I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Lancaster County Planning Commission on August 18, 2026, with the clerk, please call roll.
Richard Crandell.
Lynette Hansen.
Judy and a Tinkuinberg.
Sheila Hansen.
Michelle Richards.
Francis Wu.
Thank you.
With a clerk, please make a note in the record that a quorum of the planning commission is present.
Public notice of the meeting, including the meeting agenda, has been posed to the required length of time.
in the lobby of the county administration building and on the county website.
The news media was notified of the meeting place in time.
Welcome everyone to the Lancaster County Planning Commission meeting.
Please make sure that all of your electronic devices are turned off and silenced.
And please abide by the poster rules of the meeting.
Please remove any hats.
No profanity, please be respectful to the other people and don't interrupt them.
Fine up sheeps were provided at the entrance of the room if you haven't already
Please add your name to the list of the relevant item agenda, and you will be called up to speak at the appropriate time
So questions that everyone will please rise for the pledge of allegiance and an opening prayer
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands
one nation
under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
Dear Heavenly Father, we come to you today asking for your guidance, wisdom and support
as we begin this meeting. Help us to engage in meaningful discussions that nurture the
bonds of this community. Fill us with your grace Lord God as we make decisions that affect
all of the residents of Lancaster County and continue to remind us that all we do here
day, all that we accomplished is in the pursuit of the glory of your greater life and for
this and the service of humanity.
For all these things, we ask in your name, amen.
So, commissioners, before you have the agenda for tonight's meeting, do I hear a motion?
I'd like to make a motion to move the UDO draft item to the end of the meeting.
That's second.
So we have a motion to accept the meeting agenda,
except for moving items 6A, which is for the voting on the unified development
the ordinance draft to the end of the agenda.
So we have a motion and we have a second.
Are you seeing all these fine people
won't want to sit through all of this
before we get to our other action items?
I thought it was the polite thing to do is
hair after.
Thank you very much.
All right.
Let's see where Anna, I got too much going on tonight.
Commissioner, can we have a show of hands and favor of
She modified agenda as motioned and seconded.
Yes, Miss Maura, you can ready to say something, I could tell.
The motion made by you was just to modify the agenda.
Would you like to add the approval as well?
Oh, yes, I'm sorry.
She's correct.
Yes, so motion to approve the modified agenda order.
And a second?
Yes.
Second, from Wilson, now, commissioners,
can a please have a show with hands, a favor of the modified agenda?
The next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes for the July 21, 2021-26 regular meeting.
Do I have a motion?
Make a motion to approve.
Do I have a second?
I'll second up.
Do we have any questions or comments?
All right.
So we have a motion to accept as written the minutes from the July 21, 2021-26 regular meeting.
show hands in favor. Motion passes. Was I at that meeting?
It doesn't matter whether you're there or not. Remember we changed our rules.
You can't go but still won't. Okay. So in case I'm going to.
Motion passes five to zero with one abstaining.
Next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from the August 6th,
2026 workshop. Do I have a motion?
I have a second.
Any questions or concerns?
All right, so can I have a show of hands and favor for accepting the
minutes of the August 6th, 2026 workshop minutes as presented.
Motion passes 6 to 0.
Thank you.
Next item on the agenda is citizens' comments.
I wasn't given anything extra and I'm sitting here looking at and it appears that no one has signed up under general citizens comments so we will consider ourselves out of what's today.
We will consider ourselves out of, oops, citizens' comments, since no one signed up to speak.
So, next item on the agenda is public hearing items for recommendations to Council.
We will start with item 6B, CU-2026-1423, McDonald.
Greetings, commissioners. Before you, you have, see you, 2026, 1423, McDonald.
Located
that, 1949 and 1951, great falls. Highway, the applicant is Gary Pagazzi. The
intention here is to seek a conditional use permit to operate a restaurant,
bar and grill. It's currently located on a general business zoning district in the future land
use is growth area and you can see the location of the parcel in the illustration on your
screen.
The surrounding transitional districts are GB, MH and MDR and to the left there you see a
photo of the parcel itself, the application procedures per chapter 5 have been met and additional
UDO provisions. The chapter 9 have been communicated and will be reviewed if the applicant
continues through the development process. Both of these reports should be in your packets.
The TRC has vetted, this particular case, in during initial site assessments, with approval
contingent upon this PC meeting, as well as all other applicant, UDO conformities being
that Lexi County Ward in sewer district had no review comments due to all the utilities
already being in place and to that end staff recommends approval of this application.
Do you have any questions and I do have the applicant here if you have any further questions
that you would like to ask a
question?
Yes ma'am.
I was noticing that this is directly across the Great Falls Highway from the new Jehovah's
Witness Kingdom Hall.
Does it meet the distance requirement?
I mean, I don't, is there a special requirement if they're going to put in?
If they're going to have a bar and they're restaurant, it has to be a certain distance
from a place of worship.
I tried to see if that was in the UDA.
I couldn't find it.
Oh, it's this now.
Okay.
I just, I wasn't sure so I was just asking, yes, ma'am.
Okay.
All right.
Thank you.
I guess that was the only thing that was the only question that I had, is anyone else having
any other questions?
For Cory, if we asked to speak to the applicant.
So if thank you, Cory.
We welcome to you.
If the applicant was here, if you would like to get up and speak please, state your name and address
for the record, please.
You're an active state, 1-1-1-2 Highway 9 by Southwest.
In regards to your question about that, I've actually already obtained the
the ABC license and some contingency for a nine month holdover, that was one of our major questions
also.
So, and that's, and the building will be a complete remodel that we're still working with
the county building department.
So, which one do you want into the long one?
It used to be, it's up to a hundred-partish opt-a-lifed one, yeah, we're going to raise it.
I've lived here 30 years, so I'm into the building.
Exactly.
We're going to raise the roof and do everything.
Okay.
Bring it up.
Like raise the roof and have a party, or no, I'm not going to joke.
Are you going to have any outdoor seating?
No, ma'am, not at this time, space is kind of limiting us what we can do.
Yeah, that was one of the concerns with having residential right behind.
Even though you do have a nice easement there, there were some trees and stuff.
You do have some houses right behind there.
So if you had outdoor seating, I know how I am if I'm on the outdoor seating volume control.
is not as good as it is on the inside of the restaurant.
Anyway, any other questions for the applicant?
I do.
Yes, sir.
What will the operating hours be?
A lot will that depend upon the tenant, man, and meeting county restrictions.
Where are the owner of the property and just will lease it to a restaurant to operate?
OK, I have a concern with that with a neighborhood being across the street and all MDR behind them.
I would have a real concern as to what the operating hours would be.
Would that not be governed by the business license?
I think it could also be governed by us as to conditions.
Yes, yes.
If this is hours of operation and issuing a conditional use permit for the site, the planning commission shall consider the surroundings and restrict the hours operation of the business if they deemed as warranted.
I can tell you, I just know that I know the area, the MDR on the other side, is if the noise gets from here to over there,
yeah, you know, it's really really far away and then the MDR behind it, there aren't any houses real close to it.
I pulled this up on the GIS and looked at it just because of concerns like that.
Are there houses in this blue shade of area already?
What's the blue shade of area? Sorry, I'm looking at the difference.
Of course, it's MDR right behind the.
Yeah, um, actually a lot of that directly behind it is just vacant with a whole bunch of cars parked in it and then there's used to be a junkyard.
Yeah, and then you've got to go to those ones that look at the three lots that are that go up to the other street.
Right. Yeah, there's like one house on each of those.
You can see that's a pretty good distance and you've got that stance of woods in between it.
There's already a pretty good natural buffered buffered buffered there.
Okay.
Two of those houses are actually gone.
Okay.
So, yeah, there's no, there's not a whole lot of houses really close to it.
And then of course, it almost looks like the golf course, but it can't be the golf course.
Yeah, because I'm back.
Number, what would that be? 15, 16.
Okay.
It's many times I've been to the golf course, I've never been to the church.
Can you come out 10, 11?
Yep.
12, 13.
Good to know.
Well, any other questions or concerns?
All right.
Thank you, sir.
We will now consider ourselves into public hearing.
We have, make sure, no, no, no, no, no, no.
to the back of the list. We have no one signed up to speak, so we will consider ourselves out
public hearing.
It's about to say we have people, but it's the wrong one.
So the missioners, we have before us case number CU-2026-1423 the McDonald track do I hear a motion
to approve the project, because as it's been presented as it meets all the qualifications for a conditional use permit in this area.
I said all the right legal things, right?
I'll make a motion to approve.
So have a second. Okay. Is there any discussion?
Starting the buffering, you said there is already relatively a good natural buffer.
Is there a buffer all the way around, though?
It's on on all the sides that but up against where there's housing on that side of the road.
And it's a pretty good wide stance of trees. I mean if you have a good on there and look at, you can see that big stance of trees behind it.
Okay, that's all I was, that's what we have in our things. I was asking if there was a complete buffer.
Yes.
Up against all of the housing ports. Yes.
All right. So, any other discussions?
All right, so we have before us, CU2026, 1423, McDonald, with a motion to, with a motion
to approve.
I've got them at the magic piece of the paper.
With a motion to approve, because it does meet the requirements for the conditional use in this zone.
Can we have a roll call vote please?
Richard Krandell?
Or?
Lynette Henson?
Or?
Do you need a tinkling bird?
Sheila Henson?
Or?
Princess Lou?
Michelle Richardson?
Or?
So, this motion passes about four to zero,
and it will be referred
at the County Council for final decision and the applicant you will be notified of the time
in the place.
I am on the agenda is RZ-2026-14-41-justice tree service.
Okay, as Commissioner Richards just stated before you have RZ-2026-1441-justice tree
service at 9546, Olin, Yorburne, Robe, the owners are just in Brandon and Greg
Group, and they are requesting to reason to allow for the regional business use type
that's outlined in our UDO use chart.
It's currently zone low density residential, and they're proposing a regional business in
future land use designated as growth area in a illustration of the parcel itself as pictured
on the screen.
Here are some site photos of the entrance that will be used to access
the parcel and is an aerial view of the parcel itself.
The surrounding transitional districts
are LDR, and it's mainly surrounded by PDD, and the request aligns with the comprehensive
plan objective PA 1.1, as well as it has met all of the application, UDO provisions,
detailed and chapter 9, and those are detailed in your staff report.
staff recommends approval of this application. Do you have any questions?
Half at the moment.
Thank you.
Oh, I'm sorry. The applicant is here as well.
I'll recognize them because they were just here. What two meetings ago?
Yes.
All right, so you'd like to come up. Thank you, Corey.
You welcome.
It's state your name and address for the record.
Yeah, when this came up, I was like,
Is it really just do this?
Looking familiar, right?
My name is Brandon Rupert,
8821, he's in a Ridge Road,
Charlotte, 28277.
My name is Justin Rupert, address 8821,
Houston Ridge Road, Charlotte,
28277.
Property answer any questions?
Well, I was just like, what do you plan on doing with property?
Same intentions as last property.
Unfortunately, that seller withdrew his application, so that kind of sparked us, we'll over
to this one instead.
So the attention to our just going to build a garage and for outdoor storage for our trucks
and equipment.
Missioners, shall I have any questions?
Go ahead.
Okay.
So this is in my district.
I do have a lot of questions, I'm not sure if they're best suited for you or for staff.
So I guess my biggest question is why are we jumping all the way to regional business?
So that was recommended to us.
So I know general business and regional business were kind of tossed around and I think
the suggestion wasn't to go with regional business because of that outdoor storage usage for
it.
That was going to be better fit.
Because I think the puzzle piece was the maintenance because if we need to like change the oil on a couple of our trucks, I think that fell under regional business versus general business.
So that was kind of the back and forth on that.
Okay.
I do have great concern.
I know we heard your proposal before and under the previous conditions of the site.
You know, we voted for it.
I'm having great difficulty with this,
because with rezoning's,
we're forever changing the zoning of that property.
So should whatever reason you decide to relocate,
it's forever zone that.
So any of the uses that fall under regional business
would then be by right on this site,
which is greatly of great concern,
considering the location of this site,
being completely surrounded by residential.
If you've, as I'm sure you've driven back there,
it's not on a main thoroughfare which per the definition of regional business is a requirement
that it should be and then through what it is it's to attract regional business and I'm just
I'm struggling with the definition of how that's applicable here. I understand that it kind of meets
the needs but it doesn't in my opinion based on the location of of this site so I'm really struggling
with what to do because I love what you all are asking to do but I don't love the location
and the zoning of the site. I don't think that it makes sense. I don't think it goes with
the character of the surrounding the surroundings with it. So I'm struggling with this one in all
in all honesty. Yeah, I know I totally understand it's a quick comment on that part of it.
almost the entire southern part of that parcel.
There's like 25 acres of floodplain,
which in my opinion is a pretty natural barrier
from the parcel and LDR on the south side.
And we don't have any plans on developing.
I don't think we can, even if we wanted to, on floodplain.
So, I mean, our garage is going to be on the very,
like, top and the other side of it.
So, and in the parcel above it is owned by Duke Power, so, yeah, just a couple, you know,
thought someone had threw off there.
And we also don't plan on, you know, selling anytime soon, like this, you know, is intended
to be in our family forever, if again.
Okay.
I had a quick question.
You can see that the entrance road is very small.
You're going to have to make some improvements to that to get in and out, because that looks
like a trail that I rode. Yeah, yeah, we spoke with the public works briefly about that little
because like it's paid all the way to like, you know, 10 feet and then it cuts out the gravel.
So yeah.
I meant, but I'm going to have to improve it like on to your property aren't you more than likely. Yeah.
Yeah, look like there were two small ponds and there's a some existing building down in there.
Yeah, there's like a old residential house on there that is not usable. So I would have to be
off down obviously. I'm just asking general question. Yeah, for sure. Yeah, I did see that a vast majority of it is in in that can you even get to that little arm over there to the side, because it looks like you just got a little teeny tiny strip that you can go around a little piece. Yeah, and there's a huge cliff. So like it's we can't even access that if you wanted to either way.
So it's really the only usable part is kind of at the top like the 20 acres or so at the top.
Yeah.
Is that little spot up there?
Any other questions?
Everybody's not so quiet.
I don't know if it's a question or more than an observation that I understand that
you hope to have this in your family or your plan is to have it in your family, but plans.
Change.
And always change.
And especially the panhandle part of the county is suffering from decisions that were
twenty years ago, it seemed like a good idea at the time. If something were to happen that
you had to sell this, like as Commissioner Tinkler said, the regional business stays, and
someone could put in
some undesirable business around all this LDR, and I understand that some
of it's not usable and there's the buffer in all this, but just on all the other sides,
it
is may seem very whimsical, but you're reading field daisy and metal ridge and twin leaf
and all this very home-style, even names and so forth and then smack dab in the middle
regional business and as long as I've been on the planning commission, we're always told
to look around what's around an area and I'm struggling too with going all the way to regional
business. And I'll be honest, I would have a problem with general business too, surrounded
by LDR. And I think that it's time for us to really take people into account who have to
live with our decisions. That I think what you're wanting to do is a great thing. But I also
feel for all the people who purchases and never thought they'd have to deal with something
like that, or what it could be.
And so much what you're doing, but what it could be,
they never thought that there was going to be a business
among their homes.
So that's where my struggle is also.
It makes us ask the question of if spot zoning applies,
because it's not just,
.
Is there the same adjacent zoning? It's are we making a decision to the benefit of one to the detriment of those around it? That's the second part of spot zoning and I can't answer yes to that.
And I'm sitting here looking at the use charts. If you do, if you were to go on the general business, it does limit some of the uses.
It has more limit on the uses than the regional business does, and it says you can do the vehicle services you would just have to get a conditional use requirements that if it were general business instead of regional business, you get the conditional use, then if anybody wanted to use it for anything else, they would have to come back.
for a lot of these more questionable next to residential stuff, there's less of them are
permitted by right and there's more conditional uses in there. I just kind of
stroll in through the thing really, really quickly. It's one of those things.
I said, I'm in complete agreement with them. I really like what you want to do here.
I think the concept, I think, is a good piece of property. I'm still having a hard time
on the regional business, that is just such a big jump, but I did, I look through and I'm like,
you, you're kind of limited on what you can do to do what you want to do on that piece of property.
You either have to go general business or regional business to do that.
I will throw out there, though, that, that's the name of that road.
Was it you, something, there's a name in front of it.
That is such a small road for them for anybody to develop that much of anything else, that whole road would have to be redeveloped, and that's probably part of your borrower road above it to get in there, so that's going to be a deterrent for a lot of other types of uses for this property in the future.
It just depends how much money someone has.
Well, I mean, most of it's a public road,
so it's correct, except for my little bit.
Yes.
This may be better as for staff, but why did we go
from general business to regional business?
Well, it was suggested because general business
is mainly suited in our opinion for corridors.
So, this scene fitting and to add to that point while I was out there, placing signs, I had the liberty of speaking with the owners of this land because a lot of its family land and they didn't seem to have a problem with it at all and to your point about selling in the future.
They stressed to me that it was very, very important about that property being sentimental,
and they wanted to keep it in the family for generations to come.
So if that means anything, I want to throw that out there.
I'm looking at it as the economic development partial of it across from there.
So there's obviously room for the growth, but there, again, the big jump.
But also, thank you for sharing the floodplain and all that, because having to deal with
that before personally, that limits a lot that you can do with that kind of land.
So you can't come in from the backside of which would detour a lot of bigger companies trying
coming in, even if it were about right coming in, and that's my opinion on that.
The road like that was brought up by Commissioner Tanklumberg is a concern, but if
all you're doing at this time is for your land, for your land business, and I'll see it
actually been far off the road and it's kind of friendlier for the, I guess the neighbors
for it's not like right on the road from it, because I've seen that too,
but I don't
know, I see it kind of in the right place, but then also, you know, the spot, the spot
I don't need.
I'm done.
I just wanted to also say, and we're sympathetic to what you're trying to do.
It is a great idea.
I want you to find a place for your business.
And Cory, we're sympathetic to what you mentioned in the owners wishes.
But again, I have to remind the condition that, you know, our obligation and responsibility
is to follow the UDO. And what it says in there, per the definition of regional business,
it's quoted, the regional business district has generally located on a major thoroughfare
in the community and provides opportunities for the provision of offices services, resale goods
to meet the surrounding region. So then it continues, the regulations of this district are intended
to accommodate predominantly auto oriented pattern of existing development until such time that the transportation network is retrofitted to accommodate more urban development patterns, which is why per the definition it needs to be on a major third affair.
regional business doesn't make sense on this property.
In my opinion, I disagree with staff's recommendation.
It makes me kind of feel like we need to remind
everyone in this room that we need to look at the UDL
and what it's telling us to do and follow it
because that's what we're called to do.
We don't have to like it, but it's our responsibility
to follow it, unfortunately, in this case.
So would general business change anything?
Yeah, like
it's for outdoor storage if we want to
have.
The answer to this question from my point of view,
I strongly am against the regional business,
but with now when you frame it,
I just can answer your question not to solve any problems.
I got my answer before when I wasn't trying to solve a problem.
But general business to me still doesn't fit in here, it's not on a main thoroughfare, it's surrounded by LDR.
And that's just how I was trained to look at what this surrounding is.
And it seems like, did anyone sign up to talk about this?
Can I also say something?
She's talking to me, I think.
Okay.
All right, I'll leave you.
I'm sorry.
I was talking to her question.
Yeah.
I got to know what you did.
I'll about the LDR part of it.
I know.
I mean, you're exactly right.
There's a lot of LDR surrounding it at the moment.
There is a parcel.
like like I can't really describe it but the parcel that kind of goes into the the bigger
parcel that was bought by Remby and there that little building in the pink up there so they'll
probably eventually apply for rezoning the other property next to it is professional business
the property on the top side of it is owned by Duke Duke Energy even those LDR now
So all that is probably eventually going to be moved over to some sort of a commercial use at some point.
The only, I guess, concern is this stuff on the south side, which is pure residential homes.
But there's, you know, 20 something acres on the south side that's essentially can't even touch.
So that's where that changes anything.
I
see this as a domino effect that once we grant one thing, how can we not grant the next person who wants regional business and the next person?
to me it's like opening Pandora's box that's not going to be well now
it's surrounded by LDR now it's regional business and now the next person wants regional business
and then the next one and like said the UDO adds this for LDR and I see it is just a stepping stone
that and I don't see how we grant one and not grant the next and the next although that's not what we're
It's just this property.
And that goes back to why we have to follow
what the UDO states, because we would be setting a precedent
of what we would be willing to change it in the future.
And also why there's those precautions of what
spot-selling is.
Any other comments or questions for the applicant?
Thank you.
Well, I was looking at your application.
I'm sorry.
What were the uses that were inconsistent with general business?
Because storage we think you can do accessory use we think you can do
What is it? Which is your maintenance repair stuff? I think it was a maintenance repair thing that was to
the issue like if we were in a change oil that that's like minor maintenance
Because I like there's minor maintenance and then major maintenance
It's not gonna look into do that under commercial services. You're doing that for within the operation. Oh, yeah, yeah
Yeah, that's just to you know maintain our trucks when they get fixed kind of thing
I think that has conditional use under general business
That's what I was looking for.
We're struggling really hard because we all want this.
Like I said, you've been here before.
We really want this to go through.
It's just in a really precarious spot
for a few different reasons, spot zoning,
or the use is of what regional business.
Regional business is, like you've heard a couple times,
specific attached to a major thoroughfare.
There is no major thoroughfare.
It's not a requirement, but it is strongly encouraged.
That's where we're really struggling with those pieces.
For the other parcel that we did, I think a few months ago, wasn't that also regional business?
Do you know?
I think it was.
I don't know what the last one was.
It was.
Yeah.
I mean, that was a really quick approval.
It was where it was.
It's the location of this and being on where it is that it's while we're having the
hesitate.
That one, you were like right off of 160, weren't you?
It was Bill St. Clair's property, it literally borders this parcel.
I can tell we're rock.
How is 6.8?
I think that's another concern.
The 6.8,
50 usable or 25.
I think that's what alarmed me when I first opened the pack.
Right in the center of LDR.
But yeah, I just think I'm worried that once we open,
Andorra's box. Last thing that was left when everything came out of her box was hope, and I don't think there's a lot of hope once we set this emotion.
I think we have to take into account everything in that area before we're basically approving it to turn into a reasonable business area.
Any more questions for the applicant?
All right. Thank you.
We'll consider ourselves now into public comment, public hearing, no one has signed up to speak.
So we'll consider ourselves out of public hearing.
Applicants, you have before you item number.
And I'm going to do, if you say RZ, 2026, 1441, Justin's tree service.
Um, do I hear a motion and remember, um, if you're going to make the motion to either approve or deny, you have to explain why you want to approve or deny it.
Make a motion to approve to get it onto the table for discussion.
New rules.
New rules and then high state silence.
So, I need a motion to either approve or deny and whether you do a motion to approve deny and you just state reasons from the UDO and the comprehensive plan as to why.
You can state whatever you want, whatever you feel is appropriate.
I can't tell you what to say.
I make a motion to deny, based on chapter 2, section 2.4.12, regional biscuit.
Second.
President Meet, the standards listed in the definition,
as well as concerns of spot zoning,
and it doesn't follow the current character
of the community.
The commissioners, you have before you item number RZ 2020-61441, Justin's tree surface service
With a notion that I based on, according to Section 2.4.12, regional business district, this does not meet the definition of a regional business district.
It also looks and appears to be spot zoning, and it also does not follow the current character of the company.
We have a motion was made by Ms. Tinklandburg. I'm just restating it was that correct as a community. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
Sorry as a community and that's the motion that was just made by Commissioner Tinklandburg do I have a second to that motion of a second.
All right any more discussion about this now that we have a motion to deny.
Okay, so we have before us, item number RZ, 2026, 1441, Justin's Tree Service, we have a motion
to deny based on it does not meet the definition of regional business district, there's
defined in section 2.4.12, qualifies a spot zoning that also does not follow the current
character of the surrounding community.
May we have a roll call vote, please, and this is a motion to deny, so does four is to
die against is four.
I'll love it when it's in reverse.
Richard Crandell?
Or?
Lynette Henson?
Judy in a Tinklandberg?
Sheila Henson?
Or?
Francis Lou?
Or?
Michelle Richards?
for, by vote of six to zero, the motion to deny this application has passed past, but please
be reminded that this item will be referred up to county council for a final decision,
and you will be notified at the time in the place for that.
And I apologize for all the repeating of things, now that we have new rules, I want to make
sure I don't forget anything.
We now have, before us, item number RZ, 2026, 1440, call that.
All right, so this rezoning request is located at 792 Fort Mill Highway.
The intent is to rezoning the property from meeting density residential to neighborhood
business to allow for the professional services use type, primarily like a medical office,
and the future land use designation for this area, according to the conference plan is
neighborhood, and on the left-hand side of the screen is a
subsequent parcel outlined in a T.O. blue color for reference.
On the left-hand side of the screen is a view of the property of
off of Fort Mel Highway, where they exist in vacant house.
On the right-hand side of the screen is an aerial image showing the
zoning districts and the public parcel outlined in red with a
star on it and highlighting the distance to the nearest
neighborhood business zone parcel, which is a 1,300 feet away about
a quarter of a mile and I'm looking back at the comprehensive plan, the area is also outlined
on the left-hand side of the slide, is designated as a neighborhood, pretty much the most
of that section of along 160 north is designated as a neighborhood and under this portion of the
quarter up here. This request does align with the comprehensive plan and meets the requirements
for approval. I'm available for questions, and the applicant is also here in available.
Are there any questions for staff?
Thank you, Matthew.
I'd like to come up, state your name and address for the record, please.
3.336, Linda Garalene, 4.6,
2.948.
Any questions for the applicant?
There's an existing house residential structure on the property.
Are you going to try to remodel that and use that?
Are you going to demolish it and build something else?
That's completely outdated.
Okay, so you're going to demolish it and build something else?
Okay.
That was just asking.
Any other questions for the applicant?
And this is for medical offices, so there would be no emergency services, no emergency.
No, it just basically office space, that's what they're planning for because there
is a ton of homes on the side, right?
So, thank you, directly across from unique room, that's right, but I built that building.
And my husband, that's the reason we were transferred here for Belden before it.
Yeah, Belden wire was Belden wire when I built it.
Sorry, we digress.
We didn't know we had that connection.
Any other questions for the applicant?
Any additional questions for staff?
All right.
Thank you, sir.
We will now consider ourselves into public hearing.
No one has signed up to speak, so we will consider ourselves out of public hearing.
So commissioners, we have before us either number RZ, 2026, 1414,
Kotha, do I have a motion to either approve or deny?
Motion to approve.
Approved.
Motion to approve the.
Based on.
Well, based on motion to approve the rezoning, but we don't do a based on for that one, right?
It's in accordance with the UDO.
You should still have to say that because it's in accordance with the UDO and meets definition
of blah-blah.
So, yes.
New rules.
That's quite all right.
So, we have a motion from Commissioner Randall to approve RZ-2026-1414-Cothe based on the fact that
the application meets the qualifications of the UDO and the comprehensive plan to we have a second.
I'll second it.
All right.
Roll call.
Vote please.
I just wondered if we should have any discussion at all.
Well, no one is going to have any questions.
I was just going to say that I just even though it's not against, but I just thought to explain that why I would vote for it is that it certainly does meet the
neighborhood business, sorry, which is
really located on thorough fairs and this is quite a thorough fair and provides opportunities for the provision of neighborhood services that service and acceptable transition to generally auto dependent neighborhoods.
It certainly fills that and while it is surrounded by MDR and HDR across the street is, like I said, the business unique looms.
So, because it meets all of those, even though it's surrounded by MDR, it does certainly fit
into neighborhood business.
There's a few other businesses also across the street.
Yes?
Yes.
So, any more discussion?
So, we have a motion and a second to approve.
I have to approve RZ-2026-14-14-Kotha-Kotha.
I can have a roll call vote, please.
Richard Crandell?
Or?
Lynette Hansen?
Or?
Judy and a Tinklingberg?
Or?
Sheila Hansen?
Or?
Francis Lou?
Michelle Richards?
Or?
Motion passes six to
Thank you.
Next item on the agenda is a non-hearing item.
I have to remind you, this will be remanded to County Council and you will be notified of the time in the place for that meeting.
I have to get all the legal stuff in.
Thank you.
Next item on the agenda is a non-hearing item in our in 2026-1681, the August road name,
the Biddle.
All right, so this month is a little lighter.
This is a leftover back when we first found out, again, that you all have to be the ones who approve or deny road names.
And this one got through the cracks.
So we're going to back up to you.
This is, I'm pretty sort of the last phase of all the creek that has not been built yet.
And so the only road name is Mud Puppy Lane, which is a relative of the Salamander or pretty close to
it.
Mud Puppy.
How cute.
Any questions?
Okay.
So commissioners, we have before us out of number in R and 2026-1681 August group road names the middle.
Do I have a motion to accept?
have a second, like the CZ roll call show of hands, I mean just show of hands, motion passes
60.
Thank you.
All right, next item on the agenda, the one that I'll the other people are waiting for, so
anxiously.
Next before us is a discussion on the new unified development ordinance draft.
and I'm chairwoman because we take a brief recess before we start this.
Okay, interrupting.
Do I have a motion to take a brief recess?
I have some moved.
I have a second.
Okay, five minutes please.
Or last seat.
Or last yes.
Thank you.
Let's get back on track so we can get out here tonight. The next item on the agenda is public hearing aid
for recommendation and council, the unified development ordinance draft.
Who's going to get up and speak?
I'll say everybody sit there going, not me.
Somebody has to speak. Okay. Good evening, planning commission.
My name is Kelly Cousin. I'm a principal of white Smith Cousin. The consultant firm that has been
working with the county for the past several years
on the updated management ordinance.
So tonight I'm just gonna,
I'm just gonna,
I'm sorry, I'm just gonna state your name
and address for the record.
You did your name, but not your address.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Do you need my home address?
I'm, give your company address.
Okay.
It's the first office box I had to give a post office box.
So it's PO box 10954, Charleston, South Carolina.
So I'm going to just run through quickly where we've been, how we've gotten to this evening,
and then Sean is going to take you through some of the major changes that are proposed
in this version of the EDO as well as some of the feedback that we've heard so far.
We have been working with the county for going on five years now.
We started back in the fall of 2021 with an assessment of the county's current
Edo, which culminated in some series of recommendations for changes and improvements to
the code.
Then we set off with drafting.
We drafted in modules, so sort of chunks of like information, training districts, uses,
development standards, administration, and we finalized everything last September with
public review draft dated September 30th, 2025.
Not long after that, the county council appointed an ad hoc
UDO committee to review that draft and the committee spent
basically from November to July, meeting frequently.
And I apologize, I don't remember how many meetings
else at the top of my head.
But two weeks?
Yeah, it was, it was a lot of meetings.
A lot of meetings.
Yeah, and it was every week for some time periods.
Yeah, when you was, so the committee was comprised of to your planning commission chair.
I'm Ms. Tinklumberg and three members of County Council and some other citizens of the county.
And they literally, the committee was going through page by page topic by topic and having really great conversation about some of the details of the UDO.
And so what is before you tonight in the UDO is,
Let's try again now that we have overcome our technical difficulties.
Of course.
Thank you.
Everyone's for their patients.
The only other thing to add here is just that we're beginning the adoption process planning
Commission.
This is the first step.
You all at some point will make a report and recommendation to council on the
and then the council will hold a public hearing and require three readings before it could be adopted.
There's a magic trick and everybody fights with it, apparently.
I do not know it.
All right Matt, Corey, somebody sure the magic trick.
I know y'all fight with that every time.
Oh, there you go.
Oops, not too far.
No, no, no, no.
There we go.
That it.
Yeah, that's it.
So this is just an overview of the revised UDO chapters, so we have done some reorganization of current standards in addition to adding new things, but there are there are 16 chapters they start out with the topics that are typically of the most interest to people,
learning districts, use regulations, development standards, and then the more technical and administrative
information is towards the back of the document.
This is just a screenshot. If you look at the
digital PDF version of the document, it is bookmarked and hyperlinked, so you navigate using that
table of contents and anywhere within the text of the document that you see a reference to another
section of the UDO, you can just click on that and it'll it'll jump you to that section, so hopefully it'll be easy to navigate for folks who are using online version.
Magic is.
Can you have a can you advance the slide?
Perfect.
I'm going to turn it over to Sean to discuss some of the pros.
All
right.
Great.
Thank you, Kelly.
My name is Sean.
scoop mine and with white Smith Kuznou and our addresses, Q box 205, 20954 in Charleston, South Carolina.
Thank you. Yeah. So I, like Kelly said, I'm going to discuss a couple of the major changes and this is the overview slide of all of the major changes.
We'll discuss each one with its own separate slide and I will leave it up to you and the commissioners whether you would like to discuss each one of these topics as we go through them and ask questions individually you're waiting till the end.
I'm happy to accommodate you whatever makes sense.
Let's do it over section by section basis.
Judy Ann and I know this thing in and out but I know the other ones have only gone through it.
Once so I think it probably best if we do it on a section by section basis. Okay, and there may or may not be questions.
Great.
Well, feel free to interrupt me if there are questions.
We're here to help you all. Make this decision.
All right, so really the major changes as they're organized here are kind of organized in a conceptual way the first two topics really relate to subdivision design.
The fucking D3, 4 in the middle, all relate to the zoning districts and changes in some of the zoning districts.
Flood regulations is kind of a separate standalone change, but a fairly significant change,
at least in the organization of the code.
And then the last topic, except division, thresholds and infrastructure, is what I would describe as maybe an undecided issue
Or at loose end maybe loose thread. I don't even know what the right analogy is and I'm sorry
This is being recorded now, but anyway
You know, if something that there is content in the UDO, but not has much agreement from everybody about either what they what it means or what they want it to mean
All right, so
If Sean has the magic touch
What do you point at it up there?
Oh,
there we go.
All right, so this topic and the next one,
somewhat go hand in hand.
This one is conservation subdivision design.
The next and this applies as a subdivision type that is intended to replace
the current cluster subdivision overlay.
The next slide that you're going to see about open space
in subdivisions applies to all conventional subdivisions.
So in order for this one to apply,
it would really have to be a conservation subdivision
at the election of the applicant.
So what we're coming from here is we understand that at least with MDR,
the idea of clustering presents some unsatisfactory outcomes
to citizens and council, maybe to y'all also, because the lot sizes end up becoming very small.
And that is one of the purposes of conservation subdivisions to make the lot sizes smaller,
so you can keep the conservation area bigger, but there is some need to find a balance there.
So in the table at the bottom of this, we have the current cluster and the different metrics,
you know, the district available conservation percentage required, whether there's improved open space,
the minimum lot's size and the maximum density. So really, you know, in the current MDR cluster,
you're looking at 5,000 square feet for your lots, which is what we understand is this is
one of the primary concerns of the community to have density at this level.
But also I think it's one of Council's concerns because it requires or it doesn't require.
But there are many requests to reason to MDR, including possibly in areas where it isn't appropriate or they just aren't particularly interested in hearing it.
And they, I think have been struggling with the idea that to reach some kind of development threshold that makes sense to the developers that you have to reason to MDR.
And so, one of the things that we worked on a good bit in the ad hoc committee was finding a middle ground where you could have some kind of cluster or conservation subdivision design that basically preserved enough open space, natural area and also ended up with lot sizes that were satisfactory and that matched the districts that you were looking for.
looking at. And I'll say that the last piece kind of for the logic behind this was that
there are not many MDR parcels that are undeveloped. And so, you know, I think that there's
an interest in looking at LDR and to some extent, some lesser extent, RN. For all of
these, it will require sewer and water.
So, you know, that's one of the real issues
with making the law sizes smaller,
if you have to use septic,
you couldn't use a 14,000 square foot lot, period.
So, some of the feedback that we've gotten on this,
from the developers, their engineers,
their concern that the law sizes are too large,
to effectively develop an economical kind of market rate
affordable subdivision using this framework.
And their primary concern with the lot sizes
are the lot widths, so that's the largest expense
that you would have in developing
is building all the roads and infrastructure.
So this is something that I think that you're going to learn pretty quickly, if it is popular or not,
because you're either going to get subdivision applications using this, or you're not.
You know, in the first six months, in the first year, it'll be apparent.
And so really, I think that the concept is there.
And I guess the question is, you know, the minimum lot sizes too large compared to the district
lot sizes.
You know, it's like RN is one acre.
In base, you know, this is a half acre. So it's a significant departure from the normal district standard. But you do get a lot of conservation area, even with these fairly large lots.
Any questions on kind of this, the concept, you know, how it, how we worked it out and, you know, what it, what it looks like.
And would it be written in somewhere as this big quality land that is set aside and not just from a usable land?
So that's a good question.
And it's a problem that everybody has with their conservation subdivisions.
It's also a problem with land in general, especially in places that have had a lot of development.
there's just a lot of land that may not be quality land or really
developable. So what the approach that this has is an incentive for preferred
locations and the incentive is the reduction.
I'm looking at the tree
save area. I'm sorry. Let me go back to this because I think there is an incentive
with this too.
All right, so the general framework really was to include, and there is not an incentive,
I'm sorry about that. There is an incentive for tree save area, which could be one of the conservation
area types, so I think that in reality that would work, but so the way that this works is,
If you're going to do it, you would have to have this natural open space as the lion's share of your open space.
And you can have an incentive for areas that are adjacent to riparian buffers and for existing hardwood stands.
You're going for that, but there is a slight reduction in the conservation area as a part of that.
Now, in counting, we've done the calculation of the open space a little bit differently than with the standard open space subdivision, so this allows the inclusion of buffers, wetlands and floodplains, which, you know, really, especially including wetlands, I think, was one of the goals to make this something where, you know, if you have a parcel that has significant wetlands.
It really gives you an incentive to use this and preserve those because it's basically free as a part of your development.
It wouldn't count as open space if you were doing just a conventional subdivision, which is now required and we'll get to that on the next slide.
All right, but that's a good question. Thank you.
I just asked what made me ask is, I live in a subdivision that was approved over 20 years ago.
No one here in planning had anything to do with it.
But the developer was told a set aside roughly seven acres of green space.
And it's the cramious nastiest seven acres.
And nothing can be done with it.
And we, that was it and it wasn't even inside the subdivision and just looking at this,
it's a pretty picture where it says conservation though, pretty drawing, but in reality,
it could look nothing like that in just because they're junkies land and that just concerns
me kind of.
is a beautiful word. But if you're conserving a bunch of crap, excuse me, language, it just doesn't
seem like such a good bargain for us. So that's a very good additional point. So long-term,
one of the keys is maintenance and what maintenance requirements are there. There are maintenance
requirements that apply to this space, and so in general, it would be up to the HOA.
You know, so in theory for natural open space, you really would not want to do match maintenance.
But, you know, if you would need to remove invasive plants, let's say, you can remove dead, diseased and dying trees and other plants.
but I think that the light touch is really
the preference for this kind of natural open space type.
Thank you.
So then in general, open space for conventional subdivisions
is kind of the flip side of the same coin.
You know, this is a new concept,
and it is based on a lot of the things
that we heard from the residents of Langston County.
There's a concern with density.
There's also a concern with the livability
and sort of the quality of life in subdivisions.
And so there are kind of these two different parts.
There's open space and improved open space.
Improved open space counts in the percentage of open space.
So you don't add these two up.
But, you know, basically improve the open space or things like, you know, parks, playgrounds, squares, et cetera.
And then open space would include those. So, you know, if they wanted it to be 15% parks and playgrounds, they could do that.
If they wanted it to be, if you're an RN, for example, that's just the top line.
If you wanted it to be 5% of the site area as improved and 10% as natural area, it could be that.
So there's a lot of flexibility in the design opportunities with this open space.
In general, this is something that is scaled so that the more dense the development will be the larger the improved open space requirement in particular with the MFR districts, which are new, and we'll talk about next, we've got 10% improved open space, because you're going to have a lot more people, and so things like playgrounds, and you'll probably also have a lot more children quite frankly.
I would think in, you sort of, MFR,
and then like a larger, a lot subdivision.
So this is something that is very common
in a lot of jurisdictions.
But it is, it could be a big change.
I mean, we've listed this on the major changes list,
but this is, I think, an important change
for quality of life, especially now.
The flip side in the comments that we get on strategies like this
that it can diminish market rate affordability of housing and so, you know, to really hit that,
you have to improve the quality of life where you can and then also find other opportunities for
market rate affordable housing, which is really the goal of these multifamily residential districts.
Before I move on, are there any questions about open space for conventional?
I just would want to say going forward because of the experience with Legacy Park.
2015, 2025, that sounds great, but if they're allowed to give a piece of crap land, it
doesn't benefit anybody.
We have beautiful playground and pond and stuff, but seven full acres of nothingness.
So I would just, I don't know how it's staying care of down the road, but this looks
great on paper, but when a developer finds a way to purchase seven acres across the street
that has nothing to do with the neighborhood and has given that leeway that you've met
your 15-20% whatever, but it's worthless and doesn't improve the quality of life for anybody
in that area. I just hope going forward there's a way to keep an eye on things like that.
didn't we add some some provision along those lines to make sure that it wasn't just the left over
you know areas between BMPs and things like that to make sure that it didn't
do what you're describing? Yes, so we do have location and design standards.
You know and it's interesting you mentioned this idea of it being across the street. So the really
The first one is that the open space has to be integral, it has to be an integral part of the overall design.
You know, and these are the type of design standards that you could apply as a planning commission.
So it's, you know, open space shall be an integral part of the overall development design.
The specific layout of open space should be designed to be sensitive to the physical and design characteristics of the site.
The open space should be contiguous and connected with open space both within the development and on a burning properties.
Not be occupied by structures unless the structures are an integral part of the open space.
Have direct access to the pedestrian network and be accessible to all residents occupants and tenants of the development.
And really the goals of those are all to ensure that you don't, you're not going to guarantee the quality of the land itself.
But, you know, if you have seven acres that are on the other side of a creek, nobody can get to.
That's what this is designed to avoid.
I don't want to take up any more time.
But that was something that I didn't want to be anecdotal.
But that is huge mistake.
Well, and also I remember two, when it comes before us on the culinary plat,
that's when we can say, you've got this beautiful open space area,
but it's over here where nobody can, so therefore it doesn't meet the intention of the video.
Yes, I'm just wanted to add you a point.
There is a list of excluded uses, so those include repairing buffers, special flood hazard areas, wetlands, roads and driveways, parking areas, swimming pools, and structures, except when they're like a gezebo or something in open space.
So those, as Sean mentioned earlier, in the conservation subdivision, some of those things can count as an incentive to use that subdivision type.
but in just conventional subdivisions, those areas couldn't count for us.
Thank you very much.
And one of the obvious reasons for that is that,
if you could take seven acres of wetland and just set it aside,
you count that as your open space.
That's not the sort of open space.
It is important to open space to preserve.
But that's not the kind of usable open space that I think that is.
Not that anyone would want to do that.
Right.
Thank you very much. I appreciate your time for explaining that.
Sure. Can I ask two questions? Back to the conservation area. Sorry to take you back to.
I saw that one requires sewer for both R&N and LER.
Do we have any assessment of how what the feasibility of what's the actual usability of that within the county?
Because R&N I think is unlikely in most cases to have sewer, so it feels like it's not actually going to.
You said we'll see in the next six months to a year.
I'm not sure if we will or won't because I'm not sure we'll have the applicability to actually apply the apply those things whether there's a desire for it
But we won't see the
Desire from of it. We will see perhaps the applicability of it based on the conditions being met.
Yes, you tell me a little bit about that. Why what was the, I get that we have always we compress these last
We have a hard time putting septic on them so I can see why they would have sewer, but if there is a suitable lot
that still meets that, why would it still have the sewage requirement as a hard requirement?
All right, so two parts of the question, I would say the big picture question is,
have we been able to evaluate existing LDR and RN sites for sewer availability?
Right? And the answer is no. We've tried, but the Lancaster water and sewer district, they're very tight with their maps.
So we have not been able to get the maps to overland with our districts. It would be helpful.
If you have a connection with Lancaster water and sewer now's the time to pull it in.
Yeah, it's just my bill.
So, so in general, this is the feedback that I've heard
and kind of the boots on the ground that I've seen,
especially working with the ad hoc committee,
that there are a number of LDR sites
that will have, that do or will soon have sewer access, right?
RN is much less likely to have sewer access.
But, you know, this is something that is a long term project
And so who's to say where sewer is going to be in 20 years?
So that's kind of the big picture.
The smaller picture really is, you know, that it would be possible to do this in a way that,
you know, you could have a lot by lot requirements to see if the lots perk.
I mean, you know, like, that's a normal thing.
But it's a little bit different than the framework that y'all have here because it requires a lot more interaction with staff and the developer, you know, I mean, basically you typically you have them prepare a certain sample size usually a percentage of the lots or something they go out, they test them, they come back with the results, you know, and you kind of go from there to figure out whether the lots would support septic or not.
You know, really with the, with the quarter acre lot size with LDR, I mean, I doubt you would ever have a qualified lot for septic at a lot size that small.
It's more RN than I.
Yeah, and a half acre, it's, it's possible.
I mean, you know, if you, if you want to make this more available, or if you are hitting a minimum stand, if you just said, hey, you're not doing half.
Speaker on that, you're using a conservation subdivision, but you're at something that perks, right?
Whatever that, whatever that baseline standard is, you could qualify as the conservation subdivision and not be stuck
hung up on the must have sewer. Yes, sorry, man. Yes. So originally the ad hoc committee had the
are in at three-quarter of an acre lots, and you could use septic.
But there was some discomfort
at lowering it to a half an acre, not having that. That backstop. But I think if you wanted to
consider it, I mean, it's a valid concern and would definitely open this up. It would open up
more opportunities to use are in conservation. That concern come from, who was the source of
concerned was that from Lancaster County Water?
No, I think that the concern, at least on the part of the committee, was that in general
the soils are not of a quality that they would really reasonably expect the lots would
perk.
That's fair.
Thank you.
And then on the next one, she was my question here.
Oh, okay.
I think I remember my question.
You talked about, as we make these changes, there's also a consideration for the market rate of these
and is it suitable and have we looked at done have we did we do the economic study side of that to say hey, as we look at these metrics and say we're going to make this much of it open space
This much improved open space. We expect the market rates to change by this and is that suitable really for our county is that suitable for care constituency is that
Maybe is that pool and the constituents we're looking to pull in is it going to allow things like as we look at this more comprehensively and on an isolated stage
We're one of the things I know that's in here that I think is we look in the business and technology districts that we're looking to pull a more business, which I think we very much need.
And I think we need this also, especially the MDR or the MFR and the MFR.
As we look at that, are we are our home staying in a market rate based on those changes.
Is that, do we do the economic impact?
No, we have not done that sort of level of economic impact on this.
You know, so I would say that in general, this is the sort of feedback that we get on codes like this.
And, you know, there are so many factors that go into the way the market price is set, right?
You know, really this affects the use of the land.
And so it's going to change the value of raw land that would be sold for development.
It's probably also going to be, it's also probably going to affect the percentage of the
sale price or the base price of a house that is accounted for by the land cost.
But how the purchase price of the land compares to the sale price of the land is very
You just don't have that level of precision with it.
Do we have no signal or a comfort of stuff?
Are there other other counties that are done this kind of thing?
And we've seen how those have impacted.
We have any.
Maybe we can maybe looking at it in a specific in a individual one-off basis is difficult.
But if we look at it in an aggregate as a across a broad set of counties that are done something like this,
we can get no signal ideas of what those changes are.
Do we have any concept of that?
I don't, but that is a very good question.
And we will look into it and get back with you on that.
That was it.
Thanks.
Sorry to make you jump back.
Oh, no, that's great.
So for the new residential districts, these have not been mapped anywhere.
So you will probably hear this some.
The way that this relates in general to the comprehensive plan is that the concept here is to introduce density in appropriate places.
and what is appropriate for different people varies, and that's one of the roles that you guys
is the planning commission have is the decide where density is appropriate. In the comprehensive
plan, the statement really is the sort of the future growth areas are in areas surrounding the
city of Lancaster where there is access to water and sewer, and there's more of a kind of a baseline
density there. I think there's also a pressure not to have this type of more dense development
in Indian land because of concerns with traffic and schools and all of the growth-related issues
in Indian land. So it's my general understanding that these would be mapped somewhere generally
probably on the northern side of the city of Lancaster. You know, really the, the two different
districts are, have the same basic idea, but one of them has a little bit more of a safeguard.
So, you know, the first MFR district is basically your missing middle housing and it's due
plexus townhouses. I suspect those are the main things that you will see although we've gotten some
comments about developers that's specializing kind of in four
flexes.
So maybe you would see some of that.
I really don't know.
But those are the type of housing types that don't have the
density intensity that you would think of as traditional
multifamily.
It could be used on an infill basis,
also, you know, if you if you if you reasoned, especially dueplexes, I think have the largest,
you know, kind of infill potential. So MFRA is what I would call the safeguard district,
you know, so if you're going to like you were talking with the applicants earlier, you know,
well, we don't want you to be regional business because if you decide you're not going to be
is there's any more of a good bill to Walmart right here in the middle of the neighborhood, right?
And that's fair.
And so that's the concern I think with separating out MFRA that apartments are different
enough as they are developed now, based on the intensity of the use that separating out makes
some sense.
So that's kind of where we are.
And I think that this is kind of the piece that brings in some more market rate, portability,
You know, just the smaller footprint increased intensity, those are the kinds of marginal changes in the development of land that would create a significant decrease in the per unit price.
So this is a good strategy to bring in some more affordable housing.
So the new business district, or are there any questions on that?
I've been realized that.
Okay. All right. So new business district,
business and technology district. This is really kind of replacing the professional business district, but
you know, the concept is a little bit broader. So, you know, it's financial services and
professional offices, you know, it could be something like an office park, but it's much more
just office uses that would be more compatible with residential and retail uses.
So it's the kind of district that you could put, you know, basically next to a neighborhood
and not really notice significant impacts. Hopefully. Any questions on?
All right. So
the MX districts were very unpopular, maybe with everybody. Have you all done any MX district
Resonings lately at the so the developer meeting I mean we had like 40 developers and engineers in there and I ask him to show their hands if they had ever done one of these and only one person had
So it hasn't been really well used and I think that maybe that speaks in some ways to whether it's useful
but also there are lots of complaints that you know council was hesitant to use it because the densities exceeded their expectations
you know the
the building
the sighting of the buildings, it kind of doesn't match up with the auto oriented development
that you would think of as sort of conventional along Highway 521. And so we have after a lot of
discussion proposed a planned development district and this is just basically of vanilla planned
development district. It is something that the county had before the current UDO was adopted in 2016.
You know, first of all, it requires master plan. It requires two kinds of residential uses and a commercial use.
Outside of that, everything is on the table. So, you know, they can ask for unique height.
You know, but you're going to have standards that, you know, basically request higher design, both of the buildings and site design open space.
So this is really going to be the primary flexible development tool that the county can use.
It's going to be up for negotiation on just about every project.
One, not that we hear on this type of development, framework in general is that developers usually either specialize in residential or commercial, but not both.
And so the developers sort of don't like this. They may not want to use this as much.
I really don't know. We've gotten some comments that sort of indicate, you know, what are we supposed to do with the commercial? Can we lower the commercial percentage?
There is a percentage, it has to be at least 20% commercial, but you know, you can lower the percentage, but in general the South Carolina planning and abling act requires
these, the blending of these two uses in the same development.
And so you can't have just like a solely residential PD.
And that's, that's really what ideally I think the developers would like to see.
they would like, you know, the ability to do a master plan only PD with only residential.
That would that would hit a lot of checkboxes, right?
But that's not really what's allowed. And so that's not what we've proposed.
And you don't really know what the developments that you get are going to look like until you see them.
So, you know, I can't sketch one out. You know, it's going to be very site-specific. It's going to be
market driven. It's going to be driven by the experiences of the developer and other places.
But in general I think that this is a framework that most communities in South Carolina have
and nobody particularly likes it and nobody likes the other options that they've tried either.
So I wish I could say this was some great panacea but I think at least it will get you your
And it will give you some flexibility in places that you might want to have it. Any any questions on this?
About the contender.
Planetary plat, we just did.
It was very similar to this.
Predominantly residential and had 20% commercial in it.
Which one?
The contender homes.
Um, Katava Ridge.
Oh, yes.
It referred to call it was predominantly residential.
It had about the 20% commercial buried within it.
So similar to this.
It's under an old.
PDD. Very old PDD. Is that what they have in Colombia and the, and I mean, to some of them.
Yeah. And the li of there and I love it. Everybody down there loves that.
He's like back to their village. Yes.
Yes.
Yeah.
You mentioned that these aren't mapped in anything today.
Which, sorry, again, makes me think about BT.
What is BT mapped into anything?
It's not.
Is there conceptually, do we have an idea of what that would map into?
What would it be, what are their existing zoning?
Do you think we think would be most well aligned with?
Well, so looking at the district description,
I'm really thinking that this would be appropriate more for road areas.
That's a little like zoning, is it more like more to be like,
And part of the reason is that I noticed on BT what we say it's conducive to be near residential.
Some of the bi-right permitted uses include manufacturing.
Like medical computer engineering, computer stuff.
That feels a little less conducive to being next to residential.
So I was trying to figure out what the thinking behind that was.
How do we get to that place where we thought that would be a good,
manufacturing would be a good to sit next to residential.
Let me look at the use table again, maybe that's been, so the district description is that
the business and technology district is established to accommodate employment generating
industries of regional and statewide importance, such as corporate headquarters, clean manufacturing
facilities, research and development facilities and financial services.
This specialized district also accommodates businesses and professional offices, office support
services, and similar uses that are generally compatible with nearby residential retail
and services.
That's the one that those two sentences conflict for me, right? I get that we say that
Manufacturing is in there and then we say it's compatible with nearby residential retail and service
So let me say clean manufacturing, so I think they were trying to limit
some of their buy right, but their buy right table gives them something
broader
All right, let's see. I'm pulling up the use table now now. It's on page
So the bi-right permitted uses artist studio, like manufacturing workshops, small alcohol production, computer and electronic products manufacturing.
I mean that could be that you're not going to have a little mom and pop electronic manufacturing.
That's the next page of the medical, I'm not sure if you're looking at the table or not.
The next one, you have the medical equipment that supplies manufacturing permitted by right, you got pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing by right, so there's a couple in there there, either R.D. R and D facilities, which I guess is deeper or enough, but also.
Program of to be small are enough to not be small.
Yeah, I mean, I'm really seeing these, this kind of being uses that would be on major arterials. I mean, I don't think it's going to be like, you know, the neighborhood business use.
Okay, that's why we're looking at where we're looking to map it into.
We don't think or we have a provision in there that limits those locations.
There is there is no limitation on the location qualification for those.
To make this stronger is a help support your point. Should we consider adding that?
Okay.
So you've that make make that emotion when we go to those.
You know, I'm trying to write.
Amen.
I was fast.
I kind of thank you.
Okay.
I'm sorry to make you back.
When you said it wasn't mapped into anything,
then maybe think of those questions.
That's a good question.
Yeah.
I mean, that's considering if they're by right.
Right.
And we have no location parameters around that.
That's a good catch.
Yep.
But all those.
This would be on a request base.
So it would be an applicant coming before you all
on the core account, so with the request,
the reason to go.
But that does certainly would not
be that we can put a statement in there
that either suggest location for it or it's a hard
location criteria like it has to be on
a arterial road, for example,
and that would be a qualified person.
Yeah, because once they reason, because they could come,
they could bring the application to us like the trees
service, right? And so hey, we're doing something small,
But once it's BT it's and they sell it it's by they don't bring that to us again. It's it's by right at that point
So highway corridor overlay is
one of our
kind of getting near the end of the major changes. So
You know right now. It's basically up in the Indian land area the concept has always been you know
It's sort of the front porch for a limestone county and
We want higher design standards there both in terms of
building finishes, but also site design, landscaping, etc.
So the goal here is to extend the highway corridor overlay all the way south on 521 to the northern city limit of the city of Lancaster.
And then also adding a highway 9 from the Katoba River to the western city limits of the city of Lancaster.
are interestingly, excluding industrial uses.
That's a big exclusion, though, because all of the land on Highway 9
is zoned in industrial.
And I think that there are within this buffer,
and I don't count.
My count is not completely accurate,
but something like six parcels.
This would apply to at one, and they're all around one intersection.
But those parcels could be re-zoned at simple,
as regional business, or something else other than, you know, industrial.
So, you know, I think that the general concept is to extend the highway corridor overlay
with the expectation that development will continue to push south
and that if you don't have the standards in place now, you know, I mean if you drive the stretch
it's circled in red maybe if you're going home that way tonight you know I mean 80% of it at
least is completely undeveloped right I mean so development will one day come it could be
five years it could be ten years it could be twenty five years but the goal is I think to have
the higher standards maintained all the way down the highway corridor really one of the primary tweaks
is increasing the distance between curb cuts above the SCDOT requirement, which I think is
400 feet, although their curb cut allowances are very, you know, site specific and project
specific and speed specific and all kinds of other stuff.
But the general concept is, we'll improve the traffic flow by increasing the distance between
curb cuts to 600 feet.
that will require, you know, some working amongst the parcel owners to be able to, you know, get access for their land.
So I think that this is something that, you know, Council was particularly interested in.
I think that it's something that would benefit the citizens.
It may create some difficulties, and there is also an exception for situations where there are, you know, narrow lots,
and there really isn't the opportunity for shared access.
It also is decreased the width of the highway corridor overlay buffer from 1,000 feet to 500 feet,
primarily because with the aesthetic goal of the overlay, 1,000 feet was just capturing
too many parcels that weren't on the corridor.
And so, at 500 feet, it's, you know, parcels that are within 500 feet or developed, you
know, you know, conjunction with or master planned with something that's within
that. And so, you know, in general, I think that it's a, it's a reasonable narrowing
of the buffer.
But, you know, we've heard kind of some pros and cons on that.
Any thoughts or questions on the highway corridor overlay?
And two things, one, I can't remember, will read decreasing the buffer on the entire highway corridor or just the new part.
The entire corridor.
Yeah, that's why that's going to make sure.
And then secondly, I just had a thought, when we add the highway corridor going down nine, that means it's going to have a huge overlap with the airport overlay.
So which one's going to take precedents to airport or the highway corridor because I mean the airport's like all the way around on the north side of nine there?
Yes, so the airport overlay takes precedents over everything.
Okay, that's absolutely because the FAA, yep. Okay.
Yep, that's a good question to them.
So on the in the proposed video on the highway court. Sorry, did I jump in do anything else on the highway corridor?
It talks about, so, well, let me step back, in the proposed UDO, like in the old UDO, one of the things we say our state of goal is system-approved connectivity between streets.
In the proposed UDO, we actually talk about limiting the street connections, the stubs, to only the HCO. Why do we take that out of all the development?
We used to have it in an old development county wide. Now we say that that interconnectivity is only required in the HCO.
what prompted that change and how does that align with the idea
that we want to improve?
I get that you get places like Kershaw
where it doesn't make sense to go build a development
and stuff out to trees.
But on other parts of the county that are being developed more
actively, you're pushing all that traffic back
to all those thoroughfares, like where the neighborhood wall
marks going on Van Wacrode, instead of having a connection
through to the parish teeter, the library, all that stuff,
everyone's got to go back up to 521 and we're pushing all
Why did we take that out of limit to the HEO?
So that is a very good question and I would say that the answer is not a 100% satisfactory for anybody.
So let me digress and give you a little bit of history on how this kind of development framework was created.
And so the original idea was supposed to be, you don't remember that there were these kind
of character areas in the comprehensive plan, like the northern and then central, greater
lengthster and then southern, rural lengthster.
So the general concept was that we were going to do separate developments standards for
each one of those areas.
And so under the, and basically, you know, you have to come up with developments standards
each one of these areas, which we did.
And so the highway corridor overlay became basically
the northern Panhandle development standards,
which would include connectivity.
It would allow you the flexibility to require connectivity
in certain places, certain geographical parts of the county,
but not in rural parts of the county.
Maybe that's where it makes sense.
But it was fairly complicated, because now you
have, you know, basically this overlay on top of your base zoning district and possibly another
overlay that's going to define development standards.
So when we took that away and put it back with the highway corridor overlay, it seemed
like, at least on the committee, there were two primary concerns with connectivity.
Now, I'll say that I'm a big believer in connectivity.
It's the way that you ensure that there is a ability of people to get to the places
where they need to be, or where they think they want to be.
So the two full concerns were changes in grade on the land, and with contemporary, cut-and-fill,
development practices, you end up with really big retaining wall on one end of a site,
And maybe that's a constraint.
So there was a dissatisfaction with kind of the suitability
of the land for connectivity.
And I think the other one was a concern, you know,
basically that this is the connectivity
is something that's maybe too hard to require other places
for developers.
And it to build the extra stubs to require connections
to the stubs, you know, people do like living in these kind of little enclaves, some people
do.
I don't live in a little enclave, but, you know, I'm a city planner, so maybe I'm different.
But I think that that's really kind of the, that was where the discussion went.
It's not a, it's not completely satisfactory because, you know, you have to plan for connectivity
now to have connectivity in 25 years.
And so this is an important question, and I think that if you all have, you know, different thoughts or feedback, this is your time.
We've been living under that standards, right? So I, I guess my challenge is I, I hear what I'm trying to assimilate in my brain is, okay, if it's too hard how we've been doing it for so long.
and do we, was it more than just a national concern,
or representative concerns, or were people saying,
look, this prevented us from developing here.
We couldn't actually do this.
We couldn't make these changes because I got it.
We great a certain way.
We've got variants.
We can only grade our property.
We can't grade the neighboring property.
We're a fifth connectivity, too.
So we might be dropping off a cliff or going into a hill,
or we've been under this paradigm.
It's not a new paradigm.
If we were going the other way, I would understand it.
we're in an existing paradigm that says we do this and have been doing it. So are there? Are there? Is there
anecdotal evidence of this? Is there a representative evidence of this? We're developers come back and
said, hey, we can't even develop this land because of this. This is why we can't do it. You're almost
to take things in some way. I would say it best I have a second hand anecdotal
understanding of this. Okay. That's fair. I just can't turn in. Yeah, please.
So, I mean, I was one of the biggest advocates for connectivity during our ad hoc meetings and I, you know, my example I kept giving because we have private roads, we need to keep connectivity because it's only problematic because we can't force those connections later because those are not county owned roads.
So, I don't remember us deciding to remove the connectivity from the other districts.
I mean, maybe I just overlooked, and I don't remember us changing that.
So, I'm surprised that that's in there.
Honestly, I mean, the example that I kept giving is an Indian land right now.
You can't drive from the new target to the new Costco.
You can see the connection, but they don't actually connect, because we didn't force that and
have it in here. So I'm happy that it remains in the highway corridor overlay that I am concerned
that that was removed from the other zoning districts or outside of an overlay. So I do
think we need to go back and revisit that conversation because whether it's difficult for developers
or not the entire goal of this rewrite for my understanding of taking an active part on the
that was to grow those minimum standards, not make it easier.
I think that's reasonable.
So there was one other thing that we talked about with connectivity
that is a little bit of a wrinkle too.
So if you have public roads and you're requiring access,
then they're concerned with taking everything else,
but if you are being required to maintain private
and require connectivity, which allows non-residents of that neighborhood to use your roads,
you know, basically you're requiring public use, which could be a taking. So there could be some issues there.
I think it's a concern. They are public roads. They're just privately maintained, right?
I mean, all of our roads now with the new development or private, or am I misunderstaffed, please chime in.
maybe I'm not understanding something.
That's a million dollar question.
So if somebody wanted to develop a lot or develop a tract
and have private roads with gated access only,
would they be able to?
Well, the question I've always had is some city
coming out of Carolina.
The question I've always had at some city
is that I thought those...
We're public roads, and yet, for years, they've tried to have a gate system, which has cost them thousands and thousands of dollars,
because it lasts for about a month. But I've always questioned why that is, is that a private road? Did they make an exception for that one little part, and all the rest are public?
But to keep interlopers out coming from Carolina commons out through their neighborhood and they have put up gates.
So it's an interesting question. Can people go on private public roads if they don't live in that neighborhood?
And can you have 95% privately maintained or public maintained and then say we want to maintain this part so that we can say it's gated?
As the jurisdiction that is enforcing these rules, you can require the connections, but if you require access, that's when you risk a taking.
And so at the point that as the county you're making these rules, the property owner's association could respond in whatever way they would like.
I think, you know, they could leave them open to people, or they could try to set up a gate system.
I don't particularly see anything that would stop them from putting up gates.
Other than fire access, which there is a specific standard in here that requires special fire access privileges or gates.
I would say it's an open question and a area of significant concern.
Is something worth looking into if you're going to require connectivity, but then they can put up a gate than what good did that connectivity do?
I think I think we need to look into that.
It's making me wonder if this is a, I don't know, a legal question.
Like, how can we require private roads, but limit access?
I mean, I don't, I don't, I don't know the right answer.
Are there other counties that do the you guys have seen that have something similar like this?
How do they manage this?
I mean, it's almost like they need another road turning off of the private road.
But obviously, then you're talking about adding a cost that's the owner of some burdensome.
Honestly, is this the limbo of us having private road?
It is.
Or it's their privately maintained.
This is kind of the, is it the burden we bear for making that choice?
So, in terms of thinking about other counties that struggle with this, everybody kind of struggles
with connectivity in a conceptual way or both, but I think that the, the Lancaster County's
problems are particular and specific because of this private road being the exclusive development
strategy.
You know, I mean, so there are places where there are private roads, but that's almost always
is the option of the developer.
And so if they want to dedicate their roads to the public,
then they have to follow those rules.
But if they want to maintain private roads,
they can put up gates and do everything
you would expect with private roads.
Requiring private roads is part of development.
I think this is kind of the other side of that coin.
We have one side of it that comes with the other side, too.
That's helpful.
Thank you.
It's probably going to go forward.
But that's a great trick.
All right, so there is a significant update
that the flood hazard regulations, really the feedback
that we got at the very beginning was that stormwater
and flood control are all mixed up in the same chapter
and that they don't really make a lot of sense
and they need a total rewrite.
So we kind of went around for a couple of years
on whether the flood control and stormwater should be in the UDO
they should be in separate chapters. In general, the preference of staff mainly for compliance was
to have them as standalone ordinances with separate definitions and separate enforcement authority.
Mainly for, and that's why I'm mentioning it with the flood control, so the staff elected to go
with the state's model ordinance. I don't know if you all are familiar with the way that, you know,
this kind of works for rating communities for flood hazards, but in general, you know,
FEMA rates people for flood insurance rates based on a number of factors.
One of which is the jurisdictions compliance with a certain set of development rules that
relate to the development in the flood hazard areas.
And so, you know, if you're trying to get a legal compliance review, it is easiest if you
have something like the state model ordinance and a standalone ordinance.
So that's what this is going with.
It creates an entirely new chapter for flood hazard.
And so I think that this will be something that will
a help with your compliance so that somebody in Columbia
will be able to look at this ordinance and say, aha, this works.
But also it will more clearly protect the county's residents
from flood hazard.
All right, and so then this is really the last substantive topic that we have on the major list.
And this one is the one I would say that is the most influx of the conversations that I hear with different folks in the county, some of y'all on this committee commission.
some members of county council, staff, everybody is interested in these two things to some greater or lesser extent.
So they really combine and tie into each other.
So the first one is commercial subdivisions and the second is, for minor subdivisions, what infrastructure would you require?
And how do you set the threshold for what is a minor subdivision versus not?
So commercial subdivisions, what the UDO proposes is, so currently if it's, you know, up
minor subdivision, five, lots, no public streets, currently it's reviewed by staff.
There was some dissatisfaction on the ad hoc committee with commercial subdivisions being reviewed
by staff only and they would like you as the planning commission to review what would otherwise
be a minor subdivision if it is commercial.
That presents some problems because as you know when you are doing a subdivision, you may not
really know what the use is going to be, you know, and so I think that the way that it is
phrase now is non-residential subdivisions, which I think captures more than just whatever the
concern was with maybe larger commercial developments. I'm not, I'm not 100% sure what the
exact concern is. And so, you know, I can see different criteria for qualification, zoning
districts could be one, you know, and I think then the other question would be, so one is
kind of like capturing what we're trying to avoid. Maybe the first question is, what are
we really trying to avoid? The second one is, how do we capture all of that? And then the third
one is, would you as the planning commission want to review commercial subdivisions if it's just
you know, two out parcels and a main parcel. I don't know. So staff had done some
analysis of this. Did you say it was 20? In the last year you would have had 20
additional subdivision flat reviews.
So that's kind of, what are y'all's thoughts on
what the issues with commercial subdivisions are and how this fits in?
I
have to be the bad guy.
Yeah, it is, we did highly discuss this at the ad hoc meetings and stuff.
And part of the reason why myself and several others did not want to leave minor subdivisions
just at the planning staff review is that we felt that there were some things that got
passed through that technically didn't meet the UDO and we were trying to make sure there was
another set of eyes looking at things to make sure we didn't pass things that probably
shouldn't have been passed.
And it should also be noted that it wasn't, it was council members on the ad hoc committee
that brought this recommendation.
Three times.
Three different meetings.
Great meetings.
Absolutely.
It wasn't us.
And so, in kind of helping me understand and interpret it, you know, if you were going
to come up with a applicability criteria for this, would you pick a dis-wjpick zoning
districts?
Can I just be blunt?
Can I be blunt?
Okay.
Speaking candidly, we unanimously denied a large commercial neighborhood that then was approved
under a minor commercial neighborhood that has created larger ongoing problems, which is
why Council self-fit to add that, just as an extra set of eyes to prevent that from happening
in the future.
So, there's not a work around for developers to still achieve something that was already
Like general business and regional business?
They were her business in general business.
I know it was one of those.
I mean,
we definitely want to solve this problem.
And I want to make sure that we understand that.
Absolutely.
Because I know we talked about it a lot.
But it's like, oh, well.
That's why it was a question.
It's going to be commercial.
We have to have the planning commission review, which is fine.
You know, we can certainly structure it that way, but I want to make sure that we're getting all over the development or views that you want and not any of the ones that you don't.
Because right now, you know, the way the broadest version of grafting non-residential would include like agriculture, right?
Like if you're going to split your 200 acre ag land with your brother, you'd have to come in front of the planning commission for that.
Which I don't think was the intent, and it's why I'm bringing it up and asking what the intent really is.
Any other thoughts or feedback to this?
That's the first time I thought about doing it by zoning districts, and then that way we wouldn't have to.
Well, applicants wouldn't have to apply for stuff, and we wouldn't have to look at every single every district that has commercial or office.
And what you're asking is,
correctly if I'm wrong,
do we want to consider splitting up commercial law
comes to the planning commission,
but maybe residential doesn't,
or maybe some types of residential don't,
or things, is that what you're actually asking?
It's what I haven't thought of that.
I've never thought of the agriculture,
for example, either.
Yeah, and the next piece is,
you know, what is a minor subdivision?
And so we're going to hit that too,
but, you know, commercial subdivisions,
it's almost like saying,
Commercial subdivisions cannot be minor subdivisions
subject of the staff approval only process
Which if and if that's the desire we can certainly do that
And yeah, because minor subdivisions don't come to the planning commission right so if you made them not minor subdivisions
It'll be forced to go to the planning commission
Which it sounds like you all are in favor of so we can
For the commercial ones I like I said I know we've got in this county we have a lot of
I'd like a bit of a word residential, minor subdivisions,
yours like family parcels, divvying up and stuff like that.
And then we've had a lot of conversations on not making
family people have to come in and put in a road
and all this other stuff if we can find some way
so that it's still accessible by fire and EMS and stuff.
So, yeah, we've got to find that middle ground.
So that really brings up the next topic, and this is something that we've talked about with
staff a lot since the ad hoc committee kind of wrapped up its work, which is minor
subdivision infrastructure and road access.
So in the ad hoc UDO committee meetings, you know, so the ones, let's say from November
to March, we didn't participate in, and so I've just been able to listen to the audio
recordings.
Since, you know, we started working again like in April, I guess. We have had
a lot of conversations about minor subdivisions and what kind of infrastructure to require
gravel, fire access road, you know, what is it? And in one of the meetings that we were not at,
The staff draft for subdivision infrastructure required a 50-foot easement for minor subdivisions.
With I think the goal being that that was much more on par with what you would need.
Develop a full road down the road if you needed to, but the committee really pushed back hard on that and there were some negotiations, you know, it's like some members of the committee wanted just 25 feet, which is what it is now.
And so there was a kind of a general compromise of 30 feet and there was a question of whether there was enough room on either side for utilities, for drainage.
But the issue really is still there and the rewrite has not solved the problems, but it has solved at least one problem.
So the problem that it has solved is that we've built in a design standard to meet the fire codes, fire apparatus access rate.
And so at the very least, you know, there are going to be some costs, for example, if you
have to cross a creek, you would have to have a bridge that would be able to carry like
a 75,000 pound fire truck, okay, so, you know, there could be some significant costs,
But it does leave open, you know, kind of these inter-property owner, hat-fueled versus
McCoy feuds about who uses the road and who pays for the road and people put
in, incis up in the middle of a road and all kinds of stuff like that.
It is another subset of problems associated with private roads.
Because the simplest way to do this is just the qualification for minor subdivision versus not is if you said you can have a minor subdivision if you have access to a public road
That's the way most people do it
So like if you've got the big parcel this is this is the road this is the parcel
I want to give my grandson this parcel
He's on the road
So he great. I want to give another one right here. He's also on the road. I get up to five of those.
They have to be on the road though. Now, if I want to, what if I want to give him this piece back here?
That isn't on the road. It's on the creek. It's real nice piece property. It's got a pretty view.
And it's got the creek. You can go fishing. But now you've got to build this road.
Well, okay. So that creates problems. If it's just grandpa and grandson maybe not, but now grandson
and sells it to somebody else or he gets divorced and re-dies and his wife remarry.
Somebody else, and now the guy's just very unhappy that his near-do well, grandson's wife is
shacked up with some dude.
Anyway, you can see how this gets unpleasant, pretty quickly.
I have personally experienced it, but it is no fun.
You know, and it's the kind of thing that you can try to write around avoiding worst-case scenarios.
But, you know, trying to avoid those problems creates a lot more cost on the front end.
And so, you know, if you make them build a road to the county road standards,
I mean, it's like millions of dollars if you want to build it all the way back here to the creek.
And so maybe you don't want to do that.
But so I think the question really is this kind of combined question of, what do you want
to set the threshold for minor subdivisions?
And what access do you think is necessary, but to ensure, you know, the current safety of
the residents, but also kind of the long term, I would say, you know, interaction and safety
and good, you know, neighborly relations between all these people that live off of these easements.
There may be poorly defined and, you know, poorly clarified about who has rights, etc.
Especially the requirement that you would all have to jointly maintain the property.
You could require an HOA to own that, but that also would set up an extra level of expense for
Folks that maybe you're trying to set up a subdivision that is less expensive to set up
So questions or thoughts on on that kind of general topic, which is sort of a mess
And I'm sorry to throw it on you all like this, but that's where we are
My concern whenever a family comes to us and my that's off-spoken. Yes
My question always is when families come to us and it's very hard to turn down a family
But once they get something granted that we wouldn't grant perhaps to a regular subdivision or a regular property owner,
they may say it's going to stay in the family for years, but we've handed them a gold mine by giving them something
because their family and then they could sell it to a developer any time and then the developer
doesn't have to do anymore because it was granted to that family
but they come in the
guys of family and usually it is a true sincere family situation but once we grant something
It is granted no matter who owns it and if they flip it and someone approaches them and says,
go get this done and then we'll purchase your property for X amount of money. Then we're done.
We have no more say over it.
And my biggest concern is just making sure every single one of the
has a road that fire and EMS can get in there if there's an emergency.
That's how I remember the conversation going that it steered more around access to
safety response and then also making sure that that road could handle
what a fire truck would need to not damage the fire truck because we learned that those are
Not cheap.
What drove us?
I imagine as we went through the changes, it was about enhancement improvement, expansion,
those things.
What was it that actually drove even looking at this element of the EDO?
47 different opinions.
Because we had 47 different incidents.
Like that kind of thing.
Like through the time.
Because everybody had examples of all these different things we've talked about.
So, yeah, I mean, it was, yeah, that's the one that I didn't realize we had that much of a problem, but I'm obviously novelist.
So, one thing that a lot of jurisdictions have, I'll say this is kind of a disclaimer that almost
two or one find unsatisfactory in its own different way is some type of family subdivision.
And so this, the minor subdivision that Lancaster County has now is works in some ways
like a family subdivision.
It's intended to work in some ways like a family subdivision.
In general, a family subdivision, and I don't think you have had it in living memory,
would basically be something like, there is some degree of kinship that you define.
It could be usually up to maybe grandparents.
I've seen grandparents and grandchildren, and usually not your third cousin once removed.
So you set a threshold for qualification, and then generally there is sometimes on the front end,
an ownership requirement you must have owned it for any years, or five years, or something.
So it's not like a developer has bought it, and they're going to get this approved and then sell it off, you know?
And then there's also an ownership requirement on the back end, and this is the thing that everybody
is least satisfied with. Generally, it would be like, oh, you've got it for three years or
something like that. But there's no real way if anybody has to police it when I say
police it, I'm speaking too loosely, to track it. And really, I don't know if you could enforce
that if you wanted to. And I could go down to the courthouse and file an injunction to keep these
people from selling their property. What if it was subject to a divorce decree or a bankruptcy
to create you or they just can't afford to pay their mortgage.
There are lots of reasons that you would maybe the person died.
So there are lots of things that happen that are unexpected.
When people come to you with these subdivisions, they have the best of intentions, but they
don't know what the future holds.
They're planning for the best situation.
And I think like you all have recognized in some of the conversations with us and the other
Well, against today, you realize that one of the things you have to do is protect from the bad outcomes.
And so this is one where the bad outcomes are kind of on both ends of the risk, you know, that you turn down the family that wants to give land to their kids to live on.
At the risk of, you know, one day having substandard roads that people don't want to maintain and are going to be unhappy with each other in the county about.
I just want to add to just a little bit about the easements, the 25-foot easements, the way
they're creating monitor subdivisions currently now is that you can create five lots and
we're creating flag lots off the 25-foot easements.
So we're creating substandard roads currently.
If you're the six person that comes in, then we require you to get the right away and build
that right at county standards.
Well, I'm not going to give you the right way to do that
because I don't, my buildings are already up
because it's just a 20-up at easement.
So this was in help, especially with code enforcement,
we have people that go out there and block the driveways.
We have just different things that have happened.
So typically what I, you know, you create a lot,
a minor plant, you should create it all.
First and foremost, a county or a state maintain road.
are right away. And if you don't have that, then you need to go through the subdivision process
and do a preliminary and a final playout. Unless we have some type of exemption, because
the 25th of it is meant where they were creating these lots wasn't exemption. It's currently
in the UDO now, but if you want to have an exemption for the AR or the AR, you can come up with
must have on it for 10, you know, 10 years, just like what Sean said, it has to be a draft
going from mother to son or that type thing and you can only do one per lot. Because for each
one of those lots that we're creating, five lots, that's five cars probably that's coming off,
you know, a substandard that turns into a road. And so this, what we, well we've staff has discussed
So much amount is the 25th of easement and historically how it's been done of creating
this parcel.
Thank you.
How many more slides do you have?
I think one.
I think some people already had to leave that want to do public comment.
Okay.
I want to make sure I get the public comment.
All right.
So we were done with this sort of substantive part.
So we had a developer's open house last week.
Two public open houses.
Some of y'all were there.
We had a really good turnout up in the Indian land.
We had a really good turnout from developers here.
We've gotten a lot of feedback, both pros and cons,
on the UDO and specific parts of it.
There's a website where people can make comments on the UDO
and we can aggregate that and we'll give those comments to you.
And then also the public has the opportunity
to give comments at public meetings like tonight.
So this is the website.
It's easy to click on and learn and make comments.
on and I've gone ahead and played with it, it is very user friendly.
And then, so this is the last slide, is the adoption schedule and kind of the timeline.
The concept is, as Y'all know, on the back end, there is the development moratorium.
And so one of the primary goals is adoption before the moratorium expires.
So really what it sounds like, and you can certainly talk about your schedule, because
you control your schedule more than anybody else, but, you know, a hearing tonight where you
will, you know, consider possibly a proof of the idea with changes or with no changes depending
on what you want.
You know, then so county council would like to have an opportunity to review, and it seems like
maybe propose some changes I'm thinking, but maybe not, we'll see.
And part of this ad hoc UDO committee goal was really to create a final document that was as
final as things could be without people wanting to change things at the very last minute.
So then after the county council's first reading, you know, what their version of the document
would be set and so then on September the 8th there would be a special call meeting for
all on the planning commission to consider that document and any changes and then continuing
on with the, you know, the formal public hearing process.
And I don't know if Kristen or Shannon, did you all want to address the timeline?
Okay.
Yeah.
So, I think that, I think that the timeline is important and it's urgent because of the
oratorium, but you certainly have the opportunity to have as many meetings as you want
on this to feel comfortable, because I realize it's a lot of stuff.
All right.
So I will.
Thank you.
Let's consider ourselves into public hearing and I apologize.
This is not a normal item agenda.
I probably should have done public hearing before we started all of this.
So thank you for all your patience and waiting.
Like I said, we're going to consider ourselves into public hearing.
When your name is called, please come to the DAIS.
Adjust the microphone as need is, state your name and address for the record,
and you'll have three minutes to address the planning commission in your tables.
Start after you've done your name and address. The first person signed up is a Renette Helms. Is that the couple that
already left? Okay, did they leave? Is this book with you? Did you tell them to like email or
something in their comments? Okay, thank you.
This should, yeah.
Janine Clifton?
Janine Chairwoman, just before, so I don't forget.
Is it possible for us to get copies of those slides?
My paper.
Yes.
That could've been done.
Don't ask me, ask him.
I'm going through you.
Yes, man.
I'm just teasing you.
Thank you.
They were, they were a great resource.
So if we can get copies, that would be wonderful.
Thank you.
Sorry, ma'am.
And put it to your patients and waiting out.
What would it choose they'd be without me?
Jeanine Clifton, I live in 2023, Oliver Terrace, and as always I'm here.
Represent in my neighbors and us.
Really glad you're looking at the UDO and that we're having the opportunity to review it.
I do thank you for pushing back and making sure there's planning commission review of commercial subdivisions, since we all know I'm part of the problem child.
A few things I gave y'all a handout today, which are a few things that some neighbors have all put together based on their first look at the UDO and maybe things for you to consider.
as usual, we kind of try and hit on the points with all the reference numbers.
But some key highlights, I think, that I'd like to bring up or that,
let's just please remember that we need to continue to have the site plan, the site analysis,
and preliminary plots submitted for subdivisions or, especially, commercial subdivisions.
I think what we see in right now is y'all are distinguishing between
minor subdivisions being residential and I'm hoping you're thinking that way
since we've caught in one that's a minor commercial. But with the side
analysis it's especially in commercial it's one of the county's only tools for
catching grading clear cutting problems before they happen. So please continue
that at that back in. I think the other thing you'll notice and I have it more
in the highlights is really think about offices next to residential and make sure
They have the right types of buffers.
We see where some of that maybe isn't clearly
kept or has been removed.
Also, tree preservation buffers, we were part
of that fun clear cut.
Another thing to look at, and I'll just highlight these
are accessory use in setbacks.
I have them highlighted on our sheet.
But it appears that some of those are kind of going away.
And we're getting caught up in a playground,
commercial playground being within 10 feet
of a residential subdivision and some of this looks like that's being removed so please look at that
hard for us and then if you look at the teeny tiny print on the back look at your open space
calculations and exclusions and see if you know we see some things there that probably need to be thought
through and then of course the conversation that we continue to have with Melanie Lane about the
The devil is in the details, I hope some of the feedback that the residents have brought give you some of the details
The think about that can complement the big picture that you're thinking through. So thank you for your time.
Thank you, ma'am.
The next person is Nicole Robinson.
Good evening.
My name is Nicole Robinson and I'm at 1801 Gatson Street in Columbia, South Carolina, 29201.
And I'm actually with the Manufactured Housing Institute
of South Carolina or MHISC.
And we are a statewide trade association
that represents the manufactured housing industry,
including manufacturers, retailers, communities, and such.
Part of my role is working with local governments
to kind of advance the interest of our industry
as well as affordable housing.
So that's why I'm here today
And to just kind of reiterate that these are not our grandfathers and grandparents trailers,
they are now built to modern highly customizable features at a rigorous HUD code.
And so buyers can choose residential architectural features, luxury bathrooms, premium countertops,
and to finishes that are the same as site build construction.
And they are highly energy efficient, so we really want to stress that they are at a significantly lower cost than site built construction.
So when you're talking about attainable missing middle housing without government subsidies, we are the solution.
And when you actually owned the land, they appreciate at the same rate as site built homes.
So, you know, this is not a depreciating asset.
So, some of the things that we have noted at the UDO
is that it states all manufactured homes
shall have a permanent foundation
and shall be tied down per the manufacturer's instruction.
So, that to me is a little bit of a conflict.
And so, curious, and that is in the existing one as well.
So, that's one thing that we would like
to see have some clarity.
Federal law also has now removed the permanent chassis requirement that just happens, so that is something that is interesting.
Also, the proposed UDO says a non-conforming manufactured home may be replaced with another one.
Provided that it is no older than the home being replaced.
There was a recent law that passed at the state that says it's no more than five years old and may not be less than 12 months in the local discontinuance.
So we, if you continue with the six months, that's in conflict with state all that just passed.
And lastly, we would just, different, ask that you differentiate between a subdivision and a
park because those are two different things. And I see them use kind of as a slash in the
UDO. And so we would recommend that you distinguish them and allow them where site both homes
are allowed. Because they're indistinguishable when you have a parent standards that match
the community. So we're not against that. So thank you for your time. I appreciate the opportunity to speak.
Thank you for the information. It was very nice to
meet you for the finished minutes.
Yeah, right.
Thank you. That is the last person that we had signed up.
Yes, ma'am.
Yes, please come up.
I wanted to just make a note publicly to you all.
And I think this got to one of the questions that you had.
the county. I'm definitely named the
South American. Yes, I'm Stephanie Snowden. I live at 109 South Main Street
but I'm also the deputy county administrative.
Those who didn't know who are watching. Yes, I'm sorry. Thank you.
Because I know that everyone wants to get out, but I just wanted to make publicly
make everyone aware that Lancaster County partnered with
York County, Chester Union to work with the
And that study will be presented on August 26th from 10 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. here in Council Chambers.
And it's very important because it got to what Commissioner Crandell asked about was housing in the missing middle and workforce housing.
But while it is a housing workforce study, it looks at the economics, it looks at the different job growth creation in the different areas.
recommendations on how to address some of the middle housing, the missing middle housing,
throughout the county.
So I know that it's being held during the day, but it's going to be an important study that's
a first step that may also answer how the UDO may affect what we're looking at from a demographics
and that sort of thing.
So that's going to be August 26 from 10 a.m. to 1130 a.m. and we'll send out an email to
you all. The public is certainly invited, but most of the folks that will be here will be
the municipalities, the City of Lancaster participated in this, so it's been very extensive.
And the other part that I want to also make you all aware of is Tishler Bice will be at your
September 22nd meeting discussing their work plan for the update of the Impact Study
fee. The Impact Study from 2021. So that's going to be on September 22nd. So just
I wanted to just publicly state that, but also just talk about the importance of that
Cotaba Regional Workforce Housing Study, so thank you all very much for your time.
That's the fourth Tuesday of the month.
We don't have a meeting on the 22nd, do we?
We I believe that you will, we talked, I think we spoke with the chairwoman that may not
have been sent out, but that was the date.
I'll say, but that's not, we were trying to do it at our normal meeting that would be
Okay, I will double check, but Dean, okay, I will double check, but just wanted to just let you know that we were planning on having them at your September meeting, so we'll, we'll, if that's the date that's been scheduled, we would just.
I had a question about that.
Well, council, are you working with council being able to speak to them when they make the
same trip?
Well, they are, but not, but I believe they're going to actually speak with you all first
and then the next day work with council.
I believe that from the state statute, you all kind of have to be the first driver, but what
they're essentially going to do is work through their work plan with you all.
They're going to talk about their methodology.
energy. They're going to give you their timeline. And then that will give you an opportunity
to comment. So, all right. Well, thank you all, and I'll adjust that date. So, just
let you know, since you're talking under the public hearing part of the UDO thing, I added
you to the list, so we would be all official. Okay. Well, thank you all very much. Thank you,
thank you, ma'am. All right. Well, that now means that we are
with public hearing items.
So, like I said, this is not under our normal course of events.
So, I guess, do I have a motion?
Do you have more discussion?
I don't have discussion.
I would just like to say something.
and for anyone who read the article in the Lancaster Paper on Sunday, I was not aware it was
going to be in the paper, they just took comments from our meeting and there was nothing
inaccurate in it. However, they highlighted my frustration with the process and Dr. Willis was
the messenger that night and in no way has Dr. Willis or the planning department held up any of the
work by the impact group, and I could have talked to you privately and said that, but I
don't believe in having a splash that I didn't know was coming, and then privately saying,
oh, I wasn't talking about you, but in the paper she was named, and I felt it was very
unfair. It looked like it was singling out one member of the planning department, and I've
gotten more information about the whole process, and I can't say I'm 100% happy, but
it had nothing to do with Dr. Willis of the staff, and I just wanted to make sure I'm
sure this won't be covered on the front page of the Lancaster paper, but I found the article
when I went to buy sour cream and looked at it and said, I wonder who they interviewed, and
And I stood there and I'm sure food lie and employees wonder why I was looking at the paper
going, oh no, oh no, oh no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
So I just wanted to make a public statement that Dr. Willis has not held up the impact study.
Commissioner Lou, staff does not feel that you have the moment to the process at all.
I did not take any personal offense to what was written in the paper.
Of course, we were here and we spoke about it and so that was I did not receive any type of
Blaine that you felt that it was me that was delaying at our staff at all and so I I
I appreciate you sending them, but I was not offended at all whatsoever and just so that publicly
We do not feel that you've been moment the process either. Thank you very much
I don't ever use the word be moan in my vocabulary and I also would like to say no one asked me to make this statement
it's something that has been weighing on me since I was mortified on Sunday. Nothing was
incorrect that I said. I have been very frustrated with this, but you were singled out
on the article and I didn't think that was fair. So I just wanted to get there for a couple
of years.
than private lake. Thank you.
All right, so I'm kind of an unknown territory here because I guess I need someone to make a motion.
Our next meeting is September 8th. Yes, especially called meeting.
And he's someone to make a motion so we can open up the floor for discussion about voting on the new UDO.
I'm sorry. I thought you wanted a motion to adjourn that's why I'm trying to do that again.
I'm sorry.
This isn't, this isn't a rezoning, this is anything, this is so I am. Yeah, so I guess it was just get a motion to get it on the floor and then we're going to have to have discussion.
Like I said, this is kind of not our normal stuff.
Chairman, will we still be able to ask questions?
Yes. Okay.
For the sake of allowing discussion, I make a motion.
Oh.
the UDO. Yes, but UDO with comments and recommended.
Oh, there will be lots. Yes. Okay. So yes, do I have a second?
Second. All right. So now we have it open up for discussion.
So because we have emotion
and a second. So I've got us, all right. Like I said, this is uncharted territory for me.
because this hasn't happened in 10 years, so I have too long lists here.
One is mostly just editorial comments and stuff and everything like that.
I don't really want to sit here and have to read all of this.
I don't know if I brought multiple copies, so I can give them to you.
I can give them to Mara and stuff like that.
These are just things like name a few miscellaneous ones.
some of the hyperlinks aren't correct or missing,
where there should be a hyperlink, you know,
just, and some, and consistent things like sometimes
the section is type of purpose,
sometimes it's purpose and intent.
I don't know if there was a difference between those,
or if it's just, you know,
so it's just, it's a bunch of little, little things,
little things like that.
Then I think we all agree,
there are some major things
that we want to have included as recommendations to move this forward to council to for changes to get included in there.
So somebody go.
Go ahead.
So I think I'll start.
I have some overall points that I just think are important.
Just to say as as a commission as we get into the UDO.
The ad hoc committee's goal was to create a more user-friendly document that enhances the existing
UDO by raising the minimum development standards across all areas.
The intent is to create a better, better, better, in-results that preserve more of the
community's natural beauty while better stewarding the overall development process.
I don't think here in Lancaster County that we can ignore the fact that it is the fastest
growing state in America.
We have to be prepared for that growth while keeping the bones and the good elements
of our existing UDO.
But my hope is that this document doesn't move on to council where some of the beef that was
is removed, downgrading the work that we've put into it and the overall product that we hope to get.
Maybe they could consider things that would even make it stronger.
I think that the work that was put into this, the goals and changes are intended for
or a link for the county to grow smarter and develop into a well-planned
link for county where we're better prepared for the demands and burdens that
come with inevitable growth. I think that it's also important to note that I know
a lot of the comments from the community through these meetings, but also just in
general as the public comes and speaks before us are to keep developers accountable
for the impact they bring. I just want the public to know that during our ad
meeting some of us fault for concurrency at every single ad hoc meeting and while we tried.
It was you know unsuccessful in the end, but I will say that I am happy with the document that we did
make. We created higher minimum standards. I encourage council to weigh heavily on any changes
that would weaken the document because I think that it would have a negative long-term impact.
So now that I said my two cents of hopeful comments, I do have some points, some of which
Sean, you already mentioned.
I recalled three meetings where we talked about the minor commercial subdivisions.
I know we've already discussed that.
One of my comments would be that, you know, we need to get that finalized and how do we
navigate the commercial minor neighborhood and get those changes that we talked about.
So it does come back before the Planning Commission.
Another large item, I know we talked about the Hill
Splitter overlay and waiting for that to be an amendment
after we approve this document.
And while I do support that, in rereading it,
I did have some concerns specifically because we
have documented meetings where we've discussed those credits no longer being available.
So I don't know if it's a question for our county attorney or if we need to look back into it,
should we instead have a placeholder in this that somehow speaks to that where that if a project
is a part of this overlay, we somehow handle it in a different way and the reason that directly affects
The planning commission is because on page 45, 2.7, 0.1, 0.3, b, 7, wow, that was
that.
It states that planning commission has the ultimate say on the Hill Slider Decisions staff.
So it falls on our shoulders, so I just want to make sure that we're getting that right.
Additionally, so I know that this might be my personal take on taking a UDO and applying
it to a project.
I don't know that I agree with our decision to take out the chunk of the overlays being
in one document and then splitting it across several because it required a lot of back and
forth and back and forth to find what I needed.
I would be more happy with that decision if the table of contents listed where I can find
the highway corridor overlays within those other chapters, and that's not currently there.
More specifically, the open space table,
talking about the requirements for the highway corridor overlay currently says
in A, which we know that's incorrect because we should have carried the minimum open space
requirements from the original highway corridor overlay, so that should have something
there, not just in A on page 229. I need to match what's written in section C of that
same chapter. I know I'm going fast, I'm through a lot of information.
I also wanted us as a commission to talk about the possibility of adding Highway 5 to the Highway
Court or Overlay. I don't know why we didn't, and the committee, it's a major for a fair
connecting our county to York County and to Rockhill with the growth continuing to move
down Highway 521. I think that that area will see much growth, and I'm wondering if it should
be added. We already have two major subdivisions that are approved that are just a very short
distance off of highway. Right. We're not discussed that earlier today and I'm like,
well, and you were talking about, I think it's great to put it on Highway 9, but you're right,
most of Highway 9 is industrial. It would almost make more sense to put it on Highway 5. Yeah,
to put it on Highway 9. As I was thinking about it, I think when I was talking about some of the
changes to a friend about the UDO.
I mentioned Highway 5 and then I looked back through and like oh my gosh we didn't actually say
that it was.
Why did we not do that?
So I think that that might be an excellent addition.
Another item I found.
The table content says on page 240 is the tree removal within tree save areas but I actually couldn't find where that is.
So that's something to look back at.
And then we kind of spoke on this earlier connectivity requirements within the high record or overlay.
Something about how I read it, provided a way out for developers through the planning director.
And I thought that we should consider adding stronger wording to that.
So it didn't seem like a way to get out of that requirement.
because it is important, and then this is kind of, I mean, it is important, but more grammatical.
D-hack is mentioned throughout the document, but that agency is now as C-D-E-S.
It's a real mic on it.
I think there was, I think there was one other place, I don't remember where it is.
There's another place that's, you know, when state of South Carolina read it all of the things,
I think there's another South Carolina department mentioned in another section that's also
that's not its name anymore. So just generally go through and get all of those updated.
I just love it when state agencies change their name and then you have to change all of these
things because they did all of that. Okay. Sorry. Couple more things and maybe these are more
questions that we could have answers for when we come back on the eighth.
I know that Shani mentioned the comments from these public meetings that the three meetings
from last week.
I would love to know the common comments and themes overall to make sure that those are
identified over all three meetings, and if we need to include some of those concerns and we
can better apply them or realize them. So that's important to me, and that, yeah,
that
would be
wonderful. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah.
Okay,
perfect. That after we get all of our comments
and so. And then just another general comment. Maybe this is more for staff. Just to ask the
question if staff has looked at all of our conversations from the ad hoc committee and what was
approved to make sure that those items are in the document, or if anybody's cross-reference
check those. That is all. Sorry, thank you.
You want to hear next? I have such a short thing.
It's very targeted, but I just keep a process
and had a question.
The food truck provision.
And it says they are the permitted districts.
Our NBGBRB and INS. Does that mean that food trucks cannot visit
neighborhoods and set up for an evening because LDR and MDR, et cetera, are not permitted
districts in here. So does that mean that they can only be in NBGBRBINS, like this is
up to three days with no renewals of Earth, and I see no provision where they can go around
from neighborhood to neighborhood.
I haven't they already, it will not creak at an event where they had all they have at
our neighborhood almost every other week.
I have no problem with that.
I'm just wondering, this language says permitted districts
and they're all business districts
and no residential districts.
That is on page 180 for the districts
and the food trucks says on 158.
And you make sure you're getting into the microphone
because I'm not gonna try to reiterate all this.
I'm going to let them go off with the recording,
but all these comments and questions are.
And I don't have a dog in this fight.
I'm not looking to restrict them,
but just when I was reading it,
it just said any permitted area,
and then when I flipped back to check it,
NBGB RB-INS and then Turkey shoots,
that's a whole different thing.
But that's what NBGB-RB-INS.
So according to this, it appears
that they cannot go to residential districts and set up for a night.
That's a really good comment.
Oh, thank you.
Isn't that the point of finding things like that?
The temporary uses will cover that.
That just means permanently set up.
Okay, this is under table 3.14.4 dash to temporary uses limited to specific districts.
This is temporary uses.
are allowed in all districts.
Do we take that away?
That's page 180.
We took away temporary uses being in all districts.
We're going to write that one down.
Here you go.
We're going to write that one down.
Good stuff.
Thank you.
OK.
Like the little biker bar on 21 that has a food truck that's
like there for weeks at a time.
OK.
Now that makes sense.
There are exemptions, which in one of them includes weddings, receptions, parties, and similar private, non-commercial events held on private property, which might capture what you're talking about.
If it's the neighborhood calling and saying, hey, food truck owner, we want you to come to our neighborhood on this date. I think that's different than somebody just opening up and for anybody to come and have one.
It might want to be tightened up a little bit then because versus someone who's invited,
versus someone who says, oh, someone so neighbor, Walnut Creek has a big pool.
It's going to look like a beautiful day.
I'll just show up and have dueling food trucks, et cetera.
So maybe at one, you should want to tighten it up by invitation.
Yep.
We can clarify.
Thank you.
That was a really good one.
See you thought it was pitiful.
It was significant, thank you.
It wants to get at the numbering.
The numbering is off on almost every page starting
on page 16, which can easily be changed.
OK.
I also got done.
So I might be a lot of questions.
So Sean or whoever could give me a little help on these,
because I don't have the benefit of the history.
So one thing that let's start with an easy one.
I noticed the horse is one from half an acre,
one horse per half acre to one horse per six acres.
If I remember right, I think it's in four, four, two, Charlie.
Just curious what the...
Yeah, it's, yeah, well I've got it, it was in 3.3, 0.5, 0.7, minimum
slot sizes for horses, you know, was one acre and stuff like that.
Right, jump six times, that's what it went to, yeah.
So I was just like, it was, I didn't understand why there was just this sudden restriction on.
Or I said, yeah, I was curious what the history of that one was or, or intent.
So I'm almost certainly, we carry that forward.
You're right, it's in 335 Charlie. Sorry, the old one was in 422 Charlie.
The new one's in 335.
And describe as a question in uses.
Hmm, let's look.
I didn't write that down. I just wrote down section numbers.
It's like I need eight udios open at the same time. Sorry, three. Let's go find three through five.
Okay, but, so, does anybody have what it is in the current udio?
Um, like, oh, that one is in four, four, two, Charlie, let me find it.
All right, let's scroll in.
Yeah, so I don't know how this change got in there.
I think the current one's half acre, just, but I'll try and actually find the...
Absolutely right.
Okay.
Okay, so no background context just happened to be different.
No, cool, I thought that would make me an easy one.
And this one might be a little controversial for our whole planning commissions, I'll put it out there now.
Preliminary plat requirements.
You know, you would said when you were talking to Sean, I will pair a quote to you with something like,
you know, when you're looking at commercially, you don't always know the uses.
The preliminary plot requirements in our current UDO, which carry forward into the future one,
and did affect current decision we made,
include buildings, parking areas, all those kind of things.
That seems like a high standard for preliminary plot,
especially if your commercial developer didn't even know what's going on there,
like building envelopes, things like that makes sense.
Is that something that we looked at and considered?
Because that's a big hurdle in the process of commercial subdivisions,
And preliminary flats itself, is that typical for what you see across other counties, is that something we reviewed and decided well, it's a standard that I think is hard to uphold to when you're bringing up preliminary flatten from the planning commission.
I agree that it is, I would say that it is not the most common way to do it because like you said, you know, the parking might be determined by the use and maybe you don't know what the uses are going to be at the point of subdivision.
It really depends on whether it's a speculative development or whether it's a development where they have everything locked up.
So in general, it was not something that we had been kind of, it had been flagged for us to change.
But I mean, we have talked about it, and it's definitely a higher hurdle than is normal.
And I was thinking about that when I mentioned it too.
Yeah, where we're given direction that is to explicitly apply the UDO as it lives, any preliminary
plot that comes without a building is not compliant based on that language.
I think it puts us in a strange situation for being able to, and I know that may have other
ideas on the planning commission.
No, I agree with you, and I think that what helps support having that as it applies
to commercial plants is because we can't make sure they're compliant for the highway
corridor overlaced up without having those buildings and those square footages to make
sure they're within compliance, which is why I think it's a requirement on the preliminary
plant.
I mean, there are definitely pros and cons.
All there are, have you seen, I'll turn it about,
like, building envelope, I can see building envelope.
That seems understandable, right?
You can say this is our build-able area,
based on these conditions, the buffers,
all those kind of things.
But putting a building on there seems parking spaces,
seems really difficult, how do you do that?
If you don't know what your building is.
I don't think it requires parking spaces.
I think they're just looking at a general building size
in a general parking area just to make sure it fits on that.
And if I remember correctly, at least our preliminary
flat checklist also says that it doesn't have to just
be graphically shown.
It couldn't just be in the notes to the plan, too,
just so we have the information to do the calculations.
I think it gets back to the nature of the approval.
A preliminary plot is subdivision.
What I think when you get into building locations and parking
layout, that's a site plan approval, which is a different process.
So I do think that there needs to be probably some distinction there.
And maybe perhaps being more general, like Mr. Krandell was saying,
with a buildable area and maybe show them where buffers and setbacks and things are.
Yeah, it would be okay if I wanted to pull a very spot.
Yeah, I'm going to try and find it. Right.
And so that was just curious if that was something we considered and looked at.
That's a tough one to carry forward to me.
Oh, I see.
Now go ahead.
I mean, I just think it falls back on how we handle the commercial.
I agree.
Neighborhood.
What we're deciding to do is that.
Yeah, and just to find it, because it's pretty detailed.
And it's actually better detailed in the, because it's just a paragraph.
And the first one, this is required site features
are buildings, parking areas, street locations, street sections,
and then conceptual size, a stormwater, or water course buffer,
or stuff like that.
Okay.
See.
Okay.
Going.
Yep.
You have the floor.
Thank you.
I thought we took out conditional use.
I understand that's kind of a standard for where the state's going so I can understand
why we did that.
Non-conforming buildings could rebuild those.
Oh, vested rights.
So the vested rights section is maybe I just don't understand this and I apologize if I don't.
It looks like 1493 Alpha 2 says that the planning mission may extend the vesting time for a site
specific development plan to a total of five years upon determination.
There's just cause for the extension, and the public interest is not adversely affected.
And then in 1495 Bravo, we say if the landowner makes a timely and proper written application,
the plan commission must approve applications from no more than five successive annual extensions.
Are those two talking about the same?
Yeah, exactly.
One seems like there's some level of discretion to it.
And the other seems like there's a mandatory element.
And I'm not sure which one.
Maybe they don't even talk about the same thing.
Maybe these are investing rights for different things.
And I'm misunderstanding this.
But from my reading of it, it looks like one is discretionary.
One is mandatory approval.
I'm happy to dig into this now.
Or I can just add this to our list of stuff to fix.
I'm okay with you.
And add it to the list, just add the list.
I'm good with that.
I noticed that we don't talk about data centers in here anywhere.
That is obviously a big item that's hitting a lot of counties around the
across the U.S.
If that's something that we talked about in consider, we'll come in a future
amendment.
Yes, I think that the county is interested in pursuing it as a future
amendment.
But it actually is in this UDO as a special exception use, only allowed in heavy industrial,
which really means that the board of zoning appeals would have to basically determine
site-specific standards for proposed data center use.
There is, we have talked about this a bunch with staff and there's some pending state legislation
about data centers that might preempt local regulation.
So the county wanted to get something out there,
but I think that everybody was a little uncertain
about the complexities of making these decisions
about what to allow or not with data centers
to include it in the UDO sort of,
this was one of our last ad hoc meetings.
And nobody was ready to tackle final decision.
I think I'm good to stop there.
Thank you.
Well, I have you right there.
Do you mind speaking or finishing the conversation
about the public comments or the overarching themes?
Which one of those?
Other people still have comments.
To do with the way does that.
It was just finishing.
It's earlier coming.
All right.
I was really to come back up.
Man and I'll go over some of the ones and I'm going to give y'all copies of this in section three point eleven point nine point
See it says see the graphics, but there's a note and no graphics there
So that is in three point eleven point nine point see
Graphics are missing. I also had your question about the horses, but being a beekeeper in
And 3.13.5.2, AP area, a lot size, I was wondering why it was why it was the head to be a minimum of one acre.
Bees forage over a two to three mile area.
So, you know, and I can tell you, I can promise you there are 40 people at least in Lancaster County that have 80 B hives on a couple of acres.
So, you know, I'm like, this needs to be adjusted because it's just, it's just not heavy.
I understand, I know why they're doing it, and I'm thinking maybe we can add some language
saying that if it's in an urban or subdivision area, you don't want three houses in a row
with a B-hive in their backyard.
I understand what the intent is, but the way it's written right now, you're going to throw a lot
of these, what are considered low-level commercial beekeepers in Lancaster County,
you're going to put them out of business and I don't know how many people around here get
their honey from Dixie B, but Dale will be very distressed if you take all of his B
halves away because he's really good B keeper.
In chapters four, nine and sixteen, the section numbers for tree preservation open space
are wrong, in multiple places and all three of those chapters.
So I told you I have, I have, I remember saying so I see all these cross references in
ahead. And this one was, oh, this is a really important one. It's on page 28. Section 4.4.1.
Point B. Point 1. It says, commercial development is not generally required to provide open space.
I think people are going to see that and think, oh, it's commercial, but if you go to the very next table, it tells you what the open space requirements are.
So I think maybe it might, you know, I said, it's not required except for is shown in this table.
Just some kind of comments that people just don't read that in a Zoom, no comment open space required in commercial.
I just think that one statement right there just kind of is misleading, especially when the table immediately following it gives you open space requirements in commercial or just somehow or another resolve that.
4.4.2.D. 0.2, which is on page 231, you said the tree protection plan, the
compliance was section 1.1.1, tree preservation is not in section 1, but I went through the
other sections, I'm not sure what section you're referring to, I don't know if it is supposed
be the regular tree preservation section or not?
Yep.
So Section
8.1.D, then lower KC, it still refers to the Northern
panel overlay district and there was another
Please, so you got two places in here. There was another one, but I couldn't go back and find it that still had where those overlays just left over and there, and then my next big one was about the minor and major commercial subdivisions and stutch, but I think we've had plenty of conversation on that.
Oh, and I do have one other important one, and this is both for staff and for the consultants. So I printed this off of the webpage. These are all the current amendments to, these are all the amendments that we have to.
current UDO, did anyone ever cross-reference these and make sure that they got into the new
UDO, like the definition of a large scale grocery, a regional hospital, you know, some of these
things, did anyone ever cross-reference this and make sure these changes that they got into the
do you do?
Okay.
Yes. Okay. Okay. Okay. I just want to make sure somebody was cross
reference because I would really hate to, we've already made these changes, we need at least
have a minimum of that going into the new one. Okay. Anyone else? Going once. Going twice.
So farmers
markets on page 81, it's singular farmers, and then it's plural for markets.
So that means one farmer who has several markets, rather than farmers, apostrophe markets.
Small thing just throughout out there, that a lot of people have trouble with that one.
Okay, anyone else, with any comments?
Questions?
I only have one. I think the planning commission's
rezoning review deadline went from 35 to 30 days.
Is that right?
I don't actually have a note on that.
I don't know why I didn't put the section that that talks about.
Sorry, I just have the note to that.
I think I'm really kind of speaking up the cuff because I don't
remember exactly making that change.
But under state law, if you don't make recommendation within
30 days, you basically lose the right to do it.
And so, I mean, like, the UDO gives you 35 days.
The state law doesn't say what does it.
That makes sense.
And it means that you basically have agreed
to whatever the thing is.
It's not right.
Let's just say, no leave.
Any other comments or things?
All right, so now we give us the categories of comments.
There we go.
So in general, we heard lots of comments from the developers' representatives and we have gotten some comments from citizens, frankly, I would say that we do not have as many comments from citizens as I wish we had.
In general, what we heard from the mostly engineers that work for and design developments
for developers, their concerns were that the way that the conservation subdivision design
section will work, they think it will create significant affordability problems for the
county.
And the primary thing that they mention is, they think that the lot widths are just too wide to design and construct a development that people other than, you know, kind of custom home builders will build.
You know, on the flip side, the comments that we hear from, I would say, normal residents
who are not real estate developers want less development.
And so, you know, there has to be some balance between those comments.
You know, in general, I think that we also heard some comments, especially about the size
of, also back to the sort of clustering, we heard a couple of comments from folks who
who were interested in keeping some kind of clustering
option in MDR.
And I don't really know how anybody would want to do that.
And when I say how, I don't mean the concept of how
you would want to implement it.
Because there are some weaknesses to it now.
But also, for a land that is currently zoned MDR,
you may not want to see just straight out conventional development
in those, or maybe the open space subdivision requirement will sort of ameliorate some of those concerns.
It's kind of difficult to peg that one.
We got some comments from commercial developers about stores like dollar stores, dollar general, something like that.
That the size threshold that we have set of 5,000 square feet for rural business is too small for their footprint, which this wheat spot is like 10 to 12,000 square feet.
And honestly, I really thought that that was one of the reasons for doing that.
Because there is some hesitation, and I understand that there are, you know, maybe
have been dollar stores that have been the subject of public debate, maybe, I don't know.
And so that is, but, you know, there are lots of folks that live out in a rural area.
And a store like a dollar general is going to be the store that's closest that they could
go buy, you know, a loaf of bread or toilet cleaner or whatever you need.
And now it's prescriptions.
Do they have prescriptions now?
That's a big thing in rural areas.
A lot of dollar generals are now for mail order prescriptions.
They don't have a pharmacy there, but you can get their stuff delivered there and people
in like really rural areas.
So that's a lot of dollar generals are going to where they do prescriptions.
So, a couple of the other comments, and I'm just kind of summarizing some of these.
And you know, we'll get you all of these.
We did get a number of comments about the agricultural uses
and this horse thing, no idea where this horse thing.
But it's definitely in the document.
Anyway,
let's see.
We got a couple of comments about outreach
and needing to communicate better.
To that again.
So we got a couple of comments.
We got four comments about the meeting, framework, and communicating meetings, which was surprising
since the people that made these comments were at the meetings, like they heard about them.
But anyway, that was kind of weird.
There were some questions about MFR and where it's going to be.
Everybody, I think,
is willing to consider this, but I think they're also afraid.
And that's one of the things about this type of development, you know, like, if you say in general,
our community needs more affordable housing.
Who thinks that? Everybody puts it there.
And then if you say, okay, we're going to put affordable housing on the next block from your house.
Everybody is opposed.
And so there's some level of specificity where, you know, once you zone to a particular
parcel, this district, there's going to be opposition to it.
That's the simple fact of life.
But the woman who's stood up in spoke, I mean, manufacturer housing has come a long way in
the last few years.
There are some that you can see that you can't even tell they're not stick-built.
Now, usually the biggest thing that gives them the way to be is the pitch of the roof.
They have a flatter roof and stick belt houses.
It's usually the pitch of the roof that gives them the way.
Let's see.
So, I guess one of the comments that we got from the developers representatives were that really
the sweet spot for their developments is a 50 by 120 lot for a 6000 square foot lot size.
You know, and so that's kind of like your, your large, you know, builder,
portant, linar, those type of guys.
You know, and I think that striking that balance is really important.
And the question has always been,
how much density does the county want to accept.
And, you know, if you look at a map of,
I'm going to say that Northern Panhandle, if you look at the county line where there's North
Carolina and there's Langester County, just look at the development pattern on both sides.
You know, they're the same pressures.
There are some additional constraints in Langester County that there aren't right across the
line.
You know, basically up to the North Carolina line, the development is uniform and has covered
everything.
There are lots of gaps in Lancaster County still, so you have space where you can see more
of the developments that you want to see, I think.
So there's room to change.
But the pressure, the development pressures definitely there.
And I think that, you know, that turn out at the developer meeting really spoke to that.
It's, it's surprised me.
I mean, I talked to somebody from California at this meeting.
Which,
you know, so a lot of the citizens were concerned in a general way about coordination
of development, both with, you know, kind of utilities, water, roads, and in general, you
know, we think that there's all very important and things the county has to think about,
but this is just one tool.
And, you know, I think the county is doing what the county can do by coming up with this now,
But things like, you know, long-term capital facilities and other things like you might be
talking about, you know, with the impact fee stuff.
I think are very important.
So, like I said, ag uses everybody was thinking that the ag uses are too restrictive, both
in terms of swine and horses.
Also, there was some, I would say some comments about connects containers, you know, like
storage, like shipping containers, a lot of people using for storage.
They require a buffer under this UDO, and that's new.
That was a staff request, not not current staff, I'm not going to call out any particular
of people. But anyway, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll just make a comment about that.
There is a house on great falls highway, right outside the city limits that have two of
them ugly contexts is like literally in their front yard using for storage. So, and I mean,
then they're just, they're hideous. Yes. I think that's the thing. Yeah.
Got to decide whether, and I mean, great falls highway is, that's, I mean, once you get,
That's a four lane, actually five lane, four lane, center turn lane, and
Connex is right there on the road.
Yeah.
So I guess to sum up, I would say that the overall theme that we heard was, you know, some complaints
from residents that the UDO doesn't do enough to preserve land and restrict development.
And we heard some comments from developers and their representatives that the UDO does
too much to restrict development.
And I think it all depends on your perspective.
One more thing before you leave.
I would like to add one more thing.
Thank you, Ms. Clifton, your list here in your comments.
I would like, I would also like to,
that when we send this to Council for them,
especially in the commercial zones to look at buffers
between some of these commercial zones and residential zones,
the setbacks and specifically some of the exclusions on the open space requirements.
I think those are all good suggestions.
So let's, let's, I'd like to see those readjust and discuss and make sure that they are good and thorough and correct.
Can I ask one more, Sean?
I'm sorry, I missed this one.
In the old year, the parking requirements for a single family home were one per dwelling unit.
in the new and it's the greater of 1.5 per dwelling unit or 1 per bedroom.
So a five bedroom house would need five parking spaces.
How do we get there?
What was the thinking there?
This is something that the committee has specially talked about a long time.
And in the drafting phase, what we had come up with was,
So the basic complaint that we heard and the issue, I would say the problem that was identified
for us is that based on the setbacks in most developments, coupled with the fact that
people don't actually park in their garage, because they have a bunch of stuff stored
in there, that people park on the street, and the streets are too narrow to have people
park on both sides of the street, and the fire trucks can't get through.
So that's kind of the baseline of what we heard.
So we were like, okay, so we can move the setbacks back further, now we don't want to do
that because then that decrease.
There was also one more thing is that people are driving bigger vehicles and with the current
setbacks, you park in your driveway and then the back of your vehicle blocks the side
walk, which means then the side walk is no longer-
We're accessible, so people are having to walk in the street.
I see for having a sidewalk, so I'm jealous of that, but I get, I get, no, I get that.
I've never lived anywhere, they had a sidewalk, so.
We threw in a couple of wrinkles. One option in one of the drafts was the requirement for
on street parking. Another option was required satellite parking. With a distance, a maximum distance from
every house.
So the committee thought that the satellite parking was expensive and something that people
wouldn't use.
And this is kind of an idea that we have used before, you know, there are some people who
would, you know, want a parking front of the person's house, regardless of whether or
not, there's a, and they wouldn't want to walk, right?
There's some people who would.
I don't know.
But the goal really was to try to calibrate the parking,
to the parking met the size of the house,
mainly because, you know, people have kids that drive,
and, you know, like, our across the street neighbor,
they have three kids who are sort of at home,
college, driving age, and they're all over our street.
You know, if I lived in a neighborhood where everybody was like that,
I suspect the street would be difficult for a fire truck.
So, I think that was really the issue and you know it was the goal was to give some flexibility in the design but also to put the parking requirement on the private law.
Is there a correlation between that and how it affects lots eyes?
So as you look at, you look at developers building five bedroom.
I don't remember what you said 50 by 120, whatever that sweet spot was.
If you're building a 6,000 square foot house,
you can easily have five bedrooms or more.
What does that still, can you actually
fit that in a 50-foot wide?
I don't think you're good.
So do we do a correlation between those?
Do we have any idea what that looks like
from a corollary perspective?
Because it seems like that would create the increased
lot's sizes.
With some impact, whether it's significant or not,
I don't have it sat down down the math.
Absolutely.
One
side of the street?
I don't know nothing.
So the issue with that, yes,
could.
But the issue is enforcement.
Yeah.
The HOA would really be in charge of enforcement for that stuff.
Because it's.
I don't know.
They like an edge water.
They put out because the streets are narrow there.
Because if that old development agreement,
they have the HOA is taking it upon themselves.
And they've put out signs,
only parking on one side of the street.
But then the HOA is responsible for policing.
it's not in the, it's technically, it's not in the HOA agreement that was filed with the county
when you moved in there they can't do that.
I said, because they're not videoing it and it's just
audio only that's the reason why I'm really pushing it tonight. Now, if the HOA doesn't have that
in their covenants that are filed with the county, they can't suddenly say after you bought a house
moved in there. Okay, now we're going to go to one side of the street parking only. They can't
put it in. It would have to be voted in and no one is going to, you know, unanimously vote
for that. So I just wondered if there's anything that we could do, but like I said in enforcement,
okay. When I correlate that with the preliminary plot, which requires parking areas, which means
that we now have to know how many bedrooms is a house so that we can actually approve a preliminary
We know if it has the appropriate amount of parking space, and this becomes a very complex requirement.
And I'm not saying it's wrong or not appropriate or unnecessary.
I just don't quite know how to logistically make it.
So, if not edge water because they're under the old UDO, but if someone else came in and gave us this new thing,
we've got to, and they give us the lots, we say, sorry, you have to tell me what the house is going to be,
because I can't approve this because I don't even know if you're wide enough in your lots to support six bedrooms.
maybe instead of putting it one for bedroom just to have a minimum that you have to have
two or four per house.
Two isn't anything if you have kids.
Yes.
I say sounds like maybe.
Then that's a good point.
We can, some things just get to be suddenly you have to have 100 foot wide lot to make sure
you've got parking for five cars.
I've got five kids.
Yeah.
So I would say clean out your garage, but I don't want you to come out.
They don't have their own cars.
Yeah.
The difference.
That's another thing maybe ask Council to revisit.
I still think it needs to be more than the one per dwelling in it.
I get it.
But I do completely understand the challenge.
I think it's good that before we would improve anything,
I don't see having it down to the minutiae.
Anything else?
That was it for me this time for real.
All right.
So, I don't know exactly how we're supposed to do this because our votes
supposed to include all these things that we've talked about and that would
sit here for another 45 minutes and just name off all those things.
So, how about I say, I have a motion or I'll make a motion that we approve
this UDO to go up to Council for consideration, including all of the comments and discussions
that have gone on now discussing all these different sections and everything.
I've got a cheerleader out there helping me make sure I cover everything right, which
cover a variety of things.
I'm also going to, I will give you all the copy of my comments and stuff.
if anybody else has theirs written down, just so you can do that.
All right, I already had a motion to approve with this.
Okay, comment.
Okay, I was just glad to make sure that the,
I guess you need to, you need to modify your motion to include all of these comments and conversations that have happened.
What was said was, I believe, if I were to include the suggestions and comments.
Okay, very good.
Okay, cool.
All right.
So we have, we already have a motion, the second that covers that, so it's really late.
Can we do a show of hands votes and approve of submitting this UDO up to Council for
Consideration, including all of these comments and covers they just that we had.
Those in favor passes six to zero.
Wow, that was hard.
And if you've got to run Sheila, go ahead and run.
I have an agenda somewhere here.
Somewhere in all of these 8,000 pieces of paper.
No, I'm looking for...
Here we go.
An agenda.
Thank you, everyone.
We have another on there.
Do we have any other that we need to discuss tonight?
So, no others, so do I have a motion to adjourn unless anybody else has anything
that need to add real quick?
Oh, moved.
So moved.
We have a second?
Yeah.
Immediately.
Vote to adjourn.
All in favor?
Yes.
All in favor.
Pass us five to zero.
Run away, everybody.