have been met.

I think if you go back and you consider everything that's in all the other portions, I don't think you'll come to that. I think we need to look at it.

Yeah. And then you can lead that discussion.

I I think I'll be glad to do that. But I think we need to continue this until we have the full the full copy of this ordinance, the zoning ordinance, in the materials and we can look at it and swap back and forth and move forward with it. So I've I've made the motion. Is there a second?

I'll make a second. I I support commissioner Pike and her concerns. If she Yes. Feels like we need to look at it again, we need to look at it again. Certainly.

Commissioner Cox? Yes. Commissioner Beetenbaugh?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto?

Yes.

Commissioner Hutto?

No.

Chairwoman Mitchell? No.

Okay. So what we'll do is we'll get with Robbie and we'll put this on the agenda next month, assuming we have a meeting. I'm assuming we will announce since we have an agenda item. Yeah, thank you for your participation on that one. Okay. The last one I have is a little different. This is a zoning map amendment. This is actually changed for zoning. Paul Michaud, the applicant is in audience, and I'll let Holland you yeah, I'll let you load it up for us. This map amendment come for use, follows the same process as the text amendments.

We've already had first reading. We had public hearing back on the April 22. We did have two comments in opposition regarding the change. But this is map amendment m24-one. The parcel is identified by February, property owner is Erica Smith.

It's located at 5327 Bush River Road, Columbia. The zoning classification current is C1, which is a neighborhood commercial. The proposed is C2 general commercial. And the applicant would like to place a mini storage facility on the site. So we next have the location of the property on your arrow on your screen.

It's currently a vacant piece of property, almost four acres. Holly, you can go to the next screen. There's zeroed in a little bit there. And the next slide just indicates the current zoning is a C1 neighborhood commercial. The green star just denotes the property as a zoning map.

Paul, could you just before you proceed, could you tell us what neighborhood commercial means?

Yeah, neighborhood commercial. It was actually created back in the late 70s, early 80s for that area. It's more of Euclidean style zoning. It allows some light commercial, but you can still allow residential. So your traditional performance based zoning in the rest of the county has your restricted development district and ID, your intensive development district.

ID normally follows the main corridors off a certain distance where it'll be 300, 400, 500 feet, maybe 1,000 feet. The C1 and C2, the D, the R1, R2 is the old Euclidean zoning, which is exclusive to what we call the Sevenoach Dutch Fork area that was first received zoning back in the 1970s. So it's a neighborhood commercial that allows some light commercial uses, but encourages residential. So this is a C1 district and they're proposing C2 because that's the next step that allows that would allow the mini storage facility. C1 doesn't currently.

So not looking to change a DID to open everything up, and this is actually specific to what they want to do, so to speak. This is not just a general, Well, we want to market the property better, so we want to change it. They have a specific use and we encourage that. We want that use. You will see in the next slide, Talan, if you want to go forward. It's about three and a half acres. It's part of Council District 7 represented by Beth Kehrig. Again, the current zoning is c one neighborhood commercial. The proposed c two general commercial proposed land use as meaning warehouse and as part of 7 Oaks Dash Fort zoned back in the early to mid seventies. There have been approximately nine previous map amendments in the immediate area for these requests for C1 to C2 applications.

I want to put that in there because sometimes we don't have map amendments as much as we used to. We kind of changed up several, maybe eight or ten years ago, who can apply. And it gets to a point where folks want to know, well what's the history of the area? This Euclidean zoning was first zoned in the 70s and most of our map amendments over the years have been in this area. So when I report or bring something to council, new planning commission, those may say is this a common thing?

Well, we've had four of these requests over the years that went from c1 to c2. As far as I know, most of them were approved. Holly, you can go to the next. So this is a site plan that was drawn up showing the area. They're only going to clear and use what's needed. We encouraged all the woods to be left as much as it can to meet up the buffering restrictions. Okay? So you notice the detention pond, you got your access that DOT would have to approve, you have a landscape ordinance in place, they've got to meet storm water requirements. This is a preliminary plan. This plan has not been approved by us because it has to go through the process.

But notice the undisturbed area which we encouraged that would meet all the buffering restrictions. I'll let you go to the next one. And this is from my current zoning ordinance. The category is mini warehouses. The columns that are checked as allowed use, the blank is disallowed use. And if you notice, you'll look at c one going down the activity is down to mini warehouse. It's blank. It doesn't allow, so your next step is c two. You notice if you go the other way, you got r d, but r d is part of that performance based zoning which allows all the activities. Okay?

So we're looking to take this from c one to c two. Holland, you can go to the next one. And per Council Member Kehrig's request go back one screen, Tom. There you Go for it. There you go.

Right there. Mister she wanted mister Michoud to have like a Scheretz, an informal meeting out there to post the site prior to the public hearing. So he did post signs of the property out there and actually having neighbors come in, notices were sent out, thanked by him and no one showed up for that. But he did have a charrette there for that. And that was separate from our public hearing on August excuse me, on April 22. Or Holland, you can go forward. These are just some site photography of the public hearing sign. The second photograph is looking back towards St. Andrews Road. Okay?

The top photograph is looking back towards the dam, so to speak, going up the hill. The bottom photograph is looking directly across the road. And that's a sign that cross engineer mister Michew is employed with had that coming soon self storage and the bottom one is just a photograph of the vacant site.

Presumptuous, wasn't it? For them to put a sign out there that it was coming soon?

Could be but that's what council member Carrick wanted to

do. Okay.

Yep. So she wanted the the public to have an idea. Again, we had we did have no one come speak against. We had two emails that came from county council. They were concerned about the development of the property, the wildlife, what could possibly go there if the mini stores decided not to, which is always, yes, a possibility.

But from a zoning perspective, I'll say this, counsel or us in front of counsel and us in front of you, we don't make recommendations. With text amendments, map amendments, this is part of the process. I will say this, the way this is designed, that if this was currently a c two designation, permit this location and layout at staff level. So if he builds it like he is showing, it meets all my buffer, I say my zoning setback buffer, setback and screening requirements. So if this had the correct zoning on it right now, I could write him a permit today.

Your site plan shows total screening, building setback, transitional buffer, all that. That's around the side of the project?

Yeah. That's around the side. Yeah. He's only disturbing what he needs too. So he meets all the buffer, the setback and screening requirements. Again, that's a preliminary site plan. We like to get those in to show the public and show counsel and to show you what it may look like. The worst thing he could possibly do is go clear cut this property. I hate to say it, but don't know if that would kill the development, but that's absolutely the worst thing they could do. They only need to clear what they need to clear, leave the rest vegetated.

I'm sure they'll have some security fencing around the mini storage. And that's what we want and that's what we encourage. Only clear what you need. Also if he goes clears too much and that affects the landscape ordinance, where Mr. Duplak would be doing his review, we wouldn't want him to go clear a bunch and have to go replant. So there's no better screening than natural vegetation, especially if it's evergreen. So we got a large buffer area there. So we're encouraged at staff level that you're only clearing what you need to clear and you leave the rest natural. Mr. Mishu is here in attendance. If you have any specific questions regarding the development, I encourage you to ask him. But that pretty much completes my presentation and again, appreciate your time from you presenting.

Are we considering that we would have, as Planning Commission, we would approve or recommend approval of changing this to c two?

That is correct. That's the reason it's before you. This is Yeah. Go to County Yes. The County Council has the final say so on these text amendments and these map amendments for final approval. Part of the process is to come before this body for a recommendation, whether it be a text amendment or a map amendment, that we report back to the County Council. So if it's your desire to make a recommendation to approve or deny, then I will take that recommendation back to the next committee meeting and report that to County Council.

We approve it. Do you do you have to main do they have to maintain those buffers that you Sure.

Sure. Yeah. Nothing goes away. The only way it would go away is if, let's say for instance, it went through and for whatever reason he wanted to expand sorry, I'm getting too close wanted to expand on that activity. But keep in mind, this right here, you're not approving the plan, you're approving the activity. We're approving C2. You're approving the yeah. Can we approve a Excuse me, you're approving the designation. I'm sorry?

Can we approve it as a storage facility and nothing else?

No. Unfortunately you cannot. You've proven the zoning designation. But one of the things I look at when I take a map amendment, and I've always looked at, is taking it to the next classification that allows that activity, but doesn't open it up to everything. Go back to the chart, if you will, that allowed use chart.

Okay. You're looking for that if if they decided they didn't want to build a storage facility there, but they got their C2 designation and they decided to put something else there, do we still have those buffering requirements?

It depends on what it would be. It depends on what it would be.

But those buffering requirements were all approved by

The buffering requirements are approved by staff. That's part of our review. So here's the thing. If you do approve it at C2 or you make the recommendation and this goes through the process and it's a finished product a month or two from now, Mr. Michoud comes back up and says, Oh good, we've gotten the C2 zoning. Now I want to expand and make it twice as large, and he doesn't meet the buffer and setback, we can't approve it. What you're looking at is proving the zoning that would make the use allowed.

But if you wanted to change the business and not make it self storage, I mean you would just go through your list.

Yeah, go through your list. Yeah. And that's why we're looking at C2. So again, look at the first page. This is from our zoning ordinance. This is an alphabetized list from advertising signs. You can go back just a little bit to the full page. Go back to the full page, I'm sorry. Yeah, advertising signs to mobile home. That's the first sheet. You know we got about 70 activities in our zoning ordinance. Well if you look at C1, what currently can go out there now? So right now, a nursing home could go there, a personal convenience service like a barber shop or a tattoo parlor or something like that. You could build a house on the property. You could put solar in your solar farm there if you wanted to.

You could put a transport service, you could put a utility, you could put a vehicle servicing activity. You go back up, Holland. You could put a billboard if it would meet. Actually there's an airport there. Don't think you could be able put an airport in there, but it would be allowed to see one cemeteries, churches. So but you also go look at what I highlighted in green, the mini warehouse is what this activity would come under. Okay? C1 is not checked, that means it's not allowed. So I'm looking for the next basically zoning classification that would allow the activity. I could go back to RD, but RD opens up to all these different uses.

So I'm looking to something that's still be somewhat restrictive, but allow the activity which would be C2. So notice he didn't go from C1 because if he came in, Mr. Mishu says, Hey, I want put a mini store facility, I want to go to some C1 ID, then I am gonna say, Well, what do you need ID to do, man? What do you need the ID for? C2 allows it. So then I'm going get suspicious. Are you really trying to put them in a storage here? What are you trying to do on the other end? You see what I'm saying? So this is just a step in the process for them to try to get the zoning changed so they can get permitted to construct their mini storage facility. Again, Mr. Michew is here to answer any specific questions you may have.

And we've

got a site plan showing.

We've got a site plan showing at all meets and I want to get those in front of you and in front of look, we know it can change, but I don't want to take it to a public hearing in front of you guys and not have any plan in place and get the question, Walt, what does it look like? I don't know. Then why are bringing it to us? We need something in place. So that's why I want to have at least some type of site plan and conceptual plan. And again, if you have any questions about the plan or plans for the property, Mr. Mishu is in attendance.

I can see both sides of it. But from aerial of the parcel now, it looks like it's primarily residential in that section around it. Is that true?

You got some behind there across the street. Across the street, there were amendments. A lot of that was, you know, c one, now c two.

Don't know if you could put like a ballpark percentage on residential, commercial, is that what it's called?

Well, 53 Yeah. Well, let me just give you a little keep that up right quick. Keep that slide up there. So your resident commercial is probably fiftyfifty. You got residential directly to, I guess, your West and to your south. But fifty three twenty five was just permitted last year as a church activity. You've got a little warehouse across the street. You saw the the ground photography and if you've ridden by here, you're probably somewhat familiar. You got the convenience store diagonally across. Fifty three seventeen is a commercial entity.

Fifty three eleven is a commercial entity. And again, this property is vacant. Four years ago, we did have an amendment that someone wanted to maybe look at doing a vehicle servicing and then withdrew it for everyone to first reading. So if about back in '21, I did have an application that a client wanted to look at doing it like a car repair shop and then they withdrew it for everyone to first reading.

I'm just kind of trying to figure out in my mind how many you said not that many came up, and only four of the nine or whatever were a C1 to C2 situation, but how it snowballs into then now there's neighborhoods stuck in with more of the general commercial taking and how do you navigate?

And one thing too is maybe just go back and take a look at your allowed uses currently. So keep in mind, and again, I don't recommend y'all made the recommendation, I don't. But if you're wondering about what can go there or what we change it to, if someone has something now in the C1 that can meet the buffer and setback in screening requirements, we would permit it now. So you're not looking at something that's solely residential property now for like an r one, and we are trying to make something so called commercial out of it. We've got a c one in play now that if somebody wanted to put a billboard, they could.

If somebody want to put an adult or child daycare and build it right now. If Andy Beanbo was a minister and he came in and said, Walt, I want put my church on this property. I'm gonna say it's allowed.

Or a kennel.

Or a kennel. So again, I to want have an understanding of what can go there now versus what they're looking at doing. So again, we're not looking at the restrictive r one which you can only put maybe a house on and that's it and then we're going to some type of commercial. We already got a commercial designation, it just currently does not allow what he's proposing to do. And what he's proposing to do if this was c two, again, two right now, I could write a permit for him right now based on his design of that mini storage.

And you wouldn't council wouldn't see it, you wouldn't see it because it'd be allowed and it's permitted by right and meets all our regulations. Now they still have to get a landscape ordinance, building permit, land development ponds, you name it, whatever's required. They still have to go through all the permitting procedure.

And I'm assuming if this goes through then and the site plan changes even up to and including no longer maybe self storage, then it's going to have to go through all that stuff.

Yeah, it's going to to go. Yeah. Now once it's changed, it's changed. However, if it gets to c two, they decide you know what, logistic cost, we can't do this. Someone buys it, then whoever comes in, that plan has got to meet everything. You see what I'm saying? See this is this we haven't approved this plan. This is just a preliminary plan, but I've been asked before, would this plan work? And my response is, yes, it will.

I'm a jump out. I'm a make a I'll make a motion that we approve the request to change from C 1 to C 2 based on the fact that C 1 has a lot of the uses already that are commercial oriented and the general area in that vicinity of that lot, I'm very familiar with, we drive by all the time, is is very commercial oriented anyway in that particular little stretch of Bush River Road. So again, I I recommend how that change from C 1.

I'll second it.

Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Beetenbaugh?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto?

Yes.

Commissioner Hutto? Yes. Chairwoman Mitchell?

Yes.

Do we want

to take a break before concurrency? Okay.

We discuss for a quick break before Yes.

So, yes, we can just set a time and and we'll be back.

Five minutes? Yeah.

So just, say, 10:42, I guess. That work? Yes. Alright. We'll be back in just a moment.

It's Rebecca Conway. I'm the development manager. I am sitting in for Robbie Derek this morning. So we do have three concurrency reviews for you to review. The first one will be school district one. I do have some very broad strokes information to provide to you. I know we've published these packets. They've been forwarded to you. They've been out there for a while. In the past, we have read school district questionnaires verbatim.

You've been here quite some time this morning. We appreciate your dedication. We may try something a little different and maybe do a little broader stroke since that information is out there for the public. And I'll go over some just very broad strokes information, and I know Robbie put some information in a little different format to kind of shorten it up a little bit for you, and so we can talk about that as well. The first one that we're gonna start out with, and as a reminder, the purpose of this agenda item is for you as a planning commission to review this concurrency questionnaire that has been submitted by Lexington School District one.

As a reminder, the school districts cannot provide a yes or no answer in terms of adequate public facilities, so administration and the community development staff worked with the five school districts to develop a questionnaire, which that information is before you. Per council's adopted policy, the planning commission is to review the questionnaire and make a recommendation to council who in turn makes that final decision based upon your response and all available information. So in your packet and out on the packet for the public, there is a copy of the questionnaire, general site sketch plan, general location. So what staff does for concurrency review is they take the sketch plan and they will then look at it to see if it meets basic compliance with zoning and open space, and we do all this before we even send it to our emergency providers. So we've already reviewed in sketch format density, minimum lot sizes, setbacks, percentage of open space, road, transitional buffers.

And while the layout is subject to change, we have done some preliminary sketch reviews. So what you'll see the first one, it is the project Southwood Drive. The general location is South Of Southwood Drive, West Of Old Orangeburg Road and East Of Wildflower Drive. This is in the Red Bank community. The parcels are identified by tax map numbers 6500, 3, 56, also 064 And 082.

This is in Council District 5, that's Mr. Clifford Fisher. The proposed development type is single family residential. The total acreage of the project is 20.94 acres, and the proposed number of dwelling units is 40. So for your benefit, that overall density calculation then translates into 1.91 dwelling units per acre.

And 32% of the project is in dedicated open space or that equates to 6.71 acres and that's as a reminder, our requirement is 20. Per the developer, the project will have just one single phase with construction beginning in January 2026 and a full build out by January 2027. Now keep in mind this is sketch plan and that timeline can change. The procedures for all other entities, that's fire, EMS, solid waste and sheriff. The sheriff's office to review this project has been completed and there were no objections to move forward.

So your purpose is to review that questionnaire. It is one, two, three, four pages. It is signed by, let's see, their superintendent, Ms. Postelwaite. If you would like me to read that verbatim, I am happy to or we can talk just about the overview again about that density of 40 units. There was a kind of a little different format that we shared this week too for you to review. It was kind of more of like a quick two page summary. It is the same information that's in the questionnaire. It's just been condensed we don't read it verbatim. If you'd like me to review some of those items, I can or you guys can move straight to your thoughts on what you have reviewed.

I don't think there's any need to go through every single portion we've got So I mean, if there's any

Yeah.

I have

a question, Rebecca.

What if

the the mister Fisher has proposed 40 dwelling units, and if we recommended approval of this to planning commission mean, to the county council today. Let's suppose he comes back and he decides he wants to do 60. Then have we approved? Does that mean that we've also will approve? I mean, automatically he gets to do 60 without it coming back to us or does that have to come

Correct. If they do 40 or less, then it does not come back to you. If they redesign and come back and say, well, we've now done our budgeting and we want to do 60, it will go through concurrency again for the additional 20 lots.

I've got a couple of questions First of all, I'd like to know when are is is the map that shows all the the, subdivisions that are in the pipeline at this point, is that ready for us to review? And if so, how many are in the pipeline for this particular area, for Lexington District 1?

So you're asking about the concurrency map? Because pipeline is actual submittals. They will not show up on a pipeline map until after concurrency has been met and approved. What you're seeing on pipeline now are probably previous projects that were submitted prior to the adoption of some concurrency requirements. So there are two different maps that mister Leger has proposed.

The pipeline map is actual submittals. They can only get to a submittal stage and engineering after concurrency was either not applicable because it was pre concurrency rules or it has met concurrency approvals.

Okay. So I'd sort of like to know any subdivision, whether it's Met concurrency or not, that's out there for this particular area, because all of those are potential students into Lexington District One.

I made a similar comment last time in that as just for concurrency purposes. When they're filling out these subdivision concurrency, it'd be nice to have a point dropped on a map with the other concurrencies that we've heard in that district because from reading over this review or survey, I see no problem with it, theoretically. But if there's two other concurrency nearby, it will affect them and they're really filling it out as as best they can, but individually Mhmm. As a silo. It's not more of a cumulative effect.

So I don't know if that speaks directly, but that's kind of what I was thinking of. And I know that we Mr. Leje and I had a conversation about it too in terms of what kind of information you have and how that can be presented. But that would be helpful because that way even if something seemingly on its own looks fine, cumulatively we could take into account what else is also being recommended on so that we know kind of what the overall effect might be. Mean, we might be less likely for the sixth one of that district in a period of six months to approve it even if it looks fine on its own because the other five have been recommended to get through.

Pardon? How many do we have affecting this school?

So that is we took that into consideration. Mr. Leggete took that into consideration and that is the reason that he has shown you that new concurrency map. So yes, he is going to start the ones that have gone through that process, he's going to map them for you. In regards to the information on the pipeline map, that map has been in existence for quite some time.

We've been tracking that, and that map, the public map that you guys can go to has been publicly available since I I think '20 early twenty twenty one, and it is cumulative. You can see all of the developments over time in it. Now we share all these reports every month, activity reports pipeline with the school districts. So they do have that information available to them to see what type of projects have already been submitted in their area. So yes, the information is available. How it's being used by the school district interpretation of these questions, I do not know.

But, you know, you say that that map is out there and I had some experience with that this week. Yeah, that map's out there, but it doesn't show the school districts, so you don't know what what projects are in what school district.

I think that is a change that Holland has now recently made where he has changed, updated the underlying layer of that pipeline map to identify school district property lines. So that is a recent change. So I will let him discuss those maps one more time for a refresher.

I'd love to have a link to that so that we could see that. And also, it would just be helpful if you could tell us in the questionnaire what what projects have already been approved for that area. My other concern is this. And I look at inconsistencies constantly. So for example, in this particular one, Lexington one shows that the high school that they have 413 spots available here.

But in October 2024, we had another one involving Whitenall High School again, and they only had 200. So I thought, okay. Well, maybe that's graduation or something. But I've been told by school people that that's not true because you've got the people from the middle school that are coming up to the high the the high school level. And so they're gonna take those any spots that were freed up by the people that are graduating.

Different classes have different

quantities do. Extras. There's gotta

be a formula or something they're plugging that into.

I don't know. But I mean, I'm just pointing out the inconsistency of it. So do think we've got to know the pipeline projects. I do think in in the next ones that we're gonna see, after I ask some questions of Lexington District four, they did something very helpful. They took the previous ones that they knew about and subtracted it out. Right. And now we can see that. That would be awesome if the school districts would do that. That's what we need.

So the notes to go forward with the questionnaire is to incorporate historic information that they're already aware of and to help with their calculations, similar to what you saw with district four.

Actually, I mean, if they did what district four did exactly, I mean, that shows us exactly where they are. That's very meaningful information to This, in all honesty, is not meaningful because it does not provide us with historic information. We're we're going off of whatever they say their current is.

Concurrency doesn't mean that this project has been approved. Right? And it's breaking ground and we're building 40 houses?

No. This is this is a requirement prior to engineering submittals. So this is just work

out and they're consistent with their math than arithmetic. It doesn't mean that it's consistent with what the future holds for that area. So that's not really helpful because that project may or may not get to the level that they're at. So then you've got 40 houses, for instance, if we approve this one that have gone through concurrency and we're keeping a tab on the number of students that can can go into those 40 houses, but then it doesn't actually come to fruition. So

But don't

we have out of the equation before they're even

I I understand what you're saying, but don't we have to take worst case scenario here in order to make sure that the schools can accommodate?

I think it just has to be actively communicated back and forth between us and the school districts and make sure that everybody's got accurate information, you know, to take this into it. I I love the idea. I really do. And I thought it was helpful too. But let's say that, you know, column one doesn't actually get to that point, which, you know, a lot of times we go through concurrency and then these builders, for whatever the reason is, it doesn't phase one gets held up by whatever, you know.

And I agree. That has to be an interactive kind of thing

Right.

As we go forward. But, I mean

Take those students out and you just keep dwindling that column down and half of those things don't come up anytime soon, then you're getting inaccurate information because you think, oh, god, we don't have enough capacity to do that.

I I get where you're coming from, but I think that is an interactive process. And we do have to get updated numbers on things like that as time goes on. But right now, concurrency is so new Right. That I doubt that any of them have come online yet. So

maybe we make the recommendation that we need to try to figure out how to streamline to the to make it work for everybody

Yes.

For concurrency to work everybody. Can I chime in? Absolutely.

We are way deep in the weeds on this.

Yeah. Like, just

We don't get a vote. Okay? County Council will make the decision.

Right.

They're not gonna listen to us. I mean, they're gonna make their vote however they wanna make their vote. Woah. Still make recommendations. You can make recommendations. That's right. But we don't because what I'm saying is we spend a lot of time and effort and energy to make a recommendation. Is it really gonna be heard?

Well, if that if you take that attitude, then we don't need a planning commission.

We we don't necessarily maybe need to be doing this much concurrency review because because you're right. There are a lot of lot of inconsistencies in in some of these reports from the districts.

And Robbie said it's a new process.

Right. It is.

There's no standards for conditions on it. There's for making a recommendation yet. There's

But I think making But suggestions for changes or additions or whatever is good thing

to we have a fiduciary duty to do that. Right. So

I'm just saying let's just let's vote.

Let's make a recommendation.

Let's let's get on with it.

I think you're you're it.

I'm in.

No. No. Thank you. Chairperson fight. Oh,

so If

I if I can, we as a staff received your question. So you said your question to Robbie. Robbie then informed me about mapping, and so that was probably Tuesday afternoon. So I I got my staff and they and they jumped on this, trying to update these these concurrency map and the pipeline map to add the school districts to help you. And and we've got one of the maps here on the screen that illustrates the school districts.

The yellow is School District one. So it has the concurrency projects on this map. And if I back up one, this is the pipeline project map. Again, in yellow is School District one, so you see a lot more dots, that are pipeline projects, which if I understand Ms. Conway correctly, those are much closer to being approved and or may have been approved. But those are the the dots represent the projects in

School District

one that would affect this particular project. So in in two days, we we try to make an effort to to try to answer your own questions with regards to pipeline and concurrency on these maps.

Well, you did a great job. And shame on Robbie for not saying that sooner because we've made this request numerous times over numerous months.

And and we've been working on these maps. They they don't just happen overnight. But we had some of the base data prepared. I've been working on this for several months, and and finally, your request came through, and I said we gotta move forward with these maps. We provide the commission, and hopefully, it'll help you guys. So we've been working on it quite a while.

Well, thank you very much.

Welcome. Okay.

So I guess with are we making a motion with respect to this particular one? Only. Oh, okay. Then I would make the motion to approve this one based on the numbers that we have. We would like to make I would like to make the recommendation that in the future that the numbers for the number of students slots that are available reflect the prior projects, the prior concurrency projects that have already come up in the past, so that we get more accurate numbers for student availability.

Second it.

Sorry, is there any other discussion, questions? Now that we have a second.

My my I guess my concern will be is that just putting more on staff than is really a requirement.

Recommendation. Okay. It's Approval with the recommendation.

Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Beetenbaugh?

Yes.

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

On to tab k.

Moving on to the next concurrency review in your packet today. It is Tara Pine Subdivision. So the questionnaire was provided by school district four. As a reminder, they're not saying yes and no, but they're giving us as much information as they can. So this sketch plan that's provided in your packet has gone through basic reviews again for our zoning and our open space and our layout.

So for this project that you're seeing, the general location for Terrapine Subdivision is Southeast East Of Blackville Road, North of SC 6 and West of Big Hickory Lane. This is in Gaston. Tax map number is 01190002001, and it says it is a portion of that tax map number. This is Council District 1, Michael Bishop. The development type proposed is single family residential.

The total acreage of the project is 80.31 acres. The proposed number of dwellings is 119. This will calculate into an overall density of 1.482 dwelling units per acre. And according to this project sketch, 23.79 of the project is dedicated to open space or 19.11 acres. And as a reminder, our requirement is 20%.

So per the developer on this project, the project will most likely have two phases, and they plan to split the phases up as close to fiftyfifty as possible. Once concurrency is passed, they anticipate one and a half to two years for permitting and eight months to construct infrastructure following that permitting. Home sales are not anticipated until the three and a half year mark and another two point five to three years to complete. All in all, this process could be about six years. The procedures for all other entities including fire, EMS, solid waste and the sheriff's office to review this project have been completed and there were no objections to move forward.

So the purpose of the agenda item today is for you to review the questionnaire provided by the school district and make a recommendation to county council regarding the school district's response.

Issue here is that it looks like they've got space. I mean, the middle school and the high school are the problem. So they there's two subdivisions here that we're making decisions on. They got room for one of them, but not the other one.

Where did you say that?

In the additional materials provided. See, this one actually this one actually came second. In other words, this one came in first. We're on this, but they've got room for the 198 for Valley Crest. They don't have room for the additional stuff. See, they've got

you're referring to the cumulative?

Right. Right. But which one are you approving today?

Well, both of those are on our agenda. Right.

Which one would get started first? And which one would be easier to to be developed? You have no idea. So you've got to do it individually without that tally being taken into consideration each time.

Well, I mean, Terra Pines is coming first here. I mean, they've got 119 homes. They certainly have room for that.

Individually, they have room for both of them, right?

No. No. They're not even really saying that. I mean, they're just hand and limb individually in these. And I feel like we need the same numbers, like the data that you were talking about for the last one, where it's more of a cumulative. I mean

They don't have room for both of these. They only have room for one of them.

But either one. Either one. That's what I'm saying. So either one, you can't really do it cumulatively because you don't know which one or either of them are actually going to that point. Which ones, you know, you can't make that decision. I don't think it's really fair to say, well, this one came first, but this one may be an easier project and maybe

But if we have this

may be better for the county, may be better for the citizens' life.

Have the school district go back and fill that out with those numbers. Maybe it also is more obvious to them that they don't have quite the room or maybe Nate once they fill out one with the cumulative numbers. The next one using those numbers, they they may choose a different direction or

realize really in their wheelhouse.

Or may may even actually just make them consider the fact that when it says on there require new construction, each individual one, they're almost always like no. But after they fill out one, they may fill out the other one if it's very close in proximity in the district. They need new construction. Mean, it may change how they answer some of the other questions.

Well, and that that brings up the question of, you know, if you have new construction, that just doesn't automatically appear. You've got to go through a bond referendum and all that stuff. So And that takes time.

So I guess my question is, obviously, we're doing this tab separate from the other, but Right. Do we make a similar recommendation, like preliminary approval, though, because there's only so much information on this one. At least the last one has some information. This one's lacking. So, I mean

I can tell you that from the previous ones from district four, they use a student rate. They use a point six factor to determine they've used it on every single one.

But on question seven on both of them, do you predict new school construction would need to occur? The answer is no. And That's all we know. Right.

Your answers are always some part of that doesn't compute, so I'm thinking if the numbers changed,

Why doesn't it compute? Maybe they've they've got big enough schools. They're not They might. That capacity.

They might. The other one's a larger subdivision at 198. And so depending on where they're a little bit of both. There could be some overlap. I'm just thinking it could potentially change the way they answer a second one.

Wait a minute. Now, they've combined all of their schools to provide these answers. Mhmm. Which normally, in all the rest of them, the way that Lexington District one and District two do it is that they separate out the schools that the the students would go to based on that subdivision. This You're looking at District four.

Do you know how many schools

Right. They may just have one each

They three elementaries, two middles, and two high. And they have they have combined those, so these are combined numbers. In other words, you wouldn't have the the benefit of busing the students somewhere else. They're giving you cumulative numbers, all three of their their elementaries, all two of their middles, and all two of their highs.

Something about the review process, like the questionnaires, I mean, it just leaves more questions.

And and and interestingly, if you look at number two, how many additional students could each of the schools listed above serve without adding portable classrooms? The numbers are different. Tab l than they are in K and it was filled out by the same person.

Right. Again,

it's significant, I mean,

by a 100 students in elementary school. So I mean, it's significantly different.

I believe the reason for that one is maybe they did the concurrency questionnaire for your next tab first and then did Terra Pines second and removed the potential numbers from that 198.

That was my question a few days ago to Robbie Derek, and I asked if they had done that. And he got with the school district and confirmed that they had in fact done that.

Okay. Yes.

They reviewed the concurrency for Valley Crest first, and then when they reviewed the questionnaire for Terra Pines, they reduced those numbers. I feel like that may have been shared some talking about student growth calculations.

Well, I might make a recommendation that we

Fire robbing?

That we

We don't have that power either.

I guess that we recommend approval of this to County Council because taking on its face value, it's it's seems like everything's fine.

So Right.

Okay. We have a second with that too. Any any further discussion?

No. Please offer a vote. Commissioner Cox.

Yes.

Commissioner Beetenbaugh.

Yes.

Commissioner Pike. Yes. Commissioner Otto. Yes. Commissioner Hutto. Yes. Chairwoman Mitchell. Yes.

Valley Crest, Ontario.

Pardon me for interrupting. May I you I'd I would like you to introduce the next tab, but may I make a suggestion we we've sort of we sort of considered this one along with our last one, so maybe we could get and I'm not in a rush, but I'm just saying that we could jump right to in a recommendation pretty Correct. I don't know if I could make a recommendation now, immediately or wait? Yes,

Yes.

I'd you like to make a recommendation that we recommend approval to County Council for this particular project, the one we're considering now, which is what's Valleycrest. What Valleycrest. Thank you. That's what I my motion.

I'll second it.

They don't have the room in two of these, the students.

That's on the superintendent who answered item seven.

And that's

that that's part of the purpose of this. They don't have the room. That's the purpose of this concurrency review.

That's if you take that first one that we just did into consideration. Take that out of the equation and look at these individually. Did they have room for the subdivision? Yeah.

But you

can't do that. That's the whole purpose of looking back and and and subtracting out the ones that they've already done.

Just because they purposely subtracted doesn't mean that that's proper math. Just because it was just because you're doing that doesn't mean that these are gonna come to the point where these houses are coming online. I mean, it's Well, if I mean, that's that's just me looking at it from a developer standpoint.

If you take your presumption, then we don't need to look at schools, period, because their numbers would mean nothing. These numbers mean something.

I feel like these numbers are subjective to whatever wanting to show you at this point.

I think we have to take the numbers at face value because that's what they've given us. So, I mean, if we take out the Terra Pines, which we just approved, which was the 119 homes, now they definitely don't have room for the 198. For in in they've got two middle schools and two high schools and they don't have room.

Well, I believe Rebecca said this one might have been filled out first and then Tara Pines was second. So was. Probably reviewed them backwards too, but Nonetheless.

But feel like one shouldn't suffer because of the other and

That's right.

I'm with Andy, you know. Kinda think

like that's where we're at with the numbers at this point. They are kind of we have to take them at face value unless we start giving them a calculation in which how they all should do it uniformly, which idea.

Number here.

And these numbers should mean something, but I also agree that more often than not, it doesn't Right. Based on some of the others that we're reviewing at the same time.

Right. So.

I think we have to accept what they give us because we don't have better information.

And we have our a motion and a second to that. Right?

Yep.

Okay. Audit. Commissioner Cox.

Yes.

Commissioner Beetenbaugh?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? No. Commissioner Otto?

Yes.

Commissioner Hutto? Yes. Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

On to m, subdivision bonds.

Information only.

I have n. I make

the motion to approve. Second.

Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Vetenball?

Yes.

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

Yes. Madam chair, just real quick like sorry, Holly. Robbie Derrick's in attendance. He came in about a few minutes ago and I think he may have just a few words to say about the concurrency.

Robbie's Yeah.

Please. First and foremost, it is a dawning task for all of us. I think as y'all all are aware of, the school districts, they have to accept students for education purposes. They can't say yay or nay. The purpose for the concurrence review was to a is to help the school districts to preplan and to give counsel an opportunity to review any particular issues that may cause concerns for any public public facilities including schools.

Fire and

Fire, EMS, solid waste management, law enforcement, county, and we include the schools. And again, it is it is a very daunting task. The schools are provide all this information. They do all their preplanning even prior to the concurrence reviews, the schools plan for for growth. As a matter of fact, working on some of the information I sent this past week to the planning commission, I came across a map in our one map system which actually showed a map from Lexington School District.

Well, their future growth areas on it, I was not aware of. So there's a lot of preplanning that goes on not only from our end but the school districts, and this is almost like another level to give them that ability to plan ahead. Now from a planning commission perspective, again, this is a recommending body. So to miss Pike's concerns, if the body feels that they need to recommend denial to counsel, this body needs to recommend denial to counsel, then counsel is the final arbitrator. Again, this is a recommending body.

Couple things to keep in mind too is the intent of the Planning Commission review is based on individual questionnaires that have been developed with the superintendents of the schools and administration and staff. I understand the concerns trying to piece them together and trying to figure out the overall impact of multiple, but the school districts when they're providing those questionnaires should be doing that as part of what they're providing to us. Should. Don't know their planning process, but that should be taken into consideration. I agree that we're working on maps to provide to the Planning Commission to show the location of the concurrence reviews along with the school district boundaries, but I wanna caution this body that you do not need to make recommendations based on that.