County Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome everyone at this time I will call to order the September 21st 2026 County Council meeting to order our first item of business is to recognize the honorable bump Roddy in district 4 for the invocation and pledge of allegiance.

I always like to start off by a moment of silence to think about our loved ones and those who've gone before us, who've made some sacrifices for us to enjoy some of these great liberties that we have here in South Carolina and across the nation. So we'll take a moment of silence and we'll say a prayer. Dear Heavenly Father, we come to you with bow heads and humble hearts. full of thanks and forgiveness. We ask that you continue to watch over us, lead us, and guide us, and direct us to have us do your will. We ask that you bless this meeting so that we do what is right, what is pleasing in your sight. In Jesus' name we pray, amen.

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

At this time, we do have our oath of office for individuals who have been nominated and are here to be sworn in to serve on the various boards. If I call your name, if you'll please come forward and stand in front of the podium. Our county attorney will meet you in front of the podium and swear you in. We have Alan Abernathy and Cody Cooper with the Agriculture Ad Hoc Advisory Board. Perry Johnston with the Lake Wiley Marine Commission. Thomas Debrouillet, Rock Hill York County Airport Commission. Thomas Monroe, Keep York County Beautiful At Large. And as you make your way forward, we do thank you for serving on these boards. You do so without pay, and our community owes you a debt of gratitude for the work that you do here on behalf of our community. We thank you for that.

Thank you.

We don't have any appearances tonight. We do have public forum. This is the opportunity for individuals to come and speak to council about matters that affect jurisdiction. What I would ask folks is if you'll please keep your comments to the two minute mark. As soon as you come forward, give your name and address and your time will start if you pay attention to the screen. um it will give you a warning and then it will let you know when the two minutes is up and if you will cut off your comments at that time that will save me from having to do that i do not think anybody is here to speak about our one public hearing item so um i will start with our first individual mike culp

My name is Mike Culp. I live at 397 Osborne Farm Road in Fort Mill, South Carolina. And I am a lifetime resident of Fort Mill and a lifetime member of Flint Hill Baptist Church. I would like to share a few concerns I and the church have about the rezoning case 26-27 at Flint Hill Road and Highway 21. The second reading on this request is set for tonight. The rezoning request calls for changing the zoning code to light industrial and for building two warehouses with two access points off of Flint Hill Road. The current plan calls for a buffer of 75 feet at the property line which borders our cemetery. The buffer for the nearby residential area is 250 feet. If possible, we would ask that the buffer along our cemetery be adjusted to 250 feet. I realize this might require the access road to be moved some, but we are concerned that any funeral held would be bothered by the traffic into and out of the warehouses without a wider buffer. We also have sports fields across that are utilized during the spring and fall. One of the entrances to the sports fields would be almost directly across from the access road to the development, which could result in more congestion. In addition, We have concerns about the traffic that will be generated by the warehouses. Both access points into the development are on Flint Hill Road. Flint Hill Road is a two-lane road with traffic lights at both Highway 21 and Highway 51. Both of these areas are very congested in the mornings and afternoons due to work traffic. The proposal states that it is estimated that the number of vehicles using Flint Hill Road will be less than if the original Walmart had been built. However, this does not account for the fact that the amount of semis using the road will be a much larger part of the vehicle count. There are no turning lanes on Flint Hill Road at either traffic light. Thank you, sir.

It goes by quick. I'm sorry. Steve Penland.

My name is Steve Pendleton, and my wife, Judy, and I live at 6457 Campbell Road in York County. Our farm borders the back end of the present QTS data center under construction and two sides of the expansion site that was purchased by QTS. I'm deeply concerned about the chapter 155 changes, which, as written, allows industrial majority split zoning properties to expand industrial development rules across the entire property by default. This administration loophole strips residents of their rights to public notice and public hearings, effectively allowing backdoor industrial expansion without public scrutiny. The executive summary stated that the proposed amendment is driven by a public necessity to provide a predictable hierarchy of standards to apply to a given lot located in multiple zoning districts and remove impediments by dividing or combining existing split zoning parcels in districts that are residential. I believe this statement is to be false and the changes are driven by the York County government to circumvent the input of residents to please developers. Developers are aware of the zoning of parcels before they purchase and should not be allowed to circumvent the established system that's worked for many years. The present QTS center will probably be the first to utilize this change if passed because the newly acquired 400 acre property that QTS purchased for expansion is a split zone property with the largest partial zoned industrial. The other zone portions can be zoned industrial without public scrutiny or county input. Actions like this is what destroys the confidence residents used to have in our county leadership. Backdoor actions without public scrutiny is not the way to build trust. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Kate Hanover.

Good evening, I'm Kate Hanauer. I live at 596 Cranbourne Chase in Fort Mill. I'm a mother. I have two sons that attend Flint Hill Elementary. And like the other Flint Hill parents back in March, we received a message that school was closed. Not because of snow, not because of a hurricane or a water main break. The school was closed because a tank of hydrofluoric acid was leaking at the next door neighbor to my son's classroom. And it had been leaking for days. Do you all know what hydrofluoric acid does to a child's lungs? I do because I looked it up that night in March at midnight. I wish I hadn't. Golly, I wish I did not need to know that. But that's what being a Flynn Hill parent is now. We learn the names of these chemicals. We learn which direction the wind blows. You learn that the air monitors on the fence can even detect this acid. And you learn that 17 times this year, employees inside the SILFAB facility have called 911, most of which have been occasions where they're struggling to breathe. And we send our kids back to Flynn Hill because what choice do we have? We don't have much of a choice. You all are the ones with the choice here, and you've had it for two years. A zoning board said unanimously that that facility doesn't belong there, and a judge has just agreed twice. Everyone is telling you you have the authority. Nobody is coming here to do this for you. This all ends when you end it. I'm here tonight because I've run out of ways to promise my kids that they're safe at school. Please. Parents are begging you enforce your own code and help us move so bad. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Jalen Hodges.

Good evening. My name is Jalen Hodges and I live off Hill Road in Fort Mill. So I'm here about the case 2627 rezoning. So before you all make your vote, I want to remind you that your own staff and your own planning commission recommended the denial of this rezoning or two because it conflicts with your 2035 comprehensive plan, which designates this parcel as a neighborhood residential. So the recommendation hasn't changed, only the pressure to approve it has. And last week we did meet people in my community, met with the developer and Councilwoman Cloninger in a meeting that only happened because we pushed for it. And if I hadn't organized to get this meeting, most of our neighborhoods would probably still be left in the dark about what was happening. um it's it's hard not to feel like this is um designed to move forward quietly without as little pushback as possible and at that meeting we were told that there's now a second recorded d restrictions blocking data centers and manufacturing uses along with promises about buffers and building size and we still haven't seen that document this developer has a history of pursuing large data centers elsewhere and facing public pushback for it and honestly none of us can guarantee that what's promised tonight is what actually gets built and we've seen this before with silvab approved under one set of plans and it changed directly with no accountability from this county. So verbal promises in a meeting aren't the same as binding conditions in an approval. And also no property values have been done or shared with the residents, not one. We also still don't know if Flint Hill Road itself would actually be widened. only that a realignment is expected if this passes. Our neighborhoods are looking at roughly 18 months of construction traffic right outside our front doors with no mitigation plan in writing. So I have to ask you directly, who do you represent tonight? The people who will deal with this construction, this traffic, and whatever actually gets built, or Walmart and the developer. We're not against progress. We're just asking for binding conditions and not promises. So I ask you to deny this rezoning or table it until residents have documentation that were promised.

Melinda Hodges.

Good evening, Council. My name is Melinda Hodges. I live in English Trails off of Flint Hill Road, and I've lived there since 2006. My late husband, Duane, and I, we raised our three children in this community. They went to school here. We built our lives there. And after 20 years, I don't just own a home in English Trails. That's a house in English trails. That's my home. Over the last two weeks, I've tried to do everything a resident should do before I came for you tonight. I listened to the public hearing. I spoke directly with our council representative. I spoke with county planning staff and I attended our neighborhood meeting with the developer. I listened to their presentation and their answers. They were professional and I appreciate them coming to our community. But after listening to everyone, I still do not support the rezoning of case 2627, changing it from general commercial to light industrial. At our community meeting, our residents came prepared. They asked about traffic, trucks, roads, safety, property values, and continued development in an area where many of us already feel overwhelmed by what has been built around us. And what became very clear to me is that many of these concerns could not be solved by the developer. They are county issues. The planning staff continues to recommend denial. The planning commission does as well. And so my question before you tonight, council, is at what point do the people who already live here matter in planning of what comes next? We're not opposed to every form of development, but there has to be a point when existing communities, existing infrastructure and the people who have invested decades of their lives here have given are given meaningful consideration. So I've listened to the developers case. I've listened to the county, and now I'm asking you to listen to your constituents about their concerns. And so I'm asking you to vote no on case 2627. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Debbie Zapor.

Hi, my name is Debbie Zaber. I live in the Westport Village in New York. I'm here tonight because I'm concerned about the proposal change the proposed change to chapter 155 regarding the split zoning properties. My concern is simple. A change in development regulations should not become a substitute for the rezoning process. There's important difference in the ordinance that you brought that. the ordinance before you tonight. The proposed Chapter 154 change specifically applies to lots made up of more than one residential zoning district. But Chapter 155 says that when a parcel contains more than one zoning district, the development regulations of the district covering the greatest area can govern the parcel. Chapter 155 does not contain the same residential limitation. That becomes extremely important when the largest zoning district is industrial. Land that is not zoned industrial can potentially become subject to industrial development regulations simply because industrial zoning occupies the greatest acreage of the split zone parcel. At the September 8th meeting, an amendment was introduced to remove the proposed Chapter 155 changes. according to the information provided to the residents that amendment was not voted on when the overall ordinance was deferred i asked council to address that concern tonight qts makes makes this issue very real for those of us living near its current and proposed development but this is bigger than qts whatever you adopt could affect other split zone properties throughout your county i understand the county made a predictable needs a predictable way to handle split zone parcels, but administrative convenience should not come at the expense of public participation. Please remove the Chapter 155 provision or amend its industrial development regulations cannot automatically extend across differently zoned land without the appropriate public process. Residents deserve notice and opportunity to be heard and a voice in decisions that can fundamentally change how neighboring land is developed. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Connie Fisher.

Hi, my name's Fisher. I live on 1301 Meadowview Lane, Fort Mill. I'm here for my parents, really. They live right across the street from where the proposed development's gonna be. My father is near retirement and has spent years operating a small, small lawnmower repair shop at this property. And he is currently winding down business and preparing for retirement. At the same time, being a caregiver for my mother, who's currently has an illness and is especially difficult time in our life. And this proposed facility would increase traffic, noise, lighting, congestion in the area that has long been a residential and community-focused part of Fort Mill. The added traffic would not only affect nearby residents but also create safety and accessibility concerns for those traveling on 21 and Flint Hill. Increased truck traffic and congestion would make it more difficult for residents, church members, and families attending local activities. to safely enter and exit the area. I'm also concerned about the impact of Flanehill Baptist Church, which sits directly adjacent to the proposed industrial rezoning and the church services as an important place of worship, fellowship and community gatherings. And also directly across the street is from the property is Victory Sports, an organization for youth sports. And that would be more safety concerns for children and families that. And this would take away their safety i mean a big safety concern thank you so i'm saying no to research thank you thank you ma'am bobby long hello i'm bobby law i live at 176 from hill road

It's hard. It's hard to lose everything you've worked for your whole life all at one time. Just be sure of what you're doing. Taking all them trees out, cutting everything down. Just cutting everything down. And then putting back like four or five trees here and there. It's just a mess. And we spent those first 68 years, our whole life. And I'm not saying what they're doing is bad, what they're doing there, but I just wish they could move it back a little bit and give us a little more leeway. The traffic study they showed us the other day is not really feasible. There's a lot of trucks, a lot of trucks up and down that road. Trash trucks, we got cement trucks, we got Amazon trucks parking down there. 2,300 Amazon folks parking there, coming out, in and out every day. So it's a lot more. And them trash trucks also, I know you don't want to hear it, but they come down the road, slinging trash all up down the road. I clean up five or 10 gallon buckets in front of my house every day. Not weekly, every day. And I've been in contact with them for a while. And they won't even answer the phone for me no more. So I'm just saying I'm not sure this is going to be a good thing. But I feel something's going to have to go there sooner or later. But I'm not sure this is the right plan. Y'all have a good day.

Thank you, sir. Rebecca, safety.

Good evening. My name is Rebecca Sicci, and I live in the Allison Anchors community. First, I want to address the proposed split zoning amendment, allowing the zoning district covering most of the parcel to control the entire property may sound like a simple administrative fix, but it could create unintended loopholes, which has been addressed before as well by many folks. companies such as qts can accumulate and combine large amounts of land and i would hate to see parcels parcel boundaries adjusted or properties combined in a way that allows more intensive zoning to spread across the land originally given greater protections Before approving the amendment, please require public notice and formal rezoning whenever residential land can become subject to commercial or industrial standards. Administrative convenience should never replace transparency or public involvement. I highly recommend with me saying that it is one thing that I don't believe the split zoning should be considered to the level it is right now without proper guidance. Separately, I want to address concerns about York County's current construction noise ordinance. Last Friday night, instead of enjoying a dinner, swimming, and sitting by the fire pit with my family, we listened to a pump-like vacuum construction noise from the data center site for about three hours. could be heard inside our home as well and people think that this is just a decibel reading that we're talking about this is 55 to 65 decibels but yet when we talk to your county sheriff's office they again advised us that based off the decibel rating provided by us not by them that noise is acceptable under the current ordinance allowing up to 75 decibels until 9 pm daily This needs to be adjusted. It is not protecting the community around the sites and the construction projects. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Kenneth City.

In the city, Allison Acres subdivision. As my wife just stated, how is it when you look up the York County noise ordinance find under 56015? Public nuisance declared. It states that any noise of the character intensity and continued duration which interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of private dwellings by persons of ordinary sensibilities is here declared a nuisance. The very next section section A of that. states that prohibited noise generally shall be unlawful for any person to make continue or cause to be made or continued any unreasonably loud, disturbing, unnecessary noise or any noise which either annoys, disturbs, injures, endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace, or safety of others within the unincorporated limits of your county. Mr. Roddy, you were shocked months ago that the data center construction happens throughout the night. Well, it should be no surprise, because that's just a good neighbor that they are, that they're still doing construction overnight. So at 2 a.m., in my peace, when it's, so when it's 2 a.m., my peace and comfort and health is disturbed. This is deemed acceptable. The sheriffs that come out say there's nothing they could do about it. Now what kind of noise ordinance gets adopted that does nothing to protect the residents of this county? It's time to take a good solid look at our ordinance and what it outlines or lack thereof. Now that more and more residents are living next to and in construction zones, decibel levels are way out of acceptable range. Hours of operation need to be curtailed and we certainly don't need a seven year construction project to be allowed to work for 24 hours. It's not going to be built overnight. They don't need to work overnight. By right, we hear this all the time. By right, by right. What's right about a construction company keeping residents up all night? Enough is enough. Be better by your residents and enact a stricter noise ordinance against the construction sites. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Wayne Defender.

Hello, my name is Wayne Deffinger. I'm pastor of Flint Hill Baptist Church. I live at 6053 Laurent Avenue in Fort Mill. I speak on behalf of our church family there at Flint Hill Baptist Church. Been there since 1792. It is a historic institution and sits there on Flint Hill Road. Know that many people have already spoken to reasons. I just want to give a couple of anecdotes. Most of that property line between the proposed case changing to light industrial is against a cemetery. Imagine trying to lay your loved one to rest and having to compete to hear the minister trying to minister to you and speak about your loved one, but you can't hear them because of the beeping of trucks. The diesel, the trucks backing up and going and making all kinds of noise that you know that they make. Flint Hill Road is already a very busy road with trash trucks going up and down, dispersing trash alongside the road, cement trucks going above speed. And adding more trucks to that would not be helpful and actually be dangerous to our 100 families that participate in sports leagues across the street from their proposed site in the fall and in the spring. If you've ever traveled down that road during rush hour, sometimes it can take you three to four cycles to turn onto 51 heading north out of Fort Mill across the state line and the same going north. West on on Flint Hill Road trying to get on 21 additional trucks added to that would only exasperate that situation. So on behalf of the people, Flint Hill Baptist Church was asked you to vote no on this rezoning of 26-27. Thank you for your time.

Thank you Sir Chris Thompson.

Good evening, Chris Thompson, Vanderlake Subdivision in New York. Most of what I'm going to say has been said already, but I guess it doesn't hurt to kind of double down on a few things. I'm here about the split zoning. And tonight you will consider for the third time the second reading of an ordinance relating to split zone parcels. The proposed ordinance addresses chapters 154 and 155 of the York County Zoning Code. The proposed changes to chapter 155 purposely strips the public's right to have a meaningful voice in local zoning decisions. This goes against everything our country was founded upon. The people have a right to transparency in government decisions, especially decisions that affect their homes, their neighborhoods, their property values, and their quality of life. At the last meeting, Councilman Adkins introduced an amendment to completely delete this dangerous change to Chapter 155. I strongly support this effort. It blocks a major loophole that would allow industrial giants like QTS to expand operations without public oversight. However, because the entire ordinance discussion was deferred until tonight's meeting, it is unclear whether Councilman Adkins' amendment is still on the table. We deserve clarity on this, and these changes to Chapter 155 must be completely rejected before any further actions are taken on the split zoning issue. This is not a harmless technical fix. It's a matter of public trust and accountability, and I urge you to preserve Council Adkins Amendment so that the residents of York County have a full and fair opportunity to participate in decisions that directly affect our community. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. That concludes our public forum session. We do want to say thank you to the individuals who came out to speak and to share. Again, it's not a time for us to answer questions, but to receive information from the community. Do we have a motion on consent agenda?

Motion to approve. Second.

Motion and a second to approve consent agenda. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, consent agenda is approved. We have one public hearing item today. Council to conduct a public hearing and provide third reading 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 Calair, Rock Hill, LLC and Palladus, Inc. relating to without limitation one, updating the fee agreement to reflect an assessment ratio of 6% instead of 4, and two, removing Palladus, Inc. as a party to the agreement and other matters related thereto. My understanding, do we have a report Josh, my understanding is this is to effectuate a change that has already existed. This was in reference to a filial agreement that was already done years ago. Parts of it have not been to fruition. It actually changes the rates higher, the tax rates higher. But if you can just share with us...

Yes, so like you said, the original agreement was approved in connection with Palidus Semiconductor Manufacturing Project. And Palidus ultimately did not move forward with the project, but CalAire retained the ownership of the property. So the proposed amendment will do is remove palliatives from the agreement and allows CalAIR to continue under the existing field of agreement. And it will also adjust the assessment ratio from 4% to the standard 6%. We also have a company representative over here. They're available to answer any questions that the council may have.

Thank you, sir. Any questions for staff before we open public hearing?

I have a question for staff. Is this change from 4 to 6, is it supposed to happen now or was it supposed to happen earlier and we're just doing it? Are we on schedule? Was this a schedule change?

Since the project didn't come to fruition, it returns back. Basically, the FLO rate that was at 4% now has changed at 6%, which is the same rate that all general commercial pays. Any other questions? Thank you, sir. This is not a new agreement. We are required to make these changes through a public hearing, so is there anyone here who wishes to speak against this change? Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor?

Motion to close public hearing. Second.

Motion and a second to close public hearing. All those 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? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, the motion is approved. We move now to our first item of old business counts to consider second reading of an ordinance to amend chapter one fifty five zoning code one fifty five point one two four six 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 and chapter one fifty four land development code one fifty four point four individual plants 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?

Yeah, I got a motion.

Yes, sir.

Motion to approve second reading with the following amendments. Delete the proposed changes to 155.1246 and amend the language in section 154.004E to read as follows. Individual plants for land division combination and recombination may not create split zones lots except when all of the following criterias are met. A, one or more of the parent parcels is a split zone lot. B, only residential districts are involved. And C, all split zone lots involved were planted prior to October 5th, 2026.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Do we have some information to be shared?

Yeah, Laura.

Sure and we we may need Mr. Buono to come up and help me out with some of this but this change was based on some feedback we we got from from you all last time and perhaps even the meeting before that and that was find a way to narrowly tailor this this ordinance change as much as possible to address situations where you have owners of existing split zone lots so that those folks can purchase and sell property same as anyone else and in doing that we we understood that residential districts was part of it and that it needed to be an existing split zone lot that the goal here was not to kind of allow this thing to really take on and spread further, but to limit it to the extent possible. And so then you have the date in there that says that specifically the split zone lot had to exist prior to what will ultimately be the passage of this amendment. And Jonathan, if I've missed anything in that, let me know. And then we wrote it in this way to make sure that language was clear, simplified, and captured those concerns to the extent we could.

So originally, I'll ask my questions. Originally, what was proposed that council consider was something far more broad. And I think at first reading, I was one of the most critical of that in that it attempted to allow decisions to be made about how to deal with things based upon the larger parcel. Since then, listening to the comments, what I'm trying to make sure is that this ordinance will only apply to residential. It doesn't apply to the situations that folks are talking about. It only applies if you have a split zone, current split zone lot, and the reason why it's necessary is to allow completion of sale. So if someone owns a current lot that is split zone currently, in order to have a plat or a deed, the ordinance had to be amended in order to allow the sale to be completed. um this would allow basically fix us in time i'm asking these questions this is more of this would fix in time so that we don't create more split zone lots it would confine it to existing acreage of that but it would still allow the individuals to sell their property and to complete the sale if they want to develop it they're going to have to still meet with staff and make sure if they can see where those demarcations are and it's clear, that's fine. If not, then they have to come back and do a rezoning, but it doesn't change any of the zoning. I just wanna make sure, am I clear on that? Is that what this ordinance does? Are there any other questions from others?

Just a point of clarification. Just a point of clarification. Since first reading, my understanding was this was about residential, only residential.

Is that correct? That's correct. Mr. Adkins applied a motion at first reading that changed even that section at 155 to apply to residential only, that majority rules concept. But with the motion on the table, that would also, that whole 155 wouldn't happen at all.

OK. Thank you. I was going to say, so from the onset, this was never involving any commercial property, just residential.

So, uh, when the item first came to council at first reading that one 55 section, um, it, it did not exclude, uh, commercial districts, but Mr. Atkins motion, uh, for approval of first reading did change that to apply to just residential.

Well, I think, uh, uh, first of all, you know, having these conversations in, in, in you know, parsing this apart was critical. Again, this is the critical process of us defining and identifying issues from within these bills and then clearly defining the guardrails and the understanding of what we really want to get out of here. So I think this puts in the restrictions that we need in order to manage this situation. So I appreciate it. Nice work. And thank you, Walter.

Any other? Yes, sir. But understand, the people will have to come and rezone if what they've already got they can't fit into or they want to rezoning.

Yeah, it doesn't preclude anyone from seeking rezoning.

I just want to make that clear, because everybody

any other discussion i have one question do you feel like having the limitation listed in item c is going to create long-term issues in the future because we are creating a solution for people in the past but these properties will still exist in the future people will still want to buy and sell in the future but this won't fix that So let's say the two people they're trying to help now, they do this, but then after that they can never do this again.

Yeah, that's essentially corrected. Anyone who has a current split zone parcel by virtue of this language, they would get one bite at the Apple to have an administrative lot line adjustment. That still results in a parcel that is split zoned at any time in the future. If they want to do that again, say they want to split it once and they want to keep splitting that same parcel, then they would just abide by the process that they do now and they would seek a rezoning with County Council.

So if this is good enough to do now, why is it not good enough to do at some point in the future?

Because we expect not to do any more split zone locks.

You can't create a split zone now. Right.

Yeah, by virtue of having this, it does limit the amount of split zoning that would occur in the future.

We'll create more split zones with this allowance. We can create more properties, at which point then those properties have issues, but they can't be sold or split or anything else without going through the rezoning. So we're not actually solving this in a long-term process.

Any other questions or discussion? All right, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Opposed.

Motion carries. We move now to item number two in old business, rezoning action. Counts to consider second reading case number 26-27, tax map number 721-0000023 and 073 to rezone from GC to LI 24.06 acres in District 7. We have already had public hearing. I know that information was presented to all of council prior to that. Do we have a motion?

I make a motion to approve.

Second.

We have a motion and a second to approve. Is that motion? Go ahead.

OK. I would like for planning to come up and present some information that they received.

I will say that at first reading, there were a number of deed restrictions that we were encouraged to wait until second reading to address. Is that something that staff is prepared to share or outline?

Yeah, I believe council's been provided with copies from the applicants that list two different sets of deed restrictions. One is related to purchase of the property with the current owner. And the second is what they are proposing to be applied by virtue of this rezoning action. So they both do separate things. The one that's associated with the sale, really looking to prohibit the use of the property from uses that would generally be competitive with the current owner. And then there are some what's termed as noxious uses that are also prohibited. for a certain number of years in those restrictions. And then there's a list that was included in the staff report also. And we also provided a table of what's been proposed to be restricted via another deed restriction associated with the rezoning. So hopefully you've all had an opportunity to look at this comparison table about what would be left in the light industrial district.

Can we get that up on the screen somehow so that those here who are for it and against it can see kinda what some of those restrictions are?

That's not something we have digitally available for the screen this evening, but I'm happy to provide that at third reading if you'd like to.

We can talk about some of those, can't we? You wanna go ahead and talk about them?

Some of the exclusions that may help ease some of the concerns of the neighbors.

Jonathan, did you have the Walmart deed restrictions when you guys talked about this project in the beginning?

No. I was only made aware that there was a conversation that there were some restrictions that were going to be applied, but we only received an excerpt of what those restrictions were going to be through that purchase and sale agreement after first reading.

Is this common that you don't get those date restrictions in the beginning?

Honestly, the county doesn't enforce deed restrictions unless we're a party to them. So we typically don't see them, particularly at the rezoning stage. It's really by state statute. The only part of a restriction, unless we're a party to it for some reason, that planning has to evaluate when there's a proposal submitted to our office is, you know, is there a use being proposed that the restrictions prohibit? So, you know, if there's a use in restrictions that say, well, you know, you can't build a supermarket, and someone proposes a supermarket, we say, sorry, your restrictions say we can't approve that. But if the restrictions say something like you can't have a red supermarket, well, we don't enforce the color. We just afford.

Okay. So can you talk about some of the restrictions?

Yeah. So I'll read from the list here. Is this the Wal-Mart?

Would you like the Wal-Mart?

I don't like the Wal-Mart. So these are defined terms, but they have discount store, grocery store slash supermarket, internet fulfillment center, and restricted businesses that include some of those things around a certain square footage. There's also restricted businesses that are part of this additional defined term of noxious use restrictions related to adult-oriented uses, pawn shops, nightclubs, recreation and amusement, sale of alcohol, things of that nature. So those are the restricted uses and the Walmart sale restrictions.

And then the developer's restrictions.

Yep, so those proposed by the applicant for this rezoning, emergency shelters, transitional housing, shooting ranges, data center, computer electronic products manufacturing, dry cleaning and laundry plants, electrical equipment, appliance and component manufacturing, Fabricated metal product manufacturing, machine and machinery shops, crematories, heavy machinery sales, rental or repair, vehicle service, bus terminals, public transportation facilities, and recovered materials processing facilities.

And can you speak to the buffer some?

Are you referring to the buffer that's next to the cemetery?

I think it was someone spoke that it was 75 feet, but I think it's 250 feet. Is that correct?

No. So there are two distinct buffers at play there. So when you've got a warehouse and distribution use over a certain size, which the proposed is just that, they do need to have 250 feet of a buffer in between that proposed use and the nearest residential use. So that's the 250 feet. So aside from that specific one, there are property buffers for adjacent uses based on the use that's proposed for the site, the use that is adjacent, and the size of the proposed development. So I heard someone mention 75, but I'd have to go back and verify based on those factors what that buffer would be on the church side of the property.

Christy, the developers are here and they can speak to that. It is 250 feet. I think...

What I would like to see happen, and as I understand it, the applicant, we don't typically hear from the applicant twice. We hear from them once, just like we do from the public. The applicant has sent in information that was sent to staff as well, and so the hope was that this information would have been uploaded and that staff would be prepared to identify all of the restrictions. that are part of this agreement as well as address any of the questions that have to do with any buffers. I think if y'all are prepared to work on that. Jonathan, one of the things I understand is that as a property owner, they are, in this instance, Walmart that currently owns the property, they don't have to sell their property. They can sell it to whoever they want to and that's not something that council can control. They have identified things that they will sell the property for since they are not intending to build what they said they were. And those things are part of the restrictions that Walmart has put on their property that they will not sell to. Is that correct? Yes. I'm trying to understand these pieces as we move along. Additionally, if this property is rezoned to light industrial as opposed to general commercial, there is another list of things that would be allowed in light industrial, but they are also saying they are agreeing to deed restrict so that those things cannot be done. Is that correct?

Yes.

what i had understood and what i had hoped that would be presented from staff at least at second reading is something that we could all see to show all of the deed restrictions that exist so that at least those are made part of part of the record thank you so these are things that won't or can't come to the property

And this is, as I understand it, the developer has put their own deed restrictions on the property. This is not Walmart. This is the developers. So there's another whole set of deed restrictions.

So all... Assuming this property is rezoned, all of these things are prohibited to be used, even though they're allowed in light industrial, they're prohibited by deed restriction. That's enforceable. Is that correct? Correct. Jonathan.

Yeah, that was the statute I referenced. So if they're proposing a use that was otherwise allowed, but it's restricted by a covenant, we cannot approve it.

What about this section down here, number three? It says all loading docks face inward so that any of the noise from those things, does that apply to any development on the property, that there won't be noise, the backing up or the trucks loading on the outside of the perimeter of the buildings?

Without the restrictions, no, that wouldn't be a requirement.

But this restriction does restrict it for this property going forward? Can you show us the ones that are currently the property owner is not allowing by virtue of their ownership interest?

So while we're waiting on that to upload, I just have a quick question that I wanted to point out. One of the citizens spoke about being residential. If this was a residential property on 24 acres, how many homes approximately or multi-family homes could go on 24 acres?

It would depend on the zoning district.

I mean, if they decide to go, they rezone it to residential. If this was a residential piece of property,

Yeah, and residential goes from everything from agency to RMX six and there's a range of density from five acre lots all the way down to 6000 square foot with the smallest lot with water and sewer provided versus well accepted. Yeah, that's a math problem. Not good on my head.

What I was trying to do is show a comparison of different things that could come here that some people may or may not want. Some people may not want. apartments put there. Some people, man, I want single family residency. I know our schools probably, I don't know how they would feel about it, but just, because sometimes when people don't want something, they don't know the alternative of what could come that could be possibly worse than what they have. Just trying to do a comparison.

But you still didn't answer the question. Yeah, so the question before council is, does it stay general commercial or does it become light industrial? So, you know, the alternative development paths were something commercial.

Okay, I've just got one more comment. Okay, so our community of course is very sensitive to warehouses and we are dealing with a bad situation. I do thank the developer for putting into their deed restrictions about manufacturing and taking away hazardous chemicals. So we're looking at a different type, are we not? A different type of warehouse than a 750,000 square foot warehouse that is housing one company. Is this, isn't this a different proposal than that?

All I'm aware of is that it's a warehouse and distribution facility. I'm not aware of what the.

You don't know that it's an individual, that they're gonna have like six individual companies.

I'm not aware of their internal details or how they intend to operate.

So who in planning is aware of this?

The applicant would be aware of that.

Has the applicant submitted any information relative to that?

to their planned operations.

To what they're proposing here on this site.

Everything they submitted is in the staff report. We have a conceptual site plan that shows two buildings. One with 161,000 square feet, doing 186 autos, 59 truck dock spaces. And then another building of 108,000 square feet, 140 autos, 45 truck dock spaces. So that's the conceptual plan.

So one I've seen, it is individually split up. In other words, if you had a heating and air conditioning company that wanted to come in, they're actually going to have a storefront. So I think I saw a conceptual drawing. And there's like six. individual companies that's going to be in one of the buildings and they're each going to have like a storefront and so it's going to look a little bit different than your traditional warehousing are storefronts allowed in light industrial well and i use that term loosely yeah it depends on what you mean by storefront well i guess can you sell out of a warehouse

You can as an accessory to a warehouse over a certain percentage. It would depend on the specific details.

Based on the design we saw last meeting, from what I remember on that is the two warehouses were set back with the buffer zone. On the upper front of it was still commercial. then um and again that's again from what i can remember from the diagram and what we looked at but the couple questions i have and and i know they originally proposed i think uh walmart to go into this location and i know that there were some numbers that we talked about from a traffic in traffic out standpoint when you do have something like a walmart going in there the traffic was comparatively heavier than It sounds like from what we're gonna be looking at from this possible change. The other piece of that is that, again, Walmarts do have trucks too, and they would then be part of impacting that from a truck perspective. So I guess my question, and I don't know, and again, I don't think we've seen this, but when we look at it from a truck scheduling perspective, all right, We've got other companies that have certain schedules for trucks that will come in during the day, maybe at 6 in the morning and 3 in the afternoon. They don't come while the traffic is heavy, so they're in and out of there. I'd be interested to find out roughly what we're looking at for truck schedules. And then what does the ingress and egress look like from the entrance and exit of these trucks? I know there's concern around the impact on To the road there and again, I think these are valid questions. So I would like to see that information.

Thank you for those questions. So. On the on the trucks as part of the code requirements, they have to provide an access and routing plan. So. Once they get to develop the property to that stage. they would start providing that information as well as the TIA. Here at the rezoning level, we're just at a conceptual, is the zoning district appropriate for this location? So they have provided some preliminary trip generation numbers, comparing that with what would have taken place on a Walmart site, but TIA has not been submitted for review yet for this site, nor would it be until they're ready to develop. They're not free, they're rather expensive to perform. And the access question, I know we're trying to focus on what the plan for development here is, but really I want to emphasize this is conceptual. They're not bound to this plan by virtue of the rezoning, so the access could look completely different. especially when they get into evaluating the site and the engineering, the topography might present challenges to what they're showing on the conceptual plan. They might have more extended dialog with some of their neighbors about access and try to provide one that works better for some of their neighbors. So it's too early to tell where the final access points would be on Flint Hill at this point for the warehouse.

Yeah. And all this stuff plays a factor. The other the other question I have is that when we look at 250 feet buffer zone, there was a comment made about trees being knocked down etc um you know you've got a natural buffer zone right there and that's a heavily dense woods from within there so i guess my question is you know how when are we looking at saving these trees in this buffer zone um to make it look as natural as possible to to um the concerns that I think I've heard tonight where a lot of times we've seen where they clear cut or they've cut down all the trees and then start planting some trees, but you really lose the natural view, you know, natural buffer zone that's already built in there. So I think that's, in this situation, I think that's really important that we keep a dense buffer zone on something like this too. And that helps with sound transmission.

Yeah, and I'll have to double check the exact language that's in the code because there is a distinction between a separation of uses because that's just pure distance, you know, and it doesn't prescribe or prohibit what's supposed to be in that distance. Whereas a buffer, a natural buffer would say you can't clear cut what's in the buffer. So let me double check that language and I'll tell you which one it's supposed to be.

And then the last thing I just thought of, too, you know, when it comes to trucks backing up etc i know we've there has been some requirements in certain areas we have sound fences that have been installed to hold in the sound i think that's something that we should look at as a possible solution if this is something we do approve so again Yeah, there's no code requirement for sound mitigation of backup noises from vehicles, but... Yeah, and yeah, so again, when you look at what they're stating won't go in there, you know, I think, and I do appreciate the developers here in working with the community on this. Again, this is the time to have those conversations and identify, you know, sound fences, too, may be a nice enhancement to this. That's it. Thank you.

One thing, I think 50, Flint Hill will have, I got a new updated design from Patrick Hamilton, and he has turning lanes on Flint Hill, to the right and to the left. They don't have now, currently. So there will be an improvement on Flint Hill there.

Is that is that as part of are there turn lanes as part of the development agreement where the developers required to do that?

Or is that part of a that that would be evaluated during the day?

OK.

He had it as maybe something that's going with the Penny's project with 21 widening there. So I'm not sure if it's pennies or the developers. It showed me a drawing with the turn lanes going right and left.

Yeah, whenever they're ready to submit for a TIA to be evaluated, they'll identify the intersections that need to be studied. Certainly that will be one of them, the closest one, and they'll have all the information about what's being proposed.

Right.

A couple of questions, please. Yes, sir. OK, so I think 21 is slated to be widened by the end of September of 2028. And I saw Patrick Hamilton here earlier. Is that still slated to be on time? Does anybody know the answer to that?

I'm aware it's to be widened. I'm not sure on schedule.

I've talked to him. I talked to him about that.

Is it slated to be completed by 2028? I think it's on time.

And I will say Patrick will be here at the next meeting to give an update on the pennies program. So he'll be able to answer that. All right. Flint Hill.

Is Flint Hill slated to be improved, especially at the intersection? I heard the question. Just want to make sure. OK.

It's my understanding there might be some intersection improvements, but there will be no widening.

OK. Let me say this, and I'll make my last comment. So when you look at general commercial compared to L.I., which I'm sure you've done because this is in your district, moving to L.I., I know you're going to have restrictions, but there are a lot more uses that can happen in L.I. If you want to avoid warehouse distribution manufacturing, then you'd go to, if you want to avoid it, you'd leave it in general commercial. But you're moving towards that, which I think I remember seeing in the report. There was 6,100 I think it was 6,100 trips a day coming out of this facility, right?

So again, for they've provided some preliminary information.

I think that hasn't been studied yet. I'm uncertain that's what it said. And I'm just making comments and asking questions, trying to do what's best in your district. And I relate this to what I brought up at the last meeting about Mount Gallant Rd. Mount Gallant from museum to heckle Mount Gallant from museum to 161. And I've got a proposed project. I actually have two proposed projects out in that area. And they're going to have an impact on an already difficult traffic situation currently. So I'm not necessarily opposed to the development, but I'm definitely concerned about the traffic. I'm concerned that, and I don't know what the situation is where you are, but I would guess it's the same, that out of the 14 categories that were analyzed in the TIA, by the developer before first reading. 10 out of 14 graded either C, D, E, or F. So it starts, of course, in A, A, B, C, D, E, F. And 10 out of 14 graded between C and F already. And it's even going to get worse once the developments come in. So my concern is that There are some areas here in York County, your area is one of those, and part of my district is one of those too, where growth has gotten a little bit out of control and ahead of itself when we haven't put the infrastructure in place, which is why I asked for that to be included in our small area quarter study because I think it's critically important because that area is going to continue to grow. Look, the developer or the owner can develop the land under general commercial anyway, with a lot of uses, and they could also do light industrial if we improve it. My concern would be about traffic. What are we doing about mitigating traffic here? I'm not gonna get off topic here, but I think this is an issue that this council has to take a serious look at, because there are areas of this county that are literally exploding that need help, and this is one of those.

I think, Mr. Huckabee, the TIA ordinance requirements that we already do have in code really help push that. So if you have a by-right development and it causes one of our intersections to fail at a level of service, they can't build it, even if it's by-right. So they have to be able to post development compared against background traffic under a no development scenario. They have to mitigate any of their impact to the transportation network to restore that to a passing level of service in order to move forward with the development.

Well, since you brought that up, I'll say this then. In this project that I'm referring to, we have some that are currently Es and Fs and definitely Ds. Like I said, there are 10 out of 14 that are in the poorest of categories. It might be if this project comes to fruition, they're going to have to address some of those that they're not causing, but they need to help improve them before they take them down another letter grade. And that may be something you want to consider in your area.

We'll see what happens with the TIA. They haven't done it yet, so we'll see.

TIA would dictate that. Will she get the TIA before third reading? No.

Only if the council requests it.

I'd suggest you request it.

Can we require TIA before we rezone? Yes. Have we done it in the past?

There have been at least one or two other occasions where you have done that, yes. There's a specific section in code that outlines Council has to state in writing the reason and the goal for requesting the TIA early because you don't want to ask them a question and then they try to spend a lot of money to answer it and they don't answer the question that you were trying to ask. So you can ask for a TIA before you approve the rezone.

Well, does the staff feel that if this project moves forward, it will cause the road to fail, then throwing them into a bag that says you can't do the project? Is that a concern to staff? I would begin to speculate. So how do we know if we should require TIA before we rezone it?

That's true.

I'll say this. I didn't bring that up. to cause this rezoning not to happen. I'm simply saying we had a TIA before first reading, before the land was annexed, and it's helping us have a conversation with the developer about what we might want them to consider that they wouldn't have considered otherwise. They've been working with Kimberly long already.

Just for purposes of clarification, let me make sure I'm clear. The comments that you made about the TIA have nothing to do with this project. Nothing at all. You're talking about a different project. But it could. And there's no issue.

It could be relative.

But the developer is already working with Kimberly. So maybe they can come up with something like that. But I want to make sure that everybody on council understands that there are three parcels facing 21 that are going to remain general commercial. Do you understand that?

Mm-hmm.

Okay. So they're gonna be like a restaurant or whatever, you know, goes in there.

It's not changing with this result.

They're not changing that part. No. That's facing 21. So I'm thinking, just off the top of my head, if it is, let's say a Chick-fil-A. I would think the majority of the traffic is going to come from those three general commercial properties, like a Chick-fil-A, versus what's gonna happen even toward the warehouse situation.

You mentioned 59 roll-up doors. I don't think that's the case.

Well. Okay. Jonathan, do you have any of the information on the parcel that we're talking about here? The parcel only is the internal parcel. It doesn't include the road frontage pieces.

Right. It's a partial rezoning.

OK. I'll say this. In order for me to support, I've heard the community, there are some concerns about where we are. One of the things that I'm concerned about is passing second reading at all without having all of these deed restrictions as part of the motion. I think all of the deed restrictions need to be made a part of it. I would make the amendment that all of the deed restrictions mentioned in the by wal-mart in the sale agreement which includes they have specifically come out and said they think refuse to sell the property if if anything is going to be a discount store a grocery store supermarket and internet fulfillment center or a restricted one of those restricted businesses uh... i would also which they go to very long lengths to define what those things are. And so if you have a property owner that's not going to allow those things to happen regardless, then then I think you need to make sure that that's part of the motion. I would also add I realize this is a lengthy amendment, but It essentially is adding in all of the restrictions in the sale agreement and it's adding in all of the things that are prohibited by deed restriction as well in the proposed agreement that we just looked at.

Is there a second to an amendment to that effect? Second.

OK. So what we're going to debate now is the amendment, which is basically putting in second reading. There still is a requirement for three readings before anything can pass. But at least at this point, what this amendment would do would be to put in place something that requires all of the restrictions that the applicant is saying they're going to abide by and that the owner of the current property says they will not sell the property. to allow in writing as part of the existing motion. Is there any other discussion on the amendment?

So your amendment is for them to provide a write-up?

No, it's to add all of them.

Right, but to add them as they're currently shown on these two different documents or one single document that is referenced in the amendment?

The intent of my amendment is to include all of the restrictions that have been presented to us, either by virtue of the sale agreement or by virtue of the deed restrictions that the applicant said they would adhere to, both of them.

Does that have to be spelled out a little more specific?

As a suggestion, you could reference each of the documents as Exhibit A and Exhibit B and make them attachments to the rezoning ordinance.

And OK, so I will clarify that my motion applies to any of the restrictions lit listed and exhibit B to the agreement of sale. And. Any of the prohibited uses identified in the restrictive agreement, which I don't. the restricted covenant agreement. I think that's as close as I can get.

You could title it as Exhibit A for the purposes of appending it to the rezoning ordinance. That would make it easier. OK.

Thank you, sir. Is whoever seconded my amendment prepared to agree to that clarification?

Second that. Agreed.

OK. So we are now working from an amendment that references those two documents. Any other discussion on the amendment?

All the traffic is a concern.

This is just the first amendment.

OK. OK. All right. Very good.

All right. All those in favor of the amendment, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. The amendment passes, and the restriction are made part of the agreement.

Any other amendments?

Any other amendments?

I think that we need to look at a TA.

All right, so is your motion to amend to ask for a TIA before we have third reading, or do we need an assessment of, is that your amendment? Well, however you want to propose it.

What do we do before third reading?

How long would it take to do a TIA?

Depends on the availability of the consultant. We have to loop in the state. We have to review it, look at all the data. It might take several months.

Is there anything that staff can help us with in terms of the question? I think that Mr. Huckabee raised is a good one. Clearly, there is a use that's allowed on this property that they could do that generates a certain amount of traffic. I think what we're trying to determine is how this compares to that and without having any kind of framework. I mean, the only other thing I could think of is to request that staff take a look at it and provide a memo and that we defer third reading until we have some information. At that point, we could commit to a TIA requirement.

Yeah, if you're looking for some additional information that might be helpful, you let us know what sort of comparison you're looking for. I think the applicant has provided a comparison of what the Walmart Supercenter would have generated in terms of traffic compared to what they're projecting the current conceptual plan would generate. So I don't think the staff would be able to provide additional value on top of that. But if there's another use you'd like to compare to, We can look at the IT manual, provide some square footages for uses and things like that if you'd like.

I'll second your motion to include a TIA. Does she make an informal motion?

We haven't had a second. I think we're debating what are the options when it comes to the traffic. What are the options when it comes to the traffic issue, and how do we get some feedback? I mean, I heard also some information about what are the current road improvements that are required from Pennies. That's a separate question. Is that going to be required with turn lanes in the surrounding area? I don't know. Ann?

Could we not, because she did, I remember the presenter did show us some traffic information. Could staff not sit with the developer to say, hey, if this is the situation with the traffic count, this road will fail. Or if this effect plays out, this road will still meet a passing law. Because that's basically what a TIA is going to tell you.

Yeah, that what you're describing is the TIA process, but we would look for them to have an official submittal. We need to loop in the state. There's more intersections than just Glen Hill.

But sitting with staff wouldn't take six months.

No, sir. But we do retain the services and do the analysis to have the scoping agreement with the state because the state has a role in it as well. A lot of these roads involved are state roads. So they would label, hey, your consultant needs to study this intersection, this intersection, this intersection. So it's more than just that one at Flint Hill 21.

Now, keep in mind, the traffic study is not going to eliminate all the other concerns that residents have brought forth. So this thing was just, if we're hinging it on traffic, Let's say we're gonna approve it. If it passes, we're gonna deny it if it fails. But let's don't have a traffic, a TIA done, then come back and say, hey, well, what about this, what about that? If this only hinges on traffic, I'll say let's do the TIA before third reading. But traffic doesn't eliminate the beeping sound that someone brought up, the noise and some of the other variables that have come up. But if we're gonna require the developer to do a TIA, we're saying if it comes back good, council's good with it, because we shouldn't have a TIA done, and it comes back, we can do these few mitigations, and then council still says no. That's a waste of time and money, and it's giving false hope to the project if it's gonna hinge on that. So I'll agree to do the TIA before third reading, only if we're saying if it comes back good, this council's gonna approve it, but let's don't move the goalposts after the TIA is done. That wouldn't be right.

Well, I think I agree with you, you know, and I think to this extent, I mean, this is a larger extent, a larger ask on and from in this situation. But I guess back to the timing with TIA. So we pass this on second reading requesting that a TIA be done prior to third reading. But so I guess my question is, I'd like to understand how we can

expedite that right how can we mitigate the time frame on this right the only impact the county has on that process is our internal staff review so one piece of the puzzle so it's the applicant it's their consultant it's the state so there are other factors in play that yeah limit how quickly that can be done yes we can expedite the internal staff yeah i would request to do that and and and again i know the client themselves i'm sure

will be more than willing to jump in there to support any mitigation.

I guess at this point, we don't have an amendment on the table. Are we asking staff to provide an analysis of options to us and get some response back about the options as to the TIA purpose? Or are we going to officially require a TIA before third reading? There's different options here. So I don't... I don't mind entertaining either of them, but I want to make sure. The thing that I struggle with with this particular rezoning is that it sure would be nice to do some, I don't know what the community, it sure would be nice to do, a lot of times community comes and says we really would like for you to put this there. we don't have that luxury you have you're limited by what the owner will allow and you're limited by what a buyer will put there and if they're all of these restrictions are in place and you've gotten some protections on that front and you've gotten some some traffic protections um that may be a good approach i'm that's that's why this one is a little bit troublesome but I guess I'm looking for a council. I do not have a current amendment for us to debate. The question is, do we want options first before we come back to third? Or do we want to commit that before we have some information back from staff? How do you?

I'd like to amend the motion to include a TIA to be completed before a third reading.

Yeah, I'll second that because the quicker we start this process.

And the reason I bring this up is that, and again, in my district, you've said it once publicly, somebody said it once publicly, that there's not a lot of growth. There wasn't a lot of growth going on in my District 6 in Rock Hill. But I've seen it now in 161-274, and it's happening on Mount Gallant. What I've learned from this is, most recently, when you go through that TIA and you start looking at how those roads are graded out right now, The developer is going to help you with some of that, but not all of that unless you ask for the help on the other things. And ultimately, as county council members, we have to be concerned that as growth occurs in this county, somebody's got to pay for it. And it's either going to be the developer or it's going to be us, potentially. So do you want to mitigate some of that risk now if you can? But you need to understand what the traffic is. Whether you're all C's, D's, E's, F's, whatever it is, it will tell you that. And then you can decide what you want to do. We can all decide what we want to do. But there's a future expense to continued development, right? And we're all behind the eight ball in the areas that are growing quickly. Way behind. Horses out of the barn.

Did you say a TIA was six weeks or six months, possibly?

I can't begin to give you a timeline. It depends on the availability of a traffic engineer, the availability of the state, and the validity of the data. So the more valid the data is, the less back and forth there is.

The one we just did was six to eight weeks. We didn't do it. The developer did it. I'm not saying that's the case, but.

Well, I think we already got some preliminary comparison numbers, again, in our last three. So, again, I think, you know, if we're going to move forward with this and we get the votes, I think there has been some numbers given to us on the upfront. I think we can help at every angle to move this along as quickly as possible.

One recommendation, if I could, if you're going to adopt an amendment to require a TIA, as I mentioned earlier, there's a section of the ordinance that's very specific in technical studies that if council's going to request a technical study, that you need to ask the questions that you're seeking answered in writing. So if you... I would recommend you add an item to your executive session for this evening, so that you can work with the county attorney's office i'm happy to stay and help with that as well, if you would like. Just so the applicant has an accurate understanding of the questions that you want answered so they don't miss the target when they come back when the tia is done.

I'm a little bit uncomfortable with passing a motion without knowing what questions we need to ask. So I mean, as it pertains to this amendment that's on the table, the current amendment that has been seconded is to require a TIA prior to third reading. If you're telling us that we need to have very specific questions as part of that, this council is not prepared to ask those.

Let me ask, isn't it standard for the TIA to include intersection impact and approaching intersection impact? That's standard, isn't it?

Yes, intersections, yes.

That's really what you're looking for is you want to see in that surrounding area, how does your area grade out? And that will help you, help us help you with whether it remains GC or it goes to light industrial.

I think the concern I have is the questions are an individual is allowed to build something now. They aren't required to do that. And what we're trying to determine is what are they allowed to do? With all of these restrictions in place, what do we have left compared to what's allowed by right versus the other? And I guess the motion on the table is to include the TIA, but I'm hearing from staff that we need to have very specific questions answered before we can commit to that. I don't know if someone wants to go into executive session to do that now, or do we want to defer the issue or get some feedback on the TIA before we take third?

I mean, if we're going to do the TI's, I think that's something that we need to mitigate now in a second reading. And then I mean, we don't like we could circle in and come back to you with requirement. I think the questions we're asked, I think we talked about it. earlier really around the impact of the vehicles or the trucks in essence. That's really the big question to me. So what is the ingress and egress? Those simple basic questions and based on what could go there, they can obviously come up with some type of estimate, but do you need to have the answers now? I mean, I think we pass it and we come back to you with our requirements so we can keep this moving.

If the ordinance says we gotta have it now, but if we're this concerned about traffic this badly, maybe this project doesn't go there.

I'm sorry, council and all that.

No, I think that these are conversations I think we're talking through and I think the proposed opportunity from what I heard in the original requirement had half the impact on this property that if a Walmart went in there. So I think there's less impact here. We talked about the numbers in our last meeting. I think that we are making this decision based on some of the concerns we're hearing, which again, we need to address everything, including sound and that type of thing. And I think By us asking for TIA, I think this will help us to answer some of the public's questions. So I don't think it's a bad thing going in here. I think it's an opportunity. But again, unless we can meet the thresholds, especially when it comes to some of these concerns or these concerns of the public, I think this is one of the ways we can meet it.

Well, let's be realistic about the traffic impact in that they show 24,000 versus 6,000. Walmart's not going there, and Walmart's not going to allow another Walmart-type business to go there, so we're comparing apples and baseballs or something. I mean, we're not really on the same page here.

Yeah, I think those numbers for this development is far less than what the projected was for the Walmart.

But the Walmart's never going to be there, so you're projecting something that doesn't even exist.

well I guess Walmart could be there later they just aren't ready to build there now I think we're speculating we have to we have to base our decision based upon the facts in front of us the question and the amendment in front of us is to require the TIA prior to third reading unless there is A motion for executive session to get legal advice.

Is there any other discussion on that? Yeah, just come up with questions after the meeting tonight, submit that to Jonathan so he can talk to the developer.

All right. All those in favor of the amendment say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Opposed.

Amendment passes TIA will be required before third reading. Any other amendments before we go to the main motion? All right, all those in favor of the motion as amended, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Opposed. Motion passes six to one. Thank you, sir. We move now to our only item of new business. Council to receive the fiscal 2526 development report as information.

Good evening, Council. I'm Josh Reinhart. For those of you who don't know me, I'm the Development Services Manager for York County. And what this is is really a brief snapshot of kind of all the permits Everything the Planning and Development Department has touched over the past fiscal year. This is the third year we've done it. And I'd like to introduce Oxana Holbrook. She's our Permit Center Administrator and Impact Fee Administrator. She really did a lot of the heavy lifting for this project and compiled most of the data and put the report together.

Good evening. Josh mentioned I'll be briefly walking through the highlights over 2025. Can you speak up?

Sorry, we can't hear a word you're saying.

Good evening. As Josh mentioned, I'll briefly walk you through some of the highlights from our 2025-26 annual development report. Yes. The annual development report is part of the county's growth responsibility goal and provides a way for us to track development activity and identify emerging trends. Today we'll briefly highlight some of the activity from physical year 2025-26 and identify and highlight identify trends and highlight some of the activity. All right. One area we wanted to highlight is plan review activity during the physical year staff completed 4878 initial plan reviews and another 1507 revision reviews for the total of 6385 reviews, including applicant revision gives us a better picture of actual review workload throughout the year. slide three this gives us a quick snapshot of overall workload for um the year we issued 5 614 permits completed more than 20 000 building inspections and saw more than 8 million in structure evaluation it's worth noting that only 600 I'm sorry, 268 lots were approved by a planning commission last fiscal year, and more than 70% of lots are in Newport Commons. Looking at the Five-year comparison permit activity has remained fairly consistent. Issued 5,614 permits this year compared with 5,999 last year. While this is a slight decrease, overall volume remains comparable to what we experienced over the last five years. Plan review activity also continues to show sustained workload with both initial reviews and revisions contributing to overall volume. All right, residential activity remained relatively steady with single family permits slightly increasing from 535 to 557 and townhomes increasing from 14 to 37. Over 90% of new dwellings were single family detached. There has been no new multifamily unit building in the county since 2022. On the non-residential side, permit volume decreased from 233 to 160, while evaluation jumped dramatically from approximately 188 million to more than 420 million. This large valuation increase is due to the permits from QTS data center buildings. And this concludes the highlights for the physical report.

Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Any questions?

I just had one question. The previous slide had several hundred permits per month or plan reviews per month. Well, I guess it's so. How do we get so many plan reviews but not very many permits?

Typically, I'd have to look at the percentage. But as you can see, there are a lot of revisions. So a lot of, this is everything from a shed that someone needs to put on their property. Some require building permits, some just require zoning compliance to make sure that out of a setback. And all that counts as a plan review, because you have, some staff member has reviewed that one way or another to make sure it's out of setbacks, out of easing, and all that. If it's a building plan, then it's a little more in depth. And a lot of times, even single family homes can take one or two reviews, that's why.

Okay, yeah, I forgot about like sheds and swimming pools and all that other stuff.

Yeah, this covers everything from signs to swimming pools to sheds to everything.

Okay. And I wanted staff to present the findings from this year. This was an initiative that we undertook based on the strategic plan that you all approved. And we just finished the year two of the strategic plan and staff has rolled out this report. But I would encourage y'all to read the report in its full document. I know we didn't want to spend a lot of time presenting it, but it really shows y'all where the growth is happening in York County. And it has slowed down. But it's mainly in the municipalities. And I think you all know where that is. And so that's where you expect the growth to be. But I think staff has done an amazing job over the years handling this increased workload with the current staff. And I greatly appreciate all your work and your your presenting of this this important work. Thank you.

Thank you. And there is a population breakdown of growth over year over year. On the third page breaks down municipality and your county as a whole.

Can we go to the slide that shows, I think it had the circular breakdown? Yeah, that one, that one, back. Is that a one year, $4 million collection? Or is that over a period of time?

That's over the physical year. So it would be. One year? Yes, sir.

I'm wondering if from this report, have we learned anything that we can use to help better serve folks? I mean, I know if you look back at the single family, I mean, COVID was 20. So the explanation of kind of looks to me like the 2021-22 is an outlier. So I don't know that you can necessarily use a five-year average on the residential, but it does look like the county is focusing on single family residential rather than townhomes. Townhomes and high density housing is not in the county. We're seeing less of that, which I think makes sense. But when it comes to single family, it looks like it's maintaining that, the same amounts, and at least single family. And then when it comes to the commercial, While the percentage numbers change, the amount of the investment has increased significantly to eclipse the other. So they're investing higher amounts with less permits, which to me is an interesting trend. But I guess my question to you all would be, In doing this analysis, did you find anything where there's some improvements that need to be made with our process? And I'm not putting you on the spot now, but if you want, those are kind of the follow up questions I would ask as to what we as county council need to be doing.

Yeah, we have. In fact, we've been working on kind of simplizing some of our forms and intake process and all that. We met on that earlier today as a group, as a management team in our department. So we're always kind of looking at ways to try and simplify things and streamline things for customers, trying to be as helpful as possible.

So to piggyback on what you just said, because I was looking at this same slide, too, and what I wanted to ask is 93.8% single family. And this is unincorporated York County. Is that correct? Yes, sir. All right.

So we control.

OK. Single family because of well and septic, I would guess. 6.2 townhome. So I'm going to take. Councilmember Cox's question and ask it this way. Are there, and you may not know the answer to this, but I'd like to know the answer to this since we just had the presentation on workforce housing or affordable housing, whatever we're gonna call it, attainable housing. What do we need to do in our zoning? Because we haven't had any conversation since that meeting on this topic. Looking forward to this conversation. But what do we need to do in our zoning or our approach to housing other than single family that can become a little more prevalent in unincorporated York County, considering well and septic is going to be, I guess, how you're going to have to utilize well and septic because we don't have water and sewer running throughout unincorporated York County. So how do we go about, I'm not looking for an answer today, but I'd love an answer to that.

Yeah, that's a little more in-depth. You know, over the past year, I believe a lot of these, a lot of the single-family homes that have been approved were, some of them probably in Westport, Westport area, Big Allison Creek PD. Some of them were, I believe a good many of them were in Lakeside Glen, another area of Alphansville. And the townhomes, I believe the majority of those townhomes would have been in Fort Mill and names escaping me now, but it's right where Knight Stadium used to be in that area.

Gold Hill Road.

Is this data also shared with DOT when they look at requirements on road expansion, et cetera? I mean, this is good data, and it kind of shows you present and future model for growth. So I think it would be good to share if you're not.

Yeah, happy to share that. I did want to add to Mr. Edwards' point. This report was driven by the strategic plan. Workforce housing study was driven by the strategic plan. The next follow-up item after that in the strategic plan is an initiative to evaluate, based on that workforce housing report, what are steps that the county needs to do next. So we have an initiative to bring that to council.

Appreciate you sharing that, because to me, this speaks to that need.

Can we get this by district, this information by district?

I don't know that our system breaks it down by district, by council district. It would be something I have to look into a little further.

I think there's a way to at least show where the permits are being done, seeing the geographic areas that folks are gravitating to. I think we have a guess on that.

Yeah, we could certainly put something, a map together or something like that.

Obviously, roads are a problem. So it would help with planning some in the future. We could get it by district.

The schools use this for when they start redistributing.

Exactly.

So it's really important.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Thank you all.

We do have a committee, Finance and Operations Committee meeting. Tom Alldead, our chairman.

All right, yeah, this evening we had our, this afternoon we had our meeting, and we passed a few items here which were around committee assignments. So committee assignment for Keep York County Beautiful Board, there was an at-large seat for Shelly Champion, which was approved, and then also Corey Tilley also was approved. for a seat on that committee. Also, there was a committee seat that was approved for, but they fired a district board, which was Christopher Meredith was approved for that position. Then a position was approved for District 6 for the York County Library Board. Ellen Brand was approved. Moving on to the next one, Bethel Fire Department District, Richard Granger was approved for that position. And that covered the positions we did vote on. And then lastly, we did approve some allocations of funds, starting off with District 3 for Sharon Boy Scout, Troop 137 for the amount of $2,000. District 3, York County Fall Livestock Show for the amount of $4,000. District 2, Defend the Fatherless for the amount of $2,000. And lastly, District 6, to SOAR for the amount of $1,000, and that is it.

Thank you, sir. We do have a citizen concern tonight. Is Miss Tonetta Moore Cathcart here? I'm sorry, if I pronounced your name wrong, please come forward. She's here tonight to recognize volunteers with the Walk for Peace community. She's one of the volunteer coordinators and has patiently waited her time to come forward. Yes, ma'am.

I want to say thank you to County Council for having us tonight. Councilwoman Cox, your district represented in a very phenomenal way. Hospitality wise, just volunteerism. Everyone came together in the county. You should be extremely proud of your area because they represented in a very major way on a very national scale within 24 hours.

Thank you, ma'am. I am proud of my district.

I also want to thank Councilman Buff Roddy, who is my councilperson, for always supporting me in the volunteering and teaching. And again, and so I really thank you for your support and thank you for backing me as well. In addition to that, my family and my husband, who knows who he married, and he's a very brave man, and I love him to pieces. I also want to have Dr. Fahm come up with me. Dr. Fahm is the medical director for Walk of Peace, and we've been working side by side for many, many miles before it got to Rock Hill and beyond. I have some certificates for the citizens far and wide throughout York County that represented very, very well. Thousands, thousands, thousands came to Catawba Baptist Church and represented and were hospitable and were peaceful. And it was absolutely amazing. And so I want to start with each certificate was signed by the Most Venerable Monk and Vice President Monk by hand. And they want to express their gratitude for their service. And it says, in recognition of your dedication, generosity, and participation in supporting the Walk of Peace 2025-2026, Your time, energy, and commitment helped to make this historic journey possible and meaningful. Your service reflects the true spirit of compassion, community, and a shared aspiration for world peace. With sincere gratitude for your support and contribution, they backdated this for the National Walk of Peace Day, the day of the 14th of February of 2026. And these are the medical providers, volunteers that serve from when I say they serve in a short amount of time until the last month went to bed from showers, from washing clothes, from food, kind of found out that they like I thought everybody was vegan. Unfortunately, they're not. And they love Empire Pizza. Who knew? So local fair. And I also want to say that before I start calling names, the medical providers that we have in this county are absolutely phenomenal. They did great service, so much great service that they did not want to leave. And many of them actually served in capacity in Charlotte the very next day. And so I just want to say we have some great talent here. in York County, we came together and with compassion and love. And I want to call up Matthew Lynn, Amelia Edwards, Andrew Ellis. We have one coming for Leslie firing an EMT. Super responsive, super helpful. They were on target and on point. Stephanie DeLong. Sheriff Tony Breeden is not here today, but when I tell you that Sheriff Breeden, before they got over the Georgia border, I contacted him and he's like, what? But he's been available every step of the way. including the York County Sheriff's Department, Alex Peddler, Dr Franklin Kelly, Kimberly Harrington, Laura Santos, Lori Presley, Carrie Coco, Mr Christopher Potts, Dr Mary Beth Maury, Amber Jennings, Mrs. Dolly Steele, John Bullock and Tri-County Medics, Kat and E.J. Gilliard, Dr. William Harris and his son. Lockie's son. Michael Kelly and Brittany Kelly.

Oh, there you go.

That's Lockie. Yes, that's Michael. Hmm. so for pastor john richardson and the catawba um baptist family they could not make it tonight but we'll be presenting theirs at church um soon but from within 24 hours this came together with the walk for peace we did not anticipate it getting this big at all whatsoever and it grew overnight and it was a a rewarding experience but york county was one of the best and highest attended locations.

Thank you, Ms. Cafferty.

Oh, yeah, we're definitely. Did y'all complete your programs? Yes. Is that everything? Okay. Yes.

Sure, go ahead. I want to give you your thanks because I know you've always been responsive, and I know you got this short notice and was able to put it together. And as you thank them, we want to thank you for spearheading the whole collaborative effort across the whole county. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah.

What we'll ask that you do, and I have to say this, Ms. Cathcart, you have such a positive spirit about you. I appreciate you waiting your time, and I appreciate you folks for waiting this long to get to this piece. This is something our community should be very proud of. I know we all are, and we need more of this here. How do we take care of each other? How do we start binding together in order to look out for our community and work for peace and a common goal? Thank you so much. If y'all want to get up here and get a picture, we want to make sure we recognize you all. Thank you.

You ready?

We do have executive session tonight Any other council member new knowledge in the comments before we go into executive session?

I'd like to make a comment with myself and a couple of fellows over there. Sometimes I want to hug them, sometimes not. We all ended up, believe it or not, at Narrow Way last week, and that was to celebrate, I think everybody was invited, but it ended up the three of us went. It was a very, they're celebrating 20 years and it is, um, I can't even explain their story. These two women that started Narrow Way and still own it and have tremendous hopes and aspirations for the future. It's going to be a show place. Eventually it's gonna be a tremendous show place for the whole county to be very, very proud of and something that will be, as people come from Charlotte into the Fort Mill area, It'll be a masterpiece. But it was a testament to God and to their faith that I do not know if I would ever have been able to sustain believing that I could go forward all the things that have happened to them. But I think each thing that happened to them made them even stronger and pushed them even further. But it was quite a time and we had some wonderful little snacks. And we heard their story from almost birth, I think birth, up to the point that they are now. So that was many years of the story of how Narrow Way started and everything. It was quite a wonderful experience.

while we're on that i'd like to just kind of uh expand on it one minor thing it was 30 years oh 30 years okay um so they've been there for 30 years it was a fantastic story if if i could ever find the recording of it or the ability to hear it again It was probably one of the greatest stories of dedication, motivation, believing in God, having faith. I would listen to that story many times over and over, and they were great storytellers. I mean, they should be up there telling those stories instead of having all the other people and hanging out in the back. They were definitely hiding the best, but it was fantastic.

It was.

I agree. I agree. I'll share a couple of things. On Wednesday, September 9th, I was able to go over to Riverstone Logistics, a company that we brought into York County and Rock Hill recently with a little bit of incentive money. I'm going to mention each one of these because I feel pretty moved by them. Number one, I want you to know that you brought a company into York County recently. who truly is gonna make an impact. When I walked in on the third floor, I probably spoke, 10 to 12 staff members of that company spoke to me as I walked in. You could tell what the culture of this company was. Five or six staff members were involved in the ribbon cutting that morning. So you heard from multiple people, not just the president and CEO of the company. And they're a Christian-based company. They are deeply connected with the community. And I'm telling you, as a council, you would be proud to know that you provided incentive money to a company like Riverstone Logistics to come to York County. It was truly a blessing. Their facility is unbelievably designed and put together. You just have to go up there and see. It's amazing. Number two, Pathways. I went to the Pathways luncheon on the 15th and You know, what they're doing to help people that are displaced and giving them a path to getting on their feet and being self-sufficient, it is quite amazing what people do when they have a passion in their heart to help people. And Pathways is formally doing that. And Taylor, who's the executive director, young guys, is doing an amazing job. United Way, Power to Thrive, Breakfast. To hear what the United Way's doing, they've somewhat shifted their mission, workforce development, financial literacy, sort of some of the same stuff that Pathways is doing. So they're actually helping people get on their feet, helping people help themselves. which is always a great story to hear. Then I, too, was at the Narroway 30-year anniversary. You know what's interesting about Narroway is, and I would almost want to ask for a show of hands of how many people in the room have been to Narroway, to a Narroway production. But I would tell you that it would only be a few of us that have been, which is quite odd. Narrow Way is the second largest tourist attraction behind Carowinds in York County, if you didn't know it. And over 83% of the attendees come from outside of York County. And I got to tell you, it's fairly sad, because not only is the story, and you are correct, they're clients of mine, so I've heard the story. But these ladies, when I say have devoted their life to this mission, They have devoted their life to this mission, so much so they never married because they were so committed to building this business. It is absolutely amazing. If you haven't been to performance, I'd suggest that you try to go. It is a New York caliber performance. It is unbelievable.

And they have a new camel.

Yeah, they do.

And her name is Cleopatra, and she's four months old.

Yeah. So I'd encourage you to go visit. They are looking for a new location. She's so cute. Last thing is I'll be sponsoring a table again this year for Safe Passage. So they have an event on October the 22nd, which I invited all of you all since we joined council. I'm going to invite you again. It's a wonderful event, too. You learn a lot about how women, children, and even men are abused in their homes and what happens after that happens. So pretty moving evening that evening too. So I appreciate your time. Thanks for letting me share that.

I'll just say I've heard a lot of great things about Narrow Way. I work with a coworker who goes up there all the time. So they got a big Christmas production he always attends and comes back and tells me about it. So a number of great things. I do want to put staff on notice. I would like to hear back on these supposed violation of noise orders going on after the hours that are permitted. That seems to have come up several times over the last couple of months over in the data center area. I would like to know if there's a way that we can Um, I don't know if we can have staff available, but I know we don't have staff after 5 or 6 p.m., but the sheriff, that's not his responsibility, I don't think, to enforce our noise ordinance. I don't know how that would work, but we've heard several complaints about that. Also, if there's any other nonprofits out there who are looking for those small grant applications, I put out publicly I wanted to get some grants out in time for the holidays coming up. any of those 501 nonprofits who are looking, I know we approved some today in some other districts, but that small amount of money goes a long way for our smaller on the ground organizations. So just keep in mind if you're looking for those opportunities to get those grant applications in. And we do have, well not next week, well yes next week, Public Works Committee meeting, another update on our animal control facility coming up.

Yeah, I did want to piggyback off of what you just stated about the noise violations at night. I think that's, you know, we need to really get down to the bottom of it, understand that what's going on here and really hold them accountable. And it doesn't sound like that's happening, so I appreciate that.

All right. I'll echo that and look for a report from staff to give us some feedback since we had a number of folks out here requesting help. Thank you. Yeah.

Thank you.

Do we have a motion?

Yes, we got a few. Receive a legal advice litigation updates, a receipt of legal advice, contractual matter, mutual consent agreement with city of Rock Hill. Receive legal advice, contractual matter, county manager. Receive legal advice, contractual matter, county attorney. And receipt of legal advice, county personnel policy.

Second.

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

Yes, we have a couple motions. I make a motion to authorize the county manager and interim county attorney to finalize and execute the consent and release agreement with the city of Rock Hill as discussed in executive session.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries.

All right, I have moved to accept the county manager's resignation and to name former county manager Jim Baker as the interim county manager, effective September 28th, 2026.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

Yeah, I'd like to just say that it's sad that we're accepting a resignation, but it's been a pleasure working with Josh. and I wish him well on his future endeavors. He's brought some great changes, and it's been a positive experience for me, and I appreciate it.

Yeah, I'd like to second that, too. It's been an honor working with you, Josh. We really appreciate the time that we've spent together. We appreciate you. Thank you.

Josh, any other?

Go ahead. No, I just wanted to say I wish you and your family the best.

Go ahead. Debbie?

Yeah. Oh, I was just seconding what Tommy said, for sure, on your family. We hope you get into a good place with your kids, especially.

Josh, I want to thank you for your service to York County. When we met you in 2024, you came in with a smile on your face and a ton of enthusiasm and passion for what you could do for York County. So from April to September, you managed to put together a strategic plan that we have followed and we have pretty much implemented. There's some things we're still a little short on, but for the most part, that three-year strategic plan, we're almost two-thirds of the way through implementing that. And it was your vision. pulling together this council, your executive staff, and all the employees of the county to bring that strategic plan to fruition. So I, too, pray and wish for the best for you in your next future endeavor, and we just thank you for the imprint that you'll leave on York County. Thank you.

I just want to echo and say thank you for your service to York County. We wish you well in your future endeavors. We appreciate the work that you will be doing to help with the transition and ensuring that we have a stabilized transition to the management of this county. Thank you. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Abstaining.

Motion carries. Do we have any other motions? Motion to adjourn. Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. We are adjourned.