Lancaster County Council - Special Meeting

Good afternoon. I'd like to call this meeting the Lancaster County Council to order. I ask that the clerk note for the record that a quorum of counsel is present, that public notice of the meeting, including the meeting agenda, has been posted the required length of time in the lobby of the county administration building and on the county website, and that the news media was notified of the meeting time and place. I welcome you to your county council meeting. I would ask that you take a moment to turn off or place on vibrate any cell phones or pagers. Thank you for not wearing any hats or caps

Let us pray. Heavenly Father, as we move forward tonight to do and look at the proposed revisions of our UDL, please guide us and fight us with wisdom to make the right decisions for our county. I ask you this in your name. Amen.

Amen. I'd like to welcome everyone here today. Is there a motion to approve the agenda? So moved. I have a motion from Mr. McGriff. Is there a second?

Second from Mr. Harper. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. All those opposed, it is unanimous. We don't have any citizens' comments, so we're going to move straight to item 6A on our non-consent agenda. First reading of ordinance number 2026-2059, an ordinance to repeal and replace appendix B of the Lancaster County Code the Unified Development Ordinance of Lancaster County to adopt the comprehensive rewrite of the county's zoning subdivision development review, design, transportation, infrastructure, environmental protection, administration, and enforcement regulations to adopt

So moved. I have a motion from Ms. McGriff. Is there a second? Second.

got we got most of those are planning commission recommendations with one staff recommendation anything of concern there on page two item number 11. you just moved on to page two okay we're moving on to page two now i agree with the planning commission the the carolina hill splitter overlay is that gonna be a issue with the, with the no credits available?

So I, I don't. Well, what's the process for somebody if they want? You, you gotta have an approval process, uh, if you're gonna have that district. You can't, uh, I think the county would leave itself wide open if you have a overlay district and you don't have an avenue for approval. I mean, that's my concern.

That still does not answer the question as far as what will we be in any type of legal jeopardy if we don't. Because some years ago we really got in trouble dealing with those hill splitters. Don't want to go there again.

I think, I mean, as we went through this in the subcommittee, I think this is a, this isn't a simple subject. This is complex. And I think we have to address it, but I don't think we can address it in this setting here. And we've got to, it's got to be addressed, I mean, as a text amendment.

I guess the legal question is, do we need to save it and do a tax amendment? Would that be best for us at this point? Jenny.

Just want to make sure we're, you know, doing and planning and making the right decisions until we get to that point.

Did we have any developments that paid monies after we ran out of credits to the county? I thought we had. I'm getting nods from staff.

Well, do we need to leave that language in there and collect and put in escrow and put, we have five years to get this figured out or they're refunded their money. I don't know.

So if we've got something like number 12 where it says consider adding highway 5 to the highway corridor overlays since it's a general connection to Rock Hill and York County. I mean if we're saying that I mean by not saying anything we're saying it carries.

It's not in it now. Well, add it. I'm sorry.

We're on the record. Let us catch up. Told you I was going to move fast.

It's saying consider allowing septic with larger lot sizes. so my question is you know is that how is that is are we leaving that to the planning commission to define that or how how do we want to do that we could you can give them a definition to take back or you can leave it to them to define so i mean that it's

septic and RN conservation where public water is available. And I don't, I mean, obviously not allowing shared septic and not allowing those individual septics to be in, I guess, community spaces. Like it can't count towards your open space. or anything funny like that i mean it would be creative i don't know if there needs to be language in there referencing um des or their standards or their review process or is that already part of the process and there's no need to add teeth into something that's already existing we

Are we gonna require, we're not gonna let them put one septic for four or five houses. I saw that. The community, yeah.

It needs to be clear that... One system per lot.

And then LDR is the same? I don't know if it matters. I mean, I guess you know what, that's fair enough. And LDR, I mean, I don't, if something's currently zoned LDR, I mean, that's probably a really good point. If they do conservation, it currently says that they can't do septic. So, I mean, you know, I guess you would duplicate it for LDR.

Otherwise you're forcing rezoning. Most of the LDR don't have sewer available.

Otherwise you're going to force the rezoning down to RN, which wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, I don't think.

But at the end of the day, it's on the developer to get the permits. And if they can't get the permits, then they gotta go back to the drawing board anyway. Correct.

It's going to require them up front maybe to try to do some PERT tests before they purchase the property. So that would be something the developer has to do.

Is there any, is there, well, no, I won't ask that question. I'm good.

Yeah, they're really expensive. So what's the discussion?

then we'll just go down to me we are capturing a list over here that we will help you read back when we get ready to make that motion so for now we need a motion to withdraw and a second well miss McGriff made the original motion mr. Neal made the second so they need to both withdraw their motion I just like it you just okay so they've withdrawn their motion now do we have to have a motion to have this on the floor to discuss

We make the motions after discussions, right?

Naming each one. Yes. Okay. Again, question, do we have to have a motion to have this on the floor for discussions?

Well, then you'll be the one responsible for making the motion. I've got it. So I've got that we'll have to approve the motion with all the revisions in the matrix. In addition to that, there's a Carolina Hill splitter overlay district come 11, leave it in for now, create changes to the text amendment later and establish the banking process and procedures. Item number three, leave adding highway five to the highway corridor overlay district, comment 12. And then item number four, consider allowing septic for larger lot sizes, comment number 94, allowing three quarter acre minimum septic in RN

And I still want to, if we had this phased clearing and grading restrictions, You need to look at that. This thing could have unintended consequences. If you're going to limit to 30 acres of development, this is 10.3.2.

10.3.2. When you start phasing, limiting them to 30 acres, that's going to be, that's the page 20 or 20.

20 you're you're you're gonna have people move in if uh we're gonna have trucks and all going through established neighborhoods have we gone through all the recommendations we need to do that steve before we get to that back page okay okay we're on page 14 to 20. any additional comments all right so we are

My question would be 96 says confirm SEDOT will allow mass arms. So how do we sort that one out?

My I mean we've got some intersections with mass arms but my recommendation is that we not require mass arms because If somebody runs into it and falls into it and their insurance won't pay for it, they are wickedly expensive and the county doesn't want to be on the hook for those.

I mean, it says aesthetic is the primary reasoning. Is that a fair statement for masked arms?

Yeah, it's the aesthetics. So if I'm reading it correctly, it's not saying that it's going to be required, but we'll allow it.

We're saying, I think we're saying the same thing. They are.

My question is, do we need to do anything with 96 or is it? It says, if not, delete it from the table. It says, confirm SCDOT will allow massed arms and intersections HCO, if not, delete from table. So there's no action there.

So if we want to remove them, then we need to make a amendment to our motions.

I like the idea, but I don't like the idea of replacing them. Understood.

Then how do we address 99 then? Because it's just a statement. Concern that interconnectivity is now only required in HCO. What's the discussion around that? Sean, can you lay that one out and just make sure we understand what they're saying?

And I think part of the concern that I have with how it's being phrased in the matrix is that it's saying the current you do already requires interconnectivity between neighborhoods. When what I thought we were talking about during the ad hoc committee was between commercial parcels and those types of establishments good. So it's not just neighborhoods, it's really among commercial parcels and it's to prevent exactly what you said, entry point, every single, you know, stop along the way from 521 for every single center. Correct.

I will say that RFATS pushes in connectivity very heavily between neighborhoods and into the commercial development to try to keep people off in the main corridors, um,

So I think this would probably be an expansion of what we're currently doing, it sounds like to me, because now we'd be requiring it on not just neighborhoods, but other parcels as well.

So what's the flip side of that? What's the downside of requiring an interconnectivity?

Is there an out? I mean, is there a process where they can request I guess a waiver of that requirement? Or is that going down a bunny trail we don't wanna go down?

Can we make the requirements so that there's an interconnectivity between an adjacent parcel? along the highway corridor overlay district. So they're either gonna go north or they're gonna go south. They can choose. The likelihood that there's gonna be an issue that's cost prohibitive on both sides is greatly reduced in that scenario. And then it gives them an opportunity to connect and then that way everyone can start doing it. And at least you're linking multiple parcels at that point.

We want to stop the ingress and egress from 521 every single time there's a shopping center that's built.

Yeah, we need to promote interconnectivity.

Yeah, because I think right now, to their point, it does require interconnectivity between neighborhoods. Right. That has been removed from this draft. So the comment that currently exists in the matrix is saying add it back in for neighborhoods as well as commercial, correct? I think we're all in favor of that. So I think we leave the matrix.

15. Just to be clear, in the highway corridor only?

What does 100 mean then? It just says consider adding stronger wording, so... That's not really an action, that's just considerations. So I don't know what that means.

So is this a scenario where we let them come up with their language, if that's something that's, or do we take a stab at it?

DOT controls the entrances to the federal highway, state highway, and traffic studies are required by South Carolina engineer, whatever. And they base theirs on site distance, speed limits, and we don't have the expertise on staff. to start requiring additional turn lanes if we're not qualified to make a professional opinion. That's my thought.

I mean, we've gotten burned on this a couple of times. I mean, Shelly Mollison 521 is the best example where we've got an absolute nightmare at Shelly Mollison 521, largely because we don't have a right-hand turn lane. So I don't know if this is the answer to that, but I just know that putting something, if we have an opportunity within the UDO to lay over the TIAs, then at least in the highway corridor, I would be, we should look at that.

I think the solution is, is that we need to work with SCDOT and say, you know, when, when we approve a development that frontal 521, we would like to have a turn lane put in and would like for y'all to approve one since this is your highway.

It doesn't always work out, but they're getting better at it.

Let me clarify, because I think what comment 100 is about is the alternate compliance language, which is 9.5.4.D, which what they're talking about which is really, it really is E at this point. It's alternate compliance when the planning director deems a required external street connection impractical due to severe topography, existing development, or other natural features, the county may require pedestrian bicycle access ways in lieu of the required street connections. This is an administrative decision that does not require additional review. And I think we just said we were taking that out

I mean I'm just concerned when you uh is this a 30 acres on any development or is this if It says the maximum unprotected continuous area undergoing active mask clearing and grading at any single time shall not exceed 30 contiguous acres. Does that mean they can leave a 50 foot buffer and do another 30 acres? This is 10.3.2 phase clearing and grading restrictions. You have to worry about a lot of these projects. Your sewer would come off the back. Your water would come off the front. And your first phase on these projects has to be the front. Then do you want mass grading after people have alr

I think we should remove it and study it more and add it back in.

I'm going to disagree with that. I don't think it's primarily the optics. I think it has a lot to do with stormwater runoff and things like that, and then drainage into streams and waterways and... Because when you have that much of mass grading, it is very difficult to then protect all of that and to make sure that you have the erosion control measures adequately in place. And when a developer is going through that, they're maintaining those that were initially installed and ensuring that issues are not arising later on. And I think that's what they're talking about with this. It's not necess

I would propose this could be one of the first amendments with further study. Okay.

And I'm OK with studying it, as Mr. Harper and Mr. Neuhoff said, just kind of putting it in as a text amendment. I think it is something that we need to address. I think it's just going to involve some additional conversations. And I think developers aren't going to object to things like this necessarily, because there is a maximum number of acreage that they want to develop at a certain time, because they don't want to lose control of stormwater issues and things like that themselves. So I think it's just probably additional conversations and then add it into a text amendment later. All right

Let me just let's go back to 120. I was just looking at that on these extensions. You had to have vested rights. And there's a state law. Does that apply to like what the council? approved first reading or is this something different?

I think that still needs to be canceled responsibility.

It would have followed state law, yeah. Okay, all right.

Should we just delete two then? Should we delete 14.9.3 .

So. I'm gonna include it as a note, even though the matrix then says that we recommend deleting it, because there's still a question above it, so.

What's the outcome of that? What are we doing?

And I think the problem that we've seen is that when they're putting the buildings on a preliminary plat, then opens the door to conversations about setbacks and all these other issues which we are requiring. So if we want to open the door, for those additional issues and we're requiring that, then this would seem to indicate to me that it requires that obligation. That we would have to review those things as part of the preliminary plat because we're requiring them to show the building. So if we want to approve just a preliminary plat, we should be reviewing a preliminary plat. No buildings,

It's in the draft UDO right now. There is a requirement for those buildings and all that. Right. It's not just that the Planning Commission had said it's in that. It's in the current draft. It is in this draft.

Yeah, in this. How do you address that if you subdivide a piece of property and sell it where you don't have a building that goes on it?

I got you on that too. I think what we should probably say on preliminary plats is that the preliminary plats should show what is required pursuant to applicable law. Got you.

that correct okay all right and i'm gonna so i'm gonna have a rain delay so going back to comment 120 that had to do with the vested rights and i think probably what we should say in that one as well is refer back to applicable law that way if the law changes our udo is consistent with that provision i think i'm comfortable with that

I got a couple. I wanna go back to 13. Concern that district standards are found throughout the UDO rather than the HCO section. I'm not sure what that means. Or what's the action that's supposed to happen or not happen?

I have no preference at all. I just want to make sure we're capturing whatever. I don't know if there's any action there.

Okay, I wanna make sure, so I think it's 48, the horse. I just wanna make sure I understand where do we end up with the horse thing? Or do we need to take any action or is that? How many horses are allowed per acre? How is that working?

Half acre per horse and go ahead and... We were lucky there was less horse owners in the county than there were chicken owners.

It was one horse and two ponies. What was it?

Miniature horses or ponies. Okay. Per half acre.

And the bees were taken care of as well? I believe so, yes.

All right. Anybody else? Are we doing anything with 13?

So what's the comment if we're adopting the matrix? Because it's really not giving anything. We're deleting comment 13?

Could you put where the HCO is, the listing, or is this the way it is, the listing where all the things are?

If you've got one section that's covering the highway corridor overlay, but you've got different specifications in different sections, can you not list where those are under that section? Cross-reference, and that way they can move, they know where it's at, but it's not all together there.

You're doing very good over here. Taking good notes.

Arlene might promote you to a list. I might. Top of what list? Our favorite Republicans.

I'm just confirming the language in all the comments just to make sure that there's nothing that's...

I do have one more discussion item. I do think we should have a conversation around development agreements and make sure that we're on the same page of what we're thinking or not thinking about development agreements.

All right, can we pause that conversation and get through? Yeah, so section 21 or comment 21 is the recommendation in the matrix to delete this section in its entirety?

So we should make that an affirmative comment because right now it's just talking about this list and then it just says this recommendation. Or do you think if we just refer, Jenny, if we refer generally to the matrix and the approvals, do you think we're okay with that language? Okay, so we're okay.

So 23, comment 23, it's saying reconsider allowed uses in BT district, but there's no decision on that one. So are we saying to do that?

So it was the recommendation to just make it a requirement to have arterial access? Yes. Are we, does that sound okay? Hold on, let me write it down. And then in 32, it's saying consider allowing vehicle services.

So does the staff want us to have vehicle services minored as PR in NB? So we want to allow it, okay. 36, consider deleting government offices.

So do we wanna, so delete, the recommendation is delete it. I'm just gonna say delete it. Yes, yes. 38, consider consolidating fairgrounds with outdoor amusement. So 38 is consolidate. Yes. I'm just gonna move forward. I'm assuming that's a yes. Sorry. 56, it's consider reducing the 500 foot separation distance in paragraph E1 for kennels.

56. I'm in 56. 310.2, kennels outdoor, consider reducing the 500 foot separation distance.

Did staff have a recommendation of what they wanted to reduce it to?

60, it's saying paragraph B3 says insert graphic on site configuration, need to add graphic or delete. So that's for, yeah, that's for you all. We have a graphic that we can add there. Common 60 is add graphic. Same thing for 62. Yes. 66 instead consider adding separation distance between hives. That's where you were talking about the bees.

Yeah, I think we should just delete this, frankly. I mean, how in the world are we gonna keep that up and how are we gonna, I think that's something we just, we're trying to solve a problem that I don't know if it's a problem.

I mean, we have... Yeah, I don't think we'll, I don't wanna go down the chicken. I know Jose wants to go down a chicken.

I do not wanna go down. I said everything I needed to say about chickens. All right, so we're comfortable deleting comment 66.

Correct, just remove the section or reference.

Okay. Next up is 69. It says concern that required buffers between commercial and residential uses are insufficient.

So just delete the requirement and let them come back and I mean, if they're gonna change something, because I don't know how to.

I mean, the way it reads, we already have required buffers, but the concern is, are they large enough?

I could just leave it unless we're gonna.

I don't recall that conversation and reducing that. during the ad hoc and maybe it was discussed. It was not discussed? This is a new topic raised by the planning committee.

Is that the recommendation? Add back the 20 foot option. Okay. 72 in paragraph E2, a type C buffer for manufactured home parks adjacent to other residential uses seems excessive. What's the recommendation?

Okay. 75, there was a planning commission comment that the commercial development is not generally required to provide open space, but the table includes commercial requirements. This is a bit misleading. So what's the recommendation?

So what I'm gonna say for 75 and 76 is add the appropriate footnote to clarify. Okay, 77 is just a consider removing the minimum sizes for the different types of open space. It's section 4.4.3.

I think I'd prefer to keep those minimum requirements. They're there. Are we okay with deleting that comment? Hear no objection. 82 was concerned with significant increase in parking required for single-family homes.

What do you think, Steve? Keep it as is?

I need to look at that. What What do we increase it to?

This is the one that had to do with the bedroom conversations and all that. Yeah, I think we leave it as what we had discussed during the ad hoc committee, which is what I think is in the draft. That should be the case, yes.

I don't think we said that. I think there was probably a cap or a limitation.

I don't think so. I think we need to add something.

We either need to cap it or come up with a... That's right.

Yeah. So if you had six bedrooms, you would have to have parking spots. Right.

I don't think we had discussed the greater of. That's what I was saying.

Yeah, I think we just need to come up with.

I'm gonna recommend that we have it at two, then one per bedroom capped at four. Cause it's not just within the lot, but it's also off street or on street parking, right? Is that okay? The only thing we're adding there is capping it at four. Capping it at four.

I think in the newer developments though, the street standards have changed from some of the older.

There's some developments up in Indian Land that you have to weave in and out because you gotta drive down the middle of the street.

But the street standards have changed since then, so I think that accommodates it.

Yep. So I think the likelihood is that not that many homes are gonna have four cars. So even if we did cap it at four, that one home that had the five, if we're requiring it and capping it at the four, they will have additional spaces somewhere. Either we did it along the roads that would then be widened or we had specific areas that would be parking areas for the community. If I recall correctly, I think that's what we had said.

Those will be shared parking places. Correct. So how are you going to calculate who gets, if you got five bedroom houses, are you going to have to have five additional, you'll have to have five additional parking spots?

That's the garage, if you have a double garage, that's two places.

Okay, 83. I'm just saying that we're going to go with a WSC recommendation. Yes, 84. I don't have anything there.

So 88 is a consideration to relocate or just reduce, eliminate conflicts. That's section 5.6, I guess.

I would recommend consolidating. That seems like it's probably the easiest to have it all in one section for one review. Is that?

91, there is a consider prohibiting pylon signs. If they are prohibited, reconsider the setback for illuminated signs.

So what would be the setback that you'd recommend?

No, from the road right away. That is a property line is a right away.

Well, you could have the, it could actually be further in because the right away could actually go into the property line. So that's a lot.

I'm gonna suggest that we probably hold this one off for a text amendment and just delete the comment for now. Very good with that.

I mean, I'm okay with removing the pylon signs.

They're not allowed in the highway corridor.

So delete pile on sides. 94 we've already covered.

So I'm gonna go back for 121 and 122. there's a question in the definitions of planning director and zoning administrator that it would include or their designee, I'm not comfortable with that. Like I would rather have it be the person who is authorized to do that should be the person authorized to do that. Because I don't know who is gonna be the designee. Okay. If we wanna have a secondary person, if we don't have one, I would say then we put in the county administrator. Sorry, Brian. And that's, yeah, I hear you.

I understand your... I think my problem is putting it in the defined term itself. I would rather look at specific instances where a designee would make more sense as opposed to... And that's where I'm... Because once you put it into a defined term, you're opening up... a pandora's box because it could be it could be anything and it could actually get us in trouble with some things that it may not be allowed to be assigned so i think we probably either need to review it as a text amendment afterwards or i think we leave it as is and then have the planning commission have them go through it and

Yeah, exactly. OK. So I'll put those as comments. And I think we're done.

Great, thank you. Anyone have any comments or?

Okay. I'm making a comment as the last comment to revise the UDO to add the county attorney recommended revisions.

I just want to make sure that phrasing it that way is going to be sufficient for the motion.

Now we're going to, Mr. Chair, make the motion, second it, and he will read out the list.

I think I'm going to make the motion and include the revisions. And then a second. Yes. Okay.

With this matrix, no, but I do think we need to have a discussion on development agreements. If we want to handle that, do this first and then come back to that or?

I think one of the concerns that the Planning Commission had was just making sure that all the references in tables were consistent with what was in writing in the UDO.

So on a development agreements and requirements, I just want to make sure I'm understanding a couple of things. One is, does it still refer back to roof? So it, it looks, there's two seat, two times a development agreement is required. One, it refers to a cluster subdivision, but I don't know if we have a cluster subdivision in the draft. actually one of the comments is to remove that portion so in that scenario so we would remove the cluster subdivision because there isn't a cluster subdivision correct and i get the the other one is if it's a planned development district it would require um a

Right. So I think the planned development district, that makes sense, but I want to make sure we understand what we're doing on the other situations. So if someone comes in a highway, if they come along 521 and they're going to go from RN to LDR or something else, that would not trigger development agreement in our current draft UDO. My question to council is, is that what we want or do we want to trigger something? Because otherwise we have no mechanism to negotiate any terms with any kind of development other than planned development district. I personally think we need to do something.

That's going to be easier to do than try to collect impact fees over a long period of time that so far have really not collected enough to do anything.

Well, I mean, currently we don't have impact fees. Yeah, I know.

I was talking about the school and any land.

Yes, I mean, I'm primarily focused on those areas to the south of the current areas that we are collecting and have impact fees in place. So my concern is that if we, I think we need to put some language in there that triggers the development agreement.

So, I mean, I guess the question is, do we require that or do we say that this, I mean, what would be good language to put in that? that says may right okay so i mean that's that's discretion so if we i'm just trying to walk through a scenario someone comes in uh an applicant comes in they say i want to rezone these 50 acres they they see the they see talk to planning staff and planning staff is going to say we say may i mean i guess it's up to the developer and and to have conversations with the planning staff but i'm trying to figure out like what How do we stay out of trouble in those scena

I think you need to be consistent in what you're doing. Whether it's at least having the conversation about a development agreement and then it if you get into it and you think, well, this is not going to work or they're offering something better than what you thought you were going to get. So, I mean, it's not.

Go ahead, is developer will only ask for one or if there's additional density.

you know by if it's by right sure right right if it's if they if they're proposing a project and it's they they already got ldr i mean and it's ldr like i'm i'm not sure how if there's any mechanism that we can use i would love to hear it so making them categorically mandatory could be

But to be clear, it could only be triggered in a rezoning situation.

So if somebody comes in, they have LDR, they submit a project for that LDR land, for that property, they enter a negotiation, but they already have, what are we negotiating at that point? Because they already have it by right. So if there's a negotiation, I'm not understanding what the negotiation

Yeah, I mean, if there's nothing to negotiate and they have it by right, it's really council deciding to do impact fees or not. Like to me, that's the thing. And if you're not gonna do impact fees, then you're only gonna go through a development agreement when someone is trying to request higher density or typically than what they're currently zoned for. I mean, that's most of the negotiation.

what Mr. Graham is trying to say is that if we can establish some parameters to have consistency so that it's not just different decisions that are being made at different times,

policy or procedure that walks through. I just don't want us to have a 50 acre lot sitting next to each other and this one has a DA and they have this similar project, they look the same, this one does and this one doesn't. I think we're asking for a problem.

And I don't know if we wanna manage. I think we could. I think we could do a separate policy that's not part of the UDO that's managed then by staff. that sets apart those parameters.

Dang. I was afraid you were going to say that.

I got a question. I knew that's where you were going, and I was OK with it.

I got a question. The only reason, you know, the main reason a developer would want a development agreement would be for additional density or smaller lot sizes. Can that be written into a development agreement without redoing all the regulations? If somebody has a project that gets will approve?

I mean, you still have limits on two and a half units per acre in EMDR. I think in that, and I'm way out of my league.

I mean, some of the development agreements we've gotten, they have agreed to provide property for fire stations, EMS stations. They've agreed to pay a fee for each house to go to building those fire stations and things like that.

school funding or something is that correct okay i think that's something the other point we might want to come back and review after we well i'd like to have the da at least a general term in the udo right now because i don't want to come out of this and and have a flood of

Which is the benefit and the burden of a development agreement, because then you have to go back and reanalyze what those ordinances were at that time with whatever text amendments were in existence at that time.

So my preference is that we reserve the right to have the development agreements and add the language that we're talking about but really I think we need to go in the direction of the impact fees to have it as a whole solution as opposed to trying to go piece by piece and then putting more work on staff to then have to decipher what ordinance we were looking at, what were the applicable provisions, because I've seen some of those books, Shannon. Yeah.

Well, I think the timeframe of that period of that development agreement obviously is very important and probably something over 50 years is probably not a great place to be.

Are we ready? I'm ready. Ready to make the motion. You gotta make the motion. All right. So I'm going to make a motion to approve with the following amendments revisions. revise the UDO to add the county attorney recommended revisions, add a provision to the UDO that the county may require a development agreement in accordance with applicable law, We're going to approve the general matrix revisions with the following conditions. Comment 11, Carolina Heel Splitter Overlay District, leave it in for now, create changes through text amendment later and establish the banking process and procedures.

And you'll email that to Lauren, right? We have a motion and a second, is there any discussion? Who was the second? Mr. Mosteller was second. We have a motion and a second, is there any discussion? Hearing no discussion, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. All those opposed, it is unanimous. Okay, that is it. I'll take a motion to adjourn. We stand adjourned.