Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I call this May 11th meeting of the York County Planning Commission to order. Uh looking over the agenda, are there any changes or additions? If not, is there a motion to approve? I make a motion to approve. Second. All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. And looking over last month's minutes. Anyone have any questions or concerns? Motion to approve. I'll second the motion. Okay. All those in favor.

All those posted. Okay. Moving on to our first business of the evening. Uh resoning 2616. Steven Moss applicant Sheriff uh Sher Family LLC of the Carolinas are the owners requesting to reszone a 73.73 acre parcel from RUD to AGC. The subject parcel is located on Lockheart Road in Cheron and the property is uh referenced as tax map number 1380000006 council district 3. Good evening, commissioners. Uh Thomas Dylan, long range planner. Uh so this property is very large and it's outside uh town of Chiron, just south on Lockhart Road. So the applicant proposes to preserve the agricultural land uses and scale of the property. Uh you can see it's currently used for agriculture as it is now. It is zoned RUD. Uh you can see we have a lot of RUD and AGC here and generally a lot of agricultural uses that go along with that in this space and our future land use map expects that with agriculture staff recommends approval of this request given it's consistent with the comp plan. Uh this property abuts other properties zoned AGC and this the nature of this request will serve to achieve a goal of the comprehensive plan to maintain the character of rural and agricultural space in the county. Any questions for staff?

If there are no questions, is there a motion? I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Thank you. Moving on to our second order of new business, which is resoning 26-17. David Hudsmith, applicant uh Williams Road Holding LLC owner, requesting to reszone a 3.01 acre parcel from OI to NC. The subject parcel is located on Williams Road in Fort Mill, and the property is referenced as tax map number 73900 011, Council District 7.

Yeah, this property is out along Williams Road, uh, east outside Fort Mill and east beyond the intersection with Fort Mill Parkway. uh as it is, it's currently used as office space for a um construction company, construction sales company. Uh so the applicant proposes to build a multi-tenant building here uh to be used for office space for that active company um with potential for other tenants uh that include studio, retail, and other smallcale service uses. Uh here's the proposed site plan. Um again the idea is parking for uh any of the potential tenants and customers and uh two separate buildings to accommodate that space. Our zones uh you can see we have a lot of residential space here. Um and we do have some other commercial uses along Williams Road. Um although the zoning map here uh is a little uh misleading. Uh some of the commercial uses actually exist in the residential space and some of the residential space exists in the commercial space. Um a lot of these are grandfathered uses that are legal non-conformities. U but you can see the GC property that's directly next to Williams Road uh is residential and the GC property that is north of it uh is zone GC and is actively commercial. So feature land use this space is all single family residential. Uh this designation does have uh of course the the nature of it is generally large lot single family suburban space but it does have uh permissions for things like commercial uses at major intersections. So we recommend approval given it's consistent with the comp plan because while it's not necessarily at an intersection it does abut other commercial uses um and the requested NC zone rather than GC in neighborhood commercial. It allows for non-residential uses that are scale more appropriate for the residences nearby.

Any questions for staff?

Yeah, I got a few. Um Thomas, I I don't know if you know anything about the U. I do notice the one septic location kind of it looks like it gets into either an easement or a buffer area. um that one that's upper and I don't know if that is something that we can do or it's in the setback. I guess it's 30 foot setback. Um first of all is is that allowed um you know because Yeah. Go ahead. Uh maybe Diane can answer this if septic fields are allowed in buffers, but I believe it has to be an undisturbed buffer.

Yeah, you're you're correct. Yeah, it should be undisturbed. And once again, we we give you these concept plans as an idea. We have not approved this plan. So, you know, just because they show it on there does not mean actually going to happen. Okay. So, whatever the code is going to allow um is what they can do. Um you know, maybe they can't get two large buildings on it because it's just not a big enough property to make sure it meets all the parking and requirements. So, but this is how it could lay out, but That will happen in the review pro process. Yeah. Including the sizing too. Sure. Yeah.

Um Okay. the um now as far as the I noticed these buildings, especially the one in the back away from the road is like right on the setback and um is because of the vicinity of where it lies with the setback, is there going to be more buffering requirements, trees because it's like right there or Um it's a question here.

Yeah. I mean again the this site plan they're not beholden to this. It's very likely it will change and the applicant has expressed that they intend to be very flexible once they get to the commercial design phase. Um you know they don't have any specific tenants yet. A lot of the space is just general space where they hope to expect to fill it. Um um are they going to have so I think Correct me if I'm wrong. Let's see. Can you go back to the aerial that shows the fort? Right there. Oh. Oh, yeah. Go back. This one. One more. Go back. Uh, right. Right there. Right there.

So, the back part of this Oh, no. That's right. I'm sorry. It's not contiguous with Fortnell. I answer my own question. That's all I got. Any additional questions? Is there a motion? I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second. Any discussion?

All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Moving on to resoning 26-18. James Brit and Amy D. Springs applicants. WF Papy II, the third owner, requesting to reszone a 33.95 acre parcel from RMX10 to RUD. The subject parcel is located on Windmill Lane in Clover, and the property is referenced as tax map number 571001, Council District 2.

Yeah, this property is off Pull Branch Road, uh, just north end of the county near our neighbors in Gaston. So, the applicant proposes to build a homestead and barn for livestock and general agricultural use. Here, uh you'll see that there's a small cutout within the property lines. Uh that is actually a pump facility intended for uh the further development of what was going to be a waterland subdivision phase 2 that was going to occupy this space. Um obviously that fell apart decades ago. Um it is currently still an active pump facility. Uh, and of course, you know, there will not be any further expansion of this property down here. Um, but you can see there lots of residential space around here. Pretty much all large lot residences. Uh, we do have a mobile home park just at the entrance there on Pull Branch. And our zoning districts reflect that. Lots of u residential large lot restrictions. Smallest being of course RMX10, which is just these adjacent properties. Although the scale of this is a little misleading, a lot of these properties are at least an acre even within the RMX10 space. Future land use, we have a combination of single family residential and rural residential. Uh crucially, this property abut space that is within uh that is next to that rural residential designation. And also uh going back here a moment, we actually reszoned this property at the corner of Pull Branch and Waterland in January. Uh similar purpose. They wanted to conduct some more agricultural uses, specifically a produce stand here. Um and they went to RUD with full approval. Though staff recommends approval of this request, and while it's not directly consistent with the comp plan, it does abut that rural residential space. And given that we use the comp plan as more of a guide, um it makes sense to include this large lot property. Uh this abutz property already zoned RUD and again

just recently reszone for the same purpose to RUD. And the current RMX tone would actually allow for housing types and a residential density that's not expected within the single family residential designation. Any questions for staff? I'm assuming there would be some sort of easement to that um pump station. Yeah, there would need to be some some agreement. Thomas, the piece of property that we reszoned in January, is that common ownership or is that Do we know? It's it's a private residence. No, I don't think I think it's different. It's different. Okay.

Any other questions? Is there a motion? I'll make a motion to approve.

I'll second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? And now moving on to our fourth order of business. The planning commission is to receive information requested from staff on allowing manufactured homes in the RSF40 zoning district. Good evening everybody. Uh, as the title says there, we are to receive information regarding the uh manufactured homes in the RSF40 zoning district. And if you can remember back in February 2026, uh, the planning staff, the planning commission asked us to provide historical overview of why do we do we not allow manufactured homes in the RSF40's zoning district? And that was a a response to the uh reason that you had a few months before that to go from RSF40 to RSF30 for the sole purpose of placing a manufactured home on that piece of property. So uh we took some time to look at the history of this district, kind of compare the district to um the RSF30 district to see how how they're different, maybe why that would give us some ideas as to why we don't allow them there. Um but before we start, I want to talk about different types of um residential houses here. um so we can kind of know what we're talking about. So there's three main kinds of detached single family homes. The first one is manufactured home um that's constructed offsite and then brought to the site that's governed by the HUD code. Um the next one is a modular home and that's built in a factory, brought to a site and assembled there and that is regulated by the South Carolina building code. And then of course there's the site build home tone which is entirely built on the site also regulated by the um SC building code. Also mentioning here that a recreational vehicle is not a manufactured home. Going to give you some images here at the top there that is a manufactured home. You can see it's being brought to the site and placed there. Underpittings are installed. Um so that would be

considered a a manufactured home. Used to be called a mobile home. We call it now manufactured homes. The next one down is a modular home. So you can see it was built in a factory. They come to the site, they put in the uh the foundation and then they bring it in. Sometimes it's multiple levels. I use cranes to bring it in. That's a modular home. And then of course ideas of recreational vehicles. And so these two here are considered RVs. One of them is your typical you see all the time campers and one's kind of like a tiny homeish sort of and that's also a recreational vehicle. So just kind of give you an idea to what we're talking about what these three different types of homes look like. So looking at that um here's the the use tables. This shows you where you can do manufactured homes. Um I've also included in here manufactured home parks. That's also something different. And sometimes those two kind of get confused. And then you can also see where you can do single family detached dwellings. So currently manufactured homes can be an ACC rud then it skips RSF40 and it goes to RSF30. So that's kind of unusual to have that skip right there. Um, also to have to to note that in the RSF30 district, the code does allow or does require some design regulations. They're listed here. Um, we regulate different kinds of sight and colors and textures. Underpinning the difference between underpinning between this and maybe in an RUD and the RUD. Underpinning can be vinyl and this you cannot. They specify what different kinds of materials you could put in an RS for the underpinning part in RSF30. uh we need to determine for the roof structure like what kind of structure it needs to be, what kind of materials they could actually use, minimum floor area and width. Um and then also required to do a front porch in the RSF30. So that was to make a manufactured home more similar to what might be nearby in a site or stick build homes. And I want wanted to add to the fact that um going back it's always been this

way. Uh since the code was actually written in 1986 um we could not allow manufactured homes in the RSF30. At the time it was RC2 um district. So how are those two different districts different? Um they are the purpose statement. So at the beginning of every chapter for every district we have a purpose statement to kind of tell you about the character what you can expect there. Identical with the exception of the actual lot size. Um the numlot size obviously in RSF 40 is 40,000 square feet RSF30 30,000 square feet that's how it's different density is different 1.1 for RSF40 one and a half for RSF30 however they are exactly the same when it comes to minimum lot width setbacks and impervious surface and as far as allowed uses go the only difference is the manufactured home is is prohibited in RSF40 two very similar districts So, we're going to make some kind of a a change to the land use. We want to figure how is this going to affect existing parcels, existing properties out there right now. So, looking at this, RSF40 is much more common than the RSF30, 17,000 parcels versus almost 6,000 RSF30. So, a lot more properties are are zoned RSF40, but a lot of them are located within platted subdivisions. And those subdivisions actually have most of them have covenants that might actually prohibit putting in a manufactured home. They're kind of protected from this change. So, kind of drilling down into that, of that 17,458 parcels, 13,000 are actually in these platted subdivisions. And within that, there's only 700 of those that are actually vacant. Everybody else has homes already on there. And then in the non-plated subdivisions where you could actually not have covenants, there's only 4,000 of those. And of that, only 314 are actually vacant. So we're looking at there's potentially 314 parcels out there of the vast number within the county that possibly would

not be able to have a covenant or a subdivision that would prevent this anyway. So be allowing it for certain in those and maybe some portion of 708 as well. That kind of gives you an idea as to how many are out there and what this could actually change. So for next steps, if the planning commission if you find the zoning districts are similar in purpose dimensional standards that adding the manufacturer home to RSF40 would not be detrimental to the purpose or the character of that district. Then the PC can initiate the text amendment by adoption of a motion and then staff would go back and do our full staff report and bring it back to you for your recommendation. One thing to consider that if you do want to add that into RSF40 is do you want to apply those those same conditions that are required currently in the RSF30. In your packet it had the list of those. They're also here in the screen for you. And this is what the actual details that are required in the RSF30 zoning district when you're putting in a manufactured home. Any questions for staff?

Okay. First, first of all, I want the record to reflect that I did not ask any questions up to this point tonight. I let all the other ones holding back to now. Is that what you're saying? Because I knew I was going to have some here. So, just for for the first time ever, I held my questions to the last item on the agenda. Need to have Okay. So, first if you could go back to the use table you had. No, I cannot. Can you look set it back up again? No, that's the end. We go home. You're the one asking the question. I can get there now. You'll get there.

Okay. So, What? Tell us a little bit. Tell me a little more about AGC1 and RUD1. Why it wouldn't be in those as well? Because you mentioned it skipped the 40, but it also skipped those, right? Yeah. And those were actually added to the zoning code a later on, like a few years afterwards for the intention to be able to um

prohibit manufactured homes. So, they were actually done that way when they were established. They weren't established in the beginning, but they came back in and added that in there. Now, as you all can remember, those are now considered legacy districts, but you cannot reszone to RUD1 or AGC1. They're legacy. You can still have your manufact all those provisions are still there, but you couldn't resone to that one. But that was an intentional action done to be able to limit where you can put manufactured homes. So, you wouldn't be able to put them in these two as legacy districts that Well, you could never you couldn't do it. But if you have an RU, but if you wanted to have if you have RUD1 and you want a mobile home, you have to get it resoneed RUD.

Okay. And and what remind me again what makes one different than not one now? So the one does not allow manufactured homes. That was it. There's a couple of other things. There's very small, but um yeah, there was a few other things. Okay. And then for the other RMX 6 and 10, there's a special exception, right? So what that's for the manufactured home parks. And so that's if you're going to do a manufactured home park, you would be in those other two zoning districts because mainly because because of the density, they align that. Right. Right. Right.

And so but for that, you come back for special exception to be able to ask see whether is this a good location for a new manufactured home park. Okay. But I wanted to show you how they were where they were located. Right. Right. Right. So would that then just would that be a PD when you're doing one of those main? No. You would just come in and like resone a property to RMX10. Well, I'm I'm sorry. If you're going to do a mobile home park, would that also force it into becoming a PD or No. No. A PD must have a mixture of uses. So you couldn't do a PD for that. I see. So you would just resone the property. We had one that was applied for over off of Highway 5 a few years back. They wanted to go from RUD to RMX10 from new manufactured home park. That didn't happen. That didn't apply.

Um because a lot of that is that's the density that comes comes with that. Okay. Um what was the there was something else now. So if if the comparison the chart you had that had just the comparisons of the hey what's different. I think that's right. Is that it? Yeah. I didn't include the charts in the in the um PowerPoint, but they are in your in your package and your staff report and I highlighted how the the lot sizes were different. I'm sorry. No, it's the Diana. It's the table you did with who's what, where now. Who's what, where?

Yeah. This one. Yes, ma'am. So for the platted the parcels in platted, you believe that there would be restrictive covenants in place? I can't guarantee every single one has them, but is very common that if they were established before we had zoning, many of them did covenants to actually prohibit um Okay. mobile home manufactured homes. Okay. So really, you brought up about the 314. That would be really what's in question, right? That is definitely what's in question. Yeah. But it couldn't be it could not be the only ones in question, right?

So um because that would be ones that are are not platted. They're vacant. You could put them on their um RSF40 properties, but there could be others. So I can't guarantee nothing else can. That's what I was trying to clarify from this. when it's parcels in platted that 13,000 right is that vacant? No. No. So that would be 708 that are parcels vacant parcels and platted subdivision 708. So those ones that are vacant.

Okay. Diane is the um you know because we that's the reason why we brought this up because manufactured you know I always thought you know modular was part of that so I'm glad that we've is that in the is that better described now in the code or is that it's always been described in the code um but it does have a definition it definition for manufactured home definition for modular homes but yeah we've always differentiated between those okay and and modulars. But we don't different between a modular and a stick build. Those are the same. So you had a picture of, you know, kind of like a movable tiny home.

Yeah. Right. Um, right. So that's a recreation vehicle, but now not all tiny homes are that some. So, if you were if you were to take that off of its chassis and put it on a piece of property, then it would then become a likely a stick built like a a home, modular home. Um, but you'd have to then get it certified and everything like that. Um, but you could you' just be a tiny a small home, right? But you have to go through all the permitting process. That would be considered like a like a modular, right? Like more like a modular. Correct. But as is as on this where it can be moved is considered a

recreational vehicle. That's right. is still in a trailer that that really, you know, that is Timberwolf. That is a manufacturer of recreational vehicles. What what I think more of when I think of a tiny home is something that looks like a slightly oversized outbuilding, right? That that's usually stick built, right? That is kind of the way on a foundation that never had wheels on it except to get it there. Kind of like a module, right? But a lot of people want to come in and call that, you know, their tiny home sort of thing. And we don't really have a the code does not address tiny homes. It's just a smaller house. So that's all it is, a smaller house.

Is there a zoning designation where it's okay to live in a recreational? You cannot. No, cannot. Throughout the county, it's not. That's correct. There's a there's a small coet if you're actually building a home. There is a little bit of that but I don't want to get into the details of that but but technically speaking no cannot live in a recreational vehicle in the county. Okay. Now from a temporary standpoint if you had power to it and you know there's a there's there's a very there's a very limited word timer you can actually live in that and that's having to do with the construction of another home but it's very limited and we we don't because otherwise it just becomes where you live.

So there is some very small it. There's there's some very specific requirements you have to meet and a very specific timeline that you're allowed to do it if you have a campground like a KOA. Well, that's camping. Sure. You're in a campground. If not living there, 15 days and you have to leave. Actually, it's longer than that though, isn't it? But we are complaint based. No, she told you what the rules are. Yep. not what folks may or may not have done or not about. I don't want to. Yeah, I don't know how many laps you have to take around the parking lot before you come back and set back up and start your clock again or how that works or

But so Diane, is there um is there a recommendation from staff? Staff would would is is encouraged the fact that you brought this forward to consider. So we would like to see this we we tried this before. would like to see this happen. So, yes. And it's only been in place for 40 years. Yeah. Do you think that's because the designs have changed over the years or the materials or just I can't speak to how it was back then and what the thoughts process were? I really don't know. Um did I'm sorry. Would you mind saying the first part of your answer to that? I don't know why it was the way it was

right to our but to when she asked if there's a recommendation. What was your response again? I am encouraged to hear that you all brought it forward to us to consider. Okay. I thought that's what I heard, but I wanted to make sure I heard it correctly. All right. Diane, could you bring up what like the decision that we have to make tonight? There's two. That's a good point. Yeah. And so the really what we're contemplating here is allowing a manufactured home on what accounts to a larger lot. Everything else is exactly the same. Yes. And if we did that, I would imagine there would be less requests for zoning variances.

There would be fewer requests for a kind of forzoning. You couldn't get a variance, but we don't get a whole lot of these, but we have had them. And so, you know, why make them go through the process if if they can do it by right and it is um another uh option for people looking for afford affordable housing. I'm glad you brought that up. I meant mentioned that as well. It's very opportunity for affordable housing and there's a lot of parcels as you see that are already zoned that district. So, there could be more opportunities to do that. Okay. Well, then with all of that, I would like to make a motion that we initiate

the text amendment to do this with the same conditions that are in RSF30. I'd second that. Any discussion? I would just like one clarification. The conditions are in RSF30 right now, correct? But they're not in RUD and AGC or that's correct. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. And that's meant because this is could be more this is a little smaller lots and it might be more within a neighborhood kind of um setting. So therefore it would make it seem more compatible with what's going on around it. I just wanted to make sure we were clear on that. It's only those two zoning. That's correct.

That's correct. And the other zoning districts there's already a section within the manufactured home um section that does talk about underpinning and a variety of and the process and everything. Those are available require RUD and these as well. But these have some more distinct requirements. Just want to make sure we clarify too if it's if it has restricted covenants that they're going to be turned down. Correct. In our 40. Yes. Okay. But yeah, I like the motion. Yeah. And does does the restrictions need to be added to the motion for for this? He said he added he included it.

Okay. So, we have a first and a second. Any additional discussion? Small point of order. Yep. This this item is on here as receipt of information. Oh, that's yeah, they're voting to for us to go back and write the staff report to bring it forward to them. Okay. Yes. As long as we clarify that point, we're good. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So, I will clarify that we are voting just for staff to basically look at this further and bring a written recommendation to vote on. Yeah. At that point. Yep. Correct. Okay. So, we have a first and a second. Any additional discussion? One other discussion point on the sheet that we have the design standards.

There is a um subject in parentheses regarding manufactured homes located in a flood plane. I don't think you have it on this one, but it said in that case a requirement set forth in chapter 151 flood p plane management take precedence over the requirements of one and two above which we don't get to see. So is there another condition that applies? No, I I think what you're looking at is um manufactured homes in a No, I think it's the it's the next section of the ordinance. So I think this ordinance I think what you're looking at

it's before it's it's before yeah that's that's in the that's in the the other part of the manufactured homes that covers all manufactured homes. That's the previous section. Yeah. I just wanted to point that out. It seems it seems that if it's a manufactured home in a flood plane Yeah. that takes whatever those regulations are takes precedence. Absolutely. So we're just looking at the 155.458 and down. Yes. We're good. End of discussion. Okay. Any additional discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. Thank you. So, that means you're going to bring back to us at the next meeting. At the next meeting. Y. Awesome. Good. Good work, Diane. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome back. Any questions on the resoning tracking sheet? Your favorite. If not, is there a motion to adjurnn? Make a motion to adjurnn. I'll second. All those in favor? Have a good night.