Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning. All Lexington County committees are being broadcast live on the Lexington County Spectrum Channel 1302 and Lexington County's website meeting portal. As such, this commission meeting film today will be available for viewing anytime on demand at our county website. Mr. Campbell, will you give us an invocation? No, you will not? Please bow your heads. Good morning, dear Lord. We thank you for our great county and everything that you have been able to bless us with. Give us the strength, courage, and intelligence to guide us in all of our meeting minutes and variances and text amendments today for the greater good of the county and the people of the community. We ask this all in Jesus' name. Amen. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Meeting minutes. Do I have a motion? So moved. A second?

Second.

I agree. Commissioner Shealy?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Scott?

I wasn't here. Can I vote to approve? Yes.

Commissioner Campbell?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes. Activity reports.

Thank you Madam Chair, members of Planning Commission. A very quick activity report for you this morning. Again, this is our chart showing the latest growth in building permits back in 2013 through current. SITE BUILT AND MANUFACTURED HOMES. THROUGH TWO MONTHS INTO THE THIRD QUARTER, WE HAVE 335 SITE BUILT RESIDENTIAL PERMITS. SO WE'RE ON PACE FOR ROUGHLY 1,600 SINGLE FAMILY HOME PERMITS THIS YEAR. MANUFACTURED HOMES THROUGH TWO MONTHS, WE'RE AT 80. WE'RE ON PACE TO BE VERY CLOSE TO OUR NUMBER OF LAST YEAR, I THINK ESTIMATED AROUND 480. OUR PIPELINE MAP, WE HAVE HAD NO NEW PIPELINE SUBMITTALS OVER THE PAST TWO MONTHS. SO THIS IS AN IMPLEMENTATION FROM AUGUST THROUGH AUGUST OF LAST YEAR THROUGH THIS YEAR. AND CONCURRENCY, LIKEWISE, WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY CONCURRENCY SUBMITTALS SUBMITTED IN AUGUST. CHAIR, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO REPORT.

ACCESS POLICY VARIANCE ONE.

Good morning. The access policy variance this morning is on property of Tina Phillips. It's identified by TMS numbers 6300-04-045, 044, and 120. Robbie, can you try to get that to the presentation? It's not letting me.

It's not working, but I'll go ahead and start.

Ms. Phillips currently owns 3.74 acres at 516 Oscar Price Road, which is near Gilbert. This acreage is currently taxed as three separate parcels. Ms. Phillips' son-in-law, Sylvester Negron, is the applicant for this variance request and has received her consent to represent her. Two of the tax map numbers are shown as parcels A and B on a plat that was recorded in 1993, which you have a copy of in your packet as Exhibit A. There was a note on this plat that stated that parcels A and B were being conveyed to Phillips and appears that the intent was to consolidate these portions. and that the access would be from a 50-foot easement as shown on that plat. The other tax map number is shown on a plat that was recorded in 2002, shown as Exhibit B, and there was a note that this portion was to be consolidated with the adjoining Phillips property, but that did not appear to occur either. Today the families are proposing to reconfigure the existing parcels to create a new parcel of 1.99 acres and consolidating the remaining portions into one parcel. Mr. Negron would like to use the existing 50-foot easement that is across Kathy Harmon's property and then establish a new 20-foot easement across the remainder portion that will be in Tina Phillips's name. Ms. Harmon's parcel is also providing an easement to a 512 Oscar Price Road, and there is an adjoining parcel that is under the same ownership, and it appears that those were to be consolidated as well. And I'll go to one of our slides and you'll see that a little easier. This is an aerial photo here that shows where the 516 address is. That's just a little closer view. So these are the current conditions. You'll see the shaded in blue is the properties that are currently owned by Cindy and Thomas Harmon. The properties in red are the properties that are currently owned by Tina Phillips. And the orange line represents the existing easements. So the proposal today is to keep the existing 50-foot easement that's shown in red. The blue would be the proposed 1.99-acre parcel. The green would be the remainder of Ms. Phillips' property that would be consolidated. And the purple represents the new 20-foot easement that would be needed to get to the 1.99-acre portion. This reconfiguration does require variances to items two and three of the access policy. Item two states if an access easement is used to provide a driveway for a landlocked parcel, that access easement may only be designated over one parcel. Item three states if an access easement is used to provide a driveway for a landlocked parcel, that access easement may not serve another landlocked parcel. We do have some photos of Oscar Price Road at the driveway location. And this photo here is just looking into the existing driveway. And again, this is just the sketch that their surveyor assisted them with preparing to show what was going to be proposed. He did submit the standards to the variance, and I'll go ahead and read those into record. A, there are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the property or properties. The property owned by Tina Phillips is landlocked and can't be split further to give a new property access to the existing easement without it extending over more than one parcel or significantly reconfiguring the property owned by Kathy Harmon. Be these conditions do not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity. Other properties in the vicinity are served by an easement that are only designated over one parcel. 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. Without a variance, we would not be able to place a home down in the unused area behind Tina Phillips' house because of the easement policy. 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 neighboring residents are members of the family and have already been made aware of our plans to put a home down behind Tina's. A variance would not disturb or change the existing easement in a significant way, and others who utilize the easement will still be able to without issue. E, when deliberating a variance request, financial hardships alone cannot be considered for the basis of a variance. The consideration of a variance is not based on financial status but the unique layout of the property and the existing easement. Without the variance, we would not be able to use the unused area behind Tina's house for a home without significantly changing the property or the existing easement. And I believe Mr. Negron is here today if you have any questions for him.

Thank you. The 520, whose address is that?

The 520 is Ms. Kathy Harmon's. She's the one that's providing the easement.

Okay, she owns the, does the 512, does that have anything to do with this or is that something?

Yes, she's already providing an easement to that property. That's the property that is owned by, I believe it's family to Ms. Harmon. I'll go back to where we show. Okay, I understand that. Yes, Cindy and Thomas Harmon.

Forgive me if I missed it. Is there a letter from the Harmons? Okay.

Yes, ma'am, there is. It's included in your packet.

I was just double checking. It's towards the end, isn't it?

It's right after the variances. I didn't label it as an exhibit, but it is the next page after the standards.

there any other further discussion looks to me like it cleans it up yes it seems very self-explanatory I don't know if I fully agree with some of the standards of variance responses given that I feel like more often this is now the rule as opposed to the exception but I also don't see where it's causing any harm or I mean, it does restrict the fact that they will be able to utilize the property, at least as subdivided. So we have two items, right, that we need to vote on. Do you want them individually or together? I believe so. Okay. Do we have a motion? If anyone wants to make one?

Make a motion to approve.

I'll second. Go ahead. He can have this one. He really wants it. It's going to be fast. I'm sorry. I feel like a pause.

Commissioner Shealy.

Yes.

Commissioner Pike. Yes. Commissioner Scott. Yes. Commissioner Campbell.

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell. Yes.

Okay, so the private road variance that we have this morning is on Moose Track Trail. Austin Roberts currently owns 7.01 acres on Moose Track Trail, which is an existing private road in Lexington west of Edmond Highway. Mr. Roberts is proposing to subdivide the parcel into one tract of a half an acre where the existing home addressed as 423 Moose Track Trail is located. and the remaining 6.51 acres will be one parcel with the address of 429 Moose Track Trail. The 7.01 acres is shown on a plat that was recorded in 2024, and you have that included as Exhibit A. Tammy Parnell is the current co-owner of the private road and has provided consent to this variance request. A one-acre portion of this parcel was shown as Lot B in the original subdivision approval of Moose Trail Ranch and is shown on the final plat that was recorded in 2016, and that's included as Exhibit B. The additional 6.01 acres was from surrounding property and consolidated with the existing lot. This did not require Planning Commission approval since a new lot was being created. A private road variance was presented in June of 2016 to Planning Commission by John Parnell. This was the original request for the creation of Moose Track Trail and the creation of six lots. Two of the lots were to be for immediate conveyance, one would remain owned by the Parnells, and the other lots would be for the possibility of other family members wishing to establish lots on the private road. Planning Commission at that time had concerns with not knowing what those future lot sizes would be and voted to approve the subdivision plan for the creation of only three lots and stated that future subdividing requests would need to be presented to Planning Commission. There is a road maintenance agreement that was recorded in 2016, which you have as Exhibit C. This agreement stated that the maintenance costs would be shared by the initial three lots and stated there shall be no further subdividing of lots without Planning Commission approval. Mr. Roberts has prepared a draft of an amendment to the agreement to include this additional proposed lot. This is a plat that Mr. Roberts has had prepared of the proposed half acre portion that also shows the remainder. This is just a plat of the half acre portion Some aerial photos, you'll see the red star is where the property is located. A little closer view of his portion. And this is just showing an area of where that half acre would be located. We do have some photos along Lantern Hill Circle at Moose Track Trail. They do have their signage in place. And this is looking into the road. And this is at on Moose Track Trail at the driveway location. And this is the home that is currently at 423 Moose Track Trail. We do have a video of this road, and while that's playing, I will read Mr. Robert's standards into record. A, there are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the property or properties. An existing house already stands on the portion of the property proposed to become the half acre lot. This existing structure was in place before this request and creates a clear pre-existing physical division of the property into two distinct areas of use. This is not a hypothetical or paper division. It reflects how the property has actually been used. B, these conditions do not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity. Other lots within the Moose Trail Ranch subdivision do not have the same condition of an existing separately situated structure that already functions independently from the remainder of a larger track. The proposed lot line follows the existing condition rather than creating a new arbitrary division. C, 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. 429 and 423 say, Moose Track Trail have existed as two separate addresses for years, but both currently sit on a single undivided 7.01-acre parcel, consolidated by a plat recorded May 21st of 2024. Without this variance, the parcel cannot be legally divided to reflect its existing functional use which prevents the applicant from refinancing the 6.51 acre portion since lenders will not finance a parcel containing two existing dwellings that has not been subdivided. Denying the variance would unreasonably restrict use of a property that is already, in practical terms, functioning as two separate residences. 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 proposed subdivision does not change access to the property, which continues to be governed by the existing recorded road maintenance agreement and easement for the private road serving Moose Trail Ranch subdivision. No new road construction, additional curb cuts or change in traffic patterns is proposed. The resulting lots remain consistent in character with the surrounding subdivision and impose no additional burden on neighboring property owners. E, when deliberating a variance request, financial hardships alone cannot be considered for the basis of a variance. This request is not based on financial hardship. It is based on the existing physical condition of the property, namely two dwellings and addresses, 423 and 429 Moose Track Trail, that have existed separately for years on a single undivided parcel. While this subdivision is necessary for the applicant to refinance, the basis for this request is the property's existing long-standing physical layout not a financial hardship and mr roberts is here this morning if you have specific questions for him i have a general question it's not specific to this one uh request but

When we are approving or denying a variance, we're looking specifically at Lexington County's regulation. Any restrictions or like, for example, like this private road policy that may or may not permit such a division? Are we only looking at Lexington County? We're only approving Lexington County's portion. We're not overriding any other documents.

We're only looking at Lexington County's portion. There are certain allowances through state statute that we cannot approve projects or permits if they violate private restrictions, but that applies to zoning and building code. It does not apply.

So if we were to approve something like this and there was a deed restriction out there that said the property cannot be subdivided,

That would be a civil matter.

It still can't be subdivided, correct?

That would be a civil matter between those folks. All this is doing is stating that we can proceed with adherence to our subdivision regulations. Prior to the recording of the plat, most folks do their due diligence with those private restrictions. So this is just more or less the adherence aspect. All the other legal aspects will be later.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes, when I was looking at the video, it says in here that that's a 50-foot right-of-way.

Yes, sir.

But that road looked pretty narrow. It looked like definitely a one-lane road.

No, sir. I believe it's an unpaved road, so keep in mind that that can be grass, that can be dirt. It doesn't have to be a... strictly cleared area for the 50 feet. But no, this road was actually wide enough that two cars could pass by each other. Yes, sir. That's my question. Yes, sir.

I guess the other part I would be a little concerned about is subdividing in the future if they start breaking all this land up. And I think that was a previous concern.

Yes, sir, it was, and that was the condition when they approved the original private road was that any further subdividing would have to come back to Planning Commission.

So that restriction would still be in place, so if there was further subdividing after this, it would have to come back?

Yes, ma'am. I think you would probably want to include that if you made a motion to improve this one, just so that it's stated that you would approve this one, but further subdividing would still need to come back.

And this is the title of mobile homes that can be included with the land for financing?

I don't know if detitling. Mr. Roberts is here. He can probably answer that for us.

If you'll come up to the podium and state your name and address, too, please.

Austin Roberts, 429 Moose Track Trail. Yes, sir, that's correct. To refinance the property, I'll have to, or yes, I'll have to detitle the home to get the home and the land connected into one piece. Yes, sir.

I have a question. On the road maintenance agreement, I see the amendment in here. Is the only amendment to include if the variance passes that additional lot, or is there other changes to it?

As far as I know, it's just for the additional lot.

So that individual or... property owner would be then providing an annual fee or whatever to the maintenance of the road.

That's correct.

Okay. Because then I think it's notable that the amount of lots so far on this private road policy does allow up to 10 lots, and he's under that with this. However, it should be paved. The road should be paved. And so... How far do we, hypothetically, if this was to be approved, how far do we go with the lots before it really just needs to be a paved road?

Why are you saying it should be paved?

Because that's what the policy recommends.

It's coming off of a paved road?

Mm-hmm. If you look at the proposed versus existing versus what the policy state requires, he's met all of them except for that.

I don't have any other questions. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. I'LL SECOND IT. YES, YES.

DO YOU WANT TO ADD THE CONDITION?

YEAH, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITION THAT THEY COME BACK FOR ANY FURTHER SUBDIVISION.

SECOND.

COMMISSIONER SHEALEY?

YES.

COMMISSIONER PIKE? YES. Commissioner Scott? Yes. Commissioner Gamble?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

Next variance.

The next variance this morning is also a private road of Springwood Lane. This is the property of Denise Patterson and Y65 Holdings, LLC. They currently own 35.36 acres, which is known as Lot E on Springwood Lane, which is the private dirt road off of Bowling Springs Road near Platte Springs Road in the Red Bank area. Randall Minton is the registered agent of Y65 Holdings LLC, and he is the applicant for this variance request. Lot E is shown on a platte that was recorded in 1979. and you have that included in your packet as Exhibit A. The Platte References and Access Agreement that was also recorded in 1979, and that's included as Exhibit B. Mr. Minton is proposing to subdivide the parcel to create one approximately 20-acre parcel to sell and retain the remaining 15.36-acre parcel for his residence. And that's what you'll see on the screen now is that shaded area represents the 20-acre portion. Although the private road and road maintenance agreement exist, subdividing requires Planning Commission approval since this will be the 13th lot using this private road for access. From some history on variances on this road, February of 2024, Sharon Jordan came before Planning Commission requesting to subdivide lot F3 into two parcels. One acre would be conveyed to her son and the remaining nine acres would be for her residence. Planning Commission tabled this variance request and asked Ms. Jordan to give more information in her standards for a variance and speak to the neighbors regarding the maintenance of the road. Ms. Jordan returned in April of 2024 with updated standards and her variance request was approved. In February of 2017, Mr. and Mrs. Dale Wooden came before the Planning Commission requesting to subdivide their 15-acre track, previously described as track C1 on Springwood Lane, into two lots of approximately seven and a half acres each. They proposed to build a new home on one lot and convey the other to their son, and this request was approved. The road maintenance agreement that was recorded in 1979 does not prohibit further subdividing, so an amendment to that agreement would not be required if this variance was approved today. Some aerial photos of the area. The red star represents the 35-acre tract that they currently own. This is just the general area of where that 20-acre parcel would be located. These photos are at Bowling Springs Road at the Springwood Lane location. They do have the signage in place. And this is just at the beginning of Springwood Lane. These photos are where you'll see the for sale sign where he has the 20 acre portion. And these are just along Springwood Lane at that lot location. We also have a video of this one. And again, while that's playing, I'll read the standards. A, there are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the property or properties. The subject property is uniquely situated at the end of an existing private drive, allowing the proposed subdivision to be accomplished without creating additional crossings over neighboring properties or requiring new access through adjoining land. All proposed ingress and egress will remain entirely on the applicant's property. The property is sufficiently large to accommodate the proposed 20-acre parcel while retaining the remaining 15.36-acre parcel, preserving the rural character of the area. These unique characteristics of the property's location and existing access make the requested variance appropriate and distinguish it from other properties that do not have direct access from the existing private drive. B, these conditions do not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity. The subject property is the last parcel located at the end of the existing private drive. Because of its location, the proposed subdivision can be served entirely by access on the applicant's property without extending the private drive or crossing additional neighboring properties. Unlike other properties in the vicinity, there are no parcels beyond the subject property that would be affected by the proposed access. The property size, configuration, and location allow it to be divided into one approximately 20 acre parcel while retaining the remaining 15.36 acre parcel. These characteristics are unique to the subject property and do not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity. See, because of these conditions, the application of the ordinance to the particular property or properties would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property or properties. Because the subject property is the last parcel located at the end of the existing private drive, strict application of the ordinance would unreasonably restrict the reasonable use of the property. The property is large enough to accommodate the proposed subdivision, while retaining the remaining 15.36 acre parcel and all proposed ingress and egress will remain entirely on the applicant's property. Denying the requested variance would prevent the applicant from making a reasonable subdivision despite the availability of a safe access that does not require extending the private drive or crossing additional neighboring properties. The requested variance allows the property to be utilized in a manner consistent with its unique location, preserves the rural character of the area, and does not adversely affect adjoining properties or the public interest. 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. Authorization of the requested variance will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent properties or the quality of life for nearby residents. This subject property is the last parcel located at the end of the existing private drive, and all proposed ingress and egress will remain entirely on the applicant's property. The proposal does not require extending the private drive or crossing any additional neighboring properties. The subdivision will create one approximately 20-acre parcel while retaining the remaining 15.36-acre parcel, preserving the low-density rural character of the area. Because the request is limited to access from the existing private drive and does not adversely affect adjoining properties, public safety, or the character of the surrounding area, approval of the variance will not be a substantial detriment to neighboring properties or the quality of life within the community. E, when deliberating a variance request, financial hardships alone cannot be considered as the basis for granting a variance. The requested variance is not based on financial hardship, rather it is based on the unique physical characteristics and location of the property. The subject property is the last parcel located at the end of the existing private drive, allowing the proposed subdivision to be served entirely by access on the applicant's property without extending the private drive or crossing additional neighboring properties. The requested variance will permit the reasonable use of the property while preserving the rural character of the area, providing safe ingress and egress, and avoiding adverse impacts to adjacent property owners. The basis for this request is the property's unique location, configuration, and existing access, not the financial circumstances of the applicant. And Mr. Minton is here this morning if you have specific questions for him.

I have a question. Who's the Y65 Holdings? Who is that? Is that one of the owners, one of the previous owners?

Mr. Minton is the representative of that.

If you'll come up to the podium, sir, and state your name and address.

Randall Minton, 590 Springwood Lane.

Thank you.

Yeah, LLC. Is that your LLC? Yes, sir. It's just me. So it was just moved from your name into the LLC that you own?

Yes, sir. I'm an organic produce farmer here in Lexington County for over 10 years. It's just too much land for me to keep working. Do you have a road maintenance agreement? Yes, sir. There's one in place, and myself and my neighbor, Mr. Jim Donegal, we take care of that road, and... Keep it in good shape so you can get ingress and egress with any emergency vehicle. We had one out this past weekend, an ambulance and EMS, and no problems with them getting in and out or turning around in any location. Pretty narrow, though. Yes, sir. Some portions are with a 50-foot easement. Some of it's a 20-foot easement. But it's a great-shaped road, I should say. Everybody's able to go in and out, no problems, even with all the recent storms in the area and all. Because the tree falls or something, that's about the only thing that stops us. I see any room.

Further? No? You can sit back. I'm sorry.

I'm not sure I got a question. I guess I'm concerned that the private road policy got a lot of exceptions. Length, width, surface width, number of lots. If we approve it, we got to put some stipulations.

What are your concerns specifically with that?

The biggest concern is, are they going to try to do more lots in the future on a road that's that narrow? I mean, just from the video, it looked like it was not that improved. There were borders, I guess, or... You know, places that you could not pass a vehicle because of, you know, trees on one side and boundaries on the other.

All of our county roads look like that.

Well, true, but, I mean, this thing's a mile long. Yeah, yeah. Almost.

We certainly could put stipulations or conditions on any approval that if... there was any further subdivision that they would have to come back and present.

Absolutely.

And possibly not only amend the maintenance agreement for the road, but possibly improvements, depending. I mean, it's already non-conforming in that it's over its lot limit, width isn't what it's supposed to be. Given the nature of what Mr. Minton said he was using it for, though, it does seem as if with that condition, it's a little bit less traveled than if it was like a neighborhood that was being developed.

Yeah. It's also 35 acres. Correct. It's not like a one-acre lot is getting divided into two half-acre lots.

Correct. Correct.

Two sizable chunks of land.

Are there any existing documents or anything present to, I guess, where we keep referring to preserving the rural character of the area? Is there anything in place that would prohibit further?

The Exhibit E in your packet is the road maintenance or access road agreement is how they titled it in 1979. That agreement did not restrict further subdividing, but I don't believe that it included provisions on minimum lot sizes. Now, of course, those are private agreements that we don't research. Those are up to the individual to make sure that they're abiding by any of those guidelines. Now, unlike the Moose Trail Ranch that we just heard earlier, that was already under the 10 lots. So if you didn't put that provision for further subdividing, then technically that one could be approved up to 10 lots since the private road policy allows that. this subdivision is already over 10 lots. So even without you stating a provision, any further subdividing would have to come back to Planning Commission because it's already over the 10 lots for an unpaved road.

Yes, my concern, just general discussion, is at what point do we quit dividing lots because we're already pretty egregious on our... Or we make a better road. Correct.

Well, my counterargument to that would be, why is there a limit of lots on a private road? I didn't make the limit. Question for staff. Right. But that's, you know, that's my same point. Why is there a limit?

Yes. I think we've discussed this many times that I think staff's aware that our private road policy and access policy as to why the number of lots were put on there. I'm presuming that the time when it was adopted had to do with a maintenance cost and emergency management to access those lots. But obviously, it's on our punch list when we get to that point to update the access policy and road maintenance agreement and private road policy on updating those numbers and parameters they can subdivide with them. Blue nonconformity standards. I know y'all have heard that many times about nonconformity standards with our subdivision regulations.

Yeah, I think my point is more of a, it's an arbitrary limit that was put in place that, you know, there may have been a reason, but nobody could seem to think of the reason.

I do think it probably has to do strongly with the emergency staff, but I guess if it were paved, met the width turnaround, then you wouldn't necessarily have to have a limit. reasonably, you know what I mean? In this case, we don't really, we aren't meeting certain road requirements, whether it needs to be updated or not, and that then would take lots out of the question. I don't really have a, personally, I don't really have an issue with subdividing it, particularly for the use and the size of it and all of that, and the non-conforming will have to come back if they did propose further subdivision, but mean just for safety I do understand the concerns of the road and that's why I say maybe the condition of updating the policy or the maintenance agreement if you were to have to come back I suppose could be a condition that I mean at some point we may need to ensure that there's improvements to it it were to come back again I think that is the main issue I have is this is a safety of it for everybody along the way and then of course he's the last person at the end of that road he's the last they're gonna get to and it's not meeting some of the specifications that would be my only concern but since it is already non-conforming the size of a lot And he agreed to maintain it or help maintain it, so there is that. I don't know if anybody has any further thoughts or wants to make a motion, but I do think we're kind of restricted with current conditions at this point. So it's a matter of if you want to put some stipulations on it or... want to approve as is, I guess.

Looking at the video and that's my main concern is safety.

And I don't really know, and I'm not asking staff to be able to pull this out either, but when we hit over the limit, when those variances were approved and what the discussion was like. But obviously, we as a commission, even if it's not we, these individuals, set a precedent with allowing that previously. And so we have to take that into consideration. Are we actually, if he's willing to take that risk, if you will, we going to restrict him being able to subdivide it if he's willing to take on to the existing conditions as is it's already kind of been set a precedent that we've allowed it to pass in the past if we if we uh

applied the condition that there would need to be road improvements upon any further subdivision, meaning after today. Would that happen before it came back for approval to the Planning Commission, or would it come back asking the same thing

If, in my opinion, quickly, if the commission decides to approve the variance with conditions for any further requests, those would apply to every property that uses Springwood Road for access. So if another homeowner along the road... approached Donna or I requesting, hey, I'm thinking about buying this, I want to subdivide it, that we would pull those commission notes and say that, hey, these were the requirements. And I think they would have to demonstrate that those requirements are going to be met or are met prior to coming back to you all.

And improve to what standard? I'm asking the commission more so.

So you can be very specific. Are you talking about width? Are you talking about surface? Are you talking, you know, very specific about what standards that we would address. Of course, Don and I don't have the eye that our land development folks or our public works folks have, but we can take GoPros, we can ask them to drive the roads and assess those conditions.

I think the general concern is obviously emergency responding vehicles that they can get in and get out to do what they need.

Also include fire marshal's office on that as well. Proper ingress and egress. One thing to mention too, similar to zoning, each variance request stands on its own merit. So they have a variance that is within the same area, but it may be other variance that comes up within the same. While we have the standards for variance to prove the hardships and all those standards. So I don't know if I would let that be a concern.

You're speaking about the presidents that we may or may not be setting.

And just to clarify on that, what I think Robbie's intent there is if we're talking about a property that is very close to the front of the road, right, they shouldn't be held responsible for bringing up conditions to the rear of the road. I think that's what he's talking about. We're saying these variances still stand alone. The beginning of the road does look a little better maintained, a little wider because it's getting a little more use as opposed to the ones that are at the very end that get less use. So the maintenance obviously is less.

Speaking of specificity, if we were to put a stipulation on it for road improvements, would it be unreasonable to make that condition that it's required with any further subdivision that emergency management staff needs to assess the road and whatever their recommendations are is what the actual Road improvements would then be what the commission recommends as required?

We can certainly ask public safety to review it. The commission cannot make a recommendation that is more restrictive. Right. So just keep that in mind, but yeah, definitely.

Wouldn't they recommend within that, maybe they say, yeah, bring it up to policy standard or... It's fine.

I would think the emergency management would kind of give it a go-no-go. Yeah, we can use it. No, we can't. And then someone with more of a construction engineering background would look at it and determine what would need to be done. And it may or may not be up to standards. It may just be widening it or something. Right, right. They may just say water is good.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with it not being paved. I know the expense of paving a mile of road. But, I mean, it's possible to expand it, make it a better surface.

Or grade it.

Yeah, that kind of stuff. Make it wider. And I like the comment of having somebody look at it. It really has to go in and out of there.

Well, I don't think we should even be the ones that could say what it should be. And if the policy needs to be updated, regardless of what that looks like, we don't know what that's going to look like. So not to put it on someone else, but I'd feel more comfortable with them stating what they would need or require to reach the residents in the back. So I don't think that's an unreasonable request in the motion. And then I think maybe everybody would feel a little bit more comfortable with it.

I mean, I think there's definitely got to be some stipulations because just looking at this video and the soil composition and topography, I find it hard-pressed to believe that a fire truck can access the back of it at this time.

And the variance is for the subdivision also, but it is something that we can put in the recommendation for approval with conditions so that... Everybody's, you know, feeling a little bit more comfortable with it. With that, though, does anybody have a motion, or shall I start?

I'll take a motion. We approve this with the understanding that any additional thoughts have to come back to us. And part of that, it should have some kind of a review by the safety.

For the road?

Yeah, for the road.

Conditions.

Review by whom?

Public safety?

Public safety, yeah.

And it will come back for anything since it's non-conformant?

Right.

And if I may add, it's in the same light, but the review with recommendations as to what those improvements should be.

I think we've got to make an addition to that motion as well for the right-of-way. We're definitely really narrow in there in some areas, and I think the more plots you put in, the

Would that be part of the overall? Could we could we amend it to say a review by Public Safety for the all the requirements that are non-conforming in the current policy to provide recommendations for improvements?

Trying to say is additional subdivision will require an independent review by Lexington County Public Safety personnel. potentially a follow-up review by Public Works as far as the overall design and engineering of the road. That may include additional provisions to expand the right-of-way or riding surface.

Okay. I think he just made the motion. I'm just kidding.

That's better. Pam, would you like to make the motion? An amended motion, so to speak?

Yes, I will take a minute motion to approve this with the language that you just mentioned. How's that?

Second.

Commissioner Shealy? Yes. Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Scott?

Yes.

Commissioner Campbell?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

Thank you. And now, here from Lexington School District 4.

Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I will introduce the folks from Lexington School District 4. With us today is Dr. James Nutter. He is the superintendent and also Mr. Justin Newton. Just to kind of... SEGUE INTO THIS PRESENTATION, OVER THE PAST YEAR, YEAR AND A HALF, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION OVER CONCURRENCY WHICH INVOLVES PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AND AS PART OF THAT DISCUSSION, THERE'S CONCERNS AS FAR AS HOW SCHOOL DISTRICTS ARE PREPARING FOR GROWTH and development within their areas. We've worked very closely with Lexington District 4. I think they have been very, really upfront in trying to address the growth that is coming to their area. The general area around Lexington School District 4 is probably one of the more, I guess, higher growth areas we're anticipating over the next five to 10 years. And again, the district, I think, has done a great job trying to get ahead of this curve. So without further ado, Gentlemen, if you will introduce yourself, go to your presentation. And, again, we tried to get a couple school districts in here. I know District 4 was really, really up front on this and out front of the growth in the area. They've been very detailed with their reports on concurrency. So I think the information they'll provide will be a great deal of information to kind of see, again, how they're going to address the needs within their area.

Chair Mitchell and Commissioners, Director Derrick, thank you very much for having us here today. I'm Justin Nutter. I serve as the Superintendent in Lexington IV. I also have our Chief Operations Officer, Justin Newton. We appreciate the opportunity to share with you. Probably the most important thing that we want to share, though, is appreciation for what you have been doing for us. The concurrency process, the transparency, the work of Director Derrick and the team and you all has been very helpful in helping us be aware and to be able to take proactive and strategic informed action as far as the potential growth coming to our district. What I want to do this morning in just a short time is share the unique situations with our district that pertain to growth, share our current reality. We have engaged a demographic study and also a capacity study within the last year, and then share what our plans are moving forward. So as far as our district, Southern Lexington County, as you know, around 3450, as far as student population, we'll see a little bit more about that in a little bit. One of our primary structures that helps us with growth is the fact that we are a single feeder system. And that's strategic to utilize our facilities and to accommodate for growth. doesn't necessarily help us in other things such as accountability and things like that, but it specifically helps us utilize the facilities that we have and the potential growth and the diverse population that we have. So we serve from 3K full day at our early childhood center all the way through 12th grade across seven schools that are a single feeder system, meaning the kids go from across Lexington 4 in that same system all the way through. You can see where our student population is on the left within our district, and then you can also see where our school locations are. Our schools have traditionally been situated along the 321 corridor that cuts through the district. It's the most established infrastructure, and it allows us, even though our students may be spread out, it allows us to... meet their needs and also be accessible to all parts of our district. You know that our district is also fairly rural and we have very limited business and industry. So we see that in a situation where when we talk about the index of taxpayer ability, we are the ninth smallest index of taxpayer ability among all school districts in South Carolina. So our tax base and our taxable property base to generate revenue is very, very limited. And that is something that I credit our board, our leadership over the course of many decades has known that and has worked with that to help us be in a strategic situation to even deal with the growth that we have right now potentially coming. Where you can see this is in taxes, right? And so comparing the districts in Lexington County, you can see that our population has a substantially higher millage, total mills, than any other district. And that goes for operating mills and operating school funding is into two categories, right? Operations, which is your storage, teachers, your electricity, those type things. And then debt service is what we're talking about when we talk about buildings and additions and those type things. So you can see the collective tax burden that our population has taken on. Why is it so big? Well, again, the taxable base is small. So when you look at the value of a mill on the screen on the right, the value of an operating mill for us is right at $34,000 per mill. And you can see the other districts. So for us, as I have there, for an operation mill, for us to raise money to add one teacher it's going to require us to raise millage 2.5 mils. Comparable, use Lexden 1 at the high end, one mil increase in Lexden 1 would result in over 12 certified positions. So that is a challenge operationally. But then we get to debt service, which is what we're talking about here. And you can see, again, we have our debt service mills are substantial. But the value of that mill, again, because of our lack of industry and just our reality, is fairly small. So our ability to capture and engage individuals Taxes that go toward capital improvements is very, we need to be very strategic in what we do. With that being the case, one question that our tax base often ask and our citizens, and they are dedicated to our students and to the public school students of Lexington School District 4, but a question that they often ask, if we have the highest millage rate, why doesn't the district generate more revenue? Well, the simple answer to that is the value of the mill, right? And so what our... What our... The situation is, if we look at the root cause, it's just that small industrial base within the parameters of our district. With that being the case, our school leadership, and I have to commend our board because our school leadership focuses their priorities on utilizing the facilities that we have. Our oldest school is on the bottom, Swansea Freshman Academy, the old Swansea Elementary School. It was built in 1973. On the top is our Early Childhood Center. It's our last school that was built in 2010. The guiding principle that I put here is what we consistently use in Lexington for. And I know everyone does, but I just, it's important to us that we provide the highest quality educational environment for students at the lowest possible expenditure to the taxpayers. So that is a challenge as we look at this growth that is coming. Historically, we have not had this growth. I could take this back another 10 years. I could go 20 years. And you can see this is the 11th day of school enrollment, which is after we go by law over after 10 days. Anybody who's registered who is not there, there's called a 10-day drop. So schools go off of that 11th day. And you can see here that actually this past year, we have reduced in number by 100 students. on our 11th day, even though we have this growth that is anticipated to come. You can also see, though, that the average is right around, the average is right at 3450 over a course of a 10-year window. That is very unique that we have not had a lot of variance. You can see the last time that it went down to like 33. If you look at 2021 coming out of the pandemic, we were only five students off from where we are today. So what leads to this? And I know you know this, but these are things that we look at. There is subdivision yield decay, and our demographic study showed that, that we have some established home subdivisions. The people living there are not moving. They're getting older. The kids have come through and the kids are gone. So it's yielding a lower number of students coming to us, even though the houses are still there, right? The housing market, you all know, we have 11 subdivisions that have currently been approved for our district. The breaking the ground on any of those 11, we have not seen yet, but we appreciate the fact that we know that they are there. The charter school options. I know that Superintendent Price talked about this back in the fall last year. That is just a variance that all of us in public education do not know how that is going to affect us. What I do know is that we have to provide and our commitment is to provide for every student within our area, right, within our district. And then yield indexing. And the yield indexing is what I'm going to show you now. If we were to do a historical cohort approach with our demographic study, which would be a normal approach, it would show that we would have very little growth, right? But we know that that's not the case or the potential. So what yield indexing is is where the demographers come in and they look at what is that neighborhood, what is the potential yield per household that is going to come from that subdivision. based on its location its cost uh the the price of the house the housing market the amount of time it's going to go from the beginning phase to the end phase to be fully built out that type thing okay our yield that we just received is average across our district would be 0.42 per house We compare that to the last main subdivision that was built in our district, Liberty Ridge, in 2022 started. And we can look at the students that we get from that right now, and it's at 0.46. So this demographic study that we just got hits right about that, right? And so at full build-out of these 11 subdivisions at the moment, we would have 2,279 homes, and that would yield for us, using that yield analysis, around 1,000 students addition. So with that being the case, we did our demographic study where every school was looked at, and this shows the forward thinking and the strategic approach that Lexington Ford has had over decades in the sense that our current capacity is close to 5,000 students, 49,000, 15,000. So with that, on our 11th day today, we would have 1500 seats. And with our single feeder system, we're not tied into a specific where are these students being and this neighborhood compared to this neighborhood, that type thing. So you can see across elementary, middle, and high, we would have some capacity, even post-buildout. So if you take these 11 residential subdivisions to full buildout, at that yield, we would still have around 600 student capacity at that time. This just divides it down by school because our capacity study also looks at it by school. And you can see, again, in the right-hand column, the capacity that would be there at that time. So our strategy in Lexington 4 First of all, a master plan. We have done that, and if you see on the screen, we have engaged multiple comprehensive facility studies, our last one, again, in the spring of this year. We also are engaging a demographic study, and when I say it's ongoing, Mr. Newton just met this week, again, with our demographers, because they have recommended that we continue to engage this as we move forward, not wait five years and pick it up again because of what we know, right? And so we need to be fluid in our response, if that makes sense. So we also are looking at targeted expansion. Out of those, I went off track, my bad. Hitting the wrong button. I know you'll take care of me. So looking at those schools that are here, again, our middle school at 170 capacity, when we talk about targeted expansion, we have room on that location to build classrooms. So that's what we're talking about when we talk about targeted expansion. It was also not beneficial for us, if at all possible, to engage in a school as a whole, right? Because, again, a school, whether it's built in Lexington 4 or whether it's built in Lexington 1, that's agnostic, right? I mean, if it costs $50 million, it's going to cost $50 million either place. And that impact on our taxpayers is going to be substantial. So the fact that we want to prioritize classroom conditions or additions, and we want to ensure that our facilities can grow with the demand. So if the build-out is going to take five years, we want to be responsive to that, but we don't want to overshoot, if that makes sense. On the same way, with the way that we can engage capital funding, And I know that you all, I know Superintendent Price talked about this. There are two different ways to do that. We can do that through a constitutional 8% debt limit against the property that we have, the assessed value property that we have. For us, that is not an option for us to build additions or to build a school, right? So that would involve us engaging a bond referendum. And a bond referendum, just as we presented to our board and to our public, that is a two- to four-year process at minimum from beginning the bond referendum, even the talk of it, to actually breaking ground or even closing. leading a facility to be able to move in. So that timeline, again, makes it where we have to be responsive to what we currently have going on. So in summary, currently right now, we were at full build-out, or we have 1,500 seats available today across our continuum. So that is because we have done a great job in Lexington for historically over time. If we go to a full build-out, we're around a 500-seat surplus at the moment with these 11 subdivisions, even with 2,279 tract homes, if that yield index is accurate. But we want to respond strategically because of our reality. And finally, I'll end where I started with appreciation for you all because your transparency, your work, and the concurrency process is very helpful to us to be able to know and to make strategic decisions as far as what we need to do. Yes.

I appreciate all your comments about concurrency because I think it's a good thing. I think it's a way to communicate the growth to the school district, which in a lot of situations doesn't happen. What I wanted to ask is you mentioned that you would basically add on to certain schools as opposed to building new schools. So if you add on to a school, what's your time limit on that? And how do you fund it?

So if we are funding it, it would be through those, through a bond referendum.

Okay. So you're looking at roughly a five-year, well, you'd be... Well, it...

And it depends on how much we need to add on. So, for example, right now, Francis Mack Intermediate School, fifth and sixth grade, we are engaging a construction project there right now. It is not costing our taxpayers, taxpayers of Lexington County. It is being funded through a grant through the State Department of Education. Because that we qualified for, applied for, our board and our leadership, and purposely it's targeted because of our index of taxpayer ability, because of our needs. And the state came in and did their own facility stay three years ago now. So that process, when we are fully in to that addition, which is eight classrooms, some fine arts rooms, repurposing some old fine arts rooms into additional classrooms, that type thing, it will substantially help the current overcrowding of that school. Okay. that process from the approval of the funds to the completion is going to be about two and a half years. And again, our contractor, our architect, they have done an amazing job. We have stayed on track the entire time, you know. And so we are, so that's what, it depends on the amount of the addition.

Roughly how many students do you have per classroom?

So our current – and, again, our current class size targets were done – were the basis of our facility study and our demographic study. So we are below the state – Maximum. But we are around 25. Our target is 25 per class at the elementary levels. And then at the high school level, it's all relative because you're, but it could go up to 30. It all depends on because it's a high school schedule. They aren't like a class where in elementary school where they follow the same schedule.

What would you say your optimum number would be? One-on-one, obviously.

Yes, it would be within that range. We've had that same range anywhere from 20 to 25, depending on the age range and the course. And we've been able to consistently stay with that. I do know a lot of times, and it's something that we look at, and that schools utilize with portables to have temporary engagement of surplus. And students that come at the current time, and with this new addition at Francis Mack, we will have no portables in our district at this time. That's another avenue besides just maxing out class size if there was a sudden rush, right, is also bringing in portable space while you're building established brick and mortar space. Again, for us, our strategy has been to not have to engage that if at all possible because it's not financially beneficial in the long run to our taxpayers. But again, both of those things, it's a very, very astute point that class size and also temporary classrooms or redesignation of schools, grade levels, that type thing, are things that we all in education have to look at. I would say that's one of the challenges with the charter school, private schools, those type things, is that as we had there, it can impact different grade levels as well. It isn't necessarily consistent. So you could have a surplus that arises in the public school at a high school level or at the primary school level. You know, our plan and our strategy is to have it, you know, consistent across, provide, and that's the advantage of our single feeder system again. So we don't have to respond to that. But all of those things are variables that we look at.

Out of curiosity, you mentioned 25 per class. What is the state maximum for the elementary school?

So, again, it depends on the grade. But when you get to third, fourth, fifth, it could go up to 30, depending on the subject.

Well, what's it like in first grade, just out of curiosity?

So first grade would be at 20. First grade is a lower because of the reading target. But, again, I don't have those memorized because our targets are below those, but it's around there.

Have you looked at what the – the known development that's coming, what that will do to your mill value. I assume it's agricultural land getting converted to owner-occupied 4%.

So that is a great question, and it's hard to calculate, right? Because as far as operational mills, those values come from taxable property, but it's different for the different values of the property. So if you have a $100,000 home, that's different even in what is taxed, right, with the different values. single occupancy dweller. The main thing that we do not have currently is just established and substantial. We have established industries. We have great industries there that we have in our district, but the amount of them is... not just our taxable base, but also the values that are there.

Yeah, I'm curious if it would lower the mill overall, because you're going to have more tax income, obviously, but your expenses could exceed what income you're going to get.

So I don't know which is... And again, it's going to be an ongoing balance, right, over that time period.

Out of curiosity, I remember many years ago with the Gaston Copper recycling debacle, which was in Lexington District 4. I was with the Department of Revenue at that point in time, and I handled that case. What has happened with that particular site?

So as far as what specifically has happened, that is not my purview. I know that is there, but what I do know, and I appreciate you bringing that up because, again, when Nassau...

It was AT&T Nassau prior to that.

They were... So like that property, talking about millage, was valued at like $60 million. And then overnight they sold to Gaston Copper, which was then valued at $5 million. Yes, I remember. So at the time that that happened, our district had already established their budget for that fiscal year. So think about that's where... a lot of our millage values, our millage counts had to go up. One thing that I do appreciate, even though we show that millage, is that we have not had an operational millage increase. for double digit years now. We have consistently operated within what we currently have in order to value our taxpayers. But that also has not kept us from maximizing, like you said, the student-teacher ratio. the classroom. I just appreciate our board and our leadership in really maximizing the classroom. So the other things that we have, we can work with. So just a simple example, not just for myself as superintendent, but the three before me, our office of the superintendent is myself and one .25 employee. who also works with personnel. So we have a very lean district level, even our school administrators, non-teacher, and also our programs, because we need to be strategic and maximize our funds for our facilities and also for our teachers.

So I take it there is no operating business at that Gaston Copper location at this point?

I have not been invited to visit it. So I was at Michelin last Friday. It was a great visit. I have not visited Gaston Copper.

Another question, if you don't mind. At what percentage occupancy, because this has been brought up, and I don't think any of us really know, And what percentage occupancy in a school, like in a projection or whatever, are you looking at? We need to add space. We need to add, is it 80, 90, 110, 120? Is there a number?

So there are a number of things there. I would say around 70, 75, you're starting to look at that. But it's more so there's occupancy, which, again, when you look at, you can have your facility occupancy, which the demographic or the facility study can do, which is every classroom and that type thing. You then have your program occupancy. occupancy so what we're showing is our program so because you can have a like a band room that is a significant piece of square footage right and you could say well it doesn't necessarily have to be a band room we could split that you know we could but again it's about programs right yeah i think from a planning at least probably the council and the planning commission um

There's really no line in the sand where we say there's too many, and we have to pause or whatever development and deny concurrency at that point. We don't have a number. We don't have a line in the sand, so we're kind of guessing. I didn't know if you kind of knew.

As a public school, we are committed to educating every student. So we don't have a line of sand on that either. We just have to adjust.

The line I was looking for more so was at what point is it going to drive new construction?

And that's the challenge that we currently have and why it is so great that we are getting the information and being transparent. The concurrency process is very helpful for us because Yes, it is a moving target, which is why we're continuing with our demographic experts helping us even as we move forward. Our current yield is 0.42, but two neighborhoods go in, and depending on the price point of the houses, the different things, that yield could go up. It could...

That was specifically for single-family home on average, right? I imagine, I mean, I don't know what's going in there, but are they more starter home type or don't know?

No, it just says single-family homes. Sometimes they'll relate to us what projection they are looking at as far as market rate or intended buyer.

I would imagine a starter home would have a higher yield than...

I guess the line in the sand for me is when we're pushing students out into portables, because I see portables as a significant security issue. And, I mean, I would not want a child out in a portable.

I would agree that portables are a challenge. Our campuses and one of Mr. Newton's primary objectives is safety in our administration. Inside the portable, there's no objective difference in the instruction that's going on. I mean, the portables, but there's a lot of operational upkeep that is exponentially more than if it were brick and mortar inside of the school. And the long term, when we look back at the district's policy and what our objectives are, when you look there about long term stewardship, a portable does not hit that. about quality and functionality, it does. But again, there's a value to those, like when we're talking about if we have rapid growth, there's a value, but it should not be a long-term value. And that is something, again, that I think the Planning Commission and the county has helped us with over time, even several years ago with the different regulations on mobile homes and things like that that helped stabilize our population and enable us to have a more stable and strategic growth. Because again, we as a public school, we take everyone who comes to the door. And that's the value of the portable, is if you're looking at growth and you need to make sure sustainable growth before you lock into a brick and mortar. Because what you don't want is empty classrooms, right? Because that costs us as well. Right.

Can you go back to the slide that showed the capacity of each of your schools? So, all right, you have, I'm sorry, you have an early childhood center, then you have the primary school and elementary school. So tell me, what's the difference between the primary and the elementary schools? Yes. One to two and grades three to four?

Yes, ma'am. And if you, that is a unique setup there. It's on Lewis Rass Road, right in between Swansea and Gaston. And it's actually on the same plant. It's actually on the same location. And they actually, like, share a kitchen, for example. When that was built back in 2000, one of the strategies to minimize the cost of the taxpayers was to, with a common cafeteria, other space that cost, you could have smaller schools. smaller setup, but also take care of that capital cost.

I guess the point that I was trying to make here is, you know, as in other school districts, you may have an opportunity to bus to another school, but you don't have that capability in your system.

That is correct. And again, that goes back to what our strategy is to maximize our ability to educate students. with the schools that we have. So we are a single feeder, and this Swansea Freshman Academy, built in 1973, we repurposed it when we, in 2000, when the elementary and primary were built. We used to have a strand in Gaston, a strand in... in Swansea. But we repurposed that building and still use it as a ninth grade academy standalone to basically alleviate overcrowding at the high school. So we didn't just do away with that structure. That's where we have tried to be strategic with. So that is a challenge that we have when we look at the population growth. A lot of our neighborhoods are coming from the White Knoll area, obviously. And so that is a challenge that our demographers have said, and I know Mr. Newton has had that discussion with them as far as at what point, like a trigger point would be, as Mr. Sheely was talking about, but when would we need to, if we had to build a new school, Build a school. What grades is that going to encompass? Are we going to stay single feeder or are we going to split up into two? All of those things are specific questions that we are asking, thinking about, considering. And again, we don't know the extent of the growth, the timing of the growth. But the fact that we are even partnering with you all and getting this information helps us to have eyes wide open about it, right?

I think that one thing that helps us is when you fill out that report and you let us know based on the subdivisions that you are already aware of that are in the pipeline. if you give us the net number that you have after consideration of those subdivisions so that we know whether a new subdivision would overwhelm you.

Absolutely. That is what we are committing to do. And again, currently with the ones that we have and our net yield WE'RE LOOKING AT . AND WE ARE STATING THAT AT OUR CURRENT SITUATION, WE HAVE CAPACITY OF 4915, PROGRAM CAPACITY. SO RIGHT NOW, WE ARE NOT We are making educated decisions, right? And that is appreciated because a new housing development goes up and there's a lot of, what are we going to do? Well, here and working in partnership with you all, we are able to have that knowledge to be able to help our community. also to make intelligent decisions about what we need to do, whether we need to build, whether we need to.

Did you all do the study internally or did you outsource it to someone?

We actually, when you look at our study, Dr. Nutter's already mentioned too, three years ago we did a facilities conditions assessment, which basically went in and looked at all of our schools and made sure and kind of gave us more of a capacity of what we're doing. Then what we've done was we partnered with Mosley Architects and Wolpert for the demographic and facility and utilization portion of the study. That part is where we looked at enrollment projections, student impact analysis in terms of the subdivisions that were being added, and then as well as how we are currently using our buildings in terms of utilization. So we basically have now used three different groups for studies, but we also, at the same time, are doing it in-house. So, for example, the facility ended in the spring. We had seven subdivisions at that time. We've had four more that's been added since then. So we use in-house the student yield number of that 0.42 to kind of keep up to date and calculate that. NOW, I DID MEET WITH THEM, OUR DEMOGRAPHERS, AGAIN, EARLIER THIS WEEK, AND THEY HAVE RECOMMENDED THAT WE CONTINUE TO DO THIS ANNUALLY IN TERMS OF THE DEMOGRAPHIC PORTIONS OF IT WITH THE STUDY, AND THEY'RE GOING TO HELP US IN TERMS OF WHEN THEY COME THROUGH AND YOU ALL PROVIDE US THAT INFORMATION, WE PROVIDE IT TO THEM, AND THEN THEY WILL CONTINUE TO KIND OF HELP GIVE US THOSE NUMBERS AND KEEP US UP TO PAR IN TERMS OF THAT. DO THEY PROVIDE YOU?

BECAUSE SURELY THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME type data of yields compared to different price-pointed homes and single families, basically by dwelling type.

Yeah, I mean, they did, and there was a lot of other stuff that also went into that. They looked into the census data as well as birth rates. They looked at, you know, historically our yield total in terms of other subdivisions and subdivisions of the same price points and so forth. So that's where they came up with that 0.42 yield for us. When I asked them earlier about it, you know, this week with us having four more, would that yield number change? They said they felt very confident that that 0.42 would be the yield number to follow. And they said, though, as we monitor this as it goes and dirt is broken in and people start moving in, that that number, they will update it as we go. But the 0.42 yield is pretty much where they have us there with that. Is that a public report? We've shared it with our board, and we can more than welcome provide that to y'all as well, what we've had. I wouldn't mind looking at it if y'all want to send it in. Yeah, that's no problem.

Did anybody else have any questions? I'm curious, are there any metrics in your planning process that maybe weren't accounted for in some of those concurrency reviews and questions that you may think would be advantageous in making decisions?

I think that I can't think of anything off the top of my head. I think that what Director Derrick has sent us, what we feel like on our side, that has been very beneficial. And I would also say that our demographers are the experts. So that's where I would go with that.

I mean, I think we've had many discussions where District 4 in particular is a little bit different than the other districts in that you don't have multiple feeder schools for each grade or grades such that The cumulative numbers, as Commissioner Pike was talking about, that we over and over were like, well, we've approved how many or recommended to approve how many subdivisions, but because there's a delay in build-out and you feeling that effect, what, how much is too much, how much is too little? And to some degree that cannot really be quantified, but we can have a range. And yours is in particular a one-to-one ratio of this many... through your studies can provide numbers or ranges of numbers and you can prepare and per project even. And I think a lot of us have been very curious about that because it gets a little more compounded when you have four middle schools and where is the exact subdivision or development because it's only going to affect maybe some of the schools within the district and so on and so forth. So it makes it very a little more complicated in other areas, but for yours it is a very good case study of one-to-one I know I definitely, we were all pretty much on board with cumulative numbers. And that was the only thing that I think that we felt like we were missing. Or sometimes, you know, we would have to keep track of how many we had approved per district so that we could kind of, where do we stop? Where do we not stop? Where do we take a breather? What do you need from us on that? So that, you know, you're not overloaded.

Yeah, so the variable of attendance zones that you... Again, with what we were sharing there at the beginning, that is probably if we had extensive growth in a short period of time or even a sustained period of time. looking at that single feeder. And right now is very beneficial and has been for 20-plus years to utilize what we have to keep everything along that 321 corridor. That helps with everything from bus routes to all the components, operational components of our district. It also helps culturally. I mean, those students know each other, and they go through. It isn't like they're coming from different schools. As we have growth, that is something that we will have to look at, but we would not be looking at it right now unless our mill value was able to rise and we had that. That would not be a substantial impact. We would be able to distribute the load more across. That's kind of where we are, but that is a factor that, yes, does play in at the moment.

Well, and we definitely want to be fair and balanced about the decisions, but we can't necessarily also treat all the districts equally because they're not. And so... It may come off as we're more restrictive in other districts, but there's a different growth value. Yes.

We understand. And I would just go back to these variables that were brought up, and the one on the top left is common to everyone. big charter schools from gray ALA, different things, to homeschools, to smaller ones that come and go. And the challenge for us as public is we are committed to everyone. But that is a factor right now. State regulations with... way across schools and districts starting this coming year. It's just variables. It's kind of like college sports where you just don't know where everything is. That's part of the challenge.

If the state were to pass the bill for concurrency to include schools. Do you think that would give y'all some more leniency on being able to give us more feedback on as far as can or can't handle a certain number? I don't want to get you in trouble.

Work will be transparent. I mean, you know, again, we serve the taxpayers of Lexington County. We serve the students there. So We're kind of apolitical in that we appreciate the concurrency and the transparency, and that's where we're going to partner with you all and with everyone involved. It's far better at the moment and all that has happened to help us be informed instead of trying to demystify things that time that goes up. Yeah, I think clear communication. Yeah.

Well, I think this has been very helpful because, first of all, when we get concurrency requests for District 4, I think we need to be very mindful of that because any influx affects you more than perhaps it would another school district because you do have that single feeder system. I think one thing that you could give us that would be helpful would be your average amount of students per class and how much that would, you know, a new subdivision would increase that.

We can certainly share that. We shared that in our board meeting this past month. That is not a problem.

I guess a comparison of what it would be, what it is now, and then what it would be with the influx of students.

And that's basically what we're saying when we say available seats. Yeah. Because our available seats are coming off of that calculation.

Your available seats are set at your target.

Yes. Demographers use that. And we're also looking at, so when we talk about our program capacity, when we're saying those available. that could be a classroom that does not have a teacher there right now. But going off of our, if it's 25 per class, okay, we could put 25 here, right? I would say that that is a component that doesn't just deal with debt service and building because there's an operational cost. And there's an operational cost, as you all know, anytime we build it. and our teacher in that classroom, as I was showing, that for us is a 2.5 increase on operational millage for us to just... Then that plays into the per-pupil expenditure and the EFA funding from the state, that type thing. But again... That's why I'm saying is that you kind of have, when you're looking at doing that calculation, it's kind of built into what our demographic study showed.

Great. Any other questions? Comments?

I don't have any. I just want to say thanks.

Thank you. That was a very good presentation. Thank you. Super appreciate you coming, having this conversation.

Excellent presentation. Thank you all very much. We really appreciate it. We continue to welcome our partners.

One last thing, real quick. Is there anything you need from us? Commission. Can we provide you something?

Well, I would say that, you know, the information that Mr. Derrick has been providing us has been probably the most beneficial thing that we've had. It keeps us ahead of the curve in terms of community members asking about things like that, as well as board members. And then also from a standpoint of operations, it helps us get a little bit of a head start of kind of knowing what we need to do and help with targeting what things we need to have as a district in place for growth. So we appreciate everything that y'all do, and thank y'all for all that y'all do provide us.

Thank you.

And thank y'all. I mean, y'all have been great to work with with the concurrency process, so I look forward to continuing to work with y'all. Thank you.

Thank you for scheduling that. Appreciate it.

Let's get some more. We do have District 1 will be in our October meeting. District 1, as Dr. Nutter mentioned, presented last fall on their demographic study. This is Phase 2. This will be part of their facility study they'll be presenting on. How about District 3? They're getting some growth, but not crazy. I've not spoken to District 3, but we can definitely reach out and see if we can get them on as well. District 2 is having a facilities and demographic study taking place as well. We can definitely get with District 2 and kind of line up all the school districts to come speak.

Remember I asked, it was, I don't know, six months ago now, from what the yield rate was, so that was helpful, getting an actual yield rate.

District 4 has been very proactive. They have been very proactive. I know, as Commissioner Pike mentioned, I think they're one of the few districts when they submit for their concurrency, they give you the aggregate of what has already taken place with the reviews and the impact as a whole.

Subdivision bonds? Information only? All right. Road classifications? Motion to approve? Make a motion to approve. Second. Second.

Commissioner Shealy?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Scott?

Yes.

Commissioner Campbell?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

Madam Chair, I do have just a couple items. First and foremost, I want to welcome Brian Scott. This is Brian's first meeting as a planning commissioner. He comes over from our Board of Zoning Appeals, so his transition has been very smooth. So, Brian, appreciate you on the board and look forward to working with you over the next few years.

Glad to be here. Welcome.

Thank you. And the other information I have is I know we've been in discussion about a potential work session. Council has three very large ordinance amendments, one for our zoning ordinance, landscape and open space ordinance, and one for our land development manual. So we've talked about work sessions. I've emailed the commissioners your availability list. I sent a follow-up email earlier this week. The two dates it looks like will be the most opportune dates will be Tuesday, September 29th. Everybody can attend that meeting except for Commissioner Cox. And Tuesday, October 6th. Everybody can attend. However, Commissioner Pike cannot participate after 4 p.m. So I've sent some dates. I know there's been some potential interest in evening meetings. So I've given options with those two dates. It's a 9 o'clock option, a 1 o'clock option, or a 4 p.m. option. I would suggest 4 p.m. is the latest because not only will it involve playing a GIS staff, it also involves community development staff. We have to coordinate through tech service, and we also have to coordinate through security. I'm figuring approximately around a two-hour time frame for that meeting.

Council able to attend?

I have asked both Vice Chair Cockrell and Chairman Hudson to attend. We worked that through administration. If you have more than that, it creates a quorum. So I figured that Chair and Vice Chair would be the most opportune.

But they're able to attend either of those?

They are waiting anxiously on what date and time. Noted. What we'll have to do is one commission needs to discuss on which date and time frame. and we do need to make a motion and amend the meeting schedule to include this work session. What I would like to do or what I think we need to do is when we have the work session, obviously all the general correspondence discussion will be within that work session, and it's reported out at our normal meeting in October. Hopefully we'll have the meeting minutes developed and read into record or approved at that same meeting so we can just record. have a busy October, so this is one avenue to, again, kind of get everybody on the same page with discussing these amendments. It gets us focused on that, and it can help streamline our meeting that following month.

Okay.

Does anybody have any preferences on either date or time? I would prefer the 4 p.m. for either date, but...

Same for me. I prefer the 4.

I'm good at any of them, so it's fine.

Okay.

Then that would kind of dictate the 29th, correct?

The 29th or the 6th?

The 6th. Well, she's not available to 6th, I think.

Okay, yeah, then the 29th at 4.

That's amenable. Do we need two meetings or one?

Hopefully one.

Hopefully one would be enough, yes. Most of the amendments are overlay districts for three areas within the county, as Council refers to as PODs. The landscape and open space updates, a lot of those updates are technical updates to include referencing these open space or new overlay districts. The land development manual is one small update for special protection areas. We actually have a stormwater advisory board meeting tomorrow. As part of that amendment, the stormwater advisory board will review it and make a recommendation to the planning commission, so that recommendation will be made at this work session also. I think the most... Detail will be the zoning aspect of it, but I think one meeting around a two-hour time frame, give or take, will probably be ample time to discuss.

The 29th at 4 p.m.?

Correct. Yes. We need to make a motion and approve to have the agenda amended for the special called meeting.

It would be an amendment to your meeting schedule to include that special called meeting on September 29th.

So I make a motion to approve.

Second. Commissioner Shealy?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Scott?

Yes.

Commissioner Campbell?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell?

Yes.

That's it? I mean, that's it and that's all?

All right. It is.

It is. Thank you so much, everyone.

It'll be here.