Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I made a motion. You did make a motion and I'll second. So, all those in favor of approving and looking over the minutes from last month, any changes or corrections, concerns? Okay. All those in favor. I'm sorry. I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second. All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. So, since we changed the agenda, we you can move straight into new business number one. Yep.

We've got a full full agenda this evening. So, um let's see. Moving Okay, moving directly into our resonings. Uh, we have resoning 26-3. Daniel Baker is our applicant. Joyce and Dan Baker owners requesting to reszone a 15.623 acre portion of a 32 acre parcel from RMX20 and GC to AGC. The subject parcel is located on Bless Hope Road in York and the property is referenced as tax map number 292 000010. Council of District 3.

Good evening, Planning Commission. Uh, so this property is in the kind of confluence of Alexander Love Highway, Filbert Highway, and Highway 321. It's about 27 acres in total. However, the request is only to reszone about 15 acres right down the center. And the purpose of that is to subdivide and build three large lot homes on these three properties that be created. Uh, here's a good look at it. This is just a rough sketch plan. Um again these are three 5 acre segments that would be carved out and reszoned AGC. The right side would remain GC that part against Highway 321 and the part against Alexander Love Highway uh for now remain RMX20. Uh you can see there's actually split zone partial as it is. Um RMX 20 on the left, GC on the right. Uh city of York has a lot of this space especially tucked under uh Filbert Highway as their highway commercial district uh which is roughly equivalent to our general commercial district. And this is a jurisdiction donut hole. So a lot of this is zoned or designated for municipal infill. And we like to defer to what uh city of York has plans for. Um excuse the map. It's a little bit blown out. But the small highlighted area in white under that uh kind of teal circle where that red is is our subject parcel and according to their feature land use plan they have it as small lot residential. Given that uh we've decided to side with city of York and deny this request is not consistent with the comprehensive plan and future land use map would allow general farming use types where it may not be expected. There are no instances of agency in the area and thus this could be considered spot zoning. The current zone reflects the goals of the city of York's comprehensive plan given that RMX20 zone uh again playing into that small lot residential plan they have um and the GC kind of working with what's already pre-existing with that highway commercial district. Um however, this will remove an instance of spot

zoning and of course this is an instance uh where downzoning could be appropriate. Um however given its proximity to the city um and usually we're very favorable for down zoning and the opportunity to do so. Uh but given its proximity to the city, we don't believe that this would be the case. If approval is recommended, we recommend uh it also has the following condition that will prevent it from remaining a split zone parcel. Any questions for staff? I do. You were mentioning that there's no incident AGC in the general area. What where's the closest?

Um that would probably be uh north outside the city limits. This here, the RUD property you see actually um was reszoned for a similar purpose again to try and preserve that uh rural large lot residential homestead. Can you mark that property the green? Yes, this here is RUD but the request is for AGC agricultural conservation which here.

Okay. Um what what parcels do do we do we hear from the the u adjacent property owners that you know they would be affected by farming andor land livestock in a negative way?

Well certainly part of this resoning is again to is in search of that character. Um I'm not sure that the typically we try and separate the commercial districts from things like agriculture. Um we try and separate highdensity residential districts from agriculture as well. We typically like to see buffer zones between those two. Thanks. Hey Thomas, I've got a couple here real quick. So, if this was to move forward, would what would the zoning be of that parcel when we're done?

I was a little confused trying to see how that all would play out. Certainly. So, this section here that buffers uh Alexander Love Highway would remain RMX20 as it is now. Okay. These three segments drawn out in the middle would become AGC. uh you know these are roughly five acres which is just above the limit. Um and that is purposeful to try and keep those lots as large as they could be for residential homestead use. Right. And then this far end would remain GC as it is now.

Okay. So, if the applicant had requested RUD instead of HC, would that be more palatable with the city of York's future land use designation? Um, again, they're looking for small lot residential. Small lot residential to our equivalent would be something like it currently is, which is RMX20.

Okay. So, it's it's what I was trying to get at there is that I read through this and it's not necessarily how much farm use could be on AGC versus an RUD. It's really lot size that is the part that's having some heartburn of, hey, we don't want to go this direction in this area, right? It just contradicts what the city of York intends for the space. Thank you. Any questions? Any additional questions?

Is there a motion? I am torn on this one. Uh honestly, I will though I will though make a motion to approve for the two reasons. the spot zoning as well as um basically following York's recommendation. I think it's important that the county and the cities work together. So that is why I'm all right. To clarify your motion motion to approve to approve or to accept staff recommendation. Yeah. To to accept staff's recommendation.

Okay. Which is to deny.

All right. And I can I'll second that. And I echo your that I was torn on this one as well as I read through it. Um I think my heartburn comes from what seems to be kind of carving that out in between a high density area and a general commercial. I think if you went through that area and made a proposal of, hey, we're going to do residential here. It's going to be RUD. It's going to be 5 acre lots all the way through. That might be a little bit easier. or if you were doing something RMX40 all the way through or something to that nature, a little bit bigger lots. Okay. But just how this is broken up is difficult for me to swallow as well.

So that's a first and a second. Is there um any additional discussion?

I'm sorry, sir. It's not a public hearing, so um we can't really take audience participation at this point. The ch the chance to do that is when it goes to council. So, um before council meetings is when um the public can speak. Uh usually two to three minutes depends on the on the determination by by a at a public hearing there there's no uh stated limit on the amount of time that someone can speak. Right. But doesn't council usually set a a time limit? There's two separate uh public speaking opportunities at council meetings. One is uh the first public forum session. Thank you.

Uh and that's limited two minutes on any topic, but when there is a public hearing on a specific topic, there's no time limit. Okay. So, I apologize for that, but uh council when this um goes to council in whatever form it goes to them as that is the the time to to get input from from the public. Okay. The public hearing and the first reading are scheduled for April 6th. April 6th is when it's according to the document. Okay. So, April 6th is when it would come before council.

I'm sorry, but no, not this time. So, we've had a first and a second discussion. Is there any additional discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay, I'm sorry for that. Moving on to um our second resoning. Reszoning 26-4. Jeffrey Martin is the applicant. Brandon Eaton is the owner, requesting to reszone an 8.38 acre parcel from RMX10 to RUD. The subject parcel is located on Santar Road in York. The property is referenced as tax map number 58100000068 and is in council district 2.

Yeah, this property uh is off Big Alison Creek just south of the nuclear plant off road and Duck Cove Lane. So the applicant proposes to take this area, it's about a little over eight acres and subdivided to build six large lot homes each totaling over about an acre each. Uh here's a sample of the site plan. Uh you can see that the six lots here are divided out. They have access off Santar Duck Cove Lane. Um and you can see they're quite commensurate with some of the pre-existing lots that already border the lake. Um all those lots are about anywhere from those boarding the lake. I mean that pre-exist an acre to just over an acre. In our zoning district, we can see this is zoned RX 10. And it does have RUD abudding it just across Santar Road Sar Drive sorry and future land use map this whole area is generally uh rural residential where we expect to see these large lot residences. So we recommend approval of this request given it's consistent with the comp plan future land use map. Again it abuts that other IUD property and we this request will be able to create several lots of similar scale to those surrounding and will allow for the construction of detached single family homes similar to the neighboring properties. Once again any questions for staff.

I have a question. Earlier, I think last year, we looked at the entire area and the zoning and I think there was an agreement that residents, existing residents were interested in maintaining the five five acre minimum lot size. Is this particular parcel within that? No, sir. PD or not? Uh, you can see those that are um again just across Santar. These are RUD lots, but they are over 5 acres as described. So, under RMX10, how many buildings could they put on that property?

Uh, well, RMX10 is one of our uh smaller residential uh designations. So, you go down to 10,000 square foot lot. So, you within 8 acres, you looking at quite a few potentially. You could put 30 plus on that. Any additional questions? Is there a motion? I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed?

Thank you. Moving on to resoning uh 26-05. Terry Sabrina Picket Porter is the applicant owner requesting to reszone a 1.97 acre parcel from RUD1 to RUD. The subject parcel is located on Herby Road in Rock Hill and the property is referenced as tax map number 5170000003, Council District 5. So, this property is just under two acres off of Herby Road in south end of the county. Um, lots of very large properties out here. Um, except Picket Road, you can tell, um, has been subdivided quite a few times. So, the applicant proposes to prepare for a property recombination uh, involving the properties to the north and the northwest um, and then remove a non-compliant structure and build the new home. Um, so the non-compliant structure is not the one that was accidentally placed on these kind of three lot lines. We're instead speaking about this one up here.

Um, so this will be removed and the intention is to take this property and divvy it up in such a way that the this property will follow the setbacks at least conform within the context of this property, the subject property. um then place a home here that will have access onto Herby Road and subdivide it here so that another property could potentially after the recombination have access onto Picket Road. A lot going on. I know. Uh it's currently zoned RUD1. Um and the intention is to go to RUD um just for that flexibility and again allow manufactured homes. And this whole area is generally agriculture. So we recommend approval. Uh and while the comp plan doesn't have a huge bearing on this request, uh I particularly like to pull up some of the objectives of the agriculture space is to preserve what we define as farmland. Um and certainly this space is already much too small to uh play part in that. Um it's adjacent to other RUD properties. Again, all those along Picket Road have already been subdivided um and are being used as homesteads like this would be. Um the intended reconfiguration will create more compliant properties um that can then fit within zoning and setback requirements and this will remove an instance of the legacy RUD1 district. Any questions for staff?

Go back to where you were showing about the movement. So again, I know this one home encroaches. Show me how that's going to be is kind of the end reconfigured. Yeah, because you went through it pretty quick. So, yeah. So, the main intention of this resoning was to put a new home on this property. However, we found that there were some non-compliances that need to be rectified and also RUD1 doesn't allow manufactured homes and so RUD does.

Got that? Um, so the idea would be to biseect it, you know, roughly about here, create an acre that would conform to RUD, um, or at least fit within the OSO close clause. Place a manufactured home here that would have access onto Herby Road. Cut out enough space that this would become at least closer to compliance with setback requirements. um and then biseect it again so that another home could potentially be here in the long future after this has been recombined with some of its adjacent properties so that it would have a route to then get to pick road. Okay. It is I'm not understand is the same property owner own this as they do where the manufactured home is.

The same family owns a lot of this space here. A lot of these flag lots here are owned by the same family. So this is kind of the beginning of them sort of that wasn't okay. That wasn't clear. Okay, I got you. Correct. Okay, I'm good. Any additional questions? Sorry. If in the future they they did um you know dissect it here, then one lot would be non-conforming since it wouldn't be quite one acre.

So the math does barely check out. The idea again you we we did pass the kind of oh so close clause just recently that would allow um again if it was just under an acre booth in that 10% it would be satisfactory. Um now I'm not sure that the setbacks would work out perfectly for this home but at least it would correct the encroachment. Okay. Any additional questions? Is there a motion? I make a motion to approve. I'll second.

We have a first and a second. Is there any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay, let's see. Moving on to reszoning 26-06. TWWP Fort Mill Retail LLC is the applicant. 2648 Highway 160RE LLC is the owner requesting to reszone 1.776 acre parcel from PD to GC. The subject parcel is located on West Highway 160 in Fort Mill and the property is referenced as tax map number 650000000336 Council District 1.

So this property is about under two acres. Um, it exists kind of in the high density space just outside Fort Mill along Highway 160. And the applicant proposes to build two drive-through ccentric business operations that would be in two separate buildings on this property. Um, you can see that it only has access onto Highway 160. And so part of the plan to rectify that, they would also create an access path that goes through the southern parcel. Um, and you can see here in their sketch plan, uh, the two buildings would kind of occupy the center with the drive-through operation circling both of them. So, a lot of these properties, especially these uh, PDs that are zoned down here, were all part of the same PD, a 2008 PD called Stoneacres. Um, and the intention was for a kind of retail village commercial park. Um however since it remained largely undeveloped but because the PD was created in 2008 um the developer is now beholden to a lot of the standards and commercial site design standards that were enacted in 2008. Um and so a lot of the purpose of this resoning is to give them a lot more flexibility and to bring them up to modern commercial site design standards. Uh but otherwise you can see this area is generally a lot of commercial and non-residential uses directly along the highway 160 corridor and highdensity housing. Uh behind that our feature land use, we can see this uh is designated for neighborhood residential. We do have a community center node just to the north at some of those major intersections. Uh so here's another quick look at the PD. Again, it kind of encompassed um uh some of those parcels that bordered 160. And over time, a lot of them have been divided or or given other uses. Uh we're actually specifically talking about retail partial A here.

So, we recommend approval of this request. Um despite it not being totally consistent with the comp plan feature line use map, again, it's designated neighborhood residential, so typically we're asking for some higher density homes. Um, however, given that it only has access onto the highway, it doesn't really actually seem appropriate for residential development. Um, it's adjacent to other uh general commercial properties and it would allow for the development of otherwise non-functional space and further flexibility by abiding by modern commercial development standards. Any questions for staff?

So, can you go back to that drawing that you have the two buildings there with the rendition? Yeah. So, what's the traffic pattern like coming in and out? So, with this plan, yeah, certainly um a TI will have to be requested and that could be requested um by council to have for first reading. Um really they're trying to alleviate a lot of their um traffic pattern by also having that access way to the south um which would need to be added. Um, but right now the only access way designated is this one directly here for both commercial properties.

So would that be right in only or right out only or could people turn left out of there? And I unfortunately don't have that information at this time, but I can get that for you through the coming week. That'd be good. So just some additional commentary on that. at the resoning stage really they're just providing a concept plan for what they intend to do with the property and they're going to go into much more detail on the design u and they'll have to meet current standards and they'll have to abide by their traffic impact as well so that you know the layout might look entirely different but their intent is to have two fast food restaurants there

well yeah and Thomas said a TIA so that that answered my question y thanks Just a couple real quick here, Thomas. So, this section in gray you have up here, will that be required to be installed as part of reasonzoning and doing any development in the section in red or is that a future plan? Oh, you mean this southern property here? Yes, sir. Um, actually, we have Mr. Kushner in the house today. He might be able to answer that better than I can.

Okay. Hi, Jeff Kersner. Commercial zoning. I was just talking to the engineer who's here for this center project uh today. The concept is there's three different sketch plans for all the three sections you see there including the one that has this the site plan for it's a coffee place is what's shown on there. Um the concept is for all those to have joint access across them if they all come together whenever they come in and have shared access even up hopefully to the um goodwill. When the PD was originally approved in 2008 that was a house there's acquired a buffer like a 30- foot buffer I think it is against the house which doesn't exist anymore. Uh now it's retail there wouldn't be a buffer. There'd be landscaping and there' be hopefully cross access. There's there's design issues like that why we're looking to go to base code current standards so things can work together as opposed to going from the PD from 2008. So these are all in concept and we're just talk we're working out the details we're just talking about today and they're all just in sketch plan review not even civil plan review yet. Okay,

but that's the concept to try to have one access off of 160 shared joint access, one access to the I can't remember the name road, but uh the minor road to the south uh which is very similar to the PD concept but hopefully meeting our current code standards. Okay, thank you. So, if I might summarize the the permitted land uses are not the driving force for the reszoning because they're pretty similar. You're you're saying that under a GC zoning, you've got a little bit more room to work within that property. That's

for the plan development. This was the commercial part. You see the PD. Yeah. And it did allow for we looking at, you know, business, retail, even drive-throughs. So, that's consistent and that's why it needs to be GC because that allows commercial drive-throughs in the current code. But, this is not a um the applicant's not proposing it to allow a new use. It's it's really more about the design standards from 2008 versus what we have now from my standpoint. We prefer our current design standards when we're working with projects and that's but we'd have to go base code for that. That's GC. Second part of the question is who owns the gray property and how do you get an is that an easement? is another property owner and um they also have a concept plan that we've reviewed like a sketch plan.

Okay. Um so obviously they're going to have to work together especially with that shared access drive but that's where it does end up being and we obviously have to work with the DOT and transportation impact. There's a lot of design to go but that is actually where the PD proposed it and they actually I think they actually have some curve cuts there. It just never built it out. Okay. So we're going to have to look at that and make sure that that meets standards as well. So there's a lot of work to do. We're still in concept plan, but the reasonzoning is so we know which code we're going to enforce, the 2008 codes or the current codes. Well, you have to do the same thing for that gray piece of property. I really suggest that they resone as well, but obviously um we spoke to the applicants for this parcel and they

pretty much immediately said, "Okay, we can I'm just thinking ahead for for our next We could probably make the one work in the PD. It's just we're gonna have to force old codes. It's You know, but we we'll have to sync them all up because they shared access. I'm just thinking about timing, that's all. Yeah. Yeah. Be more convenient if they if both of them were done simultaneously, obviously. But as long as you can get it done, that was my question. Thank you. Okay. Any additional questions?

Uh I'll make a motion to approve. I especially appreciate the secondary entrance off of 160. So, if we can hopefully keep that in the plan, that would be lovely. Yeah, I'll second. Is there any additional discussion? Nope. Excited to see a Dutch Brothers.

Um, so all of those in favor? Anyone opposed? Moving on to reszoning 26-7. Steven McCrae Jr. is our applicant. The Eubanks Family and Limited Partnership is the owner, requesting to reszone a 50.803 acre parcel from LI to GC. The subject parcel is located on Gold Hill Road and Highway 28 bypass in Fort Mill. and the property is referenced as tax map number 719000000 council district 7. The applicant is proposing to go from LA to GC. This is quite a large uh GC property. Uh proposes to allow a future commercial development anticipation of the Gold Hill Road bifurcating uh this parcel after realignment the Highway 21 bypass. Excuse the typo. And you can see in the aerials there's already the area cleared. Uh that's commensurate with that plan. Uh here it is a bit clearer. Here's our subject property. Uh and Gold Hill Road will eventually fill in that uh curb there. And it will essentially create two properties. One here and then our large subject property. A lot of the space is zoned like industrial. Um, you can see we have lots of non-residential uses around here as well as a lot of high density residential uses. And our future land use has this area for the I77 corridor employment given its proximity to the interstate. Um, and on the other side we have neighborhood residential. So recommend approval. It's consistent with the comprehensive plan future land use map. uh will not exclude some of the expected land uses that we would like to see in high employment space including hotels, offices and restaurants. Uh the

scale of the potential commercial development could meet the employment value expectations within the designation and this is an opportunity for the property of this scale to develop into a cohesive business park. Any questions for staff? Is it going to be right next to the school property where they'd have access into the school off this new road because it goes right by the middle school. Yes, this property new middle school.

The property does abut school. There's a lot of topography challenges on that west side of the property. Um but I can't speak to the intentions of the applicant beyond wanting to zone for commercial. And can you clarify for me? So when we're talking it'll be on both sides of the new gold hill or it just be on the north side. So the reasoning would be one property. Yeah. So the reasonzoning would be for the full 50 acres but the general commercial zone would also apply to the part that is segmented off after. So it would be both sides. Yes. Great question.

Any questions? I had one that there's a reference to a TIA. Is that going to be required? And does the realignment of any of the surrounding roads affect that? Um well that is certainly for um once it gets to deeper transportation review but any large commercial uh product will certainly need require it. Yeah. Okay.

Any additional questions. Is there a motion? I make a motion to approve. I'll second. Any discussion? Yes. I like this idea, you know, just to let everybody know that's a diagonal intersection right there. Um, old people like me sometimes, you know, neck, you know, at diagonal intersections, I think this is an excellent opportunity to allow flow through that better and it'll be a, you know, a actual intersection that'll be formed and I like the flexibility. So, just wanted to mention that.

Yes. Happy with our pennies projects. Um, so if there's no further discussion, all those in favor? Anyone opposed? Moving on to our next resoning of the evening, 26-08. Our applicant is Ron Perry, Dor uh Dorothy Perry, Norville Pettis, Brendan Shannon, Glenda Fox, Carlton Pettis, Dorothia R. Pettis, a life estate is the owners requesting to reszone eight parcels that total 14.06 acres to amend the required conditions of the reszoning adopted by county council on June 16th of 2025. The subject parcels are located on Highway 160 in Fort Mill and the properties are referenced as tax map numbers uh 64800 09 010 022 026 030 038 and 041 Council District 1.

Yes. So, uh, this is less of a resoning, but more of a procedure to amend conditions of a previous resoning. Uh, about 14 acres, all eight parcels along Highway 160. Might look familiar. Was resoned, like you said, in June last year. So, we're trying to amend these conditions from the previous resoning of case 259, uh, which particularly limits the use of the property for town homes exclusively. and the applicant is seeking to also allow a multif family condominium concept. Uh so the current deed restriction reads again limited to an age restricted town home community and those accessory uses typical development of residential neighborhood and the request would be to change that um and amend it to instead say age restricted single family attached homes or multif family units or any derivation of that would again allow not just town homes but also multif family uh their site plan won't significantly change at least um again instead of these being town homes they would instead be multif family units um with tenants rather than specific owners as he said they would still be owners but it again different concept. Um so zoning you can see the 259 uh reszoned all this space over from uh RUD to RMX6 and that was because we saw the space was in a transitional area where we expect these properties to aggregate and uh form cohesive development. So the comp plan and future land use map has little no bearing on this request um as the scope of the resoning is just to amend those conditions and of course this will afford more flexibility in the development and marketability of the site. Any questions for staff?

So I understand the concept of you know owning the home but not the land but are we talking specifically like a an apartment? We're not talking apartments. Correct. Uh the applicant is here. If you'd like to ask the questions about that

if we have a question we we can we can ask. Yes. Hi. Just quickly. Yes. Are we talking apartments or are we talking? We're talking ownership. The only difference here and the reason for the need for the condition change is simply a number of technical issues with the code. These would still be owned. the units would be the only difference would be the land underneath would be owned by the HOA is the only difference. There are some very technical parts of the code that are different between multif family and town home and this allows us to preserve what we promised you all from a perspective of that exact same site plan and nothing's going to change. They're still going the site plan itself is still

site plan itself stays the same. It's going to be single family not single single family attached but the reason for the change from town homes to multif family is because of the definitions in the code. So that merely just allows us to build this exact product that we like making sure that we comply with the code. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Can we get some clarification on the definition perhaps that was just brought up Jonathan maybe or or Thomas?

Yeah, you know, town homes are pretty straightforward. Single family attached. Um, so if it's something other than that, it's not a town home. And the restriction that was placed on the property by the recorded deed restriction says specifically town home. Okay. What what would make it I got more confused the more I looked at this than Yeah. So your your town home is going to have the sublotss. So you would own both the unit and the land under it. So under this concept, you would still own the unit but not the land under it.

And that's a code issue or that's just a request from the builders. So it's a mixed complexity of you know the code is more uh flexible for the multif family arrangement and that in that definition when you're doing site design and you know having specific deed restrictions you know most projects they don't have deed restrictions. Uh so but for that they'd already be able to move forward on this. I'm still trying to get my head wrapped around. Um, you know, I I understand a mobile home park. Yeah, I get that. I'm trying to get my head wrapped around. I don't think any of these are on wheels.

So, how you wind up with a built structure, but you don't own the property underneath it. It happens. My parents live in position like that. Or is that common in age restricted communities? How does The ownership of the land under the structure determine what they built as far as this design and what's taxed.

It's the difference between a condominium and a town home. Condominium you own paint to paint. Town home you own the land underneath it. So they're wanting to go to a condominium horizontal regime. So in that case you would not own the land. You would own the structure or paint to paint within the structure. So that means no one in the condominium pays property taxes. They would still pay property tax on their homes but not on the land. Okay. Taxes on the land would be carried by the HOA. I was going to say that they're still paid just not by the individual owners. H you learn something new every day. Yeah.

I Okay. I have a question for Thomas. Thomas, the original approval um included some results of the TIA and some commitments for certain access on 160. Do those remain the same? Yes. Okay.

Any additional questions? Is there a motion? I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second.

Any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Thank you. Okay, moving on to 260 2609. Mariah Corkill is the applicant. Corks property of the Carolina's LLC as the owner requesting to reszone a 0.81 acre parcel from UD to GC. The subject parcel is located at 4070 Charlotte Highway in Clover and the property is referenced as tax map number 5760000007 council district 2.

Yes. The applicant is proposing to go from UD to GC. uh quite a small lot, but it's a four uh commercial tenant uh mall. And the idea is to rather than change any of the structures that pre-exist um instead expand the potential uses to expand again that tenant base that could potentially occupy one of those four storefronts. Uh so this area is largely zoned uh UD. Um actually that property that is zoned off of uh Lucher Circle as zone GC that was part of a reszoning from 2023 case 2330 um reszone for a very similar purpose again to expand uh potential uses outside that UD doesn't grant but GC will. So the future land use actually this is identified as a village center node. Um, village center, we're looking for more like neighborhood commercial um, a lot less intense commercial uses here. Um, and that kind of commensurate with the single family residential underlying designation. And so while it's not consistent with the comp plan feature line use mapping and general commercial is just a little more intense than expected within village center, um, we do see a lot of these business operations pre-exist. Uh the nearby property again was reszoned for that same purpose going to GC to expand tenant base and it will not change the primary function of the site while also removing another instance of the legacy UD district. Any questions for staff?

There are no questions. Is there a motion? Before we get to a motion, can I ask a question? I'm sorry. Yeah, go ahead. Ask a question. Um, this particular parcel has been UD for the last 40 years. Um, and it's been used primarily for retail services. I don't think there's been that much turnover there. Um, is this request from the existing property owner or has there been a recent sale? I'm just trying to figure out what's triggering um the resoning request itself.

To my knowledge, it is the existing property owner. Okay. Um and they're just looking again, they have some potential tenants that they would like to, you know, be able to accompany. Sorry, accommodate. Okay. Because you permitted land uses are retail, but it doesn't say what they are. warehouse and distribution late machinery don't apply because it's in a commercial area to begin with. Um this this is also cleaning up a UD. I understand that. Right. Yeah. Yeah. So that that's part of I don't have a problem with that.

Didn't we reszone that larger property for a restaurant? Wasn't that I think the reason that that larger one was reszoned a few years ago. Was it a restaurant or was it the daycare center? I can't remember which. Okay, I'm fine. That was my only question. It's been a few years. Generally, GC accommodates most every commercial use. UD is much more limiting. So, any additional questions? Nope. That was it. Thank you. Is there a motion? I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second.

We have a first and a second. Any discussion? My not discussion, but I'd like to point something out. I don't know if the applicant is here tonight or not or no. Whoever filled out this paperwork, their penmanship is outstanding. I I am unable to use a writing instrument and be that clear anymore. I do so much stuff with computers and typing things in. So, I just want to compliment this applicant on how easy it was to read through what they asked from us. It is always a lady too. It is always nice to be able to read. Probably weren't born after too many. Be that as it may.

Okay. So, we have a first and a second. No further discussion. Uh all those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay.

What happened to 2,000? We're moving on to um the planning commission commission is to review and provide a recommendation to amend chapter 155 of the zoning code subchapter C use regulations to require a special exemption for data centers used in the light industrial and indust uh industrial development districts and to apply certain conditions related to setbacks, buffer yards, equipment screening, building facades, sound and vibration mitigations and cooling systems. All right. Good evening, Planning Commission. Jonathan Buono, Planning and Development Services Director. So, uh, feel free to stop me at any point that you have questions because, uh, this is a text amendment, so it gets a little nuanced and there's a lot more pages to it than, uh, your typical amendment might have. U,, so what I'll do is I'll go through section by section because it might not be immediately apparent what the each of the changes is trying to accomplish. Um, so like I said, feel free to stop me along the way. So, this first section where it says to uh delete in its entirety this reference in 1550 C, that's uh to delete the reference to the height change in that specific section because we're going to move that into the standards for the data center. So, now that we're creating development standards, it makes more sense to put that you specific height limitation with the standards rather than have it in in the height chart. Second change uh is to move the category of use type that it is um listed under the use table from the business section to the industrial section. And while that doesn't impact the use table at all, what that does change is the amount of buffering that's required. So I'll get into that in the next slide, but it increases the buffers that are required when a new data set is being developed.

Third change on the list here is to change it from byite u as a an allowed use in light industrial industrial development and business and technology parks and to change that to on the next slide. So you can see here data centers is the line here you can see it's P for permitted otherwise known as by right and li Impt. So the change would be to create um special exception requirement in the light industrial and industrial development districts and make it a conditional use in business and technology. Now the reason it would be conditional in business and technology park is that's a special district. It's a it's the same thing uh same level of review and approval as a plan development district a PD. So it's a higher uh requirement. They have to do a whole bunch of master plans uh for that process that has to go through a reszoning with county council and they have to have an itemized list of uses that are specifically allowed in that PD. U so it doesn't make sense to then also make them go through the special exception process since they already have to do many steps further than that by going to county council. U like I said moving that to the industrial category of uses increases the buffers. So right now when you have a data center it's the same buffer category as a bank, a hospital and offices and it would move that into the same category as manufacturing, salvage yards and warehousing. So a much better equivalent there.

Jonathan, if I hold you right here real quick. Absolutely. So that that change in from permitted use to special exception or conditional, how does that change the process that an applicant would go through?

Yeah, good question. So if you are in light industrial, you're in industrial development, um you would have to go before the board of zoning appeals. You'd have to make application for a special exception. Uh they would review it for community context. they have just a couple of standards that they review. Uh, and ultimate approval lies with the BCA. Whereas, if you're doing a business and technology park, that's its own kitten kaboodleoodle. You're not going to have just data centers as part of that development. It has to be a whole park. There have have to be multiple uses in it. Um, it BNT district doesn't even need to have data centers in it. It can exclude them. Uh, if they want that to be part of their development, they would have to specifically propose that to county council. So that would have to go through three years,

right? So So what this does for for folks to understand is as a permitted use, they could simply submit site plans and then you start with the process of trying to uh are you meeting the requirements to code with your site plan? Are you doing everything you're supposed to do, but there's no question about whether or not they could build there. That's right. By doing this, it takes it back to the zoning board of appeals and says you first have to get approval from them to put a data center in this location. That's right. Okay.

And then we've got some uh standards we'll go through in a moment, but whether uh you're approved through a special exception or as a resoning through a business and technology park, you would have to abide by all of the the new standards. So here are Jonathan. So, it'd be a much more rigid process to go through if you had BZA. Is there any other um process extra in the special exception that they would have to go through besides BZA?

Nope. Uh so BZA has ultimate authority over special exceptions. Uh so they're the final stop there. Um that gets you the entitlement, but uh you still would have to go through your uh site plan design, all of your uh building permits and all of that. uh all of those steps to actually get the site uh approved for the layout that you have and the buildings to go vertical. That's I was going to ask so if the special exception is the now the requirement and they have to go through ZDA zoning board of appeals there they can deny it saying it doesn't fit within the

That's right. And I wanted to make that clear because of course there are people here behind you who are highly concerned of course and in case they're thinking well okay you guys stop this we don't want it here but by us requiring that additional requirement they will understand just for their benefit by putting that there it has to go through the zoning board of appeals they can go there as part of a public hearing except etc. And then it could good chances be denied etc. or or approved

but their concerns would be heard there and it could be stopped at that um point in the process. Yeah. Anything uh related to any of the ch changes in this text amendment were are prospective. So they would apply to any new plan for development for a data center that would be uh proposed to to come to York County. So yeah, they would have to go through that process at the BCAA, go through a public hearing. The BCA would have to make findings based on the individual case that's presented to them. But it's not retroactive, too. No. Right. And and again to clarify, once you're past that, you still have three readings of county council that would have to go through.

Not for the special except so it would be right there and that's it. That's right. Okay. Jonathan, if it's a business park, the conditional is a different process. Yes. So, that requires resoning. That is the three readings uh and a public hearing also before county council. Would it come through? It would go through the planning commission for recommendations. Just want to clarify. That's all. Absolutely. And so, the special exception would still only be for the zoning designation of LI and ID. That's correct. Okay. Thank you.

All right. uh for the standards. U so in the uses section of the code, there are a lot of different uses uh that have conditions that apply to them. Like I mentioned, all of these would apply to any future data center. Uh whether or not they're approved by a special exception or as part of a BNT park. So this first section goes into noise. So we would require them to have a noise study be submitted by an acoustical engineer and they would have to demonstrate in that sound study that noise study that all of the development that's proposed and all of the mitigation uh elements that are proposed to go along with it would ensure that uh at full buildout they uh abide by public nuisance standards and the performance standards. getting into uh specific equipment mitigation. Uh this would require that all rooftop uh mechanical equipment has to be screened by an acoustical barrier. Uh so whether or not uh they can meet the standard without it, this requires that they have to have it anyway. Same for uh the ground equipment. This state states that they would have to enclose any of the ground equipment unless mechanically it would be infeasible for that unit to function um while it's enclosed. Does it also limit generator use uh for testing purposes only and as an emergency backup power source? They could not rely on these these units um and comply with these standards. Uh there's some uh reminder text in paragraphs three and four here that they would have to abide by our noise ordinances uh and the performance standards. Also mentions you can't have vibration detectable at the lot line.

Let me any questions on this? Yeah, real quick. I do. So on on the noise ordinance part, do you get down to a actual physical measurement number that can exceed through a certain distance? So yes. Uh so that's all in code. Yeah, that's codified in both the the nuisance ordinance and it's also in the performance standards.

What and to to be clear because I've got a a little bit of background in this in the industry that I'm in. Um, when you look at portable generator sets, not not something that would be used here, but more like what you would see in a food truck Friday. A lot of times those are designed to be below 68 dBA 7t away. Okay. So, I'm I'm asking if there's something in our code that says yes, when we look at a noise ordinance, we have a physical yes, we're using this acoustic engineering study, and the limits are this amount of sound at this distance from whatever we may be looking to test.

Yes. I can't recite those off the top of my head, but we do have them. Okay. Um I I'd be interested in seeing those or having someone point them out to me. We can send that to you

if if we could do that. um and al also for the public at large so they can see what those actual levels are in the code. Um and and the second thing I guess since I got talking about portable generators and this kind of background for everyone's understanding the the EPA does not allow generators that are designated as emergency to be used consistent 247. So doing that's a violation of the EPA regulations and the federal guys are very serious about that. Um there are a lot of companies that no longer provide generator sets in mobile applications because they cannot meet the tier 4 final regulations that are out there for the generator sets. So folks that have said well these generators are going to be running all the time. It is only going to be if there is an extreme power issue. It cannot be something that they do 24/7.

Yes, sir. Hey, Jonathan. That's why he's a Georgia Tech grad. He's got He knows. Um, so I know we got the 80 foot limitation on the building. What is the pad? And you can and I'm looking at the, you know, road view of it. cars going by, you know, people, pedestrians. What if that pad was 10, 15, 20 feet higher? 80. Okay. So, I mean, I I think he's gone on to the next I think you went on to the next page. You're talking about distance and that's on the top of the

No, I understand. But I'm I'm just asking them from a height standpoint, could that be if that pad was 20, 15, 20 ft higher, does it have to be is it limited to that 80 feet or you know because that would be a total of 100 ft. So explain what you mean by pad. The building pad as relates to the road. Yeah. So the the height measurement is from grade. So if you're got a pad that goes above grade. Okay. Are there any limitations? Like if they build that pad up, I guess is what I'm saying when it's from the road.

Yeah. If they build a pad and it's the pad's going above grade, then they would eat into their allowable building height. Total height from the ground. Total height from grade 80 from the ground. Period. No, but I'm talking about from the street. I'm just saying if you have a It's on a hill. Say it's on a hill, right? If they built the pad, say 50 foot back, they built, you know, so they're building into a hill in your in your scenario. No, they're filling they're filling a area that doesn't have Yeah, it's from grade. So it's from where it sits on grade. That's right.

So it could be from the street. It could be 100 120 ft high. Yeah. So what you're referring to is is probably better termed as elevation, correct? You know, above sea level, right? Right. So yeah, so height by code is measured at grade. So if they're grading the site, uh it's measured at grade and there's no limitations on, you know, more distance away if it's higher off grade if the elevation is No. So you know, the the elevation above sea level doesn't come into the equation for for building height. It's all measure from grade. The way I look at that, that's that's not good. That's not.

So, here are some examples of what those sound mitigation devices look like as required by these standards. So, there's your louvered walls uh that would be around that rooftop equipment. There's an enclosed generator in that big box there. And here's an example of, you know, from the QTS site that's under development currently. That's the noise study that was done for that project. So, here we have I'm sorry. Would you mind just going back one slide real quick? Absolutely. Because I don't think this was in our packet, was it? No. Yep. Okay.

Okay. And and any idea what the distances are in any of that? Um I'm assuming the the circles are where the measurements were taken or is that that noise level for all the colors in that graph? Yeah. So all the colors are the the acres study there.

Wow. Jonathan, one one quick question. Is the structure that's used for noise abatement, is that within the 80 foot or is that No. So, uh there are specific exemptions from height when you have rooftop pertinances. Okay. So, if they're taking up um I forget the percentage off the top of my head. I think it's like 40ish%. If it's under 40%, it doesn't count toward of the rooftop area. it does not count towards building height.

I think that was one of the arguments that was made to allow the additional equipment for the cooling and the chillers. That's right. That was part of the calculus council when they made the amendment. That's right.

Thank you. As we just alluded to, here's that maximum height uh that that uh was amended in last year's uh text amendment. Getting into uh the building design standards. So, uh these are meant to make sure they're not just big white blocks uh boxes uh so to speak. So, this will require building entrances uh that need to be distinct from the other uh facades on the building. so you know where the front of the building is. There's some modulation that's required in in the standard whether it's vertical or horizontal every 150 linear feet. That's just to break up the bulk of the building so it's it's not one big plane going across. There's a little bit of visual interest to it. Uh and then we heard some concern about the reflection of uh some of these buildings because you know they produce a lot of heat internal to the building with the cooling systems and all the servers that are running inside. Um, so they often paint them in light colors because then the building uh is absorbing less of the heat from the outside, but that has the negative consequence of producing more glare. So they're reflecting light onto the neighboring properties instead. U so this standard would have a maximum light reflectance value of 70% for any of the materials or colors that they're painting on the exterior of the buildings. There's some reminder text in paragraph D that they would be required like all other developments to abide by the outdoor lighting standards that are already in code. Uh E is to have a lot of these are seeing the the model is these hypers scale data centers. So they are more and more often coming with their own electrical substations if not multiple substations. So uh this standard required uh those to be screened from public rights of way. Uh, a lot of these

thousands I mean they're just super high in the air. So Jonathan, I have a quick question. With those electrical substations, are they required to have the same noise ordinances as the building itself? That's right. So there's nothing different there. No.

Uh, so the security fencing, uh, a lot of these are meant to be secure facilities. a lot of uh secure private data. So um they like to have security fencing. So the ask here for this standard is they not be chain link so they don't uh look terrible for the neighbors and they don't have barb wire and not exceed 10 ft in height. Paragraph G is the low water cooling systems. Uh so to make sure that there's not an impact to the local watershed or the local uh demand for publicly available water that they use a low cooling water system. Any questions on those? Yes,

I have a question about the water because that's one of my concerns with this. Um so this is going to require closed loop. So that means Once the water's in, it stays in. That's okay. What do they do? Does that water run out of life? Does it absorb whatever it is that it's chilling? What do we know about that? And what do they do with it?

Yeah. So, that's why the the lang the technology is emerging. So that's why the language uh has in there a closed loop system or similar that has low impact on water because I'm sure there's going to be new and new technologies that emerge that maybe they don't need any water at all. Who's to say? But the goal here is to have minimal water from the local waterhed or the local public water system. To answer your question, as I understand it, I'm not an engineer. In a closed loop system, they put the initial water into the system, they run it through the loop, and they cool it, and they continually run the same water through the system. You have a chiller.

So, the way your refrigerator works at home, the way your air conditioner works at home, that's a closed loop system and it's using a freon gas, but it's a similar concept. And they're talking about being able to do this water in a closed loop system. The question I have is when you mentioned that that there would be low impact, meaning there would be some impact, but who determines what that impact is and how are you monitoring what the impact is to the water? Because if you give them access, sure, are they going to self-regulate a police or how are we going to determine?

Yeah. Well, they would have if they're going to use public water, uh, they would have to, you know, make sure that they get willingness and, uh, capability to provide that public water from your public agencies and that's the city of Rock Hill. It's your county as a service provider uh pass through service provider there. Um when it comes to u what they can use from uh the minimal water resources, you know, the evaluation of that standard is going to be left up to the review body. So it's going to be the uh BZA in the case of a special exception. It's going to be county council uh in the case of reszoning.

Well, if I could uh just want to tease that out a little bit further. So, utility wise, water, electricity, right? We've we've had other things come before us over the last several years that we didn't really see the commitment from whomever was providing the utility that they could meet what was needed and we wound up denying act denying that particular project to go forward. So, is there anything in the wording that's going to be in this that will state those are required that you must have those commitments from the utilities before the special exemptions granted or anything in the code that will say you must have those before you can move forward?

Uh, that's an interesting question. U, it's a good one. Um, it depends on the utility. I I think um because once you start getting into electricity, that's not something that the county controls. Um so it might be outside of our police power. We'd have to uh evaluate that if we're going to include it as part of a zoning standard. Okay. Um but you know, they would be required to have um willingness and capability to even develop the site in the first place from a uh a water and wastewater perspective. So we have that already.

I'm I'm with you. What what I'm kind of thinking about here, Jonathan, is um going back to the kettle song stuff on 901, right? And there were a lot of things that weren't there. There was a lot of back and forth between the county and the developer about what was happening, but one thing that never came was the commitment of the water and sewer. And that was one of the things the county repeatedly said, until you have that, we can't tell you it's okay to go. And the county was not the provider.

Right? So in that case to me it seems you all have that power to say you need to demonstrate you've got a commitment from the electric utility and a commitment from whomever supplying your cooling water that all of this is going to be feasible within what you've asked to do. Yeah. and codify that to give yourself something to the one bit of nuance there since you met me mentioned kettle song is that was a byite development um so you know they were at the staff review stage of the site so because they did not have the

capability you know I think there was willingness on some of the providers part of the time right uh but they didn't have the capability there was no way to deliver services uh to the site so you know the site review process caught that. So, does that mean that same thing would happen in a site review process for the That's right. So, even if the uh county council or the BCA approved these things, if they get to the development stage and there's not willingness and capability to serve it, they could not move forward. And um how is that how is that codified that you have to have that? I mean, I understand what happened in the past, right? Your explanation was spot on. I get it.

Where do I go to the code to see that that's required? Yep. That's in the land development code. Okay. Land development code. Mike, and to dovetail on your comment, I think part of the capability would be to define exactly the quantities of the particular utility that they're talking about. How many gallons of water are we talking and how how many watt megawatts of electricity? that that could vary depending on what is installed. Exactly. Correct. That's what I'm saying. Especially from electrical, it it varies depending on the size of what the center is going to be. So

I don't know that we could get down to a number so much that we have what I think Jonathan say was when you get to that point of going forward with the development, you have to demonstrate that what is required for that site can be delivered by the utilities supplying that site. Understand? Take take an example where a particular data center decides they've asked for the requirements for five buildings and they end up with 10 that changes the requirement. At what point is that change reviewed and by who? Well, or we just giving them a cart blanch.

Probably better ask of the gentleman there with the neck tie that has much directed it at you, but I I know he's listening. I was listening. Uh yeah. So if someone has a plan for development and in your example, they were approved for five data center buildings. They got an approval letter from Rock Hill and from York County that says we have X capacity. Okay.

Uh for for public wastewater and and public water. Uh if they wanted to do more than that, they'd have to come back through and start over. So they'd have to get their plans revised. say, "We we we know we started with five, we got approved for five, we actually want 10." So now they need a new letter. If there's not the capacity, they're not going to get that letter. So they might be stuck with what they were originally approved for.

Okay. So here's some of those uh examples just to show you some basic horizontal modulation. So that's bumpouts, recesses, things like that. Uh and vertical modulation is to change the height of the building as as you're moving along. Some examples of the fully shielded fixtures that are required by code. So those have to be full cut off uh downward-f facing lighting. And there's an example of that uh light reflectance value. And I had to learn a little bit about this. There's actually no way that uh that humans can reproduce pure white at 100% or pure black at 0% reflectance. So what we're looking at is to make sure that they're at 70% or below with the preference being earth tones. So you put it all together. This is kind of a a smaller scale from what we typically see um being pursued today for data center campuses, but got a couple of buildings. Uh you've got your substation there. You've got your sound walls, your screen walls, your security fencing. They typically have some type of guard house and employee parking. So if you put it all together, that's kind of what it looks like. Uh the last section in the proposed standards here is when adjacent to residential that there would be in increased setbacks above and beyond uh the district minimum and for ground equipment that those be set back even further those ground units. Uh so some of the the methods that folks could use to accomplish that setback would either be to meet it with 300 feet or to have it face on the other side of the building where you're meeting the distance and you got a whole building separating um the residential property from those ground units as well. And here loading bay locations uh those could only be on walls that are not adjacent to residential property.

I know this may sound like a silly question, but on the setbacks, if you're requiring 200 feet from a shared property line and your 80 foot requirement gives you another 40 foot setback, are we talking 160 or are we talking 240 from 240? 240. Okay,

not a silly question. And there are no requirements on setback from major roads. Actually realized late after we approved that that the additional twoft height requirement was only along three sides of the building. Are we assuming that their parking would allow Is there a minimum setback from a major highway or roadway? I guess. Yeah. So there is a front road setback. Okay. Uh but what you're referring to is the additional setback if they go above the district height uh limit. So know that would only apply to the sides and the rear. Right. Okay.

So I've just been thinking about what Tom was saying. Are there any requirements in terms of elevation versus you know street level which could be different. Is there are there any max differences? No. No. Is there a way when we get into discussion? I I want to mention that. Yeah. Is there a way to um incorporate that or make that suggestion? Uh specific to data centers or or so when when you're developing a site, I would say anything that's going to go above that 60 ft. Yeah. Personally,

that's correct. Yes. So when you're developing a site u and grading is involved, you want the site to function. So uh they're not going to bring in a whole bunch of fill to raise the elevation of the of the property going on today. No, there's going to be grading on a site, right? And they need it to be level so that the buildings can be level. So you got parking, so you got site navigation. Um, I've not seen developments that build it up

that just build the whole thing up on on soil, right? So, they're going to they're going to cut in some places. They're going to fill in some places so it's as level as possible for their uh development. I've not seen a standard in zoning that applies, you know, sea level elevation or difference between between street and a particular part of a site. That's going to be my recommendation when we go to discussion. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So, do you have it? That's it. Okay. Do we have questions?

I think we wore him out pretty good along the way. We did. We did. I have one elephant in the room. Question. Go for it. an existing approved site that is going to increase sometime in the future. Is that subject to the regulation or because are they grandfathered? So any newly proposed uh data center development would have to abide by the standards if adopted even on an existing data center an let's call it an expansion. So an expansion would be a new plan for development. Okay. Thank you for clar I'm sorry he said

I'll repeat that he said that uh even on an existing data center if they wanted to build additional buildings on the property it would come under what's been approved the new is that correct so there there would have to be a new plan for development right so anything that's already been approved that has a site plan approved they would not have to abide by these standards. It would have to be a new plan for development. So adding to something would have to be a new plan. That's right.

Okay. So is there a motion make sure I will make a motion to approve. I feel like this um more brings into uh line under um you know it's it's stricter.

It it it spells out some things that haven't been spelled out in the past. And I think that that's good. It's a step in the right direction. I would like to see more specific language particular for water usage and also electrical

usage. So would you like to make a second um amendment an amendment to that or would you like to go ahead and make a to second that and then we can vote it or how would you like to handle that? I don't know if it's even possible with the information that we have now on data centers for to have more specific language in particular for me and my biggest concerns and what I've seen is the electrical usage and also the water usage and to be able to spell that out in more specific terms. And I'm not even sure what that would look like to be honest because I don't know enough about it to to put that in place. Um would that be possible?

It it depends on what the specific standard would would state uh certainly because you know uh the zoning power is broad. Um it it's a pretty broad police power that the county has but it does have limits. Um so in in terms of dictating what a business can and can't do. uh the things they have to have or can't have, it has to fall within that zoning police power. So, uh if you have suggestions in mind, we could certainly evaluate them, but we'd need it need to be very specific.

Like in in my mind, like for instance, if the water the water usage reached, you know, to where it was affecting the community to a certain extent, I don't even know how to to word that, but like um how could you how could you limit that? How could you put that into an amendment or even even electrical usage unless it's drought conditions then you you you have to put limitations even on

right and like who who's to say like if it was drought conditions right and then you have this big data center and they're using this certain amount of water and who's to say they're not taking the water and the people are suffering because of it. That's right. Um, same thing with electrical. You know, they're drawing all this electrical and we're having black or brown outs because of it. Um, they turn on. Those are those are my concerns. Um, and I I don't unfortunately know how to to be more specific. Um, because I I don't, like I said, I don't have the language to do that. Um, so if anybody has any ideas, I'm all

on the drought on the I could speak from a water because that's what I do. If there's drought conditions, then the utility would have to make that determination. They're like, okay, if we're in a drought, we're going to have to it's just like metered water, you know, you have to use 20% of what you normally do. They'll set those limits and they'll have a squad out there making sure that that that goes through no watering yards or anything like that.

What is being proposed here says that data centers shall employ closed loop systems. So that's not going to be a regular demand on the water. So that the way that that's worded to me, that's not something that gets replied. And folks, I Let me just stop right here for a minute. I appreciate the concerns of the community. I live in this community. Unfortunately, we are not able to debate in this forum. We're not we're not able to take questions and reply. I appreciate your care and concern, but that really has to go to county council. That has to be something where you're speaking in front of council. Understood. But you can there's there is absolutely nothing that that we can do with you all this evening. Okay.

So the way I read this, it's a closed system. So it's a one-time fill and then a little bit of maintenance. So So that's the part I I have a hard time understanding. Have evaporation, right? But I I don't think you're going to have a significant effect. Okay. And the the utility side though, the electricity side although is a completely separate matter because I don't see okay well when something happens how do you all deal with it and what is the what is the effect on the community and whatnot. So a self-regulated emergency

I would sir again I your word is not enough for us to be considered an expert. We would need documents from expert folks to provide the feedback. The opinions are things that have to go to county council. So Mike piggybacking on that and what Jonathan said also in terms of electricity not something controlled by the county. Correct. I mean, we have Duke. Well, or or you know, I guess there is York County Electric, but Yeah, but but they're different, you know. Right.

So, again, I don't know that we can put that. I mean, we can make a recommendation to council. That's all we're doing. Period. Everything we're doing here is a recommendation. Nothing of what we do tonight is going to become exactly firm until council approves it. recommend somebody outside the county staff to write this.

So, um I mean the the thing that as I was asking Jonathan, what's a little bit unclear from just and this is just some of how the code works is when you read this section, you don't necessarily have it jump out at you that oh, this has to go to board of zoning approval before you can even move forward. And oh, by the way, they're going to require that this and this is required as far capability. So

yeah, that's another point um that's worth mentioning that I don't think we've covered yet. So when the BCA is reviewing items uh they can apply conditions to their approval. So those would go above and beyond the standards that are applicable to all data centers. So on a case by casea basis, they're allowed to add additional conditions of approval to those as well. Yeah, I guess that that's the one piece of feedback that I'd like to see a little different in here would be to really call that out a little more specific that it is in these particular zoning areas when when you're down in section let me get right what you did here. So, whatever the new subp part becomes, right, that we've got 155 triple XX because we haven't identified what that's going to be yet. Is that right?

Uh, so that's just the the X there is so we can find a logical order to put in. So, so when we actually give that its designation, then within this section that you you've got a little bit more explanation, not necessarily maybe the applicability section's going to be a little bit more to say that any of these require BUZA or BZA approval has to be in these districts per this section kind of point you in the right

Oh yeah yeah the the the code's not to be meant to be read in isolation so um you know the applicability section talks about all data center uses that are specified as conditional or special exception under the use table and there's a reference there so that's this table here so right um that would clearly show whoever's is interested in applying for a data center that a special exception and then you've got to go look somewhere else to see what does SE mean and how does that apply right yeah

dealing with the national electric code it it leaves a lot to be desired with that stuff because you you go to size something and you're in this part of the book and then you have to flip over to this part to read two sentences and then come back to the other site so just I sometimes I think it would help folks understand better if that was laid out a little more comprehensive in each section. But I I understand the point you're making. Could Jonathan during the discussion could we bring up things for council to consider? Sure. Like electric?

Yeah. But one thing I will say about that is um there have been a number of recommendations that you all have put forward for council to consider XYZ and then uh we get up and we tell them plan commission would like you to consider XYZ and then we get the well what do they mean by that? What do they what do they want us to do about that? So the more specific you can be for for council that helps them figure out you know what what you're which path you're trying to get them to row down. Though if you're like still having this thing is like Right there.

All right, Jonathan, we're we're not the first county that's experiencing all of this and and I'm I'm sure you guys researched some of the existing u ordinances and proposed amendments and changes. You you can go to York County, Virginia, and they've got a 20page document. I I have not compared that side by side.

Yeah. But maybe something that we recommend to council also is to look at a specific number of examples and even maybe before it gets to council, we can say, you know, here's where where the points are aligned and here's some additional considerations that we should incorporate into this before council signs off. Absolutely. And I will say that you know when it comes to zoning standards is almost nothing new under the sun. So uh all of these standards were developed from existing standards in Northern Virginia where there's a high concentration of these data center campuses.

Okay. So, there is a motion. We got back into questions. Um, is there a second? Yeah, I I will second this to move it along for debate at at county council. I think um there there are still a lot of things that need to be sorted out. this is a great start, but I think they're they're really going to be the ones in the forum with the feedback that can really

develop this more than we are able to do here. Um, I I will say that that however we could convey our concerns about impact to public utilities of of adding data centers and that they receive that that information. That's water and electric, right? Yes. And when I when I say that I wasn't it it it's how that affects that supply which would also have an effect on the community at large and

right and I think you should look at it in an emergency situation too Jonathan if you're in a drought that's another review of what the limitations are in emergency conditions. You know what I'm saying? To say water. Okay. What are your limitations to usage in droughts? Um I think that should be considered and it could be at the BCA level or whatever discussed. But when it comes to to drought standards, we're talking um

you're talking public water. Uh that's that's going to be driven by the public utility. So they've got standards that are going to apply broadly to everybody. Right. Right. Right. Yeah. But sometimes they vary depending on what stage the drought is. Trust me, I've been doing this for years.

Okay. So I'm just saying that that should be something in there including during drought or issues with electric you know you know the grid or whatever that they can make other limitations of what you know during emergency situations like drought for water. Well, the only thing you'd want to be careful of, and this is what I mentioned, the limits to zoning authority, is you you wouldn't want to have u a York County entity, you know, say the York County BZA, uh placing a limit on what uh water uh even in a drought scenario that a public utility provider, say the city of Rockill could provide to their water customer.

I'm just saying, right? I'm say what I'm saying is that utility should have you know I mean if we're we're talking well yeah I see what you mean. I see what you mean. I see what you mean

and I also want to do what I'm talking about when I talked about earlier from adjacent property lines. Okay. You're here. There should be a vertical if that is put on like a 10-ft pad that should be even further away. If it's higher, it's based on mean sea level elevations from the property line to here. If you increase that pad, you need to have some kind of stipulation in there. You need to be even further back. You see what I'm saying? I'd like for the council to to evaluate that situation.

Okay. So, you're you're wanting you're you're wanting to evaluate the difference between grade measurement and elevation measurement. Correct. Street level versus elevation. And you know, the all of this is is is for the the the record and for a full commission recommendation to county council. So, you know, you all might have individual things that you want to recommend, but make sure it's included in in the motion so that it's what you're speaking as one one group. That's why you get more information. So, how do we do that? I'm sorry. How do we do that? Our homework assignment to kind of summarize.

We can we can add these requirements. Are we ready to do all of those tonight? Or do we say, "Hey, that next meeting by then we have a list or put a self-imposed deadline of all of these things we want council to consider even if it gets so for the public's benefit, the BCA can say we we're not going to approve the special exception." So he can't put the data center here. Correct. Yes, sir. Right. So at that level they can say no data center. That's right.

But if somehow one does we can put you know as many stringent requirements there to measure the noise as you mentioned water and whatnot. And so how do we put that list of concerns together where in a timely manner where we feel like it we've put everything out there that we want them to consider because can we do I don't think we're ready to do that tonight. Are we?

Well, let's let's ask the question a little different way. Um okay I I understand that everything's being proposed is to change the way this is handled. put those special exceptions in, etc., etc. So, if we take no action tonight, we delay that process. Right. Exactly. So, so in other words, if if we've taken no action on this recommendation to council, we need to go through another cycle. Other things would have to happen. Okay. So in the meantime, if there is an expansion plan put forward, it would have to be it would be approved under the current rules and the BCA would have no opportunity to say anything. I have a nuanced answer for you on that.

Okay, great. U so uh when a a a typical text amendment process starts with you all that is not the case here. So, uh, council has already had first reading on, uh, the ordinance that you're reviewing tonight, and they also, as part of that, uh, enacted the pending ordinance doctrine. And so, what that means is if there's a plan for a development that comes in, uh, it can't be, uh, in breach of anything that's being considered. Um so in effect you had a development that came forward now they would not be able to move forward without a special exception uh being approved. Okay.

First so uh in terms of an emergency and and delaying things there's there's not that element to it.

I will say the part of the schedule uh second reading and the public hearing is at the next council meeting. Um and then uh they would not be able to by statute uh have third reading and approve a text amendment until you all have made a recommendation to them. Um so if you need to delay uh a recommendation on a text amendment, you certainly can. Um whether or not that impacts county council's schedule depends on on your choice there. Um and if you want to entertain a special call meeting or if you address it or if council is uh willing to move that third reading out. There's there's nothing that holds that schedule in place.

I'm not sure if this is the right point or not, but um I'd like to jump into executive session real quick for some legal advice about this process and how it interfere interfaces with county council. Good idea. So, I make a motion to do that. That that's a proper motion. Um he specified that it's on the issue you all are considering. So, you need a second and a vote to go into executive session. I'll second. Go ahead. All those in favor

I have a uh uh a pending motion with a second and I would like to um recommend a proposal to that amend an amendment to that propo amendment to that uh proposal. Uh we I would like to excuse me. Uh I propose the following amendment which is that we recommend to council uh that they consider requiring all new applicants uh submitting as part of the special exemption uh their estimated demand for uh electricity as well as water usage uh in in regular times as well as times of emergency. Uh we also would like them to uh look at environmental um impact like light, noise and water. Um we uh would also like county uh council to consider any additional requirements that have been identified by similarly situated counties. Um so that we can maybe more even more broadly um put into uh place what this is basically which are restrictions um on any new data centers in your county.

I'll second the motion. Is there any discussion? Okay, if there's no discussion, then all those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay, that was the amendment. So, we need to go back to the main motion. Okay, we need a vote on that. So, we already have it on the table with the second. Mhm. Any additional discussion on that first amendment? I'm sorry, what are we voting on? So, we uh we basically added those amendments to the first motion.

Got you. And now Okay. Any discussion on that first one? If not, all those in favor? Anyone opposed? And we'll write that up more succinctly to pass along to to county council. Um before we move on to our preliminary plat, I would just like to address um the folks that are here. We do appreciate you coming out. Unfortunately, this is just not the forum for uh typically for for public uh input. We are only um a a body that makes recommendations to council. We absolutely understand that this is um an important um you know, all of these are important decisions and that it is um there are lots of different things to consider. I hope that you understand that what we voted on tonight actually makes things u more difficult moving forward for u data centers to come into the county. Um there are a lot more things that will need to be considered and um and even on those properties which are already being um

destroyed built if they if there is a an expansion that would then be covered under any new um requirements you know that are put forth by county council. So just wanted to let you know that.

Okay. So we need to move on now to our preliminary guys did do two great things but one thing that everybody in this county is forgetting I appreciate you pausing I know this is the right time I apologize is the impact the residents that have lived there for 50 plus years that knew nothing about this and their neighborhoods entirely encapsulated by this project it was done well before all this second phase and that's why we're here to talk to you guys have done a lot of due d provide y'all information.

Second reading at council is in April. So definitely I recommend Welcome.

Good evening. Mary and Ray, zoning planner residential. Our first preliminary plat tonight is the Gates at Springfield. The owner and applicant are Grand Living Homes. Um got the vicinity map here. It's three parcels right now. It's at the corner of Hammond Road and um Osborne Farm. Osborne Farm is county maintained. Hammond Road kind of splits between Fort Mill and York County because that's Fort Mill right there across the street from the development. Um, to kind of give you a perspective on where this is, it's north of Springfield Parkway, east of Highway 21. And you know where that big fountain is on Springfield Parkway with the water wheel? It's back behind there. So, we'll go through here. We've got the zoning map is zoned RSF40. Um, again, you've got a lot of Fort Mill around it. Uh, agriculture, these are old residual properties left over. Uh, I don't want to say left over. They were there first. Um, as Fort Mill has expanded, uh, the light industrial there is a very large church. And here is the uh, preliminary plant. It's six lots. Um, they're going to be relatively large lots. They are um, zoned RSF30, but these are not RSF30 does allow for mobile homes. This is not what this is going to be. The acreage is 9.73 acres. Uh you can see they have quite a bit of green space and open areas. Um storm water is a bit of an issue on the property, which is why there are such large basins, but it separates out the lots pretty well. Uh it's going to be a private road. You can see where the gate is up front with the turnaround. Um so it will not be county maintained. Go through the findings here. Um the site is serviced by utility. uh York County Utilities. We've received the willingness and capability letter. Uh so the second part of that finding does not

apply. Uh the single family residential is an allowed use in RSF30 and that zoning designation has a maximum density of 1.5 dwelling units per acre. This one comes in at 72 units per acre. Um for Oops, skip ahead. Oh, sorry. doing a Peter with the uh flicker here. Uh the applicant adequately agrees to adequately mitigate uh the impact on transportation network as notified by a TIA. We didn't actually require them to do a TIA for this particular per uh uh iteration of the project. We had main brook estates come through uh late 2019 was approved 2020 had a TIA then I think they had seven lots. So this is roughly the same impact. Not much has changed. No mitigations required due to just the six homes. Um the further findings, adequate street connectivity and pedestrian facilities. The project is accessed from Osborne Farm Road which is countymaintained and there will be sidewalks within the development and they'll connect up to the development, the Fort Mill development that has sidewalks down Hammond. Um required open space and buffers. 20% is required and is provided at 1.67 six seven acres. It includes a little pocket park in there. And then all other applicable requirements uh tree survey of required tree safe areas has been submitted and grant tree mitigation has completed and accepted by staff. So we recommend approval of the gates. This thing is fun. The button doesn't make any sense to me. There we go. Um, you have any questions for staff?

I do, Marian. Yes, sir. Uh, first of all, I'm when we get into the discussion phase, I live in this area. Uhhuh. And I know the history of this project. Uhhuh. So, I'm going to be expressing some concerns. Okay. My one question is what is the status of the permits right now, especially the Army Corps of Engineers permit with wetlands? Uh they have not applied for any uh construction permits yet. There's no civil plan. They're working on it. Um but we haven't gotten that far yet. They did submit concurrently, but we haven't gotten that far. Okay. So, no permits have been submitted. No permits have been issued.

Okay. And that includes they they have to Okay, I got you. Thanks. Any additional questions? Any additional questions?

Is there a motion? I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second discussion. Okay, here's where I come in. So, um, back in 2001, this this came out

and, uh, they had couple public meetings, well, on site, actually, it was at the church and we expressed concern over definitely three areas. One is, and they currently have it, flooding issues. When you have a hard rain, if it's It could be the 100red-year flood. It could be the 50-year flood

because storm water control measures, they actually are designed to meet the two-year storm. Okay? So, if you have a 50 a 50-year storm um or let's just say if you have a hundredyear storm, that's the point where it will breach the storm water control measure. Right now, in its current with storm water control measures, there's two of them really. There's a dry pond in Carolina Orchards and there's also two wet ponds that are existing.

There was videos of not even a 100redyear storm and it was flooding the church, all nations church at the end of the road. They right now if they if they predict the heavier storm, they have to put absorbent socks around three of those structures to keep water away. The more grade that you put in here, okay, the more fill, it's lessening the capacity of the drainage basin, which really really concerns me. So existing now there's flooding issues down there with a with a bad enough storm, you know, but now and we don't we don't know what that grade is right now because the plans haven't been civil plans haven't been made.

Okay. But I just want to emphasize that there is a concern with grade being built up because what that's doing is that's taking away that's a rise

in the in this drainage basin which is causing the capacity to get water to flow through there. It's lessening the total capacity. Um there's also a limiting factor under the railroad bridge right now. Currently the covert right there, you know, was put in years ago when the railroad was going through there and it's not built to the current standards right now. Um and as I had pointed out grading in that area additional even additional grading even a foot would cause issues even they magnify once you build the grade. Um um so I know this is just a preliminary plat

I know I know we have time um but I'm going to not approve of this going forward and but I wanted to bring up concerns that I had with this because I live right here and I know the flooding concerns and I've seen it with my own eyes. So, so can I ask a question? What um what types of permits in terms of things like that are required be as we move forward?

Uh they would have to go through the civil engineering uh permit process. Engineers would determine um the need for storm water detention. They would have to go through uh they've got a blue line stream there. So, Army Corps would probably be involved with quite a bit of it. Um, but it would be reviewed by our uh infrastructure staff who handle storm water and water runoff in general. We have flood plane administrator and uh in they're all headed by an engineer. So, if they have questions, they have an engineer to reach out to.

Is there ever input from surrounding communities for in something like that? I mean, I'm just saying if there's, you know, personal knowledge of a particular spot, you know, is that ever addressed? Um, it can be addressed. I'm not sure the protocol on that. Um, but it can certainly be brought up. Thank you. I'll do that tomorrow morning. Thank Thank you. Uh, let's see. So, we have a a motion and a second. We've had some discussion. Is there any additional discussion?

I just had one question. The storm water requirements, are they just sight specific or do they also take into consideration surrounding properties as uh Tom was talking about the church and the railroad trestle? Uh they do tend to be sight specific. I know that they are in particular, but I'm not exactly sure. Okay. About the uh calculations of runoff from neighboring properties, how that is determined. Thank you, Marian. Yes. Thank you. Um, all of those in favor. Anyone opposed? Are you opposed?

There you go.

Thank you. And now moving on to our last um preliminary plat of the evening. Good evening. Uh Jeff Kersner, plary plat for Sage Mill subdivision at Hair Road. Here's a vicinity map shows um basically a wooded parcel at the end of Hair Road close to Fort Mill Parkway. does a but Fort Mill um but you'll see that it was recently as I noted in the um staff report it was recently reszoned at RUD um which matches up with the proposal to have 1 acre plus lot size for this proposed subdivision. Here is a um basically a page of the plumeary plat shows 10 new parcels. Um again one acre or more in lot size. Um they will have it'll be served or have connectivity to hair road with the hair road extension and then a new proposed Ivy Ridge Court road. The findings for this memory plat um the site will be served by private well and sephic systems. Um the um there will be a note there's a note placed on the plat that indicates the permits will be paying through SCDES. Um proposed lots meet or exceed the minimum square um acreage of one acre as stipulate stipulated by the RUD standards. Written statements from the SCDEES indicate the approval of septic tanks is not required due to the proposed lot

size but going through the civil plan process and the final plat process they will have per test for those lots. Find number two proposed land use and density complies with the zoning district requirements. This is a single family um residential is an allowed use in the re district. Uh has a has a maximum density allowance of one dwelling per acre. This is 20 acres with 10 units. So it's about.5 dwelling units per acre. Number three, the applicant agrees to adequately mitigate impacts to the transportation network and as identified by a traffic impact analysis. This is a pretty small subdivision with only 10 lots. It wasn't a traffic impact analysis, but you can see it's going to be served by extension of the public roads. Fine. Number four, development provides adequate street connectivity and pedestrian facilities. Uh development has access to hair road which will be extended again to hair road extension and also the new road Ivy Ridge Court. Sidewalks are not required in RU District which is part of the reason they had it resoning um for this subdivision. the required open space and buffers have been provided. Uh the plat actually provides over 20% of open space but they reszone to RUD district. They don't require it but they have provided on the plary plat u and all other applicable standards a tree survey and a tree um tree survey and tree save area has been um been reviewed and approved by staff for this project. So because it meets all these findings, staff recommends approval of the subdivision, the roads that go along with it. Questions?

If there are no questions, is there a motion? I'll make a motion to approve. Second. We have a first and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Thank you. So, let's see. Um, any we don't do we have a follow-up sheet? I don't think we did. We didn't get one. M this motion to adjurnn. Second. Second. All those in favor. It's been a long