County Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. At this time, I will call to order the York County Council September 8, 2026 County Council meeting to order. Welcome you all here tonight. Our first order of business is to recognize the Honorable Tommy Atkins from District 3 for invocation and pledge of allegiance.

Let's pray. Dear Lord, thank you for letting us gather here tonight. Lord, be with us. Give us wisdom and knowledge as we carry on the people's business. Lord, thank you for all your many blessings and keep us all safe in our travel. In Jesus' name, amen.

Tonight we have the privilege of doing the oath of office for a number of our commissions. As most of you may or may not know, when we ask for folks to serve on boards and commissions, they do so of their time for free. They don't get paid. They rarely get thanked, and it is without having folks volunteer and serve in these capacities, we simply cannot get the job that needs to be done for the community. So we do have a good group. a new group as well. An ad hoc ag advisory committee that is being sworn in for the first time tonight. And I'll share a little bit more details on that one just a

We do not have any appearances tonight, so we move next to our public forum session. This is an opportunity for us to hear from the community about matters that involve county jurisdiction. What I will ask of you is if you are here and I call your name, if you'll come forward, give your name and address, and if you'll pay attention to the screen, it will let you know when the two minutes has expired, and we ask that your comments Cease then. This is not an opportunity for back and forth. A lot of folks will ask questions. We don't typically do that. We don't do that. We hear from you, and then

Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Laura Sawyer.

Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. Chuck Green.

Thank you, ma'am. That concludes our public forum session tonight. We do appreciate individuals coming out and sharing their concerns with the council. Do we have a motion on consent agenda? Motion to approve. Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, the consent agenda is approved. We move now to our first public hearing item. Rezoning action. Council to hold a public hearing and consider first reading case numbers 26-23, tax map number 2920000010 to rezone from RMX 20 to GC 8.4 acres in District 3.

Thank you, sir. Any questions for staff?

I do have one question. So this is, you have nine to play golf? Yeah. And is that sporting goods, basically?

All right. Thanks. I would like to ask, RMX 20, what's the density threshold? What is that per acre? Just ballpark it. OK. Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak against this rezoning? Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor?

Motion and a second to close public hearing. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? You want discussion on closing? I'm sorry. You voted no on closing? OK. So we close the public hearing. Do we have a new motion?

Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries. Karen, did we get that right? Okay. You got me to sidetrack. I wondered if we voted on it. Our second public hearing is rezoning action. Council to hold a public hearing and consider first reading case number 26-24, tax map number 670-00-00-020-30-008. Rezone from UD to RMX 10.97 acres in District 4.

Thank you, sir. Any questions for staff?

So if we do this rezoning, they can't subdivide any parts of it again on a single family?

Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak against this rezoning? Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor?

Motion and a second to close public hearing. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Public hearing is closed. Do we have a new motion? Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion is approved. Move now to our next public hearing item. Rezoning action. Council to hold a public hearing to consider first reading case number 26-25, tax map number 670000048 to rezone from UD to RMX 6.21 acres in District 4.

I meant to ask you this on the last one. Are we still allowing them to go from UD to this zoning absolutely free without a fee?

With this one, RMX 6, is that the one that allows townhomes?

So it would only allow for one home, or is there any other? One home would be consistent with what's around it, right? Right, yeah. Any other questions? All right, thank you, sir. Anyone here wish to speak against this rezoning? If you'll come forward and give your name and address.

Thank you, ma'am. If you want to leave copies, our clerk can make sure we get copies. I will, since you're new to the area, just explain our process. And for any folks who were here, our rezoning process requires three readings and a public hearing. This is the first reading. And so they're assuming this were to pass tonight. There still are two additional readings that would have to be done, additional time for folks to collect information. I'm just sharing that that's how this process works. Is there anyone here who, anyone else who wishes to speak against this rezoning? Anyone wish to speak

Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor?

Motion and a second to close public hearing. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, public hearing is closed. Do we have a new motion? We have a motion and a second to approve. Any discussion? Mr. Roddy?

Welcome to York County. I know it's a terrible way to welcome you home. Just to give you a little bit of background about the UD zoning and what we're going through. Several years ago, we decided to get rid of the UD zoning, and that's what this property is, because there were so many things that you could put in UD that we didn't want. primarily near residential areas. So we allow residents to come forth and zone out of UD into a residential zone. So that's what we're doing here. I think what will help you in your situation is we have to work with the building. We have to make sure our builde

So ma'am, I'm sorry, and this is one of the rude things I have to do as a council member up here, is we don't allow the back and forth, even though he's addressing you. You certainly can leave your telephone number and your contact information with the clerk, and she can get it to the council and to your district representative, especially, so that y'all can continue the conversation.

So yeah, we're going to move to approve it.

OK, any other discussion? All right, first reading. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. We move now to item number four of our public hearing agenda, rezoning action. Council to hold a public hearing and consider first reading case number 26-26, tax map number 477000008 to rezone from ID to GC 9.63 acres in District 2.

Yeah, I've got a quick question too. So I know this is just basically an overview design or view. From parking perspective on this thing here, looking at the size of the building based on also the size of the lot, do you envision there would be enough parking to build support?

Is parking that good? Any other questions? I was curious about, can you go back to the comp plan? The one that showed the surrounding, I'm sorry, where the purple. So is everything purple still industrial? All of that is? But you're saying it's owned by a similar ownership?

And so it's currently zoned industrial, but our comp plan is proposing residential?

Okay, any other questions? Thank you, sir. Anyone here wish to speak against this rezoning? If you would come and give your name and address before you begin speaking.

Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else wish to speak against?

Yes, ma'am. If you'll check with our clerk, and you certainly can speak with the planning director as well as our staff to get copies of what was available and to ask questions, more specific questions about them. Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

CHRISTIE WOODARD- Does anyone else wish to speak against?

Anyone else wish to speak against? Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in favor?

Motion and a second to close public hearing. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, public hearing is closed. Do we have a new motion?

Would you like to start? I mean, so the traffic study will be done during the design portion of this. Any improvements that are needed at that time will be designed. There's no sense in going through all of that until they know that they've got an opportunity to actually be able to build on the property. I particularly would rather this be industrial, stay industrial, and we get some big industrial projects there. I don't think that's in the best interest of the community. to have an industrial complex there. I think commercial is much better, is much better suited for the community. But, you

Another discussion? Yes, please. So this is zoned ID. And I guess I have some questions for staff if you can confirm this. So ID, the property owner has basically vested rights in the property. So they own the land. They have uses for the land by right, right? They're asking us to rezone it. But if we don't rezone it, correct me if I'm wrong, please, but This property could have heavy manufacturing and industrial operations. It could have mining, waste management uses, warehousing, wholesale, distribution, manufacturing services with limited accessory retail, certain commercial retail uses, ge

Clarify, which Jonathan may have to do this. You wasn't around. How did that get, if this land was industrial, how did it get put in the comprehensive plan that way?

I have a quick comment question. So when we did the, and I can't remember off the top of my head, when we do these comprehensive land use plans, do we specifically talk to the property owner to tell them what we're designating their land for in the future? Or is this kind of like a future vision and sometimes the property owner does or doesn't know what we think their property should be?

Because I'm certain we didn't change the zoning when we did the comp plan. The comp plan is just a vision. We don't change zoning. So this was already zoned this way. It's just the comp plan says we have a vision of this area. That's right. I just wanted to clarify that.

But that wouldn't make it where we need to know what areas is zoned before we do it.

Well, exactly. Yeah. Agreed. So, quick question. What is, what's the time schedule for the TIA in this one here? And has that already been requested?

Right, and that's kind of where it was. I didn't know if they had already gone ahead and requested that. They haven't at this point.

Gotcha, right, exactly. I mean, in this situation, um you know we are in a semi-unique situation based on what it is currently zoned as um but this is there there is a a definitely a huge opportunity for having some major traffic issues here um absolutely and i think um as mentioned too earlier about the about the off ramp or the uh off lanes in order to have turning proper turning lanes parking area there's there's There's a lot of issues and the amount of traffic out there is astronomical. I do have to travel out there often. I would recommend that we do request a TIA study upfront before we

I want to follow up to that. What we're doing is rezoning, and once the TIA is done, it will address any traffic that needs to be mitigated. And if it requires an X-cell or D-cell lane, they have to do that before they're allowed to bill and do what they're proposing to do. So I think we're putting a cart before the horse if we're saying you should do a TIA before the rezoning. Because that's what a TIA is going to tell you how to handle the traffic. or based on what they're looking to do, if you need to add lanes or desale lane or acceleration lane, right in, right out, the TIA tells you all

Well, I mean, Andy's right. I'd rather have general commercial than industrial. But really, no matter what goes there, it's going to be a nightmare of a traffic problem, any way you look at it.

Yeah, I think this is a very unique situation on this one, and I would highly recommend it.

Sort of like Newport. Can I ask a point of clarification, please? Sure. All right, so it's zone ID. So theoretically, this exact same picture could take place in ID. The same building, same square footage, the same TIA is going to apply pretty much if you have 303 spaces and 70,000 square feet of buildings on the property. You're just going to have different businesses, theoretically, than you would if it were GC. Is that right?

So you could have 303 spaces and 70,000 square feet of buildings on that property as zoned currently without us doing anything, or we rezone it to GC, still could have these same buildings, just different types of businesses potentially. Still got to have a TIA done, a traffic study with both. Yes, sir. Yeah. OK. Thank you.

So the motion on the table is to approve first reading. And I haven't heard any amendments being proposed or any piece on that. So here's what I want to reiterate. I do have concerns that folks understand that if it is industrial now, They can do that by right without coming to this council to ask us for that. They're allowed to do it. Anything in that industrial list, they're allowed to do it. What has been requested is that this go to what would be considered a lower impact, less noxious zoning, which would be general commercial. having said that when we approve zoning unless we put conditio

In that triangle, you think industrial is more viable than residential.

I would like to point out two things regarding that. Once Ridge Road is turned into a cul-de-sac, Is that still going to be a state road, do you know, or is that going to become a county road similar to what happened with over in Five Points with the road 49, the little section. And I asked this, and I guess it was not really an answer that I was looking for, but in the event that this section could be abandoned and donated or given to one of these property owners, which would then tie this industrial parcel to the adjacent industrial parcel, which creates an even bigger industrial parcel to b

Well, I'll support, are there any other questions for staff, comment?

Yeah. Josh, as far as the sewage capacity of this area.

I'll support first reading, but I would ask to, just to get to second reading, aren't we allowed to require, I mean, I think typically a lot of developers have a community meeting. It doesn't sound like that there's been any to at least share that vision and make a connection. We can request that.

I thought we had an ordinance provision that we could direct that. Do I need to make an amendment to request that? I'd move to amend to direct that there be some communications with the surrounding community members with staff. I don't know why I can't talk tonight. to share with them what existing zoning is there, have that connection so that folks really understand the differences so that when they're speaking they can come to the two minutes and continue to speak. So I would make that amendment.

I don't know that that necessarily matters. I wouldn't support it until it was done. I've already staked myself out of what I'm doing at second reading, but assuming nothing changes. But I've made an amendment. If there's no second.

Yeah, I'll go ahead and second it. And I think that's, I agree with your request to do that. I think in this situation, I think this would at least get it to second reading and have an ability for him to come in, him or her to come in and answer some questions.

I think it'd be preferable if there's a way to do it. If it can't, then it can't. But I think there's some concerns that the applicant certainly needs to hear and talk through with the community. So we're voting on any comments on the amendment?

If the owner's going to come speak, do we need to defer so we have the public hearing again so that he's allowed to speak? Because is he going to be allowed to speak at second reading, besides the two minutes?

How will we address the applicant being able to talk through this?

That might be a little tricky because there might be a lot of other people that want to be heard, too. I think at this point, a community meeting would be nice. I think it would be good if that applicant could have that happen before second reading. But the motion on the table is moved to approve, and the amendment, which we're deciding now, is simply to request that that meeting be held. So we'll vote on the amendment first, and then we'll vote on the main motion. All those in favor of the meeting, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, so the amendment passes. We're now to the main motion. Al

The deed restrictions that Walmart has, they run with the land. They can't change, right, with a new property owner?

Well, I think that's relevant. I would like to know at least what the deed restrictions are and whether or not they run with land.

You're done, okay. So looking at this property, again, and I do feel similar to how Debbie feels on this thing here. You look across the road where you have warehousing, you've got, again, across the road you've got commercial. As I'm looking at this, and again, it's interesting how they had the 250 foot buffer zone where it's applied here, which I know it's not applied in some other places. When I look at this property, my assumption was always that we'd have some type of commercial or light industrial at this site. Again, I think it could do it. And I think where it's located close to the in

Any other questions before we open the public hearing?

Anyone here wish to speak against this rezoning?

Thank you, ma'am. I'll just make sure I do think it's it's extremely important that the community here that there is a zoning map that's a legal map that says you're allowed to have zoning and this is your zone. There is no there is no requirement that council approve any rezoning. but the comprehensive land use map is aspirational and that is coming up for the 10 year review. I'm hoping for a schedule very soon. I know I've requested that staff put together when is the schedule gonna start. That is a very important job and it's something that has to be done every five years, I mean every 10 y

Thank you. CHRISTIE WOODARD- Thank you, sir. Anyone else?

Yeah, just kind of what I said a minute ago. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. Public hearing.

Thank you, sir. Does anyone else wish to speak against this rezoning? Does anyone wish to speak in favor?

Thank you, ma'am. We typically ask the questions of staff later, but thank you. Anyone else wish to speak in support of this rezoning?

Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor?

Motion and a second to close public hearing. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Do we have a new motion?

Yeah, I have some discussion on this. So Highway 21 is currently under construction. Road improvements aren't ready. That area, just like we said on Highway 557, is a nightmare for traffic. GC has less intensity than LI. The staff and Planning Commission said it should stay for GC. It seems like it's a little pre, preemptive to be rezoning this currently until we get some road improvements out there and take care of infrastructure. As we've discussed before previously, this site plan doesn't necessarily mean this is what they're going to build. Once we approve the rezoning, it could be a bigge

Can we narrow down, I mean, just to address Councilman Litton's concern, can we narrow down and put some restrictions so that the unseen, unknown can't come versus what they're pitching to this property? I guess that would be more important.

Well, I think. No, this would be a staff question. I think one of the, staff made a request that if council was going to consider this, that we consider deed restrictions. The applicant has come and listed all of the things that, I couldn't tell from that what things run with the previous and what are new deed restrictions. I guess they're. I'm not sure on that. So I do think, is there a way to take what they've presented and to at least restrict it based upon what the applicant has said, at least initially? And did staff have any other recommendation?

Can we go back to the screen, or do we have it up, the applicant's list of things they're de-restricting? All right, so as I understand it, they are basically agreeing, if this were to be rezoned to light industrial, they're agreeing to expressly prohibit these uses on the right side with red. Are there any other deed restrictions that exist on the parcel now?

OK. Well, I guess to the extent that you're asking the question, Councilman Roddy, I mean, it would seem to me that at a minimum, if folks are going to consider this, that you would narrow it down to what the applicant is at least saying they're going to do. So it would require an amendment that first reading would expressly prohibit via deed restriction all of these listed.

So do we have to include these as part of a motion or the deed restrictions to kind of move forward? Or can we do that later? Do we do it now to reflect what they've expressed they would prohibit with this rezoning.

So I guess my question now goes to legal. Can we just include these to say to include the express prohibited uses without reading them all individually?

I think we'd read it out. If someone wants to make the amendment, don't you? I'm sorry. I jumped the gun. I'm sitting here listening to other folks down here, too.

Well, could we just include it in the second reading and have it as an amendment? Yes, you could. That would be much simpler and cleaner.

can that be second reading is the cleanest way to do it yeah yeah yeah it's yeah can you make sure to send me i would like a copy of this presentation where the applicant has bound themselves i'd like to see that if council's leaning towards doing it all at one time at second reading i think the so y'all aren't Y'all aren't, I'm sorry, do you have the list of existing stuff that you can share with us just as, or?

Is that lengthy? I'm just curious. Looks like it's three pages. Can you give a synopsis of what those protections are? You don't need to read all of them. There are some folks here for the public hearing, and we kind of skipped over that. But I think to the extent that what we're saying is, At second reading, all of these restrictions that have been presented by the applicant, as well as all of the restrictions that already run with the land from Walmart, the folks have heard from the applicant. Is there a way just to kind of share with us, or is it too complicated, at least to provide?

OK. So I'm hearing council kind of say that if first reading passes, the inclination is for these things to be identified at second reading versus first. I would incline to say do it at first. But I think for folks who have come on public hearing, I think it would be nice if they could check with staff and get a copy of all the other staff report to the extent they can't make it to the next council meeting. And this passes.

So the reason why I was asking that, because we heard neighbors who didn't like the idea. We heard neighbors who do like the idea. And we have council members who are concerned with some of the future uses. So try to accommodate everybody to make it work. I think it's only right to try to exclude some of the things that council or community wouldn't want to see happen if this didn't come through, because we see the Walmart didn't happen. It was planned for a Walmart. So now if we put some protections in for some neighbors, maybe they can get comfortable. Also give Flint Hill community what the

So are we going to move forward with a motion, or are you going to do an amendment? I had another question.

Motion has already been made to approve.

To kind of piggyback on or ask, along with what Councilman Roddy was saying, is the 250 setback and some of those other, like the height of the building, is all of that in the restrictions also, or is that just on the plan and

How soon can staff put together a list of the deed restriction pieces, just so that folks who have came out and spoke, that can be sent on when we're asked questions?

So a list of all the things that have already been represented, what's in here today. And I do think that there have been some requests from the community that maybe the applicant hasn't heard. I think it would be helpful for y'all to connect today to see if there are things to talk about. They're sitting behind you shaking their head. So if you want to talk to them, that would be good. The motion on the table is to approve first. Madam Chair. I'm sorry? Oh, sure. Yeah.

If you don't mind. Yeah, go ahead. Before we vote. Just a point of clarification. So Walmart's the owner. So this will be a Walmart warehouse and distribution facility, or will it be some other type of facility? They are selling the property. Okay. So we don't know 270,000 square feet. We don't know how many trucks are going to be coming and going per day?

I just did some quick research, and it looks like about 84 trucks a day, maybe 238 vehicles a day. That's one trip in, so double that coming out. So 476. Point is, when you go back and you look at, it's zoned GC currently. If you look at all the uses that are available under GC, I think there'd be a whole lot more traffic on 21 whether it's two lane, four lane or whatever it's going to be one day. So this this particular project would more than likely generate less traffic than GC. So for that reason, I could support this.

Yeah, I agree. So yeah, the only comment I have on this thing is that Just as we did on the earlier reading, I think that we have an opportunity to really get this right as we move forward with each of these projects. I think it's important that the applicant does meet with the community on this and does set up meetings to move forward to have discussions around what else do we need to add in for additional restrictions on here as we move forward. But I think the consensus here is that We're going to include whatever is on this list here, plus what Walmart had for deeded restrictions. And then

Any other comments? Is that right? 6,100? All right. A lot of things will transpire between first and second, so all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Motion carries. um we that concludes our public hearing section of our agenda we now move to old business um do we want to take two minutes push on fish on all right council to consider second reading of an ordinance to amend chapter 155 zoning code 155.1246 interpretation of zoning map to permit a parcel with more than one district boundary to be governed by the development regulations of district making up the greatest area In Chapter

All right. My motion is to approve second reading with the following amendments. Delete all the changes to 155.1246E. Amendment changes to 154.004 to read the following. split zone residence lots existing on or before September 17, 2026, may be platted and recorded the same as single district lots and may be recombined with adjacent partials containing to the same zoning district. But I stress, this only involves into residential, because we got emails and people were confused about that. And I think through this, Correct me, Laura, if I get this wrong, but the goal was to make sure that split

Mr. Atkins, can you repeat the motion part of what you just said?

The motion part was to delete all the changes to 155.1246E. The amendment change to 154.004E is to read the following. Split zone residential lots existing on and before September 17th of 2026 may be platted and recorded the same as a single district lot. and may be recombined with adjacent parcels containing the same zoning district. Because that's what stands right now. That's the motion. That's the end of the motion.

all right so do you do you do you agree that your motion makes that change to september 21st if we went over this thing right it does all right so the motion is just have the date for third reading mixed up that's all all right so the motion the motion has been read um is there a second and then i think we'll ask for some just it sounds like laura's got

I'll second it so we get to discussion. OK.

So we have a motion and a second. Now we move to discussion. Is there anything you want to add?

Well, if you, I mean, don't get me wrong. This whole split zoning thing is just, And in my mind, whether you own the land or what, I mean, it really gets down to you just having two pieces of land in your name that happens to be. Because if you got ag and RUD right here, but your neighbor owns that, it ain't no issue. But if you own land right here that's ag and RUD and it's both in your name, right side by side, then it becomes an issue. You get what I'm saying? But if somebody buys land, then they ought to be able to plat what they've purchased, whether or not it's split zoned or not. And th

I guess I'll start off. When we talked about this last meeting, I'll just express my concern. Laura, I'm going to direct this question over to you.

Yes, sir. Okay, all right. So when it came to the discussion we had last time, the concern I had was when we had two or three people that are wanting to do this, but yet we're affecting multiple people. The concern was, what was the long term ramifications down the road, and how could we foresee additional concerns coming out of this motion? based on this amendment, how do you feel like that addressed that concern?

Yeah, so I guess, you know, the overall concern when we start making broader policy changes is, you know, what is the long-term effect that we can't predict, right? on this and especially when you have two or three people that need this and how can we streamline that process but not kind of pull everybody into this mesh, right? So having said that, I guess my concern is that when I listen to what was proposed here, does it in your eyes clarify some of the concerns we had last week?

So the last question I guess I have on this, and I'm going to think about what you just said. If you have a property, say you've got one acre here and then you've got a property in between, you get two acres over here. In order to quantify or qualify under that, the two properties somehow have to connect, correct?

Right. So everything's, no matter what, it has to connect in some manner. Yes, sir. Okay.

Next. After, my first concern is all the amendment changes, and I have no idea what all those changes are, and having to read it in printout, I wish I had gotten that ahead of time so I could prepare. But beyond that, after last time's discussion, even being on the P&Z committee, I'm deciding I think this thing has more problems down the line than it's solving right now. And I don't think I want to support it at this point. Anymore. This is it's not exactly what I was thinking and hearing all the additional discussion really kind of changed where I thought of it. And I think we're going to cre

Are you comfortable responding to what he just said? Councilman Litton just shared.

So, is there a question? Well, are you comfortable responding to what he just said? that he's concerned about the unintentional consequences of passing this for the future. Can you elaborate? And let me say this, too, because I, too, agree it would have been great if I could have read it beforehand, too, because I'd be more informed actually being asked to vote tonight. But with that being said.

Do you have that motion in front? Do you have the existing ordinance in front of you that was last time?

So am I correct in understanding that this only applies to residential? Because I know someone said something early in the meeting about the commercial. So to clear the room, this is only for residential. And it's going, if your neighbor's zoned one way and you're zoned this way, you happen to buy your neighbor's property and you want to combine them, you have to combine them to the larger Well, if Thomas' motion is correct, you can't even do it after third reading. It already has to be split zoning as of third reading. You can't create a split zone situation just to rezone to the larger porti

Since one of the biggest issues is somebody goes out here and buys land and finds out it's split zone, then they can't plat their deed. But if they're sitting there and say they got 16 acres of ag land there and just a little bit of it's RUD or whatever. It all goes down. Well, if you don't even do the bigger partial, they still have a right on that 16 acres of ag land to do whatever they can do, just like if they had enough RUD, they'd have a right there. We're just talking about whether it's the two lines adjacent owned by the same person versus whether it's a neighbor sitting here and they

I'm trying to understand, as I understood the conversation at the last meeting, what the concern was with the ordinance proposed was that it extended to businesses, that it potentially created more split zone issues, and it didn't solve the problem of a couple of folks who had come in to just address it. So right now, I just want clarity about the motion that Mr. Adkins has made. If currently in the code, there is a provision that says if you are split zone, if you are a split zone parcel, you can't do anything. You can't sell your property, you can't buy it, you can't plat it, which means you

You can't complete the sale because you can't record the plat, which means you can't record the deed. There are two individuals, Mr. Sandifer and another individual who came. So let's start with this. There is something in the code that says you cannot have a split zone parcel, right? We have 850 of them residential right now.

Right, but his motion says solely to allow folks to... Yeah, they got to be of likeness. Basically, it allows folks to have split-zone property without having to come to council. And if they have an addition, my understanding is that all the rezonings we've had typically deal with an existing, somebody owns a house in one of these split-zone properties, and we make them rezone it before they can add a deck.

All right, maybe what we need to do is let's get the, you guys provided all of the information on this rezoning. Like you said, there were 30 of them in the last five years or 20, what is it, five a year? Why don't we get all of the details of all those rezonings and see what we're fixing? I think that might be better. Yeah, we're good with that. And then this other piece can move on and we can just defer this and everybody get it up to speed with what we're trying to fix and what we're not fixing. Mr. Atkins, do you mind changing your motion to a motion for deferral, and let's get this additi

Yeah, but I mean, this is... Simple. In my mind.

I think if folks see what you're saying and have a chance to ask the questions, it probably will clear that up.

We'll be the meal to death. It's a good thing that he's flying colon. I swear.

I remember when I was on the planning committee, PNC, we did have something come up that if something was non-conforming and if they wanted to add a deck or do something different, they had to rezone. Am I accurate? Is that an accurate statement?

Chairman Cox, Chairwoman Cox mentioned, made me think about that, and I think that's what you were thinking, about they would have to rezone it before they build something on it. Oh, that is the case.

We're just going to get two weeks to confirm that, because the ordinance currently says that lots shall not include more than one zoning district. If someone who has a split zone lot comes to the county and says, hey, I want to add a deck onto my house that sits on this area, we have had to rezone that in the past in order to allow them to just do that deck or I think there was a pool. So currently the code does not allow folks with split zone property to exist, essentially. Basically, they have to get rezoning. Yep. Well, we'll get clarity on that then. We'll get clarity on that. Can we have

Yeah, but the same person, their pocketbook bought the land.

Right. What his amendment did was it said that anybody who has a split zone property, they get treated the same way as someone who is AGC. So if I own property that has RUD and AGC, then his amendment would say, you can go ahead and sell your property. You can plat it. You don't have to come to us. And you can, if you want to buy property that's right next door that has the same problem, just like AGC. If I want to buy, if I own AGC land, I can buy AGC next door and I can recombine that, but it has to be the same exact zoning. So this would simply put the split zone parcels, it would not creat

All right. So will you consider a motion to defer?

I will. I should have bailed hay and worked on the bunkers today. I wasted my whole day trying to figure this out.

Do we have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Any other discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. I remember to counts to consider awarding bid number 3033 for the construction of the bullets Creek volunteer fire department building addition to the lowest responsive and responsible bitter Salem builders of York. Poor total cost of $102,000, which includes the base bid of $99,000 plus $3,000 owner allowance contingent upon county attorney review and approval.

So when this thing was first, when they originally came to you, was there, I thought they had applied for a grant for this construction.

So they hadn't applied for additional grants to move forward with the construction piece?

When they first originally reached out to me and wanted to know if there was a way or anything, I said, I don't know. I'll check into it if you remember, David. And we're going to look in to see if they could get some help somehow. And then through that process, it changed over to this. I don't know. How long has it been since you talked to them?

Well, yeah, the last time whenever y'all talked about as far as taking ownership of the property.

Yeah, because I talked to several of them, and they said they didn't really know what was out now.

So each of the correct, so when I'm looking at the request for evaluation of following weighted criteria, documents, graphics, facility condition, et cetera, is that an overlay of how this was evaluated on the county level, or is this something that was structured in order How was this piece of it structured? I guess coming up with these numbers.

So did we, I guess, because this is the first time seeing, maybe I didn't see this, and it might fall if I haven't seen this, but did we approve this as a council, or how did we come about coming with this matrix?

So it's something we haven't, we're seeing this for the first time based on the fact that you guys just structured it. And we'd love any feedback you have.

Okay, okay, okay. Do you have the actual matrix for this that we could see?

Right, I'd like to see the actual scores.

I think that would be a natural place for this to be discussed. The policy was drafted and circulated to council Friday. I think the issue in front of us now is a bid that was bid out in April. I personally appreciate that we're starting to have the discussions about what What is the county going to do in terms of taking on parcels or ownership? I think the question is, are we at that point now since we haven't had a chance to digest this?

I think there's a lot of different ways we could handle it. David, do you know how many college they run last year? You know how many calls Bullet Creek run last year? I'd be guessing. 56, 57, and the majority of them were brush fires, accident, and assist. And we're going to spend all this, and all they wanted was a lean-to to park a truck and an ATV that they fight brush fire under.

guess looking at this you know my concern here is is the second part of line one when the facility transfers the ownership transfers to your county how i mean this I'm just concerned the extenuating costs that would impact the county overall from a long-term perspective when we do that. And the other concern is the local ownership of this facility, et cetera. I think, again, those are two concerns that I think I have just off the top of my head just looking at this, David.

Well, are there any questions? Because we don't have a motion. The issue before council right now is the issue of the bid. Are there any other questions for staff before we entertain a motion?

Yes, just one question. I'm going to have to put you on the spot. I apologize. But if we were following our 10-year plan for one York fire, would you be asking us for this money to add on 560 square feet to the building?

For short-term benefit or long-term gain?

And I agree with you there, because that should be the main criteria that we're looking at. Whatever it takes to establish for our public to get the best rating for their insurance and all that to qualify, you get what I'm saying? But how would it work if the county made that deal with them and they end up owning this facility, but it's volunteer fire, who's liable?

Well, those are the, those are the extenuating concerns that I have when, when I, when we see ownership of the facility. Well, when you say who's liable. Yeah.

The firemen in that station, the property, because. Y'all taking the building, but not the land.

I will say that some of the folks who were with the Bullets Creek reached out. I think there's some confusion about what is being, since there is, are there any legal documents that have currently been drafted? Any MOU with the Bullets Creek about how this would work? Or would it include the land? Is there anything with legal on that?

So my personal opinion is before we would accept a bid, we would want to have this discussion, have the workshop, look at a prospective plan for how we're going to take property in, because this would be a major departure in what the county has approved. There are also some questions I have because there was suggested that they did have the funding in place in order to do this themselves and to get a loan. We've requested that other departments do that and they could have accomplished it for a bit of this amount. I think it would be good to have the workshop before we commit to something and c

Second. Motion and a second. Any other discussion?

Laura, has anybody reached out since the last meeting to see if the contractor would extend the bid until we had our workshop?

OK. The motion on the table is to defer to the next council meeting. Any other discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion is approved. We do not have any new business committee and other reports. Economic Development Committee meeting. Chairman Watts-Huckabee.

I'll be brief. We had a meeting and all three members attended, had a report from the Economic Development Office about small business and a small business initiative that Eduardo has been heading up. It was pretty interesting about what they've done going out in the community talking to small businesses. They're finishing up in Lake Wiley. They may be doing that this week actually. Look forward to seeing how that gets incorporated into what we're doing, maybe in assisting small business moving forward. Council will be making that decision. We had six projects shared with us in executive sessi

Thank you, sir. You're welcome. We do not have any citizen concerns. Any council member new knowledge in the comments before executive session?

I just want to say we have a Public Works Committee meeting coming up on the 29th, I think it is. So there will be an update on the animal control facility.

York County Fall Livestock Show, Shallow at McCarter Farms this Saturday. Go out there.

Yes. Question for Mr. Tom Couch. The small area corridor plan for 161 and 274, will it reach Mount Gallant? Will it reach that far? Mount Gallant from 161 all the way to Museum Road by chance?

OK. So let me bring this up real quickly. I know it's 9 o'clock. We still have to go to an executive session, so I'll talk quickly. Many of our areas are growing and they're somewhat growing out of control, right? And so when you look at Mount Gallant as an example, there's a proposed 55 and older development going in on Mount Gallant, proposed to go in on Mount Gallant. I went to the neighborhood meeting and I've had meetings consecutive. John Black and I have been in meetings with the developer talking through what could take place and when the TIA came out, we met, discussed the TIA as well

Okay. So when we, when we rate roads, you know, and we look at the, we looked at the existing impact of the road itself. The question I think that you're also raising here is how do we overlay future growth and how does that factor into the impact on that road based on that? Yeah. Um, and, and when it comes to funding, then that plays in, that plays a role on how we can predict where we need to put more road funds.

And this is off topic, but this is exactly what I was speaking to, not even knowing this was going to be in front of me between last meeting and this meeting. It goes back to when we are bringing industry in, and you look at the industry that's coming to Rock Hill, well, a lot of those employees are living in y'all's districts that are outside of Rock Hill. They're living in York, school districts, that is, York, Clover, Fort Mill. because those areas are seeing increased student populations, Rock Hill student populations going down, because there are a lot of people living in other places. So

But we need to get the municipalities to kind of help us out on it because they've caused the majority of all the problems.

That's why I suggested that we have a meeting with all of them at this day.

And they need to get a lot of control off of the administration. We're beyond where we are. Does anybody else have a council member do not agenda comment?

That's the only one I had. And I appreciate you responding. Thank you.

Exactly. Well, I'll just say this. This Friday marks the 25th anniversary of September 11. And it's hard to believe that it's that long, that that time has come so quick. But I think, obviously, it's the time for us to reflect on the lives that were lost and the brave men and women who helped. rush towards danger and help our community um i also remember i think we all remember where we were on that day and how the community and came together and i'd love to see i hate that it takes those kinds of things for for folks to to pay attention um hopefully we will we will learn from that and and rem

piggybacks off of your comments there and um you know the the what they do for our community is is second to none so i do want to thank you all okay what you all mentioned All right, yeah, executive session, yes, we had a few. Receipt of legal advice, litigation update, personal matter, contractual matter, county attorney, personal matter, contractual matter, county manager. Contractual matters, Project Blue Mako, Project Elevate, Project Bolt, Project Pier, Project Gateway, Project Utopia.

Motion is second. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. We will go into executive session. We are out of executive session. No action was taken while in executive session. Do we have any motions?

Motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. We are adjourned.