Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yes. Yes. Let us pray. Heavenly father, we thank you for this day. We thank you for all of the blessings you give us. We thank you for the gift of creation, the trust that you've given us to care for it. We pray that you will guard our hearts and minds this morning as we discuss the agenda. We pray that you will place a hedge of protection around those who serve our town, our state, and our country in uniform. We pray that you will bless us all, forgive us of our sins, and all these things we ask in the holy name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen.

Thank you very much. I'm excited about joining this team. It's a awesome responsibility, I believe, excited to get involved and hopefully, you know, help, spur Lexington County, you know, for additional prosperity. It's a great place to live. I've lived here about twelve years now, something like that, and, love it. It's absolutely in Chapin. Yes. On the lake. Thank you. Thank you.

Glad to have you.

Make a motion we approve the minutes as presented. Second.

Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Beetenbaugh?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto?

Yes.

Commissioner Campbell?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Frost?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell?

Yes. Activity report?

Yes, ma'am. Thanks very much and good morning everyone and welcome Mr. Campbell. We appreciate you joining the team. We look forward to your input. And good morning to Councilman Fisher. We'd like to welcome you to our Planning Commission meeting this morning. Thank you for being here. Very quickly, we have a development activity report this morning. From the historical perspective, a little bit of context.

In April, we had a 130 site built manufactured I'm sorry, site built home permits issued and 43 manufactured home permits issued for a total of a 173 permits in April. In May, we had a 100 and, 57, 51, 57. Can't even read my handwriting. Close enough. Site bill permits and 43 manufactured home permits for a total of a 194.

So it jumped up a little bit in May. And in June, we jumped up a tiny bit, a 162 site built permits and 35 manufactured home permits for a total of 197. So here are our totals so far on the year. Again, in June, one hundred and sixty two and thirty five for a total of 197. But the total for the second quarter is four forty three site built permits, and the total on the year is nine zero five.

So, roughly half of what we saw last year, and we're halfway through the year, so that's probably to be expected. With the manufactured residential permits, again, for the second quarter, so three months into the second quarter, 121 manufactured permits for a total of two sixty three, which again is just half of what we saw last year. So that's to be expected. Our pipeline projects, we've had two this this past month. The month before, we didn't have any.

The first one is Comanche Trail. It is 54 lots on 9.4 acres. It is a new project in West Columbia using the West Columbia ordinance. It's located at the end of Comanche Trail between North Lucas Street and Laurel Crest Drive, North of Sunset Boulevard. It is near the Saluda River and near the river bend on the Saluda Condominiums. That's in County Council District four, Councilman Glen Conwell, and that the developer there is R and O Properties. Our next one is, number 28 on the list. It is Ferry Grove. We've seen that one before. It's Phase four of that project, so it's a phased project.

106 lots on approximately 31 acres is using our current ordinance. It's located just off of Cox Ferry Road. Again, a phase project North Of I 20 that is within County Council District two, which is Councilman Larry Brigham, and that is being developed by Berry Grove, which is the development of Next, we have our concurrency review, project map. We did not we have not had any, concurrency projects approved by County Council in the last several months. The last one was Southwood Drive, which has been in May.

Last project to be reviewed, I think, was called, Walker's Trail. That was presented to council on Tuesday of this week, and was postponed, because the School District one has a growth capacity study underway. So council chose to, postpone action on Walker's Trail to allow the school district to do that study and, provide the results to the council and then they would move forward one way or another with that project. That one's postponed and on on hold. Otherwise, thank you, everyone, for being here this morning. I appreciate your service to the city of County, and that is my development activity report for the month.

One question, please. When is that report supposed to be finalized? Because we've got another one in our packet this morning for Lexington one.

Yeah. There was no schedule. We don't have a a deadline or anything of that.

We've reached out Lexington School District one for direction from the council to get an estimated time frame on that schedule.

Okay. Thank you.

Abby?

Thank you members of Planning Commission. Before you today is a a review for recommendation for ordinance twenty five zero nine, which is an amendment to the Lexington County zoning ordinance article 14 establishment of the Eastern Residential District. Simply, this amendment is to revise the boundary of the Eastern Overlay District. Couple years ago, we're going through our ordinance updates following the latest moratorium. Our pending ordinances was to create a district in the eastern portion of the county that provide consistency with our comprehensive plan in attempt to provide the ability for the developers to implement infill type developments, higher density residential developments within the already growing or populated areas of the county.

The intent was to again follow the comprehensive plan, give some incentives to keep growth where growth was at and try to reduce sprawls to the western portions of the county. County Council is also looking at several other current amendments that will piggyback upon this amendment. The specifically for this amendment is to relocate the eastern residential boundary, the northern or northwestern type boundary to Interstate 20. No other changes are proposed within this current text or the current overlay except for this change. Again, are several other proposed amendments that are working through due process, which this body will see within the next month or two.

One of those which will be directly impacted from this is a Central overlay district, which encompasses the town of Lexington's future growth area. The intent of that overlay district is to again remove the Eastern overlay from this town of Lexington's future growth area and to create a standard for more compatible development regulations within that area that the town has identified as future growth. There are a lot of other moving parts with various amendments to the zoning ordinance. There was discussion at the public hearing and at council on Tuesday. Some of that discussion had to deal with certain residential development types, which I presume that'll probably be further discussion by council at upcoming meetings.

The public hearing had several most folks spoke folks spoken in favor of this. Concerns were brought up that reducing the Eastern Overlay would potentially help as far as traffic, high density residential, and concerns for for more high density and sprawl within the area. Another concern that was brought up with certain housing types. Again, there are no changes to the proposed text for the Eastern Overlay District is simply to relocate the boundary. If you look at your screen on the on the screen shows the red hash marked area, that will be the proposed or is proposed to be the new boundary.

As you can see, there's defined a boundary of I 20. There are a couple areas kind to the North Northwest which will remain within the Eastern Overlay. That was directly associated with certain development types that are already under construction, which would be consistent with the Eastern Overlay District. The other color schemes you will see on the map, you'll see a green area, which is simply to represent the town of Lexington's transportation improvement plan study area. You see an area that's highlighted in blue or outlined in blue.

The blue area outline is the town of Lexington's future growth area. They've identified that with their comprehensive plan and their and their planning processes. And there's a small little area outside the town of Lexington. It is illustrated or outlined in purple, which is just Cox Ferry Road to Interstate 20. Moving forward, the subsequent amendments following in this one, that will be part of the Central Lexington County Overlay District and you will have that before you at most likely the next planning commission meeting. Again today before you is an amendment to the Lexington County zoning ordinance, simply removing the Eastern Overlay District from portions of the town of Lexington and revising that boundary line to Interstate 20.

Any discussion?

Yeah. Since I'm new. You say you're you're moving it I've got a color open, so You're moving it out of that green area. That's correct.

Yes, sir. Originally Is that south? Yeah. The east originally, the Eastern Overlay District basically split the town of Lexington. Everything on the east portion of the town and the east portion of their future growth area was within the Eastern Overlay District.

This is to completely remove it with exception of a couple small areas out of the town of Lexington's future growth area. Eastern Overlay allows The Eastern Overlay allows the abilities for developers to have a higher density with certain design standards. The developers can actually go in and reduce setbacks and buffering restrictions again to achieve higher density. And again, the goal of this was to to focus to keep higher density growth within the areas that are currently experiencing the high density growth and to promote it within these areas and hopefully decrease sprawl to the western and southern areas of the county.

Can you tell me if the representatives of these areas on the council support moving this?

The representatives from council, there has there have been no votes except for move forward. Council did elect to move forward with this process. The final vote whether to approve or not will be a third and final reading, but it had majority vote to move forward with this amendment process. Okay.

Thanks.

I'd like to say that, you know, this is an excellent example of the town of Lexington working with Lexington County representatives to do something very positive. And I think this is a very positive change and I strongly support it. And I'd like to make a recommendation. I'd like to make a motion that we recommend this.

Second.

We have a motion to approve or move forward. And Commissioner Pike? Second. Vice Chair Frost? That ability.

Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Beetenbaugh?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto?

Yes.

Commissioner Hutto? Yes. Commissioner Campbell?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Frost? Yes. Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

Moving on to tab f, concurrency review.

Thank you members of Planning Commission. Just for the public's knowledge, this is a review of the questionnaire submitted by Lexington School District one for proposed development off of Longspine Road. The purpose of this this agenda item is not an approval from the Planning Commission. The purpose of agenda item is to review the questionnaire per our adopted policies and procedures and make a recommendation to counsel whether should consider this project being allowed to move forward with full review and permitting. Simply, this project has only been through a sketch plan review through zoning and landscape to review minimum standards.

Once those minimum standards were identified as being met, we began our concurrence review process where it was submitted to fire, law enforcement, EMS, and solid waste management in the local school district to provide feedback on established matrices to see if it can move forward with those matrices. All other entities have had no issues, documented issues, with this moving forward on their end. The final piece is the school district questionnaire, which again goes to planning commission for review and a recommendation to counsel. Formal approval is through counsels, but again, that is just to get the project moving forward. This is not an approval stamping this project or this development as approved move moving forward with development.

Just for the record, public school districts cannot provide a yes or no answer in terms of adequate public facilities. County administration and community development staff work with all five public school districts to develop this questionnaire to provide an information for consideration of new developments. Per council's adopted policy, the Planning Commission is to review and make a recommendation to council who in turn makes the final decision based upon Planning Commission's response and all available information. Again, the concurrence review went through a sketch plan approval. And before you today, just some general information on this project before I read into record the school district's questionnaire.

The project name is Avanti Townhomes. General location is the West Side Of Longspon Road, South Of Interstate 20, North of Bainbury Subdivision near Lexington identified by tax map number 64004006. This is located within Council District 5, which is represented by councilman Clifford Fisher who is in attendance today. The development type are townhome units. The acreage of the development is 22.6 acres.

There's a proposal of 83 total dwellings. The residential density is 3.673 units per acre. The smallest lot size is 3,000 square feet, which is the current minimum lot size and the proposed open space is 36.2%, which accounts for 7.79 acres. Further developer engineering plans will be submitted for review in January '26 if approved with anticipated approvals for permitting in June 2026. Estimated construction will begin following approval in June '26 with the first homes being constructed not until July 2027 and full build out is not anticipated until July 2028.

That's just some general background on the on the location and information from the developer. Again, before you today is the questionnaire from Lexington School District one, which I know is in your packet, but just for public information, I will read this into record. This was prepared by doctor Postelwaite, Lexington School District one. She is the retired superintendent, distributed to county on 06/09/2025. Just going through the questionnaire, item one, capital outlay considerations. Schools that currently serve location for the proposed development are Deerfield Elementary, Carolina Springs Middle

Unknown caller.

And White Mill High School. Approximately, how many additional students could each of these schools listed above serve without adding portable classrooms? Elementary, zero. Middle 45, high school 420. And there's a note on here about programming explanation, some classes such as special education, preschool, kindergarten, fewer students per classroom, adding classes such as these often reduces the overall school capacity.

Can portable classrooms be added to each site if necessary? The answer for elementary is yes, middle yes, high yes. If portals can be added, how many portals be necessary for 20 additional students attending each of the schools listed above? Elementary three, middle zero, high zero. If you predict portables must be added, what is the approximate cost of acquiring and installing portables sites

at

the necessary schools? Elementary school will be 300 to $450,000, and again, not applicable for Miller High. The average cost of moving, setting up, and equipping a portable to meet local and state codes is currently a $100,000. If we have to purchase the portable, total cost is approximately a $150,000. If former classrooms are likely to be added, how many months are required from the decision to add the add the readiness to serve students?

Gain required approvals from various agencies involved, prepare the site and provide necessary infrastructure. It takes approximately twelve months from the decision point to the complete an installation. Do you predict new school construction will need to occur as a result of the proposed development? If so, what date do you estimate construction will need to begin? Answer is no, not as a result of this single development.

However, if other developments occur and then the same attendance area, new construction would be required at both the middle and high school sites. If new school construction is required as a part of the development moving forward in today's dollars was the estimated cost of construction? And it was just referenced yes, yes, and yes for elementary, middle, and high. If feasible, please estimate the cost of construction. There's no reference to any type of fees for construction.

Operational costs, estimated number of teachers requested, elementary three, middle 1.2, high two. Estimated number of staff required, potential one kindergarten instructional special assistant, educational staff, other positions will be dependent upon other needs of students. Transportation impact is one bus. District's estimated possible total operating costs would be $584,080 and a necessary impact on millage would be 1.2 mil increase. Additional comments and and information from school district one, seventy five percent of the 83 residences will be occupied by families with two children per their reference, and that's a 124 students.

Students would be equally distributed among grades, pre kindergarten through grade 12. This means we will prepare for nine additional students per grade. Grades pre k, k one, two, three, four, and five will be 63 students at Deerfield Elementary. Grades six, seven, and eight will be 27 students at Carolina Springs Middle. Grades nine, ten, eleven, and twelve will be 36 students at White Knoll High School.

Bus fuel and repairs are paid by the state department. The district will have to pay for the new driver salary and benefits. At two cars per household, an average cost of $20,000 per vehicle for operating millage, it'll be approximately $60,397 of revenue. The value of operating mill mill is currently $421,900. Additional questions that we have asked the school districts provide based on references from the planning commission.

The number of existing portables and use at each school. Deerfield, there are currently five. Carolina Springs Mill, there are currently four. Is there a method for the district to use to track the cumulative effects of development? And this is referenced to what we mentioned earlier, Lexington District one is contracted with a demographic analytics advisor to complete a demographic study. The information that we share with Lexington one board of trustees on 12/17/2024 is also included within your packet. I'm not gonna read through that study. You have that for your reference. Are there any current fill facility expansions planned for schools affected by this development or any bond referendums? Note, the school district is wrapping up projects from the 2018 bond referendum.

None of the items remaining none of the remaining projects expand current capacity of schools impacted by the proposed development. Although a new bond referendum may be proposed at some point, none is in the pipeline at this time. How are the number of students estimated per grade level? Refer to assumptions under the additional comments or concerns above and detailed in number number 10 and below in the chart. Again, there's a chart associated with how they do the breakdown for students.

The district uses an allocation formula for students per teacher at various grade levels. The following table shows how Lexington one determines the number of teachers and assistant principals required. There are also staffing ratios for other positions. These are just a few examples in order to demonstrate how a handful of new students can impact the number of employees needed. Is there a matriculation rate use?

Concerns of flooding the next level of education from lower levels have been expressed by the planning commission. We use a matriculation rate based upon the number of students who are enrolled on the hundred and thirty fifth day of school year. This comports with the enrollment figures used to calculate a portion of state funding provided to Lexington one schools. Please provide any other details not included within questionnaire because Lexington one is considered one of the wealthiest districts in in South Carolina based upon the index of tax paying ability. Our district receives a small portion of funding from state allocations.

Act three eighty eight forced the school district to raise operating funds by increasing taxes on 6% property, not owner occupied homes. And again, this was submitted by Dreta Postoway, who's now the retired superintendent for Lexington School District one, 06/09/2025. And that's my presentation to the Planning Commission.

Have discussion?

Yes. I'm looking at this, and once again, we've talked about cumulative effect. There was there's a Lexington County School District demographic study, which is referenced in here actually, and I looked at it. And just to give y'all some perspective on this, we're dealing with Deerfield Elementary here, which they say they have no capacity now. There are 1,239 lots in the pipeline for Deerfield Elementary School right now.

So if you use miss Possible Waite's calculation for students, that would add 1,858 students to that school. If you we look over in this study and we look at Carolina Springs Middle School, there are 3,696 lots in the pipeline for that area. That calculates out to 5,544 students. White Knoll High School, 4,592 lots in the pipeline, which would then using their formula, equate to 6,888 students with no schools in the pipeline. I'm somewhere we gotta How do

you know that there are no schools in the pipeline?

It's in their demographic study that they've submitted. So using those numbers, there's some serious problems here. I mean, we've got to look at cumulative effect on this. There's just

no way around it. There is timing also, but I I don't disagree. And there's a I feel like a larger disparity in this one versus others we've seen in the past where typically on all grade levels, there's a need. In this case, the high school has zero and has lots of capacity that's not being filled. And then the lower levels, which will obviously matriculate up but are in dire need. And they're already using multiple portables, which is a concern of mine.

It's a concern of mine as well.

Yes. And I was going to ask if the concurrency map that you had before some of the other previous locations for this district

I if I understood that

It doesn't have to have numbers associated with it, because there is gonna be it's gonna take some time for these all to come through Absolutely. Whether they're approved or not. But

But it's also gonna take time to to get a bond referendum from schools too and then to build those schools.

And and just real quick, I yeah. And I I share your concern about about the cumulative effect. I do think we we need to be cognizant that the school district has numerous opportunities and avenues to account for students and where they put them. They can they can schools. It's not just building a brand new school when and as we're seeing, there are hot pockets that are overloading certain schools and you have other schools that are just sitting there with capacity.

And so I I think there's gotta be at some point, there's gotta be discussion at school district level of how do you adjust and and move these students around because you're right. You can't just keep cramming them into one school. It's it's gonna fall apart eventually. So but I I share your concern. I just think there are there are avenues they have to address potentially some of this other than just building brick and mortar.

If you if you look at this demographic study, there are huge numbers of lots in each and every school in school district one, and that's gonna equate to to more and more students. Every school in school district one is gonna have a problem. And then what are you gonna do? Bus them to school district two? I mean, come

on. Gonna build more schools.

But there's not going to be sufficient time to do that if all of these are in the pipeline. You've gotta have a bond referendum for that and then you wait for the schools to be built. So then our students go into to the the mobile units. That's that's the portables. That's not a good solution for anybody.

Well, it's a temporary solution if it came down to it, but I agree with Commissioner Frost where, you know, they can rearrange some lines and put the kids where they need them for for the time being. I'm sure the school district has a plan. They've been doing this for quite some time. I I understand the feasibility studies here, but I am sure that they are already looking for new school.

Well, commissioner Hutto, if if that's the position, then we don't need to look at this at all.

No. What we're doing is we're communicating with the school district, and and they're communicating with us, and we're we're just giving each other that information back and forth. But I I don't think that any of us will make a decision or know exactly what the school districts are what their plans are. We never have. You know, they've always kinda lacked the communication with counsel and with everyone here on planning commission. So this is just a way for everybody to stay on the same page and see what's coming in the future, and that will help them plan their growth just as well as us.

I think this impacts the quality of the education that we can provide. And when we impact the quality of the education, our property values go down, our communities go down, and overcrowding is gonna create that.

Have we ever asked the school district to come in and talk to us?

Due to the unique nature of what school districts can provide and their ability to serve in this process, they cannot attend.

They can't tell us what their future plans are?

I mean, we are we are trying to coordinate meetings with various school district representatives along with members of planning commission and county council to have sit down discussions with each individual school district. Administrators Turkey is working on that now. They've been delaying it because of, again, end of school year, our physical budget. We've had a change in leadership in Lexington School District one, so we're we're going through that process. There have been several other meetings I believe have been held with with representatives from both the county and the school districts.

So that dialogue is is continuing. Again, just the unique nature of it and what school districts can and cannot do and provide, it is in their best interest not to attend the planning commission meetings but to provide us this data. And going back is anytime that we submit this to Planning Commission, I try to submit these agenda items well in advance. That gives the Planning Commission an opportunity to review it and if there's any additional questions that you would like me to ask the school district prior to the meeting, I get that data and I can report it back. There's been instances in the past that we've presented information to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission has requested we obtain additional information from the school district before this body makes a decision.

So there are lot of other avenues we can take to get whatever information you feel comfortable with before you make a recommendation to County Council.

So what's in front of us right now is if is to approve or not to approve this

It's to

provide a recommendation to counsel whether it should go forward through staff review.

And it to develop this subdivision. Yes. And if it's approved, where does this three hundred to four hundred and fifty thousand dollars come from that the school's gonna require in the yeah. Elementary To build these elementary

part of your

tax bill.

Well, understand, but they're gonna need it now, aren't they?

They'll they may I mean, I I don't know. Their budget

Based is off of the timeline, I think mister Derek gave us regarding the staff review beginning construction and all that, I I would imagine.

Yeah. The estimated construction from the developer begins in 2027 for houses.

I mean, if you know it's a funded I mean, it's something that has to be done. Why wouldn't you ask the developers to fund it? To fund it.

Fund the

Building these portable buildings for $300,000

to $450,000

Yeah. I I think we're you're you're getting into an area where we're talking about impact fees, and I think that's a council discussion. That's not a planning commission discussion this morning, I don't believe. But I I I hear what you're saying, and that's a discussion, I think, that's been had Has at local level, county level before. Maybe it needs to happen again.

Have anything to do with the school district. I mean, these are those are very clear distinct lines between

Well, just seems like if if you know you gotta build something to it's a school or whatever. Right. I mean

And and keep on the tax payers.

It's certainly a discussion. I mean, there's a demand on resources when they do that.

Their kids are the ones that need the good education and they come here for that and, you know But I agree with

there's old people that don't have kids.

I do agree with Vice Chair Frost though. I mean, that really is more of a council level discussion. I don't think that that's something that we could actually decide on. Although, it's a point to be made disagree. No, no, no. I don't disagree at all. And it has been discussed and it I mean, there are impact fees in other areas and admit, you know, maybe that is something to bring up to counsel as a recommendation, but somewhat separate from this. It's relevant but not something we can actually vote on.

Excuse me. Mhmm. Mister Derrick, could you explain to all of us, me and everybody else, especially our new members, what's the purpose of this report to us and what is our role on the planning commission to do with this?

When council began the concurrency process, the current policies and procedures were to utilize the planning commission as a planning body for this county to review the questionnaires and information provided by the school districts for these new developments. Since the school districts cannot provide a yes or no answer, the goal was to prevent present the information to this body. Have you all review it and make a logical recommendation to counsel whether you feel that this project needs to move forward or not based on the information and data presented by the school district associated with this proposed development. And it's a simple recommendation, I won't call it simple as a recommendation to counsel whether you agree to move forward with it or not and the final arbitrator is county counsel. This is a simple recommending body for this exercise.

School districts again cannot provide a yes or no answer. I think it's been alluded to with this body earlier this morning. It has really been an exercise for us to get a lot of information out to the school districts well in advance of what they previously had them. Prior to the pipeline maps and projects were actually submitted was when they really had first knowledge of any new developments coming in. This gets this information to them well in advance.

So even though there are identified deficiencies potentially within their system, this gives them an opportunity as well as accounting opportunity to plan ahead for additional citizens, additional resources, etcetera that may be necessary. But again, this is information that we work with all the school districts to provide this questionnaire. The administrator, Stirkey and myself met with all the school districts superintendents. We had joint meetings. We presented these to each one of the the boards for the school districts to get them on board, to get their impact, input on this, and this is where this questionnaire was developed.

They felt this was a good working document to explain kind of where they're at in the process specifically associated with this development.

Just out of curiosity, and you may you may not know the answer to this, I would expect none of us do, but do they consider the other developments that come through this concurrency review process when they're filling it out?

Based on them cumulatively? Based on what I've understand from school districts, they do take in consideration cumulatively. The last meeting I believe in June when Lexington School District four provided their concurrency reviews. I think they referenced the previous projects that were submitted and what kind of impact they would have moving forward with future capacity within schools. So they are taking that in consideration.

I realized that they answered this specific to this numbers wise for this, but I was just curious if in the back of their mind it was cumulative consideration.

And I know our folks from the county level who we submit for EMS, fire, law enforcement, solid waste management, they do look at it from a cumulative perspective.

Is there any evidence that Lexington one I mean, don't see any evidence in this particular concurrency document that indicates that Lexington one is looking at this cumulatively.

I I cannot confirm or or or deny that. No, ma'am.

Yeah. And and and I recognize the the difficulty we have in looking at these as one offs, you know, because cumulative is is a significant concern given the growth. It does appear Lexington one has engaged a contractor to do some study and then some planning. And I hope at some point that comes to fruition and we see some information soon because it is a concern, as Commissioner Pike points out. We keep seeing these every month, every other month, and they seem to be one offs, and it doesn't seem to address that complete cumulative.

And keeping in mind, some of these phased projects could take five to eight years to build out. I mean, they're not coming next year. These these these kids aren't showing up next year at at the school looking for a a seat. But as to our point, it takes ten years to build a school too. So, know, you've to move them forward at the same time. So, you know, again, I I don't know how we based on the information we have here, I don't know how we say this one is an undue burden, but there are still a lot of unanswered questions considering all the other things that we have.

And I'll say Lexington one and Lexington two have both began a facility study and a demographic study. I think both of those school districts have taken the initiative to to begin that process. I would entertain with the school districts when we do meet with those folks that when those studies are complete, it may be a good idea to see if we can ask that they submit their findings at least to planning commission and or county council as not part of any type of concurrency review for a specific project. I think that would help shed some light on both bodies as far as their planning exercises and and what they have to plan for and what data they've received. And it would be good for us too just to see if their numbers match up with what we have as far as our planning processes also.

But I will include that when we do have our conversations with the school district.

Mister Derrick, can you share with county council our concern about the cumulative effect of all of this and that we really we need some method by which to examine the cumulative effect

Yes, ma'am. Think that

of these these various subdivisions.

That conversation, I believe, was brought up at our last council meeting on Tuesday when we talked about Walker's Trail. I think the cumulative effect was was part of that conversation. But when whatever direction this body goes for recommendation to council whether to move forward or not, that'll be part of our report back to council on the twenty ninth.

And my second question is, could this be held in advance until we have some further direction with regard to, for example, the study that's being done. This demographic study that was referenced in here is dated 12/17/2024. So there are even more lots probably in the pipeline since then. So that having been said, we don't know the timeline on that, but could we at least get a get them to give us some sort of a timeline on it and hold us in abeyance until we can find that out?

That is a potential. As soon as I find that information, I can let you know we reached out to the district yesterday. Keep in mind, generally by the zoning ordinance, the Planning Commission has thirty days to act upon something that's presented to them. That may be, again, whatever direction this body takes as a form of a as a motion, that may be a part of the motion. Okay. If this is gonna move forward, we recommend the council consider the the full study be submitted prior to you making it taking action on it. That may be part of your recommendation. I think counsel is in tune to that study. It was brought up specifically at the last meeting that they really wanna see what's gonna come about from that study. Hence, our reaching out to the district to find out a timeline that we can anticipate those results. I'd like

to make a motion. And should we should I receive a second and I'd like to make sure we have some discussion. So I'd like to make a motion that we recommend to County Council that we do not approve this particular development at this time. And we'll see where that goes. We we keep approving them one after another. Let's not approve one

See what happens.

And see where it goes. Yeah. So that's my motion.

I'll second that.

Can can I ask yeah. Can I ask the basis for for which we are recommending not approve? Because, again, this is the fifteenth time we've done this. This is the same data we get every time. And I understand the cumulative effect, but it seems like counsel's already kind of kicked the can down the road a little bit on the last one by saying we're going to wait on the study. So maybe that's our cue is that we're just following their lead. I mean, is that is that the

Well, my my reason is because as as you I know just just threw a number out there, but it's the fifteenth time we've approved. Well, we've had this in front of us and we've approved it every time, but we keep saying we're concerned about the cumulative effect. So now I'm saying let's put an end to the cumulative effect for a minute. Let's put it on pause.

Until we know what that effect

I mean, we'll just make a recommendation to counsel. We're not approving or disapproving the project. But we're saying to counsel, we

There

is We're recommending you stop and pause for a minute and have Let us Let's figure out where this is going.

Or let's figure out Because this whole good process information.

Yeah. This whole process of us representing the school district and this concurrency reviews is all relatively new to us.

And I'm not comfortable even voting on something I

don't understand here right now. I understand.

So I think that yeah. I think the school board itself

sir, no.

Actually, you know about as much as we do.

But it but

it does seem to follow Yes. Council's lead that they voted on at their last meeting to put a pause on things in Lexington, one at least over in the other area. So I think it it seems to follow where they're where they're headed.

Yeah. You

know, I'm And I like your reason a little bit better. Let's just yeah.

I was just gonna say I'm in Lexington Five over there on

the Chapin side, and I don't have a lot

of data because I don't have any kids in school, but I hear that the Chapin High School is full. Those Not the element. The middle school, I think, is full. I I mean, I'm just hearing that from neighbors. So and and they're building thousands Yes. Of homes over there. I mean, right now, I can just see my tax bill hidden when they say, well, we gotta build another high school or something. So anyway

Should've called

that's worth.

Alright.

Did you get the

Auto and Hutto. And

then hop

back in. Yep.

Commissioner Cox.

Yes.

Commissioner Beetenbaugh.

No.

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

As I understand, this is the table. Right?

Recommend the council to not take action until the parliament

I I'm for it.

Vice chairman Frost?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

Again, you you all do not have an easy task on this. I explained that before. It is a difficult process both for staff and planning commission, so I really appreciate y'all's attention and and discussion on this. Thank y'all.

There's a lot of yeah. We discussed the concurrency, the school board stuff here, but we don't really discuss the fire, EMS, traffic. Why is that? Because that's really kind of our realm as county government, not really

Fire, EMS, solid waste have data that is generally supplied publicly.

But they get sent

They they do present that information based on the matrices that have been adopted by County Council. We do have that information. The difference with school districts is because of state statutes and state regulations, they can't say yes or no. They can provide details and details only in data. Our folks have the ability to say, yes, we meet this threshold or we do not meet this threshold. We're not we're not bound by that.

Do we, like when they say, no, we don't meet this threshold, do we freak out and say, oh my god, well, we've got to stop development or do we as

We're waiting till we get to that point.

Have It done?

All of our matrices thus far have been met. Counsel is in discussions now to revise those matrices possibly. I think it'll be back on their agenda on the twenty ninth. What direction we go from there? I do not know. I do know that if if one of our local government entities says no, then it appears before planning commission as an appeal process. That appeal process is through the developer and also the entity who has said no. This body would review their information and make a recommendation to counsel whether just like you would any other amendment process. Right. Again, using this body as as an appeal process, recommending body just as we have in the past and let counsel be the final arbitrator.

I will say there have been plenty of discussions on different avenues or different scenarios if that were to be the case. I know we've got some data and some some information from other jurisdictions on how they handle growth and development. I know impact fees has always been a hot topic. With state statute and the difficulty to potentially input impact fees within Lexington County because of service areas and etcetera. It's it's a difficult task which this body would also be part of any type of impact fee discussion if it does come up.

When is the budget meeting where all departments come up and go through their budgets for the year. In that

Our budgets were due in February. It goes through review process through administration and finance. If there are items that are struck from our budget, then we do present that to counsel for a request to consider putting them back in the budget. All that transpired in May and June. We start our new fiscal year July 1, so we're on our new budget cycle.

And while I have you all, we'll have we'll have three additional amendments at the August meeting. We were supposed to have four today, but unfortunately we had some some time in this issues to get those posted within the media and get the public hearing earlier this week. So those public hearings will occur July 29. So we will have the zoning ordinance amendment for the Central Lexington County overlay in the August meeting. We'll have the open space portion of the Central Lexington County overlay at the August meeting.

And we're also bringing ordinance twenty five zero six back. That was the ordinance we discussed patio homes and the board of zoning appeals. There's been a lot more discussion by council on that to include some some items associated specifically with density. So that will be back before this body in August as well. So we'll have a full slate on the agenda next month.

Doctor. DeBrio, I did have one question. Where does at what point in that review does the traffic studies come into play?

We'll get traffic studies in play when the formal submittals are submitted. So so once it goes through concurrency and the body say, okay, yeah, let's move forward with the overall review and permitting. At that point, whatever standards are required for us to issue permits, whether it be the zoning site plans, the landscape and open space plans, which include tree mitigation, tree surveys, the full grading plans, the construction documents for roads, the traffic impact studies at that time, that's when all that information is received. On

that staff level, is it ever denied because traffic study is inefficient?

Our department generally does not review the traffic impact study for a yes or no. The traffic impact studies we look at, are there any additional improvements necessary to account for this development? Whether it be turn lanes, traffic control devices, etcetera. We look at to see what they regular require through the traffic impact study and developer will be required to initiate those within their their plans for approval.

And it's major modifications that the developer will have to do, like road changes and And then it does it

does impact the schools. I won't get into that, but that's separate from the development, you know, plan review,

but Well, one more bit of information that may end up with Planning Commission is, County Council approved funding for a transportation improvement plan. So mister Lejaye and I are both on that review committee. We'll begin the RFP process within the next couple months to acquire an engineering firm to start that traffic improvement plan study. As I explained to administration and council, I think this will be a huge benefit to not only our planning abilities, but also the citizens of Lexington County to determine exactly what we need where and what we need to really plan for.

What is the timeline on that roughly? Start to finish? Twenty years?

No. The the TIP will probably take, I would say, twelve to eighteen months just I guess. Public Works Department is taking the lead on this. Holla and I are just participating in it with again what we do day in and day out and how it's associated with that traffic improvement plan. I really think that's that's it'd be a huge benefit moving forward.

Absolutely. Yes. Excellent news. Alright, Tab G. Information only. Excellent. Road classification. Make

a motion to approve. Second.

Second. Do we need to how do we need to do these by subdivision or can we do

them all?

Done. Do them all one time?

With G? All

at one time.

Okay. Excellent. That sounds good.

And who is my second? Was

Her. Okay. Sorry. He did her. Chairwoman's got it.

Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Beetenbaugh?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Vice Chairman Frost?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

You have anything else?

You have look at these mic.

Oh, smiling.

Very quickly.

You will notice today that there is not an item that talks about training. That's a good thing. I have communicated with with Commissioner Cox. He is underway with completing the orientation training, so he'll have that done shortly. I've also spoken with Mr. Campbell about the, orientation training as well, so he'll undertake that shortly. Otherwise, everyone else has completed the training. And I have a a small, token of appreciation

for you that you

can pick up after meeting, that we provided to others in the past. So our next meeting will be August 21, and that is all I have to report.