Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I call this January 12th, 2026 meeting of the York County Planning Commission to order. Um, our first order of business is to approve our agenda. Is there are there any changes? Uh, since there are no changes, I'll make a motion to approve. Is there a second? I'll second. Uh, all those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. And moving on to the approval of minutes. Uh any discussion on last month's minutes? I had one comment, please.

In some of the notes, I've been superseded by a comedian. Yes, I saw that. So, I just wanted to make sure that we go back and correct the uh the appropriate cigura. for other than that for clarification. The information is correct, but unfortunately John's first name was changed in a few of the in a few of the paragraphs. So, we're going to have that fixed. It's that spell check thing. Exactly. Um, you are correct. So, with those changes, is there is there a motion to approve? Make a motion to approve.

I'll second. Any discussion? So, we get it. All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. Uh, now moving on to new business. Uh, the first order of new business is to elect a chairperson for the 2026 year. Are there any nominations? I will make a motion to nominate Miss Kate again. I'll second that. There. Any discussion? All those in favor? You need to ensure there are no other nominations first.

Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, please. Are there any other nominations? Okay, since there are not and there's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. And moving on to election of vice chair uh chairperson for the 2026 year. I is there are there any um nominations? Make a motion to for Mike as vice chair. I'll second.

Okay. Are there any other nominations? Is there any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed?

Okay. So, we will continue on as we have been. Uh the third piece of new business for this year is resoning 25-54. Uh, Vanessa Henan Brustlin is the applicant and PGM Properties LLC is the owner requesting to reszone three parcels that total 6.89 acres from UD to RMX10 and RMX10 to uh GC. The subject parcels are located in RPC Road in Fort Mill and the properties are referenced as tax map number 65500000025 027 and 058 Council District 1.

Good evening everyone. So this is case 2554 about 7 acres off the intersection of Pleasant Road and Highway 160 outside north side of Fort Mill. Here the applicant proposes to build a self- storage facility. Uh the applicant also owns the property directly to the south. Uh so all four of those parcels would be aggregated and then used for self storage. Uh here's a quick site plan of their intentions using access off of RPC road. Uh the building composes center point and they have stormwater pond and parking in the front and back. I have a full range of the commercial zones here between UD and GC. Again, a lot of commercial centered on the intersection Highway 160 and Pleasant and future land use. Given that we're so close to the interstate, a lot of this is designated for I77 corridor employment where we look for manufacturing, distribution uses, and other business campuses. So we recommend approval of the request despite it not being entirely consistent with the comp plan future land use map. Uh self storage is a little bit um less intense than expected within the designation but a lot of the other parcels are also zone GC in the area and the subject parcel given uh the intended use as a self- storage facility and it's offset from the roadway um limiting access and visibility but that makes it quite appropriate for the intended use. Any questions for staff? All right. I have a couple real quick. Um, if you would go back to the existing zoning map. So, everything kind of to the left of that is already GC. Is that correct?

That's right. So, both of these properties are exactly next to property that's already zoned GC. That's right. Okay. And the the second question I had was not being consistent with the comprehensive plan. It seemed to me that reading through that, it's mainly because of the amount of employment. So if we removed the amount of employment, would you all consider this consistent with the comprehensive plan? So if something was going there that was offering more employment, would that make it, in other words, is that the only that's making it not consistent.

Yes, the the corridor employment uh designation is looking for um business operations, obviously ones that benefit from the interstate being so close. Uh this one doesn't necessarily do that. Um and certainly we are looking for kind of economic generators to fill the space. Um but again, you know, looking at the location, even given that it is quite a bit offset from the interstate and is offset from the major roadways, um it something with a lower traffic is appropriate here. Okay. And then final question. GC allows you to do a lot of stuff, but they're saying self storage. That's right.

So, is is there anything in what's been asked that's going to put any limitation to say, well, you can put anything with these type of is uses within GC, but these types of uses are being forbidden. I don't believe there are any uh requested deed restrictions or anything like that on the property. Okay, that's the questions I've got at the moment. Thank you.

Uh so I realize that there doesn't need to be a TIA or anything like that, but I know that from experience that that RCP road basically runs between two well the Walgreens and kind of office buildings. The cut through from 160 to that road between Sherwin Williams and Walgreens. It's a horrible cut through. Um but there's no real stop sign there. So I'm assuming that there would be some improvements kind of where that crosses. Do you know?

Um a lot of them will probably get hashed out in the plan review process. Um Diane might be able to speak more to that. Yeah. And just a couple of things too. I'm not too sure what the staff report mentioned that as well, but RPC um road is going to be changing in a way that the access point went on to 160. And so there will be no um left turns out of that. It'll be right and right out only where RPC intersects with 160. Um, yeah, cutting through there, I don't believe there will be any changes to because I I use that myself. Um, to where that we can get between Sherwin Williams to that other neighborhood there. They won't be doing any improvements outside of their of their development.

Um, we are working with the applicant to the adjacent property just to the west to see if we can get some kind of an internal connection to be able to utilize that space there when that comes in for redevelopment onto onto Pleasant. So, we're trying to work with some opportunities to be able to provide some more connectivity through here, but they will not be doing any off-site improvements RPC. Okay. I'm just concerned because I know that right now, and I don't know whose responsibility is. I think it's probably Walgreens or whoever owns that area or I don't know, is that a county road? RPC is a county road. I'm pretty sure

it's missing stop signs when you're turning on the 160 and then also when you're actually like Walgreens like it over to the medical offices. So that's we can let them know about some potential that's the only concern I have is because yeah that's valid. That's all. I mean easy fix but right now. Okay. Awesome. Thank you. Any additional questions? Is there a motion?

Okay. I I'll make a motion to approve and and also that we pass along a recommendation to council to to really look at the possible uses for GC and that they consider whether they ought to put any restrictions on that when it comes before them. Okay. Is there a second? I'll second. There any discussion?

All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. Moving on to our last item of new business for the evening. Reszoning 25-56. Alyssa Hudsmith is the applicant and Philip Long is the owner requesting to reszone 1.86 acre acres from um RSF 40 to RSF30. The subject parcel is located on Spring Point Road in Rock Hill and the property is referenced as tax map number 54700261, Council District 6.

And this property is in a very deep suburban space just on kind of the southwest end of Lake WY. And the applicant is proposing to reszone just going from RF 40 to RF30. very similar uh density, very similar um size uh you know lot size requirements um but purely to allow the placement of a manufactured home on the property as the primary dwelling. Uh you can see this property is kind of a flag lot. It has access onto a small easement there um that then connects onto Spring Point Road. the zoning district generally RF 40 um a little bit of RMX 10 RMX 20 the north and our feature land use map uh reflects that pretty closely with all this area being single family residential so we recommend approval uh the designation doesn't really distinguish between RF 40 and RCF30 both are allow the appropriate housing types and density we expect there um property is not part of a plant subdivision though it is just outside of and the applicant does not intend to subdivide this property any further. Any questions for staff?

So RS40 doesn't allow manufacturers. That's right. Is there a reason for that? No, that's family historical how the how the zoning code has always been that district never allowed manufactured home. You can do it in RUD and you can do it in RSF30, but not RSF40, which is sort of in between the two.

All right, I'll I'll bite on the question then. What What would it take to update that so that it you could also do it in 40? a text amendment to allow that use to the uh use chart for a manufactured home within RSF40. But but what approvals or whatever would be needed to do that? Similar to what you guys recently did for the u for the tree ordinance is you would recommend staff to be able to uh go and consider doing a text amendment and bring that forward to you in a future meeting to allow that use to be allowed to allow that use within RSF40 because if it had been this applicant wouldn't have even needed to submit, right? That's that's true. Yes. Okay.

I guess that's the reason why I asked the question. What was the basis? That's sorry, James. Is that the only difference between RSF30 and RSF40 is the allowance of a mobile home? Are there any other nuances? The lot size requirements, just the minimum lots. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Any additional questions? Is there a motion? Make a motion to approve. Second. I'll second. Any discussion?

Yeah. I I would like to also ask that we have that investigated about making a change to RSF40 that we could have this similar thing since it's available in 30 and it's available in RUD that we go ahead and permit manufactured homes at RSF40 as well. Well, let's vote on this and then we can ask staff to do that.

Okay, cool. So, a motion and a second and any additional discussion. Okay. All those in favor? Anyone? Um, that was meeting. Uh, any questions on the reasonzoning tracking sheet? If not, is there a motion to adjurnn? I'll make a motion to adjurnn.