Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Here comes miss Donna.

Good morning.

Oh, okay. Let's get this on. And then Here it is.

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

Sure. Good morning, sir. Sorry. Alright. Let us pray. Heavenly father, we thank you for this day. We thank you for our many blessings. Pray that you will bless, guide, strengthen our minds and our hearts as we discuss the business before us. Pray that you will put a special blessing on those who service in uniform every day to keep us safe. All these things we ask in the name of our lord and savior, Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen.

Stand for the pledge of allegiance. We have special circumstances where our chair has needed to step down for personal reasons, and so we will need to take some election of officers for the remaining of the year, and then we'll reconvene for another election first of the year as normal. I'd like to open up the floor if there are any nominations for chair.

Madam chair, I wish to, nominate Tracy Mitchell as the chair for the Planning Commission.

Second.

Okay. We have one motion by commissioner Price. Second by commissioner Frost.

Commissioner Price?

Yes.

Commissioner Beetenbaugh?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

With that, we have an opening for vice chair. May we open the floor for nominations for vice chair?

I'd like to nominate Keith Frost as vice chair.

Second. Alright.

Miss commissioner Beetemaugh with first. Commissioner Pike with second.

Commissioner Price?

Yes.

Commissioner Beetemaugh?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto?

Yes.

Commissioner Frost?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

Moving on to tab b. We have minutes from last month's. We have a motion to approve. I'll make a motion to approve.

Second. I wasn't here, so I

don't know. I mean, you know, that's what I was thinking. Couldn't

Anybody at all. I'll second. And Did you make the motion?

Yes. Commissioner Biedenbald. Yes. A second. Sorry.

Commissioner Price? Yes. Commissioner Beetenbaugh?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto?

Yes.

Commissioner Frost?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

Morning.

Tabassy, activity reports.

Alright. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for for working through our election of officers. We appreciate that. We we now have new officers. Most grateful. Appreciate it. We do have activity reports this morning. And, again, I wanna thank you all for being here. Quickly, number of permits.

So for the month of March, we had a 163 site built permits and 51 manufactured home permits for a total of 214. In April, a 130 site built permits and 43 manufactured for a total of 173. And in May, the most recent month for permit numbers, 151 permits and 43 on the manufactured home permits, and that's a total of a 194. Single family permits for oops, right. So single family site built permits for the second month in the second quarter, totals two eighty one in those two months.

Total on the year is seven forty three, roughly about half of the total we had last year. Manufactured permits, two months into the second quarter, we've had 86 manufacturing on permits for a total of $228,000,000 which again is about half of what we had last year. Next, have the pipeline subdivisions. We've got two for this month. The first one is on Oldfield Road.

It's called Oldfield Road. That will be renamed, shortly in the future. That is nine lots on 38 acres, so more than likely will be large lots. It's a new project using the new ordinance, located on Oldfield Road near Cedar Grove Road out on the western, portion of the county. It's North of Highway, South Carolina Highway 1 and north of the town of Summit that is within County Council District two, which is Councilman Larry Brigham.

It's being developed by Evergreen Forest Properties. Second one is, Pine Street Townhomes. It's 25 lots on 1.85 acres. So as you can imagine, small pieces all lot, I guess, townhomes. It's a new project, but it is in the town of Western West Columbia using their ordinance.

It's located on Hallman And Pine Streets, between D Avenue and Augusta Road, if you know where that's at. Again, that's in the city of West Columbia. That's County Council District eight, which is Councilman Glenn Conwell, and that is being developed by Haven Homes. As we introduced last month, we're also beginning to do this concurrency assessment map for you all. What I can report is that, we had three, currency review projects last month, where the commission recommended upon.

That went to county council shortly thereafter, and all three projects were approved. The first one is Valley Crest, which is in school district four. The second is Terra Pines. It's in school district four as well. And the third is Southwood Drive, which is in school district four. That is our development activity report for this month.

Thank you. Alright. Tab f, ordinance. Thank

you, madam chair. This is a item that was initially presented at the last plan commission meeting by our zoning administrator Walt McPherson. County Council initiated amendments to our zoning ordinance specifically to article 12 residential detached limited developments. In essence, taking out the special exception review for these type developments. Simply what that does, it relies upon staff administrative review these projects to ensure all of our development standards are met, rather than having to take it to the zoning board

of appeals for a final

approval and review of it. Portion two of the text amendment is from our rules and proceedings of the board. Current text requires a two thirds majority vote for a motion to pass. The direction from council is to take that back to a majority vote to be consistent with all of our other boards and commissions, including county council with their voting. So I know the, commission asked to bring this back to review for the, meeting this month.

I just wanna read in the record though. Just keep in mind as per our zoning ordinance states, section one seventy three point one two, Reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Lexington County Planning Commission shall review and make recommendations to the County Council on proposed amendments to this ordinance. The commission shall make such recommendation within thirty days of the receipt of the application. Upon the expiration expiration of the thirty day time limit, if the Planning Commission has not made a recommendation, the County Council may proceed to act as it deems proper. Please note that this agenda item is on council's agenda next Tuesday.

Question, madam chair. Why was this brought back? I guess it seems very fair fairly simple to me. So I'm I'm just I wasn't here last month, so I wonder what the question

I was not here when this was discussed. I'll relay that to mister McPherson.

Good morning. Member, miss Pike, had requested to come back, for discussion further discussion, regarding the residential limited main portion of this article. And also, I believe Holland sent out the entire zoning ordinance several weeks ago to each member because that was one of the things that miss Pike and the commission had agreed upon at the time. So I don't know if he would provide a hard copy in your packet, but he also said but he did send out the electronic copy several weeks ago for the members to

review. Yes.

Review that today?

Please. Yes. And I was wondering, is it possible that we could put the zoning ordinance, up on the screen so that they could see the sections that I'm talking about?

Quick question. Because I'm I'm I'm I'm fearful where we're headed here. Are we gonna are we gonna go through the entire ordinance? No. Okay. Good.

Was No.

I was saying we've got a very limited we got a very limited I know. View here. So I wanna make sure we're not headed too far down a rabbit hole. Thank you.

I'll see what I can do.

Give me sec. I can can direct you to specific sections. And let me just tell you where I'm headed with this. So last time, before last time's meeting, I was trying to figure out where this was headed with with removing the BZA. That always gives me some concern.

So I I went back and I looked at the various provisions that dealt with these patio homes. And so the first thing that I noticed was in, article one eleven point four six, which is the concurrency standard. Okay? Alright. Please note that the residential detached limited, which is the patio homes, are not included under the concurrency standards.

So then I started flipping over, and I wanted to see, well, where can they be put? And so I flipped over to this is article two. And under the chart of permitted activities by district, I realized that residential detached limited can go in every single district. Okay? Then I flipped over and I looked at the street classifications and I saw that residential detached limited could go in every single street.

But you also have density and everything

hold on just a minute. So then, I began looking at the density portion of it And it says all 22 dot 30 residential density, it says all residential detached excluding limited mobile homes and tiny home land use activity shall have maximum residential density of four, da da da da da. So it's excluding limited there. So I guess I have a question for for, mister Derek, and that is, is the density included in twenty two thirty for residential limited?

Yes. Anything other than residential attached, duplex, mobile homes, tiny homes, it refers to the other density. All other residential land uses are included in the chart below.

So it's it's underneath. It's where it says all other residential land activities

Yes, ma'am.

To include recreational vehicle parks and or camper parks.

And keep in mind that the residential attached limited have various other design standards that other residential projects do not have. Included maximum minimum lot sizes opens of a lot coverage, so it's a lot more design standards. Hoops, I hate to say the word hoops, but lot more hoops they have to jump through to to actually develop And something like keep in mind, when when council adopted this section of the ordinance, there had been discussion for a number of years on the ability to provide a a housing type or a product that would promote smaller lots which were more adapt to aging communities, single families, and the way our ordinances are currently written, some of the new design standards we had for density, it wasn't really a place for that. So this was something that council vetted a number of years before it was actually adopted in place within this ordinance. And I also went through Planning Commission.

I think Planning Commission had several comments which were included within the adoption of of this article.

Well, you're absolutely correct. And I wanna commend staff on it because staff did an awesome job on this. I went back and listened to all of the planning commission meetings and

It was mostly me. I just want.

So I went back and listened to this to see why we put in the BZA to start with. And I wanna commend mister Derry because he's the one that suggested it and he's the one he thought it was a resolution because it was done, for example, with mobile home parks in a similar way. And another reason was he had given examples of other areas that had done this type of a a regulation, and all of those had some type of oversight authority similar to the BZA. It went to a planning commission or it went to something else. And you're looking at higher densities here than you would have normally.

So I'm of the opinion that that BZA review is important. And another reason that it is important is because concurrency does not apply to these. However, if you look at what the BZA is supposed to look at, it and this is it's very poorly worded. But what it says, basically, it provides a concurrency. This makes no sense in the beginning, but you get the gist of it.

Statements from applicable subdivision, landscape, and open space building, addressing land development, and emergency management officials that the initial site plan would conform to applicable regulations and ordinances. A full approval from each of these disciplines is not required. However, direction that the proposed development would not be in conflict with these regulations and ordinances. And it also talks about traffic and or roadway improvements anticipated through Lexington County Public Works. So it's looking at a safety perspective there that no other part of this is actually looking at.

As I listened and I went back to see what the purpose of the BZA was, And y'all, this was something that was it started in 01/21/2021. And it came before the planning commission. There was nothing drafted at that point. However, there was substantial discussion about this. Then the planningcom came back to the planning commission on 02/18/2021, and there was a draft that's substantially similar to what we have here. And the BZA was included. And let me tell you some of the discussion about why the BZA is important.

Well, if I may for just one second that because I don't disagree with you. They're very important. All the all the commissions and boards, I think, they have a place where they should be. And I don't disagree also that there should be some mechanism by which limited should be reviewed and approved. Just speaking for myself, not for anybody else. But unfortunately, we do have black and white. I think it may be helpful. I don't know if we can put it up, but they do offer alternative text to what they're being wanting to be stricken. And I don't know if you can't pull it up. Isn't that right?

It says on here, the new text is notated in red and text to be removed has been struck.

This case, madam in this case, madam chair, I think most of it is struck. Again, I do not have the color copy also. I think simply the text amendments for both of these were to remove just to remove language. I don't think we had any additional language or proposed language for it.

I have not seen any additional

So, miss McPherson, have you can you summarize from your perspective from the BZA what how this impacts or how you feel it impacts from a staff level for this limited?

Yeah. Well, first off, we have not had any go before BZA with this type of development.

Okay.

So in a three years or change, it's been in our ordinance. Now, the article itself, but I have yet to have one to review to

Through that process.

Do that process. And just going back and the reason why we did this, with counsel's direction, concerns about traffic and lot sizes and density, what would end up being if you did not create this article would be someone wanting to go in and do a smaller lot, higher density. And the only reason, the only way they could get that approved would be through the Board of Zoning Appeals and a variance request. So what they did here is similar to what we did before with some of our commercial applications on limited local, where before we had RL4 was so strict on commercial applications. So we decided on limited local, if you did it near a certain intersection, if you had certain architectural standards, that too could go before the zoning board of appeals and a special exception.

But keep in mind, I think what the counsel's direction here is the fact that if it's meeting all these regulations and it's meeting all the checks and balances, does the zoning board really need to take a look at it because we have all these checks and balances in place? Because here's the reality of it. If it doesn't, staff is not going approve the development. So the question here is, is it more or less a density thing we're looking at that needs to go to a special exception? And if that's the direction that the Planning Commission wants to take, I think you need to keep it in the BZA's hands and just say, Hey, look, it meets all this stuff and they want to exceed a certain density, then yeah, it needs to go before the BZA.

If you go keep techs pretty much the same and it still has to meet all these checks and balances, then maybe the way to do it is take it out of BZA's hands.

Question. It it are there any other residential projects that are required to go to BZA? Mobile home parks. Just mobile home. So not townhomes, which I see proliferated all over the county. So if we wanna talk about impact and density, we if you're gonna keep this in, I think you have to have townhomes. I mean, because that that that's I live in a patio home community, by way. They're not bad. But I have a townhome community right next door, and they've crammed on half the size of the lot property the same number that I have in my neighborhood. So I I just to me, I trust staff if they're if if they're meeting all the other requirements. I think if they're reviewing every other type of development, I don't see why this one should be singled out to go to BCA.

And I think too, just to just to, comment on commissioner Pike about the the concurrency type review. One twenty one forty two item d that she referenced, statements from applicable subdivision, landscape, and open space building addressing land development, emergency management officials at the site plan will conform to applicable regulations. This was an attempt to ensure all other development reviews. Again, making sure the subdivision of the property appeared to conform with our subdivision regulations. Two, the division of the property would meet all of our landscape and open space provisions, e.

Your buffers, your trophy tree protection. Of course, building code, if it has smaller lot setbacks may dictate what type of construction, fire ratings, etcetera. Land development deals with our lands our storm water, sediment rose control, floodplain management. Emergency management is more related to fire service. Turn lanes, ingress, egress for fire, if it is a fire rating or some type of attached type unit, they may have to look at it from a fire code perspective.

So the intent for this was to ensure all other entities who are already reviewing these projects are okay with it before it went to the BZA. And even if it did not go to the BZA, staff would not issue a permit or approval until everybody else signed off on it anyway. Right. We've got that agreement with everyone. As far as traffic and roadway improvements, again, that is part of our re review process anyway. This county maintained road, our folks at Public Works are already looking at that from an infrastructure perspective. If it is a state maintained road, we have development review meetings. DOT is included with those DRMs. They walk them through what they need as far as traffic improvements, etcetera, for any type of access points to to these developments. But again, like like Walt said, this is a very unique type development.

I think from a staff perspective, if a recommendation is made to counsel, either way, we can always include comments to counsel from other concerns, suggestions from the Planning Commission. A higher density, concurrence review, etcetera, we can always that's part of the motion and recommendation, we can include that when with our discussion next Tuesday.

Well, the one thing we haven't talked about is that the BZA gives citizens the opportunity to comment on this. And if you take that away, then the citizens have no no avenue to comment on a much higher density development that's coming into their neighborhood Wow. That is impacting their lifestyle, impacting their quality of life. So anytime a citizen has the right to input, I have an objection to taking it out.

And I and I will I will respectfully disagree. The citizens' voices heard at the vote at the ballot box. We are a democracy. We have we elect people to represent us and make decisions, and I think we have to trust them to do that. I don't think citizens have the right to comment on every little thing that goes on in the county. I just think we have to trust staff, and and we've got the ordinances that that guide this and direct it in a certain direction. And if it if it meets, great. It's proved. If it doesn't meet, then you know? Or if or if it doesn't if it is inadequate, then we need to discuss changing the the performance standards. But I don't know that we just send it to a review just so that public can comment on it.

Think And public can comment at council meetings.

Well, now, that's only if the chairman allows it. Okay? That's limited. So here, they have the right to comment on this specific this specific project and I think that's important. I think you're you're taking away a right that the citizens have.

I don't know if it's necessarily a right. If we've put into place all of our zoning ordinances and all of these restrictions and God knows what a developer has to go through to get a a project approved, and maybe maybe if you sat in on some of those meetings, you would understand what it takes to go through all of these different departments at a DRM and what the county requires of these developments. Then maybe you would have a little bit more understanding or respect for staff and what they do as far as getting these things approved. I don't think that it's, you know, every citizen's right to come up to the microphone and rant and rave because they've got a neighbor that's allowed to do what they want to

If on their piece of I may, I had I had previously sat on BZA, and you do have the opportunity to come up, those for for and against, but there's still gonna be someone who's not happy. Always. And BZA actually would still vote on that, and it's still gonna only go one way. So it's no different than the council looking at it and may or may not have input from the public. I kind of tend to lean in commissioner Frost's direction in terms of the whole democracy and the way the process has been set up.

If they have those checks and balances in place, they feel like they're meeting that requirement. Now we could put in something about adding in townhomes as a recommendation as well, making sure all of the bases are covered, but there has to be some level of faith in staff, I think, as well that they've seen what comes through.

Are you recommending a density requirement for townhomes as staff?

The incident requirements for townhomes are exactly the same as residential detached.

Right.

Maximum is four dwelling units per acre throughout the county except within Eastern Overlay where they have the ability to have higher densities.

Okay. Again, it's a recommendation only. That doesn't even mean that if if we put in your recommendation that counsel would take it.

I have a recommendation that we don't make a recommendation. Let's move on.

Well, I mean, I I think we need to give them some feedback. Yes.

At this point.

You know? And and, again, I I don't wanna I don't wanna cut conversation short, but, I mean, you know, I I think I know my my direction that I think this should go and and, you know, at appropriate time, I think I would be welcome to make a motion.

Take it there. Let's go.

I'll make sure yeah. Well,

think this had a long history. There were reasons this was put in. There have been no changes since then. I mean, the all these things that you're talking about were already there when the BZA was put in. It was all part of that package And there was a reason for that. Okay? It was an oversight and it was it was an oversight function. And as a result of that, I mean, you looked at all the other counties and they had the similar things to that. There's a reason. I think it needs to stay.

It's it's an

extra check and balance and there may not have been one yet, But I think with the economy the way it is, there plenty of them.

Yeah.

Yeah.

There might be some in the pipeline soon

but Absolutely. Let's think we're cross

that bridge when we get to it and let's

and more patio homes and I don't think I think now is our time to deal with it if we're being asked. So my thought is I would make a motion to not change it.

We have a motion from commissioner Pike. Do we have a second?

I'm going to second it because I want to move it on to the discussion point and let's have a discussion. So I second it and I'd like to a discussion if there's any further discussion. I don't have any further discussion.

I'm just asking if anybody I

I wanna provide everybody that opportunity.

Yeah. I I just my my my point is and I served almost twenty years for the town, and we reviewed every single residential development and commercial development that came into town. To single this one out for whatever number of reasons, I don't know if people just didn't want them in their neighborhood, but you've got townhomes that I see a proliferation of. I see other developments of similar impact that are absent from this. So to single this one out when we've got other avenues to, address how they're done and ensure that they're compliant, I just think this is an unnecessary step in the process and

Let's add townhomes to it.

I I just I think it's an unnecessary step in the process when we've got all the other ordinances that we have. So I I don't I I would I would be in favor of removing this language.

We have a motion on the floor.

Have a motion on the floor.

So we vote on that and then let's

If if everybody feels there's been enough discussion, everybody's been heard then Okay.

I have one question. What council district is this particular development located in? This is Tab J. We're not on Tab G yet. We're on Tab. Sounds like we kinda mixed the two together.

You wanna Yeah. Over?

We're on f.

Yeah. While while if

this We're on tab f.

This is tab f. That's a text amendment to to to Apologize for the,

absence last month. I'm off kilter, but

please don't start over. I forgot everything I've said.

I would like to point out one thing that mister Derrick read in the record, make sure because it was brought to my attention as well. We put a couple of these concurrency reviews off for further clarification. And I think the reason he read that in the record, I don't want to speak for him, was directed from counsel pretty much is

It's your

you need to make a decision when you get it Right. Because they're going to move forward with it one way or another whether they have our recommendation or not going forward. So I just want to kind of make sure that everybody understood what mister Derrick was saying when he read the text in the in the in the record earlier.

We have no concurrency with regard to this if you take out the BCA, none.

Concurrency, I feel like is like a term and a word that really already being done before it gets to this point as far as getting in front of us. I mean, we can read this, but again, if you're a developer, if you're doing one of these neighborhoods or one of these patio home community, regardless of its size, whether it's five patio homes or 100 dwellings, you're going to have to go through the development process with staff and with everyone else. The only people that maybe aren't included in DRM is gonna be the school board, you know, and they've this is the concurrency review, I think, is just kinda our way of including the school board mostly in in the discussion from this point forward, letting them know what potentially may be coming and this is just my opinion. This is the way I see it. I feel like concurrency has been happening for quite some time prior to it being put on paper like this.

I think concurrency was put in because of the citizens' concerns that due to overbuilding, there were concerns about being able to access police service, ambulance service, all the various services that we need including schools. And I think that's important and we don't have that here. And we do have that under the BZA requirements here.

But you do have that every year when the sheriff's department comes and does their budget meeting and they're saying, hey, we've got this need and we've got this need. Every year that comes into place and staff and everybody else is in communication on all levels of this building with, you know, all aspects of the government and Lexington County. I think concurrency is just it's for us and it's for the people to feel like the reviews happening, but it's it's always happened. It's always been there. The only thing that wasn't happening prior to that was probably the school boards. We weren't communicating with the school boards like we should have been.

But clearly, we've had shortages and that's why people were so upset. Have Look, did you by any chance see any of the the council hearings when the development was going in down here on the lake gosh, I can't think of the name of it.

Near the dam.

Near the dam. Yes. The town? The town. That was the town of Lexington. Yes. It was. Yep. You would have heard all of the the issues that they were talking about. It was horrible. So, I mean

You're talking about the town of Lexington, and we're we're talking about Oh. Blittson County's run.

They were going to annex it. It was in Lexington So at any rate and it still is in Lexington County. It didn't get annexed.

So But Lexington County wasn't gonna approve that. Right? It wasn't gonna

Lexington County had no knowledge of it till it was in the news.

Right. That's right.

Think most of town council had any knowledge of it till it was in the news.

That's right. So anyway, I mean, I think that's a protection feature.

So

May may I respectfully ask madam chairwoman to call for a vote?

Yes. Thank you. So enough discussion. We do have

a motion on the floor. Call to vote? Okay.

Commissioner Price? No. Commissioner Beetenbaugh? No. Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto?

Yes.

Commissioner Hutto? No. Vice Chairman Frost?

No.

Chairman Mitchell. No.

Can we make a new motion? Yes. I make a motion to approve it as staff has revised it. Second.

Alright. We have a first by Commissioner Haddam. Second, Commissioner Frost. All today?

Well, any discussion? Sorry.

I feel like

I think we've had enough.

I'm just it's just following rules.

I mean, it's just the opposite of what it was before.

I hear it.

That's the discussion. Yeah.

Alright. Just following rules.

Not being informal.

Just Commissioner Price?

Yes.

Commissioner Beettenball?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? No. Commissioner Otto?

Yes.

Commissioner Hutto? Yes. Vice Chairman Frost? Yes. Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

Next, we have a second viewing of the concurrency review for Walker's Trail, tab g.

Thank you, madam chair. When this was brought up at our May meeting, members of planning commission asked for additional information regarding phase two for Walker's Trail, is on Highway 378, just west of the town of Lexington. For the purpose of time, I'm not gonna read in the record the entire original questionnaire submitted by Lexington School District one. It is available in the packets. However, I do wanna just give the the backstory on the project just for, again, for the record.

Again, this is phase two of Walker's Trail, which is for an additional 118 dwelling units. They are townhomes. Phase one was approved prior to concurrency and has 68 dwelling units, also townhomes. I believe those are now currently under construction. The general location is North Of US 378, Eastern Lavender Lane, and West of Cameron Mill Court, Lexington.

Tax map is 420211. Again, this is just west of the town limits of Lexington. It is a townhome type development on 37.41 acres, and again, the proposed number of dwelling units is a 118 dwellings. Again, this has been through all up other ethical entities for concurrency review for the project and is now with Planning Commission. Again, following the review from Planning Commission in in May, there are some additional questions requested from Lexington School District one.

So doctor Postalwaite provided the the information, I believe, is also in your packet since it's been provided to you for several weeks now, but I'll read these in the record for you. One, the concern was high school capacity. The questionnaire notes that Lexington High School is currently overcapacity and that there are no plans at this time for new or expanded facilities. Could you please address how the school district might handle the overcapacity situation in the absence of new construction? The board of trustees commissioned a demographic demographic study, which was recently completed and shared with the planning commission and a facility study, which will be completed in the next few months.

The board of trustees is currently reviewing areas of overcrowding and we use the results of the demographic and facility studies to determine the school district's next steps. Number two, the potential use of rezoning. As a follow-up, would the district consider utilizing rezoning as a tool to address capacity concerns? For reference, previous concurrence request know that River Bluff High School is overcapacity, while White Noe High School had available capacity. Is this a strategy the district currently has in place or would consider?

Based on conversations among Lexington one board trustees members, it is the staff's understanding that the board wishes to consider all options. Item three, long term growth planning. There are some concern that the questionnaire did not reflect an urgency to plan for new facilities with anticipated growth, particularly along The US 378 and Augusta Highway corridors. Could you elaborate on how the district uses growth projection projections and related data to plan for future facility needs? There is definitely a sense of virtue regarding fill rates in some Lexington one schools.

As mentioned above, a demographic study was completed in December and is being used to inform a facility study. The board receives monthly updates on the status of work being conducted. Number four, student generation multipliers. Is there a standard methodology the district uses uses to determine the estimated number of students per housing type? Example, single family homes, townhomes, multifamily, etcetera.

New housing developments, the assumption we have used for the county document is that 75% of new houses, the developments proposed to date have two school aged children. Enrollment projections from school year to school year, the enrollment projection used from budgeting and preliminary staffing projections is made by subtracting the current year seniors from the enrollment total, rolling each grades enrollment up one year, first grade count becomes second grade count, etcetera, and duplicating the number of five k students for the next year's kindergarten count. This methodology has proven to be accurate in the past five years as any other predictive formula. And as part of a request, I believe, at the last meeting or maybe a previous meeting, I just wanna update the the commission on this as well. Our administrator, Lynn Sturkey, is working with the school districts to coordinate a meeting with members of council, members of planning commission, and members of various school boards.

I believe miss Lejay has reached out to the commission and and garnished some interest from several commissioners to serve on this, meeting or this committee. Unfortunately, that meeting has not been arranged yet. School year just wrapped up. There are some changes with some school districts and leadership. We're wrapping up our fiscal year budget, so all entities have a a lot of moving parts going on, but, I assure you administration is working to to coordinate that meeting as soon as possible.

Madam madam chair, can I ask a general concurrency question? Robbie?

Yes, sir.

Mister Derrick, excuse me. We had suggested a question about portable classrooms being the concurrency review of if they say they need more, if they're going to use portables for these additional students, how many do they currently have? Because if got 200 of them

out there and they've got to

add three to accommodate, that's not as big of

an impact to me as if they have none and they've got

to add start adding them. Is is that was that discussed at y'all's retreat and could could we potentially add that to the questionnaire? It makes a difference if they've already got a bunch of them and they got to add a couple more.

The information is in your packet.

Is it there?

Not read, man. Is it We have added additional questions, supplemental questions beyond the questionnaire when I submit for concurrency reviews to the school districts. Where where are you looking? There'll be additional you'll see the original questionnaire that was submitted. Then there is a a last page that says, questions submitted by mister Derek that are in addition to those contained with the concurrency agreement. And, you'll see the first one says, please confirm the number of existing portable portables currently in use at the effective schools. In this case, it only references four portables at like at Lake Murray Elementary School and not currently used for classroom space.

What page are you on? You got it right? Must not have that packet.

This would be on page four under item g.

Because I read it and read it and read it while you were talking.

Item g, page four.

Look, you're still a month behind. We get it.

I'm still a month behind too. So is that gonna be a regular question you're gonna ask for

Sir, I'm gonna ask when the planning commission asks for that additional information, rather than retooling the questionnaire and having to go back through the process with each one of the school boards and superintendents, I simply add those as supplemental questions when I email for their their feedback I'm

good then. Thank you.

Any discussion? Any information? Thoughts?

Who's the builder on these? Do they have those?

I don't have that information. I believe it's a I'll tell you the Great Southern Home Development. Great Southern.

That's right. Yeah. I

would make a recommendation that, or or make a motion that we recommend counsel accept, the concurrency review as presented.

I second that. We have a motion first from commissioner Frost. Second, commissioner Hoegh to approve

or Recommendation.

Recommendation to approve. All to vote.

Commissioner Price?

Yes.

Commissioner Beetenbaugh?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? No. Commissioner Otto?

Yes.

Commissioner Hutto?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Frost? Yes. Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

Subdivision bonds? Information only. Information only. Excellent. Tab I, reg classifications.

We get a motion. I make a

motion to approve. I'll second.

I have a motion to approve commissioner Hedde. Second. Fairwoman Mitchell.

Commissioner Price?

Yes.

Commissioner Beetenbaugh?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto?

Yes.

Commissioner Hutto? Yes. Vice Chairman Frost?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

Cab Jay?

Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Chairman Mitchell. This is just a reminder. Again, I won't belabor the point. We've got training required. A few of you have that remaining to do, so I'll leave it at that. Appreciate it.

No more candy.

Well, we we we we can incentivize.

I'm just kidding.

We we can take care of that.

No. I'm just kidding.

Alright. Well, guess that concludes it.

Motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn. Thank you.

Get out of here.

Are you done?