[9:49] What is this?

[9:55] Map 3.4 million.

[9:58] You

[10:05] Meet's next Tuesday. So I have the letter saying, it's tentative. Correct. And I need theirs to get your 2.2. So I

[10:21] can come back to council and say, here it is. It's solid, which is why today is just conceptual as opposed to the actual agreement. We can't do that without the environmental. All those reassures. We have to do that.

[10:35] So I

[10:39] do want some feedback from the conversations that need to happen.

[10:44] So we're going to do

[10:50] project concept back and here's for everybody.

[11:01] Yeah.

[11:03] Second.

[11:04] I thought you said somebody made the motion.

[11:07] Okay. I'll make the motion then to move forward.

[11:14] Okay. No, you're good.

[11:15] I have a council approved, comments set in this project, and possible funding.

[11:20] All contingent upon the favorable assessment and there will be agreement between the

[11:28] details

[11:28] of the fund.

[11:31] Second.

[11:32] Motion by again.

[11:41] Question.

[11:43] Speaker.

[11:48] Thank you.

[11:49] Thank you.

[11:53] Okay.

[11:54] Call the health committee to order.

[11:57] I've got two sets of minutes of seek a motion to approve August 8, 2023.

[12:02] We

[12:04] have a motion by Councilman Colum and a second by Councilman Jones in your discussion.

[12:10] All in favor?

[12:11] All opposed?

[12:12] Motion passes.

[12:14] Approval of August 22, 2023 meeting minutes.

[12:17] Move to approve.

[12:19] All right.

[12:19] We've got a motion by Councilman Jones, second by Councilman Colum, any questions, comments?

[12:25] All in favor?

[12:26] Motion passes.

[12:28] Okay.

[12:28] Okay, now we have a City of Casey request for Lexington County Communications to dispatch

[12:36] for the City of Casey Fire Department Chief Mark Davis.

[12:41] I

[12:50] didn't have my name.

[12:58] I received last week a letter from the City of Casey from Mr. Tracy Hegler to City Manager

[13:05] requesting that Casey Fire Department dispatch be moved to Lexington County Communications

[13:11] It's only the fire department, the police department and the fire department and they're asking

[13:22] that we consider.

[13:23] I think this came up several years back and it never went anywhere and so I asked Chief

[13:33] Davis, Chief Miller to provide you guys an update and benefit or anything just to see from

[13:40] And you guys, if we want to move forward or not, there have been no negotiations or anything yet.

[13:44] Just receive this letter to see if we want to move forward.

[13:48] Chief, do.

[13:49] Unfortunately for us on the fire chief side and the majority, actually all of the five fire departments in the county with exception of the airport, which has their own particular area.

[13:58] Came together many years ago and developed our own operational plan where every fire department does the exact same thing.

[14:04] It's not based on geography, it's not based on the name on the side of the fire truck.

[14:08] But we operate the same way all the time seamlessly between agencies and we believe that

[14:14] we don't see geographic boundaries.

[14:16] We see the closest unit goes to help the people because we believe no one is brand specific.

[14:21] With that said, the communication is the most important part in getting the most reliable

[14:25] and fastest information, and the quickest dispatch from the communication center is paramount

[14:29] to not only the safety, but that of our firefighters.

[14:32] So, the KC Fire Department is the last one who is not under the Dispatch Center for the County of Lexington, everyone else is sent at the same time.

[14:42] So, roughly for now, and I don't want to step on Chief Miller's toes, roughly the 9-1-1 call already comes into our County Center.

[14:49] Once it's determined that it's in the City of KC proper, it is then sent back to them.

[14:53] They dispatch their units.

[14:54] And because of NFP, our own...

[15:00] On operational modes, we know that it takes more firefighters on scenes than just the one fire department there, so they're automatically requesting for help. So what we're finding is between that lag time of it coming to the county and then going back, there could be a 7 to 10 minute dispatch lag time. And that's not just for the city of Casey, but for my units to rent that three fountains area, and the south end of the county that are requiring, they're asking Casey to come help us. So the Casey runs 2,106 calls last year. Those calls were all already coming into our

[15:29] dispatch center that were just being transferred to their dispatch.

[15:32] Technically, when they go on an EMS call, which is half their volume, they're coming

[15:35] on to our dispatch channels anyway to communicate with Lexington County EMS and any working

[15:39] structure of fire or large-scale event, they're coming on to our channels anyway.

[15:43] So I don't know that there's an undue burden or anything new that is not met and it would

[15:47] actually be a seamless, more seamless transaction for our dispatchers instead of having to make

[15:51] that call.

[15:52] They would initiate just like they do every other call, start the process immediately,

[15:56] And then West Columbia, Irmo, Lexon units, for that area, we dispatched in one package

[16:01] everyone would understand the order in which they're responding and would make our operations

[16:05] on scene a lot safer for my firefighters and your firefighters and our citizens.

[16:10] So every time a call comes through, if you're going to one of those municipalities, every

[16:15] time the call comes through, y'all, everybody shows up, is that what you just said to me?

[16:20] It depends on the geography and what stations are available.

[16:22] So we do a GPS based system based on what stations are available and what type of structure it is or a call could dictate the amount of units as well

[16:30] But in that south and corridor is usually the KC maybe even west Columbia and less than the county of running together

[16:37] Okay, I was like common sense to me. You know, so why why haven't you mentioned it was brought up in the past?

[16:46] It doesn't matter didn't go be an else than that since I've known

[16:49] Actually, it's actually, it's understandable, or I think that Ms. Heggler explained it was just a timing issue or stuff with case.

[17:00] I don't have the details about that, but it's the only thing I know right now.

[17:05] Anybody have any questions or comments?

[17:08] The only thing I heard that was alarming for me is just a set of minutes.

[17:14] It's wasted between the communication.

[17:16] between them. It could even be longer if that is that. Yeah, well, what I'm talking about

[17:23] is, say for instance, if our dispatch calls over there and they have a crisis going on,

[17:32] they may put us on hold for just a brief moment. And then we, you know, if it's consolidated,

[17:39] we're going to automatically dispatch it and just, it just saves time and saves seconds

[17:43] and the responders and citizens and some of us in local government have often thought it's a

[17:50] countywide EMS service. It really should be a countywide fire service. That may not sit well

[17:57] with some others, but they run like this. I mean they run like this. So I applaud the city

[18:07] from, you know, bringing the slide in, let's please, please do it. So, especially with

[18:13] the folks that are day-to-day feel like it's, it's in the best interest of the

[18:17] citizens. Yeah, I'm all for it, Mr. Chair. I just wonder how, how long it'll be

[18:22] before they entertain bringing their police over to us, because most of

[18:27] their police are cross-trained as their firefighters, too. Not anymore, they're

[18:31] not doing it anymore. I think they got out of that public safety. Didn't they

[18:34] split. They did a split as I recall about a year and a half

[18:38] two years ago and they're growing their their fires. I know

[18:40] where my ex-wife was there. She had to be both. Yeah, I think

[18:45] the police is kind of a different animal. And I think that

[18:49] because of a fire Emma's called typically is a specific

[18:53] address law enforcement call is wherever it can move it can be

[18:59] moving as the call is. I think it's probably maybe better

[19:04] that law enforcement guys kind of have their own.

[19:06] Yeah, I think we're running this up times into avenues.

[19:09] It's about that he might speak to it.

[19:11] I just have a comment or question from coming

[19:14] from the insurance business up within the business

[19:16] four decades.

[19:17] How does this affect ISO rates?

[19:19] It hadn't affected them in the past.

[19:21] Will it affect this?

[19:22] Will this help them in the future?

[19:23] No, it's a reaction class.

[19:25] We already have a pre-existing automatic aid agreement.

[19:27] It's just a matter of the automatic aid

[19:29] was to pick up the phone and call.

[19:31] And we have on the line, we have gone

[19:33] on to a mode of an officer picking up the radio and calling.

[19:36] So all the back work that I've had to be done for this,

[19:38] all the plans that had to be laid and put into our CAD system

[19:41] have already been there.

[19:43] So this is just.

[20:48] May the time is approval of the August 8, 2023 meeting minutes. I have moved to approve by Mr. David Somers. Second. Second. Second. All

[21:02] in favor?

[21:09] I've been both.

[21:17] Open.

[21:20] Proof of August 8, 2023 meeting. That is my motion. We need a second. Second. Second. Second by Mr. Carriage. All in favor. All opposed. Proof of August 22, 2023. And that is the

[21:37] my motion. I have a second. My name is Karrie. I'm in favor. I will put in questions. Okay, first off,

[21:49] Rhett, welcome. Everybody knows Brent Hyatt. Approval of the City of Columbia

[21:54] easement for a sanitary sewer relocation along Broken Hill Road to Council District 7.

[22:03] The City of Columbia has requested that the county of Lexington grant a permanent exclusive

[22:07] of easement for a sanitary sewer relocation. This happens to run through one of the parcels we

[22:12] had bought out of Ruffa Broken Hill Road. There's already an existing line there. They are basically

[22:19] replacing it in a slightly different alignment. So they're going to abandon the existing easement

[22:24] and they're requesting another easement across this property. So that's what we are seeking approval for.

[22:33] We have a motion, my Ms. Caron. Second, my Ms. West singer. All in favour? All opposed?

[22:42] Any questions? Very good. Second, let's see here. The approval of the pawn branch road and two-notch road intersection improvements. Council District 2.

[22:55] Thank you sir.

[22:56] Each fiscal year we're required by law to expand, this is a, we'll say 33%.

[23:03] The safe and law still says 25, but the new money from the roads bill for years ago requires it also.

[23:09] In fact, 33% of our normal portion needs to be spent on the state highway system.

[23:16] The last few years, we've done some intersex improvements, old Cherokee,

[23:22] film and church, old Cherokee at St. Peter's.

[23:25] We help fund Bar Road at Long Spawn.

[23:28] They're at the railroad tracks.

[23:30] The last three years, we've done a lot of resurfacing.

[23:33] To satisfy the requirement for FY24, we're proposing to send funds to SCDOT

[23:38] for the construction phase of an intersex improvement at Palm Branch Road,

[23:43] at two-notch road. We are managing the design phase of the project through an RFP that

[23:49] you guys approved just a couple months ago. So we are proposing a satisfied requirement

[23:54] to send the funds to DOT and let them construct in their right-of-way. We're proposing

[24:00] to send $1,237,500, which would satisfy our requirements for this year.

[24:09] This is a simple

[24:11] concept of what's being worked on right now. We're in the design phase. We just started.

[24:17] We're proposing a turn lanes here and this is not, we're not proposing to signalize it at this time,

[24:24] but when they end the future, if it does warrant it, we're going to make sure the dimensions are

[24:29] appropriate. So we want it to go rework or reconfigure anything if that opportunity does come. So

[24:36] So that's what we are seeking approval for.

[24:42] Mr. Hudson?

[24:43] Yes sir.

[24:44] Go ahead.

[24:44] This is Larry's district.

[24:45] Yes my district.

[24:46] I can say this is a bad intersection.

[24:49] I know.

[24:49] If you look.

[24:50] I don't know if you can tell, but it's not a 90 degree intersection.

[24:54] It's Cady Wampus.

[24:55] And Jessica put that in the minutes is Cady Wampus.

[25:00] The office, you know, spell it. But anyway, it is, Katie Wampus, and it's hard to see, especially

[25:06] if the sun is bright. If it's real dark at night, you can't go on across two notch, and

[25:11] this, you know, people are going 55 miles an hour. A lot of the bad wrecks have happened

[25:15] at that intersection. So a signal light would be wonderful, but that may be step two, but

[25:20] at least it's headed in the right direction. I do have this request, and we discussed this

[25:24] before the meeting. And I've been asked, I've called DOT on multiple occasions about rumble

[25:29] trips on two-notch road. Before you get to this intersection, both directions don't know

[25:35] the distance they would need to be, but whatever the regulations are based on the speed limit

[25:39] and accidents, whatever. Those rumble strips have really helped give people warning because

[25:44] a lot of times they don't stop. You have an accident where somebody's coming down two-notch and

[25:49] don't even know us the intersection and they have bad collisions right there and it's not

[25:54] good.

[25:54] We are working very, very closely through the design phase because we're basically the partnership

[26:01] as if we are approaching an encrushment permit, but we're not planning to build it ourselves,

[26:05] but we're still having to work with the same staff.

[26:08] So we're working closely with the District 1 traffic engineer.

[26:11] We are happy to try to get some of these things addressed even while we're at this early stage

[26:16] of an improvement.

[26:17] The Rumble Strip would be which you'll take the DOT.

[26:21] Correct.

[26:21] We will absolutely try to coordinate that with them.

[26:23] Mr. Riggum, I want to let you do, we are really working in close with SEAD on T on everything

[26:29] we're doing now, we're a commend the department for doing that, and include if you'll notice

[26:35] the turning lines are already installed, pre-installed, we're having those installed with anticipation

[26:41] of light, so we'll have to go back in afterwards and do that, I think there's thinking in advance.

[26:48] This is the 4 way or this is not currently a 4 way pond branch proposed. No, no, you can spell that word. We're all vote for it. That's where it's asking.

[26:59] So it's going to be the stopping and stop condition pond branch would be the through condition.

[27:06] the site distance would be improved the turning rate I would be improved and then

[27:10] the key improvement is the addition of a turn lane. It's going to allow those

[27:14] three movements to be able to see ahead of their approach to the intersection.

[27:22] It's pretty prevalent in the cities because of intersections that are not, I guess,

[27:28] controlled, caution light. We've had them before where they don't have to be both

[27:35] ways, but I think that's where I was going, Larry, would you

[27:39] recognize the rumble strips, but if you're anticipating the

[27:43] possible signalization, I mean, one hanging yellow

[27:47] caution light in the dark, dark night,

[27:50] flashing signal right here could be very effective.

[27:52] flashing signal will work and we're trying to get one

[27:55] also on quality mill road and wise and wise fairy there.

[27:58] Todd, you might have to get those in avenues too, to

[28:01] We have. We have those.

[28:08] See, see a ninth is one that's flash forever. But I just, I know

[28:14] that intersection. Yeah. That's a bad one. I just make sure that wasn't the four-way

[28:18] because you, you'd be stopping traffic headed to Sheila's and that might impede some people.

[28:23] Yeah, pond branch will. Sheila's quick enough. Yeah. It's not enough traffic yet. It may be one day.

[28:30] But the great thing is we have a great relationship, finally, with the SED of T and we really do, and just the complete streets, we still long story, but connectability, the accessibility, all those assessed points, we're working with them and they're working with us, when she's been really nice.

[28:51] Assistual is off band, pond branch road.

[28:54] I went out there just past the first one, it was dark.

[28:59] Yes, though.

[29:00] Then we seek a motion.

[29:02] I make a motion to make improvements to the Cady Wampus road.

[29:06] Two nights road and pond branch intersection in district two.

[29:10] That's my motion.

[29:11] I have a motion straight up second.

[29:13] No Cady Wampus.

[29:15] We have a motion with no Cady Wampus.

[29:17] We have a first by Larry Regum, recommendation from public works and a second by Mr. Colm.

[29:29] All in favor?

[29:31] All the parties.

[29:32] Any discussion?

[29:34] I do want to add one thing for we adjourn.

[29:36] We have a gentleman who works for the county that has been with us several years.

[29:42] It's been an integral part of our turnaround.

[29:45] Um, um,

[29:49] his cancer has come back for family purposes.

[29:53] I won't use his name, but I would ask you to put him on your prayer list.

[30:00] And wish a speedy recovery. So I think you know what I'm talking about, but anyway. Thank you for your words. We missing one is not here. Thank you. Appreciate what you guys do.

[30:17] Planting committee is now in session. And first up, we have some minutes to approve. So I would like to make a motion to approve the July 11th, 2020, 23 meeting minutes moved. I made the motion. Councilman Watson made a

[30:33] second. All in favor? Any discussion? Motion approved.

[30:40] Next up is the meeting minutes for August 8th,

[30:44] so I'll make a motion to approve the meeting minutes for August 8th, 2023, and make a motion.

[30:50] Councilman Winston made the second. Any discussion? All in favor? Motion passes. And the third will be the

[30:58] meeting minutes from August 22, 2023. I'll make that motion and Councilman

[31:06] Whitestone will make the second. Any discussion? All in favor? Motion passes.

[31:13] Kelly's not here yet.

[31:15] And the library staff lost a member this week themselves and the funeral was this morning and we had moved everything to try to get, make sure that Kelly could attend the funeral and be here.

[31:27] already minutes at a scheduled time. Yeah so that's um I would ask that if we could come back to

[31:33] this when she gets here. Let's take a break. Let's take, you want to take a few minutes for a break?

[31:38] That's bad. Yeah. Okay so we're going to take a break for 15, 20 minutes.

[31:46] Let's do this. Well we come back at two o'clock. That would be yeah. All right we'll take a recess until

[31:54] to a clock.

[34:19] What's her name works?

[34:21] The one he don't get around me.

[34:23] What's her name?

[34:24] Please.

[34:26] Yeah, it's anything about it in a while.

[34:28] It's been a while.

[34:32] OK, so

[34:43] we are back in session with the planning committee.

[34:47] And we have Kelly Pull up on deck.

[34:53] Thank you.

[34:54] First, if I could just take a minute and thank you

[34:56] for your patience and allowing a little recess for me,

[35:00] To be able to arrive on time. One of our staff members, Sarah Weaver, passed away unexpectedly

[35:05] last week. She worked at our KC West Columbia branch for over 17 years in circulation.

[35:14] Thank you, very much. Interservice was earlier today. And so I appreciate the time, allotment

[35:21] and I want to thank Lynn and Dana for all their support the last week.

[35:26] What's your name again Sarah weaver weaver okay or that case is Columbia for over 17 years

[35:36] 44 it's Sarah so I thought maybe you've seen someone out front notices the 430 meeting today

[35:47] thank you I appreciate it I'm glad to patron attended the service as well very nice

[35:57] But I guess we will, the first one is a continuing education grant for a first time conference

[36:14] attendee to a national conference and Rebecca Shelton, who is our branch librarian at the

[36:25] The award was for $2,203, I'm sorry, the conference was for $2,239 and the grant award

[36:37] is for $1,000 towards that total cost, which left the library with $1,239 in cost.

[36:46] This is a little odd.

[36:46] We've actually attended the grant and so this will, we've attended the conference and this

[36:51] will reimburse us $1,000 towards that cost.

[36:56] Right on that.

[36:58] Yes.

[36:59] I'm moved to be accepted grant.

[37:02] Okay.

[37:02] I have a motion.

[37:03] Second.

[37:04] And I have a second to have a motion from Councilman Column and a second by Chair Lady Kerrig on the approval to accept the Library Services Technology Act Grant continuing the education for Rebecca Shelton.

[37:21] Any discussion?

[37:28] How about turning your microphone on so everybody can hear you?

[37:32] Okay, microphone is on. Thank you.

[37:35] You repeat all that?

[37:36] No. That's in a minute.

[37:40] So the next we have the summer reading program.

[37:43] The next is a summer reading grant award.

[37:46] And this is similar to what we have every summer.

[37:49] this year our theme is adventure begins at your library and we're planning the

[37:55] combination of backpack outdoor adventure kits which we presented a few

[37:59] weeks ago. The total cost of this program was $3557. Some of that is in-kind staff

[38:07] personnel costs. The program kits and the presentations that we'll have are

[38:14] for $2,000 and $57 and the award is for $2,000 itself.

[38:21] It just leaves us with the $57 and operating to balance side out.

[38:25] And so I'd ask that you would consider accepting that grant award.

[38:30] We have to approve the, or apply for the library E rate grant program grant.

[38:38] one up summer reading number five number five approve it to accept the library services and technology act

[38:47] L-S-T-A summer reading and learning program graph or

[38:51] I have a motion by Councilman

[38:58] Can you all enroll her in that summer reading program?

[39:07] I

[39:08] all in favor motion passes. Oh my goodness. And last up, we have e-rate program grant.

[39:17] This is an application to apply for the e-rate program, which is a federally funded program for

[39:24] technology services for libraries. Our application includes the maintenance of 45 switches

[39:31] and four hotspot services. So we already have the hardware. This is to maintain all those

[39:37] technology items. The maintenance is $14,604 in the hotspot service $2,349. The total cost of

[39:46] both of those projects together is $16,953. Usac will commit 70% towards all of these projects

[39:57] while the state consortium.

[40:00] We'll complement that with a 30% match. So all in all, the libraries at a pocket cost would be $705.

[40:09] It's quite a odd combo the way those two come together, but it's been a great benefit to us the last few years, and so I ask that you consider our application requests for this project. That's awesome. That's awesome.

[40:24] Alright, I have a motion to approve by Councilman Council Lady Carrigan, a second by Councilman

[40:33] Column. Any discussion? All in favor? Motion passes. Thank you so much, Kelly. You always

[40:42] bring good news. All right, Planning Committee is adjourned.

[40:48] We're going to move on to the committee of the whole and I would move that we approve

[40:54] the July 11th, 2023 meeting minutes and vice chair heads have made the second any comment

[41:04] or question?

[41:06] Hearing none, I'll favour.

[41:12] Anyone opposed?

[41:14] All right.

[41:14] Next up, I would move that we approve the August 8th, 2023 meeting minutes.

[41:20] I made the motion. Council Lady Westinger made the second. Any comment or question? August

[41:25] 8, 2023. All in favour?

[41:30] Anyone opposed?

[41:34] All right. Next up, I would move that we approve

[41:36] the August 22, 2023 meeting minutes. Superproved. Or seconds. I made the motion. Council Lady

[41:43] Summers made the second. Any comment or question on August 22, 2023 meeting minutes? All in

[41:50] any one opposed? All right. We're going to move into a discussion of ordinance 23-17 amendments

[41:58] to the zoning ordinance addressing residential density to include an overlay district plan

[42:03] developments, tiny home, short-term rentals, multi-family developments, and various updates

[42:08] and invoking the application of the pending ordinance doctrine, Robert Derrick.

[42:13] Thank you all very much. Planning Commission on April 18, reviewed ordinance 23-17, which

[42:20] of the various proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance.

[42:23] The planning commission, there is a typo in the memo.

[42:26] They did not vote unanimously, but they did vote to recommend four items for consideration

[42:31] from Council.

[42:33] One was to consider amending the Eastern Residential District Boundary to further protect Corley Mill

[42:37] Road.

[42:38] I do have an alternate map which has been discussed briefly between some members of Council

[42:43] I'll propose to Council just a few minutes.

[42:46] The others consider concurrence requirements within the Eastern Residential District and also for the plan development districts consider minimum lot sizes with the Eastern Residential District and they include the term alone for financial hardship language in the standards for variances.

[43:01] Keep in mind that the planning commission had previously reviewed tiny homes, short term rentals, multi-family developments and some various other updates associated with density and agricultural, protecting agricultural activities.

[43:14] That information has already been reviewed by a planning commission and presented to

[43:20] Council with their recommendation and that's what's already included within the body of 2317.

[43:25] Short term rentals are actually a separate standalone ordinance which will be migrated into

[43:30] this body once both ordinances have been approved.

[43:34] That's third and final tonight.

[43:35] That'll be third and final tonight, yes ma'am.

[43:37] That's 23, 6, 10, 10, 10, 10.

[43:41] Starting with the the recommended actions from planning commission again the the meaning the eastern overlay or the eastern residential district boundary.

[43:49] The proposed boundary I use this one shows a little better the original proposed boundary that received first reading and was presented our public here.

[44:00] It included the whole of three counts of districts and a portion of district seven.

[44:05] The Planning Commission, again, even with feedback from our public hearing asked me further

[44:10] protect Corley Mill Road.

[44:12] With some discussions with several Council members, especially those along the Corley

[44:15] Mill corridor, there has been a proposed change to further protect the area of Corley Mill

[44:22] Road.

[44:22] I'll zoom in on this to see if you can see a little bit better.

[44:32] Basically, the change is to continue to look at an existing development on Corley Mill

[44:38] road. They have some future future proposed additions to that development. Provide

[44:43] connectivity with the remaining Eastern Residential District and take out

[44:47] areas especially along Milstream Road, areas north of Sunset Boulevard,

[44:52] Hopefear Road area. Take those out of the Eastern overlay and put those within the

[44:56] same restrictions as would be basically countywide outside this overlay.

[45:00] District. Again, this is an effort to further protect Corley Mill Road. I believe this is protecting

[45:07] the majority of Corley Mill Road that is the areas that are undeveloped, except for,

[45:12] you know, larger development, Corley Mill High School, and a couple other areas within

[45:16] the town of Lexington, as well as the other areas within the general location on Mill Stream,

[45:22] which has a direct impact as far as traffic between Sunset Boulevard and Corley Mill Road.

[45:27] So

[45:31] the bright red line, bright red line will be the new boundaries, so everything if you follow my cursor, this area would be within the overlay district, everything outside is not within the overlay district.

[45:50] This right here is district seven, my district that will run long like Bush River Road come out of 20, and that's what grades that continue right there.

[46:00] And then this part of Corley Mill Road is protected and not in the urban overlay.

[46:05] Okay, so then that section of Bush River Road would be in the eastern overlay for more development.

[46:17] That's mostly floodplain. Can that mostly floodplain?

[46:21] Flood is a lot of undeveloped property.

[46:23] It's a lot of making property too.

[46:26] You've got a slew of river greenway.

[46:28] You've got dominion property.

[46:29] We're much AP and recreation commission,

[46:30] shallow industries, but some large,

[46:32] large property owners within that area.

[46:35] And then this further provides connectivity

[46:37] with that overlay district.

[46:38] It provides connectivity to that one area.

[46:41] And then the rest of this will be

[46:43] under the. Yeah correct. So this makes this makes you happy. This makes you happy. Yeah. This makes

[46:51] you

[46:54] happy. You're happy. You're happy. But does it still divide the town of Lake

[47:02] Stanton? We're not changing the districts. It's just the overlay. Of course another. But that's

[47:07] what I'm saying. It does the overlay. I'm just making sure that I'm looking at it correctly.

[47:13] The overlay, though, still divides the town of Lexington.

[47:16] Part of the town of Lexington will be in the overlay and part of town of Lexington will be outside the overlay.

[47:20] Yes, ma'am. That's correct.

[47:23] And really the part that's in the eastern overlay,

[47:29] it's really consistent with what all's in the eastern overlay anyway,

[47:33] because it's so developed almost out.

[47:36] I think that, I think Beth sent us an article,

[47:43] Charles, and they were reviewing something they had,

[47:46] that they had called it a ban.

[47:49] You remember reading that article?

[47:50] They had a development ban that measured out a mile and a half.

[47:56] You know that?

[47:57] And that got me thinking about that very line.

[48:01] I'm good with whatever y'all.

[48:04] It's an area which I'll represent. You know that representation, not better than I do, but that's kind of how I've kind of

[48:11] pictured in my mind that Western boundary where the two come together is that

[48:19] development band. Because if you look, if you really look at the structure that's

[48:24] I guess north, northwest of that boundary line,

[48:29] it's got a whole lot more opportunity for development than everything back this way.

[48:35] in the election on the, I guess, the northwest side of the point.

[48:40] Where it actually ends, so that those parcels would be included in it to continue the development

[48:47] of that already existing development.

[48:51] I mean, it's really consistent, too.

[48:52] But that takes us to about Lee-Cleckley Road and then from Lee-Cleckley and down it's just-

[48:57] I was just saying that from the look at the interstate portion of it, where you tell them

[49:00] Well, the possibility of apartments or hotels or something like that, it allows it right there on the other side of 20 on both sides of 20 actually, right?

[49:11] Yes.

[49:12] That's more consistent with that section, whereas you get a little further west and get a little further northwest is where I think you're.

[49:21] Actually, this would be part of the urban.

[49:24] Yeah.

[49:29] That's right. That's part of the town that's out and the other part of the town that's in. Again, like I said, the part that's in it is really consistent with the Eastern anyway because of what's already been developed there now.

[49:43] They don't have anything that would be developed in there, then or could be developed that would not be consistent with what their standards are.

[49:53] I don't think so.

[49:54] I'm sure they've had the opportunity. I would guess if they had the opportunity to look at this.

[50:00] Let's say who off the map based on again, conversations. The only thing that made me do is that look here. That's right. The Coli Mill area road areas on that, but this is the first time we wanted to present it to Council before it went anywhere. So this is the first time that you really want to see it.

[50:19] Arca's always been there from the start. I think. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just about that one section on Coli Mill road. The red line right there. All that's urban. I'll go back to the original map. The arc is a little different.

[50:30] because we had to take it, we took out a mill stream, again, because there's a feeder to

[50:35] Corley Mill Road. So this arc has been there, the line basically has moved and taken out this

[50:41] little triangle area here.

[50:44] That makes sense. I think this is a good line. Yeah. It's consistent.

[50:52] I've already got the stuff and a lot of that stuff is not right.

[50:58] And the topography is going to be

[50:59] lot of the challenges for it. That would be the proposed new boundary.

[51:08] Second comment from the planning commission was the eastern residential district currently

[51:12] does not have concurrency requirements. The plan development district does not specify

[51:16] concurrency as a plan development district is a unique design tool that goes through planning

[51:22] commission and council. I think the reason for the eastern residential district not having

[51:27] in concurrency a couple of factors where the mutual aid agreements with the municipalities

[51:31] we already have in those areas, especially West Columbia, KC, more or less law enforcement

[51:37] potential with the town of Lexington, within the area two, based on the information provided

[51:43] by fire service in EMS, the stations do not have very high-cost volumes currently within

[51:48] that area, and response times for EMS are generally consistent with their required response

[51:54] times.

[51:54] That's one reason that we initially omitted concurrency from that Eastern residential district.

[52:00] Again, the gist of having the Eastern residential district is to promote some more high-density

[52:06] residential developments.

[52:08] A lot of these will be in field developments again because there is predominantly already developed

[52:11] out.

[52:13] Again, with the plan development districts, not including concurrency from a staff perspective,

[52:18] I don't think is that big of a concern.

[52:20] As you go through the review process for planned development districts, obviously that's something in this body and planning commission can ask for additional information and data from those entities as well.

[52:31] We do already have public safety reviewing plans and the plan development district.

[52:37] A lot of these roads are going to be designed to different standards, different curvatures.

[52:40] So as part of our due process, we have public safety reviewing and making comments and recommendations on those master plans to ensure that those unique road designs, unique design patterns.

[52:50] or not going to be an issue with public safety response types.

[52:53] So that's already worked in with with the plan development districts.

[52:57] The last one or the next last the minimum lot sizes they asked

[53:01] that Council just consider minimum lot sizes and within the Eastern residential district

[53:05] again with the unique design options you have within this high density area.

[53:11] We did discuss with a couple council members when we initially looked

[53:14] at the density for the Eastern residential district.

[53:18] A few counts of members did mention minimum light sizes.

[53:21] I think the comment was, if we can elected a later date, if there was concern with light

[53:26] sizes moving forward to implement minimum light sizes, a later date, but again, that's

[53:30] something up for consideration now.

[53:33] Again, with the unique characteristics with the developers being able to kind of dictate

[53:38] what their development styles are, they still have to meet our density requirements.

[53:42] They still have to meet our storm drainage requirements.

[53:44] They still have to meet our road design.

[53:45] They still have to meet our open space and stay in court or requirements.

[53:48] So there's a lot of other design criteria, they still have to meet even with the higher

[53:53] density allowances.

[53:55] And the last one is, again, it's just a simple terminology within our standards for

[53:59] reverence to include the term alone to be consistent with financial hardship, quote, unquote,

[54:04] alone cannot be used for a consideration for a variance.

[54:08] And planning commission thought that term would be good to include with our standards for

[54:11] a variance.

[54:12] So what would it actually read?

[54:13] A financial hardship along cannot be used to grant a variance.

[54:19] I've got a question about that, about the financial part of it.

[54:25] What if someone was making a presentation for a variance and in the finance piece of it came up,

[54:33] but the hardship could be owned the county.

[54:37] If you allow me a variance, I can do things that will lessen the cost to deliver services.

[54:46] What I'm saying is that I think it's always been assumed that the financial hardship piece of it has been,

[54:52] this is too expensive for me to build. There is too expensive for me to develop.

[54:57] Therefore, I'm looking for, you know.

[55:00] And that's really what a zoning request is, is for relief. So I have a question, too. Yeah, I was just saying, what would happen if, if you, if they come in and we are asking people to try to be creative and develop to the current topo and the current use of the land and not. We're trying to keep people from tearing up 30, 40 acres at a time, right? So if they can demonstrate that if I tear up less acreage,

[55:29] at a time, but I can't meet the standard and I can provide a better financial position

[55:37] for future maintenance, because we're assuming we're going to accept all the utilities.

[55:45] I think anybody can make an argument for a variance that the finances has some type of aspect

[55:50] to do with.

[55:50] I think we can all agree upon that.

[55:52] I got something on that too after a bit.

[55:54] So, I do think that a residential development coming before a variance and a person who's

[56:06] bought a lot that's, I don't know, a piece of property out of the way or anywhere, that

[56:12] I buy in this piece of property, it's not affiliated with anything else.

[56:16] And I want a variance because I want to build something, I don't even know what it is, but

[56:21] a hardship alone, I think would pertain to an individual one-off time. They're trying

[56:31] to build a home for them and their family to live in. We're doing it ourselves. I think

[56:35] a hardship could apply for, I mean, that would be something that should be considered for

[56:40] a one-off. I don't necessarily agree it should be for an entire neighborhood, but I certainly

[56:45] think that you know John Q that bought a piece of property that's been in the family for I don't

[56:51] know 55 years and it's you know quarter of an acre and I want to put a house on it so I can see

[56:55] the lake but yeah my family sold it to me for you know $25 I don't know what it is but anyway

[57:03] and I want to build a house but based on your setbacks and stuff it is a financial hard

[57:08] for shipping I can't meet that to provide for my family I definitely think that that should be

[57:13] considered. So I don't know how you would write that up if everybody agreed. But I think one

[57:18] off should be have a standalone. Is this a real hardship for you? I don't know how

[57:24] do we go about proving that, but I'm going to say and I think it should be not necessarily

[57:27] for developed neighborhoods. Each parent stands on its own merit. Now there are four

[57:31] standards for a variance which are dictated by state statute. We did not create the standards

[57:36] that was written in state enabling, planning, and legislation. So in order for our BCA to

[57:40] actually consider approving a variance, the applicant has to prove those four standards.

[57:45] Basically, what this is stating is somebody cannot come in and use those four standards and

[57:50] use financial issues with each one of them to try to prove why he or she needs that relief.

[57:55] Like Councilman Phillips said, it may be too topography, it may be an issue with the existing

[58:01] road structure.

[58:02] It may be a corner lot which is throwing off a setback or something.

[58:05] But, again, staff, when we go to a variance request, we are neutral.

[58:10] A variance request is like a court flaw.

[58:12] This requires I judicial board.

[58:14] They treat those each request like it's a court.

[58:16] We do not offer any recommendations.

[58:19] We do not offer suggestions.

[58:20] We basically state the facts and the facts only.

[58:23] So this is really up to the applicant to provide those standards and what he or she thinks, how

[58:29] they are meeting those standards.

[58:30] and I had

[59:18] a lot of phone calls from different ones and some of it on the

[59:22] variances and this may not only be just a varance request but it's on you know

[59:27] erosion control and opening up a blend you know say they're about 50 acres are

[59:32] let's just say 60 acres and we said our policy says you can open up 30 acres okay

[59:38] there has to be a per case study too that it may take that other 30 acres to

[59:46] make it calls feasible to open up the first because at the top of the land they may have

[59:52] to move the dirt from that other acres to that previous 30 acres so they're going to need

[59:58] it.

[1:00:00] Ability from our staff and the BZA to be able to look at all of that, to make the cost effectiveness to them plus the people who are going to buy the homes and everything to come in to play without them having to go out invited to bring in there and level it out when they can go in and pool the dirt. So we have to look at that too. And I've looked all, I've looked outside of South Carolina, you know,

[1:00:29] on some different things.

[1:00:30] And I told you some of the ways I'm looking and it's crazy how you have to really look

[1:00:37] at that.

[1:00:38] And I think we have to be willing to look at some of that stuff and that's going to

[1:00:43] drive the cost of, cost down, you know, because we're allowing them to use what they have,

[1:00:49] what they purchase to fund something that they don't have to go out and buy because they

[1:00:54] already got it.

[1:00:55] So this, this is a good point and it kind of feeds into the land development manual conversations, not, not so much a BZA conversation or a variance.

[1:01:03] But someone to go to a BZA format.

[1:01:05] Some of it could, yes, exactly, but I know that, I know I'm doing revisiting the land development.

[1:01:11] You're side of the county, my side of the county, two totally different topographies, two totally different sets of needs as far as the clearing and erosion, et cetera, et cetera.

[1:01:20] So I think that needs to be considered too, but that's something for the Land Development

[1:01:24] Manual rewrite.

[1:01:25] We're working on, and I have to count some wetstone, we're actually looking to some avenues

[1:01:30] for some cut and feel to allow for infrastructure as not part of the limits of disturbance.

[1:01:35] So we're working on those revisions now to Land Development Manual.

[1:01:38] Hopefully with the next month or two, we'll have some initial conversations with Council

[1:01:41] on some of those proposed changes.

[1:01:43] Just the difference between zoning and land development and land development manual by State

[1:01:47] statute, their appeal body is planning commission, but the way we have our set up is we have

[1:01:52] a two-step process if they seek relief.

[1:01:56] If it's a land development stormwater related issue, it goes to our stormwater advisory

[1:01:59] board first.

[1:02:00] If our swab determines it's not an issue with our environmental program, it's not an negligence

[1:02:06] to our environment, they'll make a recommendation to planning commission, then it goes back

[1:02:10] forth planning commission for those folks to basically hear the full request.

[1:02:14] So we do have some some a different set of standards for for those type of

[1:02:19] variances, but one thing to your point is currently the way the the 20 acres

[1:02:23] reads for residential, you cannot exceed the 20 acres.

[1:02:26] There's no variance or or allowance to go above that at this time.

[1:02:30] So that's one thing staff is we really we really need to look into that

[1:02:33] because of that that aspect of they may need to rob their other piece of

[1:02:40] properties to me. They call it the cutting field.

[1:02:43] The film method of it, you know, they may have to do that to make it more feasible on

[1:02:48] in the in-run and they're not going and hauling all and you look at it in multiple ways.

[1:02:55] You're going and putting these big dump trucks with thousands of pounds of field dirt on our

[1:03:02] roads that are already in disaster's shape. So that's just hurting it even more. So we're

[1:03:08] are killing two birds with one stone in that theory.

[1:03:11] So that is something that we may need to look at.

[1:03:13] It's got something very soon.

[1:03:17] Circle back again, I agree with what you said

[1:03:19] about a single lot of various is that

[1:03:24] particularly in an established neighborhood

[1:03:25] that you're gonna have a lot,

[1:03:27] it's there's deemed non-developable

[1:03:29] because I can't meet the standard, okay?

[1:03:32] So, but again, on the very front end of this,

[1:03:36] and we've hearted on the not being able to save the trees.

[1:03:41] We've hearted on the ability that we've got excess storm water runoff.

[1:03:47] Well, the way the lands laid today, God made it that way.

[1:03:50] And if the water has been running that way for a million years,

[1:03:53] it can probably continue to run that way and be just fine

[1:03:56] if we allow it to be able to develop them in and around it.

[1:04:01] And when you go in and our standards and it's just no fault of anybody's other than maybe this side of the room and not that side.

[1:04:10] But when you make somebody have a detention pond that you're going to cut down 24 trees that are

[1:04:16] two foot across, that goes contrary to everything we complain about, right?

[1:04:21] Try to figure out how to save those areas and be able to get an invariant to design that.

[1:04:27] And it does have to have retention detention.

[1:04:30] There's no getting around that.

[1:04:32] But if you got a development that you can build 150 homes

[1:04:35] and I would, if you'll let me work

[1:04:37] with the existing toefoil, I'm only gonna build 75.

[1:04:42] I think everybody wins in that scenario.

[1:04:44] I would love to get to a point where we,

[1:04:46] and we've talked about this a lot,

[1:04:47] where we're developing based on topography

[1:04:49] and not clear cutting.

[1:04:51] Right.

[1:04:51] Not clear cutting.

[1:04:53] I think there's some discussion about that now

[1:04:55] And in what some people in the development business look at they say that's going backwards

[1:05:00] Because I can remember many years ago in the early 90s, late 80s, early 90s all the way up and through, up to 2000. Most of the developments, they had roads put in place, had underground service, and all the lots were wooded. So everybody had to pull an additional, each permit to clear each lot. And it did what you just said, it just constantly kept the trucks in and out of the damn roads.

[1:05:29] and it destroys those roads they don't want to finish them because they know

[1:05:34] they're going to get destroyed because if they try to finish them and they get

[1:05:38] destroyed they got to redo them to turn them over right because they got to

[1:05:41] stand our test for 24 months and the long run it makes for a sustainable

[1:05:48] neighborhood that's much more appealing and if I understand what Ty's saying and

[1:05:53] but Scott said as well it takes us back to being more business-friendly allowing

[1:05:57] people to make good business decisions here in the county.

[1:06:02] Which, yeah, you're correct, and you're correct, and you're correct, you're correct.

[1:06:06] But it also leads us to back to our basic management practices.

[1:06:11] We've got to increase our BMP.

[1:06:14] If we ever get to this point, there our BMP can't be what our BMP is now.

[1:06:19] Well, the big thing we do with Darrell is what you're talking about is, there's no bite in

[1:06:24] that BMP.

[1:06:25] Right, right.

[1:06:25] And you know, we've discussed this for a year.

[1:06:27] How many times?

[1:06:27] So our BMP has got to increase.

[1:06:30] And then we also, we discussed this seven or eight years ago.

[1:06:33] And if we're getting so into the weeds,

[1:06:34] it will never get an ordinance written.

[1:06:37] But we do have to look at the sociability of the soul

[1:06:40] that we're working on.

[1:06:41] Absolutely.

[1:06:42] You know, we have to understand that you can put a hose

[1:06:45] in my yard right now.

[1:06:47] I promise you and cut it on them.

[1:06:49] And I won't get a puddle in my house.

[1:06:53] and put it in her house, and you're about to leave it out.

[1:06:58] And I think you're probably about medium-day.

[1:07:00] A little bit about that.

[1:07:01] So when we do our common sense due diligence,

[1:07:06] I hope that we look at our BMP policy.

[1:07:09] I hope that we look at our TOPO policy, which we would

[1:07:12] have discussed a lot.

[1:07:14] And we hope we look in a compassionate to people

[1:07:17] who own personal property.

[1:07:18] And there is some, there will be some burden of financial on some of those people whose parents

[1:07:27] who passed, who've left the house or who parents are getting older and want to build

[1:07:34] a house beside the parent who's getting older, that may have to have some, some variances.

[1:07:42] And that's where I was going with that, I mean I do think and I think we all agree that

[1:07:46] But if you find yourself in that situation, then there has to be the ability for them

[1:07:52] to seek a variance on a financial hardship alone by itself.

[1:07:57] State statute, they still have to meet the fourth standard for a variance.

[1:08:01] The financial hardship for a loan could be a-

[1:08:04] So you're doing the state statute would prohibit that?

[1:08:07] You have to meet all four standards of a variance to be considered for a variance.

[1:08:12] But this language here, a financial hardship alone, the way it's

[1:08:16] worded could give them a little flexibility if they needed to utilize that as part of their defense.

[1:08:21] So in your opinion, I've worded it that way, it gives the BZA.

[1:08:29] Just states that financial hardship alone cannot be used. It doesn't say it cannot be used

[1:08:33] period. It says alone, it cannot be used. But you cannot use that as a basis for a complete variance.

[1:08:37] It has to meet the fourth standards. The fourth standards has to be made more time or what?

[1:08:43] You'll make me dig them out.

[1:08:45] Please look at that up there, Darrell. The thing is, is that I don't know that you want to

[1:08:51] grant a variant anyway on financial burden alone because, again,

[1:08:58] if you don't have a

[1:09:00] difference of what has been put in policy, because it's more expensive for me to comply,

[1:09:10] he would be lined up to say it's more expensive. I would say there'd have to be a way too.

[1:09:16] So you've got to be able to move a setback or either the topography or there may be a huge

[1:09:26] boulder that does not permit you to come here.

[1:09:30] I want to hear the four hands on the solo mirror just because the board will rule on this

[1:09:34] property does not mean those same standards are going to plot to another piece of property.

[1:09:38] Four standards are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertain to the particular piece

[1:09:41] of property.

[1:09:44] These conditions do not generally apply to other properties within the vicinity because

[1:09:49] these conditions the application of the ordinance a particular piece of property would

[1:09:53] have fatal prohibit or unreasonably restricted utilization of the property and the authorization

[1:09:58] Some events will not be a substantial

[1:10:00] Council, fingerprint, to adjacent property, or to the public good and the character of the district will not be harmed by the granting of the variance. Those are the four standards which are verbatim from state statute. What's the state statute number? What's the state statute number? Have that. Can we snip it that? Can you snip it that and send it to us? Well, I don't have to write it all down right now. Okay.

[1:10:26] Last piece I have for today is we've been going through

[1:10:31] The concurrency requirements concurrency is now included within the body of 2317.

[1:10:36] In order for us to perceive a concurrency, we've created a draft policy procedure which

[1:10:41] I'm going to read this basically verbatim to everybody today.

[1:10:45] We've worked with staff, administration, the folks who will be reviewing projects for concurrency.

[1:10:53] Just as a reminder, it goes to law enforcement, fire, EMS, solid waste management, all which

[1:10:59] presented their standards or their matrices for concurrence review. Public school districts

[1:11:04] by law cannot accept children as far as their allowances in school districts. So we developed

[1:11:11] a questionnaire that will provide each school district for them to provide us feedback

[1:11:16] and as part of their feedback I'll include that in our draft policies and procedures.

[1:11:22] So basically we start out for item one, zoning applications with a zoning plan, preliminary

[1:11:27] of platter engineering plans for qualifying land use activities as reference to 1146 that

[1:11:32] gives you the list of the activities we look at for concurrence review are logged in and

[1:11:36] basically track like any other project we have in our system.

[1:11:41] They're directed to our zoning

[1:11:42] administrator, our zoning administrator review these to ensure all other standards are met such as

[1:11:46] setbacks density, allowed land uses. If it is a preliminary platter, we'll continue with those

[1:11:53] plan reviews as we go through our concurrency. So preliminary platter, for example, will come in,

[1:11:58] It will be red line for subdivision, it will go to zoning for their red lines, open space

[1:12:02] for their red lines, addressing then lastly it will go to engineering where it is kind

[1:12:06] of a whole pattern till they get their full engineering plans in.

[1:12:09] So we will continue the reviews on those.

[1:12:12] Once the zoning, say one more time, what actually triggers a preliminary plan, a individual

[1:12:22] zoning submittal for zoning review or an engineering review, they are meeting their full engineering

[1:12:27] plans for a new subdivision.

[1:12:29] A full set of engineering plans.

[1:12:30] We have in on this all one of those.

[1:12:33] Most of them are preliminary flats or separate zoning

[1:12:35] submittals for our review.

[1:12:37] But that would trigger if they had none of the other two items.

[1:12:42] So once we get the comments,

[1:12:45] and the zoning administrator determines

[1:12:47] hey, everything else is compliance,

[1:12:49] we'll provide the information via email

[1:12:52] to all the HC's organizations.

[1:12:54] It's to include the name of the project,

[1:12:56] the location of the project to include the address,

[1:12:58] nearest intersection and tax map to propose land use project acreage told

[1:13:03] number of lots and dwellings electronic copy of the development plan and for

[1:13:07] school districts will provide that questionnaire.

[1:13:11] Departments and agencies

[1:13:12] that will be contacted and emerging medical services fire service, solid waste

[1:13:15] management public school districts and law enforcement on each apartment

[1:13:19] agency shall review based upon their matrices that are previously provided to

[1:13:22] council. Again the local school districts will have a questionnaire they will

[1:13:26] provide to us. Where are these matrices? These are the ones that Public's EMS, Fire Service,

[1:13:35] Solid Waste Management presented publicly to Council. Yes, I'm going to be able to

[1:13:39] website.

[1:13:42] Each department agency will have 20 working days based on our normal working schedule

[1:13:47] to review the proposed development plans. Each agency will return their findings to either the zoning

[1:13:51] administrator or the department head and shall confirm if they have adequate public facilities and

[1:13:55] services to support the proposed development.

[1:13:58] If a response does not receive within 20 working days, it would be presumed that there's

[1:14:02] no issues providing adequate public facilities or services from that entity.

[1:14:07] We will have the ability to grant extensions if there are unforeseen circumstances.

[1:14:12] Again, a disaster, heavy workload, et cetera, so we do have the ability to grant extensions.

[1:14:19] Once we get the information back from the school district, the Zoning Administrator Department

[1:14:23] here, we're going to present the school district's response to the planning commission.

[1:14:25] The planning commission will make a recommended action to county council within the committee

[1:14:30] of the whole.

[1:14:31] Council act as the final arbitrator for public school concurrency based upon the submitted

[1:14:35] questionnaire and planning commission's recommendation and all motions must pass via

[1:14:39] majority vote.

[1:14:41] All findings are sent to the applicant of developer and writing to include information from

[1:14:45] the entities that may have been have denied their proposal.

[1:14:48] The developer and applicant will have 30 days from the day of the notice of appeal to appeal decision

[1:14:52] the Planning Commission who will provide a recommendation of the appeal to Council.

[1:14:56] Again, we're utilizing the Planning Commission as the appeal and recommend.

[1:15:00] Planning body, back to council.

[1:15:03] In the event, the part register states they do not have adequate resources, service, proposed development, the planning commission and council act as the appeals body. In these instances, the zoning administrator department here will provide the findings to planning commission, the department registry, which has denied the application along with the developer slash applicant should also attend and participate in the appeal process. If the planning commission votes to recommend that county council consider the appeal, staff will present the recommendation to county council in the committee of the whole.

[1:15:31] If the Planning Commission denies the appeal it cannot proceed further, please note that

[1:15:36] the applicant and developer may appeal the Planning Commission's decision to circuit

[1:15:39] court within 30 days of the final voter decision as final and due process.

[1:15:43] Planning Commission should take consideration and council should have the authority to grant

[1:15:47] extensions, exceptions, to the now based on facts to include new proposed public facilities

[1:15:52] within the area or the ability of the developer to demonstrate a lesser impact within the

[1:15:56] area.

[1:15:57] All motions again shall pass with the majority of vote.

[1:16:01] If revised plans are submitted, they'll be submitted and reviewed in the same process

[1:16:06] as a new submittal.

[1:16:08] Previous denied developments shall be allowed to resummit for concurrence review in 90 days

[1:16:12] following the final decision from the Planning Commission, County Council, which everybody

[1:16:16] makes the final decision for the project, forget through the review process again.

[1:16:21] one thing the staff will work with with fire service and EMS is to work to get

[1:16:28] their EMS regions with the that fall below the 80th percentile and the fire

[1:16:33] departments that have very high or extremely high call volumes. We want to

[1:16:39] work those within our one-matte system so that information is available to the

[1:16:43] public and the developers. It is not feasible to update this weekly or monthly. Our

[1:16:48] goals to work with those folks and update that data, at least quarterly, on our website

[1:16:52] so we'll have that data readily available.

[1:16:55] Keeping mine concurrency is a relatively unknown state of South Carolina.

[1:17:00] Our planning and even legislation basically states that we can have an adequate public facilities

[1:17:04] type ordinance.

[1:17:05] Beyond that, there's no real guidelines.

[1:17:08] Other states, other areas, state of Florida, they have state statute that basically regulated

[1:17:14] and required concurrency for a certain period of time, but they still have guidelines with

[1:17:18] than their statute to allow locations

[1:17:22] or local governments to use concurrency

[1:17:24] within certain standards.

[1:17:27] There's certain areas in Maryland

[1:17:29] who use concurrency.

[1:17:30] The thing we have researched and we have noticed

[1:17:33] is a lot of those have entities

[1:17:35] have capital improvement plans

[1:17:36] of concurrency is not met.

[1:17:38] There's a means for those entities

[1:17:40] to mitigate their deficiencies.

[1:17:42] They can either supply funding

[1:17:46] to ensure that their capital improvement plans

[1:17:48] are being implemented to assist that development, or the governing body can elect

[1:17:55] or state, hey, we know we've got additional facilities coming within a certain

[1:17:59] time frame, bring this back to us within one, two, three years, where

[1:18:02] their time frame is. So those other entities have some type of mitigation avenues

[1:18:08] available for, for those that do not currently mean that.

[1:18:10] I studied the Florida one and the Maryland one and they have positive thoughts on the concurrency.

[1:18:20] They like the idea of the concurrency but as you said it's such a new thing and there's so

[1:18:25] many gray areas about it that they can't say if it is a positive influence or a negative influence.

[1:18:32] They're still in the middle on it. It's positive in their aspects on their police,

[1:18:37] peace, their fire, and their EMS, because they can look at those and figure out how to move

[1:18:43] around things. But as far as on their schools and their sanitation, they can't because one

[1:18:51] school's the state and the federal government is not going to let them say that they can't

[1:18:55] take people. So that is almost, in their opinion, that's almost a rule out. On the sanitation

[1:19:01] side of it, you're going to have trash no matter what. So you have to take it so they pretty

[1:19:05] much rule that out like in Lexington we've got over 200 years of sanitation right now that

[1:19:12] we can take and I know of right now there's a large large piece of property is being

[1:19:17] looked at for a possible C and D. They'd add another 100 years to C and D. So you're talking

[1:19:23] about 300 years there. So those are two things that you really have to consider that they

[1:19:29] They may be processes, two processes that we're going to put into this that aren't really

[1:19:35] going to benefit us too much.

[1:19:37] It's just going to tie up time with two entities that really can't tell you no.

[1:19:44] So do you really?

[1:19:44] But what they can't provide you is whether or not their school is currently over capacity

[1:19:49] based on the numbers.

[1:19:50] But are they truly going to do that because are they calculated?

[1:19:53] How are they calculating them?

[1:19:56] What's got to say is true because I don't know how they calculate in the nest.

[1:20:00] The State of Florida says is, how are they truly calculating because their capacity is only by what they deem it is because they can always add on at any time with portables and stuff like that. And the State of Florida does not consider that as being a downside to their school because they build, they build what they can afford and then they don't consider that as a downside.

[1:20:31] If I might comment, trying to do some studying as much as I could as well, concurrency in

[1:20:39] Florida, my understanding was a statewide mandate, and it was done for water, quality

[1:20:46] and waste water, period across the whole state.

[1:20:51] Counties were allowed to use other things for concurrency if needed, but the difference

[1:20:56] and what I feel like we're doing or saying and maybe I'm missing something, so forgive

[1:21:01] me if I am. But if we said, well, we just don't have such and such over here, the state

[1:21:06] would say, that's fine. You've got this many days. Tell us how you're going to fix it.

[1:21:11] The ball was in our court to fix it, not to tell the developer or whomever. You can't

[1:21:17] do that. We would say you can't do this today, but we had to give them a, they have to give

[1:21:21] of them a timeframe of when they'll be able to do it.

[1:21:24] Meaning, we'll fix it, cap that capital construction

[1:21:28] or whatever plan, your comprehensive plan.

[1:21:30] How are you gonna fix it?

[1:21:31] That's what the state would say to them

[1:21:32] before they could even implement concurrency.

[1:21:35] Right, that's the resolution, not the problem.

[1:21:37] How are you gonna fix it?

[1:21:38] Not, not, hey, we can't do this anymore,

[1:21:40] but it was more about that, that sounds great

[1:21:43] and we understand you can't do it today,

[1:21:45] but when are you gonna fix that problem for your area?

[1:21:49] Well, we're on the right path,

[1:21:50] but if we're going to, we've got a good idea, we've got a good thing going and we've initiated a good process

[1:21:58] but we have to make sure that we do it right the first time.

[1:22:01] Right. The positive with concurrency is whenever you do involve those other services,

[1:22:07] it's a heads up. A, we're going to, hey, Lexington District, whatever, did you know that this potentially

[1:22:15] might come in your area and they may or may not have any idea about it so it will give them the

[1:22:19] ability to plan to add portables or to create a plan to add on to their school or whatever

[1:22:26] that they need to do to service that future.

[1:22:30] And then you have to play, you have to play the devil's advocate in it too and Glenn knows

[1:22:34] he sat on one for a long time.

[1:22:38] Are they really going to tell you what their plans are because they don't want to leak it

[1:22:42] out to the public of where they might be about to buy some land because then the public is

[1:22:46] going to have a feel.

[1:22:48] Well, you're right.

[1:22:49] And the other thing that I think that I, that I just want to see us do it right, that

[1:22:53] I already remember reading, especially about the school districts, was really very eye-opening

[1:22:57] for me was that a particular school, if we say, hey, we're thinking a development is going

[1:23:01] to come over here.

[1:23:02] What does this particular school look like for capacity?

[1:23:05] Well, this school of here might really be at capacity, but the school down the road is not,

[1:23:09] so they just need to redraw their district lines.

[1:23:12] Well, it has nothing to do with the fact that the district as a whole is busting at the scenes.

[1:23:17] It's just pockets of schools that they just need to adjust and the state was saying they'll

[1:23:21] adjust your allowance. That may be what happened to you. Yeah, I will tell you in Florida though,

[1:23:26] there's one school district per county in Florida. Yeah, and they, and I lived there for 10 years

[1:23:33] and they redraw lines whenever they need to. All the time. That's right. They don't wait on a particular

[1:23:40] or anything, that's when I bought my second house.

[1:23:44] This was a school we were in for within six months.

[1:23:46] That was a school we were in for.

[1:23:47] And they don't just build schools left and right.

[1:23:50] I mean, I was born and raised there.

[1:23:52] They moved it to school.

[1:23:53] I went to high school in, was probably 40 or 50 years old

[1:23:57] when I went to it.

[1:23:58] And it's still the same school now with portables

[1:24:01] and add-ons.

[1:24:05] I was just gonna say, when we met with the school districts,

[1:24:08] They absolutely said we can't say no. That's right. This is not our purview. We can't

[1:24:13] We do like the idea is Charlie was saying no one wants to come in and that for planning purposes and so forth

[1:24:21] But they just absolutely couldn't say no now. They did work with us to help

[1:24:25] Create this questionnaire for input because they wanted input right and then and they do you know

[1:24:30] They want to they want to be able to

[1:24:32] To to answer the questionnaire and so they know what's coming planning and that kind of stuff and but

[1:24:38] Yeah, they can't say not. You're right. Yeah. I don't think we will ever get the school districts to tell us like it is.

[1:24:44] I just don't think it. I think they've got six different school districts five.

[1:24:51] If five different powers, it'd be five different assistants, five different, whatever.

[1:24:55] another change of policy here just recently where they would have

[1:25:00] Labor ties the tax map number that they were going to be looking at. They now taken that out now. So they've advertised are looking for a piece of property according to my sources in my neck of the woods for another high school. They've approved to go ahead and look for that piece of property. But it's no tax back map numbers. So do I think what we're doing is a waste of time. No, I don't think it's a waste of time. I think we have to get a currency.

[1:25:28] But do I think the school boards are going to be directing and straight up with the council?

[1:25:35] Not my seven and a half years or haven't been.

[1:25:37] Well, I think what we do is what Charlie said is we communicate better with them.

[1:25:42] Give them, give them more of a heads up of what could come.

[1:25:45] But if we stop it because of fire or stop it because of something else,

[1:25:48] then it's really not coming.

[1:25:50] Yeah.

[1:25:51] But if we don't have a plan of, hey, developer, give us X number of months or whatever until we can provide this or provide that.

[1:25:58] But we're the ones at least from the state of Florida what I read it wasn't that concurrency stopped

[1:26:04] anything concurrency gave the county instruction of what you got to do to make it better it wasn't you

[1:26:11] know and that was how Maryland was too it kind of gave them a guidelines of you're not going to stop it

[1:26:17] but this is how you fix it that's right go ahead Todd all right I think the school stuff got beat up

[1:26:24] but we need to put them over the side.

[1:26:27] As Robbie, just a few questions about what we actually

[1:26:32] all have to do on our side.

[1:26:35] And primarily is the fire EMS law enforcement part of it.

[1:26:40] And when I'm reading in item seven, and I guess this

[1:26:45] is the

[1:26:48] party has turned down from a development

[1:26:50] because whatever entity says that we

[1:26:54] can't adequately supply the service.

[1:26:56] So it says, planning commission shall take into consideration and counsels will have authority to grant exceptions to the denial based on facts to include new proposed public facilities within the area or the ability of the developer to demonstrate a lesser impact within the area which would mean if they gave a 500 like development to us and said, look, we just can't support it no matter who says that, whether it's our EMS chief, our fire chief,

[1:27:26] share of whoever, right? So they would come in and say, okay, I've got to reduce it to what number because that's what I'm reading that's what that tells me to a lesser impact within the area.

[1:27:41] So, would we use a formula of some such to say that although this piece of property could support 500 lot development based upon all the standards of which we have today.

[1:27:54] and it fits just like it should. However, because we don't have the ability to provide the service or we say we don't,

[1:28:04] by some formula I'm guessing, will that be used to determine exactly how many homes could be done,

[1:28:12] meaning that you could break that development up in two phases now, where it's not a one phase one,

[1:28:19] 500 light development it now becomes a 250 or 300 light development phase one. And then

[1:28:26] the second part of that question is this it says to also that to include new proposed

[1:28:32] public facilities and I think that's going to go back. Well, Debbie's been saying all

[1:28:38] along this happened in Florida is this in order for you to do that development and

[1:28:46] you tell

[1:28:46] me I can't because I don't have enough fire coverage or EMS coverage or or law enforcement coverage.

[1:28:55] So is that going to put us in a position we've got to say when we're going to improve these

[1:29:00] facilities to allow them to improve the land? Because we can't, I don't think we can hold it

[1:29:06] indefinitely, right? The first question is I've got two different variations on that.

[1:29:13] One, I would presume that when fire EMS law enforcement saw a way to do their reviews, is based on their reviews, they already have some type of threshold of mind on what they can accommodate and what they cannot.

[1:29:25] And I believe that can be used as a means for the developer to potentially go back and redesign that to fall within that threshold.

[1:29:32] Two, it also is a means for the developer to come in and prove that he or she has a unique type of development that the traffic generation will not be as bad.

[1:29:41] a live work play where everything is right there is one, maybe not a pub, but a mixed

[1:29:45] use development.

[1:29:47] Or an age restricted type development where the vehicles are not as, there's not any

[1:29:51] vehicles on the road, there's not as many houses or whatnot.

[1:29:54] Maybe put that back in the developer's furbues and say, okay, prove to us why this is not

[1:29:59] going to have a big impact.

[1:30:00] In fact, in this area is another several hundred lots of division. So I think it's twofold there.

[1:30:05] As for the public entities, to me, that is a means of state that, okay, we know a public

[1:30:13] facility is coming. I'll use the West Region Service Center. So the West Region Service

[1:30:18] Center comes, we can anticipate that we'll have a better response time for EMS, a better

[1:30:24] response time or less recall by fire, it does not give a time frame on how long it takes

[1:30:30] to construct that because we were in a different time process to make sure we procure all that

[1:30:35] and constructed.

[1:30:36] But that gives, does give the applicant an option to say, okay, we know that's coming,

[1:30:41] they can monitor situation or the planning commission or a councilman to say, okay, once

[1:30:45] that's constructed, then potentially we can allow for your development as being asked.

[1:30:50] I stopped right there. So if we would have a submission that a decision may be made that we don't

[1:30:57] have adequate services and we're going to build a fire station slash EMS service center.

[1:31:08] And this is where I think the rub is going to be created. It's not the fact that you're going to go

[1:31:13] through the concurrency review process. It's going to be whoever the first one is or the second one.

[1:31:23] It's turned down and said, okay, you can't, you get the full utilization of this piece

[1:31:31] of property according to our current building standards and zoning.

[1:31:37] You meet all the density requirements, you meet all the zoning, you meet everything

[1:31:41] other than the fact that we've had someone that said we can't provide public services.

[1:31:46] So the question is going to be is, so when can you?

[1:31:51] And if we're saying that when the West Region Service Center is constructed, we're going

[1:31:59] on four years now, five years, we're going on five years to the point of where we may,

[1:32:06] we may, I may be speaking out a term, but I'm guessing hopefully we're going to get some

[1:32:11] funding soon.

[1:32:19] We're going to get full funding in five years time, so 60 months is surpassed before

[1:32:24] I've got the funding and then I've got a year of construction.

[1:32:26] So I'm 72 months out before you're going to be able to get the full utilization of your

[1:32:36] property.

[1:32:37] Is that what we're really going to be in a position to say?

[1:32:42] And again, that's just because of what guidance we have with our enabling legislation.

[1:32:50] We have very little guidance on what it says.

[1:32:54] And again, this is a very unique concept.

[1:32:56] So we're trying to put together some policies, procedures to get this going.

[1:33:00] We've got, I'll be honest, we've got 20 projects back locked since October waiting on concurrence review, so we're trying to provide at least a means of methods to do a review on these to get these going.

[1:33:13] But again, I think 20 projects.

[1:33:23] I can get you the numbers but again the just of this is to create some policy procedures

[1:33:32] to give them some avenues if they do not meet if we fit a finite failure that we cannot

[1:33:38] provide adequate public facilities and again I think it kind of like our other appeal

[1:33:47] the bill.

[1:33:48] I'm going to be very scenarios and circumstances.

[1:33:54] Each one of them has to be reviewed upon.

[1:33:56] The bottom line is the appeal comes back to the body.

[1:33:59] Land and commission review at first.

[1:34:00] And they make their recommendation back to council.

[1:34:03] The bottom line is the body gets the final say.

[1:34:05] I get that.

[1:34:06] And of course we do.

[1:34:08] I do.

[1:34:10] Even through what we've heard today, I trust our staff.

[1:34:12] What they tell us.

[1:34:13] I mean, it's going to be really difficult process to go through to say staff has denied

[1:34:20] these folks to be able to do this development, and then turn right around and say, well,

[1:34:25] I don't know if I believe them or not, and then you grant the ability to do it.

[1:34:28] I'm just trying to, by the way, believe it or not.

[1:34:30] I mean, I want to be very careful in how we approach that.

[1:34:33] I mean, obviously, I don't think we would ever say that.

[1:34:35] There's the potential for that to happen.

[1:34:37] But I guess what I'm saying is, is that in that being said, that if there

[1:34:42] to be in toll, they're going to have to wait potentially up to 72 months. That's going

[1:34:51] to really put a enormous amount of pressure on the governing body to really, say, wait a

[1:34:58] minute.

[1:35:00] I think 72 months is reasonable for a development to take place in a specific area. So from a budgetary perspective, I'm going to have to really start hitting some taxes pretty hard or some millies increases to speed up that 72 month process to even get it half in three years. So it's going to put a lot of pressure from a tax increase perspective.

[1:35:28] And that's just that's just one service area if they say if fire would be the one to say it or EMS be one to say it so because if you don't go in and budget to make the improvement to provide for the public services.

[1:35:43] Then they're going to say I'm being held hostage here because I'm being told I can't but you're doing nothing to improve the situation where I can.

[1:35:50] Yeah.

[1:35:53] That's all I'm asking.

[1:35:54] And that's just one of the differences that I found and Scott said earlier in Florida and

[1:36:00] what we're trying to do.

[1:36:02] And it's been 40 years.

[1:36:03] They did their concurrency back in the mid-80s, I believe it was.

[1:36:07] But it was just for water quality and the state of Florida is very unique.

[1:36:11] And that's why the water was 19.

[1:36:13] But then they granted the concurrency for other scenes, but they had to state what their

[1:36:19] plan was to fix the problem. The actual body had to say, we can't do that now but we can

[1:36:26] do it and they had to state how they were going to do it when they were going to do it.

[1:36:30] It had to be approved by the state, not just an individual. So on that with apples to apples,

[1:36:37] the other thing that if we're going to study Florida's concurrency of rules and regulations

[1:36:42] Does Florida allow impact fees, does Florida allow these other funding mechanisms that then would provide the funding needed to make XYZ changes that would enable concurrency?

[1:36:58] So there are other factors that Florida may have working for them, that we do not have working for us between all of those different areas.

[1:37:09] It has to be careful with implementing something like this that we don't have to issue to.

[1:37:12] I'm sorry, I agree with that, Charlie, but again, the scenario just laid out as if you told you can't do it because you don't have the public facilities and the county says those facilities are going to be available in 72 months, or even 36 months, whatever the number is, how can we effectively stop development in its tracks?

[1:37:37] because we said we can't provide this public service.

[1:37:41] So how do you provide, how do you propose to solve that time?

[1:37:46] But we've been doing for the last 25 years.

[1:37:48] Okay.

[1:37:49] And our services have been growing as our development has been growing.

[1:37:53] But okay, so think about what you just said.

[1:37:56] Our services have been growing as our development has grown.

[1:37:58] Sure.

[1:37:59] But if now somebody says we can't,

[1:38:03] we can't take on another neighborhood, right?

[1:38:05] How do you in good content tell the rest of the communities who live here?

[1:38:09] Well, we're going to push it on through anyway.

[1:38:11] Even though we don't have this.

[1:38:13] I mean, how can you in a good content say that?

[1:38:15] What's the remedy for that?

[1:38:16] In good conscious, I would say to continue to do what I've been doing

[1:38:18] because how am I going to tell someone who's paying commercial taxes on property

[1:38:23] in which they have no ability to develop?

[1:38:27] What do I tell them?

[1:38:28] You don't think that if we have concurrency and they know they have to meet these

[1:38:32] and we have to have the public services,

[1:38:33] is there going to be more selective about buying all of it?

[1:38:37] I know they own it.

[1:38:37] They own it today.

[1:38:39] They've owned it for 10 years.

[1:38:40] They bought it yesterday, and they own it right now.

[1:38:44] And they're going to continue paying their taxes year

[1:38:46] and year out with no ability to improve it.

[1:38:50] What do I say to that?

[1:38:51] I don't know.

[1:38:52] I guess what Todd said, too, was this, for instance,

[1:38:55] and the fire services first one that comes to mind,

[1:38:57] we're in better shape today.

[1:38:59] And our fire service, then, we've been in Lexington County

[1:39:02] for many, many, many years.

[1:39:03] our ISO rating is wonderful. We did that without concurrency.

[1:39:07] Absolutely. We didn't have the currency, and we accomplished that.

[1:39:11] That's one service, so we've done really good with that. It is, but it took

[1:39:16] strategic planning year after year and budgeting and everything.

[1:39:19] It took a while to get it done, but we did it. I think it's almost fully

[1:39:23] staffed. Almost again. And then one more. Yep.

[1:39:28] And yet we still need two service centers that are not complete yet.

[1:39:31] correct. We're bringing forward a plan for the West region and of course we

[1:39:36] have no flight. For another thing is I mean we could set a limit on permit

[1:39:42] numbers per year. We've talked about that. Well I think the concurrency I think

[1:39:47] we're going down the right path with concurrency but I think we need to give

[1:39:51] Robby and staff and them enough time being that it is such unused and new

[1:39:56] thing, give them time to really

[1:40:00] Police, study it and bring it to us and bring stakeholders to the table and find out, where's the happy median? What can we do? How can we keep our quality of life, our quality of living, provide good services to our citizens? We know growth is not going to stop, like Daryl said. We're not, we're not going to stop developments. It's not going to happen.

[1:40:26] But I don't want to interrupt you, but I can tell you how you stop it.

[1:40:30] You absolutely stop it.

[1:40:31] Deadness tracks what I just heard.

[1:40:34] You should go and say I can't provide a vote.

[1:40:36] But that's what I'm saying.

[1:40:37] We can't do that.

[1:40:37] We got to figure out the happy median, and we're going down the right path, but we have to

[1:40:44] bring all the fingers together and figure out what is our right path.

[1:40:50] We know what Florida does.

[1:40:51] We know what Maryland does.

[1:40:52] because there's a couple other states that have the options out there.

[1:40:56] Charlie made a good point.

[1:40:57] You have impact fees.

[1:40:59] You have other fees that these other states have that we don't have.

[1:41:02] Unfortunately, Columbia controls are access to a lot of that.

[1:41:07] We've studied impact fees for years.

[1:41:09] They've gotten the statute written so strong that we can't hardly do anything with it until

[1:41:16] they're willing to change that.

[1:41:18] So we just, this is something that we're going to have to put our heads together and it's going to take all nine of us to work together and not against each other on it to come to a good, a good product here and I think we got the staff.

[1:41:31] It was bringing stakeholders to the table.

[1:41:34] Yeah, I mean, we're going to have to bring some stakeholders to the table, you know, but who are the stakeholders, you know, that's going to be something that we're going to have to sit down and figure out who the stakeholders are.

[1:41:44] So, the stakeholders are also the people that have been paying taxes for years upon years and living here and dealing with the uncontrolled growth that's happened for years.

[1:41:55] So, when we're looking at concurrency and we're looking at ways to move forward, we're looking at responsible growth for our county, not wider than sustainable, right, not wider than for business.

[1:42:07] and some of those stakeholders are sitting at the state house right now that

[1:42:12] also need to come to the table and if those developers want us to move forward

[1:42:17] pressure needs to be put. Well that's what I'm talking about maybe everybody needs

[1:42:22] to come together and figure out. Allow the county to be able to do the things

[1:42:26] that we need to do to be responsible and to be sustainable going forward.

[1:42:30] For talking about one of the fastest growing counties and states in the

[1:42:34] country, like any county is among the top ten. I think it's the top three.

[1:42:40] Like six, I think. Anyway, not right now. Hey, we have a we have a impact for

[1:42:45] here. I don't know if you know they're not. Really? Yeah.

[1:42:50] It's called a penny

[1:42:52] sales tax that goes directly in schools. Yeah. Well, that's not our impact.

[1:43:04] I'm

[1:43:04] impact fee to use it towards the school, right? Well, we already have a revenue collection that

[1:43:10] goes directly to the school for their bonded debt to pay for their facilities, right? Well, that's

[1:43:17] what that impact fee they're using in Fort Meals for. So I mean, the impact fee law is very

[1:43:23] onerous. We went down that path and got really really close before we spent a hundred grand

[1:43:29] because it requires you to go in and do a study in a specific area.

[1:43:35] Now, you can do the whole county if you want to, but Jeff's looking at me like,

[1:43:39] please be quiet, but you've got to identify all the specific projects

[1:43:45] which you've got to do and you've got this per-rata share type of formula that's in place

[1:43:52] and the most we've ever been able to come up with is about a 30% contribution to the total cost.

[1:43:58] So that every 70% still going to come from the existing tax base that's here today, not

[1:44:03] the new that's paying it.

[1:44:06] So they're going to bear the majority of the costs to do the new facility.

[1:44:11] It's a difficult situation.

[1:44:13] I don't disagree with that at all.

[1:44:15] And the only heartburn I have about the whole process is when someone is told no.

[1:44:23] That's the heartburn.

[1:44:24] And when we look at that, I can see what all we've invested in our public safety services.

[1:44:30] I mean, got one of the best EOCs in the entire state of South Carolina.

[1:44:34] Maybe the southeast.

[1:44:36] We invested a ton in that.

[1:44:39] We're working with pay and retention and trying to, we're adding positions.

[1:44:44] I mean, how many firefighters we've added in the last five years?

[1:44:47] It's got to be what? 75?

[1:44:49] That's a lot.

[1:44:49] Yeah, so I mean if we had to I don't you can't buy am much right now. We were told that a couple weeks ago

[1:45:00] You can't even buy one. If you show up with cash in a brown paper bag, Darryl, I want to buy, I want to buy this brand new car review. Here's the cash in the paper bag. You still can't buy it because it's not existing. But then that says to me that you can't add more bodies for our service that you can't provide because we can't get the equipment. We don't know that we can't provide it. Well, we're relying on them to tell us that. I know the only problem I said in this whole scenario again is when someone's told no.

[1:45:28] and the next question is, okay, I understand that, but when?

[1:45:34] And I don't think anybody thinks it's the time frame

[1:45:38] it takes for us to put a facility in place.

[1:45:40] 36 months or five years is reasonable.

[1:45:44] But that might be necessary.

[1:45:46] You know, and one thing, I broke the whole county down

[1:45:48] and looked at it and everybody in a development follows water

[1:45:52] and sewer.

[1:45:53] Layers district, my district can,

[1:45:55] and we control 75% of the land mass.

[1:45:58] Guess what, we don't have much of water and sewer.

[1:46:04] So nobody's come in our way really that much.

[1:46:07] They're starting to now because the school districts

[1:46:09] had to put in the water and sewer lines.

[1:46:11] So they're following those.

[1:46:14] But when you get out into the bulk of our areas,

[1:46:17] they're not willing to come there,

[1:46:18] because nobody's gonna put in 160 septic tanks and wheels.

[1:46:22] Oh, there's one out here in Lexington.

[1:46:25] You know, so how many are there?

[1:46:26] How many was one is a septic and wilk me on windy, windy hill and on.

[1:46:30] Yeah.

[1:46:30] What I'm saying is, you don't see that much.

[1:46:32] That's a anomaly.

[1:46:33] You're right.

[1:46:34] So that's what's creating our overpopulation or overgrowth is.

[1:46:40] We don't have the water and sewer in our county that other ones do.

[1:46:46] And nobody seeking the grants that are out there to build the water and sewer out to allow them to follow it out.

[1:46:52] and then we can use our own in regulations to have controlled growth and good growth within

[1:46:59] the county and keep everybody from bundling it up in one place. Scott, you just made a perfect

[1:47:04] example of why the Eastern and Western overlays can work is because you're concentrating the most

[1:47:10] dense areas in the county where the most densely and most available utilities are. You don't have it

[1:47:22] in 10 years? Those areas are going to expand because that's where the utilities are.

[1:47:26] Robin, let me ask you a question. I'm sorry to cut you off, Todd, but we've been on this for a

[1:47:30] little bit, so I've got to find a place. I get it. There's those 20 developments that we've got

[1:47:36] sitting there that the Albin have been in plots or can you can you send out an email telling us where

[1:47:43] those are located? I mean, I feel like we got to find a way to get rid of that backlog a little bit

[1:47:47] and see if there's something we can do as we continue to work on currency. So could you send

[1:47:52] and I don't want to snow.

[1:47:53] Yes, ma'am.

[1:47:53] We actually had 23, I just went through 24.

[1:47:56] Four of those actually fall within the Eastern Residential District,

[1:47:59] which currently concurrency does not apply.

[1:48:01] How many?

[1:48:02] Four.

[1:48:03] Okay.

[1:48:04] So our goal is, our consideration for council is to pull those

[1:48:08] and proceed through our normal processes

[1:48:09] since they're in the Eastern Overlay District.

[1:48:11] Yeah.

[1:48:12] Okay.

[1:48:12] And so that leaves 20 in the rural.

[1:48:16] And I've got, like I give you a list of the tax map numbers,

[1:48:19] the name of the development and number of lots

[1:48:20] and I can get out of that council fairly quickly.

[1:48:22] And Councilman West, on just your point too,

[1:48:24] is you may want one good comment

[1:48:27] as most of these other jurisdictions

[1:48:28] who have concurrence or have their own regulations,

[1:48:31] have their own water and sewer departments.

[1:48:33] We do not offer a utility department,

[1:48:34] so we have no control over those utilities.

[1:48:38] And everybody's made great points.

[1:48:42] The over building, the over development,

[1:48:46] probably doesn't affect Todd,

[1:48:47] probably didn't affect clan probably hardly at all probably didn't affect Debbie

[1:48:54] ones that affects are the ones that are really concerned and it affects not you

[1:49:02] yet just coming your way me specifically you specifically and for the public

[1:49:14] who's listening. There's not a thing we can do about it because the infrastructure has

[1:49:20] not changed in 50 years until the infrastructure changes. We can't do anything and that's

[1:49:28] what we're trying to do and I hope that you put yourself in our shoes where when it used

[1:49:35] to take us you know listen I know life changes, world changes, we all change. When it used

[1:49:42] to take me 20 minutes to get to the office and you know when I'm going to the office

[1:49:45] much anymore but now it takes me an hour and 20 minutes to go to the office.

[1:49:50] When you relate that to women taking their kids to daycare and to school and it's just

[1:49:56] the frustration level is through the roof.

[1:50:00] And it's amazing. I didn't know the 20, the 20 you just mentioned. You said four were in their district. We should just approve those and go on. I think that's a common thing. I'll be willing to bet you. I'll be willing to bet you that 70% of those were in my district. Well, and only that we have some right now that are just coming out of the pipeline. I might take that bet.

[1:50:27] Darryl made a good point. He was talking about the infrastructure hadn't been improving.

[1:50:31] in 50 years. But what a lot of people forget, we have no control over the infrastructure

[1:50:36] that most of these people are using. Infrastructure has improved in 50 years. We can't

[1:50:41] say that. Ask, don't water sue a commission. I'm talking about the road in front of the

[1:50:45] road. There has been road improvements. When you say it's never happened, our hasn't

[1:50:50] happened at all. But they specifically tell me what roads have been

[1:51:13] hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold

[1:51:23] not to do concurrency and easer in the overlay because there are you've got

[1:51:28] mutual aid agreements with with the other entities. Yes ma'am. I just wanted to

[1:51:33] accept the M.S. that's with us. Yes. But they are mutual aid agreements between

[1:51:37] my others for fire service. They have police. Our M.S. stake is gonna only

[1:51:44] improve by having partnerships like we have with mid-trusts. That's right.

[1:51:49] We're making such great progress with stuff like that. Here's a list of those

[1:51:53] 20, the four that are in the urban overlay approve those and move those on.

[1:52:00] Yeah, I'm definitely taking a bit with Darrell because the gym beside you is for most

[1:52:05] of them around.

[1:52:09] We'll set the council the specifics on it and we'll just follow up this conversation

[1:52:13] discussion.

[1:52:14] The next council meeting.

[1:52:15] Very good.

[1:52:16] And if anyone's interested, I think as council members, we should need to be the U.S. Census

[1:52:22] Bureau from 22 to 23 in growth.

[1:52:25] We're actually number 23 out of 46 counties, as far as fastest-growing counties.

[1:52:33] And, hello.

[1:52:35] From 22 to 23, the U.S. Census Bureau.

[1:52:37] So I think that since COVID, though, I mean, at least what the state news tells us all the time on TV, depending on what channel you look at,

[1:52:45] likes in the county and South Carolina, is one of the fastest-growing.

[1:52:48] That's why I try. Every time I read the paper or something, I try to send it out to y'all because this is what they're saying.

[1:52:52] I don't believe everything I read either but I'll do I'll do a little more research I mean I will because I'm I needed to

[1:52:59] Move this for myself

[1:53:01] From the 2020 census today. Yeah, not the 2022 to 23. I will look at the other thing that I started never finished is going back to the 70s

[1:53:10] In Lexington County growth and look at every 10 years, right? And I think you might be surprised. I think you might be surprised

[1:53:16] My next to be fairly quick

[1:53:18] All right.

[1:53:19] Okay.

[1:53:20] 2318.

[1:53:20] Plan Commission heard the amendments to the Landscape and Open Space Ordinance on April 18th.

[1:53:25] Vote unanimously to Council to proceed with these proposed amendments.

[1:53:29] If Council is okay with this, we'd like to have second reading at the same time.

[1:53:36] We have a second read for 2317 to keep both of these ordinances on track together.

[1:53:40] Okay.

[1:53:45] We need a vote for that.

[1:53:47] Or just.

[1:53:47] You can tell it was from the Planning Commission.

[1:53:49] It's from the Planning Commission.

[1:53:50] We need to vote for a second reading, but we'll postpone the second reading until 2317 has second reading.

[1:53:57] Motion to accept the planning commission's recommendation.

[1:54:01] Second.

[1:54:04] For 2318.

[1:54:05] 2318, yes ma'am.

[1:54:07] All right, so I have a motion by Vice Chair Hudson and a second by Councilman Wettstone.

[1:54:13] Any comment or question on 2318?

[1:54:19] Hearing none, all in favor?

[1:54:21] Anyone opposed?

[1:54:23] All right.

[1:54:23] No, they're not. Number six.

[1:54:25] Yeah, I'm going to let you keep this up.

[1:54:27] The town of South Hungary has reached out to us and due to staffing and, really, the

[1:54:35] cost is prohibitive for them to use an outside vendor for their building permits and inspections.

[1:54:41] You know, we've done this in the past and we've helped them out.

[1:54:43] Yeah.

[1:54:43] From a small timeframe, we've done it for six months or so forth.

[1:54:49] And the mayor reached out to me and asked me if we could help them out again.

[1:54:53] Again, it's staffing, it's, they have a vendor that they used.

[1:54:58] It's just very expensive.

[1:55:00] And so, you know, and but what she she said whenever I talked with Robbie about it and looking at it with the duration, you know, maybe looking at something about maybe three or four years as that's how long projects take to evolve once we get started in on. You want to add on to that. Yeah. Just a couple of things. The South Hungary, which is taught. Yeah. The permit is generating South Congress. We currently had staffing to and resources to accommodate those folks. As with our last.

[1:55:29] So assistance with South Kangaroo, this is going to be specific to building permits and inspections.

[1:55:36] Specific to those that we actually review and inspect, it will not include their zoning inspections,

[1:55:40] their property maintenance inspections, sign inspections, etc. Some municipalities have

[1:55:45] additional permits for like shingles or whatnot. We will not be doing that specifically. What is

[1:55:49] required for a building permit is what we review will permit and we will inspect. As what Len was

[1:55:54] mentioning too, the last agreement we had with South Kangaroo, I think it was a nine month agreement

[1:55:59] It becomes difficult from staff and from the contractors perspective and when you pull

[1:56:06] the permit within nine months, that project's not going to be finished yet.

[1:56:10] So then it's jurisdiction across, jurisdiction on agreements on who's going to finish it,

[1:56:14] who's going to permit it.

[1:56:16] Just so, just for the ease of our department and for contractors, as Lynn said, we'd like

[1:56:22] to have at least a three or four year agreement with them to move forward.

[1:56:26] Again, it's easier to implement something of that nature, and be honest with you again,

[1:56:34] the work loads are fine, they mention a fee associated.

[1:56:37] The last agreement we have in South Congress, we would accept our permit fees and our inspection

[1:56:43] fees is basically the means to fund our cost for service.

[1:56:48] I don't see any problem with as long as it's not impacting your staff for what we do on

[1:56:55] the county level. We do ask them to provide number of permits and inspections of it and I did

[1:57:00] provide that to Robbie look over and he felt comfortable with that. He said for six months.

[1:57:05] No, we're coming. We're doing it for three years. Three. Three. Three. Four years.

[1:57:13] And this is what like we've done is at least two times I think before. We've had some staff.

[1:57:20] We we the number of permits they have I'm so mad in general for building spaces this time. No, ma'am.

[1:57:27] They don't have a whole bunch of and they really need some stability. Yeah, I think we have

[1:57:32] Maybe so it is in and out in and out and it's a lot of lab. They try to I think a private

[1:57:38] Into this past time. I mean, no problem with that. I was just asking them for all our questions

[1:57:43] We need to vote on this we did

[1:57:45] Okay. Somebody make the motion.

[1:57:47] You have a time frame for sure.

[1:57:48] Three or four years.

[1:57:49] I make the motion to, how

[1:57:54] about we do it for three years?

[1:57:55] Yeah, let's do it for three.

[1:57:56] Oh, Dr. Smith.

[1:57:56] No, allow for three years for South Cone agrees for meaning.

[1:58:00] Six.

[1:58:01] Okay, I have a motion by, and it counts my wetstone,

[1:58:05] and second, I count some columns.

[1:58:06] And inspections.

[1:58:08] Any comments or questions?

[1:58:10] You got some?

[1:58:10] No, I'm just race man or what?

[1:58:13] Oh, I was angry.

[1:58:14] He was in hurry.

[1:58:19] Thank you all. Just a wee cap. You're going to get us the 20. Okay. You have those in the morning.

[1:58:27] All right. Next up is an update on roads and stormwater maintenance agreement with the municipality.

[1:58:35] There's a possible executive session for legal briefing. On matters protected by attorney client

[1:58:40] privilege and legal briefing and that would be subject to South Carolina Code

[1:58:45] Section 30-4-782. I'm going to start and say that Lynn and I went over to the

[1:58:55] town of Lexington and we had a meeting lasted about an hour and a half. It was a

[1:59:00] good meeting. It was a conciliatory. We had good conversations. We talked about

[1:59:07] So what they thought that they needed from us, what they wanted from us.

[1:59:14] We talked about how they could help us in the future with some issues that we found

[1:59:18] very difficult, which is impact fees in the need to use those for roads.

[1:59:23] I felt like we left their own good terms with an understanding that there were more meetings

[1:59:29] and more discussions to be had.

[1:59:31] They had a specific request to put the original agreement back in place as we worked on 14

[1:59:41] individual contracts because each of the 14 municipalities have different needs.

[1:59:47] And Lynn's got some more specific details.

[1:59:49] I just wanted to say that I felt like it was overall, it was a very good meeting.

[1:59:54] And I concur with that, it's a very good, the municipalities that were

[2:00:00] Election ten coast. Of course, they would have host. Irmo, West Columbia, Swancy, Chapin,

[2:00:06] Batesburg-Lizel, Casey, and Springdale. Some of the municipality's concerns with the proposed

[2:00:13] agreement that we've put out there is that it calls us some confusion with home rule.

[2:00:19] It removes the autonomy of the municipality when it comes to annexation.

[2:00:25] Some of the things is that they're really concerned about their representation to their

[2:00:31] city or town as well with us putting the annexation requirement there.

[2:00:38] They think that there could potentially be some legal issues with the proposed agreement.

[2:00:43] We did ask them to provide us with the documentation of that and they have done so.

[2:00:48] we have provided it to legal for maybe some discussion with an exact conversation, and they

[2:00:57] also feel that the real issue that we're trying to solve is roads and infrastructure, and

[2:01:04] they want to help with that.

[2:01:07] They felt that it was all about traffic, and they said they're committed to working with us

[2:01:14] and helping us address that.

[2:01:17] They also agree that one agreement for the entire county doesn't work whenever, you know,

[2:01:23] maybe Irmo is in Richmond and Lachden County is not the same as KC or West Columbia, which

[2:01:29] is not the same as Swansea or Springdale.

[2:01:32] So they were requesting as Beth was saying maybe 14 unique contracts with each other.

[2:01:39] So are with us.

[2:01:41] So the bottom line, as Ben said, that they did have an ask, and that ask was that we

[2:01:47] changed the dates, or we put the original agreement back in place while we work with each

[2:01:53] municipality on a specific agreement with that municipality.

[2:01:59] Ben encouraged them to reach out to the council members and to have discussion.

[2:02:05] and I feel they're committed to working with us

[2:02:09] on getting something that's in place

[2:02:11] to work for everyone and they did say that.

[2:02:13] So overall, I felt really good about it.

[2:02:17] And a lot of good collaboration.

[2:02:23] Look, you know, all of you know,

[2:02:25] I wrote up the document, I presented it to council,

[2:02:28] I have no problem with what they're asking

[2:02:30] because this really, it did,

[2:02:33] was it their own way to go about it,

[2:02:35] maybe, maybe not, but it did what it needed to do.

[2:02:40] It's getting everybody on the same page now.

[2:02:43] It's making everybody realize that we have to work together.

[2:02:47] Everybody's seeing that there are bigger issues, you know,

[2:02:51] and we're hearing from each other now something

[2:02:53] that we really didn't hear a whole bunch beforehand.

[2:02:57] Did it stir up a lot of hornet's nested stuff?

[2:03:01] Yes it did.

[2:03:02] but at the end of the day we're all able to sit back and I've said it before

[2:03:07] sometimes we have to jump out the box but then we jump right back in. I have no

[2:03:11] problem with the 14 individual things as Lynn made a good point and best

[2:03:17] made a good point. Everybody is unique. Gaston is the only one that has signed a

[2:03:24] new contract. That's good because Gaston is stricter than we are and there's only

[2:03:28] and they require a half acre, so the new contract works well for them, as far as the other ones,

[2:03:37] as long as they're close to us, you know-

[2:03:41] I think when we get down to the specifics about the contract, we've got to go into exactly-

[2:03:44] Yeah, I think as long as they're close to us, it'll be good, but you know, as far as putting old

[2:03:51] policy back in place until we work them out. I don't have any problem with that, you know,

[2:03:56] So now that we're all on a talking level and we're willing to negotiate.

[2:04:02] I have a little bit of heartburn to that because I don't want it to drag out.

[2:04:07] Well, you got to put time frame on it, I mean, you know, but that's when you bring them

[2:04:11] to the table and ask them what, how long do you need, you know, three months, six months?

[2:04:20] Well, we're not conflating two different things.

[2:04:23] I mean, I think right now is we just want to talk about the road maintenance agreement.

[2:04:27] Yeah, yeah.

[2:04:28] And I think after the road maintenance grant, and I wasn't there, I'm just trying to understand,

[2:04:34] but after the road maintenance agreement can be agreed upon that we kind of do a reset,

[2:04:39] then we are to work towards any amendments to that agreement that may entertain or be part of

[2:04:48] our development in zone is that is that yeah what I took away from the meeting

[2:05:00] I have no problem putting it back in place for some. I especially don't have any problem putting in place for the urban overlay, so those three. I may not have a problem put it in for another one. I specifically want to hear about the 2040 plan as it pertains to the rural area out this way before I just say, sure. I mean, I really want to see what that has to say about this area out here. What I am willing to say at this point is,

[2:05:29] The Batesburg-Lisville has a project that they already have that meets our standards.

[2:05:34] I'm willing to have Jeff write a contract tomorrow, send it out to him.

[2:05:39] We'll sign it. We'll take the road down, let them get on with that project right away so that they're not being held up

[2:05:44] at that. It's a one-off at this moment.

[2:05:47] If there are other projects, as we're trying to look at the 2040 for the Western District,

[2:05:52] if they want to tell, let us know. We can do one-off agreements in those

[2:05:56] so we're not stalling development that is favorable for all of us.

[2:06:01] I'm happy to put that in place.

[2:06:04] But before I'm just willing for the Western overlay district to say,

[2:06:09] carte blanche, I'm ready to put back the old one.

[2:06:12] I'm going to hear what the 2040 plan has.

[2:06:14] And I recognize that Robbie said he just got that like two or three days ago

[2:06:18] and he's going to send it out and we can talk about it the next meeting.

[2:06:21] So, for me, at least, for the purposes of what we're trying to do comprehensively, I'm

[2:06:28] fine with putting it back in place for the Urban Overlay, and you'll start working

[2:06:32] on your amendments.

[2:06:35] We can talk about ERMO based on the fact that they have very little area to develop what

[2:06:42] they're going to do, and they're not part of the 2040 plan, but as far as the 2040 plan

[2:06:47] goes if Facebook leads but wants to get on with that one project I'm happy I said

[2:06:52] something to our attorney earlier about drafting up a contract to get that one

[2:06:56] going ahead and moving and anything that the other municipalities have right

[2:07:00] now that if they want to tell us if it's something that you know comports with

[2:07:05] what we're trying to do then we can do one-off still knows until we get past the

[2:07:09] 2040 plan and then we can reevaluate what the Western overlay is going to look

[2:07:13] like. That's me. Yeah, because in my area, in my area, you know, there's only one development

[2:07:21] that's going on right now that any of my municipalities could even think about getting

[2:07:26] to annexation-wise. They and don't have anything that's coming right now that they can't, that

[2:07:32] they can get to outside of what they've already got. Um, Gaston, like I said, they signed a new agreement

[2:07:38] because they're they're more stringent than we are. Swats is the only one who has one that is

[2:07:44] close enough for them to annex, but their own planning commission is kind of on the verge of

[2:07:52] denying that. They don't like it. They created their own quasi-body for that. So, you know, I'm not

[2:07:59] really worried about, you know, that could be a one-off if we had to do it.

[2:08:05] Cheerleading to enlighten what you said, I think that's a very reasonable approach, and

[2:08:10] I think it does show good faith on our part.

[2:08:13] So what you said is, would you be an agreement for us and committed to allow at least Casey

[2:08:21] Westclam, you may be Springdale, for us to agree to reset or reinstate our road agreement

[2:08:29] today?

[2:08:30] We do that by vote.

[2:08:32] I would be willing to entertain that motion and vote on that for this great decision.

[2:08:37] I do think that vote should put it back in the place, but the dates have to change, and then, obviously, our attorneys, we'll have to.

[2:08:44] I think, at that point, if we can, I'd just like to move that we reinstate our past agreement with new dates for the municipalities of KC, West Columbia, and Springdale.

[2:08:59] All right, I have a motion by Councilman Cole in a second, but I

[2:09:11] haven't heard from them yet and those are to come.

[2:09:15] So I want to make, I don't want to, I don't want to put the cart forward horse between those folks.

[2:09:19] But I do know I think that every municipality's are, I think in all tandem to accept the road agreement as it stood prior.

[2:09:27] Yes.

[2:09:28] Am I mistaken in that?

[2:09:29] I think that you speak for Springdale.

[2:09:32] I think what concerns me a little bit, and maybe it's just me, but what you said as

[2:09:38] far as what the municipalities were asking for, we're going to piecemeal it with approving

[2:09:46] three, but not approving the others.

[2:09:49] The others have to come to us.

[2:09:51] No, no.

[2:09:52] I want to wait here with the 2040 play and says, and that'll be on the next agenda.

[2:09:55] Everybody's going to have to have their own individually signed agreement.

[2:10:00] Absolutely, I get that. Even if we've just said countywide, we're going to re-instate the, if nothing that ever changed, right? They still have to individually sign those agreements individually with us. Is that correct? Yeah, it's always been that way. But do you, I mean, do you have four, we do have 14 individual contracts that they sign for it to be in place? Yes.

[2:10:28] Do you piece mail or do you put a stipulation in there that ending the results of the

[2:10:37] 2040?

[2:10:39] What does that actually mean?

[2:10:41] I think that we look at instituting it back for the three larger ones and if you want

[2:10:49] to use the word piece mail to the 2040, yes, I think we stay on that path.

[2:10:55] Well, and again, so I would stipulate, let's vote on those three.

[2:10:58] We've got a motion by Councilman Cullham.

[2:11:00] We have a second by Councilman Weston, any comment or question?

[2:11:09] I'm still confused about Lexington.

[2:11:11] They're much bigger than the Springdale.

[2:11:14] Yeah, but I think what Chair Lee is saying is that part of their jurisdictional areas are

[2:11:21] in that Western overlay.

[2:11:22] in order, so they're kind of in between.

[2:11:25] There were a little urban.

[2:11:27] I mean, we can't approve for half of the town

[2:11:30] and not the other half.

[2:11:31] So I think that would come once I think after she.

[2:11:35] I want to make sure they get the right message,

[2:11:37] it's my point.

[2:11:38] I think we're saying, let the town of Lexington

[2:11:40] gets the right message.

[2:11:43] We're basically just out of three in the Eastern overlay

[2:11:45] is what I'm saying.

[2:11:46] We talk about our zoning hazel and hour.

[2:11:50] So I talked to her yesterday.

[2:11:52] All's are good. I think they're good and we're going to talk about that the next meeting the 2040 plan. We are

[2:12:02] All right, all in favor

[2:12:05] Anyone opposed? Thank you

[2:12:07] Well, so people that are listening do understand

[2:12:10] Just because we didn't read and so we're not we're still taking care of the roads

[2:12:14] I mean that's what a lot of people don't understand is we're still obligated to the roads. It's just any

[2:12:20] new roads

[2:12:22] you know they'll be a one-off if somebody has to have something right now.

[2:12:25] Right, if there's something that's pending that a municipality is waiting on they can come

[2:12:29] to us. Because I think that's where some of the misconfusion is in the rural areas is oh we're

[2:12:35] not going to make it. No, we have an obligation to those rooms. Yeah.

[2:12:41] The panel is already okay with it. I haven't talked to be in

[2:12:45] since the meeting last week, but what I'm saying is that they're looking to, she says

[2:12:50] she's good, we're going here with that development, but I would say to get them with

[2:12:58] land to get a contract in place so they can go ahead and move forward with that development

[2:13:02] because it's very close to ours.

[2:13:05] And then I would openly invite the other municipalities to the next meeting so that they can hear

[2:13:13] the 2040 plan laid out what the results are or they can watch it on Spectrum 1302 or they can

[2:13:19] watch the video afterwards and then we'll move forward with the Western section of the county.

[2:13:25] Or if there are any specific projects that they need to move forward with like B&L,

[2:13:31] if they will get with Lynn Sturkey and you know we can do single contracts with that as we figure out

[2:13:37] what the Western looks like, okay? Alright, so is there anything else on that?

[2:13:45] Okay.

[2:13:48] So discussion request for an agricultural use assessment application extension. Do we

[2:13:57] need an executive session on that for a legal briefing? Yes, we do. Alright, so then items

[2:14:03] Number 8 and number 9 would be a discussion of requests for an agricultural use assessment application extension possible executive we're going into executive session for legal briefing for matters protected by attorney client privilege as well as an update on pending litigation and both of those are pursuant to South Carolina code 30-4-70 I would imagine that we'll be in here somewhere around 20 or 30 minutes.

[2:14:31] So I would take a motion to go into the executive session.

[2:14:35] I have a motion by Councilman Wettstone and a second by Council Lady Summers.

[2:14:40] That motion is asked your lady, Carrie, stated to go into executive session.

[2:14:46] All in favor?

[2:14:48] Anyone opposed?

[2:14:50] All right.

[2:14:51] Yes, I got me on that before.

[2:15:23] We have a motion to go back to the road's agreement, hold on.

[2:15:36] What number was that? Number 10.

[2:15:45] I would like to vote for us to reinstate the old municipality for the town of Armo.

[2:15:55] Now can I also do the same for the town of B&L, even though that's headed that direction?

[2:16:03] We want to wait for the 2040 plan.

[2:16:05] But the 2040 plan is not in place for Armo.

[2:16:08] Okay. I got you. So next meeting. Next meeting we're going to get the update on the

[2:16:12] 2040 plan and then go from there. Okay. All right. So you made a motion to reinstate

[2:16:19] the road cement in its agreement from 1978 for the town of Rome with the new dates.

[2:16:25] Okay. All right. So I have a motion by Council Lady Whistinger and a second back Council

[2:16:30] and Winston, any further comment or question?

[2:16:36] All the favour.

[2:16:37] Anyone opposed?

[2:16:39] All right.

[2:16:40] Does anything else, any business, anything else for this?

[2:16:46] Not we are adjourned.

04-23-2024 County Council Committee Meeting

Transcript