Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

So we do have two cases on our agenda tonight. And I do apologize for those in the room. I was hoping to get the word out on these sooner. But the chair would like to, for the consent agenda tonight, have the road names as well as case number of audio. All right, that's good. Case number 26-021. That's Anders and as well as case number 26-024. So agenda speaking, I'll say this out clearly so I can make a motion. The chair would like to make a motion for the consent agenda tonight for 5A and 5B3 and B6. Commission have any questions or do I have a second?

I'd be six second.

Let's be a 5A and 5B3 and 5, 6. With a motion and a second, staff, can you please take a vote for the consent agenda?

All right. Kerfman? Yes. Fleming?

Yes.

Lloyd? Yes. Johnson? Frierson? Aye. Yonke? Aye. All right, motion passes.

So these went over as a recommendation to approval to county council. They'll take this up at their next meeting, which is usually the fourth Tuesday of the month, if I'm right, or 7 o'clock, these chambers, right?

That is correct, Mr. Chair. Yes, next week, September 22nd at 7 p.m.

I'm sorry we took up extra time for anyone who signed up for these cases in the four column. I figured you weren't going to argue against it. So you can stay and listen to more if you'd like, or you're free to go. All right. This has us moving on to our first case of the night now. 5B1. I'll flip it over to staff for more information.

Okay, so the case you have before you tonight is case number 26-019MA. The applicant is Chris Middleton. The location is 128 Middleton-Patterson Road. The acreage is two acres. They are currently zoned R3, Residential 3, and requesting HM Homestead. So for some of you, you've seen our staff reports in the past. We've changed them up a little bit. We will be breaking it up into a discussion and what we call a comprehensive overview. The requested zoning of a homestead is not consistent with the purpose and guidance of the comprehensive plan because the district's variable density is not appropriate for a transitional area. The comprehensive plan calls for a residential pattern that functions as a transition between rural and developed areas, and HM is too low intensity to support that role effectively. While the HM district would preserve the rural character of the site, it would not advance the comprehensive plan's objective of creating transitional land use pattern in this area. The proposed density is lower than what is needed to support a balanced transition between surrounding development types, and therefore the request is inconsistent with the plan's goals and objectives.

Thank you, staff. Do you have any questions for staff on this one? Am I hearing anything? Commissioner Frierson, do we have anyone signed up to speak?

Yes, we have Christina Middleton.

Come on down to the podium, please. We'll give you two minutes to speak. And please remember, I said this much earlier tonight, but please remember to state your name and address. And both podiums will be open tonight.

Hi, my name is Chris Middleton. I'm here to... And your address, please. My address is 128 Middleton-Patterson Road, Hopkins, South Carolina. I'm here because I like to do things legally by the books. And I had a note sent to me that said, once in a while, I have a family or friends that come down. This is my residence. I'm trying to transition from North Carolina to South Carolina. This is family property. My 98-year-old mom stays next door. Brother stays next door. My brother-in-law comes. cousins, you know, no strangers that live there. So we want to keep it as family property. But the house stays empty more than it stays lived in. And I don't want to rent it out. I don't want no long term renters in it because it's nice and clean right now. I keep it clean around the area and I keep the house clean. And but whenever family come to town or whatever, you know, I wanted to put it on Airbnb so they can book it and they can stay short term one or two days and leave one or two days and leave. I don't want to rent it out for like somebody to move into it. And then I got to move all my furniture and transfer the lights over. It's family property and we like to keep it that way. But the note that I got said that the new rule in South Carolina, and I've been with Airbnb for like 15 years. So the note says now South Carolina requires that you have each individual place has a license. for you to do an Airbnb. And so that's what my request is. The only reason why I'm asking for the zoning change, that's the only thing I can come up with in order to continue to do what I want to do. I mean, unless you make a special use permit that you can give me so I can just keep it on my Airbnb link. Because whenever family come to town, they don't have to ask me. Or whenever friends come to town, they don't have to ask me. They can go on the link, book it, stay, come down for a wedding, funeral, church event, and leave. And it was working fine all this time. So now what I do?

Thank you. All right. We will discuss it now. Thank you. That was your two minutes. I appreciate you. So we can keep things.

Do I stay to get an answer?

No, you can go and sit back down. We don't do back and forth style in this meeting.

Do I stay for the whole meeting?

Stay until you hear the recommendation. You're right. And again, for anyone from those two other properties, we're done talking about those from the consent agenda. The Anders Drive and 11020 Two Notch Road. So you don't have to stay if you don't want to. Okay, commission. Now this is on the floor for discussion. I don't see anyone else on up to speak. Any questions for staff or discuss?

Yes. The question I have is, is there any familiarity with the state law that was referenced about the Airbnb portion?

Do you have any information on that when we talk about Airbnbs?

So there's not necessarily a state law, it's a county law. So prior to the adoption of our most current land development code, there wasn't a specific use category as short-term rental. You're either long-term, like a traditional single family, or you're a room and boarding house, or a motel, or a hotel, or a legal use. So in effort to try to kind of... bring some rules in order to these short-term rentals. They were identified in certain zoning districts and they typically operate by special requirements. The Business Service Center also is really, they have a dedicated inspector on finding these short-term rentals. And Jacob's job is to bring them into compliance or at least notify them of, you know, kind of if they are in violation. And each location has to basically need a business license in order to operate. So more of a recent county change rather than a statewide rule change as far as for the short-term rentals and how we regulate them. staff doesn't matter what the zoning is when it comes to airbnbs it does um the single family districts are permit uh hosted uh short-term rentals meaning that you as the property owner would reside there and then you would uh you know rent out a room or an adu or you know some other portion but you would still remain there uh during the operation but versus uh they have uh basically the uh unhosted short-term rentals so those are more or less like your typical you know vrbo's or airbnbs where the host doesn't live there um they just they rent it out for blocks at a time and you basically rent the entire residence yes a further discussion commission or questions

From my knowledge on the Planning Commission, we focus on the zoning of this property. And the county, whether that's been the council or whoever put together the Airbnb regulations, that's not something that falls under our umbrella. Is that correct? Am I summarizing that?

Unless you're trying to make an ordinance change to change the language as the planning commission, but no, not necessarily relevant to this particular map amendment.

Yes, Commissioner Johnson. Just a point of clarity, I certainly understand that, but are you saying, you said single family, so R3 is not covered in the ordinance?

So in R3, you can't do it as a short-term rental unhosted. You have to reside at the residence or whoever managed it has to reside there.

it's a president of not too far from this area my personal opinion is i i like homestead i like the less density that's how i look at it for the side of town its neighboring properties are homestead so it would fit in character that's some thoughts commission what are your thoughts Yes, Commissioner Fleming.

It's for conversational purposes. If we're talking about the direction of where Richland County is going and looking for it to be a city, but not necessarily rural. I'm just thinking future terms of where we want to go. If there's a need to get back to that particular space, right, to go from a low density to a based upon the plans. So that's the one thing that I'm considering versus doing the homestead for the single purpose of this residence in order for it just to be an Airbnb.

Thank you, Commissioner Fleming. Johnson?

I guess I'll propose this as a question to staff, or maybe just for a discussion point with the commission, but Historically, if we have been making a decision in an up zone, this is a little bit of an interesting situation that they're trying to down zone the property. But it is not consistent with the new comprehensive plan. But the parcels immediately around it. would argue that it would be consistent with some of the adjoining parcels, which is some of our rationale that we've used in the past in terms of making a decision when we were going against staff's recommendation. It's an observation, but I think it's a trend that we're going to see moving forward where there is a legitimate argument based upon surrounding land uses for the change, but it is not consistent with the direction where the county wants that region to go. So there's an interesting policy balance. And I'd be curious, staff's comments on that and commissioners.

Thanks, Commissioner Johnson. Staff, any comments on that?

Just one quick comment. I think that Commissioner Johnson's, you know, you can consider that. I think that what y'all would consider our however statement that we used to use in the staff report. So it's just not in this particular report.

Thank you, sir. One global comment, not specifically on this case, but I like the new format or the updated format of the reports. And at the risk of sounding greedy, though, the historical zoning for the area where you referenced those other case numbers, is it too much to have those shown in relation to the subject parcel? just in general, I mean, if we're gonna have that information, I think it'd be interesting to see what that looks like.

Yeah. Right, we can do that on a separate map.

Yeah, thank you. A commission, further discussion or a motion? Commissioner Lloyd?

I tend to agree with our chair regarding this parcel since it is bordering homestead zoning as it is.

Commissioner Lloyd?

been brave enough yet to make a motion?

I don't feel strongly one way or the other. on this, but I will say for the applicant and for the other attendees, I do think it is important to recognize that we can't use the intended use as a basis for our decision. And so I find myself repeating that because I think it's important for the public to understand that that's not something that we can use as a basis and the same thing with developers coming in to redevelop a site. Thank you, Commissioner Johnson.

That should be stated regularly, that we can't look at what's opposing. We have to look at the land for what it is. As Noah's chair, I don't like to make motions. We could discuss. We're here for the process.

Commissioner Fleming? Yeah, I think I would make, just based on the discussion that we've had thus far and the last comment, more so not taking into consideration what the future use is and understanding what the neighboring use or zoning currently is, right? I think from a fair process of what it is right now, I will make a motion to approve and move forward.

Okay, we have a motion for approval from Commissioner Fleming. Do we have a second?

second this is general lloyd thank you commissioner lloyd okay with approval and a second uh staff can you please take a vote all right kerfman aye fleming yes lloyd hi johnson hi prierson hi yankee hi all right motion is approved

Thank you, Mission. Thank you, staff. That goes as a recommendation of approval. It'll be taken up at the meeting before Tuesday of the month, correct?

Yes, sir, Mr. Chair, and just real quickly, just so we can have it for the record. I think it was touched on a little bit before, but what was the reasoning for going against staff's or against the comp plan recommendation?

I would say it was the nature of the character of the area, Commissioner Lloyd.

I'm going to add that the neighboring parcel is zoned Homestead.

Fleming, you agree?

Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we can move right along to the next case then. Case 26-020. Put it over to staff for more information.

Okay, so case number 26-020MA. The applicant is Stephen Mark Ivey. Location is 9317 Wilson Boulevard and ES Wilson Boulevard. It's 78.79 acres. Existing zoning is HM and AG. They are requesting a rezoning to residential 3R3. Our brands of plan compliance is compliant.

There is.

The requested zoning of the requested zoning of our residential three or three is consistent with the purpose and guidance of the comprehensive plan because the district's moderate density is appropriate for this area. The comprehensive plan calls for ensuring new development transition sensitively in height, massing and intensity to adjacent lower or higher intensity areas. E. G. Rural or high density centers. Approval of the zoning would be consistent with the pattern of development currently happening along Wilson Boulevard. The comprehensive plan calls for suburban and mixed density development along the corridor. In this specific area of Wilson Boulevard, moderate density residential development would complement the potential future development of small-scale mixed-use commercial identified as a need by the comprehensive plan along the western terminus of Killian Road. Development of this nature could provide for an everyday need for future residents without exacerbating traffic on these narrow sections of Wilson Boulevard and Killian Road.

Thank you, staff. Commissioner, do you have any questions for staff yet? Okay, not seeing any. Commissioner Frierson, people who signed up to speak, please.

We have Jason Wynter.

Come on down either podium. Yep. Again, remember, start with your name and address.

Thank you. Thank you, Commission. Jason Wynter with Ivy Development, 672 Industrial Park Drive, Evans, Georgia, 30809. As staff mentioned, we're asking for a rezoning to R3. This is three separate parcels, about 82 acres total. And so the R3, by definition, would allow six units an acre, which would be 480 plus or minus units on that. We have already spent time and energy with our engineering firm and wetlands consultant and have delineated the wetlands and been working on some concept planning to really see what um kind of layout we can get on that and in reality we're probably about 180 units so it's a little over two units an acre after we take the wetlands and the buffers and the other green space out so we're about half the site and that will end up in open space on this i know that you can't officially take a concept plan as part of the rezoning but i just want to let you know that we're not coming in here saying well we can fit 480 units on there without doing any due diligence we do spend a lot of time up front knowing that when we come to y'all, we know we have something that will work for us. So happy to answer any questions. Now we'll come back up later. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Rumpel, I think Rumpelstiltskin.

Mr. Chair. Yes. Just real quick. Sorry, staff. I was running out of the place. No, sir. Thank you. It was made aware in the report, it does show the 78.79, but that acreage did not include the tax amount number in the center. That's R14600-01-01. So we just wanted to add that for the record that 80.76 is that correct acreage.

Great. Thanks, Taff. And while you're hovering over the map, could you turn the wetlands on? Go ahead, sir. Set your name and address.

Good evening. My name is Charles Rumpleton, and I reside at 141 Lever Acres Road, deep inside the subject property, and I've lived there for over 10 years. I respectfully request that this commission find it non-compliant the rezoning application for the following reasons. this is a reapplication that has presumably not changed, and it was denied originally from the previous application, which would remove the road that I live on. It removes the Dominion Energy power line easement, and it also removes the easement in which my water line runs for Columbia Water down to my property. I am the property on Lever Acres Road there. The application would allow six residents per acre, which was not the intention of Mr. Lever, who I knew, who owned this property, when he established the residence on this property would be no less than about R1 zoning. The rezoning would severely alter the water runoff, the destruction of wetlands, and the removal of mature tree canopies, which is vital to a green agenda, and remove the natural drainage of the tract of land. The rezoning will dramatically increase the present traffic volume which is at right now 10 100 uh with a capacity of 8 600 not the false claim in the report that claims that the capacity is 12 400. my numbers come from the south colin south carolina department of transportation and that's what they uh They say is the so Wilson Boulevard right now is really stressed out. There's another development across from the that is being developed across from the cemetery, which borders the property. And all of the houses around that area are single family homes with great setbacks. It's not a place for condos, which was their original.

They're going to take 15 seconds. Final thought.

I just don't believe that this is in the good nature of this part of Columbia. Thank you, sir.

Bryerson, anyone else want to speak?

No.

Thank you. Any questions? Mitchell Johnson. I can tell you look like you have a question. I do remember this one. This case was 2543, so it must have been towards the end of last year. But I'm a map guy by day, so when I see a parcel, I remember it.

You may have just addressed, because I was going to say, of the zoning history of the area, so that's the first one, the 25043, most likely?

Right. I was chair at the time, and the Planning Commission recommended denial. I don't remember... specifics other than that is true there's a parcel that's landlocked inside of here and we were trying to discuss with staff a solution or what what does the county do i think it was on the way of the developer to handle it tommy can you remember anything well basically

Their access, how they would get that, I mean, they couldn't just, you know, landlock them and not provide access. But that would kind of be between the property owner and the other property owner, the adjacent property owner in this case, where they're trying to do the math amendment. Also, just want to mention briefly, y'all made a recommendation to council. It was withdrawn at council, which is just one y'all don't know. Thank you.

Is that the reason that it's able to be heard again? Because wouldn't we be within the time window that it would not be able to be heard if they had, if council had taken action?

If they had taken action to deny it, they would have had to follow the provisions for subsequent applications so that it had been, for the same zoning district, it's a year waiting time and less waived by, in writing, like by county council.

Chair Lloyd?

I have two questions. One's probably easier. The traffic count, the 12,400, that's from the AASHTO Green Book, right? As I'm guessing is the capacity or what are you looking at capacity versus actual traffic?

So the capacity is based on whether it's a minor arterial or principal arterial, and we use those numbers that were provided from SDOT. So those calculations are brought from there, and we use SDOT's traffic count numbers that are updated yearly.

I knew the actual count was from SDOT. Next question, well, next comment slash question is, Where I struggle is I get that they can't landlock this individual in. Like, it's not legal. It's not cool. However, they can actually do that, and then it's up to the individual that we potentially put in place if we approve this to fight that legally through the court system. I mean, I just, I think that if we, because we don't see plans in the future, right? We're not, we're just approving this as it is. So if we do something like this, do we not set somebody up potentially for a very negative outcome, even though they will probably win in the future? That's not a very nice thing to do.

Thank you, Commissioner Lloyd. Staff comments?

I would think that any time potentially any kind of a map amendment could potentially have an effect in the future. Maybe not in all cases, but as far as when it comes to – and I'm going to give you my little disclaimer. I'm not a lawyer, nor am I giving legal advice, but – The county does see a lot of things that the county is not necessarily a party to that are between two private individuals. In the case where there'd be access issues, the county, unless it was via a county road or something else like that, that we had some kind of maintenance authority on, that would kind of be between, again, two private individuals. But as far as the new development, though... I don't really want to get into the development side because that's a future thing that's not germane necessarily to the MAP amendments, but there are certain access requirements that they have to provide and connectivity is part of that review.

Yes, Commissioner Kerfoot. So is there not an easement currently on there for access?

There could be, but the county hadn't looked into that since it's an existing lot of records.

Commissioner, I just wanted to point out, we try to steer away from any kind of development inquisitions or any kind of thing that has to do with development. The case before you today is about zoning and whether or not that zoning is appropriate.

Beth? Okay, question for staff. Where does responsibility fall then, if you look at it like that? Because I've been around here long enough to make trouble. There's a time where the Planning Commission works as a judiciary body, and we were part of that over a year or two ago, times going fast, where a parcel was landlocked. How is that different?

That was an administrative appeal of the zoning administrator's decision that they couldn't have connectivity because the parcels were separated by a golf course. So in those instances where you have an individual doing an appeal, that's when you would kind of function as far as that judicial. But that would only be, again, if someone was appealing a decision about the land development of code.

I'm trying to stop us from getting to that point. I'm trying to have some foresight. Thank you, staff. Okay, Commission, further discussion or a motion?

Chairman? Yes, Commissioner Johnson. I guess just a comment and then motion. But looking at the zoning classification map, There's not another property that's R3 that's in close proximity to the subject parcel. Correct? Well, let me rephrase. Adjacent to. Contiguous. Contiguous.

I will say, we're just double-checking on that parcel to the north. For whatever reason, it's still showing the old RU zoning. But I would say that I'd have to look at the PDD, but this is another residential development that's across the street. It's a PDD that's been around for a while. It's waiting on infrastructure. So they're finally up and going. But, of course, you can't really tell from here because that's just a grade. But, again, They're just confirming the zoning to the north

Mr. Chairman, I guess I'll ask my three colleagues here who were here. I don't remember this specific case, and I know it's not legally relevant overall, but just to try to help me with what our thought process was then, what was staff's recommendation at the time under the previous plan

I don't remember specifically. I almost feel like we went again.

I mean, I know we did, but I just don't remember what staff's argument was at the time. Do you remember this, Commissioner?

I believe it was.

I think it is tonight. That was a good point, Commissioner Johnson, about no other R3 properties nearby. It almost feels like leapfrog. Yes.

Commissioners, I just wanted to point out there is a PDD just south of there, or just east, that is developing into a single-family residential of... I don't know if you can see it on the GIS right now, right through here. You can kind of see what the lots are starting to look like here, so... Although it's not an R3, it is still developing in that kind of fashion.

What is the parcel north? And I come back to you, Commissioner Johnson. Above the one that's highlighted, those look like a single family as well. Pan the map up. This one. Yes. What zoning is that?

RT.

RT. Okay. Thank you. All right, Commissioner Johnson.

I'm sorry. No, no. Mr. Chairman, question. The larger parcel that's zoned as a PD, well, I know we don't have an exact correlation, but do we believe that that zoning is more R1 versus R3?

Usually PDDs and PDs are a... multi-density subdivision of sorts. They have to have certain requirements. They have to meet certain commercial elements, certain diverse densities. So you can have large lots, small lots, so forth. But they also have to include other elements like open space and commercial elements.

Thanks, Daph. But to me, though, it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison because a PDD, like you said, could have multiple densities. It's not directly aligned with like an R3, which is what they're requesting.

That would be correct. But there is something developing is all I was trying to point out. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Commissioner Johnson? My last question on this case, I'm sorry. I swear I was going to be quiet tonight. We discussed. Has the district council person had a public input meeting yet?

They will. They have one upcoming. Follow-up question.

So not as of yet, no. Follow-up question to Commissioner Johnson. Did they have a meeting last time?

I can't verify that right now, but any feedback from the public would be nice from that meeting.

Okay. And we have two fresh sets of eyes here. Well, yeah, let's look at the fresh sets of eyes on this property. Thoughts? Yes, Commissioner Kerfman.

So I'm kind of two minds here. I'm kind of thinking in terms of what you were saying, the R3, there's no R3 there. But again, it's kind of consistent with what's there or what's being developed in that area. So I'm kind of, again, two minds there.

Okay.

Thank you, Commissioner Kerfman.

planning i have some of the same thoughts as uh the previous um commissioner as far as where we're looking to kind of go with the comprehensive plan um i can 100 agree to where it's probably not the nicest thing to do uh at all and that's kind of what we're here for is just making sure that we're standing up for recent kind of community But at the same time, we do have, I feel, there's an obligation here as a new person, right? To speak for where we are going from a future standpoint and just looking at classifying the actual zoning, if we're just speaking to that, I mean, I can see where we should be in the R3 space here. understanding that it is going to create a dilemma and some hill to climb for some individual. If I was in the space to make sure that was worked out first, then obviously we would do that, but that's just. Thanks, Commissioner Fleming.

Deloitte.

Thank you for putting the map up for the future land use. What is the future land use over the currently developed, is it PD or PDD?

Looks like it's showing is agriculture.

Farming houses. My next comment is, and this is just a general comment. How many more developments are we going to put along Wilson Boulevard before SEDOT understands that there needs to be improvements along there? Because if it's functioning at a C level of service, it's going to be an F level of service. especially with no planned improvement along that corridor.

Commissioner Lloyd, staff.

So I just wanted to point out, while development is occurring down Wilson Boulevard, one of the primary goals of the comprehensive plan is to consolidate our resources and our infrastructure into denser areas so that we aren't spreading out and leapfrogging out into these more rural areas. So by using our existing infrastructure and developing in these areas that already have it is kind of what we based this whole plan off of. So more development on Wilson has already the infrastructure and that's why this road is leading where it is.

Thank you, staff. Commissioner Johnson.

Piggybacking on staff's last comment, I feel like I'm going to contradict myself, but given the amount of time and effort that the county has put into the new comp plan, um, and the fact that our housing numbers are upside down, um, at almost 80 acres, it is an opportunity to within the growth boundary to provide something that's not inconsistent with the plan. Um, so for that reason, I will make a motion on 26 dash 20 ma, um, But a recommendation for approval consistent with staff's recommendation.

We have a motion for approval do we have a second. A second second from commissioner curfew. It's I'm going to ask you the questions it seems quite okay. All right we'll go ahead and take a vote staff with the motion a second.

Motion for approval curfew. Aye. Fleming?

Yes.

Lloyd?

I'm going to preface my vote by saying that I do think that the developer needs to work with the owner of the landlocked parcel on the record, and I vote yes. All right.

Frierson?

Aye.

Johnson? Aye. Yonkey?

I'm just going to say no. But the motion still passes. Go ahead, staff, you say that part.

Yeah, motion approved.

All right. But I do get to say it's something that goes to county council, right? That's a new thing we do? Since I voted no? um well yeah you like the negative the dissenting that's the first time i've dissented i usually like to go with my commission but i also went with my commission the last time that we did it yeah it makes me very uncomfortable about it being a landlocked parcel so i agree i would take you back off of commissioner lloyd i don't want to get the county in any future trouble i don't like that it's like leapfrogging um And there's so much going on on Wilson Boulevard. So I just didn't feel comfortable about it. But that will go to County Council as recommendation as approval. And the fourth Tuesday of the month, what's the date on that one, staff?

It'll be September 22nd.

September 22nd. Yes, we're already like totally halfway through September. So in just a week or so, September 22nd. And calendar, if you guys want to, anyone wants to come out. Any one of the cases. Thank you. We can move right along. Now we consent agenda number three. So we're going on to number four. To staff for more information. Thank you.

Okay. Wait for anybody needs to leave for a moment. Okay. Okay, so the case you have before you, 26-0022MA. The applicant is Quentin Tisdale. The location is 1138 Olympia Avenue. The acreage is 0.17 acres. The existing zoning is R6. They're requesting MU1, which is mixed use one or neighborhood mixed density. Your neighborhood mixed use district. Comprehensive plan compliance is compliant. The requested zoning of neighborhood mixed use district MU1 is consistent with the purpose and guidance of the comprehensive plan because the district's goal of integrating multiple housing types in walkable facilities. Placement of the MU-1 district along Olympia Avenue would decrease the current density for the parcel. The lower density and the incorporation of a commercial element aligns with the preservation and enhancement of the priority investment strategy.

Thank you, staff. Commission, any questions for staff? Mr. Johnson?

My question really is more, I guess it's technically not a zoning question, it's more of a pragmatic, but for an MU on 0.17, somebody help me.

So under the eligibility requirements, if you are adjacent to certain residential districts and you're less than two acres, you're able to request the zoning district.

That one more time, please.

So for parcels under two acres, if you are adjacent to certain residential zoning districts, even though you're under that two acre threshold, you're allowed to request the zoning district.

Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Chair has a question. This is probably in our packet already, but does this fall underneath the neighborhood plan that we worked on? And did we hear from neighbors?

It does. It falls under the Olympia overlay district. And all those standards would apply for any kind of new construction.

They get any advance notification that there's something that's going on in their neighborhood with it being a neighborhood overlay?

No more than a typical map amendment would, where you do the neighborhood notifications and post the property and advertise in the legal section of a widely circulated newspaper, which, of course, is the state.

I'm more familiar with the military overlay, and I do believe they get notification specified, or I thought that any overlay district had.

Correct.

Notification process. All right. Any other questions? Okay. Commissioner Frierson, please let us know who signed up to speak.

Where's the applicant? Quentin Tisdale.

Yes, sir. Give us your name and address. Personal address, correct? Personal address, yes. Sorry, for the recording purposes, into the microphone. Yeah, come on over to that side. Thank you. Did he say Patterday Lane?

Okay, sure. Yes, you're correct. I overheard you.

That is the correct address, my personal address. All right, two minutes left.

I'm representing the church in the Lord Jesus Christ. We're a church, we own 1144 and 1138 is where the church resides. The property aforementioned is actually 1144 Olympia Avenue. That's in question for rezoning. We've been there as a church for over 40 years. And the 40 years that we've been there, over 40 years that we've been there, we've been using that land already for parking. It is not zoned for it. We found out recently, because we were using some other land, that a developer bought and put residential apartments for all the college students that are moving in this area. It's changed vastly over the last four years. It was strictly residential at one point in time, but now with all of the apartments being built around, of course, the traffic has picked up, so has the population, not to mention doing the games down at Williams-Brice Stadium. So we have, if you look at the map where the church is on the corner, we have no parking. So our members walk from 1144 down to 1138. We're asking for this zoning amendment because we would like to pave that parking lot because right now it's grassy. When it rains, it can get muddy, slippery. We would like to pave that parking lot. It's already fenced in and gated where we could use it for parking because as you see on the corner, we're on a corner of Olympia and Maryland. We have no parking besides the street and the bail, the building right beside it. We can't see it. If we roll back, I don't know if that's east or north on Maryland street. There's been two huge apartment complex, I think maybe 16. Well, this one's a little old because the parcel right behind. I can't see what number that is.

Let me give you 15 seconds to try to finish that last thought so I can be fair on time.

Okay, so if you look there, we have no parking. That's where we've been parking. We would like to pave it. And we were told we couldn't without changing the use of it. So that's why we are here.

Thank you. And I usually don't ask questions directly, but that house between the church?

The house between the church we do not own.

Okay. Okay.

but the lot on the other side of the house we own, and we would like to pave it. It's already fenced in and gated for our members. Thank you.

Iola Hindley.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Viola Henley. I'm here representing the Mill District Alliance, whose sole purpose is to see that the Mill District plan and corridor plan is implemented.

Let's start with your address.

Oh, yes. Thank you. 104 Alabama Street. I've lived in the neighborhood for 44 years. I have great respect for the church. It has been a neighborhood church for a long time. We have seven churches in our neighborhood, just to say, and we've included this church in our website, which is milldistrictsc.com. We have concerns. Well, this is the first we've heard of what they would like to do with the property. And, of course, parking is an issue in the Mill District. There's no doubt about it. I have concerns about and we would have concerns about paving the property because we are in the Rocky Branch watershed. We already suffer a great deal of impervious surface and stormwater is an issue down our way. Streets, truth be told, they were designed for horse and buggy. They were not designed for the amount of traffic and parking that we have now. We're currently without sidewalks and so I certainly feel your concerns. Students come in mass quantities and cars are hit. We have issues there. I do appreciate the most recent concern for the appearance of the properties that the church owns. They own also a house on the corner of, I guess it's Maryland. And Olympia, as well as the warehouse, I think it was at one time a gym. So we really appreciated their removing all the overgrowth and trees. The house is in a dilapidated condition and would appreciate their working on getting that taken care of.

And I'll give you 15 seconds. Go ahead.

Thank you. Given the historic overlay, we're requesting that... mean it's hard to say because we didn't know ahead of time and we had no idea we were r6 we thought we were a higher density um uh issue but anyhow parking fine but just non-pervious surface thank you thank you question commissioner johnson good can i ask you a question please certainly

I have the plan open.

Good.

And outside of parking and paving requirements in terms of driveways, shared driveways, most of the rest of this is architectural. It's not addressed what you've said.

Well, the Mill District plan is different than and overrides, I believe, the neighborhood characteristic overlay.

Beth?

So the plan that Ms. Henley is referencing is the Capital City Mill District Plan. It's a neighborhood master plan. It is a recommending document. But as far as enforcement, the Olympia neighborhood character overlay is the one that would have the enforcement power in it.

That's the document that we approved is what you just referenced.

Correct. The, uh, the Olympia neighborhood character overlay is the one that, uh, planning commission saw lab last year, last year, two years ago. Thank you. That's okay.

Thank you.

I said, Marvin Coakley.

Yeah, is that microphone working over there now? It's not working. Okay. Wait, sorry, we do usually try to set people both podiums. Please state with your name and address.

My name is Marvin Coakley. I reside at 210 West Bowmore Drive, Lifewood, South Carolina, 29016. Yes, we're requesting a zoning change due to the inadequate amount of parking spaces for our church. Like Quentin stated before, that there's just not enough space for that. I know there might be concerns about the grass, but it would be beneficial if we did have that space paved so we can have adequate parking for the church members when we do travel there throughout the weekend on Sundays as well. He said mostly everything, so we're just kind of piggybacking off what he said.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Anyone else who signed up again, you could just copy what someone else said. Go ahead.

We have Samuel Scott followed by Yvonne Henry. And as the chair said, if your statement is basically the same as the previous person, you don't have to come up. You can just say, I yield.

You yield your time? Thank you, sir. You yield your time? Thank you.

And then Catherine Davis and Deborah Hickman.

You yield? Okay.

Deborah Hickman?

Come on down.

My name is Debra Hickman. I live at 245 Allen's Mill Drive, Columbia. I've been a member of the church for 12 and a half years and can attest to the parking. Some of the things that I do think is the same as Quentin Tisdale said. I just wanted to add that the quest is also about improving the appearance of the parking area. And it's also about safety and accessibility for our members and visitors when we have visitors that come to our church. paid parking lot will provide a safer and more accessible surface that will make it easier for everyone. Thank you.

As person a bright.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Mr. Bright. I reside in Hopkins, South Carolina on Phil Pine Avenue. I'm also a member of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. I want to address what the nice lady had to say about the paving. I'm not sure if she meant like asphalt or concrete, but I believe concrete would be more appropriate. while resisting for water traveling through it than the asphalt would. And I do second what the other church members have said about the need for the parking area because the high traffic volume and it would be more safer for them to move along what would be a sidewalk instead of crossing streets. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Do we need his address again? You got it? You got it.

All right. Thank you. We have no other speakers.

Thank you. Again, thank you for everyone who's come out tonight and patience with the tech issues and the delay. We'll keep moving here. Questions and discussion, commissioners?

Well, I mean, the next to last question Speaker, I appreciate the fact that often we don't get the actual legal basis for audience comments. So I appreciate the accessibility and the aesthetics, which is part of the rationale on the plan is for aesthetics. And so the improvements that the church is proposing, while we can't consider that, is consistent with the intent of the overlay plan. So, I mean, subject to other discussion, I mean, I am prepared to provide a recommendation, a motion, but subject to my colleague's comment.

Thank you, Commissioner Johnson. Any other comments? Commissioner Johnson, you want to say that as a motion? Commissioner Lloyd?

I was just going to say I agree.

All right. Consistent with staff's recommendation that it's compliant with the comprehensive plan, I would move 26-022MA as a recommendation for approval to county council.

Second the motion. Great, thank you.

So we have a motion from Commissioner Johnson and we have a second from Commissioner Frierson. And it doesn't seem like anyone else needs to discuss. So staff, can you please take the vote?

All right. Motion for approval. Kerpen? Aye. Fleming? Yes. Lloyd?

Yes.

Johnson? Aye. Frierson? Aye. Yonke? Aye. Motion approved.

Thank you, Commission. Thank you, staff. September 22nd, 7 p.m., correct? That's when that will be heard by County Council. And... Our approval lines up with the comprehensive plan. I'm going to give us a few minutes to allow everyone to safely exit. Thank you again for coming out. If we will be looking at case five, I'll be flipping it over to you when it's quiet in the room. f I think we're ready when you are. Okay.

So the next case you have before you is case number 26-023MA. The applicant is Donald and Yativ McCall. The location is 908 Piney Branch Road. It is 0.602 acres. Existing zoning is HM or Homestead. They are requesting RT, residential transition. the comprehensive plan compliance is non-compliant the requested residential transition rt zoning is not consistent with the comprehensive plan's countryside designation which is intended to maintain the area's existing large life pattern although rt zoning is inconsistent with the countryside policy guidance the request would be generally compatible with the development pattern of adjacent properties.

Thank you, staff. Commissioner, any questions for staff? Okay, not seeing any. Commissioner Frierson, who do we have signed up to speak?

Donald McCall.

Good evening, members. My name is Donnelly McCall. I reside at 908 Piney Branch Road. The situation is we have a four point some odd acres and almost five acres in our property. Our neighbor next door, we've had this property for almost 20 years, has asked me for this little partial for 20 years. And recently my daughter came up, she said, dad, you need to sell it. The only thing it is, it's an open piece of property and I have to keep it mowed. My health is diminishing. So we're cutting, we sold a piece of property next other side of us. We're going down. We're not getting bigger because of where I stand. And we decided that we'd like to sell this to Jeff. We did not know that we had to go through all this zoning. But if you people will agree, I would be happy to sell this little 0.65 acres to Mr. Pratt.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else sign up to speak?

I'm going to let the speakers.

Okay, thank you. Okay, commission, this is on the floor for discussion or further questions from staff.

Mayor Lloyd? I have a comment. My feeling is that RT is next to the property on both sides of the property and across the street, but specific. Two sides.

Thank you, Commissioner Lloyd. You beat me to it. I agree. I look at the map and I was going to ask staff to hover over the surrounding properties. Those, the colors are very similar in the greens, but those are RTs, correct? Across the street.

That is correct.

Yeah. Any further discussion? Okay. Discussion or a motion?

I move to advance case 26-023MA to county council with recommendation of approval.

Commissioner Lloyd has a motion of approval. Do we have a second? Second. Second for Commissioner Fleming. All right. No one else seems like they need to discuss. All right. So staff, can you go ahead and take a vote?

All right, motions for approval. Kerfman? Aye. Fleming? Yes. Lloyd? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Frierson? Aye. Yonke? Aye. All right, motion approved. Thank you, staff.

Yes. Thank you, Commissioner Frierson. We need to state a reason that we're going against the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Lloyd, go ahead.

Because it is flanked by RT on two sides of the property and across the street.

Commissioner Lloyd, I like that word. Okay, that goes to County Council's recommendation of approval September 22nd, 7 p.m. We can keep moving on. Go ahead, staff. Six was part of the consent agenda, so we're on seven now.

The case you have before you is case number 26-025MA. The applicant is Satya Kadali. The location is 954, or 9554 Two Notch Road. It's 21.48 acres. The current zoning is M1, or light industrial. They're requesting GC, general commercial. The comprehensive plan compliance is noncompliant. The requested zoning of general commercial is not consistent with the purpose and guidance of the comprehensive plan because the parcel is not located at a visible or accessible node, such as the collector road intersection. The intensity of use is permitted in the GC district would not be supportive of the recommended scale of commercial development in the neighborhood center place type. Neighborhood centers should be located at visible and accessible nodes, such as collector road intersections where they can conveniently serve surrounding residential areas. Development should emphasize pedestrian-oriented design, shared access, internal connectivity, small public gathering spaces, and safe walking routes rather than conventional strip commercial development with large parking lot areas fronting the street. Although the subject property does not fully meet the locational criteria envisioned for the neighborhood center, the requested general commercial zoning would not be out of character with the surrounding area.

Thank you, staff. Administrative question, when we made a modification to the agenda, this was the case, correct? Something about the property number?

That is correct, Mr. Chair. Okay.

Satya Kadia Kadala.

Good evening, Commission. My name is Satya Kadali. I reside in 116 Running Fox Road, Columbia, South Carolina, 29223. And I represent the temple on the 9554 next to the parcel under question. We are only one acre for the existing temple, and we wanted to extend it. The sole purpose of this zoning change is so that we'll be able to build a bigger temple slash church for the classification and the priest quarters and the place to stay for the visitors to stay and go. So we are not intentional. Our intention is not to build commercial complexes. This is only the multifamily residential for the family and friends of the church and the around the neighborhood. And we have been very nice to the neighborhood churches because we are also a temple. And the Living World Church pastor, he gave a recommendation that he will not object to the intended use. And it is on the record. And that's what we are asking to change. If it is general commercial is only strictly the commercial building, then appropriate zoning may be needed converted to be able to get the required use done thank you thank you edward piovowski

Edward Pietrowski, 505 Arcola Drive, Columbia, South Carolina. I'm here as a member of the Columbia Korean Global Methodist Church at 420 North Chelsea Road. And we agree with this rezoning. But in part of their development, we're requesting that North Chelsea Road be upgraded from gravel to pavement. We wanted to get that on the record. There's a lot of traffic going through there. And recently, the roads are not in very good condition. Recently, we had a bad accident, took out the whole front gate and brick entrance to the church. There's a lot of traffic down that road, and with this further development, we see that maybe we can get that paved to be for the safety of all concerned. They go to the church and emergency services, school buses, and all of this. It narrows to almost a single lane in some spots.

That's all I have. Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Staff, can you talk on that road? Is it a public road?

It is a named drive for E911 purposes. That's why there's no right-of-way associated with it. You will see, though, as it pops up, the county has... If I can get it to show up. The county has it as a county unpaved because they may have provided some maintenance in the past. But unlike where you see two knots where you can't click on a parcel, this is clearly on this parcel. So in order for the county to pave it, we would have to get our right-of-way. We would have to go on the dirt road paving list and all that other stuff. I say that to say that if anything were to take place, of course, again, the applicant would need to adhere to the most current standards to provide access.

And that's not usual to have a road cut through a parcel, right? Isn't a parcel broken apart?

I would say that in the more rural areas of the county, it's not unusual to have named drives. They used to allow them if you had a named driveway to subdivide off of them. But we don't do that anymore because it's a liability. Road becomes impassable. They can't find you. You know, somebody... passes away or, you know, has an injury from it, it puts the county in some more liability unless it's part of an air subdivision with the hold harmless agreement. So that's why you don't see a whole lot of them in the more developed areas of the county.

I would infer that the landowner would be liable if you've got a parcel and road coming through it and an accident happens versus the parcel being broken up and having that right away, like you're saying, or the road being owned by the county.

Well, just in meaning that if the county grants a further subdivision and then they use said driveway and something were to happen, that's where it kind of becomes the issue because the county allowed something to be newly created off of a dirt road. But for instances like this to where it was, it's already there. It's already a named drive. Technically, it's, you know, you as the public can drive on it, then it reverts back to whomever owns the bed. Yeah.

Does the Planning Commission have any jurisdiction over roads that get paved or not, based off his comment?

No, sir. You just approved the road names.

Thank you. Frierson, back to you.

George Fields.

This is when we need a mic. So we go up to him. All the way over there. Thank you, George.

Thank you, Mr. Fielson. Last person, Wongchu Roth.

Good evening. My name is Ungcheol Ra. I'm the pastor of Columbia Korean Global Methodist Church. First, I would like to thank the council for giving me an opportunity to speak this evening. I'm here today to express my strong support for the proposed zoning change to general commercial. One of the main reasons I support this change is that I hope it will also bring much needed improvements to North Chessie Road, especially the paving of the remaining unpaved section. If this area is developed for commercial use, we can expect more business and more building and more traffic. I believe we need to prepare for that growth by providing a safe and reliable road. But the truth, is north chassis road is already being used by many people very every day more than 100 other members of our church regularly use this road and our korean school also bring about 40 students and their family to our church in addition many people who live in surrounding neighbors use north chassis road on a regular basis And it is not only residents and church members. School buses use this road. Mail carriers use this road. UPS and FedEx trucks use this road. And garbage trucks and service vehicles, many other cars and trucks travel on this road every day. Because the road is not paved, regular traffic and bad weather creates potholes and ruts, loose gravel, dust and uneven surfaces. So we are so concerned about the vehicle. Thank you, sir. Yeah. So I hope that that is why I respectively ask for council and the appropriate county department to consider paving North Chelsea Road as an improvement to public safety and infrastructure and priority. Thank you. Thank you.

I have no other speakers. Thank you, Commissioner Frierson.

Staff, my thought, I wish we could do more with roads. So I would request the public talks to staff about that because the Planning Commission don't believe we have jurisdiction. But I would like to see improvements on our roads, for sure. Commissioner, discussion, please.

Commissioner Fleming? Yeah, if I just want to make sure I'm understanding it right because I'm hearing the conversation, but this is just an assumption that with an approval of going to GC zoning that the roads improve, right? There's no, not anything guarantees once there's an approval to it that the roads have better, gain better conditions from that, correct?

Yes, sir, you're correct.

Thank you, Commissioner Fleming. Yes, Commissioner.

In fact, just the opposite, right? The county has no authority at this point, right?

That is correct as far as with the roads because it's a named driveway. Again, there's been no right-of-way given or purchased by the county. So that would be one of the key components that would be needed to pave a dirt road is typically you do your right-of-way acquisition as part of that process because the county wants to have – entitled to what they're going to maintain because we don't technically maintain other people's property.

Yeah.

Questioner's discussion based off the zoning topic of M1 to GC.

Commissioner Jones. I just have a clarification question, Mr. Chairman. I mean, it doesn't really change my position on the case, but can staff clarify the applicant made a reference to acreage, and for a minute I thought I was looking at the wrong file, but I'm looking at the 21 acres, although... Parcel on page, highlighted on page 54 of our attachments versus what's highlighted on the map, I mean, does not seem to match up with that acreage. Can you just give some clarity of what the applicants referenced to, I think one, some change versus the 21?

Correct, yeah, and this was the part of the addition-deletions or when we were talking about that. Originally, the application had the church or the place of worship's parcel on it. When the GIS tech went in, they used what was on the application. Staff later went in and corrected that to the actual subject parcel, the correct TMS number, but we weren't able to get it swapped out in time for the planning commission meeting. But the... The zoning and the aerial show the existing place of worship where they currently are. But the larger parcel that you see on your screen that is currently zoned in one is the actual subject parcel for the request.

So it is the actual the larger 21 some acres that is the subject of the request. That's correct.

Staff, can you put on the new layers of the comprehensive plan that our GIS tech probably put in there for us? Appreciate them. Interesting area or two. Staff, can you talk us through this? as it's still new that we're using it. It's a new plan. The northern part of the parcel is covering what?

So with this parcel fronting on Two Notch Road and having multiple designations with the neighborhood center and the mixed-use density center being incorporated onto both, staff felt like it was more appropriate and more associated with the neighborhood center since it was abutting towards Two Notch Road. um and so that was the logic behind that while we didn't include the neighborhood center with this request remind us the pink part again that would be mixed use activity center thanks dad

There's discussion, questions. Or emotion. One's too quiet on this one.

Come on.

How close are we to the edge of the county? I'm thinking of another case. Sesquipark. That is correct. down the corridor.

Sure, Johnson. Two parcels, those are in the same ownership?

It's currently shown a different one. That could be based if there's been a deed transaction, it usually takes some time for that to appear in our records. Or as at least that's the last time we have it shown as being transferred. But typically, it can take 36 months for a deed transfer to appear on this side of the GIS. Because generally, if a property is sold and a deed is recorded, typically what it is is it kind of goes in a stack from the registered deeds. They submit their – everything is over, unless somebody hypothetically decides after they get their recorded deed that they're going to go into assessor's mapping that day and say, hey, can you please work my deed sooner? Yeah.

There's a current transfer, a recent transfer.

I can't tell. I can only tell when the last time that they had it, which was 2004. So that could be incorrect, what is currently shown, or it may be incorrect. If that had been done recently.

Mr. Johnson, that assist you in your thought process?

To a certain degree. While we can't use, again, which was the intended use, but just trying to track between the applicant's statements and then the church's support. But you're talking about 20 acres of commercial. And so just trying to reconcile testimony with what we're looking at.

And that would be 20 acres of GC. Yeah. of commercial, which is, but because that's my thought process as well as we hear the intended use, but just thinking about the overall decision making of the process is you're going to do 21 acres of GC.

Thank you. Commissioner Fleming.

Colleagues said that's my unreadiness is what he summarized.

Mr. Chair?

Yes, staff.

According to the submitted property owner authorization form, it's got Sanitia Jenkins, sorry, it's very small font, on the owner authorization form, which may be the representative for this particular LLC.

Commissioners, I just wanted to point out that the M1 is essentially a commercial district without housing. So that would be the primary difference between what they have and what they're requesting.

Thank you.

Staff just for fun, for relativity purposes. What's the big box store on the aerial imagery to the right? And east. Is that that property is about the same size?

Yeah.

If we don't off offhand, it's okay. That's potentially what could go there. Multiple stores, yes.

I believe that is a Publix there, but I'm going to double check since it may have changed. Barbershop.

I live up in that area. It's not a Publix.

It's further down. Oh, okay. It was.

Commissioner, staff, and public, this is just, I'm just trying to illustrate why we look at it as the property itself. This potentially is what could fit inside of that parcel. That's how big this acreage is. Roughly.

I mean, just looking at that.

Commissioner Fleming.

I'm sorry. Thank you. Just looking at that and the use of what a GC could be versus what the intended comprehensive plan is, it just doesn't fit that. And for that, we're ready to make a motion.

Okay. Commissioner Fleming?

Subject to RC project 26-025MA, I would make a motion to deny it.

We have a motion for deny. Staff, I mean, sorry, commissioners, do we have a second? I'll second it. All right. Commissioner Kerfin for the second. And I see some faces. Any other discussion? No? Okay. All right. We have a motion which would agree with the comprehensive plan for denial in a second. So staff, please give us a vote.

So Kerfin?

Aye.

Fleming? Aye. Lloyd?

Aye.

Johnson? Frierson?

Aye.

Yonke? Aye. All right. Motion for disapproval has been approved.

Okay. That goes as a recommendation to county council as disapproval from planning commission. County council will take this one up September 22nd. Okay. At 7 o'clock right here in the same council chambers. All right. I'll give the room a few minutes. Thanks everyone again for your patience and staying out this late. Monday night. It's number eight next.

Go ahead, Steph.

Okay, so the case you have before you is case number 26-026MA. The applicant is Mohamed Khan. The location is 8756 Wilson Boulevard. It's 1.55 acres. Current zoning is RT or residential transition. They are requesting GC, general commercial. The comprehensive plan compliance is non-compliant. The requested zoning of general commercial is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. Conservation place type calls for protecting environmental features such as the nearby Crane Creek, General commercial zoning would allow for development uses that are more intense than recommended by the comprehensive plan. While the comprehensive plan allows reconsideration of conservation place types if environmental concerns are mitigated, adjacent place types of suburban residential and mixed-density residential would also recommend against commercial zoning as too intense for this area. The GC district allows a vast range of large-scale and high-intensity uses. Although Wilson Boulevard and Hartsgravel Road are primary corridors for this part of the county, this section of these two roads are narrower than the sections of those roads further north. A zoning as potentially intense as GC could exacerbate traffic concerns on the underdeveloped sections of these corridors. The comprehensive plan does not encourage commercial growth on Wilson Boulevard until the intersection with Killian Road, and it does not encourage commercial growth on Hardscrabble Road until the intersection with Farrell Road. Even then, commercial uses should be of lower intensity than allowed under GC zoning.

Thank you, staff. Mr. Any questions for stack it. Commissioner Lloyd.

A traffic. We're looking at the traffic count for Wilson Boulevard from station one 35 and it is a different number than our previous case. that has the same traffic station at 135. The capacity on the case on page 16, the report said the capacity was 12,400 ADT and this one says it's 10,800 ADT. I just would like clarification as to what number is correct. looking it up for me because it's slightly hard to find.

I would need to check with my data inside of my office. I don't have that right in front of me.

North. Looking for a hardscrabble, right?

There you go. North.

And then you're looking for a dot, right?

That is the correct station. It's 135.

So it looks like the traffic count is correct with what's in the staff report.

Yeah, it's just the capacity. One of the capacities is higher than the other capacity. both show a fact level services see, but I do think it's important because one is makes it much closer to being at capacity than the other.

Thank you, Lloyd. Any other questions for staff? Are we ready to hear from the public on this? Commissioner Frierson.

Applicant Muhammad Khan.

Good evening, and thank you for your time. My name is Mohammed Khan. I represent BSK Holdings. All the owners of BSK Holdings are right here, my mom and dad and myself. And your address? Sorry?

And the address.

100 Fox Grove Circle, Columbia, South Carolina. We've been residents for over 20 years. My dad worked at Fort Jackson in the library for 20 some odd years. He just retired. As you can see from the map, the parcel has proximity to other GCS. Everything in red there is GCS right across the street. It's zoned RT today. It'd be hard to build a house there given that you're right across from an auto repair facility and a branding commercial institution. And then on the other side is a tractor sales company. It's a very small parcel, it's only 1.5 acres. We don't expect to put a giant commercial, not that we have the means to do that. I know intended use is not something you guys look at, but we're thinking about putting a cafe and maybe an ale salon, a mini micro strip mall to serve the residents of that area. And we urge you guys to consider that. Thank you. Appreciate your time.

Owen?

Are you Kelvin, sir? All right. Didn't call you yet, sir. Hold on. So we heard Muhammad, or was it Freddie? Which one are we trying to read? Do we have Freddie? Okay, come on. Yes. And then we have Kelvin Stone. They'll be next. Gotcha. Okay.

No, we allow two minutes, but...

Yes, sir. Sorry about that. Go ahead.

I'll try to speed through it. But I bought that property.

Let's get your name and address. Okay.

My name is Freddie McConnell, 1314 Hartstrava Road. My property connects to that pond that he has purchased. That used to be a big pond right there filled with water. And I bought that land from Mr. Rivers in 81. And I built my house across the street from that, from that building that has been renovated across the street. And when I bought my property, Richland County, had put an easement through that pond for the water that runs out of Summerhill Subdivision, runs through that property, and it runs on the Hard Strava Road, and it runs through the other man's property under that hill, and it runs down to Lake Elizabeth. So a part of that property has an easement by Richland County, according to their records back then. I don't know if they've changed it or not. But the next issue is when this gentleman purchased the property, he didn't, Mr. Ellison didn't tell him that he had filled that pond up with cement from end to end. It is completely filled up with cement and you cannot put a structure in there without taking that cement out of there. And it is a lot of it in there because they tore up my driveway and cut another gate and put all that cement into that pond. Cause it used to be nothing but water. And, um, And the next issue is in a flood zone, because when Hugo went through, all of that water that came out of Summerhill subdivision and other high hills up there, it flooded out that whole area into my house. It didn't flood my house out, but the water came through my driveway heading down to Hodge Travel Road because the pond overflowed and the water didn't have anywhere to go.

15 seconds to wrap up your thoughts.

I'm against... Any structures going in that property because the structures that he want to put in there is in our neighborhoods that we have worked all our lives to pay for our houses in Summer Hill and around Lake Elizabeth. Then the structures that he want to put there is nothing going to be nothing but trouble like the other store down the street that was there for a while. And people start coming in the neighborhood, breaking into that store. and the neighborhoods start going down, but everybody don't got over in that area.

Thank you, sir. I think I'm understanding. I'm hearing you're worried about the crime that would come into the area and the drainage. And I'm going to hear from your neighbors. We got someone else I have to speak. Thank you.

Okay. Elvin Stone.

Kevin stone, 8800 Wilson Boulevard. I'm against changing it from residential to commercial. And they didn't get here in time enough, but they live in the same area right across the street.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Holly Chapman.

Hi, good evening. Holly Chapman, 1309 Hardscrabble. We are the property directly across the street. I'm here tonight alongside a bunch of my neighbors to urge you to vote no for this rezoning of the lot. I'm not going to have time today to discuss the traffic concerns, but I'm pretty sure everyone in here has sat in traffic on Hardscrabble before. This is already a heavily congested corner, but I'm almost certain that the advancement of this property, if it was to go commercial, would make that even worse. This lot contradicts the last two decades of the Richland Comprehensive Plan, the 2015 Comprehensive Plan, and the most recent 2025 Reimagined Richland Comprehensive Plan. It designates these critical wetlands and natural areas surrounding Lake Elizabeth as functional open space conservation. Introducing a high intensity commercial use will directly violate the county's explicit goal to preserve large neighboring tracks of underdeveloped land that safeguard our natural resources and rural residences and the transitional zones. The environmental degradation and flood risks are a peak concern as the owner directly across from this lot. The current watershed, the corner already floods six times per year. that lot as well as my lot. This results in the road debris being pushed down into my driveway, into my front lawn where my children play. We all know that the topography of this area drastically changed in 2015 when portions of the road, including a section of Wilson Boulevard, less than one mile from this lot, led to dam failure and draining of Lake Elizabeth. The property cross cuts a highly sensitive interconnected network of private dams, creeks and low lying floodplains, which led to the decision to keep this lot as functional open space conservation for 2015 and 2025 comprehensive plans. Transforming this lot, which is depressed 6 feet below street level. into an impervious surface, such as a parking lot or rooftops, will exponentially increase the stormwater runoff and elevate severe local flooding risks. I'm here today for you to please vote no. My property already floods anytime, so raising that grade up is just going to absolutely put me underwater.

Thank you for coming.

Thank you.

And the last person, Joshua Duns.

Joshua Don'ts, 1309 Hardscrabble Road. As Ms. Chapman was saying, traffic is just ridiculous. Twice a day, my driveway gets blocked from people on Hardscrabble trying to turn onto Wilson. approving this is going to make that worse. I routinely have to run equipment in my yard to get road debris off of my yard, off of my property. I just don't think it's a good idea. I yield the remainder of my time.

I have no other speakers. Anyone else here that wanted to speak on that one? Yep. I'll come on down ma'am and yellow. Go ahead and give us your name and address and we'll write you down. Thank you.

Good evening commissioners, Valerie Smith, one 61 Lake Elizabeth. Columbia. My sentiments exactly as the young lady that spoke previously, but the flooding alone and the traffic just trying to get from Lake Elizabeth to hot Scrabble itself is terrible. And to turn this property from residential to commercial to use for the purpose of developing a commercial property will cause even more hardship for that community. And the 2015 flood, all that water came from that way. um on down hard scrubber road and as you know we lost the lake and that's the one spot where that water builds up so like she said elevating it is going to really cause um a hardship for the commute the surrounding communities so i oppose that as well thank you

Did that catch everyone who's here tonight that want to talk on this property? Okay.

All right.

Commission, this is now open for discussion and questions for staff. I would like to see a couple different layers on the map. I was curious about some of the contour lines, hearing the public speak, the drastic change of elevation and the wetlands.

That was awesome, Jeremy. I was going to ask about that particular location of that corner. Is that where there's kind of like a hill where it kind of sits in like almost like a valley and water just sits there? I think that would be the area when the storm in 2015 came. I think that was blocked off for almost like three or four months.

I mean, could you talk through what you're showing us?

So, um, this is the portion where, um, the basically where it was damned, where they opened it up, um, when the spillway failed, um, that's the portion.

Speak up just a little bit for me, please.

Yeah. So that's the portion of, uh, where the roadway had washed out. Um, when they basically, when they redid it, they just let it as a natural free flowing. Um, don't want to call it lakes more like a stream um going across wilson um i'll turn the flood layer back on just so you can have an idea it's the former lake elizabeth area um and then where it crosses over uh wilson boulevard or under now af can you go back in time again and look at this parcel

year 2006. Think with that highlight, you could just up arrow and then you can like tap through real quick. We can see a change over time. Ask other comments I heard. Is there an open space protection on this area? And can you explain more if I heard that right?

There's none that I'm aware of. It sounded like they were alluding to something for an easement for stormwater. But um, yeah, that's not necessarily stormwater is out of public works. So and

Mr. Johnson. Question. Not to directly respond to Ms. Chapman's comments about believed protections there, but there's one sentence where you say the conservation place type calls for protecting environmental features such as nearby Crane Creek. So it just reduces that to one sentence. But is there anything specific about that reference to conservation place that affects this parcel? Because the speaker seemed to indicate or expectation that there was some additional guidance.

So forgive me if I'm misunderstanding. You're referring to the additional guidance of the comprehensive plan or the agreed upon conservation easement?

What does the conservation place refer to?

So the conservation place type is a broad scope protection that allows for areas like cran creek to not get invaded by over developing um but even with that classification and being as broad as it is if we a lot of times we take in consideration what else is nearby and the nearest designation to this one that we could take into consideration would still be a residential designation. So even with this area being in the conservation and us potentially considering another designation for it, the commercial designation still would not fit, if that makes sense. But as far as protections go, there is no prescriptive language that we can use that is regulatory.

I understand, Commissioner Fleming. I understand that the question about, from my period, the traffic and how the number kind of changed and how it could be closer to capacity. My thought on that is just from being somewhat familiar with the area is that it's more residential in that particular space, even though you do have the two GC lots there. And as you go up Wilson more, as you get closer to the Killian side, that's where you're seeing a lot more of the commercial or mixed use, maybe even a model that's happening there. So with that being said, that doesn't mean that we're not that something won't get some house can't be built there. Right. So there will still be development that could, if built up, could still pose those same issues that some of the neighbors are talking about. if I'm not mistaken. So then does the greater concern become how much traffic is generated by what particular classification of zoning is there? Commercial versus general commercial versus what it currently is now, which is R2T, correct?

Yes. Yes.

Just for clarification, for Commissioner Loy asking earlier, the correct capacity number is 10-8, but the level of service remained a level C. It was just a typo. So the level of service C still would apply to both.

Thank you.

Yes.

it seemed to me that the development um commercial development on this particular property kind of flies in the face of the intent of the new comprehensive plan uh again developing this would in terms of a strip center mini strip center that's one of the things that the new comp plan was kind of created to fight thanks commissioner

Other discussion, Commissioner Fleming?

And to your point, I think the kind of argument to that would be, well, right across the street, there's already some GC there. To that, I would then come back and say, well, how long was it there? Because technically those establishments may have been there before we even got to this new reimagining Richland County idea.

Thank you, Commissioner. Anyone ready to make a motion or further discussion? Commissioner LaVey.

I just wanted to make a comment. I mean, this is going in the way back machine, but if you go to the 1939 black and white, there is not a pond. But I just wanted to clarify because, yes, though there is a lot of flooding, I've seen it there as well, and the traffic that gets backed up there. It hasn't always been a pond that got filled in, and then it is not alone causing the water runoff issues in this community, no matter what our decision is.

Thank you, Commissioner Lloyd. There has been some pavement since 1939. Okay, yeah.

right as for uh ended hours tonight commissioners any more discussion or a motion yes mr manson this conversation just reminds me of the area to the West where we were looking on Killian, you know, with some of the surrounding issues with water and the development and the impact on the surrounding landowners. So this just sounds very much a fact pattern. I think as Commissioner Lloyd has pointed out that certainly for roads that are under extreme pressure, we are able to take into consideration the traffic counts and the pressure on that road in situations like that. And I think extending that logic a little bit further with the water related issues and the density of a GC zoning, I think could just amplify those issues of water in that area. So that reason does create some heartburn for me in terms of not supporting staff's recommendation. Well, the outcome of staff for a different reason, but to support the same outcome as recommendation.

Thank you, Commissioner Johnson. To clarify, you're leaning towards denial, which would be the staff's recommendation. That's correct. Okay, gotcha. Okay, the chair is going to make a motion for denial to line up with the staff's recommendation. Is there a second?

I'll second it.

I have a second from Commissioner Kerfman, but we can discuss.

At the risk of being obtuse, but that's for 26-026MA. Yes. Commissioner Lloyd looked up.

I'm sure. Okay.

Okay. I rushed the commission in July and I do not plan to do that again. So, all right. We have a motion made by myself, the chair and a second Commissioner Kerfman for denial, which would go along with the recommendation of staff and the comp plan. So can we get a vote please?

Kerfman?

Aye.

Fleming?

Aye.

Lloyd? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Frierson? Aye. Yonke? Aye. All right. Motion is approved for disapproval.

Thank you, Commission. Thank you, staff. Again, September 22nd, not too far away, County Council recommendation disapproval. They'll take it up then. Thanks. That's just for fun other cases around the county where land a parcel might be not developable because of so many reasons, and we do have is don't we have zoning of open space protection. That could be applied.

Open space, when it comes to our land development codes, is usually reserved for larger developments or if you're doing multiple structures on the property. If you have 10, 20 units that you're going to be putting on there, then you're required to give up a certain amount of open space. But that's something that we are continually looking into to improve on how that open space is not only protected, but how usable that can be as well.

If we had a nuclear landfill site, wouldn't there be a way and a parcel in our zoning to say we're just not going to develop there? Because it's not data center. No, I'm just kidding. What? We don't have zoning for that? Okay.

Kind of what you're referring to, if it were a brownfield or some other thing. It would still allow for them under the zoning to develop, but what may prevent it from developing may be like EPA rules or some other kind of constraint from what was done on the site in the past. But... It's getting more again into the environmental protection side and federal agencies versus just local.

Protect my county and being on the planning commission. I just figured that'd be the way to do it. All right. We'll roll into our last case of the night. Number nine. I'll flip it right to you, Stan.

Okay.

Last case.

But we're not done yet, unfortunately. Case number 26-028MA. The applicant is Thomas Ladan III. The location is SS Langford Road. It is 18.64 acres. The current zoning is HM Homestead. They're requesting GC or general commercial. The comprehensive plan compliance is non-compliant. The requested zoning of a general commercial is not consistent with the purpose and guidance of the comprehensive plan because the district's intensity of uses is not compatible with adjacent parcels or development pattern of the area. The low density designation is intended primarily for single family neighborhoods on larger parcels. NEAR EXISTING SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC UTILITIES. LIMITED INCREASES IN RESIDENTIAL DENSITY MAY BE CONSIDERED WHEN INFRASTRUCTURE IS ADEQUATE AND THE SITE IS ADJACENT TO A CENTER OR HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. IN ADDITION, THE DESIGNATION DOES NOT SUPPORT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT THE INTENSITY PERMITTED BY THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.

COMMISSIONER, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS Okay, not hearing any. Mr. Frierson?

The first person is the applicant, Thomas Ledon.

Good evening. My name is Tommy Lydon. I live at 16 Ashworth Lane in Columbia. This is 18 acres that my sisters and my cousins and I inherited from our grandfather approximately 20 years ago. We've been approached, we did not, had not offered the property for sale and not listed it for sale. We've been approached many times over the years about people wanting to buy it and had never gotten off the ground. About a year, a little over a year ago, we got approached by a developer, did some research, were impressed with the projects that they had done in the Southeast, including those in Richland County. And through negotiations, ultimately entered into a contract to sell the property. The sale of the property is contingent on the property being rezoned. And so that's the purpose for our application to change the zoning. Thank you very much.

Ken Henry.

Good evening. My name is Kenneth Henry. I live at 1 Rollingwood Hills Court, Whitewood. That's about three-tenths of a mile from the proposed rezoning. And I respectfully object to the rezoning. Langford Road is about a six to seven mile distance. From the town of Blythewood to Hines Road is littered with basically horse farms, large parcels with homes, schools, churches, really no retail development. I'm not sure of the intent of the use of the property, but if that's the intent, I don't believe that would be conducive, and I believe the present zoning designation is appropriate. I also have other issues. That intersection, Grover Wilson comes in direct. It's a little bit strange configuration there. And that can be a very dangerous intersection. There has been fatalities there before. So to put some kind of business there would increase that potential, I believe, for hazardous traffic conditions. And, you know, as an aesthetic, life has a litter problem. especially at that corner going up and on Langford Road. And I just see potential for additional problems. So for those reasons, and I believe lastly, across the street, Richland 2, I think they own that property. They were going to put a high school for Richland 2 there. They've owned it for several years, unless they've sold it that I'm not aware of. So again, I respectfully ask that you vote denial on this rezoning.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Kevin Garrison.

He comes down. Could you hover over that parcel across the street?

My name is Kevin Garrison, 2151 Pickens Street, Columbia, South Carolina, attorney with Robinson Gray. I represent the potential purchaser of the property. As Mr. Lydon indicated, we're looking to rezone this. My client's looking to put a... um with the need in this area for growth is going this area without any type of grocery store on that side of east side of blithe wood would be looking to put a grocery store anchor with two out parcels in that portion i know you can't look at that use but just want to explain what we were looking to do thank you yep theresa hannah and byron hannah

Good evening. I'm Teresa Hannah. I live at 105 Country Pines Court in Blythewood. I've been a resident for Blythewood in that address for 30 years. My husband and I moved to Blythewood for acreage, peace, and to raise our family in rural country setting. I live one mile from the proposed rezoning. We have access to plenty of Dollar Generals, gas stations, grocery stores via the town of Blythewood, Longtown Road, and Hard Scrabble, and we don't need or want any more. The intersection of Hard Scrabble, Langford, and Grover Wilson is adjacent to this property. There have been numerous accidents and even a few deaths at that intersection. One day, the corner of Grover Wilson and Langford will be the next Richland 2 High School. Do not add to an already convoluted and congested intersection. I ask that you leave the proposed land zone homestead. And thank you for your service to Richland County. Thank you.

My name's Brian Hannah. I live at the same 105 Country Pines Court as Teresa. I've lived there for 30 years, just like her. I moved out there with her for the same doggone reasons, to raise our kids in the country and in the peace. If you know anything about Blythewood, especially in that area, we do not need more commercial land. If you go into the town of Blythewood, there are always several vacant pieces of property where things can be built. We have two grocery stores there already that are four miles away. If you go down Hardscrabble Road, which it's on the corner of, same thing there. There are two more four miles away. It's very close proximity when you live in the country to drive three or four miles. In Blythewood alone, take it that four miles, McNulty Plaza, Food Line Shopping Center, IGA Shopping Center, the town center in Lake Carolina, the opposite way in the village at Sandhills, all have tons of vacant properties. We don't need more. We don't need more. If you talk about looking at Northeast and commercial, it's full of commercial properties that don't sell. Granted, we obviously don't have a problem with this one wanting to sell, but we've got tons of commercial properties that are sitting out there that won't sell. Develop one of those. They're in the town centers or they're in the commercial districts where commercial stuff is supposed to go. You've heard it by everybody who's talked against this property. Take a new 15-year-old driver that you're trying to teach how to drive and take them through that intersection. It is the most convoluted, wrong intersection as you've ever seen, other than the one that used to be right there at Riverbank Zoo and Greystone Boulevard. Those two in Columbia have never made sense, and they're stupid whoever made them. This one's still there. The one at Riverbank's kind of got fixed a little bit. That road has been a problem with deaths. Again, take a 15-year-old kid who's trying to learn how to drive and it's confusing as anything. We don't have a problem with people wanting to develop in our area. It's a gorgeous area. What we have a problem with is them paying for the infrastructure that we have to put up with, the traffic that we have to put up with, the bad roads, the congestions that we have to put up with. It's not what we want. Make them...

Final 10 seconds. Go ahead.

Make them put in infrastructure. If they're going to make all the millions to develop the land and to sell the land and to have the grocery stores, make them do their job. It's out of line. Nobody wants it. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

I have no other speakers.

Was there anyone else out there that came in late and wanted to speak?

Okay. Okay.

You hung in there past 9 o'clock with us tonight, so we appreciate that. Staff, can we do the roadside man? Street view. There it is. At the intersection. I believe it. I just want to see. That is a weird configuration. So where's the pretty fountain in the middle?

Okay.

There is one there.

Okay.

Okay, commissioners, this is up for discussion.

F. Yes, the school has property directly across the street. They've owned it for the past five years. We haven't received any updates of any new construction or anything, though.

Thanks, Dan. Can you spin it around? We look at the parcel itself since we're doing this. All right. Right. A COMMISSIONER'S DISCUSSION, THOUGHTS? MAYOR KARFMAN.

MY COMMENTS FROM THE LAST PROPERTY KIND OF APPLY TO THIS ONE, I THINK, AS WELL. THE COMM PLAN CLEARLY IS TRYING TO PREVENT, I THINK, IN MY OPINION, THIS KIND OF THING WHERE YOUR Again, look at the parcels around. I mean, you have housing, you have not a lot of density there. So putting a commercial or converting this to commercial would be out of character.

Thank you, Commissioner Kerfin. Staff, could you turn on the zoning layer? For fun, can you zoom out until we see commercial? Yes, chair. Commissioner Lloyd, and that one goes to half.

You know, I have concerns in some parts of our communities that we have food deserts, and I was prepared to make that comment. However, the USDA does define a food desert being one mile away from a supermarket or large grocery store in an urban area and 10 miles in rural areas. And... The Publix, which is the one that's the closest one I could find, is like 4.2 miles. So it is still like that parcel itself is still close enough to surrounding grocery stores. But I do have a concern when you go and do this zoom out view that you're zooming out and zooming out and zooming out. And so in these rural areas, a dollar general market is not a grocery store. And people are paying exorbitant prices for things in those stores that are not healthy and are not nutritious food for children and our community. So that's what I will say. It's conflicting because we don't have commercial spaces in these areas for providing nutritional food for our kids.

Thank you, Commissioner Lloyd. Good point. Staff, do you need to say something?

Yes, Mr. Chair.

And then Commissioner Fleming.

Just so you all are aware, as part of the Plan Development District for Lake Carolina, currently on screen is using the measurement tool. Granted, that is as the crow flies. However, that PDD allows for commercial development along that section. And we currently have plans for a Walmart super center and accompanying out parcels with the field canopy that has been submitted. So although you can't necessarily see a commercial zoning district on there, that portion of that PDD is commercial and there is plan development for that.

Thank you, staff. You could zoom back in. That would be the commercial. All right. Commissioner Fleming.

Okay. So I'm sorry for clarification, just to make sure what I heard you, what you just said staff is that the case we're talking about now versus to where we're looking at is there's going to be a Walmart super center already in that area. That's correct. Okay. Um, That aside, my comment was going to be related to my fellow commissioner and just speaking about the conflict, right, of food, deserts, et cetera, and also understanding that Things progress. I come from Greenville County some years ago and I understand how things were rural and then all of a sudden it developed. And so you ended up needing more stores because the density, once it started growing, it doesn't stop. And obviously we can't articulate that today, but I do think that is something to consider. It is rural now, but I'm not sure if it's going to continue to stay that way, especially if there's going to be a school there as well.

Thank you, Commissioner Fleming. I had to say the word staff how far away from scout. Measure to always in feet.

It is, and then as the crow flies, that's for approximately 4 1⁄2 miles.

Thanks, Dan.

Okay, Commission. Thoughts? Earlier tonight, we looked at another parcel about that size for GC. Earlier tonight, we looked at another parcel about that size to go to GC, and I had them move the map over, and it was like a food line. Commissioner Lloyd.

I'm going to add that there are potentially less um there are other zonings that could have potentially been chosen for a grocery store that would have less options if it were not a grocery store because gc provides for so many options that it is not a grocery store that it could be many things that it can not like um There are other zoning options that were not potentially considered here by the applicant.

Good point.

So tonight, as we look at it from HM to GC, do any of my commissioners have any motions? Yes, Commissioner Kerfman.

Make a motion. Project 26-28MA, we would recommend denial of the project.

Commissioner Kerfman, we have a motion for denial. Do we have a second? I second the motion. We got a second from Commissioner Frierson. Any further discussion? All right, not hearing any. Okay, staff, can you please take a vote?

Government? Aye. Fleming?

Aye.

Bowie?

Just for clarification, this is denying the staff's recommendation for non-compliancy for supporting staff.

If you say aye, you're supporting staff.

Aye.

Johnson? Frierson?

Aye.

Yonke? Aye. Motion approved.

Okay. Thank you, Commission. Thank you, staff. That goes as a recommendation as denial, which matches the comprehensive plan. And that will be taken up September 22nd by County Council at 7 p.m. these chambers. Thank you, everyone, who's come out for the nine cases. Now, Mr. Price has been waiting patiently. Number six in our agenda tonight, which is land development code updates. Looking at commercial zoning. Trying to get out ahead.

I'm well rested and I have all night. So. So I'm not too much into this right now. So if you look on page 71, if you want to follow, it kind of gives one of the reasons why we're looking at the commercial district updates. This initially started as a motion from county council to look at the, I believe, the MU2 zoning designation with the understanding that a few uses recommended by council would be removed from that district and also lifted up to the planning commission to do a review. The county council also understood that when it goes to the planning commission that y'all may want to take this in a different direction rather than just looking at the MU2 zoning designation. It was decided to look at the other commercial districts together, which seemed to make sense at that time. So a long survey was sent out, as the chair likes to remind me of, previously asking for input from the planning commission. And so we did receive some input and also some from staff, just kind of really identifying some of the key objectives for each of the commercial zoning districts. In that we prepare what the current purpose description was for each one of the zoning districts. And also along with some of the comments received by the combined input from the planning commission and also staff, a proposed description. And from there, we also identify what we hope to accomplish with those objectives from the changing of the purpose statements. I believe it was asked at the last meeting, essentially, we would like a little more information to go on. So what we brought before you is within each one of these zoning districts, we've outlined all of the uses that are currently permitted, either permitted outright, permitted by special requirements, or permitted by special exceptions. And if you'll look at the beginning of each one of the zoning designations, We have what we call a defining district roles, uses and scales. And so it kind of tells you what the approaches was taken for each one of the zoning districts. And so, for example, I'll look at on page 72. For the rural crossroads, one of the things we wanted to do to make a distinction between what the rural crossroads should be and the other zoning designations. So for the rural crossroads, we equate that to being rural countryside, small scale, everyday rural serving goods and services versus the MU1, which is neighborhood scale, mixed use, commercial activity, and so on, all the way up through GC and the industrial zone. It also established some of the scale standards that would be applied in the review of the current uses allowed in each one of the zoning districts. And also established kind of a bottom line, things that were kept and things that were removed. And so again, for each one of the zoning districts, there is a table or a matrix, however you want to look at it, of each one of the uses. what the current status of them are, again, permitted outright, special requirements or special exceptions, and what those recommendations are, and a brief justification for them. In addition, on some of these zoning designations, Well, some of the zoning designation, there was also some suggestions of items of what use types that could be added. And again, some of the justifications for why some of those should be at it. One of the things that so just from a conversation standpoint. Upon looking at everything. I believe what you had before you really kind of narrows down each one of our zoning destinations, what they are and what they hope to accomplish. I think one of the things that was brought up previously was if you really did an overlap of all of the uses allowed in the zoning districts, especially from the commercial standpoint, rural commercial, the MU1, INS, MU2, MU3, GC, you'll find that so many of the uses overlap. that there really wasn't much of a distinction between any of those districts. Ideally, with what we have proposed before you, would help to make a clear distinction. As I was talking to, you know, speaking with staff on this, so an example would be rural commercial would be more isolated, smaller scale uses that will serve the community. The INS, which is institutional, establishes more of a campus-style use in which many of the ancillary uses, whether they be commercial or even maybe in some instances residential multifamily type, which will serve the institutional uses within there primarily. So what this does is it narrows down the zoning designations. Now, as I stated in the email I sent to you, We can go through each one of these tonight, each one of the uses, each one of the zoning districts, and he could tell me what's your agreement or not, and we'll be happy if we can take it that way. Or you can take these home right now. And from talking to the chair today, kind of had a change of mind on what was originally sent, in which my recommendation would be, and again, it's really up to the planning commission, would be, if you would take these, have a chance to go over these. You can kind of highlight some things you agree with, what you don't agree with, things you would like to discuss. And we can have a work session in October, hopefully maybe four o'clock he would come in and we can just talk about those. I would then prefer not at that moment, not necessarily to take it to the planning, you know, to your regularly scheduled meeting for you to make a recommendation. I think the turnaround is too short for the month of September, but instead after the October meeting, we can determine if you may need to have another work session, some other things you want to talk about in November, but then have it set for your, you know, set for you an action item in November. And again, that is in no way saying that you should have it done in November. If you're not prepared, there's some other discussions you have. We just need to make sure that y'all are comfortable with the recommendation that you will be sending forth to county council. So that's my recommendation. I also feel that from going through from this now and just listening to, you know, this Last three hours of the discussions that y'all had with some of the zoning districts. I think that this may actually help clarify how we're going to be looking at zoning going forward, how it truly relates to what the recommendations are of the comprehensive plan and for some of the designations within it.

Mr. Price. Commissioner's questions for Mr. Price right now. Yeah. Commissioner Lloyd.

This question more has to do with how this is implemented. So like when a community member comes in and says, hey, I want to do this with my property. and uh it might be a commercial uh general commercial zoning request and there's nothing anywhere around it that is commercial zone uh a general commercial zoning like are there any opportunities that you guys take to offer up that there are other options Like what we're working on here so that there might be more amenable. It might be more amenable.

Well, okay. Hopefully I can address your question. So as far as what's being proposed with this, that has not been brought before any citizens at this time. Again, this is still a work in progress. And before we bring that before them, we would like to at least kind of get this going with the planning commission first. Okay. And maybe eventually, if based on your recommendations, that may allow us then during what we call pre-application meetings with citizens to be able to kind of tell them what the county is looking at going forward and what county council has before them and what their decisions may be just based on the recommendations. So that.

Do you feel like a solidified document like that will help you be able to communicate that to community members?

I believe so. With the understanding, and again, hopefully I'm addressing this, normally when a process comes in, someone comes before us. And I think you saw that a lot tonight. Applicants come in and they have a use in mind. It's very seldom that someone says, I have a property, and I think just based on the surrounding area, the surrounding zoning, looking at your comprehensive plan, that I feel that my property is more appropriately zoned this, and this is the reason why I would like to go. Most of the time, people say, I have a specific use in mind. And they talk to us about the zoning designations that would allow it. And we provide those to them. We don't make recommendations as to which direction that you take with those. But we provide it to them. We try to give them as much guidance as possible. Again, based on surrounding area, history of zonings, the comprehensive plan, that type of information and allow them to make that choice. But again, most of the time when they come in, it is based on a specific use and which zoning designation will allow them to have that use.

Thank you. Do we want to continue this discussion tonight since we're caffeinated and going? Or would we like to schedule a work session? Our next meeting, I see it as October 5th. That would be 4 o'clock, you're suggesting?

Yes.

Monday, October 5th. Discussion on that time frame and look at your calendars. Need to have a quorum for these. So at least five of us. I can make it. The Kerfman can make it. Commissioner Frierson just went to the bathroom for a second. She said she could make it.

Chairman?

Yes, Commissioner Johnson.

What is council's expectation of a timely response?

um they want to know that with that the planning commission is working on this and it is something that eventually will be coming forward to them i don't think they want you know they expect just to sit here in council there's been some expectations that it may not get to them until the end of the year maybe not until the beginning of next year so we're probably at worst looking at february Again, we're taking into consideration that if you're getting your time to come in and meet county council's time to also meet, but also to hear from citizens that we are getting into the holiday time, which, you know, a lot of things are happening. So there's a good chance, even if we get this to council. that maybe just them hearing from the citizens may not take place until sometime next year. Again, they don't typically meet in January to really take up business. So we're looking at more like a February public hearing or even March.

And six months from now.

Time flies.

It does. It flies. Okay, the chair would like to schedule a work session for the 5th October Thoughts Commission. Okay, I see positive hand gestures. All right, so when we do calendar, things on the calendar, I make a motion, right? The chair makes a motion for a work session for 4 p.m. October 5th to discuss the commercial zones. Do we have a second? Second from Commissioner Kerfman. Okay, staff, can you please take a vote?

All right. The votes for work session on October 5th at 4 p.m. Kerfman? Aye. Fleming? Aye. Lloyd?

Aye.

Johnson? Frierson? Aye. Yonke? Aye. Motion passes.

And again, we just ask that, you know, one of you, you know, go through each of the table of permitted uses that we've identified for either keeping, removing, limitations on some of the uses, and we'll just be prepared for that during the next work session.

Staff, please send us an email for our homework assignment for those who are not here.

Oh, we will.

Yeah, thank you. That'd be great.

And if you would like, I could... No, I was going to say if you'd like to, I think what I sent to you before was a PDF, but what I can send this to you is just on a spreadsheet so y'all can filter it and make some changes that you may, it may be easier for y'all to manipulate the data as you're looking at. I would like that. So I'll be happy to send that to you.

Discussion? Commissioner Johnson. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Price, given the gradients in the MU variations, Not to add work, but some of those summary graphic pages that give the visual representation to some of those sizes scales might help. I like the way that the charts laid out, but also having that graphic might be useful as a point of reference.

Okay.

You understand what I'm referring to?

If you want to repeat, I think I have a pretty good idea of what to provide to you so you can kind of see it.

And I think in one of the iterations of the zoning, I've seen illustrative graphic representations for size and scale associated with the various zones. And so as we're progressing through the various MUs, I think... image graphic representation would be helpful.

Yeah. In addition to the name, what we can do is we can provide some, some existing uses that will fall under those categories. You know, I think for example, over the years of like the dollar general, a family dollar, there was a certain square footage. that they needed to, they have a pretty standard square footage, provide something to you like that. But at the same time, we can also show you, I'm just going with grocery stores now, but you know, so you, some of the various grocery stores around and give you the square footage of those. So again, when you look at those, I think you have an idea. Okay. So that's what that size means. And there are some other uses that we can also do that for. Again, if there's anything else that y'all feel would be beneficial to the group as far as what we can provide to you, please feel free to reach out to us. You can send an email in. I think most of y'all have a cell number for me. You think you have the same information for Mr. DeLage and also Ms. Gooden back there also. So please feel free. Just reach out and say, hey, I thought about this. And those are things we can look to incorporate. That's going to make it, again, maybe not just for you, but also remember we're presenting out to the public. And this will help the public have an understanding of what it is we're trying to accomplish.

How do you imagine us handling the work session October 5th? Are you going to ask us specific questions? Are we going to submit our updates to you before then?

I think you will have some updates. It may seem a little time consuming, but I think as we kind of get into a rhythm of it, where we can go through each one of the zoning districts. And does anybody need a recommendation of keep, remove with limitations? Does anybody have any disagreement with that? And I think those would be the ones that will then move to the side and be able to have those kind of conversations. Because what we may end up doing is if we can kind of get that cleared up, the ones that everybody's good with, moved us to the side. So if we come back in November, we may be able to just address those few that we feel need some additional discussion.

Looking forward to some kind of hands-on kind of exercise as we walk through it together. Yes. Awesome.

Anything else on this from you, Mr. Price? No, sir.

Okay. Commissioners, anything else for this? Then we move on to the next part of the agenda.

Good.

Okay.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Price. Next part is Chairman's report. I'm going to defer my time because it's so late to our newest commission members, Commissioner Fleming, Commissioner Kerfman. Just introduce yourselves. Go ahead, Commissioner Fleming.

Hi, I'm Demetrius Fleming. Thank you all. I look forward to being a part of the committee.

Mark Kerfman, I'm also looking forward to it. For me, this is coming back to my roots. I started off in city planning, regional planning, economic development up in Maine and then Pennsylvania as well, and then went into city management. So I'm looking forward to getting, I used to be at AICP, so looking forward to getting back into the swing of things.

Excellent. Thank you both for taking the time to serve and be on this commission. Great. Very grateful. I'm going to put the word out for a PC retreat. I know we're getting closer to the end of the year, but those are always helpful. And we have two new commissioners.

We actually, Director Williams and I were talking about that recently. We're coming up with a couple of ideas on what we'll base the retreat on. So hopefully we'll have something for you in October at least. I know we're getting into the holiday time, but I think it'll just be a good time to get together to talk about a couple of ideas, whether it be some additional discussion on the comprehensive plan of, again, how we're looking at things. I think y'all did a great job today. Okay, I can say this. Yeah, the other great job on a couple of ideas. Um. And your discussion points on how you're looking at these matters. Uh, I think 1 of the things that I kind of a recurring theme that y'all seem to run across was. What the recommendations and objectives of the comprehensive plan are calling for. Versus the existing carriage of the area. And which do you go with at that time? And I know that's going to be a big balance for you going forward because you're going to see some items that just say, wait a minute, comp plan's calling for this and there's nothing out here. But again, how do you get it started at some point versus, well, comp plan's calling for this, but this character's clearly been established in this area, so maybe that's something we need to go back and reevaluate. But, you know, talking about things such as that going forward. And also I think we may, as we go forward with the amendments to the commercial, eventually we will do the same thing for the residential. And make some of those amendments too. So I think those are things we can kind of take up during the retreat that we have.

Lloyd, you had something?

Yeah, I had a question. I saw this posted. It's the 22nd Annual Planning Conference on Saturday, September 26th at the Department of Archives and History.

Yes, so I would not speak on it at this time. However, I believe... Mark can speak on this. Mark, while he has moved on to being a comprehensive planner, Mark started off in our neighborhood improvement program, and he still is involved with some of the staff there. I would say Mark has become their young mentor because, you know, he's still young himself, but he's been through all of it, and he's planned a number of planning conferences over the years. So, Mark, if you don't mind speaking on that.

Go ahead, Mike.

Yeah, so upcoming on September 26th is the September 22nd.

22nd on 26th. Yeah.

That'll be the annual planning conference that the county's neighborhood improvement program puts on. It's organized by the neighborhood planners of the county. Basically, how you would see like a professional conference, but more geared towards the public and neighborhoods. So what kind of resources that that are available for the community, what kind of topics are of interest to members of the public, people who are involved with the community, as well as people who are just wanting to do work in their neighborhoods. So the neighborhood planners this year have put together a wide range of topics. One of those topics will be presenting how the comprehensive plan matters to those who those living in the neighborhoods of the county as well as a variety of other other topics but it's always a good time we try to get a kind of diverse group of folks but always try and gear it towards something that you can actually take take with you learn about different resources and strategies that you can use in your neighborhood. So if you go to this, our planning conference, we think there will be a lot of value, especially for people involved in the planning and development of the county, such as the planning commission.

Yeah, one of the things that we'll do when we send out the meeting request for the upcoming work session in October, we'll also send you the flyer for the planning conference along with this link. They ask people to register. Again, if you forget to register, there'll probably still be plenty of space for you to come, but we'll send you the information for the upcoming conference.

can i apologize we should have had that to you previously i know there's been working on this but we'll definitely get this to you hopefully tomorrow thank you yeah it's not this saturday it's next saturday and and even our own staff took a while to find it so hopefully you get the word out to people that seems like very interesting but it's not all right great Okay commissioners. That's the end of my chairman report so we can go to number 8 planning directors port.

So what you have before you of course other results of the of the July 21st 2026 only public hearing right County Council those actions on page 2029. Questions questions.

All right, thank you.

And also, just kind of one of those things, just as a reminder, the recommendations that are part of the staff report are not staff's recommendations, but they are the recommendations of the comprehensive plan.

I have been working on trying to say that correctly.

Commissioner Johnson. Mr. Price, I'm not going to belay for the lateness of the hour today, but... I think it was our second case. It was interesting looking at the history of council action that our recommendation for denial, then it was withdrawn. We denied council approved. We reckon approval council decline. And so on that same basis, case area history, it was interesting to watch council agree, disagree, and flip-flop with us in that same area. I didn't want to slow us down on that particular case, but in those type of situations, it would be interesting to get some clarity around what council's rationale was because those cases were clustered within one particular area. So not necessarily for tonight, but just when we see that situation.

um i think that's something again because the staff there's something we could kind of work on um usually for each of the cases that you have there's a lot more discussion um with the planning commission on on an item across the entire body of the planning commission than there is for council um at this time and the council typically they do um defer to the district representative to kind of take that lead. And so there's not always just that full discussion, I believe, that you are part of here or that you may expect. However, we can try to gather some of that information for you. But again, there's not a lot of discussion at the point of council.

Hey. our favorite part of the night number nine on the agenda unless there's anything else to discuss i don't mean to rush i'm trying to okay still have to if there's any more discussion we're here all right if not then the chair would like to make a motion for adjournment do i have a second second for commissioner lloyd staff please take a roll