Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

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

Alright. Let us pray. Dear lord, we come to you with with grateful hearts for all the blessings that you give us and for the trials that we go through for we know that you are with us. We pray that you will guard our hearts and minds in all that we do so that everything we say and do will glorify you. Please bless those who protect us and serve in uniform. Bless them bless them this day and keep them safe. All these things we ask in the holy name of Jesus Christ, our lord and savior. Amen. Amen.

Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. First order of business, we have the election of officers. Do we have any motions?

I I would move that we, I would nominate Tracy Mitchell as chair.

Second. Yeah.

Thank you.

You grab that second.

I don't. Okay. You want us to do them both at the same time or individually?

Individually. Okay. Yeah. Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Shealy?

Yes.

Commissioner Otto? Yes. Commissioner Campbell?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Frost?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

Motion for vice chair. I would like to nominate vice chair. Frost?

Second.

Grab this you to mister Campbell. Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Shealy?

Yes.

Commissioner Otto? Commissioner Campbell?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Frost?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell?

Yes. Thank you. Moving on to tab b, we have minutes from last December.

Secretary?

You

gotta vote.

Alright. Back

to tab a. We have a, motion for secretary.

I would wouldn't nominate Robbie Derrick, at least any interim until we have someone else.

I second.

I'll second it.

Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Shealy?

Yes.

Commissioner Otto?

Yes.

Commissioner Campbell?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Frost?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

Right.

Congratulations, Robbie. Moving on to the minutes from December. You have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Second. Unless there's Go ahead.

Was one thing in here that I wanted to correct, if we could. I'm not sure of the procedure to do that. Go ahead.

Yes.

Under it's on page seven. Under Ordinance 2,507 for the land disturbance area. Down on page seven, the bullet point that says average project size is arbitrary. I think that was the maximum disturbed acres that we talked about was the arbitrary one.

75 acres in particular or just

Just a a maximum. Gotcha. A maximum at all is the way I've recollected what we talked about. So

I would amend my motion to, motion to approve with that correction.

Thank you. Second? Somebody already did. Who

was the second?

This time. I don't know

was earlier.

Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Shealy?

Yes.

Commissioner Otto? Yes. Commissioner Campbell?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Frost?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

Activity reports.

You, Madam Chair. This is just continuous of how we've handled our activity reports in the past. The next few slides go over the total number of site built and manufactured homes over the past couple of months. Let's go through these fairly quickly. It's kind of a zoomed in version showing the trend levels from 2018 for site built, which we highlighted in green. Manufacturing homes are highlighted in blue. Next slide breaks down your site built residential permits by quarter. So far, through one month of this year, we have 146 permits. Last year, the total was a little over 1,600, about a thousand or so over than what we normally see. On average, we're seeing between thirteen hundred and fourteen hundred permits a year, so a little bit of a spike last year.

Manufactured homes have stayed pretty consistent, a little bit higher. Last year at four eighty two, 54 permits have been issued through the 2026. On your pipeline lots, you'll see there's several has been submitted in January. That information is specifically in your packet regarding the number of lots, location, and developer information. I will let the commission know that the planning and GIS staff are working with community development to update the archive pipeline maps.

The maps go back to 2014, and it basically identifies projects when they're initiated for permitting. So we're looking at a method to go back through the historical data and show actually which sites have been completed, which sites were permitted, canceled, etcetera. Hopefully give you a little bit more historical data moving forward. I don't think it's gonna be really an impact for the yearly data or 12 data we'd provide you. It's by the time they submit, it's generally about an eighteen month, twenty four month process before they actually get permits.

But just kinda give you an idea, we are working on that. Hopefully, in the next couple months, we can give you an update on on that new data. Currency. Again, this is the concurrency projects from the past year. As you all aware, council elected to remove the school district questionnaire from concurrency reviews. Since council has removed that, we've received 12 projects for concurrency. They did not go through the school district review. In November, we had three projects. All were single family residential. One of those was a revision to an existing project, adding 81 lots in school district two.

We had another one with six ninety three lots in school district two and another project with 130 lots in school district one. In December, we approved four, again, all single family. One project had 88 lots in district one. One project had 134 lots in school district two, another project had 77 lots in District 5, and a fourth project had 90 lots in School District 1. In January, we also had four additional projects, again, single family, a three eighteen lot project in District 4, a 72 lot project in District 1, a two eleven lot project in District 1, and a four sixty nine lot in District 4.

So far in February, we've only had one. It's not showing yet, but it was 83 townhomes, and those are in school district one. And just a reminder, the the concurrence reviews are a sketch plan review that is submitted for general zoning and open space review only. This is not a permit to start construction. This is actually to get them through the process so they can begin submitting for permits and move forward that permitting and review process.

There is data we do still provide to the school districts. So as these 12 projects went through, we did provide the school district the same data for their planning purposes. And many of you also know council has directed staff to include school districts back in our concurrence review process. We're looking at a potential threshold number for attendance within the attending schools, Working with administration currently to go through that process and take that back to counsel to get those policies and procedures updated. As soon as that happens, I will brief the planning commission on what the next steps are and what that new policy looks like.

But right now, we do not have that adopted policy in place. Just to kind of give you update on a couple of items is Lexington School District one, I know they presented here a couple of months ago. Their facility study, they mentioned, should be completed this month. So as soon as I get some information on that, I'll provide that to the Planning Commission. Lexington Ford is also going through a very detailed facilities and demographic study. They're earlier in that process. I did speak with their retired superintendent, Doctor. Maddox, a few weeks ago. And I think just the process they're going through, I may invite them to Planning Commission to present just like District one did a few months ago. They are seeing a tremendous amount of growth in that rural district.

So I think it'll put a good perspective for you all as of what they're trying to do to plan ahead for that growth. And just update on concurrency also, there's a pending bill also in the in the senate. It was a statewide legislation for concurrency. It was brought up last year. It did not advance, but it's brought up again this year. So that may add some little clarity on concurrency moving forward also. More information is available on that. I will let you know.

Of excess policy variance.

Morning. Morning. Morning. The first variance we have this morning is, regarding property of Charles Howard White junior. It's identified as TMS number 009700Dash02Dash112.

Mister White owns approximately 5.7 acres on Windywood Road in Lexington. This is east of the intersection of Platt Springs Road and Old Charleston Road. Mister White would like to subdivide a three acre portion that would be accessed by a new temporary 50 foot access easement. Platt Springs Holdings LLC, which is the owner of the adjoining parcel, plans to construct a new public road, which will access a future subdivision, and that is a location of a temporary access easement. This existing easement is only 92 feet from the location of the proposed easement.

So a variance to item 13 of the access policy would be required, which states successive access easements or flag lot driveways, whether single or paired along a continuous road right of way boundary shall be separated by at least one parcel with a minimum of a 100 feet of frontage along the same road right of way boundary. A little history on this one. If you'll remember on November 20, a variance was approved to allow for that existing temporary 50 foot access easement to serve two additional landlocked parcels and for the temporary easement to be designated over two parcels. Mister White is represented by George Bradley, his surveyor, who has prepared this plat showing that temporary easement only being 92 feet from the existing easement. This is a aerial photo of the property, and that's zoomed in a little closer.

This is showing you where the existing easement is, where the new one would be, and the proposed three acre parcel. A couple of photos along Windywood Road where these easement locations are at. And, again, that is the survey that he has prepared. Mister Bradley did prepare the standards for a variance, and I can read those into record. A, there are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the property or properties.

A property line revision was completed between mister White and Platt Springs Holdings LLC to enable a second entrance to be built off Windy Hill Road to serve Calico Farm subdivision. This property line revision was required because of the fall radius radius of a south of your tower that the proposed road could not be within the fall radius of the tower. B, these conditions do not generally apply to other properties in the area. Other lots are not negatively affected by requested variance. Upon completion of the new road to serve Calico Farm subdivision, this temporary easement will be dissolved and Track 1 B 1 will be accessed along the new County Road.

C, because of these conditions, the application of this ordinance to the particular property or properties would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property or properties. Without the variance, the property would not be able to be subdivided until the new road servicing Calico Farm Subdivision was completed. D, the authorization of this variance would not be a substantial detriment to adjacent property or the quality of life for the residents of the county. If this variance is approved, it will not disturb or negatively affect any surrounding properties. It will only benefit the community.

E, when deliberating a variance request, financial hardships alone cannot be considered for the basis of a variance. There is no financial hardship as part of this variance. And Mr. Bradley is here today if you have some questions for him.

I've got a couple questions. What's the status of Calico Farms? I mean, we dealt with this a couple months ago and provided a variance, you know, pending this Yes, new road coming

sir. It is still a pending project. I don't have specifics on where they are currently at in their approval process.

Okay. And if you know, and you may not, may need the survey, does the access we granted in November abut this property? I'm just wondering if we can use that same access rather than creating yet another. Yeah. Mean, is is it confusing? I'll

I'll George answer that question for you.

They would not abide each other, not until such time.

If you could stand at the microphone and give your name and address.

To George Bradley, registered land surveyor with Belter and Associates land surveyors. And, no, the other one will not touch this property that's already in existence from November. Phase one of Calico Farms is under construction. Land clearing is underway. Storm drainage is being installed as we speak. We expect that phase to be open spring. K. Phase one, you know, phase two will fall right behind it.

When will the road be installed?

This road is probably another year and a half, two years out.

That's part of phase two, three, whatever? Okay.

So the temporary easement, we're looking at about two years?

Yeah. And then it'll go away when the road's built, and they'll get an address on that road.

The temporary doesn't mean temporary unless there's an an ending, right? Temporary could become permanent if it's doesn't have an ending.

Well, that's That's what I'm just

asking. So

should we, if we if we

approve this, do we define what temporary means?

I mean, we can do that. I also didn't know if you could but the one that's been granted is, I'm assuming, for phase one, complete that, and then have the additional easement or contiguous easement or maybe close that first one out for the second one for phases two and three.

I don't know I don't know how you could take it away. If you even if you grant a temporary easement, they do the subdivision.

They'd have to turn it over to a county road first, I would would assume. But

but what if the road never gets built? Just just for Right.

That's kind of where I was going with that. It kind of safeguards, and then you get the next easement for the other phases.

I I see where you're going. My only concern is I'm not sure we addressed that concern with the last one.

We didn't, but that Right.

I mean, we can't.

I I agree.

Time is of the essence to do so Yeah.

Now.

I mean, for discussion, if we decided to approve this, would put a term limit on it, let's say twenty four months. And it would have to come back to us again in twenty four months if it hasn't

Been done.

Been done yet, if it hasn't been finished yet or discussion and see if we decide to grant another temporary one.

My only concern, sir, would be for that would be if we allow the temporary easement and someone were to construct a home on that three acre portion. And then if the second variance didn't get approved, then we have a landlocked parcel with a house that doesn't have an approved access plan.

Good point. So we need to understand this could be a permanent.

Yeah. Potentially. Yeah.

The variance is basically for seven and a half feet that they don't have on the road. Right?

Yes, sir. Yeah. If there was a 100 feet there, they could have the

Right.

The easement without a variance.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Hearing no other questions, I would make a motion that we approve the variance with the understanding that they have satisfied the criteria necessary for us to grant it.

Second.

Call for discussion, So we don't need to consider any sort of return visit in a period of time to readdress this should not that we would necessarily decline it again if it came back up.

It's kind

of like At least we have

an opportunity to address it being the nature of it being temporary, you know, as opposed to permanent.

Yeah. I hear you. I I just as as was pointed out, if it comes back to us and someone has built a house there, then we're in we're potentially in a taking situation. So I I if we're not if we can't if we really aren't gonna be able to deny it if it comes back.

Well, then we but then we can change the status to permanent rather than temporary because it's gonna stay in the record as temporary. Is that is that correct? Am I am I stating that correctly?

I think in the plat's recorded, it's not gonna say temporary on that plat. It'll it'll show an access easement. It's not gonna reference temporary or permanent, and it'll be dedicated to a deed that it is an access easement.

So we're granting permanent approval for all practical purposes?

For a temporary easement.

I wanted to make sure we understood that. And the fact that it's only seven and a half feet, I'm not I'm not opposed to it. I'm just making sure we understand what we're doing.

With that discussion, the motion still stands. Did we have a second?

A second.

You second. Commissioner Campbell.

Thought Otto already I thought you already seconded it.

No, I did. Commissioner Cox.

Oh, okay. Sorry.

You've got us separated now.

Well, I'm not far enough.

Well, I only have one female voice today. So Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Shealy?

Yes.

Commissioner Otto? Yes. Commissioner Campbell?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Frost?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

Thank you.

Next. Yes, ma'am. The next variance we have is property of Jeremiah and Rucha Pickens. That's identified by TMS number 007898Dash05Dash002. They currently own 3.27 acres on Dogwood Road in West Columbia, which is south of the town of South Congaree.

This is an existing landlocked parcel. Mister Pickens would like to subdivide a portion of the parcel where there is an existing mobile home. He plans to construct a new single family residence on the remaining portion. This property was first shown on a plat recorded in 1968 and an access easement was established in November 2000. Mister Pickens would like to use the existing easement to access from Dogwood Road and continue the easement along a new portion that would be established along the adjoining property.

Mister Pickens has received permission from the family that owns that adjoining parcel for this request. Variances are needed to several items of the access policy. Item two states if an access easement is used to provide a driveway for a landlocked parcel, that access easement may only be designated over one parcel. Item three states if an access easement is used to provide a driveway for a landlocked parcel, that access easement may not serve another landlocked parcel. And item six states all an access easement serving a two acre or larger landlocked parcel shall be at least 50 feet wide along its entire length.

This is the, plat that was prepared in 2019, and, mister Pickens has shown the signatures of the Cushman family where they are granting permission for this easement. And you'll see where they are proposing to I could get this to work right here. This would be the new parcel where the existing mobile home is, and the remainder of the land would be one parcel. Some aerial photos. This one zoomed in a little closer.

This is showing where that proposed new parcel would be. The blue is the existing easement, and the orange would be the extension of the existing easement to get to the the new portion. Photos along Dogwood Road. This is looking into that driveway. This is the location of where the new easement would be located, and this is the existing mobile home that's on Dogwood Road.

What is the width of the existing easement?

The existing easement is only 15 feet. And that was, like I said, this the landlocked parcel was established in 1968 before, of course, the access policy was in place. And in November 2000, they were able to get the 15 feet from that property owner to actually have a legal easement established. Mister Pickens has, submitted his standards for a variance, and I'll read those into record. A, extraordinary and exceptional conditions.

The subject property is landlocked and contains two assigned addresses, 1236 and 1240, which proposed subdivision, excuse me, will formally recognize. Parcel configuration, topography, and existing development patterns prevent direct frontage to a public roadway. Access is provided solely by an existing established driveway. Parcel 1236 will retain its deeded easement, and a new deeded easement will be established for 1240 along the same driveway alignment. The property has an approved septic site and is otherwise suitable for residential development.

B, conditions not generally applicable. These access limitations are unique to the subject property and do not generally apply to surrounding parcels, which typically have direct frontage or sufficient access to meet ordinance standards without reliance on multiple easements or reduced with ingress and egress. See, unreasonable restriction without variances. Strict application of the access policy would effectively prohibit subdivision and unreasonably restrict use of the property. Without the requested variances, legal access for the new parcel could not be established preventing reasonable residential development despite the property's suitability and an existing construction contract with Madison Home Builders.

The no substantial detriment to adjacent properties or county quality of life. The proposal relies exclusively on an existing driveway, avoids new roadway construction, and minimizes environmental disturbance. Traffic patterns will remain unchanged. Adjacent property owners have reviewed the plans, signed off on them, and approved the requested easements. Approval will not adversely affect neighboring properties or the general welfare of the county, e, not based solely on financial hardship.

While denial could result in financial consequences related to the construction contract, financial hardship alone is not the basis for this request. The variances are justified by physical site constraints, established access conditions, and the need to formalize legal access for subdivision. I believe mister Pickens is is here today. Maybe not.

Can you put up that last chart in our package? Which one, sir? The last chart that's in our package. Yeah. With all the colors, the red and the blue

and Yes, the sir. I'm just I'll pull it up here so I'm looking at it too. That one there. Yes, sir.

So the what's called the remaining portion is getting access through 1236, I guess. Right?

And The 1244 is a separate parcel?

No. No. Not 1244. The remaining portion. That's where that trailer is at, isn't it?

Yes, sir.

Okay. So they get access through 1236, and I guess 1244 too. Only 1244. Well, it looks like the road though. If I if you look at the picture, it looks like that road goes right through 1236.

Currently, it's through there, and they want to change it to Right. The orange line.

Yes. Okay.

That's what I'm trying

to figure out.

The 1236 is part of his current property. The yeah. The red area would be where he wants to do the new portion that would have just the mobile home.

So it's the remaining portion that's trying to get the easement? How wide Yes.

Technically, the the easement currently serves the entire parcel. So he is wanting to subdivide that. I'm sure it's probably based on a mortgage issue where with the new construction, he has to have the mobile home separated.

Build the road.

Yes. So he's proposing to separate the mobile home into one parcel that would use the existing deeded easement across the 1244 property. And for the house, he would just extend the easement on the other side of the 1244 property to get to where the house would be.

So how how wide is the new easement gonna be?

He's not prepared a plat for that yet. Currently, the where the blue shaded area is, it is only The Yes. We've not proposed a number for that yet. If it's more than two acres, we could require it to be 50 feet.

How many acres is it?

Your first page does say that the proposed width of the easement is 15 feet.

Right. And we're referring to what's it? It's gonna be 15 feet from Dogwood Road because that's the existing blue line. So that's already an established portion there. He wouldn't be able to increase that. So 15 feet would be the minimum.

Well, you say he wouldn't. My question is, he's coming back now under the existing ordinance that we have asking for a variance. My question would be for him is have you gone to that property owner and asked to increase that to meet the new standard if we're going to grant a variance? Just that's just from my perspective, if you're asking for a variance, can you bring everything else up to standard?

For the orange section, the new part.

Well, I mean, I'm telling you, even the blue part.

Even the blue Yeah. Yeah. To make it

Make it 50 feet all the way through.

Yes. And that is I apologize. You know, we reminded him about the meeting today. He would have to answer those questions.

Is it that staff would require I know you said that they that staff could require him to make it 50 feet for the orange portion, the new easement, proposed easement. But would I guess the question for staff would be, will they require that that is up to current standard for the access policy?

Again, if he that would be a question. He didn't actually have a surveyor out there yet. I believe his intent was to continue it with the width that's already existing.

Sure. I

think we we could approve under the condition that the entire easement is brought up to current standard. Otherwise, they would have to come back. Right?

Right. And and I'm assuming even if the existing easement stays 15 and does not get permission from the current property owner to bring it to 50, I guess my question was, could then it open to a 50 with the orange portion being required to be conforming to the the policy variance now. I mean, does staff have that ability? I would Sure. I mean, we can see

if we can put that if that's the condition of your approval, then then, yes, we could

because I I like know that. We're saying, but it there I guess we have no say on to whether the property enter for the blue is going to allow for that. But there's no reason why now isn't the time to make sure that the orange is too code.

Yeah. And I hear you. My concern is what benefit does it serve us to have the back portion be 50 feet if the front portion off

the road is only 15 feet?

I understand.

You know? So this is why I would like for the owner to be here to answer some questions as to

Depending on the terrain, it may matter. It could matter. You know, you may have a 15 I mean, most traffic lanes are 15 feet or less. You know? But if you get to the back and you have large trees or something, obstacles to go around, 15 just may not be enough for emergency vehicles to get through.

Elected to delay it and have owner go back and see if he can, a, obtain that additional width for that existing easement and hopefully have him come back to our next meeting or whenever he gets that information.

So there's no timeline for us to act on this?

No requirement. We can

put it

back to the applicant to do some additional due diligence on the width of the existing easement request he comes back in and try to address any questions, concerns you all may have.

And he did say that they adjacent property owners signed off on his proposed access, but there's no mention of width. So I like the idea of he may he maybe he had these conversations, but he's not here to speak on that. So

I'll jump in and make a motion. We defer this for another time. And and we request that the owner attend and, in the meantime, seek potential permission with the existing easement to be increased to 50 feet and then the new easement to also be 50 feet.

Would second that.

Yeah.

Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Shealy?

Yes.

Commissioner Otto? Yes. Commissioner Campbell?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Frost?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

Next experience? Thank you.

Ma'am. The next experience is on property owned by Ronnie and Paula Reichard. That's identified by TMS number 008500Dash02Dash029. The Rikers own approximately 15 acres on Cox Ferry Road in Lexington South Of I 20. They would like to subdivide this parcel and create a one acre portion that would be accessed by an easement.

Due to existing structures on the parcel, they are requesting a variance to allow the 20 foot width easement to be designated over two parcels. The current division line was established by a plat which was recorded in 2012, but the existing structures were not shown on that plat. The records are represented today by their surveyor Nick Neil Getschkoff who has confirmed that an existing shed with a lean to is approximately 10 feet from the lean to corner to the existing property line. The family has received permission from the adjoining property owner to have a portion of the easement crossover into their property. A variance is needed to item two of the access policy, which states if an access easement is used to provide a driveway for a landlocked parcel, that access easement may only be designated over one parcel.

This is the survey, that he has prepared. This is zoomed in to that portion that shows you how close that Lane 2 is to the existing property owner, which would require them to cross over the adjoining property to have the minimum 20 feet for the easement. This is the aerial photo. This is a closer where you see the 2220 address point. That is where they want to create that one acre portion, and the red line would be the proposed easement.

And if you'll see, I'm pointing there to the existing structures. Some photos just along Cox Ferry Road at that easement location, and that is back to the the plat. And they did submit their standards for this as well. A, extraordinary and exceptional conditions. An existing shed with a lean to has been located on the property for more than fifty years, predating the current subdivision configuration and access requirements.

A subdivision plat for Robert Glenn Reichard and Estelle h Reichard dated 10/05/2012 recorded in plat book one five eight eight nine page three eighty seven established the current division line approximately 10 feet from the lane two corner. However, no improvements were shown or located on that plat at the time of subdivision. These long standing site conditions create a physical constraint that makes strict compliance with the access policy impractical without removal or substantial alteration of an existing structure that predates the subdivision. B, conditions not generally applicable to other properties. The circumstances prompting this variance are unique to this property and result from the interaction of an existing historic structure and a ladder created property line.

These conditions are not common to surrounding property parcels and were not created as part of a new development or recent construction. C, unreasonable restriction without the variance. Strict application of the access policy would unreasonably restrict the use of the property by requiring removal or significant alteration of an existing structure or by eliminating functional access to the parcel. The proposed uniform 20 foot access easement extending across adjoining property with written consent of the affected owner provides a practical and functional access solution while eliminating localized constraints and ensuring continued reasonable use of the property. D, no substantial detriment to adjacent property or public welfare.

The proposed access easement maintains a consistent 20 foot width throughout its length and eliminates any reduced or constrained sections. This configuration provides improved vehicular access, emergency access, and long term functionality. Written consent has been obtained from the adjacent property owner for the portion of the easement crossing their property, and the easement will be documented accordingly. Approval of this variance will not be detrimental to adjacent properties, traffic safety, or the public welfare. E, not based on financial hardship.

This request is not based on financial considerations. It is based on existing physical site conditions, historic improvements, and practical limitations that warrant limited relief from the strict application of the access policy. The proposed easement represents the minimum relief necessary to address these conditions while reducing potential impacts. And, we have Nicholas Neil Getschkoff here if you have any questions for him. He is their surveyor.

I guess I'll start it off. The first chart or diagram we have shows some unimproved driveways going through the property. Is that correct?

I'll go back to

that area.

Yeah, right there. Sorry. Go back right there. Are those are roads going through there?

I believe there's some pass through there. Nick, you wanna come up and

It says unimproved driveway.

Yes. The legend says unimproved driveway or unpaved driveway. So

If you will state your name and address before

Speaking. Nick Neil Getschkov. 1983 Blue Ridge Terrace, West Columbia.

Thank you.

Yes. The they're basically, like, some dirt driveways that they use to get around the property. They also have one along that sideline where we're trying to keep the easement. Yes. They're cut out dirt trails, basically.

To me, I'm just curious, I guess, a little bit of why wouldn't you go straight through that driveway into that property rather than what I call a dogleg off to the side there.

Father, Ronnie, he that's just the current owner. He didn't wanna put a easement, But they do use that

road on

the other

side as well, drive around the entire property.

Probably, if you ever wanted to put a house or something there, it would that easement right through the middle kinda gets in the way.

That's what I'm thinking is he's gonna probably put more subdivisions.

The the variance

is He is on getting the acre and they do plan

to get

And the only part we're really approving is because it dips into that other lot. Right?

That's right.

Oh, is that it? The only? Mhmm.

Yes. He could have be asking for a 10 foot easement on to stay on the same property or he's asking for to have the minimum 20 feet that's required, but that it will be crossing over an additional property to get the minimum 20, just at that one portion where they're trying to skirt around those existing structures.

Right. Thank

you. Other than the little arc around the shed, does it would it if it wasn't for that, would it meet our standards and you they wouldn't have to be here?

That's correct.

Did a fire truck get through there?

We didn't take pictures. The 20 feet of aerial photo.

You look at that enlarged drawing of the the around the open shed, the arc, it's really not much of a sharp you know, it's not a big loop.

Yeah. I'm looking at

it it does look like it would work.

I would definitely prefer the 20 foot on someone else's property than 10 feet.

Yeah.

They they had permission to go on to the other property for the easement. Is that right?

Owner is actually And

there is a copy of that in your packet. It was submitted by Larry Reichard on January 19.

I see that now.

And if I read this correctly, you're you're only encroaching on the adjacent property by less than six feet? Is that what it says? Okay.

Yeah. 10 feet.

Okay. I see.

Any further discussion or questions? Any motion?

I would make a motion that given the information submitted demonstrates they meet the conditions necessary for a variance and would recommend approval.

I'll second.

Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Shealy? Yes. Commissioner Otto? Yes. Commissioner Campbell?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Frost?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

Thank you.

Next. Alright. The next one we have this morning is property of Orlando Lopez Cabin and Marta Sereno. The TMS number is 010917Dash01Dash010. They own approximately 7.35 acres on Highway 6 in Gaston, which is west of W E Jeffcoat Road and Blackville Road.

This property is identified as Peachtree Farms Section 1 Track 10 and is accessed via flag lot driveway that is 50 feet in width. Mister Lopez would like to subdivide three acres and establish an easement to this portion along his flag lot driveway. The Platte for Peachtree Farm Section 1 is was recorded in 1987 prior to adoption of the access policy in 1988. Lot 11 adjoins the Lopez property and is also accessed by a flag lot driveway that is 50 feet in width. A variance is needed to item 12 of the access policy, which states the driveway portion of a flag lot may not be contiguous to the driveway portion of another flag lot unless both flag lots are less than two acres each.

The driveway portion of flag lots so paired may not serve as access easements for other parcels. A variance is also needed to item 15, which states successive access easements or flag lot driveways more than two at the same location may be no more than two tiers behind the road right of way that is being accessed. This is the plat that was reported in 1987 for the entire development. This is the sketch where they submitted showing their flag lot driveway, and they want to divide their parcel to create the three acres. Aerial photos of the property.

This is looking a little closer and an idea of where this three acre portion would be established. You'll see that Lot 11 is the adjoining parcel, which is accessed by a flag lot, And then their Lot 10 is also accessed by the flag lot. Some photos along Highway 6 at that driveway location. And this is looking into the existing driveway. And, again, that is that subdivision plat.

They did submit their standards for a variance. A, extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertain to this particular property. The subject parcel contains irregular boundary lines, non uniform width, limited road frontage, and uneven topography, including sloped and constrained interior areas. Existing utility easements further restrict the placement of a compliant subdivision line. These combined physical characteristics create conditions that are extraordinary and exceptional compared to typical parcels.

B, these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. Nearby parcels along Highway 6 and within the surrounding area generally have more regular shapes, greater frontage, and fewer interior constraints. The unusual configuration and physical limitations of this parcel are unique and not shared by neighboring properties. See, because of these conditions, strict application of the ordinance would prohibit or unreasonably restrict use of the property. The zoning ordinance requires frontage depth and buildable area standards that cannot be met due to the parcels irregular shape, limited access, and interior easements.

Without a variance, the property cannot be reasonably subdivided effectively restricting the owner's ability to make lawful and beneficial use of the land. D, granting the variance will not harm adjacent property, the public good, or the character of the district. The proposed subdivision will maintain safe access, preserve the existing character of the area, and will not create traffic, drainage, or utility impacts. The variance is minimal, nonintrusive, and consistent with surrounding land uses. Adjacent properties will not be adversely affected, and the public good will be preserved.

E, when deliberating a variance request, financial hardships alone cannot be considered for the basis of a variance. The property 2031 Highway 6, the request is not based on cost or economic difficulty. Instead, it is grounded entirely in the parcel's irregular shape, limited frontage, uneven topography, and interior utility easements, which make compliance with the subdivision requirements physically impossible without relief. These land based constraints, not financial considerations form the basis of the variance request. And Mr. Lopez is here this morning if you have some questions for him.

Can you go over one more time Sure. Exactly what we're doing a variance for? I mean, understand the two flag portions are right beside each other.

Yes. So item 12 of the access policy does not allow for two fifty foot flag lot driveways to be next next to each other because those would be parcels that are over two acres. And then if they are next to each other, they're not allowed to serve as easements for other parcels. So that would be the portion of what we're asking for today. And then if they create this portion, then you would be looking at a four tier configuration, which if you see on your packet where there's a copy of item 15, you'll see some no examples in there.

The configuration of that entire development with all the various access easements appears to meet current standards.

No, sir. It was approved in 1987 before the access policy was adopted. It would not have allowed those two flag lots to have been adjoining. Today's policy would not allow two fifty foot flag lot driveways to be adjoining.

Do have any idea why we don't allow?

I think because those parcels would be more than two acres, so they have the potential to be subdivided and it would be the act, you know, having multiple users using those paired flag lot driveways and maybe it would be a traffic concern or safety concern with that many users using one driveway.

I could see that, I guess, if it was a 100 acres, but with three acres or even lot 11, looks like it's probably maybe 10.

I believe so.

Question. So there's two existing driveways there currently

Yes.

Side by side?

Yes.

And were they separated by a 100 feet, this would not be a concern?

Correct.

Okay.

Talk about the what were you talking about with the tiers? You would have three tiers or four tiers.

Yeah. So let me go back to So if you have successive access easements or flag lot driveways more than two at the same location as a part of a development plan, they can be no more than two tiers behind the road right of way that is being accessed. And if they if we would be looking at the 2105 address, the 2033 address or excuse me, 2035, and then the new parcel and then back to Lot 11, we would be looking at Lot 11 being technically four tiers behind the

road

right away.

The subdivision is making Lot 11 the fourth tier.

Yes. So it's

But otherwise, our current standards would allow would allow a flag lot with three tiers. Right?

Yes. As long as there was just one flag lot there or two. More than two is when it restricts you to only being two tiers.

Yeah.

With the three acre portion, though, it's a three flag lot situation? No.

It would still just be two flag lots there that would be paired, and then they would be using that paired flag lot driveway to serve as an easement for a landlocked parcel.

I think the only real issue is you got the two flags right beside each other and you're creating those lots all that will probably be using one access point or maybe two right beside each other.

But they are planning to sell the three acre portion. So if that's if that lot is subdivided, then it would be a three flag lot situation?

No. They would be using the easement along the the existing flag lot.

Okay.

No new driveway would be installed. The the new owner would be using the existing flag lot driveway that they own.

Okay.

And it would be established as their legal easement.

But no subdivision of that three acres would be allowed without coming back to us for

That's correct.

That's kind of my concern. Yeah.

I'm I'm not making any judgments in my head, but if we did this, it looks to me like the adjacent property owner could come and make the same request as well as somebody with Lot 11.

Right.

2121, maybe they could make the same kind of request that we've set a precedent.

I don't know. Right.

Well, I mean, the issues we're dealing with in 1987 Subdivision.

Planning commission's understanding, each variance request has its own merit. So just by making a decision on this one does not guarantee someone else coming in for a similar situation, maybe he joins it or just down the road is guaranteed approval.

It doesn't set a precedent?

That's correct. And two

is They could use it, but it doesn't set a okay.

And unlike our zoning orders, our subdivision regulations do not have any nonconforming provisions. Anything is nonconforming such as this situation here, it has to go for the Planning Commission for review. Things we're looking at with our orders updates are potentially looking at some nonconforming provisions to our sub review regs or may have some arbitrary ability at staff level to approve some of these. But until that goes through, these unique situations that were basically placed prior to our current regulations have to come before this board for review.

As you've heard me say many times before, we would love not to have to hear these every meeting. Yes.

This is a picky little point. But in their justification statement, it says the unusual configuration and physical limitations of the parcel are unique. And I don't sit I don't particularly see anything that's unusual configuration about the property.

I I tend to

I'm as to why there's a

Maybe Lot 11, but that's certainly not 10.

Maybe they're referring to the the way the two flag portions are together where nowadays you can't do that. That was permitted then, but it's not permitted now. So it's unusual for now.

I guess the other way to look at it too is do they meet the standards of variance as described, to us and all the nonconformity and the old ordinance out of it or lack of ordinance, at the time? Like, there is a little bit of a discrepancy when when looking over

e,

in comparison to some of the documentation that's been provided. But

Do we know why there was a need for a revised letter for the variance request? Like, there's essentially like, there was an initial one, and then there's the revised statement.

Yes, sir. When I believe that the family, Mr. Lopez had Ms. Jessica, and I'm sorry, Jessica, I don't remember your last name. She was assisting him with preparing those variance requests. And initially, I believe they looked at the zoning ordinance. And so they were copying the standards from the zoning ordinance. And so we asked her to just update those. Even though the zoning and the subdivision ordinance have similar standards, they are a little different. And so her initial submittal was referring to the zoning ordinance.

Got it. Okay. And since the owner is here, maybe he could address the irregularities in the property.

And miss Jessica can translate for mister Lopez.

Alright. So may may help mister Otto's questions of what's what's the property concerns.

Morning. Morning. State name and address,

please?

Yes. Please state your name and address.

It's Orlando Lopez Cabang. I live here in Highway 621 Gaston, South Carolina.

Thank you.

Yes. So specifically, question I have is the conditions for the justification state that the property has an unusual configuration and physical limitations are unique for this parcel. So I'm curious as to what is what exactly did you mean by that?

Hi. My name is Jessica Johnson. I said my address too? Yes, please. Okay. So 216 Transom Court, Gaston, South Carolina 29053. And what he mentioned is, like, his realtor informed him that his lot is shaped as a flag. So to sell the back of the property, he has to give them 50 feet, and it's, like, it's kinda awkward. So it's it's like a flat pole and then wide. So that's why he put that in there.

Uh-huh.

So can

That's why his realtor said he had to come and ask permission for that. Mhmm.

So irregular, but not as irregular as you would think since we see it all the time.

Yeah. Yes. Exactly. Yeah.

I'm sorry. He said if he wants if you guys would like, he would explain more why he's selling the property.

Explain why he's selling the property. Is that what you're saying? Mhmm. If you'd like to tell us that.

That's right. Mhmm.

So because he have two he had two heart surgeries, back pain, arthritis, and being in the lawn mower and cutting the grass is really difficult for him

now. And

financial problems.

And given one of the factors is that it can't be based solely on financial factors, I would make a recommendation that we approve this variance based on the information submitted that they meet the requirements outlined in the ordinance.

Second. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Shealy? Yes. Commissioner Otto?

Yes.

Commissioner Gamble? Yes. Vice Chairman Frost?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

Congratulations.

Take care.

Next, have the floodplain elevation variance.

Madam Chair, I'm going ask Chris Stone, who's our Deputy Land Development Manager, to brief the commission on our floodplain program and just the process for the variance. This is a request that I don't believe has been before the commission for probably ten or so years. They are kind of few and far between, but again, just for educational purposes, I'd like Chris to leave this off before Devin presents the full request.

Hey. Good morning. And I'll be happy to answer any questions afterwards. The floodplain program is intended to reduce flood risk, the life property, preserve the natural function of floodplains, and maintain the county's eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. Day to day obligations include adopting and enforcing floodplain regulations that meet or exceed NFIP standards, reviewing all development and land disturbance activities within map flood hazard areas, maintaining records of permits, variances, and floodplain determinations, providing public information regarding flood hazards and floodplain regulations, allowing variances only when strict statutory criteria are met and when the variance will not increase result in increased flood risk, public safety concerns or conflict with NFIP requirements, ensuring new construction and substantial improvements are properly elevated or flood proof, which brings us to why we're here today Day to day, mostly what we do is to look at any building permits pulled that are in or adjacent to the floodplain, prove that they're not in the floodplain, or ensure that they're built to today's county standard.

Older homes that were not built to standard in the seventies, sixties, if they add enough value to the home or if they're partially destroyed, depending on how much money they spend to come back into compliance, they have to elevate those homes if they're not already. So that's why we're here today. And then I'll let Devin Griffin as our floodplain manager currently and go over the particulars of the variance.

Unless you have any questions.

Thank you.

I did have one question. I don't know who should answer it. The in there it says the Lexington County standards are more strict than FEMA's standards. Is that right? And if so, why is that?

We get

credit from this program for higher regulatory standards. FEMA's standard of elevation is only at the base flood elevation. The finished floor of the home is only at the base flood elevation. We we require a freeboard elevation of two feet, which builds in some safety there. Based on these higher regulatory standards, everybody who pays floating service in Lexington County gets a 15% discount.

It's one of the reasons we do this.

So, okay, so it's for the so everybody gets a discount basically? Those regulatory standards, yes, We can meet that insurance standard. Is that what it is? Okay.

So we're not asking for a variance today, and Devin can explain this. We're not asking for a variance today of any federal NFIP requirements, only those higher regulatory standards that the county has set.

Right. Okay. Thank you.

Morning. Lexington County Planning Commission. Today, I'm presenting a floodplain variance for the property at 315 Woodward Drive, which is property of Christian Hernandez. TMS number 007918Dash05Dash015. Give a little background about this situation.

The home at 315 Ludwig Drive was damaged by fire several years ago, which reduced the taxable building value down to $0. The property owner wishes to renovate the property, the interior of the structure, so his grandmother may live there. Because the building value is zero, any renovation is considered substantial improvement, which is defined as any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement where the cost is equal to or exceeds 50% of the market value of the structure prior to construction. When a project meets this threshold, the entire structure must comply with current floodplain regulations, which includes elevating the finished floor to two feet above the base flood elevation. The home's current finished floor elevation is 153.2 feet, while compliance would require an elevation of one fifty three point eight feet.

The owner is requesting a variance to Lexington County's two foot freeboard requirement to allow the finished floor to remain at its existing elevation. Section eleven point four point one of the Lexington County Land Development Manual requires that new construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure, including manufactured homes, shall have the lowest floor elevated to at least two feet above the base flood elevation. Included in the slideshow in the packet, this is the application for the Planning Commission agenda item. Next is the letter provided to the Planning Commission from mister Hernandez. I've also included the standards for variance, which I will come back to after I show a couple of pictures and some documentation for the property.

On the screen right now, this is the first page of a elevation certificate that was recently completed in October 2025, and this currently shows that the base flood elevation in that area for the home is one fifty one point eight feet. And the next page is showing that the current elevation of the home is at one fifty three point two feet. Here is a map kind of showing, of the Lloydwood subdivision where the home is located in reference to, kind of right in between Charleston Highway and Interstate 26. And these are some pictures, aerial photos of the parcel. This is the home right on the corner of Ravenscroft Road and Lloydwood Drive.

And this is the parcel of the home outlined with the floodplain layer on from the Lexington County GIS system. All the area in blue is the AE flood zone, and the lines that are shown are the base flood elevations in that area that correspond to houses and the partials there.

Yeah. That's that's the county's requirement. It's not the national. Right?

It's pulled straight from FEMA. Right? That overlay?

Yes. These overlays. Yes. That's correct. And I'll I have some pictures coming up. This is a recent picture I took of the front of the existing structure at 315, Lloydwood. This is a picture of the back of the home. I will go back to the standards for variance and read those. Alrighty. So, a, there are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to property or properties.

The existing structure is nonconforming by only six inches with respect to Lexington County's floodplain regulations. It sits 1.5 feet above the base flood elevation fully meeting FEMA standards. The minor noncompliance is due to the county's more restrictive local requirements, which exceed federal standards creating an exceptional circumstance specific to this property that justifies limited relief. B, these conditions generally do not apply to others in the vicinity. Not all homes within the subdivision are located in the floodplain.

For those that are compliance with floodplain standards is determined on a case by case basis and applies only when both of the following conditions are met. Number one, the substantial improvement or substantial damage threshold is reached, and number two, documentation shows that the home's finished floor elevation is less than two feet above the base flood elevation for that location. Elevation certificates are not available for every home in the subdivision. Therefore, floodplain compliance cannot be evaluated unless substantial improvement or substantial damage threshold has been triggered and the finish floor elevation must be verified. See, these conditions to the particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property.

The existing structure was damaged by fire and is currently uninhabitable. Without approval of the variance no repairs or improvements may be made unless the structure is elevated. As a result the conditions prevent the home from being renovated or restored to a habitable condition effectively prohibiting any reasonable residential use of the property. D, the authorization of a variance would not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or the quality of life for the residents of the county. The authorization of this variance would not be of substantial dent detriment to adjacent property or to the quality of life of residents of the county.

Allowing this variance would permit interior renovations to the home to be completed and would have no external impacts. E, the authorization of a variance will not result in noncompliance of the requirements set forth for the small municipals separate storm sewer systems MS four program or any other federal state or local programs affiliated with the ordinance and or land development manual. Granting this variance will not make Lexington County noncompliant with the National Flood Insurance Program or the Community Rating System as FEMA's minimum standards are met. The county's free board requirements are more restrictive than FEMA's. If the authorization of this variance will not impede standard design requirements, are recognized for the criteria of public safety, standard design requirements, which are recognized for the criteria of public safety will not be impeded by the authorization of this variance, FEMA's requirements for a home inside the floodplain are still being met even if the entire two foot of freeboard is not present, and g, financial hardship alone cannot be the basis for the appeal or variance.

And financial hardship is one aspect, but it is not the entire basis of this variance. And Mr. Hernandez is here

with us in

the audience today if you have any questions for him.

If the variance is granted, does that affect Lexington County's status at all with the federal government or with the insurance program with the discount? On a little math note, it's 1.4 feet, I think, not 1.5 according to the numbers. Would be 1.4 feet above the FEMA plane, but 0.6 feet below Lexington's. Did the math.

Just Okay.

Go ahead. Quick question. We indicated it was destroyed by fire. It's uninhabitable. The roof and windows look new.

Was that not permitted? Mean, was this not addressed when those things were done? Just a question. I mean, this new roof? Is this new windows? I mean, it looks like there's already been some renovation done. Okay. Maybe. Yeah.

Have a follow-up question to that, so it might be good. Please state your name and address when you get to the mic too, please.

Good morning. Christian Hernandez. Address is 315 Lloydwood, West Columbia.

Thank you. You're welcome. In response in your response to the standards of variance part c, you outlined that it was the home was inhabitable due to fire. And I guess my question is to what extent inhabitable to me means it's pretty much kind of gutted. Is is there no finished floor elevation? Or, I mean, or is the the finished floor elevation that's on the elevation certificate, is that the ground, or is that is there some level of flooring in there currently?

So there's plywood. Like, when I bought it, it's exactly how it shows in the pictures. It was already in the the only thing I did to it was paint the brick from outside. The brick was bridging, and that's something that I do painting. I own a painting business. So it had a I guess whoever was the previous owner, the fire court outside the house, not inside. They were grilling, and so only a section of the roof caught on fire. Everything else inside was fine, but I guess they had decided to, like, gutted the whole place and then kinda, like, rearrange the the floor plan.

Okay.

So when I when I bought it, there was no like, right now, there's ply there's brand new plywood that they had installed. I guess it was kinda like a I got a really good

a subflooring?

Yeah. Yeah. So there's a sub flooring, and there was one area that I know from from what I was told from the previous owner. It was, like, I guess, the garage side, so that was on a slab. But now everything's elevated to that where, like, where you come in, you have to go up, like, three steps or four steps. So right now, if you go inside, there's nothing but, like, plywood. There's no no insulation. The roof, I know they had replaced it, And I believe it was one of those situations where, like, they wanted to renovate it back, but, like, I don't know. I guess

Only so much.

Family issues, and then they just never got to it.

I was just wondering if there was an opportunity to bring the internal finished floor elevation up to the two foot if it wasn't already in there. Even subflooring, then you could still bring that finished floor up. That additional to meet still allow you the discounted flood insurance rate, which you're gonna be forced to get regardless based on its zone. And then you don't have that worry, you know, for your mother. But I it wasn't fully clear because it looks really good on the outside, by the way. Did a good job. And and I know that the the flood proof openings down below might be below that base flood elevation, but that was already in there before you

Yeah.

Got it. So, I mean, but that's no safeguard then. You don't even have that.

And what I was thinking on doing also maybe eventually just added, a French drain around it just to help with any of any type of flooding. I've looked at the houses around mine, and some of them are, like, based on slab. They're all the way down to the ground. And I don't know if you were able to see, some of the like, when it was showing the the plat where, like, it shows the neighbors, it shows everything on blue just around the house. It's like it clears off, like, three nineteen, like, around that house, and they're the same elevation. I I actually was going to purchase that house too, but they never heard back from the owner.

I don't think your French drains got anywhere to drain.

Yeah. Don't do that. No. No. When

it's flooded. Yeah.

Instead, I can just get my grandma a little

What are the ceiling heights in there? Like, eight foot?

They're they're eight foot. If we if we raise it up, in this case, all the subfloor, kinda do, a little step once you come in, then I believe now there's a different regulation where it has to be, like, seven and a half feet. So now it will put me, like, one inch. Like, if I raise everything up, it will put me like one inch into that seven, I believe it was like 7.6.

I can attest to that. The code requires a minimum ceiling height of seven feet six inches for a habitable space. Yes. And this would make it about seven feet four or five inches if he was raised to the two foot elevation.

So basically, there's no way really financially feasible to do this to raise it?

No, he'd

really have to raise the roof. The

whole roof. You'd have to rip the entire brick facade off.

Or the roof. You'd have to raise the roof and elevate that way.

Which probably wouldn't be financially Which

no.

Mm-mm. Even though that alone shouldn't be

So by denying this, would we be condemning this house?

Pretty much. Pretty much. You know, my concern

Each federal requirement.

And this is why I asked. My concern was, you know, had had someone come in when it was pretty much destroyed by fire before they renovated it and put all this money into it, this probably would have been identified then. But now that it's done and it's purchased, I I look at all the other houses around it. They're in the exact same situation. You know? And I guess I would be curious, and I don't know if anybody has answers. In 2015, when we had the floods, how did this neighborhood fare? I mean and and if yeah. Again, that those were monumental. Yeah. So I I it's hard to single this one residence out given the condition that's around it and everybody else.

And they're a foot

and a half above. Yes.

I was gonna say it'd be different if it was at base flood elevation.

And it's For sure. Amazing. It's no value either. The house Yeah.

I'm not sure how they got value. There.

Mean How they got so?

That doesn't.

Yeah. Is that what you're gonna say?

Well, I know that I had an experience with a burned house a while back. And even though parts of the house were not damaged, insurance everybody I guess it was the insurance company decided that everything had to come out of the interior of the house because it would have smelled like smoke forever and ever. So sheetrock and flooring and insulation, it went down to the bare studs.

I mean, it's considered a substantial improvement, but not in the same way you normally view a substantial improvement

Right. Yeah.

From a floodplain and

the walls are collapsing

and yeah.

Yeah. I believe, like mister Oro said, I believe that was a case because I purchased it after it was burned. Like, I didn't I never really got to see it, like, burned. Once I came in, it was just pretty much pretty much how it is right now and with all the new windows. I think that that was kinda like the situation that the previous owner went in. And I buy a lot of houses. I'm not buying a burnt house again. I learned my lesson

Yeah. From I was gonna say the substantial improvement isn't, by definition, isn't due to flooding. It was due to fire and necessary. So it's a little bit of a different animal. You just got caught in the in the regulations of that. So, any other discussion or questions? Thank you. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Anybody want to make a motion or shall I?

I'll make a motion. Approve request for the variance based on the fact that it still is well above the FEMA standards and is not detrimental to the Lexington County's status with flood insurance and such.

I second.

Commissioner Cox?

Yes.

Commissioner Shealy?

Yes.

Commissioner Otto? Commissioner Campbell?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Frost?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

Thank you. Appreciate it. I'm on to tab k.

Make sure everything works correctly. Good morning. I'm Walt McPherson, zoning administrator with Lexington County. This morning, I'm presenting ordinance number twenty five zero two. Excuse me. Ordinance number twenty five fourteen, zoning map amendment m twenty five zero two. There are three parcels identified with this request. The property is currently owned by the Irmo Chapin Rec Commission. And the reason for coming before you to see this morning, sorry, this morning is because they have about 69 acres that is currently zoned r one, low density residential. Their proposal is to place a campground on majority of this property, which the r one does not allow.

So their proposal is to take it to r d restricted development. This is a 2025 era of the property, and the three blue stars indicate the parcels. This is a proposed site plan. Again, this is a proposed plan, and you're not here to basically approve the plan. This is just the basic layout they're looking at doing with the campground.

This was an aerial photograph outlining the 69 acres of the property in question. These are allowed uses from our zoning ordinance alphabetized, starting with advertising signs and also the check marks indicate the activity is allowed. If it's blank, that means the activity is not allowed. Then, of course, I have highlighted transit habitation because that's where an RV park or campground will go classified in our zoning ordinance. And notice it is allowed in the RD but not in the r one.

And some site photography. This was a posting for the public hearing, which was held last week, February 10, in Council Chambers. And this is the previous Davis home to be used as a welcome center. The Davis family sold back earlier in 2025 about the 60 acre parcel they had to Irma Chape and Rec Commission. And the proposal is to take the existing house there and be like the welcome center.

And I'll elaborate that a little bit more here in a second. And basically, the property is wooded. And this is out on Garden Valley Lane looking back towards Bush River Road with the river track. And this is taken from that same vantage point looking further down Garden Valley towards the Saluda River. Notice that we have the River's Edge Retreat. I don't know how many members went down there

and took a look at

this or familiar with the area, but the River's Edge Retreat had a zoning change about fifteen years ago. It was the old Gardendale Racquet Club. Gentlemen looking to purchase or actually did purchase it, started a kids' camp that also was rezoned from R1. Now it's RA, Recreational Agricultural. Irma Chapin Rec Commission, if you're familiar and seen the news last couple years, has begun their trailhead project, which will basically put a walking trail from basically the dam area, eventually tying it all the way down, able to walk from there all the way to almost in Columbia.

Okay? Part of this area that they're looking at doing now is they wanna take the existing Davis home, let that be basically the welcome center for the trail. They're also may be looking at doing some additional improvements to the property. Maybe I've not identified at this time possibly a food service, that type of thing, that also would not be allowed in the r one. The r one would support the welcome center, and it supports the trail itself.

However, due to the campground that they are proposing, the r one will not support, and that's why they're looking to change to the r d. As I mentioned a while ago, the public hearing was held February 10. Mark Smiers is an attendance director of remote shape and rec commission. If you have any specific questions regarding their plans, he was the only one who spoke. Obviously, he spoke in favor.

We did receive two emails, one in opposition, just concerns more or less the type of campers, they will allow tents or not, that type of thing. And then also a property owner. I'll go back here. I'll shoot the Sandals who own about 10 acres. Owners, they do not have an issue with their proposal of the campground.

In fact, they said if Irma Chapin's interested in possibly purchasing that, they'll be open arms to that as well. Now, again, the proposed plan has not been approved. That just gives county council and the planning commission and the public an idea of what it would look like. I can tell you though that if this was zoned correctly, meaning it would allow the campground, okay, the way they have it designed would be a permitted use and I could go ahead and write them a zoning permit for that use. So sometimes in these map amendment changes, we get a preliminary plan that maybe not meet zoning requires, could be buffer, setback and screening.

The one that they're showing does, okay? So this is part of the process. You will make a recommendation to approve or deny. I plan to take it back to our council meeting next Tuesday reporting what your vote is.

Quick question. Why are we hearing this instead of the zoning board of appeals?

Good question. Zoning board of appeals hears items that are allowed. Here's numbers. Such as if say if I'm a Chapin Rec Commissioner wanted to put up a 20 foot tall sign, and it's only allowed a 10. Because an amendment is a change, zoning board cannot hear something or make a recommendation or approval that's not allowed. That's the reason it comes before you. It's just like a text amendment. A text amendment and a map amendment, same process. Text amendment is a text change to an ordinance. Could be a zoning ordinance. Could be a subdivision ordinance. Could be a land development manual. Could be something with flood. Right? Map amendment is a change of zoning.

The BZA, the Board of Zoning Appeals, does not have the authority to hear a variance on something that's not allowed. The BZA does not have the authority to change a zoning classification. So let's say, for instance, this was RD and it's requiring a 100 foot setback, right? And maybe on one of these property lines, they wanted to get 50 feet setback. Mark goes to a property owner representing Ermo Chapin Recommission, would you consent to the 50 foot setback?

No, we don't want to do that. Then Erma Chapin and Recommission would have the right to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals and request a reduction from 100 feet to 50 feet because the activity is allowed. This is not allowed yet. This is turned down, they cannot do this, basically. If this is approved, they can do this. So the BZA does not hear variances on items that are not allowed.

Quick question, and this is just more information. Is the wastewater treatment facility there operational? It looks

You know, I look at those aerials, and I see you see water in it, and obviously, you don't see water in it. Mark, Mike can elaborate a little bit further. When I went out and I took pictures, that easement road going back there was padlocked and gated, so I did not decide to hop the fence and pursue, take a look. But, you know, I'm not sure. They did not purchase the city of Columbia's property. I can tell you that.

Okay. Secondly, and we used to spend a lot of time talking about Flood Plains. Is this the subdivision where the county purchased some homes adjacent to this after the floods of twenty fifteen?

Bine Glen was one of the subdivisions we did purchase homes.

Okay. I'm just curious as to how that impacts this property

if you're gonna Sure.

And to start having habitation on it.

Yeah. And to give you an idea, after the twenty fifteen flood, of course, FEMA updated the maps, county adopted, etcetera. But about where those tanks are, about where the house is coming parallel to the river is your floodway. K. The rest of this probably up to railroad track, maybe beyond this floodplain.

We did have a development review meeting with Thermo Shape and Rec Commission probably over a year ago now regarding the plans for the house. And the house is actually, when they built that, probably thinking ahead because the finished floor, if you look at it, it's almost like a beach home, beach house. You know, you got the first eight or 10 feet that's parking underneath, then your finished floor is probably eight or 10 feet above the ground level. Obviously, that you know, with building and flood, we've spoke to Hermo Chapin prior in the DRM regarding flood requirements, that type of thing, and finished floor as well.

All right. So,

I mean, I'd certainly like this idea versus putting, you know, 500 homes in there.

Sure. But

I'm surprised you got, what, two comments from people in Irmo only? Correct.

How

did you advertise it? Just that one sign?

No, sir. We had about 20 property owners in Bronte next Pine Glen got adjoined. But, you know, sir, sometimes people don't comment.

I tell you, wouldn't it I do this

for BZA a lot, and I'll send comments out, and I've sent a 100 notice to neighbors and never heard anything.

Comment when they oppose.

That's well,

yes and no, but Yeah.

I mean And it's tucked,

you know, if it's tucked away, if you're not familiar with the area, obviously you can look on a map, but if you're not familiar with area, you really don't you kind of forget it's back there, right?

Yeah. But all those houses, I'm surprised those people wouldn't be interested in making either good or bad comments on I mean, you remember when that development was going in on six, I mean, I went to a couple of those meetings and people were extremely vocal.

Yeah. And the reality Negative. Yeah. And the reality of it too is think of think in terms of this, You have public hearing, that's what that's what a public hearing's for.

Right.

Public can attend this, they just cannot speak.

Right. So any We get lots of attendance.