Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All

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

Yes. Let us pray. Dear heavenly father, we thank you for our many blessings. We thank you for your grace that's new to us each day. We pray that you'll be with us today, guide us, lead us, help us to glorify you in all that we do. Lord, we ask that you please be with our country during difficult times and unite us in your love. Please bless those who serve us in uniform, watch over them, guide them, and bring them home safely. All these things we ask in the name of Jesus Christ, our lord and savior.

Amen. Amen.

Everyone stand for the pledge of allegiance. Tab A, we have minutes from last month. A motion to approve. I'll make a motion to approve. Second.

Okay.

Commissioner Price?

Yes.

Commissioner Cox? Yes. Commissioner Shealy?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto?

Yes.

Commissioner Campbell?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Frost?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes. Also, I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge a new chairperson, Mr. Shealy. If you'd like to say a few words.

Yeah. I'm Chris Shealy. I was born and raised here in Lexington County in from in Batesburg, graduated from there. I was gone about twenty one years, served in the Air Force. I came back in 2019. I'm currently at Shealy Realty as a real estate broker and do land development as well.

Welcome. Okay. Alright. Tab b.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for being here. We're so blessed to have everyone here today. Thank you so much. Good morning again.

We I'm going move through this development activity report really quickly today. We've got a hefty agenda this morning, so we might be here a little while. So that said, our numbers for the month of August, we have 130 site built permits and 37 manufactured permits. Total so far, two months into the quarter, we have three eighteen permits on the third quarter and a total of twelve twenty three for the year so far. So we still have, let's say, four months to go in the year to substantiate those numbers.

Again, we have 94 manufactured permits with two months of the third quarter. Total on the year for manufactured permits is three fifty seven, so we're right along with manufacturing home permits as well. Pipeline subdivisions, we have had four this month really quickly. The names, Belton Village, Isle Harbor, Wilson Farms, and Willow Farms scattered throughout the county. Regarding concurrency projects, we have had one that was approved, back in July, by county council.

It was Walker's Trail. That one, is still kinda pending some action with council. We're yet to see, we got a council meeting coming. They will might very well discuss that one as well. We'll see how that goes, but there have been no other concurrency projects approved. That said, let's see. I believe that our development activity report for the month, if I may, chair, Mitchell, I'd to introduce councilman Fisher, who is also in the audience today. That we can move.

We do have an update from Lexington County School District one.

Good morning, madam chair and ladies and gentlemen of the commission. My name is Keith Price, and it's my honor and privilege to serve as superintendent in Lexington School District one. And I'm joined today by two of our team members, Mrs. Libby Roof, who's our Chief Communications Officer, and Mr. Clark Cooper, is our Chief Operations Officer. So as we dive into the update that I'm going to share with you today, if you have any really tough questions, they're going to take those. I'll take the easy ones, okay? But I appreciate the invitation to come. I had an opportunity to have a conversation with Mrs. Hutto a few weeks ago about growth, what we are doing as a district to kind of keep an eye on that, and then how do we manage these types of things as they come along.

And so after our conversation, she asked if I would be willing to come and share this with you all. So I appreciate the opportunity to do that, and I appreciate your interest in learning a little bit about how we watch growth and manage for it at the school district. So, if you'll go to the next slide. And I believe you all have access to this presentation. If not, I have handouts that I can provide for you as well.

So the first slide that you see here is our total enrollment. And where you see ADM, that's average daily membership. And that's something that we have to report very consistently and accurately because those numbers get pulled by the State Department of Education and the State of South Carolina, and that is what is used to determine the amount of funding that we receive from the state level. So we have to make sure that those numbers are very accurate and we track them very, very closely. As you can see here, the trends on the line graph that you see go back to the school year twenty twenty, twenty twenty one.

And from that point up through 'twenty two, 'twenty three, you see a steady increase in enrollment. And then something happened between the 'twenty two, 'twenty three year and the 'twenty three, 'twenty four year. We had a new charter school that opened up within our school district. And to my understanding, their charter school is a K through 12 opportunity, and they can enroll about 2,000 students. So you can see what happened when the doors opened for that school and how it impacted our district's enrollment.

And so for the next couple of years, enrollment numbers stayed pretty steady. But so far this year, what we've seen is we're starting to tick up once again. So we haven't reached our enrollment number that was pre charter school opening, but we're starting to see it decline. And so, that's something that we're watching very carefully. Next slide.

This past year, our school district went through a demographic study where we partnered with a demographer to take a look at projected growth and how that could impact our school district over the next ten, twenty, thirty years and so on. What you see on this slide on the left hand side is kind of like a heat map. And so, where you see orange, green, yellow, that's where we have comfortable capacity in our schools. Where you see red is where we're approaching student capacity or almost exceeding student capacity. So as you can see over the next ten years, the red in our elementary schools is growing.

With the chart on the right hand side, the column in the middle is the building capacity for every elementary school we have. The column on the right is portables. And so every time we add a portable to a campus, that increases our building capacity by 20. And then the first column on the left, the total capacity, that's a combination of building plus portables to get total. So we all oftentimes get the question, well, how do you manage growth?

Well, we do a number of things and one of those is by bringing portable classrooms. If you've been to any one of these elementary campuses, you can see over on the right hand side where you can see a little portable village where you may have one or two, and others where you may have none at all. Next slide. This is our middle school forecast for the next ten years. So we don't start approaching capacity in our middle schools until around 2030.

So that gives us a little more elbow room in our middle schools right now. And same thing with the chart, you can see building capacity. Sorry, it was on the wrong slide on mine. Portable capacity and then total capacity. Next slide.

And here are our high schools. And these stay pretty consistent throughout the next ten years based on the report we received from our demographer. The interesting thing about high schools is if you look over on the right hand side, we only have one high school right now that has portables, and that's at River Bluffs where we have four portables. And those were added to campus relatively early on and used for a variety of different reasons. You see a much larger capacity at White Knoll.

Well, in a recent bond referendum, we were able to add an addition to Whitenall High School that raised their total building capacity to over 2,300 possible students. Next slide. So, we finished with the demography study, now we have partnered with an architectural firm who is doing a facility study. They want to take the results of that demographer report and see how are our buildings, our school districts, our facilities, how are they going to be able to manage the projected growth over the next ten, twenty, thirty years? So we are in the midst of that right now.

The architects have already visited every single campus thus far. They are going to be given an update to our board, a mild update in November, and they will have a final report that's going to be coming in, presented to the board in March. So what their report is going to include is what will our facilities need to be able to accommodate projected growth over the next ten, twenty, thirty years? Do we need to make renovations to buildings? Do we need to make additions to buildings?

Or do we need to consider new buildings, new construction? So all of that will be mapped out in their recommendations. And from that, what our team will do with Mr. Cooper's leadership is we'll build a five year facility plan and then a five plus year facility plan. So we'll use all of this data to map out what exactly we need to plan and prepare for in the years to come.

Next slide. So how do we track it? Maybe kind of hard to see in the audience, but I mentioned we track enrollment very, very closely. The column that you see highlighted were our enrollment projections. So that's how we staffed our schools based off of the projected number of students that we were going to have when we started the school year.

If you look over on the right hand side, the second column from the right, that's the one hundred and thirty five day enrollment number from the previous school year. That's the number that gets pulled by the state of South Carolina to determine the funding that we're going to receive. So you can compare school by school or go all the way down to the bottom at the total to see what our enrollment projections were compared to our one hundred and thirty fifth day enrollment last year. Now, go back over to the first column in this spreadsheet where you see demography study forecast. So the demographer did a projection of what it's going to be as well.

So we have our own methods for how we project enrollment. Then we used an outside demographer to compare their projections to ours. And then we've got actual numbers. So the only difference in that first demography report is they include pre K in their numbers, whereas all the other columns are K through 12. So that's the only difference.

But then you can start to see what our enrollment looked like on day one, on day three, on day six, on day eight, and then day 10. Why are we tracking it so closely? Because we got to make sure that we've got the appropriate number of teachers in every classroom. When the state gives us funding, it's based on a formula for a teacher or student to teacher ratio. And we use that to build our own ratios on how we staff schools.

And so we watch that to see if are we on the mark, are we under the mark, or are we over the mark? And then we make the appropriate adjustments as we go. You see a big change from day eight to day 10. If you look at the total column down at the bottom, the day eight total, and I don't have my readers, I believe that's twenty six six eighty two. And then on day 10, twenty six four sixty.

What happened in two days? Let me explain. A lot of times, families will do a rollover enrollment early in the spring for the next school year. But then things may change between the time that they go through registration and the first day of school, and they may go someplace else. And perhaps they haven't completed a withdrawal process.

So on day 10, that's where we go through all of our schools enrollments to see which students haven't attended school in the first ten days. We start tracking those to determine, or we track them along the way, but we determine which students have enrolled someplace else with some other educational institution. And then we drop. And so that day 10 is a hard number, the number of students in seats that we have. So there you can see that day ten, twenty six thousand four and sixty, that's the number that we're working off of right now.

We'll have another pull on day 45. And then the really important one comes on day 135 because that's what impacts our funding. Next slide. Talking about portables and how we manage growth. And if you go back on your slides, whenever you get the chance, you look to see, well, where did we experience growth? Well, this year, we knew we were experiencing growth out in our Gilbert area. So we added portables this year at Gilbert Elementary and Centerville Elementary. We are already watching to see where do we need them next year. If you go back on your report, you can see that Deerfield Elementary, I think, was under projection by about 80 students. So Mr.

Cooper and his team have already begun planning steps to get a portable there as quickly as possible. The unfortunate thing is it's not a drop, plug in, and off we go, we got an extra classroom. It takes time. It's about a one year process. And you can see on the slide in front of you all of the things that must happen whenever we look to add a portable to a campus. So that's part of our process. Next slide. The questions I've been getting the most about is Lexington High School. And so Mrs. Hutto and I had a long conversation about that.

And the question that everyone is wondering is, how can a school with an enrollment of 2,532 a capacity of 2,120 be functioning without kids on top of one another hanging out of the windows, and we don't have any portables on campus. And the difference in a high school opportunity for students now is very different than probably we were in high school. There are so many more options that high school students have to choose from. In addition, what's different about a high school and an elementary school and a middle school is that elementary and middle, students pretty much take all of their options right there on campus. They're there all day from first period to last period.

High school, it's different. And it's hard to quantify, but what I've done on the next slide, if you'll progress, is to take a look at Lexington High School specifically. So this will hopefully help explain how we can have over 400 students from what the building capacity says and we're okay. And Mr. Cooper and his team are not planning to add any portables at Lexington High School next year, why not?

As you can see here, here's what happens in a typical semester. Right now, for this first semester at Lexington High, we have 74 students that are not on campus first block because they have late arrival. At the end of the day, we have two twenty eight students that are not on campus because they have early dismissal. We have LTC, the Lexington Technology Center, that's right there on campus at Lexington High School where students can walk across the parking lot and take classes. There are four blocks in a high school student's day.

What you see here at LTC, those are just the number of Lexington High School students that walk across the parking lot to take classes. Three fifty four for first block, three sixty two for second, 300 for third, and three thirty for fourth. So that means they are not in Lexington High School's building taking classes, they're across the parking lot. We also have students who take opportunities other places. We've got one of those here at the College Center.

You can see there, that is on the campus of the old Lexington Middle School that it's now Northlake Community Learning Center. And we have 63 Lexington High students that go spend either half or all of their day on that campus working on a dual enrollment program where they're earning an associate's degree at the same time they're earning their high school diploma. In addition to that, we have centers at White Knoll, at Pillion, and at River Bluff where students at Lexington High can go over there to take a very specific program of study. In addition to that, we have students who are off campus for internships. The number of early release and late arrivals increase second semester because seniors have wrapped up the requirements that they need for graduation, so they're trying to take their foot off the gas pedal.

As much as we want them to continue taking classes and building up their resumes for college applications, some of them like to take a break second semester. So those numbers that you saw for first semester are even larger second semester. And then finally, we have teachers that we call floating teachers. So, if I have a classroom and I teach three blocks a day and I've got one planning block, someone else may float into my classroom to teach in that space for that period. So that's one more way that we can manage growth without adding portables.

So that's a quick snapshot. We could spend a lot of time talking about enrollment and managing growth, but hopefully that gives you an idea of why Lexington High School is just humming along just fine, and the steps that we are taking now to prepare for the future. We want to make sure that we make data driven decisions so that those results are factual and intentional. So I hope that helps and I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have at this time.

I'd like to have a copy of that.

Okay. Prior

to concurrency reviews, did y'all use these same methods

Yes, for

enrollment for students?

Yes, ma'am. We do.

Did y'all have any issues where kids were sitting on top of each other?

Ma'am. And I know that Lexington County is experiencing growth, but growth is not unique to Lexington County in It's our state right a very popular place to be and live for obvious reasons. So the methods that I've shared today are very common methods for managing growth and projecting future needs throughout our state and other school districts as well. So it's not unique to our county.

So probably all the other school districts in Lexington County would deliver the same method than project their growth numbers?

I know that they all track their attendance just as closely as we do, I know they use portables the same way that we do. And there are other districts who have entertained different funding mechanisms for addressing their facility needs, so it's a very common practice.

What district's is opinion of portables? I grew up in Lexington, too, but it seemed like since middle school, I was always in a portable. I didn't as a student, I didn't notice a difference other than when it was raining and you got a little wet and you walked out there, right? But I didn't see a difference in in the instruction I got based on because I was in a brick and mortar versus a portable. But it seems to me, as a bad of a wrap as they get, so to speak, they do allow you for some flexibility when you have a new charter school move in and you need to move from one you have a big drop in attendance at one and maybe move to another versus a brick and mortar, where if you build a bunch of brick and mortar and then you have a big shift over a ten- or fifteen year period, then you've got a bunch of empty walls.

So is that fair to say that the district doesn't really look down upon portables like maybe the general public does?

Well, Mr. Price, I think you kind of answered your and I don't know if we're related or not. We'll have to have a sidebar conversation.

I have to.

My wife.

But I think you kind of answered your own question. We have portables, as you could see from the slides, on a number of our campuses. Our focus is to make sure every student teacher has a positive educational experience, whether you're in a portable or you're in a brick and mortar classroom. In my experience, throughout my time in education, I've seen a couple of different routes to take with regards to managing growth. One is to try to project growth and get out in front of it and build new facilities before it hits.

The other is to wait and see and you take advantage of the ability to use portables to manage your growth until you get to a point where there's an obvious statistical reason that it's time to look at expansion or new construction. Construction.

Or that the growth helps you finance Yeah, that's correct. New buildings and things. Because the more people, the more I mean, I know we don't want too many, but we the more people you get, the more money you make to be able to do that type of thing. Every additional student impacts

not as well predicted as it once was. There's a new funding formula with education funding in South Carolina. And before, it used to be a guarantee that if you grew students, you grew funds. Now, there's a comparison weighting formula that puts our district compared to everyone else. And there are occasions throughout our state now where some school districts will grow in student enrollment and decrease in state funding.

And a lot of that has to the response that we get from that is that those school districts who are higher up on the chart have the ability to go to their public community to help raise enough funds to keep things as they should be, to make sure the essential elements are funded and provided. And more funding is given to school districts who don't have that ability. So that's something new. It's only been in place for a couple of years, but for the first time in my career in education, I've now seen school districts increase in students and decrease in state funding. So it's a challenge that we have to be aware of.

So I'm sure as you were sitting there today, you saw that we are provided with the pipeline subdivisions that are coming in. Depend solely on your demographic studies or do you actually look at the pipeline?

All of that is part of the demographic study. So the demographer that has studied trends and use that to help give projections for what's coming our way with regards to student enrollment. So that's a part of our puzzle as well. So that is considered also.

But that demographic study was done in the '4, I think.

Correct.

So, I mean, are y'all looking at those pipeline lots to see if that demographic study was actually accurate?

Well, what we will do is monitor that with school enrollment. And so and the eye test, as you go around and you look to see how these communities are sprouting up in different places. I don't know that we follow this very closely month to month, but it is part of the process that we use to make projections for what's to come.

My next question is this. Given that students are in and out of your building, how can you respond to the concurrency reports that we're looking at such that we get an accurate picture of what your capacity really is?

It's really more cut and dry with elementary and middle, but with high school, it's different. And it's much harder to really tack down what the actual programmatic capacity, not the facility capacity, but the programmatic capacity, is because the numbers that you see with LTC, the numbers that you see with dual enrollment and the other options that students have, that's not the same every year. It changes from one year to the next. We can look at trends and make a projection, but this year we've got three fifty four students that are at LTC for first block. Next year, it may be 400, it may be 200.

So that's the flexibility that we have to keep in mind. So high school is a little more difficult with regards to concurrency. I've heard someone say, because it's such a flux, if you can provide the building capacity and the student enrollment, that would be adequate. And so if that's the only factors that are needed, we can provide those very easily.

When you all get copies of these reports and these new developments, does everybody sit down at a table and freak out and wonder what we're going to do with all these new kids?

No, ma'am. You know, as we said before, we're going to monitor trends, we're going to monitor enrollment and our task is to make sure every student has a quality education regardless of how many come. We will take every student that enrolls in our district.

Curious, do you forecast any other charter schools being built

or That's not in my purview. That's a different realm of education. We try to keep an eye out for any such movement. And whenever there is a potential charter that's coming within our school district, there's actually a notification process that takes place. So we are notified whenever someone is interested in either applying for or launching a charter. We do get notification for that. And it's usually at least a year in advance.

And not all charter schools are built the same. You have some that are really large, like ELA that basically was a contributing factor to that trend.

And

And grade, grade, kind of grades are lot of legs in two, but they do pull from one, two. But, you know, and then you have some very small ones that probably have a very insignificant impact.

And then there are several who are purely virtual. They don't have a brick and mortar facility.

Superintendent Price, thank you very much for taking your time to spend with us today and make this presentation. Is it fair to say that the demographic studies that you've shown us and the projections for growth that you've sort of somewhat already accounted for most or all of some of these projects that we see coming in the pipeline, you've already projected a certain amount of growth.

Yes, sir.

And what we see every day or every one of our meetings is sort of that growth. We are seeing it coming too. So you've already kind of built in plans for that, right?

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And when we get the actual facility study, so that's what the facility study is going to do. The demographer has given us the forecast for the growth. The facility study will give us recommendations about what we do to manage it. So that's what's coming, and we'll have a final report for that come March. So that's when from that, we will build a five year facility plan and then a five plus year facility plan to make sure that we're planning and looking ahead for all of those potential developments.

You guys fund those through like a bond referendum every so many years or?

That's one mechanism. Depending on the recommendations that come, we have 8% capital bonds that we sell on an annual basis that we could use to manage some renovations, remodeling for major construction and new facilities. It would be very difficult to do that with only the funds that we have available to us. And so in the past, when you see multiple projects that are millions and millions of dollars, a common occurrence at that point would be to see a bond referendum come forward. So that is one funding mechanism.

How often, if at all, does this data lend your thinking towards redrawing of lines or anything for the districts?

So that's one way to help manage growth. If you're looking at, if you've got future construction, oftentimes whenever a new building, a new school comes online, that gives districts an opportunity to take a look to see if any attendance lines need to be adjusted. It's usually a little more palatable when you redraw attendance lines with a new school opening up and things have to shift around to try to create balance. It's a little more challenging when you look at things and say, no, we're just gonna change. And I know you went to one school this year, but next year, you're gonna jump over someplace else.

A little more reactive,

I guess. But in the moment, I guess, I didn't know how much of a role that might have played or

That's one of the things that we look at. And so in all cases, when we're looking at how we're going to manage growth, I talked about portables, but redrawing attendance lines

If you have room, is another not every place has room, but for, I guess, less cost as new construction portables and the like. I was just curious.

That's correct. If you look at the elementary slide with that heat map, you'll see that we've got room to grow in Carolina Springs, Sakscottha, Whitenall Elementary, and Red Bank. Well, that's because we just opened up South Lake Elementary School, and it relieved the overcrowding at those schools where we had a large number of portables on campus. And so we redrew those attendance lines with the opening of South Lake to help bring that balance. And then just a month or so ago, there was a report in the newspaper about the projected growth of the Red Bank area, and it's coming.

So while we have room to grow in those schools right now, we're also keeping an eye on that to see how long our facilities will be able to accommodate that before we have to look at other opportunities.

Gotcha.

I mean, in order to build new schools, you've got.

We'll be moving a lot of portables or we may be redrawing attendance lines. We'll be looking at every opportunity possible. So all of those things come into play. But we have to our task is to educate every student that walks through our doors, and that's what we focus on. And how we do that and how we manage our facilities, that may pivot depending on the funds that are available to us.

That's one

of the reasons why this information is so critical to us because that could reasonably happen.

We're trying

to prevent that here.

I certainly respect the task that you all have before you. And so what you will never hear us say is whether we do or do not support any type of development. That's not something the school district will ever weigh in on. Our focus is making sure that every student that comes and every family that comes has a quality educational experience.

Go forward. Can

you

come up to the podium, please?

The question was how accurate have the previous projections been, and I'm assuming you're talking about demography reports?

Yes, sir. Well,

I I became superintendent 07/01/2025. So I'm going to look to my teammates here, Mr. Cooper or Mrs. Roof, to see if they might be able to help provide an answer about past reports and projections that may have been presented. And I know that's putting you on the spot. You may not be able to pull out an accurate response at this time.

All of us are relatively new in our position. I was at Lexington one, but I left and went to Richland 2 for about ten years, and Mr. Cooper is relatively new. So, we were not in our positions during that time. We can certainly go back and look at it.

What I will tell you from just experience watching the growth, it was much easier to judge that before COVID, and once COVID hit, it's kinda like we all had a hard reset and it's been really, because it dropped really quickly during COVID because folks kept students home, then it jumped back up when we thought we were out of COVID, and then you have the charter school kind of opening up. So, I would say in the past, it's probably been more accurate than it may be in the future because right now, we just have so many other unknowns that it's hard to accommodate for. And of course, the birth rate is a changing thing. We know one of the things the demographer tells us is that the birth rate is decreasing, but we're also getting people moving in. So, are we getting kindergartners moving in?

Or are we getting, is the growth gonna be fourth, fifth, and sixth grade? So, unfortunately, it is not an exact science. I think in the past, when there were less options for students in terms of where they could go to school or their choice, it would be more accurate. Today, you don't know how many are going to enroll or apply to the charter school, and what happens sometimes with the charter school is it's kind of, it's always, we get some back, some go to the charter school, they come back, well then just the next ones on the waiting list go in. The charter schools can pull from any footprint even though grades in one school district, you can go there.

So fortunately, not a great exact answer, but I think it's becoming harder and harder to be

Which is a good point. That's fair.

To help along with that, you know, is being on the commission here for several years, we have to deal with projections. I mean, we did it with our comprehensive plan a couple of years ago, and that's what we rely on as projections. And I think that if you do it every year, you would see a different result just because you've got more real data. So I think that the folks that do that, they make a lot of money doing it, and they're good at it. So we just have to rely on what we can get.

Got it. Yeah, like 10% off, you know, like a weatherman.

Madam Chair, just a point that Councilman Fisher made earlier is, as I explained to the commission last month when we were going through our last concurrence reviews, prior to our concurrency process, the data available to school districts was the pipeline lots, and that's when we've actually received plans for review, and it may be a six month process, a year process before those lots are on the market. With this process we're going through now, we're giving the school districts the information well in advance prior to us getting formal submittals. We're getting estimates from the developers on where the total build out's going to be five, six, seven, ten years down the road, the number of phases, the number of houses per phase, so the ability for us to get this information well in advance helps school districts prepare to address those concerns, to update their numbers as much as possible.

One final question. If you determine that you need a new school and you have to go through the bond referendum process, give us a timeline as to how long that takes before the school will actually be ready to open its doors?

So, Mr. Cooper, from the time earth has moved to the time students walk through the front doors, and that's gonna depend on what type of school, elementary versus middle versus high. They all are in different size increments, but I'll let Mr. Cooper answer that.

Yes, ma'am. It does depend, obviously, of construction for a high school much more involved and bigger project than that of an elementary. But from the time you stick that first shovel in the ground for a high school, it'd be approximately two years before that school would be ready to open.

Now, let's go back before that. Let's go back from to the bond referendum process because you're not going to to be shovel ready till you have that money.

You are correct. And prior to and then once you have the money, then you can start looking at property. And then so you have that property acquisition process, which does involve approval from off school facilities. It requires approval from DOT. And then once you have that, then it is then moving forward with your design, your bids and your build that process out. So yes, it would be multiple years prior to that.

So just give me an average, like from the time you do the bond referendum, meaning I've had little experience with this and I know that just even the beginning steps of a bond referendum are lengthy. So take us from, like, the very beginning steps of a bond referendum straight through to shovel ready, how many years are we talking there?

It

Your work before you get to a bond referendum is kind of what we're in right now. So a demographic study and then the facility study. So if you wanted to go as far back as that, we did the demographic study in like six months. So, and we're now, the facility study is gonna be March. So, you're talking about a year and a half if you are taking a really strategic methodical approach.

Sometimes that's not always an option. So, let's say a year and a half to get a plan, could you have to The board has to vote 90 before something can be put on the ballot, so that's another three months. If you could immediately go from a facility plan one day to turn around to say, you're gonna do a bond referendum the next day, my experience, and then the last one I did was not in this district, that was not the case. I think my last experience, we probably started planning around 2016, had a bond referendum passed in 2018, so that's a two year period. Again, that was a very methodical approach, similar to what we are doing here in Lexington One, where you do a demographic study, a very thorough facility study, you get a lot of community feedback, you develop a plan, you approve, the board is presented the plan, that plan is then of said, okay, this is our ten year facility plan.

Then we say, okay, how do, the district says, how do you fund it? So, again, I would say about a two year period. If you're really going through the steps to be very data driven and strategic. So if you could turn around and start building day one, which you usually cannot, it may be another six months after the bond resolution passes before you start to see DIRTT move. So then two years from that, so we're looking at, I would say, four years. That is a very conservative. Can things be done much faster? Yes. That would be Does that feel pretty accurate to you all?

Do you have like an average amount of time that a portable would be used on-site? Like twelve months, twenty four months, if you were using it for like an overcapacity issue?

We have portables that have been used much longer than that. I mean, there's been, portables have a lifespan, you know, that can exceed ten years. Now, you do have maintenance and upkeep that you do have to do similar to the Same building. Yes, ma'am. But they can be used in a much longer timeframe than even just a twelve, twenty four months scenario.

I'm going see how many times we

could say one last question

as an overall commission, but just real quick to understand kind of the economics and the numbers of it. And I appreciate, you you all said multiple times you're making data driven decisions and so, we can appreciate that. You know, when you look at these utilization, these capacity maps, you know, there's a decent amount of growing red as the years go with elementary and middle and then less, you know, the high school is pretty consistent over the next ten to fifteen years. Is that mainly a byproduct of the fact that there's so much flex in the high schools? Or how does that work that it's growing in the elementary and middle and not so much in the

high schools?

I believe so. It's because of so many other options that high schoolers are able to take advantage of, and they have a very flexible day, whereas elementary and middle are much more regimented. So every student that is enrolled in an elementary school, they're going be on that campus all day long. High school is just not the choice, not the case.

One quick question to follow-up on the bond referendum discussion. It's a four to five year time frame. I assume you guys, when you're doing your monitoring, you're doing your projections, you're factoring in that timeframe it's going to take you to get a permanent solution in place so that you're not waiting until you're, oh, we're overcrowded, have no way to serve these kids, and now we've five more years.

Yes, sir. Yes. When you look at the projected growth that we're expected to experience, we've got to start thinking about how what are all the different ways we could manage that. That's one of the ways that we could. Yes, sir. Thank you.

Any other last questions? Thank you for your time this morning Thank very

you.

Yes, sir. Superintendent Price, on behalf of the Planning Commission, we really appreciate you coming today. They've been anxiously awaiting this data. So thank you.

Thank you, sir. I hope it was helpful. Yes, sir.

Yes. Very much. Alright.

Moving on to tab b. Alright.

I make a motion to get rid of concurrency?

I'll need a second, please. Second. Third class

of three with

my voice. Good morning. So the first access policy variance we have this morning is property at 835 Founders Road in Lexington. It's property owned by James Vincent and Daniel Blake West. They own approximately four acres.

This is Parcels identified as Lot 20 in Southwest Columbia Farms subdivision. The owners would like to subdivide the property into two lots of approximately two acres each. Daniel Blake West is an uncle to James Vincent West and currently owns a home on the property. He would like to have sole ownership of his portion and the portion that is currently vacant would be owned solely by James Vincent West. James would then plan to build a house or place a manufactured home on his portion.

The West family is here today if we have any questions. This is just a sketch showing of what they're proposing. There's an existing 25 foot flag lot driveway that accesses this parcel. Southwest Columbia Farms was approved in 1986, so it was approved prior to the adoption of the access policy in 1988. So there are some existing nonconformities with this parcel, and we'll go over that with their variance request.

This is just showing a general idea. You'll see this is, Boiling Springs Road. The Founders Road property is here. The parcel is accessed by the flag lot driveway, which adjoins a another flag lot driveway. Just to show what they're wanting to do again, they're wanting to flip this portion of the property here.

This is where the current homes are at, that would be one owner and then this vacant portion would be owned by the additional owners. So instead of having joint ownership of the entire parcel, they would like to each own their own portion. A little bit of history on this parcel. A variance request was approved in March 2021 regarding Lot 21 Of Southwest Columbia Farms. That parcel is accessed by that adjoining flag lot.

They were approved to be able to have an easement to Parcel B 1. Part of that approval was the condition that if any further subdividing is requested that they would have to establish a private road. I believe that that's not relative to this parcel because when we went out and did our site visit, they do have two separate driveways installed. So they are not using the same driveway for access. We do have some site photos.

This is Founders Road at that driveway entrance. This is looking into the property and you can see along that driveway access that there are just the adjoining flag lot next to them. This is looking at the existing dwellings that are on the parcel and this last one is just looking into that vacant area of where that other lot would be established. And I'll leave that back on their sketch. So several items of the access policy would require a variance.

Item six states an access easement serving a two acre or larger landlocked parcel shall be at least 50 feet wide along its attire length. Item 10 states an access easement serving a landlocked parcel may not be contiguous to an access easement serving another landlocked parcel unless both parcels are less than two acres each. Item 11 states an access easement serving a landlocked parcel may not be contiguous to the driveway portion of a flag lot unless both parcels are less than two acres each. The driveway portion of a flag lot so paired may not serve as an access easement for another parcel. Item 12 states the driveway portion of a flag lot may not be contiguous to the driveway portion of another flag lot unless both flag lots are less than two acres each.

The driveway portion of flag lots so paired may not service access easements for other parcels and item 13 states successive access easements or flag lot driveways whether single or paired along a continuous road right of way boundary shall be separated by at least one parcel with a minimum of 100 feet of frontage along the same road right of way boundary. We did receive a letter from James Vincent West who would own that front portion of the property. He is wrote that letter. It's included in your packet where he is understanding that if the variance is approved, that that easement location could cross his property and he understands that he would not be allowed to put any dwellings or block that access. They also submitted a letter for their standards for a variance.

I'll read that into record. A, there are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the property or properties. At this time, the above mentioned property is 4.02 acres with joint ownership between James Vincent West and Daniel Blake West. The property was a gift from a relative James D West and Tammy R West and then James Adam West. We would like to divide the property into two parcel lots with 25 foot access easement to be located on proposed parcel number one, which would be deeded to James Vincent West if approved.

There is an existing home on the back part of the property belonging to Daniel Blake West. James Vincent West would like to build a house or put a manufactured home on the front part of the property. For James Vincent West to have sole ownership of a home on this property, he would need to have a deed showing sole ownership of his part of the above mentioned property. B, these conditions do not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity. Because this is a flag lot with a 25 foot driveway, we are asking for permission to divide the 4.02 acre lot into two parcels measuring 2.01 acres each and proposed parcel number one having a 25 foot access easement as part of the 2.01 acres giving access to Founders Road from proposed parcel number two.

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. The existing conditions of joint ownership of property hinders both owners from being able to own and occupy their own single family residence. Permission to divide this 4.02 acre lot into equal lots measuring each lot as close as possible to 2.01 acres each with 25 foot access being part of proposed parcel number one would allow James Vincent West to own and occupy proposed parcel number one and would allow Daniel Blake West to own proposed parcel number two. 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. Upon the authorization of this variance dividing this 4.02 acre lot into two parcels located at Lot 2835 Founders Road would not be a substantial detriment to adjacent property or the quality of life for the residents of the county because the parcels would be used for residential purposes only.

The size of parcels being 2.01 acres each will allow plenty of space for the septic system and water well to be installed according to DHEC regulations. E, when deliberating a variance request, financial hardships alone cannot be considered for the basis of a variance. Because this property was a gift from our relatives and our relatives James D. West and Tammy West live nearby. We both James Vincent West and Daniel Blake West would like to continue ownership of this property, but have sole deeded ownership to a divided portion of lot.

This would allow each owner to occupy their own property to build and occupy as they wish according to Lexington County, South Carolina regulations and DHEC regulations. Again, the request is to divide that existing lot that's accessed by that 25 foot of Flag Lot driveway to be able to split that four acre portion into two acre lots. And I can answer any questions you have or if you would like to speak to the West family, we can get them to come up.

Madam Chair, I feel like this is most of the variances that we're asking for here, they

kind

of got the raw in when they said they got 4.02 or whatever it is acres, because everything is two acres or more. If we had a little bit less land, we wouldn't have as many of the variances that need to So I think we should that should not even be a consideration. We're talking feet of land there. That's just common sense to me. The only thing that I think we really ought to discuss is the two adjoining flag lots next to each other, two driveways. And if safety addressing and all that is not an issue, then I don't

agree. We

move forward with this one.

I agree. I second that.

I got a couple of questions.

I haven't made a motion yet, but I'm

just I think I understand.

Making my point.

She's early.

In order to have a private road, which is I know was the stipulation for the previous lot that would be adjacent one, how how much they would have to have 50 feet rather

than 25?

Not not 50 feet necessarily. 30 to 50 feet.

But, I mean, they only own 25.

Correct. So there's So they would there would be possible Yes, sir.

To put in a private road and meet the standards.

Correct. And also, it's accessed from a paved public road, so it would also be paved. So if there would be the potential if a if a private road was necessary, then they would most likely need to apply for some variances to the private road policy.

And I agree with with commissioner Price. My only concern is if we do this here, the one directly next door that was told they'd have to do a private road falls in the exact same. If they wanna go in and draw a line across that one, they're gonna be back here going

They got way more than two. Pull the thing back up.

They got mean, they're obviously set a precedent that they're Yeah. They're coming right back to us if they wanna sub already. I understand, but I'm just telling you, they draw a line across the one to the right, we're back here with the same discussion. Which one?

The map. Think of this.

Okay, yeah, I was going to go back

to left. The other

one serves all that stuff to the left.

Yes, so the previous one that was approved did have a request to create this portion at 08:37 and that was approved with the condition that if they wanted to further subdivide, then they would have

They gotta come see it, just how these folks are.

Yeah, that's what I'm But if you draw a line, basically, continuing across from the one we're dividing now across that property, they're gonna come back with the same rationale.

They would have to come back and apply for a variance. Yes.

Okay.

That was like a trail. Alright, madam chair. I'm prepared to make a motion if

Please.

We're good. Alright. I'll make sure we approve the variance based on the standards being met that the extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this property. I think we just laid out the fact that they own just a little bit too much land and there are extraordinary conditions I feel like here and that this is cleaning up what could potentially continue to be a mess for these two folks. These conditions do not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity.

As Commissioner Frost pointed out, we do have a similar issue next door, but we've already, had a condition put on that one that if they want to do further subdividing, just like we will put on this one, if they want to do further subdividing that they have to come back before the Planning Commission. This ordinance, I do feel like prohibits the use of this property by these owners. So that takes care of a lot of C. I don't see any detriment here to any adjacent properties if we approve this, and I don't see any financial hardships that are being taken into account here. So with all that said, I make a motion that we approve with one caveat that if any further subdividing should take place, that they must come back for another access policy variance for the Planning Commission.

I second.

Commissioner Price?

Yes.

Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Vice Chairman Frost?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes. Private road subdivision, tab f.

Sorry. We didn't get to look at your pictures.

Alright. So the we have two private road variances this morning. Both of these are on Betty Boulevard, which is an existing private road. The first we have is a property of Bruce and Angela DiMarco. That's the proposed plat there.

Bruce and Angela DeMarco, they currently own approximately three acres on Betty Boulevard. They would like to be able to subdivide one acre portion for their daughter and son-in-law, Bobby Anabinet the third, is listed here as the applicant. I'm not sure if mister Anabinet was able to come in to the office today. Are you a representative, sir, of the fam I'm sorry? I'm Bruce.

You're Bruce, mister DeMarco. Okay. So we do have the owner of the property here today for the variance request. Although this private road and and there is a road maintenance agreement already in place for this parcel, Subdividing it requires a variance because this will be the thirty fifth lot using this private road for access. It's part of Edmond Baby Farms, which was originally approved as an 11 lot subdivision in 1981.

Multiple lots have been subdivided since 1981. Currently, we estimate the 34 parcels that are using this road for access. There have been five previous variance request since 1996, which were approved for subdividing the most recent being in 2024. When miss Corbett's variance request was submitted, we noted that there were 27 lots having access to Betty Boulevard. So that was the 1996 request.

Prior to that, I can't verify if those were actually presented to Planning Commission or if those were lots that got approved before we had easy access to maps and things like that to be able to see easily that it was a private road. This portion of their lot was in Lot 10. There was a request approved in 2009 to subdivide this lot, but the 3.14 acres is what the NeMarcos purchased in 2021. This is the aerial photo. You'll see that Betty Boulevard is also a through road.

It has access to Pat Road and Highway 6. This is looking at the property. 155 is where the DeMarcos live and the 153 is the preliminary address that's been assigned for the mobile home that his daughter would like to have on the property. That's just showing how they would divide the parcel. This is a Google photo from, I believe, March 2025 showing the street view, from the entrance from Pat Road.

These are current site photos of that entrance, and they do have their signage in place. These are the photos from the highway intersection there with Betty Boulevard, and their signage is in place there as well. This these photos are actually at the property entrance. This is the mobile home currently at 155 Betty Boulevard, and this is the mobile home that would be at 153. Have a video of the private road and while that video is playing, I can read into record the standards that were provided.

They also sent a letter, which you have a copy of in your packet, and I'll read the the second page of that, which is the standards while that video plays. This is from Bobby and Abinet the third regarding property located at 155 Betty Boulevard in Lexington, which is the parent's address. One fifty five a used to be the address where we are needing to put our home. I am in need of this variance request because the land I am needing to put my home on is off a privately maintained road. Most of the areas around Betty Boulevard are not private roads, and several of my family members that live on the street I am needing to put my home have been able to subdivide their land to live next to family members, which is why we stated started our home buying process several months ago.

I was not fully aware of the current restriction before I spent thousands of dollars on a survey, appraisal, and build deposit. In order for me to qualify for this home for my family, the land had to be used as my down payment since I do not have the ability to save the kind of money needed to secure the loan without it. A home used to be on the land we are asking to put our new home. It already has a septic system, so that is a big help to our family as well. The home is brand new and is already located at Clayton Homes of Lexington, South Carolina and will certainly help to enhance the community surrounding it.

Land does not have to be disturbed to put our home on the property. There is a wide open space where the one acre was surveyed and meets all setbacks the county has in place. I can't thank everyone enough for your consideration. We are new to South Carolina and excited to be near family and make this our forever home.

Please put up a slide that has an overview of the entire development. Sure. Do

you want to watch the rest of the video first or do you want me to go ahead and stop that?

Yeah, it looks this.

Yeah, it's I mean, the road is in good condition. Yes, sir. Okay.

You got the same thought I had. There's more more that have already been divided and there's more potential for more development.

It looks like a bunch of one acre lots already there. It was approved for 11 lots and now there's 30 something. The president's already been set. Yeah. Agree. I don't see any reason why we would not approve it. Unless there's discussion, I can make a motion.

I I you know Go for it.

I

I hear you. I I just say, when's enough enough? You know, I mean, we we've gone from 11 to 30 something. You got another one coming in with three more right after this on the next tab. I just, you know, at some point, where do you draw the line? I just I don't know where that's at. Don't know if we can.

Yeah. I do. I'm with you. I 100% are with you, but how do we how do we correct it?

Yeah. I mean, I don't know how we how we do at this point, but, I mean Yeah. I'll reiterate the statement I make every time we do this. We get so many requests for variances on private roads and driveways that either either reduce approve them at a staff level or we rereact ordinance because it's just No. We have keep doing this all over.

Though where it's, like, 10 to 30. Yeah.

This is this is really unique.

Yeah. I did forget to mention as well that we do have to send out a public notice whenever there is a variance request, and I believe y'all were provided. We did we only received one

At appropriate.

Comment, with that public notice.

One out of 30, I guess, homeowners said there's too much traffic. They wanna negotiate the Lexington County taking over the road.

And I assume there's dust. Right?

I assume there's a maintenance contract associated with all

these properties,

this new one would also be a part of that. So they're actually pitching in to help maintain.

Right. The agreement that was reported in 1991.

Yeah.

The cost goes down.

And the cost goes down for everyone when they, you know, add new

They might

pave it pretty if we get it to 40, they might pave it.

To your point, commissioner, for us, why do we care if they're dividing and getting one acre lots out of it? Yeah. I mean, really, why do we care? I mean, if we're still getting an acre lot, you know, or and I'm not saying we put a size on it or not. I'm just saying.

I I Right.

At some point, we need potentially review let let let staff handle these type of things. I agree. In my opinion, too.

Greg?

Where's that motion?

I'll make a motion we approve this request based on the fact that we've already it's already a precedent set here that there are way more lots than what is currently according to our ordinance. And I believe for that very reason and that reason alone we should approve.

I'll second that motion.

Mr. Otto, you would at least reference the criteria.

They make you do it, man.

I think you

all get a sick kid out of this. They meet. Let me

find the document that you always provide us.

Look at the back of tab f. There you go.

Find the actual paragraph.

So I do, again, I'll make a motion that we approve the request.

Yeah, it's a nightmare finding that on there.

It would not be a substantial detriment to the adjacent properties as they're all pretty consistently the same size and they all have the road maintenance agreement in place. I don't think that the financial hardship is a reason for the approval, so that's not part of my motion. The conditions it says the conditions do not generally apply to the other properties in the vicinity. They actually the conditions do apply, and so therefore, it sets precedent. Right.

It's hard to it's hard to make these standards work in this particular case. I believe the extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this property are the fact that the adjacent lots are similar in size and that they are way more than what was originally approved to the original agreement. So therefore, I believe that we've they've met the standards for the variance.

I'll second that.

Thank you very much.

I apologize for the rambling.

Okay, I think I appreciate it.

Gives Angel something to do.

If I if I remember correctly, I I think

with with the amendment of

the code, we just ask that the these criteria, these standards be be considered. I don't know that they have to be met, but

I agree.

You know, as long as they're noted as considered, the discussion covers the fact that that they

have But

can we take all that out? And can we just say if you approve it based off this, like, we've considered this? Like, let's make it, like, a more of a one sentence, one and done kinda?

I think previously there was no criteria for variances. So, basically, these folks would come to this body and they would present applications and there's nothing to really go by to say yay

or nay. I mean, still go through them, but I mean, do we have to, in our motions, get all bogged down by each?

Well, I I I think you could say in your we've had discussion, we've considered all of the standards a through e and feel like based on our discussion, we have agree that these standards are resolved.

There is an example right in here that says I moved to approve because it meets each one of the five criteria. Yeah. Box check.

That's consistent with the board of zoning appeals, how

they do it in your house.

Yes. It isn't that. It's true.

Okay. But but I'm

good with that, but y'all slapped my hand when I did that a couple years ago.

So Yeah. But it doesn't it

doesn't say we have to meet all five criteria, does it or not?

It not.

We have to consider all

five criteria. And I think as you pointed out, one of them they don't meet, but with the precedent set, it doesn't matter.

So Exactly.

Alright. Thank you.

Alright. It does say in this language, though, and then maybe we need to change it, has met each one of the five criteria required in order to grant the variance.

Oh,

it doesn't have to.

Because isn't it true, Board of Zoning Appeals, they have if they don't, if they meet all but one, then it's denied?

BZA has to meet all four, that's state This is a variance application to the Planning Commission, which does not necessarily follow the same aspects as what's required for BZA Right. The Planning and Enablement legislation. So it's a little bit more of flexibility this body has when deliberating these requests. And just to commissioner for all, just to kinda piggyback on what you said earlier, I think staff does agree as far as the ability to review private roads and nonconformity provisions for private roads and access policy. As we go through our code rewrites, that is definitely on our our punch list to address because a lot of these were developed prior to our access policy requirements, and other ordinances have non conforming provisions which can be looked at at staff level. So yes, that's something we're taking into consideration.

Thank you.

I'd like to amend or add to my motion that any further subdivision must return to the Planning Commission for approval.

It's coming.

I think he needs a missile.

There he

is. Cripple second.

Miss Hutto, would you support that?

Yes. I I will.

Thank you

very much. Hesitantly.

Commissioner Price?

Yes.

Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Shealy?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto? Yes. Commissioner Hutto? Yes. Commissioner Gamble?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Frost?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes. Alright. Moving on to g.

Alright. So as mentioned, this is another variance request related to Betty Boulevard. Alex Construction Framing of SC Inc currently owns approximately 3.16 acres on Betty Boulevard. This property was purchased in June, and the owner of that company has appointed Nick Blackhurst as the representative for the variance request. I believe Mr. Blackhurst is here today, possibly not. Right right here. Put

your glasses back on. I can't

see. Right there. I'm looking behind me. The readers won't help me see that. All right.

And that is the proposed survey that he has prepared to divide that parcel into three lots of approximately one acre each. Again, the previous request that, you know, it won't be counted as an actual lot until they've went through the planning and the deeding process. So not counting the previous approval, this would be the thirty fifth and thirty sixth lot using this private road for access. Again, there is an existing road maintenance agreement on file that states that the maintenance of the road would be split between the property owners using and owning property on that road. It does not prohibit further subdividing.

This is the photo of that entire, Edmond Baby Farms subdivision. This property is located at 188, Betty Boulevard, and this is showing how he would like to divide that into three parcels. That existing mobile home has been removed. These are the photos of Betty Boulevard and Patrobe. The, Betty Boulevard and Highway 6.

This is Betty Boulevard at the property location, and these next photos are looking into that property. That is that video again. If you want me to play that again, I'll go ahead and read, mister Blackhurst's letter into record. Dear commission members, I am requesting permission to subdivide a 3.15 acre property identified as Lexington County TMS 009900 Dash 02 Dash 096 and located on a private road at 188 Betty Boulevard in Lexington into three equal lots of an area of approximately one acres each. I have attached the following zoning application, county recorded plat, proposed subdivided plat, a portion of the county tax map showing all of Betty Boulevard orange highlighting existing lots of similar size to what we are requesting.

The current county recorded deed is shown on the county website and current county recorded deed not shown on the county website, which probably is on the website by now. These, exhibits that he's referring to are is are included and numbered in your packet. Standard for variance responses. A, there are no extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the property. The properties will conform to the existing surrounding properties.

There are 16 properties out of 37 that are close to one acre in size. Adding three one acre lots only changes ratio to 19 out of 39 as shown on exhibit number three. B, the conditions do generally apply to many properties in the vicinity. Close to half the properties will be of similar size. C, the current condition would remain if the variance is granted.

No effective change to vicinity if allowed to subdivide. D, the variance would not be a substantial detriment to the adjacent properties. The three next door properties on the same side of road heading toward Highway 6 are similar in size to the requested subdivided lots. E, this variance should not be considered with a financial hardship consideration. This variance should be approved on the simple fact that it conforms to most of the properties on this private road. I will be present at the meeting to answer any questions. Thank you for your consideration.

I've got one question, and then we we wanna belabor this one. I know these lines on the the the plaque you've given us, with the picture of the aerial. Yes. There appears to be a mobile home on one. The line seems really, really close, and maybe that's just an approximate. I assume they will meet all setbacks and all those

That mobile home has actually been removed. When I went out to the site visit, it's already gone. So I think there would be new dwellings placed there.

All right.

Go out of information.

I would move that we approve the variance based on the consideration of the five standards, and, I feel they have significantly met, enough of those to justify issuing the variance.

I second.

I got it. When I heard. I got it.

She got it. She can do it.

Commissioner Price?

Yes.

Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Shealy?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto?

Yes.

Commissioner Hutto? Yes. Commissioner Campbell?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Frost?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

Thank you for coming. Yes. Appreciate the color.

Thank you.

Thank you. Currency review number one. Sure. You wanna take a break?

Sure.

Or do we want to

Oh, let's go.

Press on? Go on.

Two of them are easy.

Let's go.

I'm gonna take a vote. We're good.

We're good? Okay. We can skip them.

Thank you members of Planning Commission. We have four concurrency reviews today. The first is for Rocky Point. And just to get this kicked off as I usually do, I'll read this in the record. Now the purpose of agenda item is to provide the Planning Commission's recommendation to counsel in relation to concurrency questionnaires submitted by Lexington and Richland School District five.

Again, reading the record, public schools cannot provide a yes or no answer in terms of adequate public facilities, so administration and community development staff work with all five public school districts to develop a questionnaire to provide information for consideration of new developments. For council's adopted policy, the Planning Commission's review and make a recommendation to council who in turn makes the final decision based upon the Planning Commission's response and all available information. A copy of completed questionnaire and project sketch plan are included within your packet. Just to recap for concurrence review, a sketch plan is submitted and basic compliance for zoning and open space is confirmed. Prior to concurrency review, density, minimum lot size, setbacks, percentage open space, and road and transitional buffers are specifically reviewed.

Please note this layout is subject to change once full engineering and site design is completed. For the first one, the background of this project is called Rocky Point Residential Subdivision. General location is West Of Northlake Drive, South Of Rocky Point Drive, and East Of Palm Point Drive, Columbia. Tax map is 18007004. Located in County Council District 6, which is represented by councilwoman Charlie Wessinger.

It's a single family type residential development on 7.7 acres. Proposed number of units are 15 dwelling units. Density is at 1.948 dwelling units per acre. If you were to remove the open space and infrastructure, the density would be at 2.804 dwelling units per acre, and that's for information only because density is calculated gross acreage. Smallest lot size proposed is 13,198 square feet.

Current minimum is 9,000 square feet, and the percentage of open space is 30.5% or 2.35 acres. For the developer, they're anticipating permitting to occur in 2026, with site construction beginning in June or July 2026. The developer anticipates two to three homes to be constructed in November or December 2026. The goal is a single phase development with a pace of one or two homes per month, and a total build out is anywhere between June and December 2027. Within your packet is the questionnaire has been completed by Lexington School District five.

Either I can read this in the record or we can begin discussion. I know we just received one question from a member of the Planning Commission. These are this is one of two of the first ones from Lexington and Richland five to come before the Planning Commission for concurrence review. We have had a couple other submills for Lexington And Richland 5 since October, which did not require submilled before this body, and there were 262 lots proposed within those developments.

Where's the red star on the map? I can't see it. It's

it's it's it's right to the right of the water plant. Yeah. It's it's barely barely feels like a pond.

It's just off Northlake Drive before you get into Richland County.

Oh, I see it now. Yeah.

Had the What's same

the dag on? I had the

same issue. You need some readers, Wally? No.

It's No.

We need

some It's not red.

I'm I hate going

back to my my toner cartridge issue. That's gonna be my little dial on that hill. We gotta get Hollinsome magenta and cyan and yellow.

And have the budget.

Alright. Go ahead. Alright. I I

don't not unless there's some discussion, I'm ready to make a motion.

Go ahead. Yep.

I I move that based on the information that the school district provided, they have sufficient room and capacity to serve proposed students. We recommend council approve this.

I'll second.

Commissioner Price? Yes. Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Shealy?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto?

Yes.

Commissioner Hutto? Yes. Commissioner Campbell?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Frost?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

Thank you. The second one is the project is the enclave of Wood Trail. I will not read all the general information I read in the record on the first request, but this one's in Lexington School District four. Project is Enclave At Wood Trail. General location is South Of Wood Trail Drive, West Of Boy Scout Road, and West Of Casa Del Road, Gasson. Tax map numbers are 10002046 and 387. It's located in County Council District one, which is represented by councilman Michael Bishop. It's a single family residential development on 204.5 acres. There's proposed three eighteen dwelling units. The residential density is 1.555 dwelling units per acre.

If you were to subtract the open space and infrastructure, the estimated density is 3.25 dwelling units per acre. Again, that's for information purposes only. The proposed smallest lot size is 10,920 square feet, which is just over a quarter of acre, and the minimum square footage required is 9,000 or allowed is 9,000 square feet. Open space, they are proposing 43.37% open space or 88.7 acres. For the developer, they're anticipating permitting to incur to occur in 2026, with site construction beginning in the 2026.

Construction is not anticipated until the 2027 with the project in approximately six to seven phases. Total build out is between four and five years. Again, this is in Lexington School District four within your packet. They provided some detailed information along with the questionnaire, their chart showing the ability to house students within their schools, as well as their student growth calculation that's been presented at a previous or previous planning commission meetings. So if you would like me to read any of that record, please let me know.

So this is the first one I think I've seen where they are including a cumulative effect here. They've identified that they're including the previous four developments. And based on five developments, what they're giving us is estimates that are $50,000,000 in construction cost. Is that what I'm reading right?

Within the construction or the questionnaire let

me find it. I apologize.

They're looking at predictive the portable cost. Costs requiring their portables are 1,750,000.00 for nine in elementary, 2.535, which is 13 portables in middle, and 2,535,000 for 13 portables in high school. That's just for portables. Now they're talking about new construction. You're looking at actual brick and mortar construction, almost 9,000,000 for nine classrooms and a restroom for elementary, 14,350,000 for 13 classrooms, two restrooms in middle, 14,350,000 for 13 classrooms, two restrooms in high school.

They also anticipate some small additions per classroom totaling $550,000, and a new school will have a million dollars per classroom due to large spaces such as cafeteria, gym, restrooms, and restrooms are approximately cost would be 3,600,000.0. Again, these are estimates and cost estimates that we've received from the school district.

I think it's not a whether they are or aren't gonna build new schools. I think that that they know the answer to that question. I guess the only concern is the timeline in which they can get built.

Do we know if they've done a bond referendum to capture Four? Yeah.

I don't I don't know off the top of my head.

I mean, I just that's a lot of money to come up with. I mean, if we hadn't started the process,

I mean Well, they I'm sure they're not even yeah.

And you talked about But a

lot of these things have been approved, this year.

Yeah. Yeah,

we've seen a significant increase in in projects within Lexington School District four. I think we can attest to This year. Against a lot of raw land in that area, a lot of large properties. Land costs will probably contribute to some of that too.

Yep. I make a motion that we not recommend this

for approval. Second. Second. Discussion please. Could you Robbie, mister Derrick, could you please tell us again what the purpose of our the Planning Commission is in regards to concurrency for school districts?

Again, the purpose is school districts, as Doctor. Price mentioned earlier this morning, they cannot deny students, and they cannot provide the county with a yes or no answer. They've advised that they can provide feedback for us to consider whether they have adequate public facilities for the proposed growth and development that's being presented as part of this concurrence review. The Planning Commission's purpose as the planning body for the county is to review this information and make a recommendation to counsel whether you feel that they should consider this project and move forward for permitting. Again, this is a recommending body.

Counsel is the final arbitrator whether or not they'll allow this project to proceed or not. Did all the other public service places provide concern other public service facilities, public safety organizations approve this to move forward.

And just for clarification, we've got four other projects that have already been approved. We know they're on the books. It just my concern is they've given us a significant amount of need even based on those four, not even including this one. I don't at this point, the reason I ask if they've got a bond referendum out there, I don't see a plan to address that. And I think at some point, have to say, We here's what we're gonna do

can certainly reach out to Lexington District four and ask if they have any type of funding options available for the new growth, and we can certainly present that back to the Planning Commission.

Last month, we approved one like four to three. What what district was that?

That was Lexington School District four, same school district. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. We can certainly get some more information to present back to you. Would you please

Enough month later, get another one and

Would you please describe to us what happens in this process? Should we vote to deny recommendation for approval? What happens next?

Again, this this is a recommending body. Your recommendation will be presented to counsel along with all the information that's presented to the Planning Commission. Counsel, again, is the final arbitrator. If counsel elects not to move forward, then they have a ninety day process where they can resubmit within ninety days and go through the same concurrency review process again. I think as doctor Price mentioned earlier, with the attendance levels in schools, they are I won't say fluid, but they do do move up and down, so it's maybe a possibility that some numbers, some circumstances change within that period.

They have other funding options that we know If we could find out the more information and then table it until next month, I'd be open to that. That would at least keep them on somewhat of a

We have a limited time frame on what they act to to in in which to act. Thirty days. I mean, if we don't move on to the date, counsel's still gonna have it presented to them at their meeting. Right, Ravi?

If They can also do the same thing.

They can do the same thing, but your thirty day window would basically start from this agenda item. So you have your month time frame once we present today to come back within a month with that additional information.

But we can reach out to district four and

see My only if they're concern with the information is we I think and I'm not saying we're wrong or or or or any any of y'all that made a motion or second it wrong, and I'm I'm not saying I'm right, but it is inconsistent with the concurrency reviews we've had with other school districts since they are like Commissioner Frost said. Now, this was cumulative, all right? So now we've got zeros everywhere, and we've a bunch of money we need. I think if we had cumulative on all of them, we'd probably see a lot more of that. So just wanna I wanna make that point before we vote that I think that that It is a little bit different. It's not apples to apples from what we're used to, so what we've been seeing over course.

That area.

Yeah. We do ask for the Isn't that

is that our responsibility?

That is our responsibility too. And it's not to take care

of

the school district. I think district has its own.

Yeah. Well, it it just my point. I think this is the first one I've seen where they put zeros across the board for additional capacity. That that's what shocked me is that they say they can't fit anywhere.

Last month was very similar.

So Yes.

So I

think was very similar.

And I think we need more of the cumulative reporting to see what this effect is. I think district four is doing us a favor here.

Yeah.

I think district four is doing it though too because it's definitely helpful, but they're doing it because they can. They only have, like, one elementary, one middle. It is. That's why last last month

And they had no other issues. Different stance

than maybe I would on some other districts because the numbers you were getting were real time cumulative concerns, and there was a little less arbitrary timeline funding, etcetera. And not all districts are created equally on the funding too as the school district mentioned. So all things considered, but some of the ones we recommended approval for and possibly a bond referendum or maybe district four can come and say a few things too if we could get them here and get some better insight into their planning so that we can help guide that as well. You know, maybe it'll change our opinions. Maybe it won't. I don't know.

But They've already got some stuff already halfway planned or if they've got funding that they they already anticipated putting this into play, then because they do have I feel a lot more comfortable.

Four other subdivisions, we recommended that they go ahead and do and I'm assuming that these numbers well, they provide cumulative at the back. These zeros are for this now. And so, yeah, they they're gonna have to plan

Do that or do need get in the

charter school business, I guess.

Yep. I can certainly discuss with administrators to see if we can have representatives from district four speak to the same level that what district one spoke this morning. We do ask for the cumulative numbers from all the school districts. How they report them across the different school districts varies. I think you can see that with your questionnaires within your packet. I agree with Commissioner Pike. I think school district four does an exceptional job on how they present that data, but again, you're looking at four schools compared to 40 schools. So Right. You'll be to move The consistency across the five school districts, it varies, but they do a really good job providing this data and getting this information to us.

May I ask a question, please? Yes. Where does the 1.5 students per house come from?

Generally, is a growth calculation that school districts use, so that is a a reference point or a demographic point that they use to calculate their proposed enrollment. And that comes from the school districts, that's not from

the county.

Is is their growth ratio factor? I know there's a within your packet is a a detailed report on how they calculate their growth for district four.

I was looking at the student growth calculation and they go from 0.5 to 1.5 students per home as a range, and everything that they calculated above is all at the max range at 1.5 students per home.

And again, that's something we can have district four clarify as well as far as our calculations.

Any more discussion or are going to pick up with his motion?

We have a motion on the table to not recommend.

That's correct. We have a motion to not recommend. We also have a second. Mhmm. Personally, following due process, I I would rather take a vote. If we're not gonna take a vote, I think I would like to hear our consensus to postpone if that's what you

would I call I call for a

vote. Okay. Mhmm.

Commissioner Price? No. Commissioner Cox? Yes. Commissioner Shealy? Yes. Commissioner Pike?

And this is to not recommend. Correct.

Yes.

Commissioner Otto.

Yes.

Commissioner Hutto.

No.

Commissioner Campbell.

Yes.

Vice Chairman Frost.

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell. Yes.

I

will still reach out to district four and have them their availability to come present to planning commission. Please.

Or any other districts too. Yeah. Besides one? Yeah. Because we see them all. Most

of the ones we're dealing with currently are Districts 1 And 4, which I think to start off with those two, we had one this morning and four. Hopefully, next would be a good starting point.

So that said, we do we do have a vote of seven to two to move forward to counsel with a recommendation not to support this.

Okay. The next one is the Edmond Highway Track. This is located within Lexington County School District one. General location is East Of Edmond Highway, West of Hayes Lucas Road, and North of the town of Piggin. Tax map number is 10800413. This is also in Council District 1 represented by Councilman Michael Bishop. Development type is single family on 11 and a half acres. Proposed 34 dwelling units with a density of 2.957 dwelling units per acre. If you'd remove the open space and infrastructure, it would be 4.95 dwelling units per acre. Again, that's for information only.

The smallest proposed lot is 9,001 square foot, and the current minimum lot size allowed is 9,000 square feet. They're proposing 24.09% open space, which accounts for 2.77 acres. For the developer, they're anticipating permit to occur in the 2026, with site construction beginning in June or August, through August 2026. Initial home construction is estimated beginning in December '26 or January '27, And the goal is a single phase development with two homes per month. Total build out is anticipated at the 2027. Again, the information from Lexington District one, their questionnaire and supporting information is within your packet.

Just a question. Is this cumulative data or just an individual?

The information provided is just the individual development. The information provided by the school districts, again, we ask for cumulative data, so they should be making their information to the commission with their questionnaire based on cumulative data.

We can certainly have discussion after this, but I make a motion we recommend the council the approval of this project because they do have capacity to handle it at all the schools. Second.

But for discussion, I heard the presentation this morning, and I think the district is looking at things holistically. But when we get the packet and it specifically says we don't anticipate anything for this one project, that doesn't communicate that there has been consideration of the other things that are in the pipeline. And I just think if they would, that would be helpful as similar to what four is doing.

We will get them to specify that. Yes, sir.

Was discussion over?

I believe so. Okay.

Commissioner Price?

Yes.

Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Shealy?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto? Yes. Commissioner Hutto? Yes. Commissioner Campbell? Yes. Vice Chairman Frost?

Yes. Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

And before we go to the next one, there are the additional comments and questions that we've asked the school district. The second bullet point within their packet, it says, Is there a method the school district uses to track the cumulative effects of developments? District School District one did reference a demographic study that they presented this morning, and again, was shared with the board which presented. So they've referenced that demographic study for the cumulative effect, but I will again, when we submit future requests to the districts, be specific of the cumulative effect based on their concurrency reviews.

Can we still get some answers from district four for the for the last one that we did even though we're not gonna see it

Yeah. Come We'll bring we'll get I'll I'll have administrator Sturkey discuss with the superintendent for District 4 and see if they can present in similar manner as district one.

Thank you.

Okay. The last one is Rutledge Place Townhomes. This one is in Lexington And Richland School District Five. General background, it's located West Of St. Andrews Road and West Of Carriage Lane, North Of Rutledge Drive, Columbia. This is in the Irmo area. Tax map number is 279906005, represented by councilwoman Beth Kerrigan District 7. This is a townhome type development on two and a half acres. They're proposing 12 dwelling units at four dwelling units per acre. The density minus the open space and infrastructure is 10.1 dwelling units per acre, and again, that's for information purposes only.

The smallest lot size proposed is 3,000 square feet, which is consistent with the current minimum lot size allowed for townhomes, and they're proposing 60.4% open space, which is 1.51 acres. Further developer engineering plans will be submitted two months following concurrency approval with an approximate sixteen month county review timeline. Upon approval, the developer anticipates two months for site construction, four months for home construction, and one month to wrap up the final approvals and inspections. The overall build out is anticipated two years from concurrency approval. Again, district five's information is within your packet from their questionnaire if you have any questions.

Do you have a graphic of the development to put on the screen?

There could

be a slide plan there.

That does that get it for you?

Yeah. So it's

10? Are there other

It's two building it's two buildings with 10 units.

Are there other townhomes in the area?

There are apartments, townhomes, condos within this immediate area.

Yes, sir.

As far

as the numbers and general information surrounding that, I do not have

that with

me today. Zoom in on the vicinity map.

An empty space.

It's on that same screen.

There you go.

Go to your next slide. A little tight.

Pretty funny, but I don't get an idea where the air

air is. That's the key. Yeah. Mhmm. Sorry. Do you want the vicinity map on the site plan?

Yeah. But it is gonna be too tight.

Well, I just didn't know if you could I was just trying to get an idea of where it is.