Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning. All Lexington County committees are being broadcast live on the Lexington County Spectrum channel thirteen o two 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. Commissioner? Invocation?

Yes. Let us pray. Heavenly father, we thank you for this day. We thank you for our many blessings. And this time of year, we especially thank you for the blessing of salvation. As we celebrate the birth of Jesus next week, Lord, keep us mindful of the needs of others and help us to glorify you in all that we do. Lord, please bless all those who serve us in uniform. All these things we ask in Jesus' name. Amen.

Please stand for the pledge of allegiance.

We

have tab a, minutes from last month. Do I have a motion to approve?

So moved. Second.

Commissioner Price?

Yes.

Commissioner Shealy?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Vice Chairman Frost?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes. Tabby?

Good morning. Good morning, everyone. Historic meeting for me. It's a tough one, but I'll try to appreciate you all being here. Thank you for all that you do and have done for citizens of Lexi.

We have the honorable mister one of our council members. We also have our office, miss Sharon Willis, who used to ask her to come actually because she's spent so much time with with Wally. This will this will also be his last meeting as it will be my yeah. To share that that time. You You all being here.

Our development activity report, I'll try to move right through it pretty quick. For for the month of November, we had a 120 site build permits and 31 manufactured permits for a total of 151, which is very similar to the last few months. Not a whole lot has changed. We're still accumulating permits. So for the year, so far, we've had two thirty seven site build permits in the fourth quarter, which is two months into the quarter.

The total is more than, gosh, the last four, five years so far. And we still have another month to go, but we're at fifteen seventy four permits on the year so far with one month left to go. With regards to manufactured home permits, again two months into the quarter, the last quarter of the year, have 62 permits and for the month of November, it was 31. Total on the year is four fifty three. Again, that has surpassed all the years previous all the way back to 2020.

So as I figured what happened, we we have an uptick in parts of pipeline projects, we've had three this past month. The first one is Carter Glen. It's a phase project, phase one. That that's it's also a new project, but this is the first phase of which it's a small project, eight lots with 12 acres. It is our our current newer ordinance located on the West Side Of Wise Ferry Road at at at Shores Court.

It's over near the lake on the kind of the Western North North kind of south of the lake, but western part of the county. That's district three council and Daryl Hudson. Developer there is Caribou Creek Farms. 31 on your map is the second for the month. It's called Pennington Drive. That is located in the town of Gaston. It's a small project as well. Four lots on 2.3 acres. Out of Gaston ordinance. It's it's a project as well located off of Mac Street near downtown area of of Gaston.

That's council district one, which is council and Michael Bishop, and that is a project by the property owner, Digne Reyes. Last pipeline project for the month, number 32, the village at Glen Hills. That is a phased project. This is the third phase of which it's party lots on 20 acres that is in within the town of Pine Ridge using their ordinance located on Bachman Road between Fish Hatchery and Highway 321. That is within County Council District nine represented by councilman Todd Cullum and getting into the pipeline projects due to the changes we've had in the last month or so, it's kind of a different process of approval.

So so these projects go through the the typical process with staff as well as the other public safety reviewing agencies, but it no longer goes to the school district. So the one project from last month, which if I can read the print on the sand out, Serenity Lake, that went to council in December, but they ran out of time to process it. So it is been postponed until January. So they'll take that back up in January, but that one's still pending. The other seven on the list have been approved at the staff level and through the concurrency process, so they should be moving forward.

The first one is Pleasant Pleasant View at 705 lots on 256 acres. Arbor Meadows, lot of lots this month in the in the currency, 693 on 246 acres. Farm Track, 21 lots on a 130 acres. This is a small print of your your agenda, so hopefully your eyes are better than mine. Let's see.

Fourth fourth one, campground subdivision, 88 lots, dwellings on 80 I'm sorry. 52 my eyes are going bad. 52 acres. Next is Pondside Manor, a 134 lots on a 101 acres. Plices Pond at 77 lots at 36 acres.

Lastly, Arbor Farms, 90 lots on 53 acres. No worries. That those all of those concurrency projects are moving forward, so we'll be looking for Otherwise, believe that is the development activity report for this month. If you have any questions, we can.

I do have one, if I may. Where is Pleasant View, Arbor Meadows, and Forum Track? What school districts are those located? Those are the three largest ones. Since we're not doing currency with the district, I'm just curious as to where where we're continuing to overload.

Pleasant View is District 2. That is the third revision for that project. K. Arbor Meadows is District 2 also. I think that's at Edmond Highway and Highway 6. What was the other one?

Form Form track?

Form track is District 1. That's off the Priceville Highway.

Okay.

We are still providing school districts with the information as well as timelines as far as completion, so we are still getting that information out to them for their planning processes.

Thank you.

I know the numbers are small,

but the numbers

correspond to the projects and they're they're on the map.

I I got my glasses on. I still can't see some of it. Alright.

Alright. Moving on to Tabby, Access Policy, Darien.

Morning. So the first, access policy variance we have this morning is on, property on Vollydale Drive owned by Amanda McWaters. This is the sketch that's been provided. She currently owns four acres on Volleydale Drive in Gilbert, which is near the intersection of 2 Notch Road and Juniper Springs Road. There is a mobile home at 392 Volleydale Drive that is owned by Patricia and McWaters.

Amanda McWaters would like to establish an approximately one acre portion to be deeded to Patricia. There's an existing 50 foot easement on the property that already serves two landlocked parcels. Miss McWaters would like to use the same easement for access to her property, which would be landlocked if it's approved for her to separate the one acre portion. For this, a variance is needed to items two, three, and 14. 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. And since this configuration will result in four tiers from the public road, a variance to item 14 is needed, which states no more than two three tiered groups of parcels served by access easements or flag lot driveways may be allowed at the same location as part of the same overall development plan. This is a zoomed out version there. That star represents the configuration that we're looking at. This next slide shows it to you a little closer.

That mobile home is at 392, and she's trying to separate this portion. And that's the existing 50 foot easement. And then miss McWaters lives at the 350 address, so then she would be using that 50 foot easement to get to her portion. Just a few photos there at the easement location and along Vollydale Drive. And then I'll bring her sketch back up.

I apologize for interrupting.

I'm sorry.

Yes, Please explain to me exactly which where is the one acre that we're

trying to

I'm I'm lost on this thing.

So the red box would be where the one acre would be around the mobile home at 392. This portion here, the outline in yellow around the 350 is the existing land. That's the total of four acres. So she wants to give approximately 0.9 acre to Patricia and then she would keep this, the remaining part at three fifty. Yes, sir.

You have in your packet a copy of where she wrote her standards. It's it's in the document that kinda looks like it came from a screenshot. I asked Amanda if she would kinda put that in a a letter format. So you also have a copy of an email that was sent to me. So I'm gonna read that into record for you because I think that explains it a little better.

I, Amanda McWaters, would like to request a variance for 350 Vollydale Drive in Gilbert, South Carolina. I am proposing to remove the 392 Vollydale Drive, Gilbert, South Carolina address from the 350, Vollydale Drive address due to the fact that it is not supposed to be a part of the original survey. This would mean an access road would be needed from Vollydale Drive to the back of the property. There is already an existing easement from Vollydale Drive, and I would like for that easement to be used as access to all three lots. This is all family land and there would be no feuds, hard feelings, or misunderstandings by anyone in the family.

I was promised this land for my children and by my mother-in-law, Patricia Ann McWaters after my husband, her son, passed away in 2014. She sold a portion of her land in the back of the property in 2019. While being surveyed, she mistakenly had $3.92 added to three fifty, which was not how it was intended to be. I have children who are interested in joining us on the land, and this proposal will hopefully help with that matter. The 392 address would be deeded back over to Patricia Ann McWaters as it originally was.

This authorization would not hinder or cause any harm to any surrounding properties. I have been living on this establishment for almost eleven years, and I would greatly appreciate this approval for my family and I. Thank you so much, Amanda McWaters. And Amanda is here today if you have specific questions for her.

Would we need the variance if that one acre or the point nine acre proposal was terminated where three fifty would have a flag lot instead of having an easement going through, where three fifty would have maybe a 50 foot flag going down to Volleodale Drive?

Yes, because there's not I don't believe, if I remember correctly, they don't have enough frontage there to establish a 50 foot easement for the remaining portion to be in compliance. And it is already serving two landlocked parcels, the 354 and the larger I can go back to the larger version of it there. So this is actually gonna result in that easement serving three landlocked parcels. So even if it was a flag lot, then it would still be serving two landlocked and would require a variance.

I'm kinda confused. Who owns the 13.75 acres that we see here?

I don't have record of who that owner is. I don't know if miss It's Patricia. Okay. You wanna come up and as well, you'll need to come up here to answer those questions.

Alright. Patricia Ann McWaters owns the 13. Will you please just give your name and address to before you Amanda Lynn McWhaters. 350 Volleydale Drive, Gilbert, South Carolina 29054.

Is there an intent to to subdivide any of that 13.75?

No, ma'am.

Quick question. How do you access three fifty currently?

It's from It

appear it appears from looking at the aerial photo that you're coming in through 356, not the easement that's been provided. Is that accurate?

Yes. Okay. It

has yes. That's how it's been for years.

Okay.

Right.

Right now, we're not adding any homes to the property. All we're doing is trying to get the variance done for the existing stuff that's here. Correct.

Cleanup.

Cleanup. Which

can get messy, but sometimes you gotta make a mess clean up.

So Yeah. And I I guess you I think I heard in the letter your your you have family that may join you on the land. Is there A son. Okay. Is there is there plans to subdivide this further as he does that?

Not right now. Maybe in the future.

He joining you on your portion, or is he gonna be joining on the back 13 inches?

It'll be

on my portion. Whatever's left of the four that the what nine would be cut off of.

You'll just, you know, if that happens and you have to subdivide so he can get loans or whatever he needs to get, that will likely come back to this body to be reconsidered at that point. Madam Chair, after hearing the testimony and the and carefully reviewing the standards that I believe this request meets, for this variance, I move that we

approve. Second.

Commissioner Hutto, second. Okay.

Commissioner Commissioner Price.

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. Abbev?

Yes, ma'am. The next access policy variance we have is, I'm gonna, let me get to that first slide for you. This is property owned by Flying Pig Properties LLC represented by John Patton. Mister Patton purchased Lot 10 of Malvern Hill Subdivision on 10/13/2025. This subdivision is located on Aiken Craft Road in Pillion.

Lot 10 is land is currently landlocked. The final plat of Malvern Hills Subdivision was recorded 12/11/1996, and this plat did not indicate a legal access for Lot 10. Mister Patton also owns Lot 15 in the same subdivision and and it is accessed by a 50 foot flag lot driveway that also provides an easement to Lot 16. Mister Patton would like to formally establish the legal access to Lot 10 as an easement along this, 50 foot flag lot driveway. This would require a variance to item three of the access policy, which states if an access easement is used to provide a driveway for a landlocked parcel, that access easement may not serve another landlocked parcel.

And this is a copy of the subdivision, and I believe y'all have a copy of that as well in your packet. You'll see Lot 15 is property that he also owns that owns the 50 foot flag lot driveway. It's giving the easement to Lot 16, and so the request today is to allow the an easement to also serve Lot 10. Just a few aerial photos of that property. And, again, this is showing where that driveway would give the easement to Lot 10 as well.

This is some photos at Aiken Craft Road at the driveway location, and this is looking into that driveway. Mister Patton did submit a letter, and I can read that into record. To whom it may concern at the Lexington County Planning Commission, my name is John Darren Patton of Lying Pig Properties LLC, and I am submitting this letter to respectfully request a variance for ingress and egress access for the property located at 138 Aiken Craft Road in Pillion. The property at 138 Aiken Craft Road is landlocked and has no direct connection connection to any public roadway. The only possible access is through the existing 50 foot drive easement that currently serves two neighboring parcels.

Without access through this easement, the property cannot be reached or reasonably used for any purpose. Under sections 5.7 through 5.72 of the Lexington County subdivision ordinance, I believe this situation fully meets the criteria required for a variance. First, the property is subject to extraordinary and exceptional conditions as it has no road frontage and no alternate access. Second, these conditions do not apply to other properties, most of which have direct road access. Third, applying the ordinance strictly would completely prohibit reasonable use of the property because there is no other feasible route for ingress or egress.

Fourth, granting this variance would not cause any substantial detriment to adjacent properties or to the quality of life of county residents. The easement already exists and is already in use allowing one additional property to share it will not create a negative impact. Fifth, this request is not based on financial hardship, but on the physical realities and limitations of the land. We are seeking only the minimum amount of relief necessary permission for 138 Aiken Craft Road to use the existing 50 foot easement exactly as the two current properties do. No change to the design, size, or function of the easement is being requested.

In closing, I would like to state for the record that I, John, Darren Patton, and the owner of both 134 Aiken Craft Road and 138 Aiken Craft Road. I hereby grant and authorize ingress and egress permission for Lot 138 Aiken Craft Road to use the existing 50 foot drive easement located on my property at 134 Aiken Craft Road. Thank you for your time and consideration of this request. Respectfully, John Darren Patton. And mister Patton is also here today if you have specific questions for him.

On the decision summary, says that the proposed number of lots served is two, but isn't it three? Unless I'm misunderstanding.

Well, he owns the the flag Lot driveway he owns, so it would be providing access to two landlocked parcels.

How do you get to Lot 16?

16 is one of them. Yes. 15 is

owned all the

way up.

Gotcha. Gotcha.

So this was basically an oversight when it was created.

Yes, sir.

Do you know do you know if any other documents have been searched for an easement, like restrictions or any other kind of recorded document?

I believe mister Patton consulted with his attorney, and this was the route they elected to take, but I'll allow him to speak on that if you like.

It just looks like initially there there probably should have been an easement on '11, but there wasn't. So I didn't know if later someone had added one.

We believe that that probably was most likely should have, you know, was the intent, but it was not specified.

How big are those lots?

Four acres in the back

four three for Lot and 10. Yeah.

I believe is that still correct? I'm looking at the recent. It's about one and a half acres.

Those lots then. More.

Oh, I don't think well, mister Patton, if you wanna come up here, you can answer questions.

Hey. Good morning, everybody. Yeah. Lot 10

We'll we'll need your we'll need your name and

Yes. Name and address, please. Sorry.

I live at 1113 Windy Road, Gilbert, 29054, and I am, representing Flying Pig Properties. But as originally stated just a moment ago, Lot 11 was supposed to grant an easement to Lot 10. We reached out to the owner of Lot 11, Brew at Blair Kato Pickering Attorneys, and he didn't respond. Basically said, nope, not going to grant this access. So we had to go in and around and, as Chris Shealy stated earlier, clean up the mess that wasn't fixed forty, fifty years ago when this was this development was put together.

So being that I own Lot 15 and Lot 10, the 50 foot flag lot easement, I was like, well, we can grant access since I own both, so that's what we're looking for. And I was just to grant that that access legally. Because when we go to sell Lot 10, I'm going to run into the same thing. I will be like, well, there's no legal easement there. So we're just asking for that simple variance. And it has already been outlined by Blair Kadio Pickering. And I have that on my phone, the verbiage for that, granting that access in that easement. So there you have it. Any other questions? And the lot sizes have not changed. There's still the four acres and about an acre and a half. Yeah, nothing has changed on the lots.

Is there any intent to future subdivide these lots?

No. Not

by me.

And we have to come before planning anyway. I think we'd have some concerns with that, just being upfront about it.

Going back to the deed restrictions, because it looks like this was done as an intent to make some sort of subdivision here. There were no restrictions that

they found? Not I'm aware of.

Johnny Wise?

I mean, this was forty years ago that this was put together. So like Chris said earlier, we're cleaning up the mess of the past,

trying to. Yeah. And I hear you. I guess and just real quick question, Holland. Maybe you can answer this. I mean, it's been done this was done in 'ninety six. Would the county have required some access legal access to be provided at the time the plant was filed?

Yeah, just oversight.

Yeah. Mean, that's why I'm just wondering, did we kind of drop a ball on that one as well?

Yes. It should have been clarified on there at that time.

Okay. Madam Chair, if I may. I would, after reviewing the information that's been provided and the standards that need to be met, I would say that this property meets the requirements for a variance and would move to approve.

I'll second it.

If I could make one suggestion to the owner. If there is intent ever to further subdivide, I would encourage you to consider a private road. And the reason I say that now is the main road, what is it, Aiken Aiken Craft Road is dirt. If it ever gets paved, you got to pave the private road. Right now, you're you'd be dirt off a dirt. If it gets paved, you'd have to be paved off a paved. Okay?

Really good point.

Just a just a I don't have a problem with the motion. I'm going to vote for this and I'm good with it. But if you do if anyone does intend to sell it back, do it now before it gets paid. Not that Aincrad's going to get paid in the next thirty years, but it might. You never know.

It's definitely a good selling point, that's for sure.

Alright.

Megan.

Thank you, miss Pat.

Commissioner Price?

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. Merry Christmas.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission. In November, staff presented proposed amendments to the Lexington County Land Development Manual relation to the allowed disturbed acres. The discussion from Planning Commission asked staff to take the language to our stormwater advisory board for their review and provide some additional comments regarding the proposed text. We had our Stormwater Advisory Board meeting last Wednesday. I've got mister Matt Rollins, our land development manager, who will give you the the rundown for the recommendations from the Stormwater Advisory Board.

And just again, just as a reference, this is recommending body for this ordinance amendment. So once we get through our deliberation discussion, anything you would like to see potentially counsel to look into further, potentially change, just ensure you make that as part of your your recommendation and your motion to send to counsel, and we'll report that back out at our next council meeting. But Matt will go over their their recommendation. I do have a couple notes when he's finished, and then we'll we'll proceed with discussion.

Good morning. There were a couple of recommendations, text changes, and then I think they wanted to change one last thing here. I'll just go through the list. The first one was on the additional BMPs list. They had a question on impervious area.

It says reduce the total plan site disturbance to less than 50% impervious areas. They were just questioning what exactly impervious areas means. And in regards to a pond, it could be either, so we're going to clarify that. The second one was, I wanted to clarify that the residential 75 hard cap and remove any language implying an advancement past 75. And that's based off the text that reads, projects disturbing greater than excuse me greater than 75 acres may only advance past the approved disturbance threshold based upon the approved construction sequence and adequate stabilization.

They want to clarify that you can't go past 75 acres of disturbance at any given time. So that was the second one. The third one was deals with BMP specifically. The text reads, Stock recorders shall also be immediately issued for improperly installed, maintained, or implemented required BMPs. The thought was if we come on-site, we could put a stop work order on any BMP that had been improperly installed.

They thought that maybe a seven day grace period would be more appropriate. Go on-site, hey, isn't properly installed. We'll come back seven days and recheck. And then the last one was based off of the commercial allowable disturbance. The text reads after, I think they wanted to, does it go past 60 of actual disturbance for the commercial projects, we have it capped at 60.

They didn't want a cap basically. You would go to approval process after 60. This would I think some bigger businesses were brought up that it wouldn't meet, so that was the thought process. But the residential disturbances, were they wanting to leave the same? Zero to 25 was approvable at staff level. 25 to 50 was approvable at staff level with the disturbance disabilization agreement. And anything above 50 to 75 would go automatically to the Stormwind Advisory Board and then for council approval.

I'm confused because what I understood out of the stormwater advisory committee is that that commercial was going to be unlimited, and I was really concerned when I heard that. Am I not correct about that?

Basically, cap right now is 75 through a variance process a quote unquote variance process. The Stormwater Advisory Board wanted to eliminate the 75, so if it's a commercial project over 60 acres, that process could be heard by the Stormwater Advisory Board Council to go from 60 to whatever. It wouldn't stop at 75. So it could be 175, it could be $2.75.

But there would be

But there would be a process to go through And additional just to follow-up with Matt, there was a lot of other discussion from Stormwater Advisory Board. We did bring up the topic of site conditions and how those come into play with how sites are designed. The Stormwater Advisory Board did not include any type of recommendation to the Planning Commission for that, is I guess the vast majority felt the engineers are already taking this in consideration during their design process. Slope did come up, is where the terminology with the 15% slope came into play. I believe we had some research during the meeting that the 15% slope seemed to be fairly consistent with what other jurisdictions are considering significant.

I think the concern that came up with the stormwater advisory board was the slope may have been throughout the entire site, but you have certain situations on-site where there's a draw and a femoral stream or a certain slope joins a property that may kind of be an anomaly they have to deal with with the overall site design of it. The comments and discussion regarding residential, they did discuss the 50 acre threshold, but as far as any type of recommendation to go to the storm from the Stormwater Advisory Board to the Planning Commission, that was not part of any recommendation. But the 75 to your to your credit, commissioner Pike, is 75 the cap for 75 for commercial was recommended to be eliminated.

I find that extremely disturbing. I mean, let's look at Scout as an example of that and all the problems that they've had. I can't I I think 75 should be the limit for commercial. And I would also suggest that for residential, because it's done in segments, why would we even go to 75? We had a builder that was on that initial committee, and he agreed that 50 was enough.

Why would we want to go to 75 on that? And the other piece of this is, you know, what are we doing here to protect Lake Murray? Why not use the overlay that's in the landscape ordinance as a model for here and use that to protect the lake? Those are just some suggestions here. You know, the Congaree River keepers at one point went out and looked at the at 14 Mile Creek and at the quality of the water there.

And they concluded that because of all the construction that was going on in the area, the the water quality had significantly decreased. So I I think I I was very disappointed. I listened to all of the the stormwater board's discussion, and I was very disappointed in all of it because in their first hearing, they were very concerned about topography. Here, they were not concerned about topography at all and they wanted to just build, build, build and we don't care about the environment. I mean, was the impression that I got from it.

I think we've got to look at our natural resources here and we've got to protect them. And certainly, going above 75 is not protecting them.

I'd like I guess I'd like to say something too because, you know, I was on the stormwater board earlier in the year when we first got to look at this. And I listened to the presentation too, and I was surprised the difference, the significant changes that they made from our initial recommendations, especially when when we talked about specific sites. And I'm thinking about the difference between over here, which seems to be different than over in the Chapin area where I'm from. And I'm just concerned that this is maybe been driven by some influence on the development side. The the housing hasn't slowed down at all with all the concurrency rules and and involvement of of all of us, you know, in in in this building process.

And I thought we were trying at least, I I think our citizens expect us to put some controls on the development till the infrastructure can catch

up with. So, I mean,

this this doesn't seem consistent.

And mister Campbell, I believe the first stormwater advisory board meeting and and just to just to confirm what you stated is the expanded master plan, the additional BMPs, that language was included in that to make sure those additional BMPs that were selected by the engineer and approved by staff would take in consideration the topo, the soil's proximity water bodies. So that was that was part of one of the initial discussions that Stormwater Advisory Board had early on in this process. So yes, that that is correct.

What do other districts use for a maximum?

The research we have provided or found there are no other jurisdictions that has a maximum disturbed acreage. In the state of South Carolina, the projects that they review, there is no max.

Obviously. Yeah. Richland County obviously doesn't have one. I I got a couple questions, and one thing you touched on was the the stop work order, and I think you mentioned that now there's gonna be a seven day grace period rather than an immediate stop work order.

The proposed text within the allowed limits of disturbance was specific that if you had best management practices and those BMPs were not installed correctly, the initial draft stated that we could put a stop work order on that immediately during our inspection process. The recommendation from Stormwater Advisory Board was instead of an immediate stop work order, almost issue a notice of violation and provide seven days to correct those BMPs initially rather than immediate.

I Which is what we discussed and asked for last month in this body. Right?

And I

yeah. I

We asked them that's that was our recommendation

Completely.

To not do a SWO immediately in November.

I'm not sure I recall that. I mean, I know we talked about it.

It a question.

Again, I think I think you need the ability to say stop immediately. If you wanna give seven days, I think that should be an allowance. That's fine. We talked about

a discretion that they could

have.

Yeah. And I'm, you know, I'm back to the number. You know, I'm not sure arbitrarily saying 6075 or 01/2025 really does a whole lot. I mean, again, I don't know if there's any science behind what that number is. So whether it's 75 or up to staff to work through with counsel.

And back to more, I really think your BMPs and the things that you are required to do should be driven by your site conditions. I know they went back and looked at that and they talked about that. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there was a clear way to get there, but that would be my recommendation to take additional look at, you know, rather than a number where you got to install additional BMPs, maybe it should be based off of site conditions. And that's my

That's a good point.

Which we discussed a little bit last time. Since proximity to sensitive waters or somewhere within the overlay and that sort of thing that maybe size is not the only contributing factor to deciding what you use. I do have a question for Steph. After you have a preconstruction meeting, do inspectors go out and do an initial inspection on the BMPs prior to construction continuing? Like, do they do kind of a an official inspection to make sure that they are installed properly?

Yes. The precon before the precon starts, we have the any any special areas, wetlands, staked, so they know where they're at. They have you know? And then after the precon, they'll have another gate to meet once the ponds are in, once the swells are in, to come out and and verify those are in correctly.

I guess my my reason for asking is because if you look at it logically, if you have it designed by a design professional with calculations backing up what should be adequate BMPs, although there's no perfect scenario, right, between weather events and site conditions, I mean, things will happen. But if you have a design professional coming up with your drawings and they have initial phases, especially for those larger sized sites so that you are phasing it in a controlled manner, and then you have a preconstruction meeting and everybody's on the same page and signs that they are understanding of what is required. And then you have inspectors go out and do an initial inspection to make sure the BMPs are being put in properly initially before disturbed land disturbance begins. Why would you need an additional seven days to then correct your inadequacies with the exception of maybe a weather event or something like that. Like if you happen to go out after, you know, half inch rain event and maybe they hadn't completed it yet, that's understandable.

But I feel like there's a lot of stopgap measures there where people are understanding they've been on-site checks and balances, and then why shouldn't you then stop and make sure that those initial BMPs are installed? A stop work isn't any different than in that in that scenario, in the initial phase, isn't anything different than following the actual plan as it was approved. So I guess my argument is what was their basis for the additional seven days? It's not like they're in the middle of construction or in the final phase and it hasn't been stabilized or something. It's we're talking about initial controls.

So I think I think everybody's in the know. Why would they need that? They wouldn't they need to have those in before they continue anyway. The pond needs to be completed or the inlet protection needs to be in there. So that's what they're doing first anyway. I challenge the seven day. That is all. I just

Where is that in the write up? Can you point that out where that's indicated?

That's page four of the ordinance twenty five zero seven proposed text.

Page four, very last paragraph. Stop work orders shall also be immediately issued for improperly installed, maintained, or implemented required BMPs. The stop work orders should not be lifted until the engineer of record confirms in writing to the land development manager or his or her designee that compliance is met and following a satisfactory inspection from county officials.

That doesn't say anything about seven days? Nope.

That's right.

So so you

That's what they came back.

Yeah. So you still have the ability as written to stop work immediately or provide some compliance schedule that you feel is appropriate.

Well, compliance you you stop work as in don't disturb anymore, but it does No. It excludes the actual The

stop the stop board basically stops any advancement of the project. Correct. Except for The site contractor can be can continue implementing the BMPs and implementing the corrective actions as needed to

come in to be done in the first place.

So

It's not really holding up the project because they shouldn't

Is that correct?

They should be following their construction sequence, that's correct.

So the writing so what we're what we've been presented with, the the proposed verbiage does not include the seven days? No, Okay.

The verbiage you have is the existing verbiage that was presented in November. We were providing the comments from the Stormwater Advisory Board for your consideration as part of your recommendation to counsel.

As part of an MS4, is this is this something that would be related to your enforceability that would have to be reviewed by the state? I was wondering what their concern would be with an automatic seven days without the ability to say you got to stop immediately.

Not that I can think of. We're more restricted than the state.

I think the only thing the state requires is that they provide legal they have something in their ordinances that provides legal authority to do whatever that MS4 sees fit, correct?

In the state, we'll make sure that we are enforcing our regulations per their adoption. Okay.

I found it very interesting in the stormwater meeting that finally we got I got an understanding of where the 75 came from and it was just because it seemed like a logical progression from the '25 to the 50 to the 75. I don't think that's necessarily something we need to consider. If 50 works, then 50 works. If 50 has been working or however many has been working in the past, why are we increasing this?

And I believe that the last Planning Commission meeting, the 75 was, again, a rational approach that staff provided as directed by counsel for discussion purposes. And you had twenty five fifty seventy five as the next rational step. Again, the purpose of of putting that number in there was to vet that through our ordinance amendment process. And again, if this body wants to recommend a lower number, then I think that's that's something that's obviously on the table with your recommendation from Planning Commission.

Robbie, give us a cliff note version. I know this is all new. That's why we don't have strikethroughs and red and all that, right? Not that we'd be able to see the red because we don't have no toner cartridge.

Well, if it did have red, if was red, I promise you your eyes would be going across as if had so many different changes, so many So variables on staff presented this in black

and white.

Give us the quick down and dirty version of what we got now and what we're talking about changing.

If you go to your initial memo that's dated October 2025 within your plan commission packet, the cliff notes version is the proposed text presented to you initially where the revised of minimal acres of residential commercial disturbance to 25 above 20, which is current, without an expanded master plan or disturbance and stabilization agreement.

Which was the rule until just a couple years ago was 25, we went to 20, now we're going proposing going back to 25.

Right. Alright. That's the minimum. Continue. Allow up to 50 acres with master plan and DSA for residential, provide the engineer provides justification. 80% stabilization is required for residential projects to increase beyond their disturbance approvals. So basically, they have to disturb theirs. They have to disturb, they have to have 80% stabilization before they can advance the project outside of an additional disturbance. The expanded master plan will require five additional best management practices as noted in the text. The site conditions will warrant which BMPs can be utilized or should be utilized.

Notification signage is required on-site to identify the contractor and developer. Require mulch filter berms with silt fencing and turbidity curtains where those situations will allow, allow projects disturbing over the expanded master plan threshold but less than 75 acres to appear before the stormwater advisory board and county council to seek approval for the additional limits of disturbance. The corrective action plan measures can be implemented in advance of approved corrective action plan provided staff and the engineer authorize. What that does is the engineer identifies what corrective measures need to be taken in place if there's an issue and can begin implementing those before the formal plans are actually approved by staff. So it gets those remediation measures in a lot quicker.

BMP is not correctly installed, should result in an automatic stop work order. That's the cliff notes version for the draft text that was presented. And again, what Matt presented from the Stormwater Advisory Board, their recommendation was we need to clean up or or confirm a couple different areas in the language, just clean it up a little bit, do not have a threshold or cap for commercial. So above 60 acres, which is the current cap, they can seek relief to clear beyond that through the Straubman County Council. And what's the other one, Matt?

The other was the bonding. We had we had some conflicts in the way our bonding was written in the in the Stubborn Stabilization Agreement and how we currently bond projects. So they just want to make sure our bonding process, we were not double dipping on that.

So technically, we're we're being a little more lenient going 20 I mean, proposed, 20 to 25. Where else are we and from 60 to 75 on commercial. But we're also putting in some other measures in between those that aren't in place today, So we're being, while we're changing the number of acres, and I hear you, I don't know what you use other than acres, I mean, I don't know what the metric would be if you didn't use acreage. I hear you about slope and all that, and I know that's got to be a part of it, but it sounds like this is just a we're not really getting any more lenient, we're not really getting a whole lot more stringent, but we're cleaning up and making things work better is the way I'm reading all of this.

And giving people the flexibility for developing while protecting the environment by putting more BMPs in place whenever you do have larger development sites.

While also not not having a team of 300 staff members out there inspecting things, and we talked about, I don't know, 300 is exaggeration, don't get me wrong, but we still have to consider the fact that we have a limited limited number of folks who can actually police this, so we have to put something in that's enforceable.

Well, you know, when this was originally being drafted, there were builders that were working with the county in doing this, and they recommended 50. We're up to 75 now.

Yeah, original recommendation from the last stakeholder meeting, it was the way we came out of the meeting, it was capped at 40 with the ability to expand to 50, and when we drafted a text, the 50 was the clear, easier threshold for staff to to enforce, the 50 was that threshold. So that that was discussed when we went through the initial process with some of the stakeholders.

I know that you said that the natural progression of the rational numbers, which I totally understand, At some point, you just kinda have to pick what seems reasonable. I'm curious. Did anybody look and see, say, over even the past five years, what the size of most of the commercial ranged at in disturbance and total area and residential because I mean, one could argue it's not a one size fits all. So you'd be hard pressed to find 10 acres in the city of Columbia as MS4 to disturb it all because it's so urbanized. But there's portions of Lexington County that are less so.

So you have, I can see where you would need a larger range of numbers, but I'm curious if you took the statistics of that and said, okay, well, we're seeing between twenty five and fifty, then maybe that's your range for commercial And above that is your additional expanded master plan or whatever additional BMPs would set up, you know, whatsoever as maybe a way to evaluate it a little more specifically to the county. That doesn't mean that it's gonna be round numbers. Doesn't mean that it's gonna work. I'm not saying that it will, but, I mean, I think it would be interesting to see what those numbers are, like what you normally typically see on average and where that range falls because that might help us narrow down. Is this exorbitant number or is it not enough?

I I I don't know. But, I mean, I I understand what you're trying to do. I I just the the the whole thing with the stop order the stop work order, though, I must say, as far as the initial BMPs, I'm I'm kind of hell bent on that because there are so many measures in place. People are not unaware of what's required, and it is not a fine. I notice a violation actually can issue get you a fine. A stop recorder is literally to stop what you're doing and finish what you were supposed

to There there is a fine with a stop work order. There's no fine with the NOV, but there is a fine with a stop work order.

So you assess a fine strictly on a stop work order for When the initial

a stop worker is issued per hour, approved fee schedule through counsel, there is an immediate fee for a stop work order.

Is there no way to assess the stop work order for that just for the initial? I can understand once the project's gotten out of hand, you know, outside the limits of disturbance impacted something adversely. But for those initial BMPs just to make sure that they're being held to the plan to where that can be reworked that there's not necessarily a fine associated with that unless they don't complete it within say the seven days?

That may be an option if this is what this body wants to recommend to council, we will be glad to report back to council. And keep in mind with commercial, it's an anomaly. You've got commercial sites that are on half an acre that have to go through the same engineering process of the site that may have 200 acres. We've got tracts of land that are extremely large that attract industry. So like you said, one size does not necessarily fill all for commercial.

A lot of your commercial sites are generally one to two acres. Your shopping center sites are probably 10 to 15 ballpark, but your major commercial sites could exceed fifty, sixty, 70 acres fairly easily, especially your economic development projects. So the the commercial is a whole different anomaly. It's like you said, it's kind of difficult to put a one size fits all for commercial.

I guess I'm still concerned with the increase in the residential to 75. I mean, just looking at some of these developments of a 100 200 acres, you know, that takes five, six, seven years to develop, to build out. And if they go in clear cut a 100 acres, 150, 200 acres, and it's open for seven years, you're stabilizing it with grass, not trees. I think

putting five times the amount of BMPs in place, and you're not clear cutting But you hundred, two hundred acres.

But the opportunity to for a huge rain Mhmm. Like we have seen

And you've got stabilization being put into place. Yeah.

Yeah. But it's typically, they're not stabilized for a five inch twenty four hour rain.

Those are acts of god.

I understand.

But And that's

But with 200 acres clear cut.

Period. You know, we do our best to Yeah. To control it on the roads

So for DOT and And it's okay for the environment to

For God to make Yeah. Eight inch rains? I mean

I guess.

You know?

I mean

negate our own problems.

Ask neighbors if they think it's okay. I mean, that's that's the problem I'm seeing is is I see all these things on the on the web that people are complaining. And I just

I think our citizens

That's who

we work for.

Mhmm. I think is is for our neighbors.

I think our citizens are very concerned about this, and our citizens are very concerned about Lake Murray, which is why I suggested using that overlay from the landscape ordinance around Lake Murray. We need to have some protections there.

If this body recommends to have some protections around certain water bodies, generally your land development manuals, you cannot use overlay districts. That's strictly for zoning and landscape type codes, but there are other methods that we can look at as far as identifying areas. So that's If that's something this body recommends, definitely we can report that to council also.

I think the from an environmental standpoint, it sounds like the controls that are put into place are what's mostly important and the number of acreage is more of an arbitrary number. If you're looking to change the speed of growth, then maybe the acreage would play more into it. But I think I see the acreage as an arbitrary number.

Right.

Not really. I mean, and if no other counties are using that, why?

Then why change it?

Why are we different? Why are we different than the other counties? If they don't they don't have a maximum, why why why we

a to worry about. I mean, look look at Richmond County.

There's a lot of land in Lexington County that's not on Lake Murray, though.

Understand. Understand.

Well and that's why we

Maybe we ought to make a difference.

And there's a lot of land in that overlay that ain't nowhere near Lake Murray.

Like Keith said.

So keep that in mind too. It goes all the way to south side of number one.

I think everybody

If I remember correctly. Important.

It's not just like

Well, it makes it difficult for everyone. Every creek is important. Handbook standpoint for staff to implement, but it kinda goes back to what I was saying last month where and and what commissioner Frost was saying is terms of site conditions, proximity to water bodies. If there was a checklist of things like of sensitivities for site conditions, slope, and others, then maybe you regardless of the size. Then maybe you have certain certain additional BMPs design baked in to the design because then you're taking those considerations into account, and you're not really penalizing anybody for I don't know that you're really being penalized, but you're not being asked to do more sheerly based on size.

Your engineer is taking those into consideration when they build your site plan.

Already. But I

can tell

you binder yet?

I can tell you from reviewing plans and speaking with other engineers who do these designs that it generally is, though, the path of least resistance, the standard that you take. And there isn't a lot of sometimes outside of the box consideration or low impact development, BMPs or environmentally more sensitive because they're like, hey, it might cost a little more upfront, or it might be taking up some valuable land. They're meeting the requirements that

are set for migratory birds or waterways and those are all federal state mandate. Correct. You know? Correct. Are is not

All they have to do is meet the county ordinance. And so what is in there is the maximum that they are going to design to. Right. Matt,

is it if we don't County, or are they

going to meet criteria. I don't know that the again, I don't I think the size is a little more arbitrary. And it's more specific to the site conditions that I think the overarching argument is concerned with in terms of the environment or neighboring properties and adversely affecting them with flooding and things like that, whether it rains or not. It's just something that maybe should be considered. And I don't know what what that that manual looks like per se, but I can see where in cases, especially with the larger size sites and you have to phase them anyway, if everything is done according to the plan, then it probably won't have any problems.

But if you still are concerned with sensitive water bodies or neighbors or things like that, have heavily sloped lots and things of that nature, then you're gonna have to take into consideration additional controls regardless of the size. And I and I don't have an answer to that. I'm not I'm not I'm really probably seeing more of the problem and not the solution here, but I think that's the overarching concern with what I'm hearing from those from the environmental side of it. And I don't think it necessarily penalizes the developers or even the design engineers for that matter. I mean, because a lot of this stuff is proprietary or already predesigned.

It's just thinking about it from a different direction, being a little more considerate maybe to the surroundings and the environment why you're designing it. I don't think that it necessarily has to be a burden, but I do think that also the size is it can be arbitrary to what the needs of the site are.

And So if I own

200 acres in the middle of unincorporated Lexington County full of pine trees, I don't wanna cut all the pine trees off of it. But I don't really intend to do anything with planting pine trees back. That's not land disturbance. That's not a land disturbance, but we're still killing the environment supposedly. We're making runoff.

You

know, all that stuff. So

As a forester, I would argue that.

Yep.

I'm just saying, I'm gonna dig every stump and plant corn out there next year, you know. I mean, it's it's changing the environment, you know. I agree I get it, and I can't do nothing with the land for x amount of years after that as far as the development is concerned. Correct?

So Anytime you change from an agricultural forestry type scenario, removing all the vegetation, like I said, five year threshold.

Right.

So once that five year threshold is over, then you can start your permitting process. We have the ability to hold permits within that five years. But going back to what Chairman Mitchell was talking about, the main bullet points that I've written down, and please correct me if I'm wrong, was one, I think she kind of hit the nail on the head, potentially a sensitivity checklist, what that looks like to taking account for your surrounding environment. Again, focus on protecting the lake. The 75 acres from this body has been discussed, there are some concerns with the 75 acres.

The no fee for the stormwater advisory not stormwater advisory, for the stop work order for the BMPs until the seven day NOV expires. Again, the size is arbitrary based on the site conditions. And again, if you implement and design it appropriately, size may or may not be the actual concern. So that's just kind of the the main bullet points I've gotten over the last few minutes for discussions. I'm missing something or when you tweak something, that's something you all wanna use to formulate some type of recommendation. You do not have to have a number. So if you think 75 is not the right number, you don't have to come back and say, no, we want a 74. You just need to have some type of dialogue that we can report back again for additional discussion with counsel on this.

And I want to point out, yeah, again, I think commissioner Shealy summarized it very well. I think it seems like a number at the top end is just arbitrary. It doesn't seem like there's any science behind that. And I will point out that the wording in the language is they will include it E and Ps will include at least five additional BMPs. They may include all 15 or 20 you got listed, if necessary. So I think there's avenues to provide that environmental protection. It seems to me, as Commissioner Shealy said, if we're trying to if you're trying to put a top end on it, it seems like we're trying to control growth, I'm not sure this is the appropriate place to do that.

I think that's why I mentioned the not that gives staff more work, but an analysis of, say, past five years. Since COVID and things picked back up to what we would maybe consider normal speed, what are your average sizes that you're seeing if we're going to assign a number to it and work off of that. At least that I don't think there's any sedimentology science to it quite frankly. But if we have numbers, concrete numbers of what we've seen in our growth, what we're getting in on a staff level to review, maybe we can then, it can channel the way we approach, have to put a number in there.

I wouldn't feel comfortable with all the research and Matt, can correct me I'm wrong, that most of the sites we're going to see residential are above the 20 acre threshold. A lot of those projects were submitted prior to that change, and we've had very few projects that have been submitted with the current regulations with 20 acres, so I'd feel comfortable probably with the 25 to 50 acre threshold is probably what we're seeing with most of your traditional residential subdivisions.

Okay. Well, then I guess we work with that.

One other point and then I'm going sit back and listen. I still have heartburn with these seven days. If and understanding things happen. You get a twenty five year flood event comes through. You're potentially going to have some B and Ps fail. However, I still believe before that project continues to move forward, the first priority for that developer should be to correct those deficiencies. So, you know, if they have to stop for five four days while they they correct things that are wrong, I think that's just part part of way it done. So, mean, know, again, things are gonna fail. Things are gonna happen, but I think their first priority should be correcting those rather than moving forward with the development.

Trying to thread that needle a little bit.

That's just my my thought.

Yeah. I I am unhappy with it either, but

I think with the acts

of god or something like that, then that gives them a grace period, but before like a fine. But they they have to be put in anyway.

I think too that that our sites are designed to a certain storm event. So there are certain storm events that will exceed the minimum standards that they're implemented. But the contractor is also responsible for taking consideration the rain log, what happens with the rain events and addressing those issues once you have an event. So I think our staff in the past has been very, I won't say lenient, but understanding when those events happen, and they're taking all the measures to go in and mitigate what has happened and have all the details and documentation for those rain events. So I think it's a key piece on that.

Did that lend to this language what staff had been experiencing after having been understanding?

We were basing the language on the minimum standards that we have to go by for design. It's kinda hard for us to put a number on an event that exceeds the minimum design standards in how we dictate that. I think we have to take a common sense approach in some aspects as long as they're taking the time to mitigate and do their due diligence to ensure those corrective measures are put in when those events happen, then we have some flexibility to work with them.

So if we and I agree with this. If we're gonna look at the average number for residential, then why not look for the average number in commercial as well?

There still will be large projects.

Well, there may be large projects, but what is the average?

Again, with commercial, very difficult. You have you can have economic development projects that can exceed fifty, sixty acres easily, and you can have your little mom and pop convenience stores in mail and be half an acre. You have a shopping center pop up. We've had two shopping centers under construction over the last two years, one in Red Bank, which is kind of a mixed use development. Would say, what, 40 acres maybe? If you add the residential portion, you've got the new Target centers West Of Lexington, it's probably 20 acres. So it really depends. I

think in the stormwater advisory board, they made a good point that the for commercial, when you limit the upper end, you could be making some projects that would be very beneficial for the county, you could be making them non feasible if you stop that. An airport or whatever, I can't think of any good examples, but something large like that, if you have a maximum and it's just not feasible at that level, is there a mechanism or an avenue to go higher than that? Can it go through an approval process to where it can go higher than that or they can get a variance or something so we can get that? Otherwise, we're kind of tying our hands with what we can do.

And I think too, it was brought up earlier, difference in the scenarios, and I think Suave brought this up also. Traditionally, your commercial projects, even your major commercial projects, take scout out of the whole mix, that's a that's a true anomaly over in Richland County. But even our economic development projects like Amazon, Nephron, when those folks came in, you're looking at least a twenty four month turnaround time. Slight stabilizer is built. If you look at a residential subdivision, yes, you've got multiple phases.

Those phases, it could be 10 phases, and it may be 10 for us completely built out. So I think the initial text, the difference in the twenty and the ability for residential to have higher initial text, that's what was taken consideration with counsel at the time that the text was actually amended, and I believe the Stormwater Advisory Board did make that that comment or suggestion when they were discussing the 75 acres with commercial and the ability to go above that.

That may be an important point for looking at the topography of the land and determining it from the topography of the land as opposed to these arbitrary numbers again.

Mr. Derrick, would you please read back the the points that you had written down for consideration?

The points from the Stormwater Advisory

Board or No. With what you from our discussion that you read a little while ago.

Sensitivity checklist, taking consideration the surrounding environment, measures to further protect Lake Murray, Further discussion concerns with the 75 acres, whether that be the cap for residential or above for commercial. No fee for initial stop work order for best management practices not installed correctly, basically allow seven day NOV for them to correct. Again, the concerns about the site size is really arbitrary. Again, if you have larger sites, larger sized sites, and everything is designed and implemented correctly, there may or may not be any additional concerns or any issues outside of that. And I think the last comment was the additional BNPs has always been discussed throughout both scenarios in November and December here.

The the ability to have those additional BNPs would be an impact positive impact to protect the environment. Those are my main bullet points from the discussion this morning.

I have a question and this may not even be legal, I don't know, you have to let me know. But, you know, if it does passes and the developers are permitted to open up more land, then we're obviously saving them time and money in doing so. Is there any room for the county to get something back out of that, you know, to make the county better to negotiate because, you know, the county may be taking on more risk by letting

Impact fees?

An impact fee necessarily, but some type of negotiation, you know. I travel to a lot of places all over the Southeast and we could definitely use more sidewalks and lights and land and trees and parks, recreational fields, things of that nature, and if we're giving something, I don't know why we're not getting something.

That will follow the lines of development agreements and additional design standards. I know council is currently discussing some amendments to zoning orders for for the preferred design standards to allow some flexibility to development for different type or different design projects. I think that is a slippery slope as far as what you're talking about to have the ability to set aside land for public facilities or whatnot. Again, that's gonna fall more in our design development agreement. That has been discussed and brought up with council.

I do know that we're going through a transportation improvement plan, which I presume this body will probably be somewhat involved with that, which may lend us to having some additional design standards for certain type developments to help implement some of those improvements to a certain extent. I'll just say, Commissioner Sheely, there's a lot of moving parts, a lot of things that are being discussed. Not taking that off the table, but I imagine that will probably be part of discussions moving forward also.

And the term for that is called exaction? An There's the attorney. Not an attorney, but that's I

call it negotiation.

Then there's a rational nexus, you gotta make sure it's an equal give and take.

And I am not your attorney, thank you.

I'm ready to make my opinion.

Absolutely.

All right. I would like to make a motion that we recommend to counsel to move forward with the language that's been presented with the following conditions to be considered. First would be a checklist or some consideration for site characteristics in addition to size. The continued discussion over what is the appropriate maximum size, you know, based on BMPs as well as just acreage, some consideration for protection of Lake Murray in its direct contributing creeks. And then consideration of a at least evaluation of the fee that's charged with a stop work order to determine when it's appropriate possibly to not assess that.

And that would be my motion.

I'll second.

I want my pond protected too, not just Lake Murray. I want all of them, right?

Yeah. I mean,

I think we're getting too specific. I mean, if you're gonna say bodies of water, say

I think it's environmental considerations.

Mean, if you not necessarily in favor or against it.

I just don't there's And the reason I pointed that one out specifically is I do believe that there are areas in which other jurisdictions may have specifically provided enhanced protections for specific water bodies, and I think Lake Murray would be one of those. So that's the reason I pointed that one out. All surface water needs to be protected, but I do think that's that's our jewel, and I do think there perhaps is some expanded protection that might be needed.

And we do have currently protection measures for impaired watersheds, so that may be an like I said, it may be an avenue that that council may wanna look at to identify certain areas such as that.

For discussion, have a question, Robbie, this is just probably me needing better clarification. If business manufacturer wants to come in and develop three fifty acres of Lexington County, put people to work and do all what to do, and they want to disturb three fifty acres with their development. Does this prohibit them from doing that because it's limited to 75? I don't quite get that.

They would have to have if they were approved to go to 75, which currently the way the text is written up to 75 has to go for some would advise the board and county council for that approval above the 60 acre threshold. They would have to create a phasing plan to ensure that they have 75 acres stabilized before they move to clear an additional 75. So they wouldn't prohibit them from clearing 300 acres, but they'd have to have a pretty substantial sequencing plan to ensure stabilization is created throughout the whole process of development. Stabilization could be grassing, it can be infrastructure, it could be a variety of different things to consider stabilized.

That create somewhat of a burden on the developer in terms of how much time it takes to develop and maintain that 75 acres before they can move on to and then are they limited to another 75 acres, which is 150 now, but they still have 200 more acres to go, so they're going to do another 75, then another 75?

That's because that's the way it would be, yes sir. And I can't speak for the development community, but just from our experience dealing with sites for stabilization, grassing can be challenging, especially certain times of year. So if you're trying to stabilize a site this time of year with grassing, it may take a lot longer for it to be stabilized than if you're using an annual grass, and when it gets hot in May and June, you may have to go back and restabilize because that grass is no longer viable. So it does create challenges even on smaller sites.

So if the manufacturer wants to come in and develop a site like I'm describing in Lexington County and they run into these obstacles, might they move to Fairfield County or Richland County or somewhere else?

I think I think the development community looks at all different avenues when they're selecting sites. Again, I can't I can't speak for an industry or a developer, but obviously any type of hoops they need to jump through or timely manner timeliness, they'll they'll take that in consideration when selecting their sites.

Well, I just like going to record and say I don't like the 75 acre maximum arbitrary number. I think there ought not be one.

And and that's the reason I didn't include a specific number in the motion. I think council needs to address that because I agree. As much as states are competitive, our counties are competitive as well. And if they can jump across the river and go to Richland County and develop it for for a lot less money, the same project, then they're going to do that. There's bottom lines that you have to look at. So, that's the reason I my motion was that the council needs to just reevaluate what that number if there should be a number, what the number really should be. And arbitrary may

Well, I mean don't to amend your motion, but would that would you also state or agree that maybe there would be considered to be no maximum? Absolutely.

I think that's counsel needs to evaluate that. What is the right number if there is a number?

If there is

a number at Because if I vote yes, I wanna make sure that that's part

of Yes. The

Or a commercial?

For for commercial specifically is what I'm referring to.

Yes. That that would be my expectation. Yes.

The purpose of this is for staff to take it back to counsel, and just like you did Stormwater with us, you didn't you just kind of told us how they discussed it and what they discussed. I think that all this will be in Robbie's notes that he'll take to counsel, and they can.

There need to be a motion.

There's part of the motion that I agree with, and part of it I don't. So, I mean, how do I vote? I mean, I'll vote for it, but because I think that it warrants additional discussion. But, you know, there's

because it's your last meeting.

It's my last meeting, so who cares really, right?

We do have a motion by Commissioner Frost and a second by Chairwoman Mitchell. You can continue to discuss that. That's entirely up to you all, but yeah.

So read me back the part that is related to the 75 acres of of your motion, please.

Hey. I think my motion, the way I'd phrased it was that council should provide additional evaluation and discussion regarding the size and BMP requirements. So again, it was silent on whether there should or shouldn't be a number. I just think they need to evaluate whether size is the appropriate is that an appropriate consideration criteria?

Vote and then amend it?

Do you have that down in the original

Do we need to amend it to say

We don't know what it is anymore.

Counsel needs to evaluate whether is I will amend that to say, counsel needs to evaluate whether a for commercial projects, a maximum size is appropriate.

I will second again amendment.

Didn't state acreage. Didn't state the number.

Originally, your statement was in relation to evaluate the maximum size and then the second. And then you added and then now you're kinda going back to evaluate the

Evaluate the size period.

Yes. Whether whether it needs to be a maximum number for commercial. For commercial, yes.

I I think we got that.

Commissioner Price? Yes. Commissioner Shealy?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

Thank you all very much. Thank you.

And and I will point out again since the the administrator's here, we'd love to have teller copies back if we could.

Take take our bonus and add it to the color. H. Information only or information only? Alright. Tab I, reclassification.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Commissioner Price? Yes. Commissioner Shealy?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell?

Yes. Any other announcements before Yes,

ma'am. Just just very quickly. I sent you all an email yesterday. I got a response from Mr. Price, thank you sir, about the training. So again, if you would hold off to January 1 after that, you should be good to go. But there is a training available with the South Carolina Association of Counties called Comprehensive Planning in the Landscape of Change. It would meet your three hour requirement. It starts out with a presentation from, I think it's the Director of the Department of Environmental Services, Ms. Reese, I think her name is, a pretty good presentation on how the department has evolved and changed over time and what they actually do for the state of South Carolina.

Secondly, there's some other legal type information with regards to the operation of boards and commissions and the enabling legislation and that sort of thing. And then finally, one of my colleagues who used to be, she's now retired, she used to be the director of planning and development in Tiga K up in York County. That's a presentation they wanted me to contribute to at the time and I chose not to do so. But it's a pretty good presentation on comprehensive planning, what the plan is made up, how you use it and all the elements and that sort of thing. So again, it's three hours, it will meet your requirement, but please wait until the beginning of the year to go ahead.

Moving forward, I don't really know how the department is gonna evolve, what happens to my position, that sort of thing. I know the position is advertised, but I just wanna say thank you all for for being so cooperative and supportive of myself, our staff, as well as, you know, the staff of the county and everything you all have done for the citizens of Lexington County. So thank you again so very much for working with us, and that's all.

Thank you. We'll miss you.

And and if I could, I I do wanna take a a just a quick moment. I know we're ready to go. To to put on the record how much I appreciate how and your service to the to the county, to our citizens, and to us. The the information, the background, the help you give us to make right decisions is invaluable, and we will definitely miss you.

Well, it's a team of us, and they're all here, but I appreciate the sentiment. Thank you, sir.