Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Broadcast live on the Lexington County Spectrum Channel 1302 and Lexington County's website meeting portal. As such, this commission meeting filmed today will be available for viewing anytime on demand at our county's website. Would you like to do an invocation? Yes, sir.

Who?

Mr. Rodham. Oh, sure.

Let's pray. Father, thank you for all that you do for us, each one of us, and we thank you for such a beautiful country in Lexington County that we love, and we thank you for blessing us with that. And we ask you to guide us with everything that we have to do this morning and do what's right in your eyes. We thank you. In Jesus' name, amen.

Thank you. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. We have meeting minutes. Tab A from last month. We have a motion to approve.

I'll make a motion to approve. Second.

Is this working? Okay. I just got to get it closer to my face. Got it. We have a motion and a second.

When I call your name, please indicate if you're in favor of or opposed to the motion. Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Shealy?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto?

Yes.

Commissioner Campbell?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

Activity reports?

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission. Within your packets, the active reports, I think, for Council District, the submittals that's received over the last month. As tradition, we have the latest number of new home permits and statistics regarding those for the last month and the past quarter. Obviously, the first slide on your screen goes over the historical changes and fluctuation of those home permits. Just a zoomed-in version, you can see the consistency over the last couple of years with the number of permits issued, both single-family and mobile homes. Through the second quarter so far, we've issued 144 new permits, a total of 602 single-family home permits for this year. Manufactured homes, 46 permits through the second quarter of this year, a total of 183 for the year. Pipeline maps, there are three new projects on the pipeline. Two of those are within the county. One is actually within the town of Gaston. More detailed information for that is also included within your packets. We've also had three new concurrency projects submitted within the month of April. One of those projects falls within Lexington County School District 4. The other two fall within Lexington County School District 1. These three projects did not include reviews from the individual school districts. We have been reviewing projects since the end of April for new school district reviews. Thus far, they have fell under the 95 percentile for occupancy, which was the director from council. So at staff level, we've been able to approve those to move forward. There will be some additional discussion, most likely on concurrency in the upcoming council meetings. I will update the planning commission on those discussions. I do have some information regarding school district presentations. Lexington County School District 4 has agreed to present their information in the September meeting. Lexington County School District will be back in October to go over their facility studies. So we do have them on the agenda coming up in early mid-fall.

We'll start with the first private road variance.

The private road variance this morning is regarding Fabrister Lane, which is an existing private road. The property is owned by Kidron Partners, 1812 LLC. Currently, they own four and a half acres, identified by TMS number 004200-03-013. This parcel is addressed as 1812 Augusta Highway and also connects to Fabrister Lane. There are additional structures on the property that are addressed as 106 Fabrister Lane. Peter Webster, the manager of Kidron Partners 1812 LLC, is proposing to create a separate parcel for the businesses that are located at the 106 Fabrister Lane address. Even though the private road and there is a road maintenance agreement that exists, further subdividing requires planning commission approval since this road was not originally constructed to a county standard. A little bit of history, Fabrister Lane is located within two 25-foot easements. The Kidron Partners owns one of these portions, and the other portion is owned by Donna Crouch, and she has provided her consent to the variance request. There was a Planning Commission approval in June of 2006 to subdivide an existing tract into three lots and to formally create the private road. This request was approved with the condition that the road be platted with a platted turnaround at the end and a road maintenance agreement be in place. This final plat was approved in June of 2007 and is recorded. There is an existing mutual grant of right-of-way easement that was recorded in 1986 and a road maintenance agreement in 2007. Mr. Webster has prepared a draft, amended and restated mutual grant of right-of-way easement and a road maintenance agreement, and you do have a copy of that in your packets. The plat on the screen is what Mr. Webster is proposing. You'll see this would be the property line. If you'll see that in the middle between those two businesses, it's just to separate those different businesses. This is an aerial photo of the property. This is a little bit closer view. And you'll see what he's proposing is parcel A and parcel B. We do have some photos of Augusta Highway there at the Fabrister Lane location. This is the Google Street View of the signage that's in place. This is looking into Fabrister Lane. And this is a video that we took. Robbie, you may have to start that video for me if you don't mind. And while that video is playing, I'll read Mr. Webster's standards into record. A, there are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the property or properties. The parcel currently contains two types of property, a retail shopping center and an industrial flex park. These are two fundamentally different property types with very different traffic, customers, maintenance, common areas, insurance, taxes, and operations. B, these conditions do not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity. It is not common for a single parcel in Lexington County or elsewhere to contain both a retail shopping center and an industrial flex park. Generally, retail buildings are platted separately or on parcels with other retail properties, and industrial buildings are also platted separately or on parcels with other industrial properties. The current configuration of this parcel is not typical of commercial properties in the surrounding area. See, because of these conditions, the application of this ordinance to the particular property or properties would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property or properties. Because of the existing configuration of the property, the retail and industrial components are required to function as a single property. These uses have materially different operational characteristics and needs. The subdivision ordinance currently prevents the separation of these distinct uses into individual parcels that would align with their independent operation. As a result, the property is subject to operational inefficiencies and constraints that would not exist if the site were configured in a manner consistent with its built form. Granting the variance would allow the legal configuration of the property to reflect its existing physical and functional layout without requiring any physical changes to the site and without impacting neighboring parcels or the private road maintenance. D, the authorization of this variance would not be a substantial detriment to adjacent property or the quality of life for the residents of the county. Granting this variance would have no adverse effect on any nearby property or on the residents of Lexington County. The physical site will not change in any way. E, when deliberating a variance request, financial hardships alone cannot be considered the basis of a variance. The basis for this variance request is operational and functional. Two property types with distinct uses, tenant obligations, and management operations currently must operate under a single legal parcel in a manner inconsistent with how they physically exist and function. Mr. Webster was not able to be at the meeting this morning, but he has center representative, Ms. Meredith Rhodes, and she is here if you have specific questions for her.

I do have some questions with respect to the statement. As a result, the property is subject to operational inefficiencies and constraints that would not exist if the site were configured in a manner consistent with its built form granting the . I'd like to know what those operational inefficiencies are and the constraints.

I'm Meredith Rhodes. I'm a commercial real estate broker with Trinity Partners. So I'm doing the leasing for this property.

Can you also give your address, full address too, as well as your name?

Sorry?

Your full address as well as your name.

Oh, like home address? Okay. 1436 Medway Road in Columbia, South Carolina. Thank you. So yes, I'm doing the leasing for this property for Peter Webster. And so because the two different properties are just so different in nature, you know, they have different types of tenants, different types of customers. They have different like water hookups, HVAC units and things like that. So it's just, it's creating just inefficiencies in how they're managed and having them separated would just help with kind of making everything more efficient. Sorry, I don't, I'm not really sure what Webster wanted me to say.

I think I can add to that because I've had several conversations with Mr. Webster. Because of the tenants are so drastically different, the parcel being taxed as one parcel, he doesn't have the opportunity to kind of transition those funds differently. Insurance rates are different. Taxes could be different. to be more specific to the uses on each property. I think it was that kind of accounting and inefficiencies. By having it lumped all as one piece, it was hard to separate those rents, those leases, those tenant spaces. That was my understanding when Mr. Webster and I first started talking about why he wanted to do this.

Is this all zoned similarly? It's all one zone? I'm sure it's probably. So commercial and industrial, like a mixed use? Yes.

It was permitted years ago, Walt McPherson, zone administrator. It was permitted, I guess, 20 years ago, Hutto Plaza, as a spec development shopping center combining food services, retail, that type of thing. So I believe it's all ID intensive development. So the use is consistent with the zoning. I'm not aware of any non-conforming zoning issues out there this time. Thank you.

I was going to say, so do you feel it's still consistent with the way it's being used? Correct. Is there a better?

Correct, yeah, it's consistent. We're familiar with that site. We're consistently permitting different tenants going in and out of their signage. In fact, staff had taken a look at this one to see if the property line would be okay in building and zoning, but looked at it and said it would be fine.

I understand it's a private road variance, but if there is, subdivision of the lots would that help in any way shape or form as far as was concerned i guess as trying to in some way shape or form delineate the two uses the two different um

Yeah, zoning is concerned. You know, the issue would be is if they were trying, obviously, to put a property line through a structure, right? Right. But in looking at this, there are no, usually when we get subdivision of commercial and just simple splits, zoning always takes a look before Don or Rebecca or their staff approves a plat. So as I look at this right now, there is no zoning issues that I currently see with it existing. And there are no zoning issues I see with it currently proposed to be subdivided.

You said the road wasn't built to county specifications. What's wrong with it? It looked fine on the video, but I don't know.

It was first established just as existing easements. So in 2007, when they proposed to subdivide the parcel, they decided to formally establish those easements as a private road. So it was just never engineered, reviewed to be a private road. It just started as a private road using existing surfaces. And that's why it went in 2007 for that planning commission request.

Okay, so we're not saying there's anything wrong with the road other than it didn't go through the process?

Correct.

Question I don't know that you can answer, but it's going along with the question that she asked is, if the variance was granted today, what would change about the operational inefficiencies and constraints? I mean, what would change physically on the site?

Physically, nothing would change on the site. It would just be the legal... you know, configuration.

I suspect the real reason for the request is that legally they would like to separate these two properties. Correct. And so I don't know that it's so much an item of, you know, whether they conform or not. It's really a question of realities for them.

Is it a contemplated sale here? Because that would make more sense to me.

Perhaps in the future, yes. I think that it would make more sense to sell the retail portion of separately from the industrial park. Those would likely have different buyers.

I guess I'm... I don't know that there's any tax inefficiency there because it's all taxed at the same rate.

I guess that's why I was kind of inquiring about would subdivision be better? It wouldn't change the road necessarily, but if it's for the inefficiencies or the different uses on either side, would that make it easier?

I'm a bit shocked that they want to do this for the reason that it's going to become an accessible transfer of interest once they subdivide it. And so the property is going to go to fair market value at that point. SO UNLESS THERE'S A CONTEMPLATED SALE LIKE VERY QUICKLY, I MEAN, THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO ME TAX WISE.

My understanding is with Mr. Webster, that wasn't the immediate need. The immediate need was to separate the uses for internal accounting to separate those tax bases out for the retail versus the commercial industrial. So their internal accounting on how they calculated rents, leases, those kind of things could be more equitable.

Right. And the pro rata share of taxes, typically flex tenants and industrial tenants are used to paying much lower taxes than a retail tenant would pay. So I think having them separate would just be more in line with being able to have market rents for both of the different property types.

So I'm clear because we've gone into much different ways. What we're being asked is if we could subdivide on a private road.

Yes, sir.

All right.

I understand why they want to do it. I think you're all having the same problem I'm having, is trying to figure out how to justify it based on the reasons why we should grant a variance. And I don't see how it meets that criteria.

Similar to last month's question on the easements, do we have any kind of background on why subdividing on a private road... Why it had to be approved by the Planning Commission?

I think the situation involving here is the road was established prior to any private road policy requirements. There are no current nonconforming provisions for private roads. The basis of our private road policy is to ensure proper ingress and egress, obviously for public safety reasons. Going back to our conversations over the past few months, One thing that staff is actively working on are non-conforming private road and access policy regulations to hopefully take some of these away from planning commission and allow staff to approve some of these. Fortunately, the way the regs are written currently, the only avenue for them to get further subdivision on non-conforming private road is to appear before planning commission.

It seems to me what we're actually concerned about is can emergency vehicles get in or out of the property?

It all revolves around ingress, egress for public safety. That's correct.

And from my opinion, looking at the video, it looked fine. I mean, a nice paved road that anybody could travel down.

I think Donna didn't mention, but I think the turnaround – Some private roads do require certain turnarounds. I believe in the video there's a parking area, a graveled area that has adequate turnaround as well. So I believe there is adequate room if even one of the ladder trucks need to turn around to the end of that road. Thanks.

I think it comes down to whether or not they meet the standards of variance at this rate. If you were to take circumstances, future, and past out of it and how we feel about that. Do they meet them or do they not? I know that that's why they're placed in there for that reason so that they are defensible and kind of helps us out to make the decision. And so I guess that's what we need to figure out because I agree. I think the road as it is meets what it needs to for the request. But Does it meet those standards of variance?

And I say I know why they want to do it, and I can understand why he would want to do this. I would probably want to do the same thing. But right now, as a member of the Planning Commission, I can't figure out how it meets any of these standards for variance. That's the problem at issue.

Staff may not be able to answer this question, and that is fine, but as it pertains to exceptional circumstances, similar properties in the vicinity, because we do know that's more of an industrial non-residential stretch of Augusta Highway, but I have not researched it. Do we have a lot of non-conformity between I guess the further back you go off of Augusta Highway, some of these parcels having different uses like that. I mean, is that something that you see often?

It's not something we see often, but we're starting to see more of it as that corridor, even though a lot of those properties are occupied, residential or commercial, as development heads west part of the county. I'm sure more and more with new gas stations out there, new restaurants, that type of thing. But keep in mind, if you familiarize yourself with the zoning ordinance nonconformity, there's probably not any disallowed uses, right? You may have some uses that may have been out there for 40, 50 years, might be a screening nonconformity. But when we mention nonconformity, I think the concern would be is something disallowed. I'm not aware of anything out there because it's all ID along the corridor. And as you get away from this RD, which was updated back in probably 1986 when zoning was adopted in that area, the central planning area. So I would say you probably don't have any disallowed uses. There could be some possible screening issues. But a nonconforming section, we address a couple of things. We have nothing in the zoning ordinance that would keep something, or I say keep something, to shut it down. even if it was a disallowed use, they can continue. So in this particular case, while I think the Planning Commission may need to focus on, as you say, your standards that are in front of you, the applicant's explanation, but again, I wouldn't just say, well, it doesn't look right for zoning, so we don't need to approve or disapprove, right? I think that would be something that does not be considered, considering that I've stated that this particular piece of property that I've viewed as a zoning administrator I do not see any non-compliant zoning issues. And keep in mind, your decision is kind of like a zoning variance. If you make a decision on one, that doesn't necessarily mean you make it on the rest of them that you come across.

And that's why I was asking, so that the Commission can kind of feel like, is it a precedent that we are setting for future?

I think it's a board, similar to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Each one stands on its own merit.

One thing to keep in mind, too, most of the activities accessing on Augusta Highway access either via a private driveway or an existing county or state-maintained road. In that immediate area, I'm not aware of any other private roads. There may be one going west towards high school, but this is one of the few circumstances I believe in that general area that actually has private roads.

I understand, well, I'm not sure I understand them, but I see the standards of variance there, but I'd I look at it from a little bit different perspective, I guess. Why shouldn't it be approved? And I can't really see a reason. I mean, I see the standards of variance. I understand they may not meet these standards of variance, but if we look at it from a property owner's perspective of why shouldn't it be approved, I can't really think of a good reason.

I think we're all struggling with that.

Yeah, but as planning commission members, I think we're bound by these five standards for variance. And other than that, I don't think we can consider any other.

I think that if we start varying from the standards for variance... As long as we adhere to those standards, then we... That's particularly important... governmental committee.

That's what's defensible about it. It justifies or explains the determination.

Mike makes a valid point. Up until three or four years ago, the subdivision regulations did not have any standards for reverence. So when requests would come before planning commission as basically an arbitrary review of it, there was no guidelines to base your decision off of. Standards for reverence to base your decision off of It's defensible and provides consistency. That's correct.

You get into a situation where you're treating one taxpayer differently from another. You run into constitutional issues. And that's why we have those standards there so that we don't run into constitutional issues.

I have a question for staff perhaps. If we just suppose that someone made a motion to deny their request for the variance and we all voted in favor of that and they were denied, what impact would that have on them? What happens to this request and their ability to come back or do anything else in the future? A year before they can come back with the same request.

Unless there are certain circumstances that would allow them to come back, then generally it would be a year before they can come back.

Would that be included as sale? Of a piece of property? No.

It's in its entirety. We have an even number of commissioners this morning. Just as with the Board of Zoning Appeals, if there is a tie vote, the request is not carried. It fails.

Would it be helpful here to perhaps have the owner come back and give us some more definitive... answers with respect to the standards?

A certain option. I know the Planning Commission in the past has asked for additional details, and if the owner could not attend, then yes, we can definitely

And perhaps have the owner attend our next meeting?

I believe he lives in Texas, so there may be some travel restrictions, but we can certainly propose that to him.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. Can we not do like a video conference? We cannot. Okay. All right. Sorry.

I would favor the owner coming back and maybe providing more detail on the standards of variance rather than failing it over the standards of variance when, to me...

Wish and wishes, I'll have staff reach out to the owner, determine an appropriate time that they may can attend. It's less than a year.

Less than a year, correct.

Less than a year. I do know the owner will be here in early June, but yeah, I think that he would be definitely open to that.

Our new meeting will be the 3rd. Thursday and June. Every month we meet on the third Thursday. Okay. Do we ask them to withdraw their request or delay?

I think the Planning Commission can just delay any additional action on this until June. I believe you probably need to make a motion.

To table it until the next meeting? I'll make a motion to table this variance until the next meeting when the owner can be present. Second.

When I call your name, please indicate if you are in favor of or opposed to the motion. Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Shealy?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto?

Yes.

Commissioner Campbell?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes. Thank you for your time this morning.

Thank you. Next variance.

So this is an access policy variance. It's the property of IRA Financial Trust Company, CFBO Joseph Edwards. Mr. Edwards owns approximately 10 acres on Shireway Road in Lexington, which is near the intersection of Kitty Wake Drive. Currently, his property is divided into two parcels, one parcel of approximately 8.6 acres, identified by TMS number 5598-02-040, and one parcel of approximately 1.6 acres, identified by TMS number 5598-02039. Mr. Edwards would like to reconfigure the two parcels as shown on a survey completed by Midlands Surveying on April 11th of 2026. And that's a copy of the survey that's on the screen. This configuration would remove the road frontage from the parcel that currently owns a flag lot driveway from Shireway Road. There is also, across Mr. Edwards' property, an existing 25-foot easement that gives access to parcel 559802117. This easement was first established in 1985, prior to the adoption of the access policy. This parcel currently served as over two acres and the newly configured parcel would be under two acres. So this would require a minimum of 20 feet in width for access. The reconfiguration proposes to use the existing easement to also provide access to the new landlocked portion. A variance is needed to item three of the access policy, which states if an access easement is used to provide a driveway for a landlocked parcel, that access easement may not serve another landlocked parcel. This is the aerial photo and I'll bring this one up. This brings it in a little closer. So the existing easement comes along off of Shireway and goes to this portion here at 339 address. This is the portion with the flag lot driveway that he would like to reconfigure and remove the flag lot, and then he would own the entire frontage and use this existing easement for the 345 address. Currently, all of the homes are using the same driveway. There was never a separate driveway installed through the flag lot driveway portion. Again, that's showing the reconfigured parcel around the home at 345 and the easement that goes to the 339 address. We do have some photos of Shireway at the driveway location. This is going into that easement and this is continuing along that driveway. Again, this is the plat that the surveyor has prepared. This area here would be the newly configured parcel, and then these lines for the flag lot driveway would be abandoned and would still be owned by Mr. Edwards. And he did submit a letter to you, which is in your packet, along with standards for a variant separately, and I'll read those standards into records. A, the extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the application for this variance is that since the early 1990s, the 345 Shireway Road home has continually used the shared driveway as the only ingress and egress to the home. B, all of the properties adjacent to 345 Shireway Road utilize their own existing driveways as the ingress and egress to their respective homes. C, acceptance of this variance would not negatively affect the utilization of any of the adjacent properties. D, the shared driveway has been used continually since the early 1990s. The acceptance of this variance to continue use of the driveway would not negatively affect the appearance and or utilization of adjacent properties. E, financial hardship is not a motivating factor when requesting this variance. Maintaining existing continuity of 345 Shireway Road and adjacent properties is. And I believe Mr. Edwards is here this morning if you have specific questions for him.

I would like to ask Mr. Edwards a question, please. Yes. Please state your name and your address, please.

Joseph L. Edwards, 3 Shuler Circle, Columbia, South Carolina, 29212. Thank you, sir.

A simple question is, can you give me a little more information on how you believe that the application of the ordinance would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property? Do you believe that if we did not grant this variance that you would not be able to use the property in a reasonable manner?

I do believe that if you will see where the well location is and the current driveway that it uses, that would create a hardship. It would have to be resurveyed and redone. On the new plat, I included the well so there's access to it. And it does not The old plat does not utilize the existing driveway access where the new one will. And then the shared access is further down, further towards Shireway.

I'm sorry, I'm missing the well here.

From Exhibit A, and it's at the corner.

Right here, I see it.

Or it might even be on the other partials.

What's the purpose of cutting off the flag portion of the lot?

I would like utilization of that lot. It currently goes on a utility easement, and it goes right up to some telephone poles and some major electrical poles that is in that 20 feet there. I feel like by using the proposed configuration, it maintains all continuity that has been used literally for decades.

And currently, the 345 address is using that one driveway.

Excuse me?

The 345, the flag lot is already using the other driveway. It has since the 90s, yes, sir. Okay, and the 339, the one back in the back, they're using the same driveway as well?

A small portion of it, yeah. They have access to going through the entire property. 345 will only be using, what, 100, 150 feet coming off Shireway Road before it goes into the driveway it has historically used.

So if you had to use the current easement for 345, would you have to move telephone poles and all that kind of stuff in order to be able to?

I believe so. But again, it has always used driveway right here. That line comes across here. So it doesn't give access to the driveway that it uses. Original flag has never been utilized. It's not even a driveway.

So if you were to have to use that as a driveway, there would be electrical poles and things like that that would be in the way that would need to be moved. I believe so, yeah.

I mean, the electric line goes right down where the flag is. The flag is directly underneath those lines. They've just recently come and cut the trees back under the lines. It's right down the line, and there's a pole at the end of it.

I'm not sure about this, but would the... mean I'm sure that's an electrical easement so would they even allow a driveway coming down in there I don't know the policy for easements is specifically for landlocked parcels correct

Correct. Rule of thumb for us is one person owns it and one person uses it. So in his proposed configuration, he would own it and two landlocked parcels would be using it. That would be the reason for the request today.

Okay, so 345, the flag lot, is not landlocked currently. Currently, no, sir. The only landlocked parcel we have is 339 back in the back.

That's right.

So, and if it's 345 can legally use that easement coming in as long as it's not landlocked by the regulation. So the problem is that we're cutting off the flag portion of the lot.

Right. They would no longer own any road frontage.

No longer own any road frontage.

If the variance was granted, would anything change? I mean, would anything really materially change?

No, they've never utilized the flag access to Shireway Road. They have always utilized the existing driveways, which would be plural.

So if you cut off the flag lot portion of 345, then that portion then will be included in 341? Yes.

Yeah, I own both those tracks.

So what you're doing is you're effectively creating a landlocked...

It is, and that's why... Yes, yeah. And the owner of the other person who has access to the easement there is totally in favor of this because it leaves everything just like it has been used historically. He has a letter of support in there.

So you own 341 and 345 or 349 and 345? 341 and 345. Okay. And this portion you're cutting off will become part of 341. Correct.

And 339 is in favor.

Excuse me?

And 339 is in favor.

339 is totally, yeah, there's a letter of support from.

Mr. Johnson.

Yes.

I'm just breaking it down.

Pardon me?

I'm just breaking it down.

Yes. Yes.

Do we have any further discussion? Thoughts?

No, I mean, nothing. In my opinion, nothing's changing. Everything is going to remain the same except for the property line. Yes, it is creating a landlocked parcel that would not... Be in accordance with the figure. I don't know the number of the figure, but the one showing the landlocked parcels in the ordinance.

Basically a reconfiguration, but the access is sort of the same. You're just adding a landlocked parcel.

Same historical utilization.

I'll make a motion. I'd make a motion to approve this variance. I feel like it meets the standards of variance and doesn't create any hardship.

I'll second that.

When I call your name, please indicate if you are in favor of or opposed to the motion. Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Shealy?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto?

Yes.

Commissioner Campbell?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes. Thank you.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am. The next access policy variance we have is property of Megan Reynolds. Tax map number is 011500-03-126. Ms. Reynolds currently owns 12.87 acres on Fairview Road in Leesville, which is east of Cox Ferry Road. Rhonda Goodwin currently owns an adjoining parcel of 11.87 acres. These parcels are shown as lots F and G on a plat recorded in 2022, which you have in your packet as Exhibit A. There is an existing mobile home at 2817 Fairview Road that is situated on the property line. plans to take ownership of the land surrounding the mobile home and establish an easement to the remainder of Ms. Reynolds' property. Since that portion will be greater than two acres, a minimum easement width of 50 feet is required. She has had Bert Shumpert come and prepare this survey that you see on your screen. The portion that will be transferred to Ms. Goodwin is shown, and you'll see that as Exhibit B2 in your packet. Due to the current location of the mobile home, Ms. Goodwin is requesting a variance to the access policy to allow for a reduction in the easement width to 40 feet where needed. There is also an existing easement along the Fairview Road there that accesses a separate parcel. And the survey shows that there would be 71 and a half feet between the existing easement and the newly established easement to Ms. Reynolds' property. Variances are needed to several items of the access policy. Item 6 states an access easement serving a two-acre or larger landlot parcel shall be at least 50 feet wide along its entire length. Item 10 states an access easement serving a landlot parcel may not be contiguous to an access easement serving another landlot parcel unless both landlot parcels are less than two acres each. Item 13 states, successive access easements or flag lot driveways, whether single or paired along a continuous road right-of-way boundary, shall be separated by at least one parcel with a minimum of 100 feet of frontage along the same road right-of-way boundary. This is an aerial photo. You'll see Fairview Road and that location. You'll see the 2817 mobile home. Of course, the property lines on our GIS system aren't always exactly accurate, but the survey has confirmed that I believe that property line does go through that mobile home, so they are trying to remedy that situation. You'll see the location of the easement decreases to 40 feet in width around that mobile home. And you'll see where Megan Reynolds owns her property and the Rhonda Goodwin property. And then there's the existing easement to the home at 2807. And so that is where you'll see that reduction of the separation distance request, where normally that would be required to be 100 feet. It would only be 71 and a half feet. We do have some photos there at Fairview Road along that driveway location. This is looking into that existing driveway, and this is coming around from where the mobile home is currently located at that needs that reduction to 40 feet. You do have a letter in your packet where she also addresses the standards, and I'll read that into record. To whom it may concern, I am the property owner of Lexington County Parcel 011500-03-120-2807 Fairview Road and Parcel TMS 011500-03125. I am requesting a variance to the Lexington County Access Policy for the following situations. Reduction of easement width to 40 feet for a parcel over two acres. Separation of driveway easements does not meet the minimum spacing. For both instances, this waiver is requested because of the location of a mobile home at 2817 Fairview Road, which lies on both TMS number 1150003125 and 1150003126. I plan on taking complete ownership of the land surrounding the mobile home and combining it with my existing parcel. I am only trying to proactively clear up any title issues with the land and mobile home that may arise in the future. The placement of the mobile home does not allow for the full 50-foot easement width as shown on the accompanying plat. Therefore, I ask that the waiver be granted to allow for a 40-foot easement width as shown. The spacing of the easement falls along two existing driveway aprons on Fairview Road. There are no new driveways proposed for this project. Both driveways are presently being used by the existing property owners, and no new parcel will be created to increase the traffic volume using these driveways. Without the approval of the requested waivers, I would not be able to complete the transfer of the property into my name. therefore potentially incurring future expenses for moving the mobile home and or acquiring property to alleviate the situation. The following standards for variance that apply to my property are as follows. A, a mobile home is located on two parcels of land. B, generally property lines do not run through structures. C, if in the future a family member were to obtain the underlying property, there could be title issues on ownership of the mobile home. D, this would only affect two properties. Both owners are in agreement with the variance. E, even though the moving of the mobile home would be expensive, this would be a proactive attempt to alleviate any future title issues. And we do have our surveyor, Mr. Shumpert, here today that can answer any specific questions you may have.

Do we know how the property line ended up through the mobile home? Or maybe the mobile home went on top of the property line. I'm not sure which came first.

And if you'll please state your name and address when you get to the podium.

My name is Henry A. Burt Shumpert. I'm the surveyor for Ms. Goodwin Owns a Piece of Property, 3011 Pond Branch Road, Leesville, South Carolina. As with many things, Ms. Goodwin is the daughter of the Ward family that owned all this property in the beginning. Ms. Reynolds is a granddaughter of the Ward family that owned this property in the beginning. And just like so many things in the past, it was not a big deal that that property line went through the mobile home because it's all family, no big deal. Right. We're 30 years down the road, and now it's a big deal. Ms. Goodwin has had some health issues lately, and she wants to get this cleared up for her health issues, get any worse. Ms. Reynolds, like I said, is her niece, and her niece has no issue with using it. As a matter of fact, she uses, and let me stress, it's two existing driveways on US-178. They're not asking for any new driveways. They're not going to do any further development. The driveway to access Ms. Reynolds' property is the driveway that cuts by 2817. She uses that driveway now to get her property. Ms. Goodwin uses the other driveway to get her property. Ms. Goodwin has two pieces of property. On the one-acre property out in the middle of the hayfield is where she has her house. The other property on the aerial map you can see back there, 2807 is her house. The property around it is a hayfield, so that's agriculture's reason to have it separated out. Her house is residential. The hayfield around it is agricultural. But her plan is to combine this together into her property at the large hayfield area there. take ownership of that property, and like I said, get the property owner, get the double-wide mobile home off of two separate properties, mainly is what they're looking at.

And the reduction to the 40 feet is not along the entire length, but where needed, correct?

That is correct. As you're coming off a US-178 on the existing driveway, it starts out 50 feet. The mobile home does not have 50 foot of separation to the property line at 28, 25. There's only, it's like 40 and a half feet. Like I said, I stretched it to 40. I made as much as I could. It's like 40 and a half feet from that corner of that mobile home over to that property line. So we can't get 50 foot of easement on that easement running up the property line by 2825.

I happen to know when the mobile home was installed.

She told me the other day when I met with her back in the early 90s. Been there 30 years. Yes. A long time. Yeah.

It was... 30 years ago in the early 90s, were these standards in effect at that point? I mean, the zoning requirements.

Access policy you're referring to? Access policy.

Can you not just draft a 50-foot easement and put in there that the mobile home was allowed to sit on 5 feet of it or 10 feet of it? I mean, it's an easement. It's not transferring the property.

I'm sorry, what was that question again?

Never mind. They want to transfer the property over.

Yes.

Okay. We can still transfer the property over but show a 50-foot easement. The mobile home would just be in 9.5 foot of that 50-foot easement. Because the access is going to be for the use of Megan Reynolds, which is the property behind.

That would probably still create title issues because the house is sitting outside the property line.

And that's all they're wanting to do is clear up the location of 2817 to get 2817 mobile home on the same piece of property. That's the whole purpose of this whole issue.

So 2817... Going, I'm sorry, the mobile home is going on which track?

It's going on the Rhonda Goodwin property, the Hayfield.

The 2807 property.

No, it's not going to the 2807 property. It's actually going to the property, the Hayfield property.

Hayfield property, okay.

Yes, and there is no, anyway, the Rhonda Goodwin property. 2807 is where the Goodwins live. 2807 is the Hayfield that wraps around that property, but she does own that property. Her and her husband own 2807. She has full title to the Hayfield. Like I said, the property in question would actually go to Ms. Goodwin.

Are you going to have a new property line that's going to go over to 2825 to encompass that trailer?

Yeah, if you pull the plat back up. No. James W. Banks is the owner of 2825 on my plat here.

Yeah.

It will go – that's an existing property line between Mr. Banks and Megan Reynolds' property now. That property line is going to be extended back and then included to show the 50-foot easement back. There will be no new property line over by Mr. Banks. Mr. Banks owns 2825 on my plat there, so there will be no – No new property line on that side. The only new property line that's included is the extension of that property line onto Ms. Reynolds' property, which then comes back over to the other Goodwin property.

Do we have a drawing that shows the new property line?

Yeah, if you could point it out, that would be helpful. The property line, the bank's property here is 28. The property line I'm creating here is an extension of the property line to here.

Okay.

And Ms. Reynolds is okay with that?

I had something else pictured in my head. And Ms. Reynolds is okay with that?

Yes, Ms. Reynolds has a letter in the packet saying she is okay with that.

Well, doesn't that make Ms. Reynolds' property landlocked then if you're moving that line back?

It makes Ms. Reynolds' property landlocked. She is agreeing to that in the letter that's in our packet, and she agrees that her access will be through an easement. now has frontage on U.S. 178, her access will be through an easement. Alexa, there's a letter in our packet that she agrees with that.

Is the only variance we're asked to consider at this point is the width of the... Driveway?

Actually, I'm asking for two variances. One is the width of the easement, reduction of 40 feet at that mobile home where I can't get 50-foot width, and also the separation of the easements. And the separation of easements falls along two existing driveways. So there's not a whole lot I can do about the location of those easements in any place without putting in a new driveway then. So I'd like to deduct both. Both driveways are presently in use in their present location. Any other question or further explanation needed? Okay.

Discussion or omission?

I'll jump in there and make a motion that we approve the request based on the fact that it is a very extraordinary and exceptional condition and that we have a mobile home that's sitting over the top of a property line. And it would be best for that to be repaired permanently for everybody's sake.

I second.

Thank you.

Thank you.

When I call your name, please indicate if you are in favor of or opposed to the motion. Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Shealy?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto?

Yes.

Commissioner Campbell?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell.

Yes. Thank you all so much. You're welcome.

Thank you.

Next access policy variance this morning is property owned by the Miriam Wessinger Estate. This is referenced as TMS number 00669603008. While I'm explaining this one, you may want to look in your packet as exhibit A, which is the reference plat that currently exists for these properties. And then exhibit B is the sketch. Mr. Shumpert is the surveyor for this property as well. And they've prepared the sketch as exhibit B. And I'll go ahead and pull that one up on the screen. So currently the estate of Miriam Wessinger owns approximately 41 acres located at 153 Country Road in Lexington, south of Old Barnwell Road. This portion is shown on parcel A on that plat that I just referenced as exhibit A. Even though the structures on this parcel are addressed from Country Road and are accessed from Country Road, the parcel only has frontage on June Drive. The plat includes an easement to Parcel B, which is identified by TMS 669603038. The dwelling on this parcel also uses Country Drive for access and is addressed from Country Drive. The Wessinger family would like to subdivide the 41-acre portion to close out the estate. The proposed sketch shows the existing easement serving an additional landlocked portion of 0.74 acres. 26.87 acres would be consolidated with the existing parcel B, leaving a remainder portion of 14.07 acres, which would continue to own the road frontage on June Drive. A variance is needed to item three of the access policy, which states, If an access easement is used to provide a driveway for a land-locked parcel, that access easement may not serve another land-locked parcel. For some history, June Drive was established as part of Tanya Terrace subdivision in 1970 and is currently a state-maintained road. The plat that was recorded for this subdivision in 1970 does show Wessinger family owning the adjoining property in question at that time. Since the family properties also has the frontage on Country Road, the family nor SCDOT have never installed a driveway to June Drive. This is the aerial photo showing those properties. This is a little closer view. You'll see that this is June Drive, which accesses this entire portion. And then you have the address at 145 that's in Parcel B on your Exhibit A. The family is proposing to create the 0.74-acre portion, and then have the 26.87-acre portion consolidated with the property at 145. So then with this configuration, you would have from June Drive another landlocked parcel that would be accessed with that easement. The photos that we took are from June Drive. This is showing the end of June Drive where that encroachment has not been installed. Try to get a little closer there where you can see that existing house is where they want to do the .74 acre portion. Again, that is that sketch. Mr. Wessinger is representing the family in this request. I will read the letter that he submitted to you that includes his standards. To whom it may concern, the Miriam H. Wessinger estate is the owner of Lexington County parcel 669603008 and is requesting a variance to the Lexington County access policy for an existing easement to serve more than one parcel. The family requests using the existing 50-foot easement established off June Drive, as shown on Platte Book 17938, page 212, to access the proposed division of current TMS number 6696-03-008, as shown on the enclosed sketch. This is to help clarify access for the future if any of the properties are sold outside of the family. This division of property is necessary to close out the estate. There is no intention to further subdivide this property to increase traffic volume. The following standards for a variance that apply to this property are as follows. A, there is currently an established 50-foot easement that borders the properties that are accessible from June Drive. Allowing the two tracks to use this existing easement eliminates the need to encumber TMS 669603028 with a new easement to access the proposed 0.74-acre track. B, most properties have adequate road frontage. However, our property has very limited access to public right-of-way or access. C, in the future, this would allow the legal access to be from June Drive if these properties are sold. D, this would only affect two properties. Both owners and family are in agreement with the variance. E, the family is trying to be proactive in establishing the access for the new parcels in case any of the properties are sold outside of the family. Included is a sketch showing the proposed division and a statement from the personal representative of the Miriam H. Wessinger estate stating that the family approves of the proposed division variance. And that was submitted by Eric Wessinger. And he is here today with Mr. Shumpert. And Mr. Wessinger also, after we had prepared this packet, did provide me with a copy of an encroachment permit that he has received from SCDOT to be able to install that. ENCROACHMENT IN THE FUTURE.

THIS LOOKS VERY FAMILIAR, VERY SIMILAR TO ONE WE JUST HEARD. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION OR ANY QUESTIONS?

None here.

Any motion? Hearing none, I'll make a motion to approve this access policy variance as presented.

Second.

When I call your name, please indicate if you are in favor of or opposed to the motion. Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Shealy?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto? Yes. Commissioner Campbell?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell?

Yes. Access Policy Variance 579? Just kidding.

The next access policy variance is property of Michael and Claire Seegers. It's identified by TMS number 012600-03003. Mr. Miserous Seegers currently owns 3.17 acres at 1811 Pine Street in Peelian, south of the town of Peelian. This parcel is lot 13 in Brandon Acres subdivision and is shown on the subdivision plat that was recorded in 1993. Lot 13 is accessed by a flaglot driveway and provides an easement to Lot 14. Mr. and Mrs. Seegers would like to sell a one-acre portion of the property to their grandson. They are proposing to use the existing flaglot driveway as an easement to the one-acre landlot portion. A variance is needed to item three of the access policy, which states if an access easement is used to provide a driveway for a land lot parcel, that access easement may not serve another land lot parcel. This is just a sketch that the family has prepared showing where that one acre portion would be located. This is an aerial view of the property, a closer view there, and this shows it a little better here. The flag lot driveway, it goes to the 1811 address. That's lot 13. The flag lot driveway provides an easement to lot 14, and the family would also like to establish an easement to the proposed one-acre parcel. We have some photos along Pine Street at the driveway location. And this is looking along that flag lot driveway. And this is the driveway continuing to the 1811 Pine Street address and the driveway continuing to the 1817 Pine Street address. She did submit a letter to you that includes her standards for a variance. Dear members of the Planning Commission, I'm writing to respectively request a variance from the Lexington County subdivision regulations for my property located at 1811 Pine Street, identified by tax map number 012600-03-003. The property on the eastern side of Pine Street, also known as Highway 302, consists of approximately 3.17 acres. I seek approval to subdivide and sell approximately one acre from the larger parcel. The proposed one-acre tract would be created as a separate legal lot with existing private drive while the remaining 2.17 acres would remain under my ownership. A printout of the property showing the proposed division boundaries, access points, and any easements or improvements is attached. The strict application of the current regulations would create an unnecessary hardship because of family wellbeing financial needs. We wish to sell the one acre plat to our grandson. My husband and I are aging and our health conditions are worsening. This request will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or the public good. The proposed one-acre lot will maintain required setbacks, preserve existing vegetation and drainage patterns, and will not increase traffic or density beyond the character of the surrounding area. A, there are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the property or properties. The new one-acre lot would be landlocked with the exception of the right of use provided by the existing driveway access that is already established. B, these conditions do not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity. See, because of these conditions, the application of this ordinance to the particular property or properties would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property or properties. The new one-acre lot currently sits in the open and does not provide us any real use. By selling this plot, it will decrease the maintenance responsibility of me and my husband. D, the authorization of this variance would not be a substantial detriment to adjacent property or the quality of life for the residents of the county. The new one-acre lot would have little to no impact on any of our neighbors or their respective properties. We are simply carving out a corner of our existing lot. And Ms. Seegers is here today if you have specific questions for her.

I probably have one question that I could ask her.

Okay.

Jennifer, please state your name and address at the podium.

Claire K. Seegers, 1811 Pine Street, Peleon, South Carolina, 29123.

You're the lady that wrote this second. Okay. I don't know that this is a Planning Commission question, but you've carved out a one-acre piece. and you've kind of left some property below it. The remaining property kind of surrounds this one-acre piece. Why wouldn't you have taken that one acre and just brought it down to the property, adjacent property, and not had that little sliver of property there?

That was kind of my husband's idea because he likes to keep things neat that goes to our place. He said to make sure that it stayed neat, he wanted to take care of that. But he's not even able to do that, so that would be up to me.

Well, I would just suggest that you consider putting that acre, if you're approved, putting it down in the corner of the property rather than leaving a piece around it because it would be useless to you.

Right.

If you should sell your property in the future, it might make for a negative impact on it. Right. And then that road would just be able to go straight instead of taking a little angled jog there.

Uh-huh.

That was the only question I had. Anybody else?

Motion?

Make a motion to approve the request.

Second.

When I call your name, please indicate if you are in favor of or opposed to the motion. Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Shealy?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto?

Yes.

Commissioner Campbell?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes. Thank you.

You're approved, Mrs. Seegers. Thank you, you two.

All right. Zoning map amendment.

Donna's done such a great job. I'm willing to let her go ahead and carry this one as well. I know she's ready for a break. Good morning. I'm Walt McPherson, zoning administrator here at the county. We have a map amendment request. It's zoning map amendment application M26-01. The address is 449 St. Andrews Road, Columbia, South Carolina, 29210. And for those who are familiar with the area, this is the old Kenneth Schuler Hair Salon, Studio, and Training Center. The current property owner, which is purchased in the fall of 25, is Overstock Properties LLC. The parcel identified as tax map number 002899-03-021. The current zoning classification is C1, which is neighborhood commercial. The proposed is C2 general commercial. And the reason for the change is the overstock properties is going to be a retail type center. And the retail extensive, which is over 5,000 square feet of sales floor area, is not currently allowed in the C-1. The next step up that would allow it would be C-2 general commercial. The application was received back in February. We did have the public hearing on April 28th. No one showed up to speak in opposition. No one really spoke in favor, even though the applicant, Mr. Stephen Hennessy, who was there in the public hearing, and he's here this evening. I don't know if you can see him over there near the exit door. Just moving forward. There's a 25 aerial, the green star highlights the property. We have approximately a 13,000 square foot structure along the front there with parking, has current two access points, and about a 100 foot vegetative buffer from the rear. As my understanding, Mr. Hennessy wants to take the building basically as is, do interior modifications and up fits, but is not planning to expand. The reality of this is that if this was C2 already, we could have already issued him a permit and he would be underway with his operation. But he does need the zoning change to be an allowed use. And that indicates the C1 zoning classification, that corner there. This is a PLAT site plan supplied by the applicant. These are the alphabetized activity charts from our zoning ordinance indicating the category of general retail extensive. You notice in the C1 category, it doesn't have a check mark. So in our zoning ordinance, when a column or space doesn't have a mark in it and it's blank, it's usually not allowed. So his next step up would be to C2, which would allow the general retail extensive activity. And these are the rest of the alphabetized list from our zoning ordinance for reference. So we had some site photography from last month indicating the public hearing sign for County Council. The bottom is from basically taking off St. Andrews Road, the front of the building currently. And basically it's a series of photos. We're basically working our way around the structure. Top one is looking down this right side facing the road. The bottom one, as we come around the corner there, notice a vegetative buffer on the rear. And that's taken from a loading dock area from the back. And then coming on around, I had the building official Chance Price with me that day just to take a look at the property. They were doing some interior work there, but nothing that required a building permit at the time. And as we're working our way around, we're coming back towards St. Andrews Road, the existing sign that they will be converting basically a phase change if approved. Because this is a disallowed use, he is not able to operate and open up. Unfortunately, when he purchased, I believe the applicant may have been under the impression that the use was consistent with what he's wanting to do. And when they came in to submit for a signed permit and get their zoning permit, it was discovered that the zoning C1 would not allow. Now, the difference between C1 and C2 is that because of the size of the retail center, if this was under 5,000 square feet, the C1 would be consistent. So he's asking for the C2 for it to be allowed. That concludes the presentation. As you know, this comes before you for a recommendation vote to approve or deny. We do have the schedule to be on our next council agenda next Tuesday reporting your recommendation to council. That's all I have. I'd be glad to answer any zoning questions. If you do have specific questions about the scope of his operation or proposal, Mr. Hennessey is in attendance, and I would rather respectfully request you direct those questions to him. Thank you.

At 425, what is that? What's right next door?

425. Let me go back to the aerial here. We have a church activity and see to the left would be 425. That's the church activity. A lot of this property used to be zones are one way back in the day. The zoning came in here over 50 years ago. There's been a series of MAPA amendments along St. Andrews over the years. As we know, St. Andrews Road is a major arterial in that area. So while the C2 would allow this activity is not uncommon based on some of the MAP amendments we've had over the years to allow such activities. And in this particular case, while staff gives no recommendation, I think it's important to know that this was currently C2. We could write him a permit and he'd be in compliance. But again, if you have any specific questions about his future plans, Mr. Hennessey is in attendance. Yeah, there are offices in there. That was actually part of a zoning change probably about 30, 35 years ago that allowed it to be C1. Incidentally, the 449 where Kenneth Shuler's site is up until the late 90s was an R1, and they had zoned it to C1, so they had a successful amendment at that time. So again, the 7-inch Dutch Forge area has kind of been of a hotbed, so to speak, over the years because the old zoning was very restrictive, even along the major corridors. um so while you still see some of that on lake mary boulevard where you might have one piece of property um have one classification that's a lot more restrictive than let's say what's next door or across the street yeah miss pike those are like offices and there's commercial there what's 500. 500, I believe, is I think a church over there as well. Is that Ben Lippin School, I believe? It used to be Riverland Hills. Yeah, Riverland Hills, yeah. incidentally the um there's a neighborhood behind it but there's definitely enough buffer and setback screening distance again um we just asked i believe you got uh creek back there as well they probably can't disturb but we just mr hennessey and i have already agreed and talked about if you would take it let's just take it as is obviously if he wants to expand the building footprint down the road depending on his volume he can do that But what we don't want to see is that 100-foot area of green space back there be cleared or encroached upon.

Are there any other C2 zoning classifications nearby?

Yeah, there's some down St. Andrews Road in both directions. As you get towards the interstate where the chef's store is and that type of thing, you get into the I-D. If you look at this map, probably in the 70s, a lot of this would be R1. A lot of this, as Chairwoman Mitchell indicated on one of the ones we had with Hutto Plaza about nonconformities, you'd probably have some out there along St. Andy's Road that were businesses that were established 50 years ago before zoning went in and may have a classification that might be a disallowed use. So this would actually be an area that there probably are some nonconformities existing.

And a lot of previous homes that have turned business.

Correct. The 425, that's ID, right?

425 actually is R1. I believe it's low-density residential. Let me go back to the map. There's no letters. Yeah, it's got that color of R1 there. Yeah, the ID would be a little more 10. Okay. Because, of course, you got there's an example, even though, you know, it's a church, it's a rather large church, and it's existing in R1, but churches are allowed in the R1.

You have to look at the surrounding area, but if you look at the C1 current designation versus the C2 proposed, like on the, out of the ordinance, the I don't see terribly a huge difference or detriment to the surrounding properties for what is allowed in C2, given its current use. Granted, I guess he purchased it and doesn't plan to expand, he says, but... and could have that right if he does get it changed to C2, but I don't really see where there's any heavy industrial, any, it's just moving away, I suppose, from the residential. But the C1, C2 designation is interesting to me because I think up and down St. Andrews, you could see a peppering of all of those designations. I don't really know that that's, it's worth restricting the utilization of the property, not allow or recommend to allow that change.

And keep in mind, if this was a smaller structure, let's say Mr. Shuler operated in a structure of 4,000 or 4,500 square feet, which would come under the general retail limited because the sales floor area would be less than 5,000 square feet, he would be compliant. If you're familiar with Area 2, if you go up the little ways, you get into a lot of restaurants, food services, retail, Domino's Pizza, accountant's office, and even going back towards St. Andrews, toward the old Adelaide Signal plant, you have some sporadic uses of residential and commercial on that corridor.

And you said there was a public hearing and there was no opposition to it?

No opposition. We posted the sign, put it on the website, and also sent notices to the surrounding property owners, did not receive, actually did not receive anything. For or against. Normally, in experience with these amendment requests, obviously if something doesn't fit or there's a lot of concern, we usually hear from either both sides. But the only proponent was actually the applicant who showed up for a public hearing in which, you know, counsel didn't have any specific questions for him on this.

President asked Mr. Hennessey to come up here. Do you know the answer to this question? What's his intended use of the building?

His intended use of the building is to take it as is. He doesn't have any, and do updates. I mean, it's an older structure, so he wants to do updates to it. But he's here if you'd like to have any specific questions. I don't think he's planning to expand or add anything to it at this time. But if approved, he certainly would have that right to do so. There's nothing, as long as he builds and uses what's on the site, whether it's going to be, and obviously if he expands, he's got to get a permit. We've got to permit him for the new tenant once, or if this gets approved, it goes through the cycle. But he can take the property as is and use that. You know, it's a scenic corridor. We'll regulate the signage. He's going to basically take the sign as is and reface that But again, if you've got any specifics, Mr. Otto, Stephen's here if you have any questions.

I don't. We can certainly have discussion if we need to afterwards, but I'll go ahead and make a motion that we recommend approval to county council for this zoning classification change as requested.

Second.

Any discussion? None. Nope.

When I call your name, please indicate if you are in favor of or opposed to the motion. Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Shealy?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto?

Yes.

Commissioner Campbell?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

All right. Is there any ordinance?

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the commission. We actually have two amendments to the zoning ordinance. One of them deals with the ability to provide an emergency access for certain large-scale events. I think you're all familiar with the MAP amendment that we had several months ago regarding Gray Collegiate. The concern was limited access and the only secondary access that could be provided could be maintained for potential emergency access was on a street classification that would not allow for it. Council reviewed that kind of outside of the parameters of that one particular situation and identified the potential need to allow for emergency access in certain situations. Working with staff, we've identified three land use activities that typically have large concerts, large events, large athletic events that this could potentially impact. We do have the ability through our zoning ordinance to allow for exclusions. So per direction from council, we included those certain land use activities to potentially have an exclusion for emergency access only. Part of that would be obviously certain circumstances with that secondary access. to a street classification that would not allow for it. The review would include the maintenance entity, whether it be Public Works or the State Department of Transportation. It also would include zoning and fire service for certain emergency medical standards for those. This would not be full access. This would be a restricted access. Generally, again, fire service require a Knox box or some type of emergency gate that's activated by sirens. But again, allowing that is a potential exemption for emergency purposes only. The second portion of the proposed text deals with interconnectivity with parking lots. There's some history behind this within our zoning ordinance. The first interconnectivity and allowances for driveways, if I'm wrong, came in our ordinance sometime in the early 2000s, I think 2005, 2006, our text was amended to promote connectivity. Fast forward to the early 2010s, connectivity was driven by SCDOT and some of their encroachment permit requirements. So the text was amended further, basically, to regulate DOT to addressing the allowance for driveways and that interconnectivity. Obviously, the growth we're seeing in Lexington County, especially a lot of our larger thoroughfares, council, again, really wants to promote interconnectivity with certain like activities. Walt and I have had certain situations in the past. We understand this may not be an actual feasible requirement for some activities. Apparently some that have been there for years that did not require connectivity. Now it's something that we may require. So there's some give and take in it. So the proposed text does include the interconnectivity piece. We're working on some text with the council of the central overlay district using some of the town of Lexington's interconnectivity requirements. Hence the new text in red talks about the road patterns. Interconnectivity is actually publicly maintained and probably maintained roads. We've also identified the potential for the use of an access management plan and pertinent transportation improvement plans. County Council is currently going through the transportation improvement plan process, which as we get further along within that process, my goal is to have our consultant present that information to the Planning Commission. Part of that transportation improvement plan is going to require certain access management and access limitations. We've identified several corridors which will further promote interconnectivity and access points. It's also going to be utilized as a method to have additional traffic mitigation standards, similar to what the town of Lexington is currently using. So the intent of including the transportation improvement plan portion of the text here would further promote other additional mitigation measures, traffic control measures or whatnot as far as interconnectivity. Walt and I, again, when this process started, we were asked to put some text together again to get it started. As with most text processes or amendments, we can start looking to apply this to certain situations. We've had a couple situations that we've occurred recently That he and I both agree, I think we need to clean this text up a little bit. Part of that would be in the first paragraph, which is actually the existing text in black, is to take out where feasible and practical. Leave it at that. It makes it come to the point that the interconnectivity and parking lot connectivity is required. However, in the second paragraph, we do understand there are certain situations that may not promote connectivity, whether it be a security issue, whether it be an issue of the development did not provide for connectivity when it was not required, topography, et cetera. Other jurisdictions utilize their transportation improvement plan for mitigation measures if that does come into play. So I think under that situation where feasibility is provided to staff that they cannot connect, we have the ability to use our transportation improvement plan when passed to allow the use of additional mitigation measures to offset that interconnectivity. And again, going into the new text, some text needs to be cleaned up. It doesn't flow correctly. Just minor updates. One section where it says residential developments, they may be required. They may probably should be shall. Again, they're wanting to promote it. They're wanting to require this. Again, we're feasible, but I think we need to do some cleaning up in that aspect of it. But again, this is further promoting Council's initiative to help alleviate and address some traffic issues. So this is the first step in that process, along with our transportation improvement plan and our access management planning process. Again, similar to the text map amendment, this is a review by Planning Commission, and this is a recommendation to Council. This is actually on the agenda next Tuesday to report out for Planning Commission's recommendation.

DOES THIS ALLOW THEM TO DESIGN WITH THAT EXCLUSION OR DOES IT REQUIRE THEM TO DESIGN WITH EMERGENCY ACCESS PLANNED AND THEN IF

They have to design with emergency access plan. They'll have to design with the emergency access plan.

So the exclusion would apply more to existing places that need it.

It could apply to both. It really could. I think it's going to apply, like you said, to existing activities. But in events, say you have a new school, we've got the potential for a lot of new school facilities. And certain schools may have to access all main roads and also secondary roads, especially charter schools. Secondary road may not allow access for emergency uses. So this is if a new school does go in or another larger event goes in where they know they have a limited access point on the road that would allow for their access. that they could put that in there if they had an event they need to get folks out very quickly in a couple different ways. But, yeah, it could apply in both scenarios.

Do they have to come before a body to get?

No, they do not. They have certain requirements. They have to go through as far as a certification of need, basically, to present that to staff. The zoning administrator will look at scenarios, and he or she can confirm yes or no that there is a situation. Then, obviously, it has to go through fire service and other emergency management officials to ensure that design of it is adequate.

So the way I'm reading this, this would basically give Gray Collegiate Academy the right to dump all that traffic back into that neighborhood?

Only for emergency use only. When the event is over, say they held a football game and they had 2,500 attendees. Those attendees will still be going out the main entrance. If they held a football game and a player got hurt and they need to access that site immediately, that are going through the main entrance and around the parking, they can utilize that access to go in, attend to that injured player, and get he or she out quickly. It's for emergency use and emergency only, not to alleviate traffic flow after an event. So that's the full intent of it.

You would only see that during an emergency evacuation? Correct. That's correct.

Robbie, I just wanted to add one thing. Planning Commission may address Ms. Pike's concerns. You know, with these text amendments, obviously we're direct about county council. Sometimes these are kind of new items, and there's concerns, unintended consequences. But it's almost like a zoning request or rezoning request. If something's changed and they see it's not working out or being, I hate to say, abused or taken advantage of, council being the policymaking body can obviously change it back. So I just want to put that in there, that if something was to change and there was some issues with a certain text that was updated, council could recognize that and then take it back out of the ordinance. So I just wanted to put that in there. Thank you.

I think to piggyback on Walt, too, it's almost impossible to identify all these issues when you're developing new text or brand new text. do come up. And I think council is very attuned to emergency management and kind of follows their direction to ensure that.

As far as the additional access management restrictions may also apply, do you have or are you working on a draft of something set in place of what those criteria are?

We are working on a couple different avenues. First is our transportation improvement plan. Part of it will include policy decisions on access management. Myself and Director of Public Works several years ago began this process with DOT. We identified six roadways to start the access management policy for those. This will be incorporated into the transportation improvement plan. But TIP will also include mitigation measures for new developments similar to how the town of Lexington operates with their new developments. They have an LTIP or Lexington Transportation Improvement Plan. So new developments may be required to make certain improvements based on their impact to that immediate area. One thing we're looking at, too, is, as I mentioned before, we're going through some potential text amendments regarding residential developments within the county. Part of it is three basic overlays. One is a central overlay. and the members within that overlay are really interested in using the LTIP or Lexington Transportation Improvement Plan to help offset some traffic mitigation until we get our plan involved. So we do have a couple different avenues moving forward. The reason we included the additional access management restrictions and the transportation improvement plans so when those ordinances are, those policy decisions are made and they are approved by council, those amendments aren't necessary for the ordinance.

You don't have to keep going back and revising the ordinance. You just reference those guidance documents. That's correct. Best way to do it. I was just making sure. I know it was listed there, which meant certainly there was the intent. I didn't know how far you were with that.

While we're on that, I'll go ahead and just. It's a work in progress. It's a work in progress. We will have additional stakeholder meetings, public meetings for our transportation improvement plan the first week in July. And when those dates are available, I'll send those out. I definitely encourage.

Excellent.

I would love to see something put in here. I mean, I agree that emergency access needs to be, no doubt about that. But I see a great area for abuse in this. I would love to see some sort of penalty or something put on any facility that, you know, for a purpose other than emergency access. And quick access out of a football game or something like that is not an emergency access.

I agree. So I guess with Gray Academy example, would they have access to this personally? Or is it just for the emergency vehicles?

It would just be for emergency use only. It'll be a gated access.

So their administrator or whatever could not open it?

Basically, the emergency access will be either a gate that is automated by sirens, which again is approved by fire service, or the gate has a Knox box, which again has fire service access to it. I have any access points for... or either Gray or whoever else would utilize this type of opportunity.

So there would be some sort of, it would not be a gate that Gray could open, is what you're saying?

No, ma'am, it would be emergency access.

I see.

What about the responsibility for maintenance of any type of gate or something like that? Obviously, the maintenance would go back to the property owner or the activity, whoever maintains that activity. So if a select required for it or whatever routine maintenance, Gray or whoever would be, would be maintained. Would be maintained by the county per se.

Right. But does there need to be something in there that says they have to maintain it and they have to keep it functional at all times if they're going to be using it as emergency? We can definitely add that in. That's correct. A gate that doesn't open isn't very good. Correct.

And to Commissioner Pike's comment, I mean, if we are worried about enforcement, I don't know that we're worried about so much the facility, but people are people. If it's tampered with, if that is found out, I imagine it would follow code enforcement and, you know, summons or whatever the case, I mean, you might be able to, I don't know if that's necessary to be written in or not, but maybe as a consideration if they want some kind of failsafe for Tampering of emergency services, because that is a thing, just like, you know, smoke detectors or whatever. I don't know if you find those violators, but you can maybe say it will follow the provisions of code enforcement.

Yeah, certainly. If it's part of the ordinance that's being violated, then that can be summoned.

I think two fire service, I can confirm with those folks. Generally, they'll do an inspection for each facility, the fire marshal's office, every year. I can confirm with their guys if that's actually part of their inspection process when they go to these facilities.

This is, you know, make us all feel better. Maybe once every football season.

Well, I mean, it is a concern if you have to mass evacuate everyone somewhere like that.

You need it to be working.

Yeah, but if you have, during an evacuation, cars don't have sirens to open a gate. It's the details, the small details.

I think most of these larger events, too, they will have some type of law enforcement on site, whether it be private or county working those events. So I think from that standpoint, there'll be emergency access. A lot of these events, too, will have ambulances on site, which those sirens will activate these gates as well.

Any further discussion? Did you get down all of our recommendations to list them back out? Okay. I mean, I think we recommend that this is a good thing and that they continue with approving refined language for it, given all the considerations that were listed.

I think the biggest thing is the maintenance. I understand this will be maintained. Obviously, just to reinforce, there's a penalty for those who are circumventing the ordinance. And just going back to interconnectivity portion of it, again, minor updates and cleaning up that text as well before it goes to council.

I need to be a formal motion.

I'll make a motion to recommend approval of this language with the considerations provided by the Commission.

Second.

Is that you, Mr. Cox?

Yes. If Kristen's at y'all's... On your way down there.

You don't look the same, but you sound the same. When I call your name, please indicate if you are in favor of or opposed to the motion. Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Shealy?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto?

Yes.

Commissioner Campbell?

Yes.

General Mitchell? Yes.

Subdivision bonds.

Yes, ma'am. One item to note this month. As you know, subdivisions are allowed to bond for a maximum of three years. Saluda River Club Phase 3E, that three years expired in April. It's still an active project. In lieu of a collection on the letter of credit, they submitted certified funds in the amount of $29,342.08. And the developer is Corley Mill Road Development.

Any further announcements?

Just a couple quick updates. Obviously, just a reminder on training. Most of y'all have your training for the year. We've got several more months to go, but please, any opportunity you have to complete that training, go ahead and do so. Commissioner Sheely and I and Commissioner Frost had a conversation after our last meeting about the potential for some DES training, especially our larger common plan. I have not had an opportunity to follow up with Keith yet, but I'll follow back up and just see if that's an opportunity. The iPads, they are almost ready to deploy. My goal is to hopefully have them ready to go before our June meeting. Currently for our June meeting, the only potential item we have currently would be bringing back the private road matter from this month if he's available to attend. If not, if we don't have a meeting in June, I still like to coordinate some times to bring you all in, kind of get you oriented with the iPads, get it set up so we can migrate to having everything. Our strategic meeting, I know we talked about work sessions with planning commission. I'm beginning to work on text for those strategic meeting items from council from March. I can foresee that as a potential test pilot for our work sessions because it's going to incorporate a lot of different things in a lot of different areas and have the opportunity for those council members, at least as representatives from those pods, so to speak, attend and be able to give their feedback to planning commission so you all can understand just the general ideas they have behind that. What type of items were going to be happening in the work sessions? Work session, county council had a strategic meeting back in March. The meeting looked at three different areas within the county for three different potential residential design standards and growth standards. It follows our comprehensive plan for the design and growth of those areas. So each one of those will have some unique methods as far as density, lot size, setbacks. design standards, et cetera. So I think each one of those areas, there will be overlays, as they're called in our ordinance. Council refers to them as pods, so I'll just use the term pods because that's what they're familiar with. So each one of those pods had ideas and suggestions on how those areas really... It's going to involve zoning measures. It's going to involve landscape and open space. And some of it may involve some of our land development standards, potentially around Lake Murray. So that's some of the ideas that have come out of it. A lot of the things within the pods are very similar, which will be a potential update countywide. But there's some unique circumstances for each one of those areas that will definitely be – they'll want to apply. When those work sessions come up, we'll have plenty of notice. Obviously, we'll have to iron it out with council members and the commission as far as timeliness, where they're going to occur, just the whole logistics of it. So we're several months out on that, but I just wanted to put that on your list. your radar for something upcoming.

You were saying the planning commission would be included in those?

Yes. This would be a planning commission work session specifically for these items, planning commission, to basically get in all the information, discussion, and detail prior to meetings so when we get to the meeting, it's kind of streamlined once we get in here. And it's more open communication with the members of council and those who are willing to work on these scenarios, how they comply with the comprehensive plan, and just the general ideas behind what we're trying to accomplish.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, one more item. I guess I think we should recognize and congratulate Robbie Derrick.

I thought he was going to do that himself. I thought it was like any announcements.

You've been named director of planning and GIS, is that my understanding? Congratulations.

Yes. Looking forward to it. Seems like I've been doing it for a while as far as helping out planning commissions. I'm looking forward to taking the next step to. I know Lynn mentioned in his email to members of the Planning Commission, there are a lot of different initiatives we're working on, and the Planning Commission is going to be deeply involved with those. So we're excited. Some things are coming for you all, so we'll look forward to continuing working with you.

I look forward to working with you.

Are you going to be sitting? Is that where you'll be for most of our meetings? This will be my permanent seat. As long as you all vote me in as Secretary, this is my permanent seat.

Well, congratulations again, and we are adjourned.