County Council - Regular Meeting

This time I call to order the August 17th, 2026 County Council meeting to order. Want to welcome everyone here tonight. It's good to see so many folks young and old here with us tonight. Our first item of business is to recognize the honorable Andy Litton from District two for the invocation and Pledge of Allegiance.

Heavenly Father, thank you for this day and this opportunity to be together to do your work and the work of this county. Please be with each one of us. Help us to make good decisions. Keep us safe, healthy, and lead us in accordance to your will. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

We do have one individual who is going to be sworn in for office, and that person is Christopher Stevenson with the York County Natural Gas Board. If Christopher is here and can make his way up front, if you'll just stand in front of the podium, our attorney, Laura Dover, will meet you at the front and do the honors. Before she gets started, on behalf of the council, I do want to say thank you very much for agreeing to serve on this board. A lot of folks don't realize that these boards and commissions, the individuals serve voluntarily. They don't get paid. They don't get recognition. And we do thank you for the work that you will do on behalf of the citizens of the community. Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

. .

. . .

. . . .

We move now to the appearances section of our agenda. And this is a time where folks can come to address the council. Our first item is to recognize Sheriff Breeden and to also recognize James Lingerfeld for his service in retirement with York County Sheriff's Department.

Thank you madam chair and members of council and also thank the community. Um, you have somebody that does a full 25 years in the detention center. You don't realize how hard that is. He did about 12 and a half years in jail is what he did. So but the average like we come in here and we talked about it at normal times. It is, it is an incredibly difficult job to do. Most of our enforcement deputies, we've acknowledged they can't do the job in the detention center. And when you have people that do it with an honorable record and have recommendations and commendations from inmates and everything else, it's a real special testament to that time and did it. And I think that when you honor somebody that is retired from the detention center, it is a very big deal, especially when they did a full 25 years. And, you know, there's one of the things that we've learned is, is that experience and seniority we can't replace. And, you know, you won't get that from some of the others, but we can just try and bring them up and get him there. But we're going to miss him dearly. But we're also glad that he's made it to the end and he gets to enjoy his family and the life after being spit on and fought and everything else. So we're glad that he made it there.

And thank you again just for being able to recognize individuals that do make that that full career in detention. I think we come here and talk about all the times in regards to what they deal with on a daily basis from being a teacher, from being a counselor, dealing with inmates that have mental health issues that cover this and cover themselves in feces. And we have to deal with them and we have to to shower them and take care of. And as Sheriff said, very, very few people make 25 years in detention. You will see 30, 35, 40 years in enforcement. Very, very rarely does anybody make 25 in detention because it's a tough job. One of the reasons why we can survive in this career are people like Chad. The fact that he, no matter what was going on on any given day, in any given scenario, he would come with a smile. He would come making sure everybody was okay afterwards. That is his passion. His passion is people. And that's not just the staff. It was the inmates as well. In fact, he even talked about it as retirement party about potentially coming back as a volunteer for the inmate population. This is a man that has given his heart for 25 years to the citizens of York County. Very specific in the jail. I worked with them as a shift sergeant for several years, and we laughed a lot because that's one of the things that we've got to do is take care of each other. And in those times and in all of that craziness of a shift is we've got to be able to take care of each other. And that's one of the things that you've done on a daily basis. Excuse me for everybody that you work from from the shift to the master control to even the command staff taking care of us, looking out, making sure everybody's good. You should be very, very proud of what you accomplished in that 25 years. The public should be very thankful for the 25 years that you did, like Sheriff said, basically doing 12 1⁄2 years of your life inside the jail. So we want to thank you. We want to honor you because, again, not very many people can say that they did 25 years. So thank you.

Officer Langerfield, you certainly, you have earned the right to speak to council and to folks in the community, and I know on behalf of the whole council, we want to say thank you for the many years of service that you've given to our community. The job that you have done for 25 years, it's almost unheard of to stay at a job for that long anymore, but to do it the circumstances that you have and to serve our community and to serve those who are in that situation is a testimony to your integrity and to what you stand for and we very much thank you we wish you well in your retirement we hope you do something fun and enjoy your time but you're certainly welcome to stand in the podium and make any comments you would like We will. I will now recognize are emergency management director Chuck Haynes for those of you who don't know this is emergency management awareness month and he is here to remind us of how important that is and to give us some information about what the county does in that respect. It's rains.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Council. This is the first year that York County has joined all the other states and most country counties in the country adopting in the emergency management awareness month. This is an effort to spread education and also recognize those who work in the in the discipline. Our office is here to my right, along with Catawba Indian Nation, Doug Spence, who's the emergency manager there, one of our partners that we rely on, and then also Doug Hurst with the City of Rock Hill, who's the emergency manager. Rely on everyone in the community, private partnerships, public partnerships, volunteers, paid staff within the county who not only have their primary duties but also have other duties during disasters. We rely heavily on council for guidance. also county management for guidance and we appreciate your support in the past. If my staff would please stand up to be recognized. We truly appreciate you adopting the proclamation. It's the first time here in your county. We've done this. Hopefully we'll see you next august for the same thing. But thank you again. I know you that's going to be adopted on consent.

Thank you, Chuck. Let's make sure you all get up here, and let's get a picture with you and celebrate this month. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our final presenter under the appearances is Pierre Langvin, who is the chairman of York County Forever Commission, and they are going to present some information about York County Forever, its history, its accomplishments, and its funding options.

Good evening. It's coming. Good evening, my name is Pierre Langevin. I am an 18 years resident of York County District 7 and I'm currently the chairman of the York County Forever Commission. I wanted to take some of your time tonight to give you an update of some of our activities and some of the needs that we see coming up.

Oh, it works.

York County established the York County Forever Commission on this same day 28 years ago. I don't know if it's a coincidence, but it's certainly worth celebrating. Over time, the loss of open space, population growth, and infringing development led to increasing citizen concerns about the York County picturesque scenery and cherished way of life that maybe this was somewhat slowly vanishing. Faced with the need to manage growth responsibly, protect exceptional resources, and preserve our county unique character, the York County Council created the York County Forever Commission. And this commission was mandated to serve as the county's land conservation organization. York County Forever's mission, is to promote and protect significant natural, cultural, historic, and environmental resources. There are seven members, each of us representing a district, and two adult members, one from the Nation Forward Land Trust, and one representing the York County Culture and Heritage Commission. We usually meet once a month in the Rock Hill offices of York County. And we recommend funding for conservation projects so that you can hopefully approve them. 10 by 10. In 2010, there was a goal to reach 10,000 acres of conservation. This was accomplished in 2012. Our partner in this endeavor is the Nation Forward Land Trust. And as you can see, when they get involved and prepare this conservation easement, then that property is protected forever. As you can see on our funding, we are actively using the funds made available for all purposes, including requesting an update of the 1992 York County Historical and Architectural Inventory. In this, there are probably gems, there are probably sites, there are probably buildings, there are probably places that need to be looked at and protected. But not much has been done so far, so that's why we need to update it to find out where things are right now and see where we can go from there. To date, we've completed 41 conservation projects, which encompass over 12,000 acres in our books. And it is safe to say that those landowners who elected to work with us and put a conservation easement on their land are happy with the process and the tax benefit that they're getting out of it. This is an example of a big project that we were involved way back when the Catawba Bend Reserve was created. 1,900 acres were purchased, thank you, by the county. to leave a legacy to the residents of this county. This included 1,768 acres of conservation easement. York County staff devoted a substantial effort to put together a strategic plan, and our effort can be tied directly to county goals about parks, responsible growth, and the notion of quality of life, which is described in that particular document. For us to properly address the goals listed here on this slide, and which are part of the strategic plan, we will need your continued support. We are grateful that your county is ensuring a continued source of funding. The county map that you've shown before that you've seen before shows that we need more work in many areas and funds would be required to increase communication and outreach. The updated county historical and architectural inventory will more likely result in the need to address preservation and conservation issues. Funds will be needed. Now there are several other counties in the states who have different funding formulas. And we will be happy to discuss with county staff how this compares with ours and what other option we should consider if we need to. In the last sentence, talk about partnership. for me is an encouragement to you and your staff and all those involved in recruiting corporations to come to York County and create jobs, but to use the notion of partnership when we discuss with them. And let's be creative so that those corporations properly share in helping us reach our goals of conservation and preservation so that York County residents can have the quality of life that they deserve. I thank you for your time and hope that we can continue the discussion. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. I recognize that you have, is there another speaker going to speak? I think we've got a whole group of folks that have York County Forever shirts on that are here to support this initiative. If we would like to get a picture. Yeah. We'd love to do that.

Come on. Thank you. Everybody way over in front. Come on, Chris.

Thank you again to all of those folks that serve on that committee. That is a volunteer board. And thank you for all the individuals who came out to support it. I'm going to let the folks clear out before we move on and find the agenda.

Thank you.

All right, we're moving now to our public forum session. This is an opportunity for council to hear from individuals who have signed up prior to this evening to, no, tonight, who have come out tonight and have requested to speak. It's limited to 15 individuals who sign up ahead of time, and we asked individuals to speak on topics that are germane to issues with county council. If you can please keep your comments. And if there's anyone here that you want to recognize, you certainly can ask them to stand up and to be recognized. If you have a group with you, it's important that we respect the comments from everyone. We want this to be a safe place for folks to communicate. So if we can refrain from any commenting, um applause or booze or any of those things while those folks are are talking we would appreciate that if you are here tonight on a public hearing item we ask that you wait and reserve your comment for the public hearing item that way you will not be limited in time and it will be closer in the time frame and will connect with the matters that are being considered for public comment When you come to the podium after I call your name, if you'll give your name and address and pay attention to the screen, it will give you a warning before your time is up and then it will let you know when your time is up and that way I don't have to cut you off, which I much prefer not to have to do. All right. First individual is John Wirth.

John Worth. I live at 731 Amberley Crossing in Fort Mill. There is common sense and there is nonsense. For the past two years, the county has claimed the BZA decision was perspective. Nonsense. The ruling did not apply to SILFAB's operations. More nonsense. SILFAB participated in the BZA hearing, then sought mediation and appealed. In response to AG Wilson, the county issued 115 pages of nonsense disguised as facts. claimed the PHYLOC approved all aspects of the project. Again, more nonsense. McKinnon's order eviscerated all of these points. Common sense says factories with tons of hazardous chemicals don't belong near schools and dense populations and are definitely not LI, no matter how safe the company claims to be. Zoning should protect the quality of life and safety of residents. Permits and the CO process should have ended after the BZA. after mckinnon's ruling the county and silfab again doubled down with more nonsense claiming affirmation the bza was prospective it did not affect silfab's operations really the county should stop collaborating with silfab on messaging it just looks bad His order was clear. The incorrect zoning interpretation was used to approve SILFAB's project. SILFAB's own processes, air permits, chemical usage, and more were all part of the record. This was not hypothetical. It was about SILFAB's current operations. McKinnon's order is binding and supersedes all staff issued interpretations, permits, and verification letters. This was not a future legislative amendment. It was judicial interpretation of existing law. The ruling clarified what the zoning code always meant. It's time to stop the nonsense. Revoke the CEO still fab does not belong in the light industrial zone and never did. This council has the authority to end the county's nonsense and return to common sense. Thank you.

Thank you sir. Um, I can't, I'm having trouble reading the first name. Carl Young maybe.

Good evening, council. My name is Carl Young. I live at 437 Silver Cypress Lane in Fort Mill. Good evening, council. We supported you once. We showed up. We trusted. We believed this council when it said our zoning laws and our children came first. But you ought to know what it feels like on our side of the podium to watch our schools evacuate in March twice, with KOH and hydrofluoric acid sit within a mile of 12 schools and daycares, to be told no health risk while our kids run chemical drills instead of fire drills. On July 21st, Judge McKinnon issued a final order in judgment. Solar cell manufacturing is not a permitted use on logistics lane. Affirmed in all respects. And what did this council give us? Four hours behind closed doors and no action was taken. A county council telling us a final order isn't final. Do you think we wouldn't read it? Because the backdated permits the county issued won't fade just because you close your eyes and you know it. And I'm here to remind you of the mess you made when you looked away. The spills, the shutdowns, the lawsuits, the public due process traded for a Filo deal. It's not fair to deny us the protection of the very ordinances you swore to uphold to ask us to wait again while SILFAB operates in defiance of a court order. On August 26th, you have one job. Uphold the law. Enforce the order. Move SILFAB. And until you do every meeting, every session, every election, we will be here to remind you because you drive in Fort mill.

Good evening. The first council meeting I attended to council members revealed they had received threats. Those are vile acts that do not reflect the values of our community. Following that horrific news, the Fort mill residents organized intentionally and peacefully. We sought the facts through the Freedom of Information Act. We attended meetings and hearings. We engaged with the doctors at the Southeast Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit. We commissioned impact studies through the funding of grant to the public health experts at USC and a blast expert at UNC. And where we believed the law had not been followed, we pursued justice through the courts. A heavy industrial manufacturer with an arsenal of toxic chemicals and gases was placed in the middle of our community directly next to two of our schools. To many of us, that felt like both an invasion and a betrayal. The community saw answers through the BZA and then the courts. We accepted that the law should decide these questions. Our community has held up its end of the bargain. And now it's the county's turn. The county knows that the law must be enforced consistently regardless of the consequences. That is how a civil society works. The rule of law means nothing if we demand it from citizens but abandon it when it becomes inconvenient to government. Following the law as decided in Judge McKinnon's ruling is now the only way our community can move forward. Thank you.

Cameron Ramsey.

My name is Cameron Ramsey. I live at 4425 Hickory Grove Road. It may or may not come as a surprise to some of you to learn that in York County, South Carolina, we have over 983 farms per the last census data. Those farms make up over 105,000 acres of cropland, hay land, forest land, pasture land, and greenhouse nurseries. That's 105,000 acres of agricultural land in just York County, used to grow the food on your plate, the roof over your head, the clothes on your back. In the last census, York County farmers and ranchers recorded $127 million in product sales. This is not the total economic impact of York County farmers. This is just the amount of sales they record in about a year. That's about triple the gross annual sales made by your average Target store. York County is number one in South Carolina for agritourism, number one in greenhouse nursery crop production, number two for South Carolina Christmas tree and woody crop production, number four for market hog production, four in equine production, and seventh in cattle production. And those numbers, they don't lie. Farming is a vital part of York County, no matter how close we are to Charlotte. Enrollment in agriculture courses across the four school districts supports this fact with over 2,000 students enrolled in ag courses in the 25-26 school year. York County's own comprehensive plan recognizes agriculture and agritourism as an economic industry that the county should preserve and strengthen. I ask council members to consider the discussion and creation of a York County Agricultural Advisory Board, as previously mentioned in county council meetings. This board would be made up of constituents from each district and aim to advise council in regards to agricultural issues and impacts. Thank you so much for your time and consideration.

Thank you, ma'am. Beth White.

Hello. Beth White, 404 Pendergrass Road, York. An agricultural advisory board is needed as a proactive planning resource for the county. This board will give agricultural a seat at the table before zoning and land use decisions are made. Position the board as a planning tool, not an advocacy group. An advisory board could help the county identify agricultural priorities before major development occurs. It could provide county planners and elected officials with real world agricultural expertise. We can review proposed zoning and land use changes for their potential impact on farming. Identify conflicts between residential development and normal agricultural activities before they become complaints. Create a consistent agricultural voice rather than relying on individual farmers to react to each zoning case. Improve communication between farmers, residents, developers, planners, and elected officials. Better land use decisions can be made before problems develop. This board will be a resource that helps government make better decisions rather than another layer of government. This board could provide an agricultural perspective to those existing decision makers. This goal isn't to stop growth. The goal is to help the county plan growth in a way that allows agriculture and development to coexist. Agriculture should have a voice before the zoning map is changed, not after the farm is already surrounded by development. Thank you for your time and your continued service in our county. I would like for the farmers back on the back row to stand up and be recognized at this time. Thank you, guys.

Arthur Black.

It's not.

Arthur Black. 1700 Spring Lake Rd, York SC. I'm on a farm that was started in 1718 in this county. So that makes us nearly 300 years of little better. We have supplied. expertise, help to all the folks that have come to this county. My daddy said that you can't live in the county by yourself and we have tried that and we urge you to think about what these two young ladies have just said and presented to you to help us and you make a better county going forward where other people can come live with us and we can live with them. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. Carrie Bishop.

Let's see. I don't see anyone moving.

All right. This individual did not put an item for discussion, and I'm not sure if this is intentional. Antonio Sint. Okay. All right, well that concludes our public forum session. We do want to say thank you to all the individuals who have come out and shared information about what's going on. When it comes to the SILFAB issues, I would, unless there's any comments or anything from management or legal, I would make reference to the page on the website. There are a number of lawsuits that are involved in this matter, which creates a little bit of difficulty with communication, but I would direct folks to that website for information related to that to the extent that you're unaware of that. We move now to our public, I'm sorry, we move now to our consent agenda. We do have a policy in place as a council that if any one member of the council requests that a matter be removed from consent agenda and put on new business, that that can be done. Previous to this, I did have requests from council members And items number 12, 16, and 20 will be moved to items 10, 11, and 12 in new business. Is there a motion to approve consent agenda absent those changes?

I'd like for the record to correct item number 46. It's district three, not district two.

OK. That is a typographical error, in my opinion, that doesn't affect the veracity or any of the legality of that provision. But it's so noted in the record. Any other removals? And do we have a motion to approve as amended?

Motion to approve as amended. Second.

Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, consent agenda is approved as amended. We move now to our first public hearing item. Council to hold a public hearing and consider second reading of an ordinance to amend Chapter 155, Zoning Code 155.1246, interpretation of zoning map to permit a parcel with more than one district boundary to be governed by the development regulations of district making up the greatest area in Chapter 154, Land Development Code 154.004, individual plats for land divisions to allow combinations or recombinations of lots comprised of more than one residential zoning district to provide for a public hearing and to provide for other matters relating thereto. Do we have any messaging from staff?

So we can. We did spend some time talking about this last time, but I know we're prepared to go through that again if y'all wanted to, but we spent a significant amount of time talking about this last month.

So no presentation.

We're ready to provide one if you want, but we didn't think you would.

If we don't have a presentation to provide, then I think, are there any questions? Questions we want to present to staff before we open the public hearing. So if we can at least ask that. Who's on the hot seat?

Yeah, we're ready. Y'all ask the questions.

All right, let's ask it. We're ready to go, yes.

Go ahead.

All right. Jonathan, what I was wondering, the way that this is going to work, is it going to be mandatory? Are we going to give the people the option to come if they want to?

uh so there are two parts to the amendment so there's the part that would apply a majority rules approach to parcels that are split zoned as long as all the districts involved in that single parcel are residential and then the second component of the text amendment would allow folks to combine property that is split zoned without having to first go through rezoning again as long as all the districts involved are residential so Yes, to the extent that people would combine property, that's all at their election.

But would there possibly be a way that we could first introduce this as voluntary and basically if they didn't want to do it, they'd just have to... Yes, sir. It's entirely voluntary. There's there's no mandatory component. And what about since I've already made one amendment this, but I want to get this 100% right because I don't have density. Would there be a way that we can can we restrict this to the property property zoning that is the least impact or the lowest density instead of making it out sound like they can go to the greater partial. In other words, let it qualify for lower density because I don't want, you know, I changed it from not including general commercial and industrial, but I surely don't want It allows someone who's got an RFX 40, 30, whatever, to bring in more land to even

Yeah, I think I understand what you're asking. Yeah. And if you've got instead of saying bigger property, let's say to the less denser property. Well, it only ever involves one parcel. So if someone is looking to subdivide, they would have to do a major subdivision. They'd have to abide by all the density requirements for each individual lot as it's created. So You wouldn't be able to apply a greater density from one district across an entire brand-new subdivision if that's what your aim was to do from a developer standpoint. So density really doesn't enter into the equation for a single residential lot because you're going to put the one home on it or you have an ADU if that's what you want to do. uh so it would really only affect um if you had a property that was rmx6 perhaps and um you know they had a component of those rmx10 and they would have to abide by the density split between those districts so it's on a single parcel basis so if there's a thought that people are going to go out and buy more land and create huge neighborhoods with this change, they wouldn't be able to accommodate that.

Once we finish this, this time split zoning is done for in York County.

Once we get these corrected up, No, sir. So the way the ordinance is drafted currently before you all for second reading is split parcels are allowed to remain in perpetuity. They've been around in your county since zoning was adopted. Some parcels had multiple districts applied on them from the jump, and that's created a lot of historical problems, as you're aware, and not traditionally how you apply zoning. So all of those parcels can remain so in perpetuity at the owner's election. And if folks want to say trade property with their neighbor, we do have rezonings that come before you all that maybe somebody wants to buy 10 feet of property from their next door neighbor for a driveway or shed, whatever they want to do. One happens to be in one district and the other neighbor happens to be another. Say it's RSF 30, RSF 40. They can't do that land swap without coming to you first for a rezoning to make sure that they're in the same district or they're going to rezone that sliver of 10 feet to the right district. So this change would allow them to make that land swap without having to worry about the zoning consequences and having to pursue a rezoning before they could do that.

I have a number of questions that are similar to that and I don't I guess let me start with this so my understanding was that we that we entertained this because especially there were two individuals who had property that's one parcel that was on two different things And so the question is, and what these folks had said is there was no way for them to either sell or to buy additional property until they cleared up that we have now taken a position that we don't like split zoning property and you can't do anything with it until you clear that up, right? So I think the concern that I have is that we have two individuals who have split zone property that probably was due to no direction of their own. It was done at the outset of zoning and we're now, what this is going to do is impact 1,100 parcels, 75% of which are residential. So 850 parcels we are impacting by this. The way I read the ordinance is that it looks like the majority rules, so if you have a parcel that is zoned RUD and AGC, if you have 10 acres, if you have six acres that are AGC and four that's RUD, this ordinance is gonna automatically make it 10.

Agc correct almost all the way there. So it's for the purposes of new development. So it doesn't rezone the property. The zoning map stays as it is only council can amend the zoning map. But for the purposes of new development, it would say that, for example, like the setbacks. you would apply the setback rules for the district that is the majority of the parcel. So in your example, you would apply the AGC setbacks for the purposes of locating a new structure on the property.

So we aren't even effectuating a change at all. We're only dealing with setbacks.

it's only for the purposes of new development which district do you apply the standards for and most property has a property that is a predominant 80 or higher of the acreage And so you might have a sliver. So in most cases, that's going to be immaterial. But some properties, there might be a true split. And so that makes it easier to determine which rules do we follow for the purposes of locating a new development on the property.

Let's just take an example. There's an individual that we're trying to fix this for two individuals that need the change. And instead of us just doing an easy council-initiated rezoning, my understanding is staff said, no, we shouldn't do that. We need to fix the bigger problem. Oh, no, no.

I do think that's an equally appropriate way to handle this, is to go throughout the county and you could have a project where staff and the Planning Commission go through areas of the county and identify large swaths of split zoning. There are areas of the county where the whole frontage is one district and the back of a property might be another. But there are other areas where it might be an isolated parcel and maybe by virtue of a will or something like that, the zoning districts got a little bit messy. But I do think it would be perfectly appropriate for Council to explore some Council initiated rezonings to correct some of that zoning. But the downside of that is you would be rezoning people's property without them necessarily coming to you to ask to do that.

and this was something that came through committee as well there was a lot of conversations we're trying to not just help two two folks but actually solve some some underlying pieces to this i think this is a is a long-term solution for more than just two people so i guess i'm not i'm not seeing the benefit of this if if the reason this came before us was we have two individuals who have split zone property and what we're trying to do is to say okay

There's one individual who has 16 acres of AGC and like one little sliver of RUD. And they can't do anything with it. They can't buy it. They can't do anything because staff says we don't like split zone property unless it's either rezoned or we do an ordinance change that will directly impact 850 people which we know will be impacted, but we don't know what those people want. I mean, like, of those 850 people, do we know how many of them are the majority, you know, AGC or RMX? Have we done an app? Have those folks been notified that we're looking to change that? Has there been a notification?

No, so this wouldn't change anyone's ability to use their property as they're currently using it.

Then what's the point?

The point, as Mr. Edwards was kind of getting out there, is it reduces for folks that had rezoning in the past and not just some of the ones that involved, you know, the frontage issue where the frontage of a property was a different district than the rear of the property. You also have plenty of rezoning that come forward that are You know, maybe it's 100 acres and there's a third of an acre that's in a different district, for whatever reason, and if they want to subdivide that out they're creating a new split zone parcel so they can't do that for the code. So they have to come before you all to do a rezoning first. And we heard we need to reduce the number of overall rezonings, especially for some of these cases that there's unanimous support on council for things like this that aren't really a material issue for you all to make a decision about. So this is one of those approaches that we vetted with the P&Z committee.

I guess I'll just finish up my questioning with this. I guess I still have some questions as to whether or not we're actually solving anything or creating an issue with that. I would much rather fix the two fix the two that we know are problems. But to me, the way I read the ordinance is that we're now also allowing a property owner who doesn't have a split zoning issue to create one by if they go by property that's adjacent to them. Is that right?

Yes, and that's exactly the scenario that I mentioned where you have two neighbors. They're in one district each, but they're in different districts and they want to trade property lines. We've had a couple of rezonings over the years that have asked for exactly that. Under the ordinance right now, they cannot do that without rezoning. Under this ordinance, they could do that.

I guess what I'm I guess what I'm trying to figure out is do we want majority rules or do we know if the property has already been put in use by one of the two uses? If someone owns property and they've actually used it as RUD and the rest of it's AGC, now we're telling them it has to be all AGC when they haven't used it in that fashion. I don't understand how... how we're making making a change here is this and is this issue the way that's written is it going to solve the problem that we know is out here the gentleman who has 16 acres and he has a sliver of red is this going to solve his particular problem yes okay with the other 850 folks that are being impacted should we have sent notice to them to let them know that there's something happening with their property

No, nothing is happening with their property. They're allowed to use it as they currently are in perpetuity.

It doesn't change anything with them. The only other piece, then I guess I'm confused about what we're accomplishing. Your questions.

Okay. First of all, John, so just reading through this again, I think, you know, listening, to some of these questions, I think they fall in line with some of my concerns on this thing. So one of the things is, you know, I always get concerned when it comes to majority rules on these things. I think individually, I think we're best preserved by us individually hearing individuals or their needs and having them come to us. When I read through this, I don't see where we're emphasizing public hearings on these things. I don't see where we're emphasizing public feedback on an individual basis on this. I'm concerned about this solution. I think it's very broad in scope. And I still think, I know that you've talked about the fact that there is a, as Tommy brought up, the concern about the density piece. And I know that you said it doesn't change where each of these people, how they use their land, et cetera, but I guess my concern is what happens when they sell off their property and the next person that comes in and buys their property, I think this opens up some, how do I say it, consequences that we never would predict, okay?

So, you know, I think we should, to me, I think we should slow down a little bit on this one here. I don't feel like there's enough guardrails on this one here. I think we should individually address those two.

I do have some major concerns about supporting this. So, again, that's it. Thank you, sir.

Did I hear there was 1100 parcels affected by this?

So yes, sir, there are 11,044. Sorry, 1144 parcels.

Thank you. That are currently split zone. Yes, sir. And if we did this, what you're asking us to do that would eliminate all 1100?

No, sir. And so we spent a lot of time over several meetings with the Planning and Zoning Committee. We presented several options. This is the one that the committee landed on, and the Planning Commission reviewed it as well. So there are many ways to do this, and one of them is status quo. So most jurisdictions handle it the way we do currently, which is our current status quo would be each individual section of a lot that is in a different district is regulated by that district in that district only. The problem is, in York County, we have far more split zoned parcels than most other jurisdictions do. The goal would be to have zero split zoned parcels, and then you wouldn't have this kind of issue about, well, what do we do over here on this little section of half acre versus what can we do on these 20, or if we're split 10 and 10, what can we do on each 10? Can we do two things? Those types of questions.

I remember when we had, when we were trying to get rid of the UD zoning, obviously, we kind of if they because there was no use for ud we couldn't you couldn't really do anything it was kind of in bad positions so is this kind of would this be voluntarily to to consolidate to one zone or would it be something that but yeah that's that's a good example to to to help this discussion i think in

UD is its own zoning district you know urban development and the reason there was a project to allow people to come forward and select a different zoning district and that was a project over many different years is at some point I think maybe the time frame was 2014 2015 2016 council took all residential uses out of urban development district and you had tons of urban development properties out there that were developed as residences So those folks had existing nonconformities or if someone owned a UD parcel and it was undeveloped, but now they don't have the option to develop it as residential, but it might be in the middle of a neighborhood. There are sections in Rock Hill that are like that.

But Jonathan, hang on. Because the UD has always been, I don't mean to interrupt. The UD was kind of hit the lottery. When UD was formed, you could put anything in there. You could put industrial. You could put residential. You could put any of those things. What the county said is, we don't like that anymore. It doesn't make sense. So they started taking uses away from that, which I think is a potential issue there, just slowly reducing it, eliminating the uses that were allowed, and encouraged individuals. The way that we helped solve the problem First of all, I think the first thing is a problem. I don't think that's right. I don't think you should do that. But where we are now is UD now has been kind of slowly changed to where the value of having that is not very valuable. So we allow anyone who is zoned UD to come and rezone their property for free. It's the council initiated rezoning to get it fixed, right?

Well, so it is free, but most UD rezonings are not council initiated as an applicant.

It's free. We let the applicant, when they discover it's a problem, fix it. I guess just piggybacking on that, to me, this is what came to my mind. If what we're trying to fix is split zoning property, why can't we just approach it this way and we actually do change? We're sitting here saying it doesn't affect your zoning, but we're calling it split zoning ordinance. I mean, I don't know. Since we've only had a couple of them come forward and there are folks a lot of folks that potentially may be impacted could we could we look at transitioning and saying look if you're one of these folks that's one of the split zone property will let you come forward and and because we don't want to have split zone property anymore will help you change that it will do it on a case by case basis so that you're not shoving that down 850 people.

Yes, ma'am, and that's a perfectly reasonable approach to it, and that's exactly how this council handled one of those very same applications last year. It was a rezoning, had to go through a rezoning process, but they asked council to do a council-initiated rezoning, and council did take that up. So that would be status quo. You could do the status quo for that as well, or you could expand it into, as we discussed earlier, a larger project where we say, Here are areas that there's a large degree of split zoning. It's in property owners best interest as well as the counties to have all of those properties, each individual lot in a single district. So if you'd like to come forward and ask council to rezone your property on your behalf, you're welcome to do that. That's certainly approach that you could take, but it would be know different than the ud project for what this amendment attempts to undertake and that the amendment is allowing folks to combine property uh if they are in split districts where currently they can't do that it doesn't uh rezone the property it doesn't fix their split zoning no until they come forward

No, it doesn't fix their split zoning at all.

So with one of the rezoning cases we had on Sandifer Road last year, there was not an issue about uses. There was not an issue about I need this zoning district or I need that zoning district. It was the fact that parcels involved in a proposed recombination of property were split zones. So when you combine split zone property, you're creating a new split zone parcel. So the code doesn't allow that. So this amendment would modify that so that you could.

I think we have to have language to allow one to go away. Would that be the case if we did that? Would one actually go away? We need some language to be able to combine them instead of saying they have to stay separate.

Yeah, so if that's another avenue that council could take, you could state that no split zone parcels are allowed. Come forward and choose which of the districts that are on your property you would like to do. Do that too. There's many different ways to come up with this.

I like what Tommy suggested, that you can't rezone up to a higher density if you're combining. Whatever it is, you have to go down to make sure you're doing a less dense project on the property.

And that's why it's very carefully worded that it's for the purposes of new development. So if you're going to place a new structure on your property, it's on that one single lot. So if you are going to subdivide and create a new neighborhood, now you're not one lot. So each individual lot has to meet its own required rules for whichever zoning district it's going to fall into. So if you've got a zoning district, if you've got a single parcel that you're looking to subdivide, say it's 100 acres, 20 of it are in AGC and the other balance of it is in RUD, any parcel that's going to be created by a subdivision in the AGC portion has to be at least five acres and follow all the same rules about AGC. So when we talk about new development and which rules apply, we're really talking about a single lot and what you can do on a single lot and not creating a new residential subdivision.

but I would still rather just have a safeguard because somebody always finds a way and I would because my whole idea was to protect ag land that had some RUD and basically I would rather it go to the lesser density Lord knows we got enough houses and But is there a way that we can put, if it is on a voluntary basis, that we put the safeguard in there to a lesser density and just remove to the larger partial?

No, that's taking away people's rights.

No, it's actually giving them.

It's taking away rights. Could you explain the new development?

And I do not take away people's rights.

Taking away, going from RUD to AGC is taking away people's rights.

Well, apparently, this doesn't change any of the zoning. So it doesn't do anything. It does. No, it doesn't. He said it doesn't affect the zoning.

It does affect it. Can you explain what new development is? Because I think people are not understanding what all that encompasses, that it includes new structures and everything.

Right, so if you're going to build on a lot, if you're going to develop it as a commercial property, that's new development, right? So when you're proposing to build something, you apply for the building permit. We check, oh, well, where is the building supposed to go? Is what you're asking to do, is that allowed? All those things, we check the zoning for that individual parcel.

But technically, you could say zoning in itself takes away people's right from get-go.

One of the issues was that barns, like a barn, if you wanted to put it out on Sandifer, you had a different zoning in the back as you did in the front, and so you had, when trying to situate where your structures were gonna be, were messed up due to the zoning. And that's another reason we were trying to fix this, whereas the largest percentage ruled over the smaller percentages. If you own 99 acres of RUD and one acre of AGC and needed to combine it all, you wouldn't want it all to go AGC.

But I think the problem with this ordinance is that it dictates that. And that's not what the property owner necessarily requests. But can we just circle back to the two properties that brought this to the attention of council? It had nothing to do with them wanting to develop anything. All they wanted to do, one gentleman had a parcel that was RUD and AGC, and his sister was right beside him, and they had the same problem, RUD, AGC, something they didn't create, something that the county would have put on them. All he wanted to do was buy five acres of her land. And staff said, you can't do it. You can't do anything until you clear up your zoning. We don't like split zoning. We're not going to let you do anything until you first clear up your split zoning status. So he couldn't even move forward with the purchase. And that is the exact same issue that this other gentleman is facing. And what I'm hearing is that we're now trying to solve a different question, and we're not even solving the main thing, which is we've got split zone parcels that we recognize we don't like. We now are saying as a policy issue, we're not going to let you do anything with it, but we aren't changing it.

We're not changing it. I do want to be clear about this. It's not a staff opinion. It's not a staff dislike. This is what the code says. The Land Development Code, Chapter 154, states that you cannot create a new split zone parcel when you're combining property. That's not a staff opinion. That's not a policy. It is ordinance.

Right, but I mean, we could have just fixed that ordinance and said, we don't like this anymore. We think that if somebody owns this, they ought to be able to sell their property. If they want to go build on it, they've got to figure out the zoning. But at least let them buy and sell their property.

Yeah, and that's the second part that I mentioned. We've got two parts in the ordinance. The second part is exactly what you're referring to.

So potentially, you all send it back to Planning and Zoning Committee. Absolutely not. Do not send it back.

We saw this, and it was good in Planning and Zoning. We had a great time. ordinance put together. Um, I recommend that council members watch those videos and you'll get a lot of information out of them.

So it sounds like we're really the way, you know, we should be in public here.

Any other questions? There's questions of staff as to what this accomplishes. And I think that there's after during discussion because I'm sorry to do staff during the discussion.

Well, I think typically what we do is we ask staff for questions before we open a public hearing, because it may clear up the public's questions. And I guess that's not what's happening. Are there any other questions for staff about this ordinance?

Yes, I'll ask a couple questions. So if you are looking to develop two parcels of land that are zoned differently, this is going to apply, what we're talking about tonight. If you're going to develop you have 100 acres and, I don't know, 40 are AGC and six are UD, then you're gonna have to move it all to RUD if you're gonna develop it. That's gonna be one of the triggers, right?

What do you mean by develop it?

I don't know, you're gonna, build houses on it. And you want to combine the two parcels, the AGC with the RUD.

Oh, so if you've got two separate parcels and you want to combine them. You own both. Correct. So you own both side by side, two different districts. Right now, in contemporary code, you cannot combine those properties via this amendment. You couldn't.

Right. So then the other option for the homeowner, the landowner, parcel owner, would be to come to council and rezone the AGC or RUD. Yes, sir. All of it.

Yes, sir. Yeah.

OK. That answered my last question, though. So we're not taking away the right for an individual, as Councilman Litton said, if they had AGC and RUD, 100 acres, 50-50, if they wanted to rezone the AGC to RUD, knowing that that's a greater value and gives them options, they'd have the right to do that, obviously. That would come to Council. So what you're trying to do, you're estimating that there are roughly 850 parcels out there that fall into this category. So instead of us having 850 conversations at council one night, you're trying to avoid that to give them an option. They have two options really. They can accept the higher density one and it moves to that, I mean the higher number of acreage, they can move to that, or they can come to us and ask for rezoning, which is what they would traditionally do. Is that right? Okay, thank you.

But you just said that it doesn't change zoning. Correct. So while you may use the higher density for setbacks, it's not changing the zoning. So if they still are split zoned, it's not fixing the underlying split zone problem, correct?

Correct. County Council is the only body that can amend the zoning map.

I do have a follow-up question for this. You've got 60 acres of UD and you have 40 acres of Ag. You mentioned that the larger parcel will supersede. Explain in that situation, would they all become UD at that point?

Good question, sir. No, so the way the ordinance is written is all of these rules apply only if the entire mix of the districts involved are residential. So UD would not be one of those.

even though they had 60 acres of UD.

Correct, they would be treated as status quo, meaning the acreage that's UD would be treated, same standards, same allowed uses, same setbacks as the UD portion. And then, as an example, RUD or AGC, they would be treated under the same standards as AGC only.

But they still will have the option to come rezone it to make them compatible on both sides. So we're not taking away that option. That option still exists if they want to come in and rezone it to, rezone the AGC down to RUD.

He was asking about UD, but I think that goes back to that we're talking about residential.

UD has now taken any residential out of it. There is no, right?

Correct. So it's not a permitted use.

We're mixing lots of different things.

But Jonathan, like the one me and you and Tom talked about in my district, the fellow's purchasing 16 acres. It just happens that a little slither, not even a half an acre, was RUD. But he couldn't plat that land because of that. Right.

Has to come back and resign.

It would have been a lot easier if we.

I think that I think that is important to clarify that those two specific issues. Let's take the second one that prompted this whole discussion does. That what does that change in terms of his ability to do anything. Are you saying It doesn't change his zoning, so he still will have RUD and AGC, correct? Yes. And the only thing that allows him to do is what? Combine the property. With what? If he's not combining it with anything, he's just split zoned.

I believe the request was to... No, I mean, the only reason, I mean, he done paid part of the money, everything, but y'all said that he couldn't plat it because of that little bit of RUD that used to be on a frontage road or something that they did away with.

Do you remember, Tom?

A plat is a division of land. And this year, we were hoping that once we got it passed, then he could continue through.

So whether he's combining or he's dividing, the same principle applies.

He's not dividing anything. Let's be real clear.

He's purchasing it, and the part that he's purchasing just happens to have a little slither from an old roadbed.

There is a property owner that owns property that is 16 acres. Less than an acre of it is RUD, which is close to where the access point is. So it's one parcel. It's owned by one person. All they're trying to do is sell it. He's trying to buy it from this guy. And he is being told that staff will not allow him to do that because he cannot get a plat. They will not allow him to purchase the property because he cannot get a plat because it shows as split zoned on the map. So he can't even buy that property. And it's one parcel. One owner, split zone.

The guy that's trying to sell it is trying to subdivide it though. No, he's not. No, he's not.

All he's trying to do is buy it.

Buy the whole piece of property. That is already one piece of property. Well, he can buy both pieces.

No, he can't. He will not.

The county staff does not get involved in land transactions.

That's not accurate.

If you could have the property owner please call me. I'm happy to discuss the situation further with them.

OK. Let's do that. Let's clarify that split zone issue, that one issue.

So Jonathan, again, I'm trying to envision the real value of this. Instead of taking each individual case and kind of streamlining every time we have somebody coming to us with an individual case such as these two, as opposed to something as more broad sweeping on here. Again, I'm not seeing the value of this, again, because they'll have to come back in and do a zoning change if they want to do a zoning change on an existing property that they, for example, put together. I'm just not seeing how this is so valuable as opposed to if we have individuals coming to us with specific usage issues that we streamline that individual process as opposed to making this sweeping change. Again, I want to hear why it's so valuable.

so so maybe just a couple things and maybe tom couch our assistant manager can jump in here a little bit and explain some of these situations what i want to remind y'all is yes there's one or two that this is occurring to right now in recent history but as staff we're really trying to lower the number of rezonings that come in front of y'all because you gave us that direction so with that direction we went to the planning and zoning committee and had multiple conversations about different ideas and all those ideas are in front of y'all at different stages in this agenda and so this is one of those ideas where we're really trying to help lower the number of rezonings and the frustrations that people feel when they're trying to combine lots and so we think this is a good idea if y'all don't you know then we can we can send it back to committee but i would say like this is this came from a good place from staff and the planning and zoning committee and and so i would want tom to speak to the one of the more recent examples maybe for for context but but we're more than willing to make any changes y'all want so i just want to make sure y'all know but to your point though you know we still based on the example

we would still have to do a hearing on a reason. That doesn't change. It doesn't change. So instead of making the sweeping move, I'm trying to understand why we would do that as opposed to just streamlining our individual process when people come to us on these individual items. Because we're still going to have to hear a zoning request change based on this new change. I mean, that doesn't go away. So it doesn't take time away from us.

Would it have to be an administrative change? It would be an administrative change. It wouldn't come before us. No, it would still have to come to us.

No, they're saying it doesn't change the zoning.

It doesn't change the zoning. But you don't have to rezone if you just want to build a house.

But you do if it... it implicates a new development that includes development on the split zone portion of the property. I mean, what this does is only, I mean, in the ordinance itself, it says for a lot divided by multiple districts, the greater portion of the parcel applies to the remainder for the purpose of applications for new development only. It doesn't change the fundamental underlying problem, which is there's split zoning. It's still a split zone.

Well, then why don't we include the zoning changes then? So if AGC is the largest of the two, then it becomes AGC, unless the property owner wants to come to us and ask to rezone the AGC to RUD, because that's the minority share of acres.

Yeah, but when I made that comment, I was not wanting to add that part that you don't have to come for rezoning, because that rezoning piece is critical. That's critical. So no, I would never... support which i mean again just hearing this i'm not again i'm i i don't i mean having them come to us for rezoning is absolutely critical and that is in there so again i hand it to you but i'm not seeing the value of it again as opposed to them us streamlining individuals coming to us with needs so but we're saying you could be permitted to

i guess the question i have is let's say let's say your part that you have a parcel that's split zoned what's the highest density residential zoning we have rmx6 rmx6 so let's say a parcel is rmx6 and agc i don't think we have any of those but Do we have, I mean, do we have that analysis of the 850 just to see?

We have an aggregate analysis, but we don't have a table with all 1,100. I mean, we could certainly produce that, but no, RMX 6 is a brand new district, so that's only been applied in instances where a council has rezoned.

Okay, let's take the next one then. What's the next highest? Let's say you have a parcel currently that is zoned, what, RMX 10? Yes, ma'am. rmx 10 and agc if that parcel is 60 rmx 10 and 40 agc then we're automatically saying that we're going to treat it like the higher density According to what's in front of us now, right?

Yes, for the purposes of building on that one lot.

So it's automatically higher density, and this ordinance on this parcel, if they come, it automatically goes to the higher density, and this ordinance allows that individual to purchase property next door to it. And now combine that and then also use that same logic to put the same issue in front of them. Like you can now purchase the property next door, and as long as the majority is the higher density, they get the benefit of the higher density even though the rest of the property is not for the analysis.

No, no, no.

We allow recombining under this.

Right, so when you do density, it's based on the average for an entire project. It's the number of dwelling units created per acre. When you're developing a single lot, you're going to have one home on it, unless it's an apartment or a condominium. and those are not allowed in rmx 10 so you can only ever build one home on that lot regardless of how many acres it was and how many districts it had on it you can only ever build one so density is really not a part of the equation we're talking about a single lot one parcel correct talking about one parcel in this particular parcel

The parcel shall apply, the greatest portion shall apply to the entire parcel. So if 51% of the property is higher density, RMX 10, then this ordinance, as it's written and presented to council, is that all of the 49 other acres would be viewed as being RMX 10 for purposes of any new development plan.

Or when you're referring to the code about what's allowed to be where.

I'm just saying what this rights and what the potential outcome, and it also allows for residential, for folks to purchase adjacent property, combine it, and now say, okay, well, if this parcel is still 50% more, we're gonna still use the same logic of the higher density.

Yeah, and you're still talking about which rules apply for when I build my house, where does it go?

It's not just your house. It's any application for new development. It says we're going to apply the higher density for the application for new development.

No, no, no. So when you subdivide the property, now those are all new lots. So each lot has to follow the rules of the district that it's in. So if you've got the example of RMX 10 and AGC, and you're going to subdivide those 100 acres, every lot that you create that's in AGC has to be five acres so it's maintaining that density and the same thing for any of the uh new lots that might be created in rmx 10 they're allowed to go as small as 10 000 square feet i'm just looking at the way it's written split zone lots the district governing the greater portion of the parcel shall apply to the remainder of the parcel Yes, but when you subdivide it, now it's multiple parcels. So each individual parcel carries the zoning that's on that parcel.

I don't see what we're fixing. I don't see what we're fixing. If we have a split zone parcel and we're saying we don't like split zone, we aren't changing the zoning, we aren't fixing anything. Any other questions for staff? We do have a public hearing we need to get to.

Well, the that's in mind. We can talk about this defer whatever the issue in my mind. I'd like to make a motion right now that we do a capital rezoning and allow that man to do his thing quiet.

Well, I think I think we need to figure out the solution to that. But that motion is not. We would need to figure out the proper place to make that motion. Are there any other questions for staff before we open up the public hearing? Thank you, Jonathan. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak against this rezoning ordinance?

Are we more confused or less confused after all that? I'm more confused.

Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in favor?

Motion to close public hearing. Second.

We have a motion and a second to close public hearing. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none. Public hearing is closed. At this point in time, we have one of our members who was very vocal who has left us for a minute. I mean, we can try to race ahead, but then we still have third reading, so I don't know what that accomplishes.

should be back in a second if we want to go into discussion after we make a motion and second it, assuming we have that, so we can keep moving.

I mean, if anyone wants to make a motion.

I think with all the back and forth, I think we need to defer this till we can clear up something before we even move off. Is that in the form of a motion? That's in the form of a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

We have a motion and a second to defer second reading while we gather additional information. Any discussion on that motion?

At this point, I'd just assume keep it status quo. It doesn't sound like that would be the easiest thing. And instead of making it easier for the property owners to be able to come in and be able to build a house or a barn or garage or whatever on a piece of property, they'll just have to come and get rezoned like they do. And you can still buy and sell property, you just can't combine it into one parcel. So if somebody wants to buy the neighboring parcel, they just own two pieces of property. It doesn't have to be combined.

They're going to be treated differently.

I think part of the problem is that there is some hiccup, and folks aren't being allowed to sell and purchase the property because of the defect in the split zoning. And so I don't know that we're solving that problem. But the motion on the table is to defer until the next council meeting. Any other discussion on that? All those in favor? 12. I'm sorry? The motion on the, I'm sorry? The next council meeting.

Is that your motion?

To the next council meeting. The motion on the table currently is to defer second reading to the next council meeting. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right. Item number two, council.

So can I ask a quick question? So between this meeting and our next council meeting, what will the seven of us learn, and how are we going to learn more about what we're reading in our packet? How do we come in here informed differently than we are right now?

I think we should, if I have a question, I need to reach out to Jonathan to let Jonathan clear it up with me personally. Whoever has a question, go directly to staff. That's one way. That's what I want to do. Can I break it down a little better for you?

think for purposes of how we address it any questions that council has obviously we've asked a number of them here so if staff and management can identify what those questions are and help get answers to those and I think it's always helpful any any council member who asked additional questions for y'all to be able to provide that at least a week before the next council meeting agenda but before the next council meeting occurs so folks can be prepared

does that work yeah i guess i mean my concern is this went through committee and it came from committee as a recommendation through your committee is that correct yeah and so now tonight the rest of us other than reading through our packets and understanding as much as we could from reading through the packets and then asking questions um we should be able to make a decision tonight but yet we're not we're going to defer something else to another meeting And it does appear that one of the issues might be the density issue. But I think Jonathan cleared that up. I know we're going to defer it, so it doesn't really matter. I'm concerned about how are you going to learn more about this question so you can come in informed and make a decision at the next meeting.

Josh, do you have any other ideas about, I mean, obviously we've already voted. We've moved to defer it because there's a number of questions.

So Tom, Jonathan, and I heard everything you all shared. We're more than willing to have conversations with you all in between. I think we're two weeks away from when you would want a response. I would just encourage you all to let us know what we can do to help. uh you know the other alternative is it goes back to committee but we're we're just trying to help so we want to we want to make this work and we'll answer any questions you'll have and we'll we'll try to bring something that that that y'all think addresses your concerns but in two weeks time that might be difficult if we don't hear from you so i would just encourage you all to reach out

Madam Chair, what if we had three to five examples of zoning? You mentioned the RMX 10 and AGC. Go ahead. Yes, ma'am.

Well, I just think that the ordinance itself could be posed a little more simply. And to your point, three or four examples given at that time. Could you make it a little more simple? Not so much legalese. Let's let the common folk understand it a little better.

I think I understand your objective.

We tried to make that night during the meeting that it was not in this form. I think we talked about things and when we talk about them, it's like, yeah, that makes sense. And that's really good. Then we get this and this is very confusing. And so I think you could get that straightened out, okay?

Yes, ma'am. And with ordinance construction, obviously the objective is to try to convey things in the simplest terms possible, but having that balancing act, it is a legal document and folks are constantly trying to poke holes in your legal documents, right, and try to find loopholes and ways to get around things. to some degree it does need to be in some legalese format, for lack of a better term, but if there are areas that might help clarify the ordinance, if you could point those out to us and we'll try to smooth out the language to make it a little more understandable.

Okay, and then, like Watts said, possibly three or four examples of that would be helpful.

Would that help everybody?

Tom? Have you got a comment?

I was thinking outside of the box, but that can be dangerous. As we come up with such examples, maybe we can look at all of the analytical questions that you discussed today. I don't know if it would run afoul of South Carolina zoning laws. or zoning enabling, but maybe there are circumstances where you could allow some administrative discretion or judgment. We'd have to dive into that and we'd have to have some of those good concrete examples if they were legal. But I do recall when we were going through the process during the P&Z committee, correct me if I'm wrong, Jonathan, but we did some comps with other communities And my recollection was, as we were assessing those comps, we've kind of landed where the approach to split zoning, not majority rules, but plurality rules, the greatest portion of the lot, seemed to be the more common thread with communities of our size or counties. Was that your recollection? Correct me if I'm wrong.

So there are a number of different approaches. There's the 80-20 rule that some places use that if you're zoning the area of your property is in 80% or more of a single district, then that district overrides the rest of the property. There's the plurality rules approach that we've discussed here tonight. There is And I think that most jurisdictions are more or less silent on split zoning because they might have some split zoning here and there, but it's not as prevalent as it is here in York County. So a lot of communities and probably the majority of communities haven't addressed it at all, which is not helpful for our purposes.

And I'll also say in the one example we've been speaking about this evening with the 16-acre parcel, that's kind of a difficult one, my recollection. Again, if I'm correct, it was approximately an 80-acre property overall. The individual wanted to sell a single parcel of 16 acres and a very small portion of it, I think, eight-tenths of an acre in the split zone and you need to have one acre to put a house on or anything like that but for the ease of sale you know this would benefit this particular individual in this particular circumstance but we have a thousand of these kinds of parcels or situations and I think I can appreciate wanting to do a little bit more due diligence and to complement what the county manager said if you can give us specific questions as early as you can this week we will be glad to attack them so we can If you're going through with the deferral, we can try to address this at the next meeting.

Okay, item number two, public hearing. Council will hold a public hearing and consider first reading of an ordinance to amend chapter 155 zoning code subchapter C use regulations to add trade services to the general commercial zoning district as well as adding building material and supply stores, farm and garden supply with equipment sales and service, vehicle service repair and customization without overnight outdoor storage, parking areas and motor vehicle, recreational vehicle or boat storage to the industrial zoning designation to provide for public hearing and to provide for other matters relating thereto.

Yes. Thank you. Like I said, we're working on another project that came from the Planning and Zoning Committee and got recommended by the Planning Commission. And we're adding or changing the status of some of the use table FOR THESE PARTICULAR ITEMS. WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT DISTRICTS WE'RE WORKING IN. WE'RE WORKING IN THE ID DISTRICT, AND THERE WERE SEVERAL USES THAT WERE SUGGESTED THAT MIGHT FIT INTO THAT DISTRICT. BUILDING MATERIAL SUPPLIES, FARM AND GARDEN SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT SALES, VEHICLE STORAGE, REPAIR, PARKING, MOTOR VEHICLE RECREATION, BOAT STORAGE. Conditional for motor vehicle recreational boat storage and that just gives you some guidance on how to design the site best to support that use The commercial district we want to add trade services there's an option there Like I said, this is both recommended by the Committee in and the Commission to do this and this is how your table would look after adoption of that

So as I understand it, this is simply allowing uses permitted. I mean, industrial is like the most understating classification that exists, right?

Yeah, hopefully it has the largest buffers and concerns for things that might have negative externalities, the heaviest.

All of these uses are allowed. Somewhere else in the code, this simply allows it in the industrial sector? Correct. OK. Does anybody have any questions?

Yeah, I have one question. So as I read through this, it mentions no overnight storage. And I get that for RV, boat. But if you've got a vehicle repair shop or equipment sales and service, there will be overnight outdoor storage. So you must not mean that.

There's another category that has the overnight storage. It's already in the district. This was kind of hanging out there and was recommended to move it into the district. And the only difference is with the storage out night, there's some districts you might not want storage out overnight. And that's probably why you have this iteration. Otherwise, it was all storage outside.

Make sure I understand then. So if you have a business that's doing vehicle repair, they're going to have to store the vehicles inside.

No, there's another category for that district to allow the outdoor storage. This would just add this language to it. It seems unnecessary, but since we added it without overnight storage, it's a particular specific use, we want to address it. Otherwise, we'd make it go away.

Okay. Yes, sir. Does this address mixed use as far as when it comes to indoor storage and outdoor storage at the same location?

That would be fine. It would be all considered outdoor storage. I don't think we would mind the indoor storage at all.

So there's not. It would be allowed either way. OK. Because I thought we had, we ran into an issue with that a little ways back where there was outdoor and indoor proposed and there was some requirements under each but it sounds like that has been addressed if i'm hearing that correctly yeah you would address that if you had to um i think we might have the problem that you didn't have the outdoor storage in a certain district and it wouldn't be allowed and if you have the outdoor storage okay so you can combine them and if i'm here sure thank you any other questions for staff before we open the public hearing

Thank you, sir. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak against this rezoning change?

I apologize for being this late. I was taking care of grandbabies all day in Spartanburg, so just now got here. So I missed the first discussion in person, but I was listening on the way home or way back to your comments on the first ordinance. And I want to thank you for taking some time to revisit this. I was pretty concerned about what I read about all of this in my research from Friday morning or Friday afternoon when we heard about what was going to be on the agenda. And so these two ordinances did concern me as well as many of my friends and neighbors who have been kind of paying more close attention to what's going on in this building. My biggest concern about both of those these 2 ordinances is whether or not. They are stripping the public. Ability to. To have some input. I feel like from what I've read. It changes the options for if you do these things, then the public has no, what's the word I'm trying to say? They have no right to come in and speak or come in here as a public hearing. There's no notice to the public. It's just a done deal. I need clarification on that. I want to know if these two ordinances pass the way they are written, if that is the case, if all public input is bypassed. I don't know about you, but I feel like all of our freedoms and liberties that we have in this country are gradually getting whittled away. where our democracy is founded on the people and the people having something to say. And that's my concern. And if you can prove to me that that is not going to be the case, that when you make these changes on the zoning and on the land use, that the people will have a notification and there will be public hearings and we will not forego our right to have a say in what you're doing, then I would be a lot more open to what you're trying to do. I'm going to admit that Driving over here and listening to that whole conversation was pretty confusing, so and I don't think I'm the only one that was confused, but I appreciate you taking the time to think about it again and spend some more time to get it. Get it clarified because you guys all had questions as well, but the bottom line on both of these that I don't really. I don't. I didn't really see or hear and I think. Councilwoman Cox was asking the same question that was in my mind is, who benefits from these ordinances? What good are they? Who's going to be the beneficiary of doing this? And it doesn't seem to be... The residents, because if we lose the ability to come in here and speak and let you know what we think and have our our thoughts and ideas open with the public hearing benefit, then then it's certainly not the residents of York County who's benefiting. So that's the other thing. Tell me that we're not going to lose our ability to come in and have some public dialogue and then also tell me who is the actual person or persons or entity or company or whoever it is that's going to benefit by these two ordinances. I guess that's all I have to say.

Thank you. Before you leave, can you state your name and give your address?

Oh, I'm sorry. Chris Thompson, 345 Vanderlakes Drive, York. Thank you, ma'am. All right. Thank you.

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition to this rezoning change? Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor?

Motion closed. Public hearing. Second.

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

Second.

Motion and a second to approve. Any discussion?

Yes. Or did you want to go ahead first?

Well, I'll explain how at least a lot of these came up. These uses are allowed in a lot of the lower zoning classes. So it only made sense to be able to include them in these. I mean, you can already put a chemical manufacturing plant or a petroleum plant or a landfill or anything else in ID. So adding a farm and garden supply to ID not a more intensive. We're actually allowing less intensive uses in an ID which gives property owners an opportunity to use their property until such time that they can maybe sell it to somebody that wants to use it for ID and we don't lose our ID zoning areas for people wanting to rezone them for lesser uses.

in the ordinance prior to this, and I think in this one, I don't think a public hearing has been taken away. It does say provide for a public hearing in that one, and I don't think that our intent was to take away the public hearing for this. Dwight, Jonathan?

All of the uses, I guess, all of the uses that we're now allowing permitted or conditional in industrial. Were they allowed by any other method prior to this, or was it just not allowed, these uses not allowed?

Conditionally, I think.

Yeah, so any of the uses listed here that have the bold P with the underline, if someone were to pursue that right now on property that's zoned industrial, that category is blank, and they would not be able to do that use there.

It's blank, it's not a special exception or anything like that? Correct. Blank, okay.

But their only option would be to come and rezone the property to a different district that did allow that use. And by this change, they would be able to pursue that type of project for those listed here in the industrial development by right.

Thank you, sir. So as long as I'm if I'm hearing this correctly, again, as looking at this thing, we we've got some items that would normally be in light industrial and they're going to end up being in industrial. I think that is that what you're saying on this?

So this ordinance has drafted only as it doesn't subtract. So it adds trade services to GC, and it adds the other uses listed there, building materials, supply, farm and garden, vehicle service, parking areas. All of those are added to industrial development as a permitted use.

If that was the case in this situation, if it's allowed in there, we wouldn't end up having a public hearing if it's already in that code. But I guess as you look at this, these items here I see would be, as you were stating, lesser impact in industrial than some of the stuff that's obviously in industrial. Okay, but again, I do want to clarify that point a little bit. All right, thank you. Appreciate it.

Any other discussion? So this is first reading. I have to agree. I mean, in this particular case, I don't see where there's been any public hearing that's been removed. It simply allows uses that are permitted in other districts to apply, I mean, to apply in industrial, which is one of the most I mean, owners, it would seem like some folks who who live beside industrial would would welcome a farm and garden supply equipment sales before something else that's allowed in there. So this simply allows allows that all is a fair state. I opposed hearing on motion carries. Move now to our third public hearing. Am I right? Third public hearing item. Rezoning action council to hold a public hearing and consider first reading case number 26-15. There is no tax map number says ashdowns cold Creek Pike you place in town square community CTM exhibit is that something that needs to be fixed or we go with that description. I'll let you tell me this is a rezoning from our next 1020 in G C U D and PD to our next 6 and district 7.

Yeah, good evening. This is a continuation of our Council initiative rezoning to take the townhome communities that we've identified and put them in RMAC 6. There are no tax prep numbers because we don't want you to have to read some 360 tax prep numbers here. But we are rezoning Colt Creek, Ash Downs, Pikeview Place, and Town Square. So just to reiterate, our next six was created with recode in 2022 and is the only district that currently allows townhomes. So the intention of this is to apply the appropriate use dimensional and developmental standards to these properties. Now that that zone is created, it's not going to have any effect on the manner in which these properties are currently used. So again, they occupy a bunch of different zoning districts and Future Land Use has them as neighborhood residential. Staff recommends approval and Planning Commission also unanimously requested approval.

Thank you, sir. Any questions for staff? Not hearing any questions, thank you. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak against this rezoning change? Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor?

We would close. Second. Second.

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

Make a motion to approve. Second.

Motion and a second to approve. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. Item number four, I will let folks know that this request, resigning request, was withdrawn from the applicant. However, because the county publicizes public hearings in advance of when we can take these things off of the applicant, agenda we allow individuals to continue to speak however there really is nothing to speak out about because the application has been withdrawn but you're entitled to that right so at this point is there anyone who is here who wants to speak on this item that the applicant has removed Seeing none, one approach.

Do we have a motion to close? Motion to close public hearing. Second.

Motion and second to close public hearing. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, public hearing is closed and there's no need to take action because it has been withdrawn. We do not have any old business. We start with our first item of new business. Council to adopt a resolution directing the York County Planning Commission to conduct studies related to the imposition of a development impact fee applicable within the geographic area of York School District and associated with public education facilities for K through 12, considered necessary for the proper education of children within the school district in accordance with the South Carolina Development Impact Fee. to recommend a capital improvements plan and to recommend a resulting impact fee ordinance related thereto. Do we have any comments from management?

yes similar to the last time we had an impact being in front of us this is to kick things off this is the the first step and so as you all are aware i shared the the letter when i received it the chair received it this is york school district one asking y'all county council for the opportunity to begin this process so this is in front of you tonight to have that discussion all right do we have a motion

Second motion in a second to approve any discussion.

Well, I just hope that we're not wasting their time with this.

Any other discussion? I'll just reiterate that this is, in order to start the process and to do the evaluation, the first step is to create a resolution that then this goes to the planning commission. My understanding is that an expert has already been retained to take a look at the matter holistically. I'm not sure what the capital needs are that are being looked at or requested, but my understanding is the planning commission and planning staff will also have access to provide any other information through that process. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. Item number two in new business, council to consider authorizing the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources to explore and begin due diligence regarding potential construction of a school, a public shooting range at Worth Mountain Park within established wildlife management area of the property. Anything for management?

Yes, so Catherine Jones, our Parks and Recreation Director, is here as well as a representative from Diener in case you all have questions. But this is an opportunity that was presented to us that I think is a good opportunity to think about in terms of Worth Mountain. And Diener has brought a great opportunity and is willing to help fund this. And they have grants to do that. And then they would also run the operations of the shooting range. So this is seemingly a great opportunity for the Worth Mountain area. But we're here to discuss that tonight with y'all if you have any questions.

Do y'all want to share something before we start? Or are you just here to answer questions from council?

We're just here to answer questions. I think Mr. Manager kind of covered the briefing part of it.

OK. Do we have a, do we want to start with a motion? Yeah, to approve. Yeah, second. Motion and a second. Do we have any discussion?

Yeah, I do have a question or two. So what is the length of the range? What are you looking at?

The length of the range. The length of it.

I'm going to let Captain . So the proposed range that we have currently would be a 100-yard rifle range, a 25-yard pistol range. And then we would also be building a two skeet and trap fields and a five stand. The skeet and trap fields would be unique because you have a lot of schools in your area who are participating in our use of elastic clay program. That gives them a facility to practice that they currently don't have. the actual footprint is right now on a guesstimate on that part of because we would be doing additional land survey study and topography to really hone in the exact measurements sounds good just let me know when the tour is any other discussion questions

Yes, we'll hit Andy Councilman. No, I'd send an email over to you today asking if there are any opportunity for the county to generate revenue off of this to offset our expenses or your expenses.

They have certain regulations and I'll let Captain speak to that.

Okay.

The federal funding that would help fund this project. We are not allowed to generate program and income. It is for public access. So the rifle in the pistol range are free to the public. We would charge a nominal fee for clays and then we offset that small fee. We do not generate revenue per the federal grant. We offset that to operational and maintenance costs.

I do have a piggyback question. Do you guys support leads? We do not. Okay.

That is not an SCDNR range. All right. Very good. Thank you.

And also, which I've talked to several DNR already, which explained to them that the range is being strategically put in there, and there's no neighboring farms or houses that have to be concerned with anything. Okay.

We've identified this as a good, obviously, rural. There's not homes that would be affected by this. You'll see that in the packet that was provided, we will also do sound studies in that area for any homes, any geographical. We conduct all of the necessary requirements to make sure that there is no effect. So yes, sir, it's been identified. Ideally, we would build it on land that we own and not Go through the county, but in this instance, this is the best area in York County we've identified to build this range.

And I just want to add one thing. I mean, we're coming before you today really just for approval to move forward. There's a lot of due diligence that has to take place. And we will come back before council with an actual lease agreement once they move forward in the due diligence, make sure that the site is adequate for the shooting range, so on and so forth.

All I can say is this is why the property was conserved, was to be able to be used by the public, and what better way to use it than to have DNR, who's experienced in this, manage it, fund it, oversee it, provide the security and all of that. I think this is an exciting thing, especially as you mentioned, a lot of our schools are now engaging in competitive shooting. I think this is a great opportunity. The only question I had was, if there are questions from the public, who should they ask those questions to? And you explained a little bit about the process, but this will come back before council. Will it be solely a leasing arrangement, or will it be with all the, give me a little help on the process, so if the public wants to ask questions, how they do that.

Sure, and Laura, correct me if I'm wrong with anything, but I think the idea would be we would, yes, come back before council with the lease agreement. And I would say if the public has any questions, they can certainly start with my office, the Parks and Recreation Office, and we can coordinate with Captain Charlotte on any questions that we can't answer if it gets into the specifics of the shooting range. And I would say if they're looking for information specific to the shooting range, DNR has a website that has all their rules listed, and this shooting range would operate in the same capacity as the ones that they already operate across the state.

And if I ain't mistaken, they would like to request that it be at least a 20-year lease for the required amount of money being spent.

For the federal grant to be approved that we would apply for to make this project come to fruition, we need that lease agreement in place. Of course, as Katherine alluded, there are several steps to it. So there is environmental compliance on the property, certain things that have to be met that we will go through that process. And once we know that it is the viable range and that is the exact location and that it meets all of the federal requirements as well as environmental and also any requirements by the county, then we'll be ready to move forward.

Does DNR supply a safety trainer there on site?

Yes, so it would be managed and operated by us. We would set designated hours and we would have a range safety officer at all times during open hours at the facility. Yes, sir.

Also, we do have a current South Carolina DNR employee that is housed out of Worth Mountain through their wildlife management area as well. So we do have representation there in that. Although these will be two separate items, we do already have DNR representation there.

Yeah, because basically, the DNR, they take care of everything, basically, but about the driveway going in. Yeah, y'all do a great job.

Now would like to remind there is you know the 200 acres that we have pulled out that the question trails have been constructed on those will not be impacted by the shoot.

And they're not near it. So correct. Good job. There is our over 1600 acres over there and worth mountain right now. So any other questions or comments from Council. Great addition. The current motion on the table is to approve. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion is approved. Thank you very much.

Thank you, council. Thank you for your time.

Item number 3, a new business counts to consider authorizing the additional expenditure of 1,000,055,000 in your County forever Commission funds to the nation for land trust for expenses related to the purchase of development rights. Approximately 120 acres along Kings mountain Street, New York tax map number 0, 7, 0, 0, 2, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, and 0, 70. That's a weird number. Contingent upon completion of the currently anticipated sale of the parcels and upon contemporaneous recordation of conservation easement project number 25-03 in District 3. Do we have a motion?

Motion to approve, second.

We have a motion and a second to approve any discussion.

yeah um were you able to get the uh total amount of funds in the uh yoke county favor yes so i pulled a a spreadsheet from the budget process so this is as of may and i know trish is here and jonathan are here so they could share his more updated number but at the end during 2026 during the budget process there was an estimated $2.3 million in fund balance. I don't know if you all have a more exact number for today, but that was where we were at when we were developing the budget.

So that's $2.3, and then there's an additional $500,000 that has already been approved because of the quarter mill that goes into this year's budget.

Right. So I think when that was estimated, and staff, correct me if I'm wrong, it was getting close to $2.8 million if you round it up.

Yeah, that was gonna be my next question. How much is slated to go in? It's 500, gotcha.

Yeah, so the estimate of a quarter of a mill is $492,500. But I think we can also provide that later if you all want to talk more about that.

Okay, any other discussion?

Yeah, I'd just like to say that while I agree with this project, I don't agree with this amount of money. I think it's an extremely large waste for this particular use. At the May 12th presentation, the project was already said they were putting 80 of the acres in a conservation easement, and 15 acres were already developed. They already had the $4 million for the purchase of the property. um and they were requesting a million dollars for renovations and upgrades from us at the july 15 2025 york county forever meeting uh 39 000 was allocated to buy a conservation easement on this property so we could save this property for forty thousand dollars instead of one million and fifty five thousand dollars No need in buying development rights from a land conservation entity when we can get a conservation easement cheaper. Nothing against the group, but I also don't believe in just handing out a million dollars to a group with no plan or accountability. What if they fold it up tomorrow, a million dollars is just gone. and as part of all of that uh since 2015 2015 to 2024 we have our york county forever has saved 6 866 acres through conservation easements at a cost of 827 000 so for a million dollars we can save 6 800 or 6 800 acres instead of 120 acres Much less that, since we're just talking about Worth Mountain, there's 550 acres for sale next door to Worth Mountain for $2.5 million. We could get a conservation easement on that or purchase it to expand our current property so we can get almost quadruple the amount of land for the same amount, for double. I just don't agree with the $1 million.

Any other discussion? I certainly support this. I think that one of the things that I loved was Pierre Langevin coming and explaining to, and I think the community needs to be very well aware, the only way, without taking people's property rights, the only way that we as a county preserve our farmlands and preserve our acreage is to actually do things like York County Forever. What is a little disappointing, and I'm one of the biggest staunchest conservatives you can get and don't agree with tax increases, but the only amount that we allow to go to York County Forever is a quarter of a mil. We do at least eight or nine mils for our library and commensurate amount with our museums. if the community is serious about, and I do think they are, everybody that comes to me, and if you look at the comments that come to us, folks are very interested in us conserving property and putting it to use by the community. I think when you have a situation where you're only doing a quarter of a mil, which is now about $500,000, and you have banked up $2.8 million. We need to start putting together a plan. I think it would be great for our council to have a joint meeting with York County Forever and let's talk through what is the plan. How do we make sure that when we do conservation, it's throughout the county? Because right now, even tonight, we not only did this, if this gets approved tonight, we not only are approving that, but we approved a consent agenda, 429 acres being conserved on the western side of the district. for considerably $250,000. Now, the price of land is going up. This particular parcel is directly in the heart of York, and this particular project is like none other. It is going to, while the funding source is similar in that the development rights are just worth more because that property is worth more. This is gonna allow that property to preserve the buildings that existed there and also to be put to good use for the purposes of agriculture for children, access to programming and processes, which is exactly what York County Forever was designed to do I think the fact that the state has committed substantial funding to this project indicates a Need for us to do this and not only that I think our state in order to have matches for state funding The county does have to step up and to contribute commensurate with that and so I do think that this is this is a worthwhile project. I think this this is exciting I think that this is going to be a gem in The city and the city of York as well has has stepped up to the plate to help make this project successful as well So I support it all those in favor say aye any opposed opposed motion carries six to one Item number four Council to provide first reading by title only of an ordinance authorizing the first amendment of that certain fee in lieu of taxes agreement by and between York County, South Carolina, and BAC, Calaire, Rock Hill, LLC, and Paladins, Inc., relating to, without limitation, one, updating the fee agreement to reflect an assessment ratio of 6% instead of four, and two, to remove Paladins, Inc. as a party to the agreement and other matters related thereto.

Motion to approve. Second. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Is there anything, I mean, I know that this is simply to, this amendment doesn't create any new incentive agreement. It modifies an existing one and allows an individual, well, one of the entities out of, that didn't come to fruition out It does increase the tax rate from four to six and it's my understanding that everything is in compliance under this agreement and there's no issue with this one. This is simply to reflect the current status. Is that?

That is correct. They also have a representative here if there are any specific questions tied to the agreement or where it stands beyond what's on your agenda.

Any questions? All right. Thank you. Motion on the table is to approve. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Item number five.

Actually, am I missing five?

I just skipped it. Council to consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution and delivery of an amendment to the existing fee in lieu of tax agreement between York County and Pratt, Rock Hill Corrugating LLC and SP Rock Hill Legacy East number two LLC, the fee agreement to provide for certain clarifications regarding the roles and responsibilities of Pratt LLC and the property owner, to add the property's legal description, to add clarifying provisions inadvertently omitted from the fee agreement, and to provide for other matters related thereto.

Motion to approve. Second.

I have a motion and a second. Is there anything from management? Anything intended to provide? Again, as my understanding, these revisions do not change the approved incentive terms or anything related to that. This is simply... Is this the assignment? I'm sorry. I want to make sure. I do like the idea. And one of the things that the council has been very intentional about is making sure that we do all of these things with our fellows publicly and so putting them on new business. But Mitch, if you can just share with us anything

Yeah, absolutely. So this was an agreement that was voted and approved by Council October 6th, 2025. The landlord in Pratt have asked that since we are a party to that agreement, that we make minor revisions that essentially state that Pratt will be the responsible party for reporting tied to job creation and investment. That was part of their lease structure, and both parties wanted that included in the field agreement as well. Outside of some very minor changes to the property description. On that, it's very small, and the fact that we're part of that agreement, we're bringing it forward for your office's consideration tonight.

So it doesn't change the obligations? It does not, no.

Their investment, their job creation, everything remains the same. I will say this, that they're moving along really well with their investment in job creation as it stands right now.

Thank you, sir. Any other questions? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing no, motion carries. Item number six, council to consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution and delivery of an amendment to an existing fee in lieu of tax agreement by and between York County, South Carolina, SL8 Industrial Acquisition LP to provide for the assignment and assumption of a FLO agreement to SL8 Class A Industrial LP to clarify the legal description of the property and to provide for other matters related thereto.

Much to prove second motion in a second.

Anything from it also notes on here that this again this one is in compliance to transfer does not modify the existing incentive agreement for the project's obligations and benefits.

That's correct. So this was a speculative development where they would just build a spec building with the intent to, I guess, attract the company to the building. So it was only investment driven. There was no job creation tied to this field at that time in 2016 when it was approved. The investment amount was $7.68 million, and that has been met.

Thank you, sir. Any other questions? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Hearing none, motion carries. Move now to item number seven, counts to consider authorizing staff to apply and to accept, if awarded, a South Carolina Coordinating Council economic set-aside grant C264230 for Project Blue Mako. No local match is required. Just for purposes of providing information, this is a $22.6 million project with 59 new jobs. And for purposes of our agenda tonight, the only thing that is being requested is that the prospective be allowed to apply for state grants, which they're entitled to do, and they have to go through the county council in order to do that. So this is their application for state grant incentives. Is that correct?

That is correct. I think you hit all the highlights of that project, so thank you. We are a pass-through agency, so South Carolina Coordinating Council is considering offering this grant to the company as they make their decision if they're going to locate in Rock Hill and Gord County. what they are asking for from us is essentially to allow approval of the county manager to sign their application that we're willing to be the pass-through agency in the event they are awarded that grant.

And just to be clear, this has nothing to do with county incentives. This is purely to allow them to take advantage of the tax benefits that the state offers.

That is correct.

Thank you. Is there any questions?

We welcome those 59 new jobs in the area. Absolutely. Thank you.

All those in motion to approve. Second.

Thank you, sir. We have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries. Item number eight, counts to consider authorizing staff to apply and to accept if awarded a South Carolina Coordinating Council economic set-aside grant C264219 for Project Bolt. No local matches required.

Motion to approve. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Mitch, do you want to say?

Yeah, I do think it's probably good to state this. This is looking at Fort Mill. They're looking off State View Boulevard, which is literally right at the state line behind Schaeffler. What they're looking to do is create about 70 jobs, average wage of $35.67 per hour. This would be office, which currently exists in the region, and they would be doing assembly and light manufacturing. We have worked with planning that would this would be a conforming use and light manufacturing and essentially they would be making electric components that would go into charging stations.

All right. Quick question on that. So from a chemical use, minimal to none, correct?

The only chemicals that they would have essentially at their facility would be clean pollution. That would essentially be it. Again, you're talking about circuit boards, things like that that are going to go into charging stations. and so there will be no raw materials coming in no chemicals no processing on that end essentially it's it's very i would call um very micro type assembly and manufacturing looking at electronic parts perfect we welcome those 70 jobs excellent yeah thank you sure

I spoke to them on Saturday. We had a conference call and asked the same questions, Tom. They assured me that there were no hazardous chemicals and pretty much it's assembly. And they have, their product is top of the line. It's going to be a great addition to the Fort Mill area. And I was assured that several of them are already looking at homes in our area. So that's exciting.

Once again, this is for essentially a state grant in order to apply for the state funding, state grant opportunities. They are required to come through the council as a pass-through entity. This has nothing to do with the council giving any incentives or anything. That is great.

Very similar to Blue Mako, as we just discussed.

this is allowing county manager to the ability to sign off on the application that we would be the pass-through agency for a state grant yes sir for uh bolt and blue mako since we're not doing incentives and stuff uh how will we for the public find out about their actual names uh wait until you do your announcement

Essentially, Coordinating Council's going to meet in September, and so it all is dependent on one, Coordinating Council approving the grant, and then two, both of these companies are considering the area. I am of the mindset that a project is never done until it's done. And so I do know in this case, they're looking at North Carolina in both instances, but this obviously helps them with their decision.

But I guess to to to Mister Litton's point the the issue being when will folks know exactly what the real name of this this business is because it is a state application and is per provided that in the a are you saying that disclosure of the company will become available once they pass on whether or not to approve the grant or not.

No it would not would not become available until they make an announcement that are coming to your County.

I just want to make a quick comment. I've noticed over the last several months, anytime a new company is saying they're going to come, the first question that comes up, are they have any hazardous chemicals? Companies can have hazardous chemicals, but there are MSDS, there are protocols to handle hazardous chemicals. I'm just kind of setting the stage so when we do get a company that comes here that has chemicals, I don't want it to be just because they have hazardous chemicals that it's gonna be an emphatic no, they can't come to your county because there are processes that are put in place when companies do have chemicals on site. So I don't want this council to get that kind of mundane thinking just because they have chemicals, we don't want them in York County. I don't want that to be kind of the slogan of York County Council because there are processes that these companies do put in place. I work at a company that has hazardous chemicals, dangerous chemicals, deadly chemicals. Been there over 50 years.

And those that go to industrial sites.

Thank you. I mean, I'm not speaking of any particular company in a specific site, just the mindset that we're always asking these questions. They're good questions, but don't translate that into when a company does have hazardous chemicals that we're going to say no. Just wanted to. I state that for the record.

And I think that's a great point, Councilman Roddy. I think in this instance, with it being zoned light industrial, I just wanted to make that clarification. And that's where I really want to address that. Appreciate the question from Councilwoman Conner.

Any other discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. We move now to item number nine of new business, council to consider the creation of an ad hoc agriculture committee. We have a motion.

Motion to approve. Second.

motion in a second to approve any discussion.

Yeah, I just have quick. Um, so I asked when I talked to the individuals personally, uh, about, I didn't get an answer. And so I have concerns about wasting people's time with committees. Um, the planning is on committee earlier may have been the thing, but, uh, I don't know what they're actually going to do. I mean, what items have we done recently that they would be weighing in on that's so detrimental to agriculture? And that was what I asked. What is it that they're looking for? And then my other thing was, if we let this industry have their own special committee, what other industries? Do we let every industry have their own special committee also? to weigh in on all of this stuff. I thought that the Farm Bureau and York County Water and Soil Conservation was able to provide this kind of information to us. I hate wasting people's times making committees just to have committees.

Well, I'll answer that since I'm one that's been working with management to champion kind of how we go about this. One of the things that the council has been very intentional about is making sure that we recognize the history and preservation is extremely important to the community, but also trying to do everything that we can, and this is part of our long-range discussions, is how do we preserve our farms? How do we preserve our identity as York County? How do we protect and promote one of the biggest industries that exist. I mean, Cameron got up here and shared with us just how big of an industry this is for our county and where we rank in numbers throughout the state with production. And so, In this particular instance, we all were approached by this group saying they thought it would be a benefit for their group to get together and to have participation from various entities. The way we are approaching this is a pilot program that has a very specific role and that will sunset if no additional action is taken by December of 2027. I think what we may find between now and then is that we may need to have a more permanent committee established, or that it needs to go a full ordinance route. But this was the quickest way to accomplish what the majority of council has indicated is a priority of theirs, which is to look at the farming. to address the question of what will they be looking at. I think those are spelled out in how it's being addressed to serve as an advisory role to the county and the council concerning matters related to agriculture to review proposed ordinances referred by council or planning department. to get feedback as to whether or not that has any impact on the agriculture industry, to formulate plans and make implementation recommendations to council. That includes how do we bolster the production of agriculture, agribusiness, agritourism, and agri- cultural interest in general to raise public awareness with regard to agriculture related issues and promote agriculture activities to make suggestions to council regarding agriculture land use to make recommendations regarding policy development that promote the agriculture industry to serve as an educational resource for AG related issues to report back to the council, any information related to that, and to also work with the Economic Development Board, as we have certainly directed that we spend time identifying what those issues will be. And the membership of this committee is gonna cover the Forestry Commission, the Cattlemen's Association Farm Bureau, beekeepers, York County Soil and Water Conservation, micro farming, Local York County farmers are involved in this, and we have a slate. York County Urban Farming, York County Farming Agritourism with Anne Springs, with the initial membership being Allen Abernathy, Sherry Wisher, Bailey Westbrook, Catherine Demore, Beth White, Cody Cooper, Dickie Harper, DeQuanta Stowers and John Gordon. When the committee, when the folks who reached out suggested help in creating this committee, they also were intentional about ensuring that there's membership throughout the county, so this will ensure that there's geographical participation throughout the county. So, I mean, to answer the question, I do think that this is a worthwhile effort that will be helpful. A lot of times there are things happening on the local level and at the council level that you don't have someone plugged in, but this provides a ready source for folks to take a look at and see if there are ways that we can better support our agriculture community. So there's my spiel. I think this is exciting, and I certainly support this. Mr. Rowdy?

My experience with ad hoc committees in the past have been they've gotten together for a specific type project. They were laser focused on This, I mean, what you read obviously is a much bigger perspective of what an ad hoc committee can do. Not to say that they can't do that, but it's usually in the past has been more laser focused. I remember the one we were studying about getting an agritourism facility. I think Tommy Pope headed it up. They were together. They kicked around some ideas and tried to come up with something. They were in and out in probably nine months. But if this is something that can morph into them doing other activities for us, but I think we'd probably start now. That's the whole laundry list. Maybe we can tighten it up a little bit and focus them in. I have no problem with, the community or citizens wanting to get together to take a look at things in a more in-depth way and give us some advice. I'm not sure if I want that committee advising us on zoning, because that's gonna rest with us, but that's a, that's a hefty plate to give them starting out, but I have no problem with the committee forming. I just think that's a lot on the plate just to throw at an ad hoc committee that's not a full-blown

actual board type but we'll see where it goes i'm not i'm not against it i just want to make sure that there's something specific kind of started out but and to that 20 items and to that point when we we've been talking about this for for several weeks if not months now and i think one of the questions that one of the council members raised um and i received support from i didn't i didn't receive any anyone who suggested that we not do this but that we obviously are crafting a scope for a pilot program to see how this goes. There are obviously gonna be some things that I think that they want to share with us, but to the extent that we want to refine what we're asking them to look at, one of our council members actually suggested that we look specifically or ask them to look specifically at Our I'm sorry what it was the farm farmers more farmers markets and trying to help us identify how can we how can we. Look at farmers markets throughout the county to help support the the agribusiness and so I do think that you have to create the or the organization give it enough. scope to allow it to do that. But if there are specific initiatives that council wants them to look at, I'm sure that we can certainly do that. And if someone has something specific to raise that now.

I'll be brief. I've actually worked on the Agri-Tourism Committee, co-chaired that committee. One thing that we uncovered was that obviously there are less and less farms in York County. In agriculture, we've decided as a that agriculture's a priority, it's part of our strategic plan. So if you're gonna potentially preserve agriculture long term, you gotta get the 2,000 students that are involved with agriculture actually farming. So there has to be a transition plan from those that are farming to those that may want to farm, but they don't own the land to farm. So a group like this has an opportunity to bridge the people that have the land and have been farmers, They could help teach and educate a young farmer on how to farm while the group educates them on efficient ways of farming today compared to the way we farmed in the past. That's one thing that I think is critically important. If you don't have the driver to bring this back, then it will fade away and I think it is a waste of time. Originally, when our group worked on the agritourism facility, the commissioner at the time had agreed to a state farmers market out on 161. Since then, really rethought that. And what Councilman Cox was just saying is the possibility of having certified York County farmers markets throughout the county so that wherever you live, you can get to those sources. And you would think that alone would drive our farmers to produce more product because you get more out. And maybe York County becomes the farm to table area from bees to cattle and everything in between, right? So I think the committee makes a lot of sense. It may be too broad in its scope in the beginning. Maybe we need to get more narrowly focused. But I think ultimately it's going to be beneficial to agriculture in York County.

But just a quick follow-up on there, too, because they were talking about this committee that y'all were on, Agritourism. Agritourism. So it sounds like it was successful. It worked out?

No, I won't get into the details of that. So I don't know if narrowing the scope actually helped. Do what now?

I don't know. I think on that particular initiative, it was to specifically look at an agritourism facility that never materialized. Unfortunately, it didn't. So I think just to the point of the scope, if we keep the scope broad enough, it at least can encompass it. Let's see what happens. I think the safety rails here are that it's a pilot program, and if it's not working out and we're not seeing any benefit out of it, it sunsets automatically.

Well, the biggest thing about it is we've got people on there, a lot of them that I grew up with, And that's, some of them have got your wealth of knowledge.

What I liked about this too was that, and I don't mean to interrupt you, Councilman Atkins, but the recommendations for the membership on this committee came from the group. They're the ones who had came to us and asked us to consider this, which is important.

Right. And to the answer to everybody's question, and which there's a few of us in this room that actually know, I mean, we're down to two dairy farms left. Our beef is drastically. The two major crops we got is cotton and corn, soybeans, but cotton's fading. It was the major agribusiness for our entire state. And contrary to what anybody wants to say, and you can talk about big business and this and that, when you ain't got no water and you ain't got nothing to eat, None of this other matters. So somebody better get their head together, and not just in your county, but for the whole country. because it's fading fast. Even the Secretary of Agriculture just stated that food is becoming a matter of national security.

Exactly. So I want to piggyback off Tom's comments. First of all, you know, there's one thing we all have in common. We all need food. We all need to fill our refrigerators and our freezers and support our families with the food we need. And again, it all comes, again, from these farmers. So again, I appreciate what you do, Tommy, and all the other farmers out there. So thank you. Couple things you mentioned on there, and again, that's a broad list, and it's a good list. they're gonna be looking at a lot of different opportunities, I think, for those discussions. One of the things I did wanna highlight, and I know you touched upon it, was that there's gonna be takeaways, too, that we can work also with our legislators on from a broad perspective that we're gonna take back from this committee. So I think that's really good. And just on a more localized note, in my district, I have a micro farmer that's gonna be supporting And I think, again, micro farms, I think, are unique in the opportunity how you can make a mini farm out of five or ten acres and make a living out of it. So I think there's a lot of opportunity here. I'm excited to hear the outcome and support you all.

Yeah. And if for nothing else, tell them, Dickie, since we ain't got a cell barn, they can just sit there and gossip like they used to for years.

Any other discussion? All right, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. We move now to the items from the consent agenda that were referred to. Council item number 12 counts to consider second reading of an ordinance to amend chapter 155 zoning code 155 point one one nine five replacement of non-conforming manufactured homes to permit non-conforming manufactured homes to be replaced with another manufactured home regardless of dimensions if all other applicable requirements are met to provide for public hearing and to provide for other matters relating thereto um i requested this one to be pulled out only because as we were looking at some of these other things i fully support this 100 percent um and and if somebody wants to make the motion to approve i can make my comments in the discussion motion to approve uh motion in a second to approve i think the one question i would ask in follow-up since this was in consent is does this alleviate the concern where if you don't put your mobile home, if you don't replace it within six months, then you're not allowed to do it? There was some zoning rules that prevented you from doing that. I'd like to know if this fixes that. And you don't have to do this now, Jonathan. I just want to make sure that that's looked at before we hit third reading. Does it... Do you have a question?

Okay. There is a blanket provision about non-conformities, and it's not exclusive to manufactured homes, which is why I wanted to ask. If that's a direction of council, that would be a change for all uses and not just manufactured homes. If someone ceases to utilize a non-conforming use, they lose the grandfathered status of that use. That's across the board for anything.

You're saying was that that applies. I know that there's an ordinance specific to mobile homes that if they don't do not do it within six months, it's specific to mobile homes.

So the ordinance that you're all considering second reading of would allow someone to upsize a nonconforming manufactured home. So I believe the six month provision, if it's specific to manufactured homes, that's for someone who is looking to build on a lot

they've got a they're living in a manufactured home they've got to remove it once that stick built home is completed there's a provision that allows them that flexibility but what you're mentioning with the but there was something specific to mobile I'm just asking before third reading if y'all could take a look at and make sure that they aren't targeted specifically there was some provision that I know that Council has dealt with before where if you didn't replace the mobile home I'm not aware of anything where if you have a house and nobody's lived in the house for six months that you now no longer can have the house i am familiar though with most manufactured homes being given that and so i just would ask if you would make sure to look at the zoning code and see is there an intentional prohibition from allowing one that has not been used that long from replacing it because i think somebody if they've had one before as long as the as long as the um The DHEC permits the water source for it. I certainly don't have a problem with anybody replacing it even if it's been gone for seven months or a year or something like that. And I also would ask that y'all take a look at the specific issue with the Sturgis's where there was the individual who was with the military for 30 years and he wanted to put the mobile home back where it used to be and he was prohibited from doing that because now we're saying that the road issue is now an issue which I think that should be grandfathered I'm just asking y'all to take a look at that issue and I can let Tom Tom knows what I'm talking about if y'all could revisit that before third reading and I can ask those questions I just want to make sure I made that public and made the council members aware

I was just going to point out there was language that I read through and get deeper into the details of what you all provided to us. There was language in here that actually spoke to removing one mobile home and putting a new updated manufactured home on the lot. So that kind of supports what you're saying, even if the mobile home was there ten years ago and you want to put another manufactured home on the lot, you ought to be able to, even if it's been more than six months. Yeah, that's actually in here. There's discussion of that in here and here.

So the motion on the table is to approve. And I just wanted to make sure I made those comments publicly before third reading so the council was aware. And if there's nothing to come out of it, at least y'all are aware. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries. We move now to item number 16, which is yeah i mean for purposes of clarification this is going to be item number 11 in new business but it is actually number 16 in consent council to consider awarding bid number 3033 for the construction of the bullets creek volunteer fire department building addition to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder salem builders of york sc for a total cost of 102 000 which includes the base bid of 99 000 plus a 3 000 owner allowance contingent upon county attorney review and approval I requested this be removed as did mr. Litton and another councilmember I think was also supportive of that as well in this particular case the the question is if Well, the question that I had and that I posed was if, obviously this was in the budget that was approved by council, but we did have some discussion about the fire, and would it be more appropriate to defer this at least to the next council meeting in September, the first council meeting in December, to allow a policy directive to be addressed? That was the question I had, so I don't know if you have a question before we get to a motion.

um well the uh the question i had was for the approval of the so this building is not owned by the county and so we're going to spend county funds on a building not owned by the county which is kind of an issue um and so i want to make sure that every if we approve this now is it going to put us into some type of bind if for some reason we can't get this thing on through and get the D transfer. I was told today that the fire department is willing to transfer the building over to us, but it hasn't happened. So we're approving a contract on a building that we don't own. But then the bigger question is, does the county really wanna take over a building another building to own and maintain out there that it just seems like it's opening up a bigger mess. Kind of similar to what was going on with Flint Hill and spending more money on continuing cost.

I think that just for purposes of clarifying where we are in this process, council obviously spoke during the budget about how we want to go about making sure that we establish policies and criteria before we get into whether it's a capital improvement or an equipment service or providing additional help. Every district's different. I do think my understanding from staff and putting this on the agenda was that there is some beneficial cost. Do you wanna go ahead and explain this? Probably better for you to do it. Okay. I can probably summarize it easier for you. Thank you.

So to that point, so this actually predates the budget. This bid process predated the formal adoption of the budget. And so that pricing was good really until this month. Given kind of the questions that arose throughout the budget, it was pertinent to put this on the agenda so that we didn't lose this pricing. However, we have been granted an extension. So to Chairwoman Cox's point, deferring this while we develop that policy, is appropriate now that we know that that pricing can be extended, and that I can also work with the county attorney on the deed. I think all the agreements and the handshakes were, I shouldn't say handshakes, but the understanding is there. However, to the point of a formal policy adoption for how these things are considered, we can definitely work on that and bring that back before this item comes back before council for approval. So I think both of your points can be addressed by deferring it. And we've got that reassurance about the pricing being extended. We're just coming up towards the end of that process, but we've got some time to work with now. And that kind of happened late this afternoon after these discussions.

So after hearing information from David and understanding that council is interested in having proactive policies on criteria, I think the request is to defer this item until at least the first meeting in September to allow for the additional due diligence to be done. Do we have a motion?

Motion to defer. Second.

Second. And for purposes of clarification, it's to defer to the first meeting in September, right? Agreed to September. All right. All those in favor of deferral, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries. The last item, number 12, on new business now that was 20 in consent. Council to authorize the acceptance of the specified roads in the McCullough subdivision. This request was made by Mr. Linton to remove.

Do you want to ask a question before we move into motions?

No, I would. We can go for straight to motion. Okay.

Do we have a motion?

I make a motion to approve.

Second. We have a motion and a second to approve.

Do we have any discussion? So I didn't want to make a motion and mess you all up, because I have a feeling I know where this is going. We already can't afford to fix the roads that we have. We have a lot of roads. We're underfunding our roads extensively. I just cannot support continuing to accept in subdivision roads when we can't even fix the ones we have. This one especially seemed to have quite a few issues in it that had to be repaired multiple times, which leads me to believe it's going to have issues sooner rather than later. But again, it's a funding issue. I forgot how many miles of roads we have already, like 1,800 miles, adding two and a half more miles of subdivisions. I'm just not comfortable with that at this point.

OK. I'm not sure what he meant. How did you get the information about there were issues in the subdivision that had to be?

It was in the packet.

OK. I was not aware of that, so the issues, but anyway, if we're gonna do that, then we need to have this discussion, I think, in a workshop, because this has been mentioned several times, but at this point, we haven't talked about it, so I think that it's worthy of supporting.

My question is to staff, are the roads up to county standards before we accept them? That's kind of been the general rule.

Yes, they are. And so I think what some of y'all are referring to, there was a couple of instances we had to go back and fix it. Our county engineers here speak to that if y'all have questions. But by the time we accept, yes, we've inspected and they're up to our standards.

Yeah, that would be one. So the way I understand it is we currently have an ordinance in place that says that if they have a road and they propose the road, that it exists right now and we are required to take it in if they meet county standard. This is not debatable. To Mr. Litton's point, we already have a current ordinance that requires that. In order for us to change course, we would have to revisit the ordinance itself. Is that right? Oh, it is a requirement.

It's already an ordinance requirement.

My understanding, that's what I've always been advised, that if they... Correct me if I'm wrong. I mean, I'm looking to y'all to tell me that. But my understanding is that there is an ordinance in place and that in order for us to change our approach, we need to change the ordinance. I thought it said may. I think it's a good question. I think I'd like to know that.

The subdivision ordinance, I'm looking at Jonathan. Subdivision ordinance states that if a developer Ruxsey Road, it meets public street standards that they can approach the county for acceptance once it meets all those standards and inspection.

So we do have the ability to say no?

I don't have that section of the code in front of me. So I don't. Yeah.

OK.

I thought that one time here the other year I brought that up.

We have, because I do think that Councilman Linton has brought this up. Council members have brought this up throughout the years. When I first got on council, I brought this up. Lancaster doesn't take subdivision roads in anymore. I think the concern is there are parts of the county that have already been fully developed, and those roads are in the county system. So if you have somebody who lives over here who's going to have their subdivision taken in tomorrow, Their question is going to be, why am I treated differently? I don't have a problem revisiting that. To me, the appropriate way to do that is to bring this up in the Transportation Committee and let's look at changing our ordinances to address that and to maybe ask that there has to be some ownership of the road improvements. in neighborhoods where the only people that benefit from it are the people that live on that road it's not connected it's not a connectivity road so i'm not opposed to looking at that i think it's a bigger question than when one comes up on the agenda that has already we're operating under our same policy in our practice but i mean i'm looking to y'all to tell us what the parameters are right and i know our interim county attorney is looking up the code reference but

in conversations previously when we've had this, our recommendation is if you're gonna assess this or look at this, look at it before there's a development that occurs and set that policy so it's clear to the developers. Because in these past few instances, whenever this comes forward, The developers built this with the understanding that it would be accepted if it met the requirements. So you would want to set that expectation on the front end, which is what we've had. So if you all want to have that conversation, set that policy. I think that's what you would be doing on the front end.

Mr. County Manager, if you would yield, may I ask Ms. Haygood and Mr. Bono just a couple of brief questions? based on what's in the report it seems like this subdivision's had a legacy for a while uh do you know when it was um first centered under development i can't answer that because you know previous codes but the second question is is uh if we accept the roads are they subject to a maintenance charity for a period of time

There is a one-year warranty. Sorry, there is a one-year warranty.

OK. I was asking that for some clarity, because to Councilmember Litton's point, it appears that they've met the standards. I would opine that the ordinance suggests that we have some kind of obligation to accept the roads if they meet our inspection requirements and all of the other construction and repair requirements. but then the added security comes from that additional year of award, is that correct?

That's correct.

I'll just ask the question. Is there an issue with this road that we need to be concerned about?

There are no issues with the road. I think the issues that were mentioned in the memo were more of a timing. The developer, it's a couple miles of roads, several sections.

Two and a half, I think.

And I think it was more of the developer and just the timing of bringing each section on. Instead of doing small sections, they waited until they had the whole subdivision to then request for acceptance. So it wasn't issues like structural issues or things like that. It was just the timing of packaging it up.

Yeah.

I mean, the reality is our county road plan prioritizes roads that provide connectivity before they do subdivision roads. So I mean, I think unless that has changed, only individuals who live in that subdivision, I mean, the reality is it's unlikely to get there with the limited amount of funding that exists. At the same time, I am certainly not opposed to revisiting how we approach these things, as long as it's fair. Would suggest that this be something that we address in a transportation meeting And add that to the agenda at the transportation meeting for us to flesh this out and see if there's an opportunity here To address that

Did you want me to speak to the Yes. Yes, ma'am. So 154.376 pretty clearly states a property owner or private developer may not deed or dedicate a private road to York County without the approval of York County Council in compliance with the requirements of this part.

My, I'll just say this, previously when we've addressed this, the feedback that I've always been given is that we really didn't, at this juncture, have the ability to say no if they've met it and followed it. Given our course of how we have done things, I'm asking you. That's what I recall is that we have been told that we can't turn around and say, nope, we're not going to do it at this stage of the game.

So three separate things, I think, are in what you just said. First is just the plain reading of the ordinance. Second is custom and practice, which is when you're this far along, you're at this juncture, you would typically go ahead and accept the roads that have been proposed, that the requirements have been met. And then the third is how does county council want to approach this or consider this moving forward? That's its own point.

Why do we even vote on it if it's just an automatic we have to do it anyway? Good point.

this county council still has to vote to accept it.

I think part of it relates to is that we're accepting the legal instrument with a grant of deed from the road. Right. So that approval kind of binds us there. Well, if you approve, it binds us, is becoming owners of the driveway.

Plain reading says we don't have to. But at this point, I don't know how we reverse course on someone who's built that in the community residents who are going to be buying homes in that. I don't know how you say no today when every other instance this has come before, our pattern and practice has been to accept it without a change of the ordinance, a more appreciable change to that. So I'm going to support. I'm going to support the motion this time, but I would certainly ask that this be added to our Transportation Committee as an action item and that we have staff take a look at how do we get our arms around dealing with subdivision roads going forward. I know Lancaster has a different approach. I'd like to know how they do it. All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Opposed. Motion carries. committee and other reports public works committee chairman we month writing.

On July 8th, Public Works Committee met. Councilman Litton, Council Member O'Connor attended. We got another update on the animal shelter. We talked about best location. We talked about keeping that cost within budget. We even talked about using some of the best material that's going to give us the longest life of the facility. Another thing we talked about was we're still pushing calls. It's been requested that we have another committee meeting before September 14. I heard from Eric today he wants to get another committee meeting scheduled. They have another update. Didn't specifically say what it's going to be about, but they want to meet and present us with some more information. This thing is moving slow but steady. And that's where we at. We're getting closer to bringing something to the full council. But we still have a ways to go.

CHRISTIE WOODARD- Thank you, sir. Finance and Operations Committee, Chairman Tom LaDette.

Yes, this evening, or at 5 o'clock today, we had a meeting, Councilman Roddy and Atkins were attending in the meeting tonight, or this afternoon, and in that, we had a few approvals. Committee to consider the appointment on the Lake, Lake Wiley Marine Commission for a second term of William Johnston. Also, there was an approval for a committee member for the Rock Hill York County Airport Commission, and that was for Thomas Dubrolet. And then lastly, there was a committee approval for committee member for Keep York County Beautiful Board, and that is an at-large seat, and it's Thomas Monroe for his first term. And then lastly, we had a few allocations that were approved of funds. The committee approved $1,000 for District 6 for men on a mission. Secondly, there was an allocation of funds approved for District 7 to the Boy Scout Troop 219, St. Philip Neri. for the amount of $1,500. Next, for District 7, Historic Paradise Foundation NFP was approved for $3,055. The next committee approved allocations of funds from District 7, again, to the Heritage Paradise Foundation NFP for the amount of $1,500. Those are two different projects. They were approved under the same, for the same group. And then lastly, there's one additional project that was submitted by District 7, and it was approved, again, for the historic Paradise Foundation MFP for the amount of $1,500. And that is it.

Thank you, sir. We do not have any citizen concerns. Any new non-agenda comments before we go into executive session?

I do. Madam Chair, I'd like to make a request. I say I'm making a request for the County Council to refer the regulation and the code placement of special events to the Justice and Public Safety Committee to review and bring back the recommendations to the full council. That'd be I'd

So my understanding, Mister Agnes is the chair of the JPS committee. You were asked by county management to make this request that we look at.

The staff done analyzed various amendments of our land code use. In the case of special events, they have recommended that the events may be better served by shifting the approval process out of the zoning code through the board of Zone appeals into the realm of the public safety agencies. This approach offers use in other communities, will assure that the events will make the approval process more efficient, improve preparation, coordination for basic public safety, and limit disruptive impact to the neighboring properties.

Okay.

I guess, which y'all know how many of the seniors got shut down when they did that, plus all the trouble the rodeo had, which we need to get straightened out.

Yes, sir. I mean, my understanding, and I'm gonna let the manager or Mr. Couch identify why they want to put this on JPS. I just want clarity. Does this, is this involving So the rodeo issue, my understanding is they have to, every year, come in there and request approval, which we were stopping. Is that what this is directed at? Or is this broader events venue? And can you share with me why we think this is not a zoning, but this is a public safety matter that needs to go to the Public Safety Committee?

Sure. We can answer both of that. And I'll start. Thank you, Madam Chair. Special events has been a reoccurring theme over the two and a half years I've been here. We're looking for an opportunity to make it easier and more understandable for folks that want to have a special event like the rodeo, as Councilmember Atkins mentioned. In other places I've worked, it was not something that you had to go in front of the ZBA for. It was more of an administrative approval process, and that's something we're looking into. We've had conversations. And working with the different departments that are part of this, The majority of departments are public safety departments, but I'll let Tom and David speak more about why JPS makes sense. But if y'all want to sign it to a different committee, we're open to that. We're just trying to facilitate a solution.

Just so I'm clear, though, we're talking solely about special events, not event centers.

Yes, correct.

Special events.

I don't think I can summarize it any better than the county manager has. But I do agree. I've also worked in jurisdictions where you have a separate special events ordinance. It's not typical in my view to see it. within the zoning code and then having bza have to do this approval it's generally more administrative now there might be special circumstances where well you all may be too young to remember this you may have a wood stock that comes up or something like that then i then i think that could be more appropriate or a special event permit needs to be issued by council but i think typically what we deal with today It is better grounded to let public safety agencies, I mean you can have coordination with other agencies, public works, planning and so forth, but a special event typically has more of a public safety focus, especially if there's enough people where you've got to coordinate. Fire, EMS, Sheriff, and things like that. And I think Mr. Gardner can speak to some issues relating to the emergency management ordinance as well.

Yeah, I think Mr. Couch summarized it pretty accurately. Most of the impacts of special events largely are public safety impacts. So that's why we felt it more appropriate as a JPS versus a zoning. And our ordinances are kind of running in two separate paths trying to get to the destination. So we're looking at both of those and removing from the zoning ordinance and putting it strictly under the special events category in the ordinance that focuses more on public safety is more the appropriate avenue because that's where most of the impacts need to be mitigated and having a reasonable assurance that the event can safely be provided for and it doesn't create an impact on the community. So hence the

the jps referral made more sense but it could easily align with another one there's there's no single correct answer to this one i guess my question is my understanding was that we've already communicated to at least one of the property owners who had holds a rodeo once a year that we're fixing it to where they don't have to come back to the bza to do that is that fixed is that part fixed yet

That's one of the examples of why we need to go through this process. And I think we're far enough.

We've been talking about this for over, I mean, it's been more than a year. It's been a couple of years. And so now we're saying, hey, we don't have a zoning solution. Y'all sound to me like you think, how is this gonna work? Because if we refer this to JPS and we still don't have a solution on the BZA, because right now the ordinance requires that this individual come back every single year to ask for that approval.

That portion would be stripped out of the zoning code and shifted into a standalone special amendment ordinance.

And to piggyback on Mr. Couch, I believe this would be a fairly quick process because we've already been discussing it, to your point. It's been being discussed for some time now. We have some working drafts. Yes, some working drafts. I don't think it's anything that has to be drawn out through numerous committee meetings. I think it can be an expedited process to get something through the committee back to council.

but ultimately the change is going to have to be a zoning code change right at least part of it we're going to have to eliminate the zoning code requirement that requires them to come back and do this am i right are you ready for that part is that part done no i'm trying to figure out if y'all need a joint committee i'm i'm i'm all about that's going to be part of the work of the committee yes

If they wanted to cross-refer to the P&Z Committee, that could easily be done in my opinion.

Does it need to go to P&Z Committee just to remove that section out of the ordinance? Couldn't we just vote on that here after JPS makes that decision? That's the way I interpret it. We think that's a simple change.

Just so that we're clear, the request is that we refer it to JPS and that following that Y'all can move forward with an ordinance revision that you recommend that accomplishes the goal without having going back to the P&Z. Yes. All righty. Any objection to this?

No. I don't want to see it back at P&Z. No. I ain't done yet.

Okay. All right.

I want to announce that the York County Fall Livestock Show will be September the 11th through 12th. on South Shallow Road, York, at A&K Ranch. I want to see one of y'all ride like that.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Mr. Roddy.

All right, here we go. This is going to take about two minutes, that's all. I want to invite this council to have a discussion of a possible resolution or policy, not an ordinance, that limits the percentage of school district money that can be used in our going-forward field agreements. I think we need to sit down with these superintendents to kind of see where they are with their district, see where they are with their funding. And as we saw tonight, New York School District 1 is coming back to us to discuss another impact fee. If we could roll the clock back 10 years ago and made a small change to these field agreements, and the 50% that we've been standardly taking across the board from our school districts, maybe we wouldn't be in these impact fee situations with our school districts. So I think the time is now, the season is right. I would love to see this council, its staff, sit down with the four superintendents across York County to see what they're thinking, what they're feeling, and what this council is feeling as to how we can better serve our school districts with these fee and lieu tax agreements. I've said before, 10 years ago, 15 years ago, 50% across the board may have worked then. But the economy now, the way things are working, we've seen every school district except Rock Hill come and ask for an impact fee. And tonight, York's back on their calendar wanting to do another impact fee study. And like Councilman Litton said, hope we're not wasting their time, but they did put us in an all or nothing situation the last time they came. But school funding, buildings, operations have gotten so expensive, and they're so critical to a vibrant community that jobs want to come here and be here. And we've got to make sure our schools are fundamentally sound, fundamentally funded, so that we can continue to provide good workforce. good educated workforce. And so I think there's nothing wrong with having a conversation, not looking for orders, but we need to be able to give our economic development director some guidance as to when he's out on the trail, when he's talking to these companies, to give him a better idea of what this council can absorb and what these school districts can absorb when it comes to taking our school district's money to make these deals work. It may require your county to give up a little more. It may require some of the municipalities to give up a little more. But I think we need to have that conversation and at least flush it out. And just like some things that have come to this council in the past, just because we study it and look at it doesn't mean we have to do it. But we can't say we're doing the best that we can do if we're not having a conversation. There's been many things that have gone to committees that have come to this council that we didn't approve, just to mention the ad hoc committee that we had for the agritourism. It was studied. It was fleshed out. We didn't do anything. I was on the committee the other year. We studied stuff with our retiree health plans and stuff. We studied it. We didn't do anything. So just because something goes to a committee, something's looked at, something's studied, or a workshop, doesn't mean that we have to change it. But I think we're selling ourselves short if we don't have that conversation now with our superintendents in this council.

I'd like to piggyback on what- If I can, if you don't mind, Mr. Huckabee, if you can, one of the things that I think this issue touches upon that Mr. Roddy is raising has to do with our ED incentives and our ED fund in general. We obviously have some things that we as a council need to discuss and I do think that we need to come up with a way to discuss them appropriately. The council, I have already alerted the council that the first workshop that we have, we are going to look at ED incentives and the ED fund as one of those topics. To me, that would be the most appropriate time. for us to to anyone who wants to raise the issue. I'm hopeful that you guys will respond to the request for we've not had a workshop in a while. We don't typically do that in the summer. But if you will please respond to Karen so that we can have that workshop as soon as possible. The issue our next council meeting is falls on holiday. So we need to do the workshop I think we need to do it sooner rather than later. Let's have that discussion at least as a council first, and then we'll set out a roadmap to incorporate others. I am certainly not opposed to hearing any and all ideas about how we can go about doing this. I certainly recognize the school districts are in a unique position because they only have two sources of funding aside from an impact fee and they depend on the, a lot of folks don't understand how that funding is limited when municipalities and counties have access to different areas with H tax and A tax and with property sales, the schools are relegated to commercial property for operational costs, industrial properties. So at this point, rather than us debate it here, I think the appropriate place is for us to have that workshop as soon as possible. I am prepared to do it the week before, and I know some folks have some limitations, but if y'all can please let Karen know your availability so that we can have that workshop. I'd love to have it before we have our next council meeting, so if y'all will reply to her.

I appreciate Councilman Roddy bringing this up. I do want to make a point that maybe we can discuss at the workshop associated with incentive deals. So a good point that when you look at the distribution of fees per school district, it varies greatly. Rock Hill School District is really the one that gets the majority of the fee income. York really doesn't get much, if any. Clover, take QTS out, doesn't get much, and neither does Fort Mill School Districts. They actually get the minority share because they're not bringing businesses and fee deals into those areas like Rock Hill's getting. Think about Palmetto Research Park. Think about I-77 heading to Columbia and how much fee income the Rock Hill School District is going to get as a result of that. At the school district special call meeting, one of the council members actually made this statement, and he is correct. He said that there are 1,500 jobs coming into OctoPharma, and those 1,500 people, if they're not going to stay, the ones that live in Mecklenburg County, are going to come to York County. They're going to live all over this county. So when you think about that, there's probably a discussion for us to have, those of you that represent Fort Mill, the two of you, York, Clover, your school districts are housing, the families, the parents that are going to work in Rock Hill, your school districts are housing those, but you're not getting any share of that revenue. So there might be a consideration where we have to rethink how we distribute the fee revenue altogether so that it's fair to everybody. So the home district gets the majority, maybe, and then the other districts get a share. And then the county probably ought to take a look at what type of revenue we need to get for our future infrastructure costs just like roads that came up tonight, that we don't have the revenue to pay for our roads. So I think there's a more robust discussion for us to have as we get into the workshop and start talking about fee revenue. And I do have, if you're okay, I'll go ahead and make a quick comment, because I've been holding on this one since June. Some of you may know Marshall and Shannon Nord, they own Kona Ice. I don't know if you know who they are, but if you do, Marshall was in a bike race called Race Across America. June 16th, he left on the West Coast. He left Oceanside, California. He rode his bike 11 days, 13 hours, and 47 minutes. He covered 3,065 miles. While we were asleep and at work, he was riding his bike, averaging about four hours of sleep a night. This is actually a race that you have to complete within 12 days. So Marshall is a he's in your district, actually neighbor of yours. So he's a York County resident. It's amazing feat for a 60 year old to take on this challenge and actually compete it. And I think he finished in seventh place. There only been like 400 people that have ever achieved this 12 day race, much less a 60 year old. It's pretty amazing. So congratulations to him. That's a unbelievable feat for him and and for York County, really. Second thing David Keeley's come before York County Council with Tobacco Free York County Coalition. I had a conversation with Andy and would like to refer to the Health and Environmental Committee, an opportunity for him to come and speak to us, educate us on what he's passionate about, and see if there's something that we want to do with that. So I'd like for that to be referred to our committee.

What's the issue? How do we frame what the issue to the committee is?

Well, he came to us and was talking about vaping, teenagers and vaping. That's what he spoke to us about last. He's actually been in front of us maybe three times since I've been on council. So he's asking us to refer this to committee so he'd have a chance to share their research and their findings and the impact that vaping has on our teenagers.

Is there a council committee issue?

Health and environmental.

I'm sorry? Other than education, is there a

Well, there could be action, but we need to educate it first as a committee.

What action does the I mean, I guess I'm trying to figure out how do we refer this to a committee zoning change to keep?

If I read his emails correctly, it would be a zoning issue to put a larger buffer around schools and child areas so that the vaping stores and tobacco stores could be in that range.

And then our action, if I'm not mistaken, would lead to potential action from municipalities. Is that correct? Did you read that? I didn't read that. Or I didn't pay attention to that part?

it's a zoning issue is it appropriate to go i mean health and safety sounds like one of those areas but i guess i'm trying to capture what the referral would look like because it sounds like you guys just want them to present but i need to understand what the action item is that may come out of that so that we know which committee is the most appropriate committee for it to go to they all need to go to zoning have you talked with the no zoning

No, it started as a informational

I remember when he came and spoke about it.

I think there is a county in South Carolina that's implemented what you're talking about and I think that there's an action item to what he's going to present and it was about implementing a policy. One other county in South Carolina has it. I don't remember what county it was though.

It's about vaping, but I don't know the details.

Yeah, they're buying them underage, too.

Do you mind getting some more details, and we can refer it to the committee? Do you want to mention anything?

We can work with you all, and we can engage with him and develop more of a potential charge to a committee. It is zoning-related, but the question is... What would you be changing in the zoning code, and is that health related?

Have they ever put an age on vaping yet?

You could go either way on the committee's budget. We're having to work with folks in advance of the next meeting.

So what will you do between now and the next meeting?

We're having to work with county council members who want to develop a charge to share that might be.

Mr. Craig.

But that's up to y'all.

What I don't want to do is send it to Health and Safety if it's ultimately a zoning request. So maybe if y'all will get together. I think it's ultimately a zoning request. Then let's maybe y'all take a look at that and see what exactly you'd be referring so that councils can't. If there's not four people that are going to support an ordinance like that, it'd be nice to know that now before we send it to a committee and you spend your time and then you don't know if there's support for it.

He has come, like you said, numerous times. And now I think that when he came, he was unsure of really what he was kind of asking for. But maybe now it's become more clear where the passion is for, I think he should just come and talk to us.

DAVID BURRAGE. To the full council.

to full council. I mean, it's.

That's fine. That's good. I was invited back then with his direct and specific ask.

Is he part of a government? Sounds like it would be a concerned citizen unless he's an actual entity in the county that would be an appearance. I don't want to open up appearances to just anyone that's been relegated to county government.

So he came and spoke in December? In what section did he speak in? Maybe the concerned citizen.

Let's do that. Back to what I was asking. I don't mess with stuff, but I sure do see a lot of young, young kids. Have they put an age restriction on vapes? I'll be glad to call in.

Yeah. Yeah. All right. All right. Specific. Anybody else?

Yeah. So, so again, I know we talked about our workshop. I don't, I know we don't have a date yet on that, but I want to make sure, you know, with this ruling from the judge on cell five on the 26th, Again, I want to make sure that we are having that item as an agenda item because there's going to be, this is a critical ruling from the judge. So again, I want to make sure that's part of our workshop agenda.

We have a plan in place. Anybody else?

Do we have a motion for executive session?

We have a couple of them, actually. Receipt of legal advice litigation update, contractual matter, personal matter, county manager, and then contractual matter, personal matter, county attorney.

Second.

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

Motion to adjourn.

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