Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, I'm going to call this June 8th, 2026 meeting of the York County Planning Commission to order our first item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda, and I have a proposal to change the order of the public hearings that we have. so that we just swap the order and we'll do 26-3 first and 26-2 second. Is there anything else anyone would like to propose?

I need a motion to suspend the rules and amend the agenda.

Okey-doke. So I guess I need a motion to do that. Could I get a motion for that?

Yeah, I'll make a motion to suspend the rules and approve the agenda. Amend it. Amend it, yep.

Okay, and then I'll go, thank you very much, and now we're back around to making the change. We had a, oh, all in favor of that? Okay. Now we'll get these, I've got my training wheels on tonight, my first one, so I appreciate all the help here, folks. So we've got a motion, second, and an approval, and so now the proposal is to swap the orders. Any other questions, right? And we'll have to vote on that too. Already have. We're good. Yep. Okay. Do we have a motion to approve the agenda as amended?

I'll make a motion to approve.

I'll second.

All those in favor? Now we're rolling. Okay. Next item is approval of the minutes from the previous meeting on May 11th.

I make a motion to approve.

Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? All right. So we will move on to our first public hearing, which is a waiver, W26-3. Kevin Garten and Bolton and Mink is requesting a land development waiver from the minimum required driveway separation. The subject property is located on the southern corner of Dam Road and Highway 160 in Fort Mill, zoned RUD, and is identified as tax map number 6520000022. Council District 1, Audette.

Thank you. Thank you. As you stated, we're looking at the property as you described. They're looking for a waiver to the requirement for a 325-foot minimum driveway separation on Highway 160. So the request is to use an existing driveway found a little further away from the intersection on 160 to create a shared access point that would access the development and electrical substation. YOU KNOW, THIS AVOIDS THEM HAVING TO MAKE A CURB CUT ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD BE CLOSER TO THE INTERSECTION, AND THAT WOULD ALLOW THE SEPARATION DOWN TO 125 FEET. HERE IS AN AREA, ZONING MAP HERE. THE GC HAS BEEN REZONED, AND THEY'RE GOING TO PARSE THAT OUT TO MAKE ONE PARCEL. AND THEN TO THE SOUTH, YOU CAN SEE THE ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION AND THE DRIVEWAY. uh... here's a project itself you can see how they uh... get into the uh... into their lot and uh... other can develop that shared driveway enough to read the numbers i got a little bigger blow up of the numbers uh... people are twenty eight up a hundred twenty five in case there's any discrepancy go to their favor given the relief for two hundred On this, you have two different findings to make, that this would be an unnecessary hardship to the applicant. And the applicant has an approved traffic impact analysis. It's approved by SDOT and not objected to by us. And this presents a really good option that maximizes that distance. It creates a shared drive and eliminates one of the access points. We think it would be unreasonable to disallow this opportunity to the applicant. into yet make this about defeating the intent the chapter uh... this is to manage operation requirements and managed safe access uh... to the highway and using the approved location liquid uh... create the best opportunity for safety and uh... to get to from the development acceptable manner uh... therefore we find that before waiver meets the criteria But we'd recommend approval of a 200-foot waiver to the existing separation standards to allow use of the existing driveway.

Hey, Rick. I notice there's, on this diagram that you have up here, there's a left turn out. in the traffic and traffic impact analysis, did they look at that left turn to see and make sure that there's, cause you got a signal up here to the left. Um, you know, there could be some stacking there and issues turning left. Um, was that ever, do you know if that was ever talked about?

Well, I apologize for my limited knowledge of that. I'm sure it was talked about. That would be part of the requirements of the data necessary to input into the traffic impact analysis. There is quite a deep stacking. Not too many people go to the substation, and they have a really long distance to travel to even get to that lot to anything that would be considered a distance from the stacking lanes.

Did it give an amount of light traffic? It didn't give any amount that would ever come out, come back out on the road? Or did they do any kind of traffic count?

people using this or working in off this parcel and the adjoining one yeah they'd have to use projections from the from the use you know for the size and everything what they're proposing on the lot and they would definitely have a traffic existing traffic account to take in consideration but i can't give you specifics so i don't have that on top of my head it's just a concern when i looked at it and we're limited distance too from that other driveway so Yeah, so you have to look further. You see it's kind of divided. There's a center escape lane there right where it comes out. They may redesign that a little bit. But you look at that, there shouldn't be too much action going across that road. So I think it should be a good situation considering all the alternatives there.

Yeah, my only question was about the left turn out. Thanks.

Is there a physical median that's going to go on 160 anywhere between that corner and the entry, the driveway? Not that I'm aware of. Okay, because I know they're improving some of that intersection. And there's no traveling from left to right on 160. There's no turn lane other than the one immediately at the driveway, right? There's no... SCDOT hasn't proposed that they have a separate right.

No, this design doesn't account for that. I don't know if they made provisions for changing the radius on that if there was. Okay. You'd see a little different design maybe in the future.

And then this is in the form of an easement that they're allowing that driveway?

Yeah, that's how they're getting on the other lot. Okay.

Rick, a couple for me real quick. Can you show me where's the one, several places it says 125 feet. Is that the 128?

Yeah, they have 128 from there. It was originally brought up as that, and I thought I'd go with the 125 in case something isn't measured just correctly.

And then to tack on a little bit to what Tom said, Would there be any reason why we wouldn't say right only out of that? Because this is going to be traffic that would be going into the convenience store, right?

Yeah, although I just wouldn't question the wisdom of the TIA. They thought it would be OK from there. And I'm not sure exactly what's happening with that turning lane in there. There is a little spot to settle before you go across right now. OK.

I have a question or statement to his question. I don't know if you're familiar with on right by the automobile across from the outback steakhouse. You used to be able to make a left turn there, but you can't now because they put the concrete there. So if you came out of automobile, similarly to the way that people will come out here, to 160 you come out to selenese you can't go left because the concrete prevents you from going left so are they proposing anymore yeah you can't even go straight yeah it bends so people coming right in people have to go right out yeah you'd see the infamous pork chop over there or something so they couldn't turn in this design doesn't have that though okay Is that something we could possibly look at for this just to prevent people from, hey, I don't want to go the other damn roads a little backed up. I'll go up here and make a left across all of the traffic.

Well, I'd want to talk with some traffic specialists and engineers about that. I don't think I'm able to make an informed decision about that. That would take some research. added review and work from everybody. I mean, this is what they agreed upon, and I will have to trust that DOT would approve something that they felt was safe.

It's just concerns that we have with that.

The TIA has been completed, and they have analyzed that as being a full access point there going left and right. It has passed, so therefore they've analyzed it. It is okay. It did not fail. If you can go to the previous slide that kind of zooms out to the full site, as you can see, there is an access point further down on Dam Road. I would imagine folks are going to want to go east or westbound. They're going to go out that way and go to the lake. And so they're not going to try to make that left-hand turn and they can make a safe movement going through that Southern portion and going out to the light.

Well, but to your very point, though, if you look at this diagram, it shows two lanes leaning one with the arrow to the left, one to the right. So if damn road is backed up.

And then that example goes right from the left-hand lane.

If damn road is backed up and I just said, you know what, hang with it. I'm just going to take a chance.

they might but like i said that has been approved by the tia and it did not it passed so it didn't fail making that left-hand movement so i wouldn't want to go beyond like he was saying they've already looked at it they're not requiring any kind of median there and make the left-hand movement is okay okay

Diane, can we note a concern about that? I mean, I understand that, you know, is there any way we can put that in the minutes that we had?

Sure. You can do that. You can note a concern.

Yeah.

And, Diane, one real quick one about a TIA. I'm not familiar with the data is based on what's happening or how far into the future does it project?

how traffic could change that might warrant wanting to do something like this sure i don't do a lot of the commercial part in terms of the tia but there is a projection there's a growth pattern that's added to it as well so they do look out into the future as well but the the term's a little unclear is how far out they look right yeah okay some point past the build out i believe is what it is okay um They look at what's going on in the area, analyze intersections. They are actually doing a mitigation, paying some money to an intersection improvement further down the road. That came out of the TIA to pay some actual mitigation costs.

Okay. Any other questions for staff? Do we have any motions?

It's a public hearing.

oh sorry that's right that's right no I'm so sorry folks yep keep my training wheels working here so since this is a public hearing is there anyone here tonight who would like to speak against this proposal well just against for now if there's anyone who'd like to speak against Okay. So part two is then anyone who'd like to speak in favor of it. I can do that. Okay, great. And so when you come to the microphone, please state your name and your address.

Perfect. I'm Kevin Garten. I'm at 1801 North Graham Street in Charlotte, North Carolina. I am the engineer of record for this project. So I was just offering to answer any questions you guys might have. I know there was some questions on the left turn on Highway 160. We actually just talked to SCDOT in the past two weeks, and they requested us to go from the left out, right out to just one single lane for left and right. Part of the reasoning for that is Dam Road does get very backed up in the afternoons and the mornings due to the school traffic. So that was the alternative for fire and things of that nature to make sure that there was an alternative exit outside of the site.

So you all are encouraging people to turn left out of that?

It's not an encouragement. It's a separate option. So if somebody wants to try to take the left, then they can. But it is anticipated, and that's what our TIA showed, is that the prominent movement would be going to Dam Road to make the left onto Highway 160 using the light.

Any other questions?

So that's going to be a, instead of the two, it's going to be single. Correct. So you can either turn right or left. Correct.

Yeah, SCDOT didn't request or require any kind of other modifications to Highway 160 either. They just wanted that one change of the driveway.

Good to know. Okay, so didn't you just tell us to provide better flow if there's a fire or anything? But if you reduce it from two to one, aren't I limiting the ability for people? If you give me two doors to go out of and say, no, we don't want two doors, make it one, and you can go left or right out of that door once you hit it. you've limited the number of exit points. So isn't that counter to what you all are looking to do?

Yeah, we wanted to do the left turn lane and the right turn lane. SCDOT had concerns due to the turning radius in that access easement that if a large tractor trailer were to make that turn, they're going to cross over the left turn lane if they're trying to get on the right out. So there was a bit of a safety concern there, which is why they requested just the one lane to go left and right out of.

So just to clarify, though, the width of the driveway didn't change.

Correct.

So you're just having a right side that's more in line with the left side of that diagram showing the end. The one end, you would have another side that would be one out that was just as wide as that. Correct. But the overall driveway width is the same. So it's still roughly four cars wide, correct?

So I guess now you bring up a whole other concern, which is you're going to have tractor trailers. Well, you're going to have gas tankers with no lights because there's no light at this entrance on Dam Road. There's no light at this entrance on 160. So now we have gas tankers. Crossing all the traffic, either on dam road or on one 60 to get in here, unless they're coming from the west where they can take this entrance, the one entrance to get in.

Yeah. I mean, there is turning movement that they can tanker can fill up and go back to dam road. They have the turning movement to do that. That's just the alternative if they want to go that way.

But if they're bringing gas.

So if they're bringing gas, correct. They can either take a right off of Highway 160 or they can take a right on Dam Road and then a left into the site.

Let me ask it a different way. Which way do you anticipate the tractor trailers coming in? From the left to the right?

If they're coming from 77, I'm anticipating them coming from right to left.

Okay.

And as I said, I would, depending on the time of day, it would probably be the highway 160 entrance. But if it's backed up, then it would make sense to go to the light where it's controlled turn. And the TIA, just to answer that one, it did project out 10, 20 plus years for that build out as well.

Unless the truckers figure out common sense, do get off at exit 88, go down to 160, and make a left.

We try to deny it the best we can.

They can figure things out themselves. You get stuck there trying to cross traffic or just saying, hey, I'm hauling gas. Who's going to run into me? Right.

Yeah, most of the design has been dictated by SCDOT with what we're allowed to put in the driveway as well as what we're allowed to do on SC160. So this is kind of just the directive we've been given by SCDOT and the results of the TIA.

All right. Thank you, sir. Absolutely.

Make a motion to close public hearing if there's nobody else.

I'll second.

I have a motion and a second to close public hearing. All those in favor? And do we have another motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the waiver as presented.

I'll second.

Any discussion on what we've had? Okay. All those in favor? Any opposed? Okay. All right, so now we're going to move on to our second public hearing, which is also a waiver. And this is waiver 26 dash 2. Lenore Carolinas is requesting a land development waiver from the minimum required side setback from contiguous sub lots. The subject property is located on the eastern side of Coltharp Road in Fort Mill. It's zoned Residential Mixed Use 6 and is identified as tax map numbers 6550000011 and 650000057 and 083. Council District 1, Audette.

Good evening, Marion Ray, zoning planner for York County. Go through the waiver here. It's a little bit confusing, some of the wording, but here's the site is off of Coultharp, just north of its intersection with Pleasant, so it's on the west side of I-77. The zoning map is RMX 6. Fun fact, it was the first RMX 6 rezoning in the county. And go through here. Here's the preliminary plat for it. You'll see it again later, hopefully. And it's townhomes with a big central area. So the way this project was designed, you have a very narrow entry to the property and then it spreads out. So we were having a really hard time getting the open space to work so that everybody could use it. So basically our landscape architect and the Lennar folks worked together to create a way to make it work. So I'll go through the waiver here. The way to make it work is they wanted to reduce the sub-lot separation for townhome units from 20 feet to zero feet. I have a graphic. The reduction of the sub-lot separation means the townhome structures will be 20 feet apart instead of 40 feet apart. And the reduction of the separation requirement will allow for a large central amenity for the entire development to enjoy. So here's the graphic. The top graphic is from our code. It shows the sub-lots are 20 feet apart. Now the structures within those sub-lots have a side setback of 10 feet. So it's not to scale, but it's beautiful. I drew in where the structures would be in the top figure, showing that that's a 10 foot side setback for the structure to the sub-lot line. And there's 20 feet until the next sub-lot line, and then 10 feet. to the structure the structures will be forty feet apart under standard code and this uh... what we're requesting here is to take the sub lots down to zero so each of the structures will still have their ten foot side setback but they will not have the extra twenty feet between them effectively takes the with the buildings from forty peter forty feet across apart to twenty feet apart though it's It's a little confusing when you hear zero setback. We mean internally. It is not external to the site. It'll still meet a 50-foot building setback buffer area around the entire site. It's just the structures within the site will be a little closer together. So go through the findings here. Provision of the regulations would cause unnecessary hardship because of topographical and other conditions peculiar to the site. That narrow entry and then the spread out caused some issues trying to get the open space to work in there, and it just kept making a really odd configuration of lots. So we were able to work with them. Again, our landscape architect kind of sat down and helped, like came up with some ideas. And so the applicant has been asked to bring the amenities to the central location rather than fragmented around to meet open space code requirements, but kind of slightly different way, kind of massage the code a little bit. It allows for the sub-lot separation. Reduction allows for townhome frontages facing that open space. So staff finds proposed waiver meets this requirement. The second finding is departure may be made without defeating the intent of the provision of this chapter. They're still going to have 30% open space. That's the minimum required. They're meeting it, except now it's going to be kind of a central bond landscaped area that everybody can enjoy and it's all centrally located instead of kind of scattered out everywhere. They're still going to have some paths in there. They're still going to have some additional open space amenities, but reducing everything creates like a courtyard type situation for this. So we we think exchanging the sub lot separation in favor of the larger central thing meets the intent of the code. So staff finds it meets the proposed waiver. So we recommend approval of the 20 foot waiver for sub lot separation. I'll go back to my handy dandy little graphic here. You have any questions for staff?

Yeah, Marion, do you know what the average size lot is that, and does that follow under RMX 6?

The minimum lot size for...

I mean the lot size, yeah.

Yeah, is 1,800 square feet. Only the central ones are going to be 1,800 square feet. The ones on the ends will be larger just because that 10-foot side setback has to be incorporated.

So that's... Gee, that's a... Trying to think, that's point what, 0.1 acre or a little less than that?

I cannot remember off the top of my head.

42,500 square feet.

43,500.

And I knew you had it.

Yeah.

OK.

But I'm just saying that's, yeah. It's pretty small.

Well, the lot sizes will still meet code. So even if they had the 20 foot separation in there, the lot sizes wouldn't have to change. I think they're actually allowing for a larger sub lot size, so it's going to be 2100 square feet according to the graphic at the bottom. So they are larger than code minimum. Individual sub lots.

On. Just to to clarify a little bit for me. So the items listed one through six are those in the same physical building and they're sharing walls or those individual their townhomes. So they are separated. Yes. So what would be the separation between five and six?

The separation between five and six is zero. That's the shared wall. So lots one through six are one townhome structure. That's what I was getting at. And then lots seven through 12 are another one.

Right. So it is all within one structure. Right. Okay.

We're just talking about the ends.

Okay. Okay.

What was the original intention in the code for the 20 foot separation between sub lots?

Just to create open space and to not stack homes altogether. We also before did not have many open space requirements for townhomes. So this was a way to kind of incorporate a way to add open space into townhomes. In this situation, it's going to meet But you look at the old town home communities, there's almost no open space. And they were all stacked up on top of each other. Well, this one's going to be a bit stacked up on top of each other, but there's a big lawn right in the middle of everything. So when you drive in, it's going to be gated. It's private roads. You drive in, you open the gate, there's grass right up in front of you.

Could you go back to that photo? You had that in there. Could you go back and show us that while you're? Yes.

The gates are actually going to be a little bit closer to Culltharp. And they're going to have the mail kiosk to the left. And then there's going to be plenty of open space along the north side of the property with their detention pond. You can see the trails. And then they're going to have the central park in the middle with parking for, it's going to be the guest parking. And if they have, when you have kids and they have a bunch of stuff, sometimes you don't want to have to drag it. So, yeah.

Couple more, well, are these, do we know what the design of these, are these gonna be like single garages or what?

I believe they are having double garages. Okay.

All right. Do we have an example in the county that has zero setback?

most of the existing um town home units that you find in like regent park everything do have the it's basically 20 feet separation because you have that 10 foot side setback sometimes with some of the pds it gets tighter but um standard even in charlotte mecklenburg would be to have a zero sub lot separation york county is an outlier with that 20 foot

So you give a little bit, well, with the more green space. So that's what you're trying to establish.

More visible green space. It got very fragmented.

Are there anything, any requirements in the code on the maximum amount of shared structures in the same group? So in other words, we're looking across as the example you gave us was one through 12 and there's six in each of those buildings.

I believe that's building code, international building code. Let me see.

Because off to the right side of the development, we're down to five. You're right. Right?

I believe the maximum is six per building code.

Okay.

Okay.

And would that, the setback that we're discussing would not affect the ones on the right with the five? They already have all the, or would those be closer together as well? So in other words, would that be, I'm trying to get some numbers here for you, Mayor, like 53 and 54, okay? The separation between those two buildings, would that be 40 feet or would that be 20 as well? So it's through the whole, the whole thing is gonna snug in, okay. Any other questions for staff?

There appears to be a second part to the waiver which references guest parking. It looks as if we're down. I'm not sure what the requirement is. What was the normal requirement?

They meet all the guest parking requirements. The part of the waiver, it was written fairly early. It was determined by staff that we could, staff had the ability to You were required to have off-street parking or guest parking, but there's a section in the townhome development code that allows us to allow for on-street parking, which is unusual and which is why it didn't pop the first time.

So basically what's considered on-street are the 20 spaces roughly that are surrounding the open space square? Yes, sir. There's no other?

The parallel parking.

Yeah, that's why I was asking about how many garage spaces.

Yeah, because there's 19 spaces for 57 homes, regardless of whether it's on street or off street.

And that is the code minimum.

OK. Thanks for clarifying that.

Anything else for staff? Thank you very much, ma'am. All right. So is there, we'll get the order right this time, is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of this this evening? Again, when you come to the microphone, state your name and your address, please. Yes, sir.

Good evening. My name is Turner Grunewald, 6526 Bells Mill Drive, Charlotte, North Carolina. I work for Ardura. We are the civil engineer on the project, joined here by my colleagues from Lenar as well. Big thank you to staff on this one. As Marian said, we went through a few design iterations. with different layouts that had different smatterings of open space, and because of that, Maine pinched entrance off of Coltharp Road, had a tough time getting something that was cohesive for the development. Uh, so along with planning staff, uh, we decided it was best for the community to, uh, shrink the footprint and, uh, condense in the town home units and allow for a zero, uh, foot setback between the sub lots. And that allowed us to create this nice, uh, large visible open green space that's accessible to everyone throughout the community. rather than having open space dispersed throughout the subdivision. So here to answer any questions and thank you for your time.

So there's really not going to be any, if you have double car garages, if that's what the design is, it's going to be all pretty much all concrete in front, right?

there will be uh... yes the houses do you have a two-car garage and a lot of two-car driveway as well can i ask mary the question since that's the case is there any

tree requirements and have trees every so often in front of here to break up those concrete drives or what?

yes there's supposed to be a landscaped strip between each driveway i can't remember if it's eight feet wide it's eight feet yeah yeah there will be sorry it's gonna be landscaped with tree uh probably a they're gonna be a variety of trees they're not gonna do the same tree but they'll have a tree basically in front of every unit and then um any of the buffer and um areas that might get a slight disturbance will be replanted some of the buffer areas are a little sparse will be replanted and then there will be landscaping on the square other questions all right thank you very much sir yeah thank you okay and is there anyone who wishes to speak against this proposal tonight

I have a motion to close public hearing.

I'll second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to close public hearing. All those in favor? Okay, do we have a new motion?

I make a motion to approve.

I'll second.

Okay, any discussion beyond what we've had? Okay, all those in favor? All right. That concludes our second public hearing. And now I think we're on to Ms. Merriam again for questions. preliminary plat for the same area we were just discussing. Again, this is the Wedgwood Townhome Development, eastern side of Coultharp Road in Fort Mill, zoned RMX 6, tax map number 6550000011.

six five zero zero zero zero zero zero five seven and zero eight three still council district one audit good evening again um we're here because the waiver was approved so the preliminary plaque can be approved uh reviewed for approval um you're familiar with the area and the zoning The preliminary plat, I always use the one with the open space and green space, because it's a lot more attractive than any of the other ones, really. So it's 57 townhomes, and it meets all the requirements with open space, despite the side setbacks. So it meets requirements or exceeds requirements on all the standard zoning requirements for this. They'll go through the findings here. The site will be serviced by York County Utilities. A willingness and capability letter has been provided for the project. So the second part of the finding does not apply. And then proposed land use and density complies with zoning district. Townhomes aren't allowed use in RMX 6. The maximum density is 12 units per acre, and this project proposes a density of 5.26 units per acre. So the applicant agrees to adequately mitigate the traffic impacts to the traffic network. A TIA was completed and approved by staff. Mitigation is not required. The TIA was based off an earlier TIA for an approved townhomes, and the number was reduced of townhomes. So it's actually smaller than what was previously approved. No three here. Adequate street connectivity and pedestrian facilities. The developments accessed from Culltharp Road, which is SCDOT maintained, and sidewalks are required and provided. They will stub out along the little tiny entrance there. Required open space and buffers have been provided. Open space is required and provided at 3.23 acres, or 30% of the development. 50 foot buffers are also required and provided on the preliminary plat. So all other applicable requirements of this chapter have been satisfied. A tree survey has been completed and approved by staff. So staff recommends approval of this project. Go back to your plan.

Any questions? Any new questions?

Additional questions? No? No.

Okay. Thank you very much. So do we have a motion? I'll make a motion to approve.

I'll second.

Okay. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Moves us on to our second item of new business, rezoning of 2621, James McDowell Moss, requesting to rezone 3.06 acre portion of a 10.1 acre parcel from RUD to GC. Subject parcel is located on Moss Lake Drive, Clover. Referencing tax map number 379-00-00-029, Council District 2, Littler.

Good evening, Planning Commission. Thomas Newland, Long Range Planner. So this project, the request is to rezone just this three-acre portion highlighted here in red of what is otherwise a 10-acre parcel. This is all off Moss Lake Drive, just outside the town of Clover. So the applicant proposes to allow the continued operation of a vehicle service repair and service business after the property is subdivided. Again, we're just taking this corner here where you can see a lot of the business operations, carving it out of the property, and the idea is that the ownership of that three acres would change hands. So here is just a quick site plan that was put together. Really, the only thing that changes is that there would be this other road that carves around, again, to service that residential element of the property. CURRENTLY ZONED ON UD, ALONG WITH A LOT OF SPACE AROUND GREEN POND ROAD, ESPECIALLY AS YOU GET FARTHER OUT FROM THE TOWN OF CLOVER. WE DO SEE WE HAVE A LOT OF GC OFF OF THE HIGHWAY. IN FEATURE LAND USE, WE SEE A LOT OF THIS IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, BUT IT DOES ABUT THIS MUNICIPAL INFILL SPACE FOR THE TOWN OF CLOVER. The staff recommends approval as it's consistent with the comp plan feature land use map. The single family residential designation expects these non-residential uses at intersections as well as adjacent to other GC uses. And this GC zone will also reflect the established grandfathered use of that property. Town of Clover commented that it was appropriate given their zoning and their comprehensive plan. Any questions for staff?

So Thomas, is it... Under RUD, is it somewhat non-conforming or?

So, yeah, so the operation of the business operation there is non-conforming in RUD as it is. But, of course, it was established before zoning and was grandfathered in as a use.

So this was not an enforcement action? No. No, okay.

That was one of mine. This was all sparked because, again, the ownership of that business was going to change, and so they needed to carve it out. Oh, okay. Given that there was lot lines changing, the grandfathered use had to be handled.

Since it's being sold, is the intended use for the person who is buying it still for it to remain an automotive repair shop?

Yes.

And what is the business that's right there on 55 in front of that lot?

I'm actually not sure. Diane, do you know what that is?

It's a combination of those two.

Good guess, Diane. Pretty impressive.

Any more questions? Do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve.

Motion and a second. Any further discussion?

I just had one additional question. Okay, great. Under the findings in D, there's a comment that says, as this is a change of use, the applicant may be required to submit a civil site plan to ensure the site meets zoning code requirements, and the existing building may also need to be modified to meet commercial standards. So is that a condition that we include in the approval?

or in an approval yeah it is no you wouldn't include that in the approval that's part of the the zoning code will direct that so based upon whatever they're doing there that will determine whether or not it needs to have any kind of improvements i would imagine that at least the building itself will have to come to commercial standards at a minimum but there may be some site requirements as well but you would need to require that as part of the condition for rezoning that'll happen no matter what that'll happen okay thank you

That's all I had. All right.

That's a little confusing because a lot of times we add those conditions, though, because it says condition is part of this rezoning, right?

We tend to not require conditions that will be covered by the zoning ordinance. We let the zoning ordinance take care of that for you.

Okay.

So our motion is good. We had a motion.

We had a motion and a second. And that was our further discussion. Any more further discussion? So all those in favor? Any opposed? All right. Moving on to item number three, which is rezoning 26-22. David Pinty. Requesting to rezone 5.01 acres from AGC to RC. The parcel is located on South Perham Road in York. Identified by tax map number 456-00-00-013. Again, Council District 2, Litton.

Yeah, so this property is at the intersection of Charlotte Highway and Parham Road. It occupies, again, that corner lot there. And so the applicant is proposing to actually subdivide this into two commercial lots, one to continue as the currently operating landscape supply facility, but at a much smaller scale, and the other for a new retail sales operation. So here is just a very quick sketch plan that was submitted. Again, you can see this new retail element that would occupy that east side of the parcel, and the current structures that help out the landscape supply business would remain. A lot of this area is AGC. Of course, across Charlotte Highway, we do see residential single family. And featured land use, it's a little hard to see, but this corner of the intersection is all single family residential. Staff recommends approval. Again, it's consistent for that same tenant we talked about in the previous request, where we expect these non-residential uses in major intersections in single-family residential. There are other non-residential uses at the intersection. There's a church directly across from it. And the specific rural commercial zone will actually restrict the scale of the commercial building footprint and make it more appropriate for the space outside the urban services boundary. Any questions for staff?

Are there other RCs in the area?

No. No, this would be the first at this intersection.

And the landscape supply business that's there is appropriate for its current zoning, correct?

It is allowed in AGC, yes.

So essentially, the reason for the rezoning would be to carve out that extra for retail. For zoning district RC, it says landscape supply facilities, art studios, workshops, office uses. It doesn't mention retail space. That isn't allowed use in RC.

Yeah, so retail space that helps the nearby rural community is included in the uses within RC.

So the space there, like a Dollar General?

Yes. is allowed in RC.

But I'm with you. It's not listed here. Retail is not listed in here.

The selection of uses that are included in that small table are just some choices picked out to explain the difference between the two. It is allowed use within RC.

So the rezoning would allow other uses other than what is intended. A lot of times we have a lot of intentions, but once you change the zoning, that could also, the uses could change. I want to point out two things. There's no mention of the fact that this piece of property is owned by an LLC, a realty LLC, and there's no mention of an existing RV and car storage on this property that's advertised. So I'm not quite sure what retail business would end up being on this lot. I would be content with supporting a continued use for the landscaping business, because that's been there over 20 years. And we don't have to rezone for them to do that. This is also, I'd like to point out, as part of the Lake Wylie overlay, And in this area, we're primarily large lot residential. There are lots that go from eight acres to 22 acres within a two-mile radius of this point. And my last point is that there is not one retail business on 49 on Charlotte Highway between... I'll cut it off at Liberty Hill Road and... love highway here in in york so this this to me sounds a little bit out of character with the area and i hate to use our famous word it looks a little like spot zoning at this point i agree

So my question again was this is not an enforcement action. This is a similar to what we just talked about where parcels being sold.

The property had been under a code enforcement violation previously. It had been resolved, and now they're rezoning.

Okay.

Totally different cases. The rezoning will not resolve any code enforcement problems here.

Okay. But that is resolved, you said? Yes. Okay. And was permitted in AGC as it stood?

Yeah. The landscape supply business can remain in AGC as it is.

Okay.

And you said been there for 20 years? Yes. Okay.

The other point was that the property that was being referenced as being a similar business on the opposite corner is one that's come before us previously for rezoning and that was denied. So I'm just hoping that we can be consistent with our recommendations.

Is this, yeah, the cross street wasn't, so this is Charlotte and Parham right there, right? Yeah. So this was the electrical supply place?

The guy on the corner was doing, I think, what was he doing, soda machines or some repair business in that barn.

Right, okay. So is that, I guess I should ask, is that business still operating there?

It's an at-home business. I believe it is, yes.

Okay.

But it's not retail.

Right. But I'm saying that business is still operating there as an at-home business, and we're not having any of the code enforcement issues we had previous with that, right? No, no issues that I'm aware of. Okay. Any other questions for staff on this one? Do we have any motions then?

I will make a motion to deny based on our discussion of the facts surrounding the property.

I'll second.

Okay. Motion and a second to deny. Any further discussion on that? All those in favor? Any opposed? One opposed. Motion to deny carries on that one. So now it looks like we're going back in time for the next one. Is that right? Because this is a 15. So 15-38A, Mike McCloud, Solara Investments, LLC. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints requesting to amend the required conditions of the rezoning adopted by Council on May 2, 2016. Subject parcels are located at 1740 Pleasant Road and 1842 Coltharp Road, Fort Mill. tax map numbers for reference 655-00-00-00 and 653-00-00-214 council district one on debt and i just want to check one thing real quick and make sure is that first tax map correct with just the last two zeros and there's not another digit there because that looked a little bit odd to me because it's a two one four it may not need that right but it is the other one actually in fact six five five oh oh oh oh oh there is a five Okay, so there's a dash on. Okay, that's what I wanted to check. So just to be clear, this is tax map numbers 655-0000-005. Correct. And 653-0000214. Okay.

All right. So this is case 1538A. The reason for the name is because we are just amending conditions that were established in originally what was case 1538. And it's going to encompass these two properties, about five acres and two and a half at this intersection of Pleasant Road and Coulthard. So originally, back in 2016, this was going to be a very different property. It was going to be a large grocer that was going to aggregate a lot of these properties on the corner. And a lot of the conditions that we're going to talk about were established with that in mind. And now these properties are coming forth separately, and they have their own commercial and civic uses, one of them being a church. that they obviously want to have here and don't want these conditions that, again, were for a much more intense and large commercial product. So the active conditions, there are six of them. Numbers one, three, five, and six are really about transportation management number two is about a contribution that kind of ties into transportation management but number four is really covered by in our code and our land development manual and it's about pedestrian facilities so the proposed amendment is to actually remove all these conditions again one three five and six are determined in our TIA process and contemporary TIAs that have been done actually should reduce trips again we're going to a lower intense commercial use and these conditions are above and beyond what would be necessary in the TIA uh... item two is not appropriate for the scale intensity of the intended development and item number four again is redundant given uh... specifications in the updated land development code so here's our zones uh... again all this is gc everything you see hatched there uh... has that condition applied to it we're only looking at these two highlighted red right off pleasant road in colthart feature land use isn't super looked at in this uh... project and doesn't have a lot of bearing So we recommend approval. Again, the scope of the request is just to amend these conditions, and it's not altering the allowed land uses of that original GC zone, and it will allow the small-scale commercial and civic developments. Any questions for staff?

Can we bring up the site plan on the map here that we had in our packet? Yeah, sorry, I don't have it in the presentation, but... Because that really looks close to the back with those parking spaces. I don't know what the dimension is in that back right there. And I don't know if that, it's just so small, I don't know what the size of that is.

Well, I would say for the specifics of the site plan, a lot of that will be handled by commercial site review. Here, we're really just looking at these conditions that affect the transportation in and out of these sites. The specific site, again, all of that is used by right, and even if we were to deny this rezoning, they could potentially still do that site plan.

Sure. I'm just asking the question about what... what that is because case in point we had a church and they're fine but they have a they have parking spaces like right up to our property there is Adequate tree and stuff like that buffer there and they did meet the buffer requirement This looks even closer as I guess is what kind of concerned me a little bit here Just just a point You know, I just I didn't know if you had any idea how wide that is

What I call a buffer would be if I might Thomas so there's nothing on this property currently what we're seeing in the picture You're showing is as it sits today. Yes, it's so We proceed if we we give approval to this change. It's still all zone GC When they go through the process they're gonna have to follow all existing code all existing setbacks everything there's nothing that's grandfathered in because of GC was established back in 16. Now, if they're going to start construction, it all has to be under current regulations and code. That's right.

Okay. I guess where I'm coming from is the other one had a plan. Typically we have a plan, but we have a little bit more information to go off of. What they're going to put in there, the church is going to put in there.

Yeah, this is just a bit of a different type of rezoning because all that we're doing is removing conditions. We're really not talking about the land uses. I understand.

So we're talking about two lots. Were there originally three, which includes that building on the top right? Because if you look at their access, it's not on that property. Is this all owned by the same group, or how can we explain that?

I believe they're all different owners, but a lot of the properties in this kind of junction between the highway and Pleasant Road, especially as you move west from I-77, a lot of these properties have interchanging small little roads and access ways behind them. I believe that there is an access easement that's present there, but that's something we can get more information for you. That's a hotel.

That's a hotel?

That's a hotel.

right and that was also rezoned at a different time so it may appear as though they all have the same conditions because they all have hatch marks on them but that's not the case so the first we're talking about right now was the rezoning in 2016 and then a year or so later 15 actually you're so later the other parcel where the hotel came in that property was rezoned and it had conditions applied to for that one so even though they all look as though they're all hatched like that they're two separate rezoning cases

So they must currently have some type of easement, right? There is an easement, yes. With that other property. And that looks like it intends to travel all the way to the proposed church parking lot as well.

And that remains.

Okay.

Any other questions? Nope. Do we have a motion?

Make a motion to approve.

A second.

Any further discussion? All those in favor? All right. to take care of item four. We're now on to item five, planning commission to review and provide recommendation to amend chapter 155, subchapter C, use regulations to allow manufactured homes as a conditional use within the RSF 40 zoning district and apply the same conditions required that already exist for manufactured homes within the RSF 30 zoning district. Hello, Diane.

thank you everybody good to see you all tonight um just read the title so i'm not going to read it back to you as well you all know this pretty well you've heard it a few times become different iterations of that but just to kind of give you a a synopsis where we are where we've been in may 2026 the pc meeting the planning staff presented an overview of the various types of single-family detached homes we talked about where they can go in terms of the line manufactured homes we compared the two districts look at parcels that are actually available and parcels that are vacant. And so from that information that I provided to you, you made a motion to request that modifications to 155 to allow manufactured homes in RSF 40 zoning district and to include those same conditions that are required in RSF 30. That's where we are today. I wish to go ahead and bring that forward to you as an official request for a text amendment. What I can add to that, that since that time, is the next step of the process to go ahead and look at everybody in the area are like and similar local different zoning requirements and then get a comparison of what they look like. And so the vast majority of our like and local jurisdictions allow manufactured homes in rural districts. Many of them also allow them in low density single family residential districts. Not all of them, but many of them do allow that in both as well. A few of them actually have specific zoning districts for a manufactured home, and then some actually regulate between what they call a single section versus multi-section. So there are different kinds of regulations for manufactured homes. Almost all of them have regulations that cover things like underpinning materials and dimensional standards. That's common throughout most everybody. And so if this amendment is approved, your county would be in line, everybody else within our similar jurisdictions. It's difficult to be able to compare zoning districts one for one because every county or town has their own districts, but trying to be able to find ones that are actually similar to us. And so the proposed amendment is simply to modify the use table by placing a C in the RSF 40 zoning district, as you can see on the table here, and then to apply those same conditions in RSF 30 to RSF 40. And just to kind of give an overview, these are what those conditions are that are required in RSF 30. So based upon that, our staff recommendation is to approve this request based upon the tiered organization of our zoning district. So we have, they're allowed in RUD and RSF 30, kind of also would want to have it in the RSF 40 as well. And then those districts are very similar in terms of their uses, their dimensions, and as well as the comprehensive plan, which the Land Restricted Nation considers both RSF 30 and RSF 40 as being the same. There were a low number of vacant parcels that are zoned RSF 40, and then by applying those conditions that RSF 30 to RSF 40 properties, it safeguards that, make them very consistent between the two districts. We're recommending approval of that.

Did anyone have any questions? I'd like to make a motion to approve staff's recommended language for the change to the code.

I'll second.

Any further discussion?

Go ahead. Go ahead, John. I had just one clarifying question. Local supersedes county in cities like Tega Cay and Rock Hill?

Sorry, what was the question?

The local permitting supersedes this, correct? So in Rockhill and Tega Cay.

They have their own jurisdiction. They have their own regulations.

Right, so they're not permitted. This in no way affects that.

No way affects that, yeah. So you're getting that from that jurisdictional table. That was just to give you an idea as to what they do. I understand.

It does not apply to us. I just want to be clear. Thank you. Yeah, sure.

I just want to commend you guys for looking into this. Really, really appreciate the hard work, and I'm glad that we got this done. Thank you, Diane.

Sure, you're welcome.

And hopefully it makes your job easier, too.

Yeah, not mine, but some folks in our office definitely will.

Yes.

All right. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed? Great. That moves us on to item number 6, which is Planning Commission to review and provide a recommendation to amend Chapter 155, Subchapter I, Rules of Interpretation and Measurement to Define the Governing Portion of a Parcel. with one or more distinct zoning district boundaries, and Chapter 154, Subchapter A, introduction to allow some combination or recombination of parcels with more than one zoning district. Welcome back. Thank you. We call this split zoning for short of what you just described. Well, they didn't put that in the thing I had to read. I know. I know. It's technical.

We had to take a couple of different angles at this to make it work out. And we found out we're getting a lot of rezonings. We probably did over the last few years over the prohibition of creating new split zone lots. THIS WAS BROUGHT UP TO US AND BROUGHT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE, AND THEY LOOKED AT IT AND THEY ASKED US TO DEVELOP SOME REGULATIONS REGARDING WHAT WE CALL MAJORITY RULES, APPROACH TO SPLIT ZONING WHERE THE LARGEST GEOGRAPHICAL AREA WOULD DICTATE THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND TO ALLOW MORE FLEXIBILITY IN COMBINING LOTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN SPLIT BETWEEN MULTIPLE DISTRICTS. AFTER REVIEWING OUR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED TO BRING IT TO YOU ALL FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNTY COUNCIL. SO THIS IS A LOOK AT ALL THE SPLIT ZONE PARCELS WE HAVE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY. THERE'S QUITE A FEW. THAT'S KIND OF HOW IT'S HANDLED IN ZONING CODE. YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO PROPOSE MORE THAN One zoning district on a lot per zoning, but we're not exactly doing that. We also look at the amount of slit zone. You've got 1,100 there, and most of them are by a wide margin. There's a lot and just a little leftover of a different zone. We've got that 80-20 where most of them are at. And also, the majority of them are in residential districts, like 75%.

And that will kind of feed into some of the other items we're talking about.

You see the over 1,000 parcels that we have in the county about their split zone. And again, kind of repeating myself, most of them are residential districts. We proposed regulations that doesn't allow the recombination of previously planned lots to include more than one zoning district. So currently, if you have to do something on a lot with two districts. Or if you're replatting and moving a lot line, see when your structure's got a little close to your neighbors, you need to buy 10 feet from them and make it legal. And here's a different zoning district, you'd have to rezone the whole thing first, go through and go through the platting. And also the current regulations doesn't provide us to allow for a unified code for the whole lot. You got that line in space on one side or the other when people coming in wanting to, Do something a little different that's not included the whole one had to come in and rezone it one district before they did anything So we had a proposed amendment try to reduce the amount of rezoning applications add flexibility guard against abuse and kind of Limit introduction a new problem. So we did that by If one or more district divides the parcel, the majority rules saying we're the greater remainder of the parcel, regulations shall be used for the new development. We would allow some combinations of previously plotted lots to combine to include more than one district when they're only residential districts. We looked this over and thought about the commercial districts. We wouldn't want somebody, a commercial player, to come up and start firing up a bunch of residential districts and then calling it commercial or industrial. So we're just going to leave it to that. And that would hopefully help address the 75% of these split zone lots that are exclusively residential. So again, kind of repeat myself over again. This allows split plot parcels to remain and abide by development regulations attached to the largest portion of the lot. And recombination with more than one district is allowed, but only residential districts. So to simplify the process and reduce the amount of rezoning applications, we would recommend approval of proposed amendments.

Rick, I got a question. In the map or the zonings, do they change with the majority across the whole? Or do we just leave it as is, the splits? Or do we just change it in our mapping system that it's all one?

The mapping system would have to stay. I mean, these would just be the regulations for development. The splits would still exist. Okay. You know, and if they want to, if they need to settle them up, they'll come in here and rezone them. But this would allow them to follow these rules.

I'll follow up to that just to clarify. I've got some AGC and RUD that split in the same piece of property. I'd do something that would normally today trigger having to come in and get that rezoned. You're saying that whichever piece of that was the largest would govern the rules for what you could do, but the rezoning would not actually take place? No.

It's not changing the actual zone. It's not changing the designation. and do that and get that approved by county council.

Well, what would prohibit us from having it be that way so that if you triggered something, we say, oh, by the way, while we're doing this, we're also going to just make all of that AGC if the AGC was larger, right? We'll just say, yes, you want to do this. That's fine under AGC rules. Yeah. but while this is happening we are also going to rezone all this property to agc is there anything that would keep us from being able to just take that step instead of leaving it as split zoned

Now, you just have to come through the process and work through the procedure, getting approval, a recommendation by you, and get three hearings in front of the county council. I mean, it's the time saver.

So that's what I'm getting at. There are some procedural things that can't be sidestepped that would allow you to just say at that time you would zone it all the same?

No, we can't do that. We can't rezone administratively. So this would be an option to allow them continued use without having to go through that process.

That was the reason for my question. Does that automatically change? You say no, it stays the same.

Just give them the rules to play by there for that lot.

I'm just curious if I could get an opinion from other folks or possibly even our wonderful legal scholar here of whether or not that's has to always be in those steps or we could have our code written as such that if we're going to say that we're going to combine two pieces and play by the rules of the larger size piece that we could just blanketly rezone the whole thing when the request was made And I may have put you too much on the spot. You might need to do some homework. I want to be careful.

Okay.

Yes, so the way the staff is recommending, if I've understood, we have a split parcel, and someone chooses to do something that would trigger a rezoning that we would normally do. They're saying, look, you don't have to come in and rezone. Just understand that we're going to handle the entire thing based on the rules that govern the larger parcel. So you can't do... that are only an acre each because the largest parcel is AGC and that's not permitted in AGC, okay? And so my question is, okay, if we're gonna operate by the rules that way, why do we still need to have it be a split parcel and wouldn't it just fold into the entire thing becomes zoned by the larger parcel?

Yeah, that's an adopted, you know, the zoning is adopted by ordinance by the county council. And we can't undo that except by ordinance, is my understanding. Yeah. So you would have to leave it there until they came in for rezoning. Those lines couldn't disappear without an act of the county council.

Okay. So that being said, what you're doing here is just streamlining the process some to be able to help them work through whatever they were doing, governing it under as if the whole thing was zoned that way. But the zoning change would not take place unless it went to us and then to council. Correct. Okay. And couldn't take place unless it came to us and to council. Okay. All right. So what does that buy us by doing that?

It saves some people time. It makes it easier to do things that normally might be done on one parcel. Otherwise they have to come in and do their time and spend their money to get it rezoned. Like I said, one of them was like if you needed to grab a piece of a lot of your neighbor to account for something you want to develop or what have you, and if they're a little different zone, you bought a sliver of it, you could incorporate that into the lot without having to rezone it first and come back and replant it.

All right.

Don't see any downside.

I think it's positive. Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, I think it's real positive.

We have any other questions for Rick? No. We have a motion then.

I make a motion to approve the amendment as written.

I'll second.

And we have a second. Any further discussion? I agree that this is helping streamline the process. I would be interested in passing along a comment to county council that they look into or consider. Is there anything that they can do that would allow you to just go ahead and say, look, if we're going to operate under that rule for the entire section and it's a split parcel, that it can automatically be zoned to the larger size and everybody's cool with that without having to go through the extra steps.

Pretty sure that involves some work from Laura.

I wouldn't say that. It would.

I would say something for them to consider if they feel that we don't want to continue to have the parcels remain split, if that's important to them. I don't know. That would be my comment to pass along to them as we pass along this recommendation. Certainly, in a case like this, there are a plethora of caveats that occur. Yep. Okay. So with that, all in favor? Any opposed? All right. That takes care of number six. Item number seven, planning commission to review and provide a recommendation to amend Chapter 155, Subchapter F, nonconforming uses to allow the replacement of a nonconforming manufactured home regardless of dimensions if all other applicable requirements of Chapter 155 are met.

Okay. We're back on manufactured homes. We had a little bit of that earlier. We'll have a little bit more. Over the past several years we noticed we've received requests to replace these aging mobile homes with newer mobile homes. Sometimes they want to go from single-wide to double-wide, and we've also found out that the dimensions over time have changed with mobile homes, and the majority of them are larger than what you'd found previously. And the issue with that is that in nonconformities in our code, you're generally not allowed to expand a nonconformity. So for some reason, you know, you have a nonconforming mobile home, you wanted a bigger one or a double-wide, even though it would be a nice improvement aesthetically, you know, safety-wise and all that, I might not be able to allow it because you can't expand the nonconformities, more nonconforming structure. Again, this came up to the BNZ committee who looked at it and asked us to draft an amendment, and we drafted an amendment, and I wish for you all to... make a recommendation on the ordinance to county council. Again, currently, you can only replace these structures with a home of the same size or smaller as to not increase nonconformity. We made a proposal that only applies to manufactured homes, not to anything else nonconforming. But it creates an allowance for these structures to be replaced with another structure, another manufactured home of any size, as long as it meets other regulations, such as setbacks or skirting. Or if it's an RSF 30, you'd have to meet that list of requirements that was in earlier. So this is a little bit more simple. Just straight up, you can replace another nonconforming Manufactured home with one. It's the larger dimensions as long as it meets all of the requirements found in code This allow us to place replace manufactured homes that are in disrepair with larger units and Again only for manufactured homes must comply with all the regs and we think it's better Support better to support the replacement of older manufactured homes and for that reason we'd recommend adoption and

This is for a manufactured home that is on a piece of property that is not zoned for a manufactured home. Is that what you mean by non-conforming? Correct.

Well, it could be. I mean, it could be found in a non-conforming on, yeah, generally it'd be, yeah. I would say on size alone, yeah, it would be up in a place that didn't have them. Yeah, I think as use, the use wouldn't be allowed because they need to meet the other dimensions. If it was sitting in the setback, you couldn't go any further into the setback or anything like that.

So it could be that it's an allowed use in the zoning designation, but the setback's not right, or there's not enough space for it.

Is that what you're saying? Yeah. Generally, that would be a little bit different scenario. I'm trying to think of an example of that. Because I think it's a single-wide that wanted to go to the double-wide. there was another mobile home on the lot. There was manufactured homes. There was two manufactured homes on the lot. That's not allowed in code anymore. So the people had to come in and cut the lot in half to replace a single wide with a double wide, for one, because it was bigger, and for two, because there were two manufactured homes on the lot, which is not allowed in code. So in today's scenario, with adoption of this, it would be able to replace that extra mobile home with a double wide. It was nonconforming. It was built in compliance with the code way back when. So there could be different scenarios like that.

Does that include AGC when you have more than 10 acres, you still can't have two mobile homes because you can have two homes, right?

Yeah, exactly. If there was two existing on there, they would be able to replace it with a larger one. Okay.

But currently you can't have two mobile homes at all in any zoning designation?

Not unless you're in a park. Those would allow something like that to continue with a larger mobile. They can replace that one just straight up for what it is.

So this would allow the upgrade?

Yeah. And get to modern size. Like I said, some of them just don't comport with what the old standard was.

Rick, I'm curious. I like this. I'm curious what the planning and zoning committee came up from a safety perspective. uh... that makes this even more powerful if they came up do you have any kind of summaries that you could share with us well because i'd i'd like to know i mean i'd like to be schooled on what they evaluated for these types and what they found the safety enhancements of it you know for educational purposes i think it's fantastic so currently you cannot uh...

We will now allow you to place a mobile home that didn't meet the Mobile Home Standards Act of 1975, I believe. So at 75, you have mobile homes that were dangerous. They went up quickly in smoke and fire. And if you have a mobile home like that out there, it should be replaced. That would all be prior to zoning. So you may find them in places you wouldn't ordinarily have a mobile home. So they might be in a different district or multiples or something like that. But it certainly would allow them to address that more easily.

OK. So what I've kind of heard from the discussion is this is intended that when someone needs to replace a unit or is upgrading a unit for whatever reason, and they're not able to exactly replace it, that this gives them enough wiggle room that they can do that without triggering a whole rezoning event or all the other things that might happen because they've done something on the property in a grandfathered state, I think is the way. Does that sound pretty accurate? Correct, yeah.

The double-wide really showed that because the double-wide, if you go to the RSO 30, they want you to have a wider unit. So it seems a plus thing to do, but it wasn't allowed in code.

And so my question really relevant to that is, if I'm really tight on my setbacks with a single wide, and then I come in with a double wide and I'm now encroaching out, OK? And just bear with me here. what i read in this is well you still have to comply with other regulations so yeah it's okay for you to bring that in without triggering a bunch of stuff but we may have to have you may have to locate that slightly different on the property because you still have to maintain this setback or that setback it's not very explicit in the way because i was The reason I bring this up is I was looking through that summary you gave us of other localities, and they went into a little bit more of, hey, it's gotta meet the setbacks, it's gotta be off-street parking requirements are the same, or can't increase the number of dwelling units. And all of those types of things are covered by diving into the code where you just say it's gotta meet everything else in the chapter.

Yeah, yeah, it was kind of a catch-all.

Right, and so just to kind of clarify a little bit, I think I've got it now. You all didn't spell out that detail, but by saying it's got to meet everything else in the chapter, the details in there, you just have to go dig.

Some of those setbacks might be a safety issue, too.

right right right and then if if they got to a point of well now i'm between that rock and a hard place i'm putting a double wide in and there's no way i can meet the minimum setbacks and then they'd have to come in and have some type of discussion right yeah they'd have to gain a variance or come up with a different plan some other state so i think Okay. Did that cover what you were talking about?

Yeah, well, I'd just be curious because I think that's really good information, you know, that they could share, you know, and it would help us in evaluating variances. Yeah, yeah. Because, you know, if this was safer, although it's encroaching in a setback, but however it's making it safer, That's a good thing. You want to make it safer. So the variance would therefore be fine.

Right. Okay.

Based on safety. That's why I was saying, Rick, thank you for bringing that up, though. That's why I brought up about it would be nice to have a little summary if they could prepare a summary for safety features that they really, really included, including making it a double-wide. How is that making it safer, specifically? It would be nice information. I guess that's all I'm saying. All right.

Any other questions? Yeah, I just had one comment.

According to the ordinance, the home would have to be lived in within 180 days of the request, right? So if someone had abandoned the property or the the mobile home and then wanted to put a double wide they'd have to do that within 180 days of someone actually living in there so that's i think that's a key point especially when we're saying but we're not specifying and and to follow on on mike's comment the unit that's being replaced does not necessarily have to be in disrepair Somebody could win the lottery and go from a single wide to a double wide and replace a perfectly fine home. Okay.

But that part was already in the code, was it? Yeah, there's no change. There's no change. Right. Okay. Yeah, yeah. No, that's it. Okay. All right. Anything else from anyone? So do we have a motion then?

Can I make a request?

Absolutely.

Of the Planning and Developing Department, there is a document that I think is created on a monthly basis. I'm not sure if it automatically gets updated or not. That includes project summaries for sketch plans, civil construction plans. Kind of gives everybody an update on what's going on in the county that may not necessarily come before Planning Commission. but it's kind of nice to know information. Is there a mailing, automatic mailing list that could add PC members?

If I could, I could hold off on that for just a minute because we're in the midst of a motion. I'm sorry. Right? So could we, let's conclude that business first if we could. Yes, we can. We've got a motion.

I was just testing you. I was just testing you.

I don't think we do.

I'll make a motion that we approve as submitted. I'll second.

Okay, any further discussion? All those in favor? All right, takes care of item number seven, and I think- That was low blood sugar, thanks. Our other business rezoning tracking sheet, that might fit into the category of what you were discussing, John. Yes. Okay. Okay.

So what was the actual request in your packet?

Yeah. Either in the packet or the, I don't know if there's a, how is this normal?

I'm not too sure where that gets distributed to. I think it's just a County council, but I'm not a hundred percent sure where that goes, that document. So if you would like to be included in that, we could probably put it in the packet. We can do that. So they get it a little bit later. Well, You probably won't get it in time for that next meeting. I think we do that at the first of the month, so we've already done packets, so you'll get it a month later.

Okay. It's still nice to know, especially when there's...

I'll find out whether or not it's one of those notify me kind of things. I'm not sure if it is or not, but I can find that out.

I'm assuming it's hard copy.