Machine transcript of the county's live stream - raw and unedited, so expect misspellings of names. For the readable version see the recap; the official record is the county's minutes.
Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Good evening everyone. Welcome out tonight to this Kershaw County Council meeting, May 12th, 2026. So glad to um to have everyone here tonight. And I just want to start off the meeting by saying thank you so much for the prayers for my dad, Joe Connell. Uh he is recovering and we have felt those prayers and support from the community. I'm extremely grateful and we give all the glory to God. Uh we've been called to order. That brings us to the invocation, which I'll offer tonight and then we'll have a pledge of allegiance. Dear heavenly Father, we thank thee for our many blessings. We seek mercy from thee, grace and justice in our lives. Thankful for thy healing power upon thy servant, Joe Connell, and for those that I don't know by name in the community, around the world, and in the nation that need healing and lifting up, please pour out thy blessings upon them. Even on this agenda as we have uh proclamations related to physical infirmities, please heal and lift up those that need thy assistance and comfort. We seek thy spirit tonight as we deliberate and consider the matters that are before this Kershaw County Council. Please help our activities and our efforts be pleasing unto thee. Please help us be good examples in our lives. Help us love and serve our families and those in the community and make good decisions in building up thy kingdom. We thank thee in all things and say this in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> [clears throat] >> Thank you everyone for your participation. Gentlemen, that moves us to item number four, adoption of the agenda. Do we have any motions or amendments? I have an amendment. When the motion is called, well, I'll make a motion, but I want to make an amendment as well, Mr. Chair. Okay. Uh What's your motion? I think we have one motion to delete an item and one motion to add an item. I'm happy to take them separately or together. Well, I think probably separately because the deletion is going to be mine. Yes, sir, go ahead. >> If I could, if you go to uh discussions, uh B9B, I'd like to delete voter registration of elected delegation officers. Motion is to delete item 9B, placed on by Mr. Jones. We have a second. Any further discussion on the motion? And Mr. Sammy Tucker, do we have you remotely? Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, I'm here. Any discussion? No, sir. Hearing none remotely, any discussion from those in person? Seeing none, we'll move it to a vote. All in favor of deleting 9B, raise your hand. It's unanimous for those who are in person and voting. Mr. Tucker, how do you vote? I vote yes. All right, 9B is deleted. As far as that motion goes, we're still um in the motion period. Any other motions? Mr. Chair, I have a motion for an addition to the agenda. I move that uh we have a proclamation or I have a proclamation that I would like to have approved tonight from North Central High School strength team. Uh this proclamation, they could not be here tonight and with school ending at the end of the week, it's uh with the seniors, it's kind of an exigent circumstance and I would like to get this approved tonight so I can present it to them at the school Thursday morning. Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second before I make a finding? We have the second from Mr. Thomason. Um I'll make a finding of exigent circumstances based on the time sensitive nature of the matter. Adding a matter to the agenda that requires a vote needs at least five votes for a super majority just for uh the record of for the public's benefit. We have a motion before us. Any discussion from those who are uh present? Seeing none, Mr. Tucker, any discussion remotely? No, sir. I vote yes. We have a yes vote remotely from Mr. Tucker. For those who are present and voting, raise your hand if you're in favor. All right, that amendment passes. Now we're back to the original um motion on the agenda. Do we have a motion to adopt the agenda as amended? I'll make a motion. We have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. We have a second. Any discussion from those who are present? Seeing none, Mr. Tucker, any discussion? Hearing none. >> I vote yes. That is a yes on approving the agenda as amended by Mr. Tucker. For all who are present voting, raise your hand if you're in favor. Ms. Hannah, it is unanimous and the agenda is adopted as amended. And we'll do that proclamation as 5B. >> [clears throat] >> Okay? All right, gentlemen, that takes us to item number 5A, first proclamation we have recognizing the month of May as ALS month. Placed on the agenda by Councilman Cato and Jones. Uh Mr. Cato, do you have a motion? I do. I have a motion that we accept this proclamation for ALS month uh proving May as ALS month and uh I have the proclamation ready here. Yes, sir. Is there a second? I second. Mr. Jones has the second. You've got the floor before we take a vote. So, I spoke [snorts] with Mr. Jones and uh and and with the Sheriff Lee Bone and and we come up with this proclamation and to honor to honor these individuals tonight, but all all people that are suffering from this horrible disease. And tonight I'd like to read this proclamation honoring Jack Lenarmstead, Phil Crawford, Rick Bailey, Barbara Jones, and Amy [clears throat] Brown. Bear with me as I pronounce some of these words tonight, but this proclamation is to recognize amyotrophic lateral sclerosis awareness month for the month of May. Whereas ALS also commonly known as Lou Gehrig's disease is a progressive fatal neurodegenerative disease in which a person's brain loses connection with their muscles, slowly reducing a person's ability to walk, talk, eat, and eventually breathe. And whereas thousands of new amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or ALS cases are reported every year, and estimate estimates show that 90 every 90 minutes someone's diagnosed with ALS and someone passes away from ALS. Whereas on average patients diagnosed with ALS survive only two to five years from the time of diagnosis. And whereas the exact cause of ALS are unknown and there is no known cure for ALS. And whereas people who have served in the military are more likely to develop ALS and die from the disease than those with no history of military service. And whereas securing access to new therapies, durable medical equipment, and communication technologies is a vital importance to people living with ALS. And whereas clinical trials play a pivotal role in evaluating new treatments, enhancing quality of life, and fostering assistive technologies for those living with ALS. And whereas the ALS Association is the largest philanthropic fundraiser of ALS research globally and has committed more than 154 million to support more than 550 projects across the United States and 18 other countries. And whereas the ALS Association is committed to make make ALS livable and cure for everyone everywhere and whereas ALS Awareness Month provides an opportunity to increase public awareness of the dire circumstances of people living with ALS. And acknowledge the terrible impact this disease has on those individuals and their families and support research to eradicate this disease. Now therefore, Kershaw County Council does hereby proclaim the month of May 2026 as ALS Month Awareness Month. We call upon all Americans to join in supporting ALS research, advocating for increased funding, and standing in solidarity solidarity with those affected by the relentless disease. That's proclamation. Any further discussion before we vote? We can have discussion after of course as well. See none in person. I I I would like to say a couple of words. I I do too. I'll do it after the vote. Okay, we can go ahead and move to the vote. We'll wait till after the vote. I just wasn't sure. Thank you. Mr. Tucker, we're going to go ahead and have the vote and then have further discussion. For those who are present and voting, all in favor of the proclamation, raise your hand. It's unanimous for those who are present and voting. Mr. Tucker, how do you vote? Yes. That's a yes remotely from Mr. Tucker for the discussion. Mr. Jones. Mr. Chair, um this has a special place in my heart. >> [cough and clears throat] >> Three of my colleagues at the Sheriff's Office and they were also colleagues of of Lee's and and Rock's and several others. Phil, Rick, and Barbara worked with us for many years at Sheriff's Office. >> [clears throat] >> But out of the three, I guess I was a little bit closer to Phil. And when this disease hit Phil, uh living up next to Phil, I visited him regularly and I seen the effects of this disease and I seen the effects on his family. This is a horrible disease and we have Ms. Jackie who's here with us tonight and um I thank you for coming. And for all the others and the families and and their friends and the caretakers that take care of these people, I just want to say a special thank you for what y'all do, for standing behind them. It's it's really it's really tough to see your friends and and family go through something like this. So, I'm honored to be a part of this tonight. Mr. Chair, if I may. Mr. Jones, yes. I uh was notified about this I guess maybe last week, the weeks seem to run together sometimes. And uh the Sheriff had called me, Misty, along with Sheriff She works with Sheriff's Office and they said that they wanted they had this lady who they wanted to do this proclamation for. So, I went [clears throat] over and I got to meet her and what a blessing it was for me just to be able to sit and talk with her and uh that's Ms. Jacqueline and she actually called yesterday. I think we talked for 20-30 minutes on the phone. You know, and I I really appreciated and enjoyed that and you sharing your experiences with me and I'm honored to be here tonight to do that and have your beautiful family here. And I'm going to say this too, going to Barbara Jones, oh my gosh. We a lot of us here we knew we knew Barbara from years ago. I had no idea and I never really thought about what she had when she died. I just knew she had passed away and she had battled some terrific disease and it's I was honored of that and and and Rick Bailey. If you met him, you knew him. Rick was a good man, deputy sheriff and also Philip Crawford. I didn't know the name of the disease Philip went through but but I can only imagine what the family has gone through. But um Phil, Barbara, Rick, Amy Brown which Amy was here a while back, I believe quite a few months ago. And I I had no idea she was going through that. And she she was brought to us a We need to keep all these in in Miss Jacqueline again, it's been a blessing. We need to keep all these people in our prayers cuz you know not only are they having to fight this disease and these uh dysfunctional neurological issues every day of their life but their families are are part of it as well too. And Godspeed, I have you in my prayers. I love you and I mean that from the bottom of my heart. And I know what you're going through. And if I can ever think about it if any of you want to ever talk to me, I'd be glad to get together and talk and share some war stories. But God bless y'all and I am honored to be here tonight and I'm so glad that your dad is doing better as well. He's Is he wearing the Hawaiian shirt at the hospital? As we speak. Yeah. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councilman Jones. Council members who are present, any further discussion? Mr. Tucker, any discussion remotely? Uh no, sir. I'm going to be quiet tonight. Okay. Mr. Cato, how would you like to present this? Do you have anybody you want to have come up or >> We we have a proclamation for each individual family. With the amount of people that we've got here tonight, I think it might be best if we did it individually. Uh Sheriff, did you have something you would like to say before we Yes, please. >> I'm sorry, Sheriff. Yeah, absolutely, yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Cato. I appreciate it. Everybody always forgets about me. I work on a budget time, sir. Only a budget time. You know, I think you've already said a lot about the uh three employees we had there at the Sheriff's Office um that we worked with and that we all miss. Um extended family to us. Uh Amy Brown uh just reckon I think we actually had an Amy Brown Day uh that y'all y'all made here. Uh Ms. Jackie reached out to us recently and uh wanted to share her story and uh wanted to inspire others and I can Hey, we went out, Mr. Jones and I, we drove out there to her house to visit her for the first time and we went out there hoping to offer her a little comfort, hoping to give her a little something to to brighten her day up, but when we pulled up in the driveway and that smile on her face, I'll tell you right now, I don't remember nothing else that happened that day. >> [laughter] >> That made my day complete and uh I want to thank her for that. You know, we go out there trying to give her some comfort and she gave us comfort. Uh we really felt felt good being around her. It was really special lady, special day and and and we actually with Misty there and and Rock, we we saved the moment and uh we got a little picture here we want to give you as well as something else. This is a Sheriff version of a proclamation that we want to present you today, too. So, um that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you very much, Sheriff Boone. Um Mr. Cato, anyone else we need to hear from? >> [applause] >> Mr. Chairman. Which one do you want to come up first? I don't have all the names. Miss Jackie, if you'd like to come up with anyone um that you would like to bring up. Or if you'd like to say a few words. >> Mr. Cato would like to present you the uh proclamation and you're welcome to say a few words. I'm not sure that we have a remote mic but we can pull that one down to the extent you need it. Yeah, we we do have Can we use this remote mic, please? I'd like to briefly say um to all the families that are dealing with this disease, just God be with you and >> Test. uh li- live [clears throat] live life beautifully and one day at a time. God bless you all. Yes, Miss Jackie. I'm sorry, someone's speaking. I can't understand what you're saying. Yeah. Sure. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Let Let everybody stand up this >> is here to support Zachary. >> [applause] >> Anything Miss Jackie would like to say or the family on her behalf? Thank you. You guys um Yeah. >> [laughter] >> I know, right? Um I just want the thing um thank you. That everyone is amazing that love and support. Um I'm making a man. Um you know and when you walk into a adopt often and they tell you and um they you have two to five years to live. >> [clears throat] >> You're on 15 years old. I didn't But God is faithful. Yes, he And 15 years later Oh, yeah. I'm 65 and next month God willing He has been good to me and I thank everyone that's here. Um it takes a village. And I told Mrs. Jimmy I said, "I didn't know how many people I'm going to invite but I got a village. And each one of them has helped me. My son, Chris he came down in 2017 five years into my diagnosis. >> [clears throat] >> Um I felt God needed me in South Carolina. I'm from Virginia. And our family said, "You're crazy. You're leaving everything and everybody that you know. But God led me here and it's been amazing. When you know God, he's faithful and he's been tremendously good to me. I still live alone. Um >> [clears throat] >> and I have a lot of caregiver support, neighbors, family, church family, prayers, um people that come and cook for me. And I want to say thank you to each and every one of you. And Sheriff Bottom >> [applause] >> Sheriff Bottom Thank you, Mr. Rocky. Yeah. The Sheriff said it best when he text me on a message and he said, "We're better together." So, I one thing that I can say to you all ALS doesn't care what color your skin, how much you make, whether you're rich or you're poor, whether you're old or young, whether you um whether you're wealthy, you're male or female. And so, it doesn't discriminate. And so, I say all of that to say that's how we should be. We should not discriminate, but love one another cuz we are all better together and we are family. [laughter] So, I love you all and I want to thank him. for the >> [applause] [applause] >> Sheriff Bonner, I think you're right. Between those words and her smile, it says it all. Mr. Tucker, um the family's moving into position for a picture. Feel free to uh comment, please. I just want to say amen after that sermon. There's a lot of amens going on in the room right now, Mr. Tucker. Thank you. Okay. 1 2 3 and now ahead. Thank you, Ms. Jackie, and her family and supporters who are here tonight. We're very grateful for you. Is there anyone here for the Jones family tonight? Anyone here for the Jones family? How about the Brown family? Anyone here for the Amy Brown family tonight? How about for the Rick Bailey family? Anyone here tonight? And then how about uh for the Crawford family? Anyone here for the Crawford family? >> [laughter] >> If you want to. Okay. >> [laughter] [clears throat] >> Ladies and gentlemen, let's give one final hand to those who are being honored tonight. >> [applause] >> As everyone's getting settled and we're moving on to the next agenda item, I'll just mention that um I've been reminded most recently of how crucial your health and your family [clears throat] are. And we've seen both of those issues on display tonight. Uh family that love each other, reliance and faith in God, and renewed health. It's just an inspiration. I'm grateful for the spirit and uh feeling that y'all brought to the room tonight. For those who are here for the ALS proclamations, you feel free to stay, but you don't have to stay for the rest of the meeting. Um we'll give you a moment to clear out if you want to. >> [cough] [cough] [clears throat] >> All right, as everyone's clearing out, I'd like to thank uh Sheriff Bone again and Councilman Jones and Councilman Cato for putting that proclamation uh 5A on the agenda. That moves us on to the next item on the agenda as amended, proclamation 5B. North Central proclamation related to achievement of student athletes. Do Do have a motion? Yes, Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion that we accept this proclamation for North Central High School strength team for their third consecutive state championship. Is there a second? >> Second. We have a second. You've got the floor. >> [snorts] >> Uh real quick, uh Mr. Chair, and I wanted to do something for this weightlifting team, the strength team at North Central. This is, as I said, their third consecutive year. I won't read through the whole proclamation. Um but but Coach Ryan, uh McDonald and Steve uh Dennis Stevens took these guys to the state again this year. Um and these guys come home with their third consecutive state championship, and I think that says a lot for this team, for this coaching staff, and I hope to get to um They couldn't be here tonight. They've got the athletic banquet. The seniors are going to be gone by the end of the week, so I hope to get to present this to them maybe Thursday morning at North Central High School. Thank you for that. Let's go ahead and move it to a uh vote, and then we'll have any further discussion after that. All in favor who are present and voting for this proclamation, raise your hand. It's unanimous, Ms. Hannah, for those who are present and voting. Mr. Tucker, how do you vote on the proclamation? I vote yes, Mr. Chair. It's unanimous, Ms. Hannah. Um Mr. Cato. I have no further. Okay, Mr. Thompson, you have the second. Any discussion? Yeah, thank you, Mr. Cato, for bringing this up, and congratulations on 3 years in a row. That's a huge accomplishment. Thank you. Council members who are present, any further discussion? >> [clears throat] >> Seeing none, Mr. Tucker, any discussion? No, sir. All right, hearing none, we'll move on. We've already voted on it. It is approved. Thank you so much, Mr. Cato. This moves us to public comments, Mr. DeBose. There are two speakers on public comment sign up. Uh first speaker is Eve Carlin. The subject is Kershaw County hate crimes ordinance. Okay, Ms. Carlin, as you're coming up, just a reminder that public comment is a time for council to hear from the public. It's not a question and answer. Interested in hearing from you and you've got 5 minutes. Yes, Ms. Carlin. Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Kershaw County Council members. Uh I am Eve Carlin. I am a candidate for the South Carolina House of Representative District 70, but I am also a community activist here in Kershaw County. And tonight I am representing a number of groups to propose to you to pass a Kershaw County hate crimes ordinance. And what I have in front of me is 95 pages of petitions with 683 signatures from Kershaw County residents, some of whom are here tonight. Would you all stand up? >> [applause] >> This is a collaborative effort with the Kershaw County NAACP. Uh Ramona Fletcher, the political chair of the committee there at the Kershaw County NAACP. We have Anne Davis here from Concerned Citizens. We have Gwen Shannon here who is the chair of the Democratic Party in Kershaw County. So, I will just read the petition, which has a draft of the Kershaw County hate crimes ordinance that we hope you all will pass. It says, "Whereas, the residents and visitors of Kershaw County are diverse collection of individuals representing a variety of races, colors, creeds, religions, ancestries, sexual orientations, genders, gender identities, physical and mental disabilities, and national origins, all of whom the county values and wishes to protect. And whereas crimes that are motivated by bias or hate towards any person or persons in whole or in part because of the actual or perceived of races, colors, creeds, religion, ancestry, sexual orientations, genders, genders identities, physical and mental disabilities, and national origins of any person, hate crimes are an affront to the community held values of the citizens of Kershaw County. And whereas the state, South Carolina, has yet to adopt statewide hate crimes legislation and is only one of two states in the country who have yet to adopt such protections for its citizens and visitors. And whereas Kershaw County desires to protect its residents and visitors and deter hate crimes and provide appropriate penalties in addition to any punishments for the underlying violations. Whereas we, the residents of Kershaw County, call upon the Kershaw County Council, the governing body of Kershaw County, South Carolina, to enact a hate crimes ordinance. It can be called the Kershaw County Hate Crimes Ordinance. So the signatures that I have here are 683 signatures from residents of Kershaw County on 95 petition sheets. So I just want to present it all to the Kershaw County Council and thank you for your consideration. Thanks for coming out tonight, Ms. Garland. Appreciate you. >> [applause] >> Mr. Gabo. The next speaker is Lynn Conto. Ms. Conto. >> Yes, Ms. Canto. Good evening. First of all, I want to say everybody in this room cares about Kershaw County. And that's important. It's just not everybody has the same goals. The city of Camden and Kershaw County has been in existence since 1733. The historic charm of this tourist-friendly town must be preserved. This picturesque, quaint community deserves serious consideration when each home is built and each business is approved. You see, in 1816, there was about 1,000 people and 250 homes in Camden. In 1900, there were 2,441 people and about 24,000 people in Kershaw County with a growth of about 1,441 people. In the year 2000, there were 6,682 people in Camden and 52,000 people in the county with about 22,000 units of living in Kershaw County. That's a growth of about 27,000 people in 100 years. In 2020, we've had 7,788 people in the city of Camden and 65,000 people in the county with about 25,000 households. Growth of about 12,756 people a year. If there are 500 permits, let's just say, a requested a year with about 2.5 people per household, that's about 5,000 homes in 10 years with about 12,500 more people using utilities. And 10,000 homes in 20 years, which is about 25,000 more people driving on our roads. And in 50 years, that's about 25,000 more homes with about 62,500 more people impacting public safety. And in 100 years, that's 50,000 homes with about 125,000 more people impacting our environment. It all matters. Things we need to consider with all this growth are historic preservation, environmental impact, traffic management and congestion, school capacity, public safety recruitment and challenges, infrastructure management including water, sewer, electric, internet, and more, an up-to-date ordinance. Let me repeat, up-to-date ordinance that shape development standards to complement Kershaw County's comprehensive plan goals. We require comprehensive impact studies for large developments. This must be conducted by the county and not the developer. Open space, buffering, and screening, preserving green space, wetlands, and wildlife protection, and land conservation need to be a priority in Kershaw County to sustain our environment. Our builders and developers are important. They could have a faster, transparent, and more predictable system if the County Council allows a permit allocation system with new technology and a fee estimator tool. Installing concurrency ordinances would ensure the infrastructure is in place for growth. It is essential for permit caps and conservation related ordinance. Please Please Please vote to pass the permit allocation system and open space buffering and screening green space ordinances, but don't stop there. Consider strict wildlife, wetlands, and conservation programs. They aren't making more land. Where will the wildlife go in the next 100 years with 50,000 more houses and 125,000 more people? Who is the wildlife's voice? Remember, we are the stewards of Earth and all living creatures. You will be setting the standard for tomorrow by addressing these needs today. Thank you. Thanks for coming out, Ms. Conto. >> [applause] >> Thank you for everyone who participated in public hearing tonight. Seems like there's a large swath of people that were here for public hearing. Feel free to stay throughout the rest of meeting if you like. If you need clear out, feel free to do that as well. That moves us on to the next item on the agenda. We're on to item number seven, which is a series of public hearings. Mr. Debose, could you update me on how many folks are signed up for public hearings and any items under number seven that don't have anyone signed up for public hearing. Mr. Chair, there are five speakers signed up for item 7A, the building permit allocation system. There are two speakers signed up for 7I, which is the impact assessment text amendment. For the other items, there are no speakers that have signed the sign-in sheets. Okay. What I'm going to do is take items 7B, C, D, E, F, G, and H for one public hearing since no one signed up, confirming with legal counsel that that that's appropriate. Um and we'll have one public hearing on all the items for which no one has signed up, and then we will address A and I if we have no objection from the council. I believe that'd be appropriate to open and close the public hearing on all of those items collectively. All right. So, I'll I'll go ahead and announce those and then open the public hearing. Uh this would be item number 7B. This is amendment to the ZLDR regarding section 533, major subdivision design standards. This will be C, an amendment related to section 354 buffering screening open space and landscaping regulations. Item 7D, amendment to the ZLDR regarding 5314 sidewalks and paths to require sidewalks on both sides regarding right-of-way. Item 7E, this is uh public hearing to amend the ZLDR on 36 regarding on-street parking and major subdivisions and other street parking regulations. Item 7F, an amendment related to section 512-13 related to the naming of easements. 7G, an amendment related to multiple sections 52 uh 4-7 regarding financial guarantees and performance related thereto. 527-6 regarding performance of financial guarantees uh for final plat approval. 5212-3 to revise existing provisions related to improvement guarantees. And then lastly, 7H, this is related to an amendment of the ZLDR under section 52 land development submittal requirements and approvals, planned development and large acreage single family residential subdivision submittals, planned development uh districts known as PDDs, minor and major group uh development submittals, and additional clarification and guidance for viewers. And so, this initial public hearing again will be for those items which were just enumerated that have no one signed up for. I'll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on those items, please feel free to do so now. Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing for those items only. And that leaves us with item number 7A and item number 7I. Mr. DeBose, we'll take item number seven A first. You indicated there are five folks signed up. Who do we have first? First speaker is Lynn Conta. Ms. Conta. First I want to say to the County Council, I really appreciate the active development dashboard. It's very handy. I've spent a good bit of time looking at it. Um it's helpful in seeing the big picture and it breaks it down based on active subdivisions, approved subdivisions, under review, and commercial development permits. It's very interesting. Currently, there are three active subdivisions with about 316 homes and nine approved under review, which I couldn't tell exactly how many homes yet because that wasn't specified. And about 30 commercial building building or renovation permits. Elected officials are established to make decisions on strict ordinance to address concerns about increased traffic, mass deforest deforestation, and the erosion of landscape in urban and rural areas. Non-biased impact studies can be conducted by the county, not developers, and should be done for all large developments to address water, sewer, schools, public safety, environmental protection issues. Standards for protecting trees, clearing land in phases, and buffer and screen to protect water quality from unsafe runoff are necessary. No developer should clear an entire site just because it's easier to build. I repeat, no developer should clear an entire site just because it's easier to build. This is catastrophic for long-term environmental issues. Wildlife matters as much as people, but wildlife doesn't have a voice. You are their voice. Developers who have ignored these needs and have little to no buffers when building should have financial penalties. Placing a young tree that looks like a stick the size of my thumb in the ground beside or in front of a house is not a buffer and does not prevent runoff. We can do better and developers can do better. One major concern is if developers sit on permits for extended periods of time and the original impact studies are not currently accurate with the amount of growth we have experienced in that area. If you look at the one-mile radius from the bridge near Walmart, that region has created serious traffic condition issues and will only get worse with increased development. Any permit over 2 years old really it is not accurate. And I repeat, any permit over 2 years old is not accurate. We can do better. Permits should have limited shelf time. They should not be resubmitted for additional study to determine and they should always be resubmitted for additional study to determine if infrastructure is [snorts] still in place to manage that growth. A permit allocation system is needed with strong checks and balances for phase development. Significant impact fees are needed to manage all the infrastructure needs for such intense growth. Smart, responsible growth requires securing open space, providing appropriate buffers and screening, and ensuring strategic landscaping to prevent runoff and water contamination. Water matters to me. It is a necessity. Green space is for the people and the wildlife. We must preserve the community we know and love. That is my job to speak up, but it's your job to establish the rules that we need to follow. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Ms. Ganto. Mr. DeBose. He's our second speaker. Next speaker is Emily Martin. Subject is the building permit allocation system. Yes, Ms. Martin. Goodness, the beginning of this meeting really put everything into perspective. So, I'm just going to reread this real quick. Yes, ma'am. Go ahead. >> it's everything's very polite. Hi, I'm Emily Martin. I'm here representing the BIA and the members who are your neighbors, part of your community. And these [snorts] are the individuals most affected by these proposed ordinances. And I do want to be on record and say we agree that Kershaw is growing at an extreme rate. We do not blame you for wanting to be responsible about it. We we commend you that that's what you're elected for. However, it is frustrating for me when we see council and the policy recommending body, planning commission, when we've shown up, we've filled these seats behind me, voiced our genuine concern, offered alternative ideas, and upheld our desire to contribute to support infrastructure, and to help Kershaw succeed. And it's disappointing to see that beyond our efforts, these ordinances continue to steam ahead. Um in in comments and replies, affordability has been highlighted. And that's a lot of this does boil down to the lack of supply in housing that Kershaw has. However, that is directly tied to the affordability rate. And in addition to that, another component of this allocation system falls short of addressing attainability. So, as noted and and mentioned, the allocation system is inspired by Mount Pleasant's while also acknowledging the drastic differences between Mount Pleasant and Kershaw. However, not really inspired but almost identical word-for-word. While almost every section of the Kershaw text is copied directly from Mount Pleasant's, there is one major difference. Kershaw actually completely eliminated the one exception that Mount Pleasant has for fair housing. And that would be a great way to input affordability back in with the county. Finally, I'm also disappointed that the building permit allocation system will not have a grandfather component. And when this amendment failed last reading, I was floored by the lack of compassion shown to the neighbors who looked at you, revealed their state, and their risk of bankruptcy without being grandfathered in. I understand the desire to preserve Kershaw's character, but with that also comes the sense of community that Kershaw has. And it's hard to see that spirit existing when you can look your neighbors in your in their eyes and say, "It's okay. I'm going to jeopardize your livelihood anyways." I remain a resource to you, my members remain a resource to you. Um please please reach out if we can be anything. I know you guys are all doing the right and genuine intention here. There's no doubt in my mind about that. So, truly thank you for I think being on councils a very thankless job. So, thank you, truly. Have a great night. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you for coming out tonight. >> Thank you. Mr. DeBose, who's speaker number three. >> Stan Beckley. The subject is growth. Yes, sir. Mr. Beckley. Yes, sir. Thank you. My name Stan Beckley. I live at 506A Delmar Street in Lugoff. Uh it's in a apartment accessory that we just built on my daughter's property not long ago. Just finished it actually in February. Um I'm a 25-year resident of Kershaw County. Uh have children and grandchildren that live here. Uh I'm a 50-year experience in my career in the building supply business. I'm proud of that. Uh I think it's one of the bedrock industries of our country. Um I'm a former elected official in my home state, uh but that's been 40 years ago, but I understand um the pressures that you all get and what it's like to sit and have an issue uh that that can be challenging. Uh so, thank you for what you do. Um Excuse me. Having said that, uh I'm I'm really concerned that the actions that uh that we're taking with these with these permit allocation and all the other ordinances uh will have a a really difficult and challenging result in the affordability of housing in this county. I don't really have any skin in the game. I've worked in the building supply business my whole life, but I do have a concern that my grandchildren uh will be able to afford a home and live in Kershaw County if they so so desire. Um I feel like that on top of the 1/3 minimum acre 1/3 acre minimum lot size went to a 1/2 acre minimum lot size. And then we put a moratorium on. I really feel like that combined with >> [snorts] >> the redefinition of what a large subdivision is, that you're going to see the growth that's already being curbed. So, when you add nine ordinances at one time, um on top of all that and I stated last time for council that I don't think we even actually know the results of everything that we've done uh when it comes to what I just mentioned, uh it feels like we're pouring gasoline on a fire as far as curbing growth and maybe stopping it all together. You know, growth is not guaranteed. Good, responsible growth is, of course, what we all want. And the building industry is is is okay with concurrency. I mean, it makes sense that we need to get our infrastructure right. I think that's the problem. Um we're going to continue to grow, I think, I hope. Um so, infrastructure is is the big issue. Let's figure out how to work together and I know road money comes from the state. Uh let's figure out how we can work together and lobby our legislators and try to make a difference on funding so that we can deal with this infrastructure. Um I've got a couple of quick examples, though, when when you run a nine ordinances at one time, I'm I'm not real smart. That's probably why I was in the lumber business my whole career, but that's hard to keep up with. And I've been trying to study this stuff, so I might spill over into a couple of the other ones uh other than the the permit allocation, uh not intentionally, but I I agree with Emily that uh the grandfather clause of not allowing a couple of at least local developers to be grandfathered in with their developments. I sat in that meeting in amazement and watched council basically tell couple of guys they don't care if they went bankrupt. I know you didn't mean it that way, but that's how the vote turned out. Um so I hope you find a way to help those guys that were that have already been approved. To me that's fair and that's the right thing to do. Um hopefully some kind of variance or some kind of amendment. Uh I I don't think you tell somebody you can do something and then take it away. I just don't think that's right. Um to uh I mentioned that I live in accessory apartment. Um we lived in Haig's Creek in Elgin for 25 years. Our house got got we got older, the house got it was too big for us to manage. My wife had two knee operations. I'm a heart patient. Anyway, we decided we're going to sell our house and move on to a property that our daughter had and do an accessory apartment. Um and it's been great. It was good working with the county on the permit process and the inspection process and went good. Um but here's my point to that. Um in the numbers that I've seen from staff uh on accessory apartments the new numbers under the ordinance would be four for a year. Last year there was eight. Why would you cut it 50%? In fact, why would you cut it at all? Why would you take away a senior citizen trying to just, you know, downsize and have a little bit better lifestyle. I talked to one of the builders, Mr. Dabney, and he did a couple of them last year. I did one I got my permit last year. So, that's three between two people. And one of his was somebody that was disabled. So, I'm thinking you know, I don't even think this is a problem. Why would you want to cut it in half? I'd like for you to take a look at that. The other thing that I I think too is 25% minimum Excuse me, 25% maximum on grade slabs would be the new uh resolution from the ordinance. You know, that kind of to me hurts people that are older. I mean, we built our accessory apartment on grade side. We didn't want steps. I don't think that that's an an issue the council needs to regulate. You know, uh I think that's a builder, customer, client issue. Uh and I think I just think that number frankly I don't think it should there should be a limit, but at least go back to what we had. We're not hurting anybody except maybe some senior citizens and maybe some disabled people by making things more challenging. Um to build. Um Last thing I just wanted to say was you know, hopefully you can take a look at these things now. But, if we're going to be uh re-examining things every 6 months, I'd like to ask council to be vigilant. I think when you do nine ordinances at once, you're going to miss some stuff here that that's in those ordinances that we're going to need to fix. It's hard enough to get something right with one, let alone lump a nine together. Uh one last thing, the builders are all about concurrency. You know, makes sense. Let's fix our infrastructure so that we can grow responsibly. We're willing to work with council uh to to help make some of these decisions. That's it for me. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr. Beckley. Appreciate you coming out tonight. Mr. DeBose. Next speaker is Linda Franklin Moore, building permit. >> [cough] >> Ms. Franklin Moore. Yes, ma'am. Good evening, members of council. For the record, my name is Linda Franklin Moore, and I reside in the county portion of Camden. Uh WLTX interviewed me this afternoon on this particular subject, and so I'll share with you some of the thoughts that I shared with them. Um I want to speak in support of permit allocation with a deference to non-mega subdivisions. It would not be fair for a builder who is building three homes to not be able to get a permit when a developer can get permits for 90 homes. I think that we can all agree that Kershaw County needs to have smart growth. We need to be mindful of our limited infrastructure. I've preached it for such a long time about our limited permitted capacity into the Wateree River. And to say that, "Hey, we'll just have the other permit holders cut down their permit." That's not the solution, and that's only going to work for so long. Also, too, um we spoke about the schools and the capacity of schools. I do not think that the impact fee assessed for new construction is going to come anywhere close to helping build new schools because as you all know, we're bursting at the seams already. Then we also have to consider EMS. I don't know if this is still the case, but it's been relayed to me that some of those ambulance transport companies were actually helping and answering 911 calls. Limited calls, but they were still answering calls. That there were EMS that were requested from Richland County. I know that the people up at the lake are really concerned that for the long ambulance times to come and service them. And if you have an to call an ambulance from Richland County, well, I don't need to connect the dots for that one. Um then we also need to talk about our aging fleet for our fire trucks. So all these things need to be accounted for when we're talking about allocating permits. We have to think about what comes on Tuesday morning. So we might make some decisions on Monday, but what comes up on Tuesday? And those are some things that need to be thought out. So I want to really congratulate council for being proactive and trying to help us have some permit allocations. And of course, you guys are always saying that you're willing to revisit the issue and tweak it, but you have to start somewhere. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Franklinmore, for coming out tonight. Mr. Rebosa, is this the concluding speaker on 7A? Correct. Next speaker is David Dabney, subject is permit. Mr. Dabney, yes, sir. Hey guys, thanks for letting me come up here again. I [clears throat] actually told my wife on the way here that I wasn't going to speak. She didn't believe me. >> [laughter] >> And here I am. Um there was a couple things that just kind of came up today that I wanted to ask questions about. Um 6 months from now because I'm just assuming this is going to pass tonight. Um it's kind of been brought to my attention that you can at that point go back and make changes to what you've got in place now. What type of due diligence process is that going to be involved? Is it just going to be where you can go have dinner with an another council member and decide that hey, the growth is still bad. I mean and can you cut the permits off completely at that time? Um I think it would be >> [clears throat] >> sometime you you would actually have to have some type of public hearing on what type of changes you're going to make. But it appears that that this is just autonomous total control that's going to be granted at the passing of this tonight. Um so that's I had some concerns about that. Um and um I heard a speaker up here today talking about shelf life of permits and stuff like that. So I thought I would kind of maybe expound on that a little bit for the people who don't know. When you get a permit, you got 12 months to do it. To build your structure residentially anyway. Um so if you drag your feet too long um county's going to call which they have called me before and asked, you know, hey Wayne, what you doing? We hadn't done a permit. We hadn't done an inspection in a while. Um what's happening? So uh that there is a shelf life there and we we do have to go through DHEC and different governmental agencies as far as clearing land. We have to sign a uh um a note saying that we're only clearing so much land. We have to provide how much hard space is going on the property. Um meaning non-permeable structure to make sure that we're not exceeding our boundaries for runoff. So, there are systems in place for that. Um And then um I think the last one I I forgot what I was going to ask about, but um So, I'm not going to take another 7 minutes of your time. I mean, I've I've stood up here and I've talked about different things with you guys before. I I think my only um discontent with the whole thing is I I think that there's been a lot of people come up here and provide especially with like the BIA, provide a resource for different types of situations or different types of maybe um tweaking this a little bit or tweaking that. And um I called around a little bit today and um I don't think that um that has been taken seriously. Um I don't think any of the suggestions have been looked at. Um I think on March 31st, when this reading was first passed, um I think at that point in time the committee that you all had put in place had not even had the discussion on it. And I'm with Stan, uh Mr. Beckley. Um Known him for years. Um Nine ordinances at one time. I mean, you're rushing into it. Um there's lots of things that's going to be overlooked. Lots of things is not taken into consideration. And especially with people >> [snorts] >> with the knowledge such as the BIA standing up here saying that hey, we've got some stuff we want to present to you, want you to look at, want you to talk about. Um To my knowledge, and I may be wrong. I mean, there may be individual conversations or emails or telephone calls with with her or or or them or whatever, but to my knowledge, it not much have been done with that. So, I think you're rushing it. Um yeah, and I agree, too. We're growing, [clears throat] you know. Um but I I guess a lot of people in the community like that growth, too, cuz >> [snorts] >> when Aldi opened up, I mean, they they wrapped around the building to get in there. >> [clears throat] >> I don't think Aldi would have come if they didn't have the proper means of support for their business here, which was involved with the growth that we've had here. So. Um >> [snorts] >> I get it. Hard decisions. Um you guys are in a position which you're not going to make everybody happy. Um and hopefully it won't affect us too severely, and I hope in 6 months from now we can make some good honest common sense decisions on that. And yeah, Mr. Beckley, I I did build two ADA units, and both of the people were um handicapped in such a a way that they needed that. So, uh but so I'm with him on that, too. Again, I have no notes in front of me. Didn't have any prepared speech. So, I'll let uh let you guys proceed with what you guys are going to do, and I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you for coming out, Mr. Dabney. Thanks very much. Mr. Bose, does that conclude uh 7A? Yes. Okay, gentlemen, we are closed on 7A for the public hearing. Thanks for everyone's participation. Appreciate that very much. That leaves one item remaining as a sub part of number seven. We have 7I. Is that correct, Mr. DeBose? Correct. And my notes show two people signed up. Yes. Who's the first one? Uh Linda Kanatzer, impact studies subject. Miss Can Atzer, yes ma'am. Public hearing is open. Could I wait till Mr. Brazell Russell gets Give me a minute. I've got something to do with my family and you just go ahead. Okay. I'd encourage you to go ahead. You got 10 minutes [laughter] at the podium. I'd like for everybody to listen. Um, first of all, uh, Chairman Connell, I am so thankful to hear that your dad's doing well. I've had an opportunity to get to know him a little bit and he is a wonderful man and I have prayed for him and our prayers, it looks like, are are going to be answered like they so often are. We certainly don't turn prayers away. Thank you, ma'am. >> We sure don't and we see God's work in so many ways. Um, to you and the rest of the council members. About 2 and 1/2 years ago, I joined a group that was opposed to the development of a historic equine property. The Camden Training Center. Since that time, we have attended numerous city and county council and planning committee meetings speaking out against the mega developments. In several speeches, I stated that we were not targeting our Kershaw County builders, local building suppliers, or subcontractors and that the mega developers contribute very little, if anything, to our local economy. They do not even live here and really care nothing about Kershaw County. Until the last council meeting, I can't recall many of our local builders even showing up. Understand that by prioritizing our impact study process, many permits for those very large subdivisions will be denied. I need to correct something that a couple of the gentlemen that we just had speak on the permits had said. Actually, yesterday morning I made a call to our um director of planning and zoning. Um Mr. Hoover had a brief conversation with him. And I actually asked him about a conversation you all had at the last council meeting about whether or not the um permits that had been approved prior to the temporary moratorium, if they would be grandfathered in or honored. And he said, "Yes." He said, "Yes, they would." He said, "For up to 7 years." And actually, I did a little research on it. And I looked at the city of Camden and city of Camden does it in a little bit different way. They initially will give you um 2 years from the process of getting the, you know, allowing the permit to be let out. And you've got 2 years um we have 2 years and then to be extended five additional years before they would expire. That's what I was told. The city of Camden gives you the first 2 years and then they they ask that you come back each year for uh an extension. And that is conditional on any things that may have come up since then, like lot sizes and things like that, that may come up in that meantime. And I think that's one what one of our ladies had spoken to, that things can change so much from the time the permit may be issued, if it doesn't get executed and that house get built or whatever, a whole lot of things can change in that length of time. But Mr. Hoover was very clear on that. So, it's something that you all might want to talk to him about. I mean, but I don't think that we're just saying, you know, use it or lose it. Since the temporary moratorium will no longer be in effect when the third reading is passed, we will have to rely on our current ZLDR to help deal with our growth problems. At the last council meeting, I said, "If you were really serious about solving the growth problem, you would prioritize the impact studies." During discussion of the plan, it was completely ignored. It's time to get serious. The one thing that needs to change is existing regulation in the ZLDR that speaks to the impact studies. That section actually defines the minor subdivision as 40 lots or less, and the major anything over 40. Anything under 40, they're not even requiring the impact studies to be done. I mean, how can we live with that? That's simply ridiculous. If that's what's been going on, no wonder we've got problems. It has to comply with the definition of minor subdivision and major subdivision that you all did not too long ago that was going to apply to the temporary moratorium. And that is and in the ZLDR under their definitions, you look up subdivisions and it says minor subdivision five houses or less, major more than five. But that's not what it says when it gets to the impact studies. That has to be changed. Also, all of the impact studies must be done on those including the traffic studies. Those couldn't be exempt. The city of Camden now requires impact studies of all major subdivisions and they define major subdivisions of more than major subdivision more than five. I don't know how we've gone 40. If this isn't done, if it's not changed, there going to be 35 plus housing clusters springing up all over Kershaw County where there's not the infrastructure or services to support them. Can you just see it? The developers aren't stupid. They're going to go out, they're going to buy 50 acres of land and they're going to come to you and they're going to say, "I'm going to put 35 houses on it." You're going to say, "Fine, we don't even have to do the impact studies. Here's your permit." And they'll go build those 35 houses. They get that done, they're going to go on half mile down the road and after you get cluster and cluster and cluster, pretty soon you got hundreds of houses that no impact studies have been done on. So, it's got to be fixed. Simply delete what's now in the ZLDR, the 40 lot number in the impact studies ordinance. And what you need to do is add all impact studies will be required of major subdivisions of more than five lots. I'm going to repeat that. You can do it tonight. Simply delete what it says that it 40 lots they're not required. And put in all impact studies will be required of major subdivisions defined as more than five lots. This one change to the ZLDR you can make during the third reading discussion tonight would help solve some of the growth problems we are experiencing in Kershaw County. >> [snorts] >> Thank you, Ms. Canantzer, for coming out tonight. Mr. Bose, is that come Oh, we have one more. Yeah, one one more speaker, Diana Bose. Yes, Mr. Bose. Welcome. >> Basically, I'm just reiterating what Linda's wonderful speech was, and um it it just seems like there are discrepancies in the ZLDR plan as witness section two, section five, which Linda pointed out. It seems the comprehensive plan and ZLDR are not completely compatible as was previously intended and hoped for in previous sessions. It seems like impact studies are not being addressed as they are supposed to be. What about the 350 permits already accounted for? Well, I guess we've answered that. It seems like impact fees need to be raised further. A bit of a headache for local builders, but in the long run will keep them from being edged out by developers. 350 permits have already been accepted and allocated. More restrictions are needed to prevent out-of-control growth. I suggested another I suggest another moratorium until these issues can be corrected. Take time. Get it right for our children and our grandchildren. Thank you. Thanks for coming out, Mr. Bose. Mr. DeBose, anything further on public hearing? No, Mr. Chair. Public hearing is closed on item number seven. Gentlemen, that moves us on to item number 8A, approval of the minutes. Is there a motion? Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion we approve the minutes. Is there a second [clears throat] on the minutes? I'll second. We have a second on the minutes. Any discussion on the minutes? None. Mr. Tucker, any discussion on the minutes? I'll note so, Mr. Chair. And while I will be tallying the vote, I will be abstaining for absence uh for last meeting. For those who are present and voting, all in favor of the minutes raise your hand. It's unanimous for those who are present and voting with uh Mr. Connell abstaining due to absence. Mr. Tucker, how do you vote remotely? Yes. We couldn't hear that, sir. Go ahead. Yes, I'm sorry. >> a yes remotely from Mr. Tucker. For the record, Ms. Hannah, the minutes are approved. Next up, we have two discussion items. First one is item number Excuse me, one discussion item due to deletion. Item number 9A, uh building permit allocation system, placed on the agenda by Vice Chairman Russell Brazell. Is there a motion? Yeah, I'd like to make a motion for the discussion, please. There is a motion. Is there a second? Second. There is a second. Mr. Brazell, you have the floor. No vote is required. Thank you. So, it's it's really interesting. We've got extreme points of view. Um gentleman in back, thank you for your service in the building industry. I'm also lifetime um em- employee e and employer of a wood products company that heavily relies on people that build homes, commercial buildings, and houses in which we all live. So, um I do appreciate you being here tonight and speaking with uh with your background. Um I would like to I would like to discuss an array of things and and then I'd like for anyone any of my colleagues to please expand on this. Um I have not used this platform for this, but I will now. As a lot of you've seen, I'm running for a house seat, house seat 45, in Lancaster and Kershaw County. And as I've been in Lancaster County, >> [snorts] >> I've noted that they're dealing with similar issues, specifically Indian Land. And it's been a tremendous amount of growth, bedroom community Charlotte, Elgin's a bedroom community to Columbia. So, I know and understand these issues. And I also know and understand the building industry and quality growth. >> [snorts] >> And I think that um Councilman Shoemake and I have have worked hand in hand in many of these things up until this point. I think up until this point we've we've been fairly um in line with one another is is how we've worked together and um worked on some of the zoning changes, some of the regulation changes that frankly I think is enough and is a is a wonderful uh step in the right direction. Of course, our county and and the ladies that spoke tonight, I I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying. It's it's increasingly frustrating. But what's going to happen what's going to have to happen for the district and for Kershaw and Lancaster counties in particular is to have someone who will go to Columbia and bring back infrastructure Mr. Mr. Braswell, I'm just going to call a point of order real quick. Okay, you don't >> Just just to protect yourself and the council. There um and also I'm getting glances from legal counsel. So, federally there's something called the Hatch Act and then the state has an equivalent that uh prevents any campaign related discussion >> while serving or on on your elected office time. Okay. Well, thank you. I I don't want to use this platform for that and I appreciate the um I appreciate that because that's not what this is. What what I want to discuss is [snorts] is the major problem that we have is infrastructure. And infrastructure is going to be an issue. We have pinch points in Kershaw [snorts] County that two points that we cross the Wateree River Bridge. Those have to be improved on and expanded upon. It's it's going to take it's going to take more than stopping an industry and and people being able to feed their families. We have we've created more bureaucracy and regulation than than is needed. I I've walked in here in 2019 and for $500 got a permit to build a four-bedroom house and it wasn't a problem. South Carolina has become a destination for those fleeing areas that are jam-packed full of bureaucracy and excessive taxation. So, that's what we're seeing. We're trying to work through these things. And stopping an industry and preventing somebody from being able to build homes is not the proper way to do it. Um I think everybody's got good thoughts and ideas, but I think we're going to face a situation that puts us in jeopardy as a council of a legal battle that's going to potentially ruin everything good that we've done. So, there are a lot of good things that we could do. Um I think this council needs to look at a master plan district, the MPD. Um If if we look at an MPD, um John DeBose, can you tell me how that differs from a PDD? So, a master plan development is a zoning tool. Um different jurisdictions have enacted them as an available zoning tool under local regulations. Um they're not too dissimilar from a PDD in that um they allow some predictability but flexibility um in design. It locks the developer into a specific plan. Uh usually they're uh coupled with development agreements, so the developer has some vesting. There's a clear development schedule. And um there's some contractual hooks for the government and for the developer to make sure that the master plan is built um according to the master plan. Um the primary difference though is PDDs is a creature of statute require a non-residential component. An MPD is um essentially a flexible zoning tool. Uh in layman's terms, you can kind of think about it as a PDD without a non-residential component, but that's not again >> So so if I build So if I build a 500 home development and put a Dollar General in the front of it, um the PDD is is compliant. Is that right? Yes. So the MPD would give us an opportunity, I think, instead of having Dollar Generals pop up everywhere. If if you had homes that were on This is a negotiating tool for the county. Right? It brings everybody to the table. We sit down. We find a way to work things out. >> [snorts] >> This is a way to do it without forcing somebody to go to Dollar General, who's probably going to be the person who comes to um to serve that small subdivision in rural area. If you had many subdivisions, say you had, I don't know, four or five neighborhoods that were medium in size come over the course of four or five years, you could attract something like a Publix, which I have heard numerous times we would like a quality grocery store. So if we force somebody's hand to have a commercial component, they can't bring a big quality chain um grocery store, but if we have good quality positive development, as we have all discussed, and I I think is some of the some of the um rules that have been changed nudges quality. Um I think you're going to continue to see that the quality development automatically come due to the fact that that everything we've done has been positive in the right direction, and I think that our council needs to consider this. Do we have a a way currently under a different definition to achieve the same thing that a master plan district achieves in our current current ordinance? Uh council has not enacted that type of zoning district. Okay, so what I would like to to do is is just get the discussion um items from in in everybody's opinion on the master plan district. It's it's in the packet. I hope everybody's had a chance to review it. Is anyone interested, curious, think it's a positive idea that we could do something like that? I mean, I'll [clears throat] jump in and say that Mr. Hume Egg. Yeah, so the um kind of on two separate lanes, as a conceptual idea, I have no issue with a master plan district. I think they accomplish a lot of what PDDs do. I mean, it's it's a bit of a it's kind of a over simplification to say they're PDDs or not commercial as Mr. DeBoe said, but that's that is a lot of what they are. I don't think it impacts the permit allocation discussion. I'm not implying that you're saying it is because right now the permit allocation uh discussion exempts development agreements, which are those agreements that we negotiate. So, we could very easily, if we enacted an MPD, adjust that ordinance to say, you know, development agreement includes PDDs and MPDs. I have no issue with MPDs, and I will talk about that a little more when we get to the next issue, but I mean, I think this is where we are in agreement. This is where I would like to see our major development going is into these negotiated districts, either PDD or MPD, but these negotiated districts that are negotiated with us, infrastructure's negotiated, and my hope is as we do this permit allocation system, we can come out on the back side of that with some idea like this. The you know, this is going to take a little bit of time, but I that's a long way to say I have no objection to an MPD, and I think it's a valuable tool in the the tool kit if it makes sense. Okay, then where would we want to make an amendment to insert an MPD that that we can um Well, I don't think we could do it tonight cuz we don't have one. We've got to create it first and then make an amendment to allow. So, we'd have to we'd have to create an MPD which would take some time. We'd have to build an MPD ordinance to insert into our zoning code which will take you know, we'd have to do the three readings, planning commission and all those things. Okay, so um Mr. Bose, is it um is it too late to do such a thing? Is that is that something that we can start um immediately and and get a first reading on and title only on our next agenda? Do you feel comfortable with that? Well, I think um I have an example of one in the packet. There's some things that have to change, obviously. You mean for the next agenda item for this? >> Yes. Yeah. So, um Yeah, I mean I think any council member can propose a matter for the agenda. Um title only has no substance um to it when you read something in title only. Uh I guess the question on drafting the verbage um getting it in a position where it's appropriate for the county and the ZODR versus the um source material for the MPD example um could take some time. I can't promise that there you know, would be sequential readings. It would have to be referred to the planning commission for recommendation. But um you know, I don't think there's anything within y'all's rules or timing wise that present prevents a reading in title only. I mean, that's fairly easy to accomplish. Okay. Ms. Paula, I'd like to put that on our next meeting, please. Uh read in title title only of an MPD for Kershaw County that we can work Derek. I'd love to work with you on that. Yes, sure. Thank you for being supportive of that, too. I think this is a good idea. I just think it builds quality and it gives it gives everything that you've looked for is that quality growth. So, I appreciate it. >> be clear, I mean that that obviously my thoughts on the permit allocation system are what they are, but I think this is a tool that can be incorporated within that. Well, I I think you and I've often been able to agree on on things and disagree on things and still at the end of the day serve the people of Kershaw County. Yeah, I got no issue with this. All right, thank you so much. Any other discussion, council members? Mr. Tucker, any discussion remotely? Uh no, sir. Okay, I'll just have one comment on the development agreement versus MPD or PDD. So, as I understand it, Mr. DeBose um and and Mr. Brazell, I think we can accomplish everything an MPD would do with a uh development agreement except for additional density. Is that accurate? Yes, a lot >> the that's the main thrust. Yes, a lot of um MPDs uh take base zoning districts that existed before it was re-zoned and um allow special exception uses or conditional uses. The key feature of MPDs is that uh the developer and the county or city um typically agree to certain allowed uses within a base district not ever being on the table. So, it's again um to my earlier point for predictability. But, um you're correct in that a development agreement, if entered with Kershaw County under this building permit system could allow that development project to exist outside of the allocations subject to the structure of the ordinance where um council would have to determine that those developers and their offsets for their development impacts um did offset development impacts such that they don't need to be in the system. >> Right. So, the development agreement, you're you're using or stuck with the existing zoning and lot sizes where you can bypass, if the council votes on it, you can bypass the permit cap allocation that may apply to that particular development. Yeah, the the it has to be consistent with the comp plan and your land use regulations. Um but yes. Right. And then the the MPD would allow you to increase density without any retail or non-residential component. But you could have a much more dense potential development if the the council said, "Yeah, this makes sense overall." Yeah, in theory, depending on how you would enact your MPD, but yes. >> Okay. So, I think that's the Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, may I? So, so I think that's how we tailor it to Kershaw County, right? And I think Derek, I'd I'd love to work with you, councilman, on tailoring that specific to Kershaw County so that it's positive, not negative. And um uh frankly, I think that if if the case I I was not aware that um the permit allocation system could then be um potentially only used for small builders and every everybody who comes and builds a larger subdivision or major subdivision, which is five houses or more, could could then enter into the MPD. And that would give more legs to to local home builders and give them opportunity. Uh John DeBose, does that make sense? Is that a feasible proposition? Yeah, I think the um the impacts of the MP any MPD district and um marrying it to a development agreement, and to be fair, the building permit allocation system right now um states that development agreements can be exempted. Under y'alls regulations, a PDD with Kershaw County has to have a development agreement. That's why PDDs are also mentioned in there. But, the real driver for that exemption section is the development agreement because it's again statutorily created by the state and is designed to be a mechanism where development impacts can be offset and negotiated with the local government. I mean, at its core, it's it marries up to the legislative findings for why this allocation system is being put in place in the first instance. >> So, so what I'm hearing it sounds like from you is that the MPD could be a positive for development, Kershaw County, and builders that are local builders. And if we do those three things and increase our infrastructure needs, Kershaw County can grow in a way that is positive instead of everything crumbling underneath our feet. I don't know that that's a legal question. I mean, I'm not being evasive, but you know, an MPD is a zoning tool. I think the effectiveness of an MPD or development agreement or a PDD the devil's in the details as far as the enabling legislation and what's required and what's negotiated among the parties. But, um you know, any tool in the toolbox um is typically helpful for people wanting to do creative development. I I think I think it could lend itself to some positive things for Kershaw County and not negative. Thank you. Mr. Brazell, I'll just share one example. You know, as we've been discussing this, people are starting to approach now and say we really want to do a PDD or we want to do something like that. And the the attractiveness of a PDD is you can I'm not saying make a community more insular in the sense that, you know, you want people to be cut off, but there are folks who are talking about grocery stores or setting aside um acreage for schools because the number of homes would require an elementary school. And so, in some ways you relieve a little bit of the arterial traffic that would be hitting uh neighboring roads because the community turns in on itself and has recreation within the community, schools within the community, and retail within the community by agreement on the front end. Um and that's why these things will be kind of a case-by-case basis. There could be an MPD where that it may make sense to have more dense um development within that MPD, but the lack of the non-residential use I think that just make makes it a closer call, but I'm glad to look at it, too. But, I like the opportunity to be able to do both in the future. I think I think more options are better, and I think you know, it's always a judgment call. Um we've had we've had many tough conversations in this room that um you know, not zoning or rezoning a piece of property or or you know, not not approving um certain massive developments because we we're trying to figure out all of these things. And and I think this council together we have done a good job and and we're coming to a close as to how we've dealt with this issue. And and frankly, I think it's time to to set it in motion and and no longer keep people's livelihoods at bay because it's it's getting to the point to where that's going to start being an issue, and I I just can't allow that in in my heart. I I I can't ever think that I would have done something to keep someone from from being able to work and feed their family. I certainly know that that I wouldn't want that applied to me in my life, and I know you guys wouldn't either, so um thank you all for for taking the time to listen. I appreciate the conversation. Does that conclude discussion for those who were present? Mr. Tucker, any discussion? Mr. Chairman, if I may One one second. I just want to I Mr. Tucker? You still have him? He's falling asleep. Mr. Tucker? All right, Mr. Jones. Thank you. You know, guys, I've listened tonight. And with whether you're for it or against it, what we're doing here tonight what I hear is a lot of conflicting issues back and forth. Conflicting issues on well well one is how fast, how much, how fast we're going through this. And two, dealing with whether it's slabs, no slabs. Um I just My concern is that I've been here 20 years and I've never seen us move this quickly. And I realize we got to do something. We've got to do something for the uh the overcrowding, but we also need to make sure that we're not overstepping and we're hurting someone's livelihood. And And not only that, I think we need to think through it. And And the way we've done this, with all due respect, some of you put a whole lot more work in it than I have, but I got to say this. I can't support anything that is nine ordinances at one time that has been developed so quickly, so fast. I don't think we thought this through. And if you listen to some of our speakers on both sides, they the ones that are for it, the ones that are against it, they have issues whether it's the impact fees, the impact fee studies, or whatever. This I just think we need to slow down. I think we need to start over. And uh get some more folks involved that hadn't been involved. I realize that we've had a smart growth committee. But these folks that are sitting out here now that I've that I've known mostly all my life who do who build for a living or who are in the construction business, they haven't had an opportunity to get involved until all this came to the table. So, I feel like it's important that we get their involvement as well. So, I mean I'm not going to support it tonight, none of it. Um cuz and and that's the basis for it. But, thank you. But, Mr. Brazell, I will say thank you for trying to bring some solution to the table that will sort of marry with what we're trying to do here tonight. Um I I I would need to look at that more before I could say I would absolutely support it. And we would have three readings to do that. So, we've got plenty of time. But, I'm just saying anything that we can do that will slow the process down, make the process more clear, and maybe not be as punishing or contradicting, cuz I think that's what we've done tonight. I mean, I think that's what we're doing moving forward. So, uh as I said, because that I'll make no secret about it, I'm not voting for any of it. I'll move to vote against all of it. But, I thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Mr. Tucker, do we have you? Don't hear him. So, we'll move on to the next agenda item. Uh no votes required. >> sir. Yes, sir. Oh, Mr. Tucker, we got you. Any discussion before we move on? He woke up. No, no. I heard everything. I'm >> Okay. He just had it on mute. All right. 9A is concluded. No votes required. That moves us to item number 10A, first reading and title only. This is regarding the execution of a fee low over under SE code 1244, identified as project ballast. Do we have a motion? I'll make a motion. We have a motion. >> I'll second. We have a second. [clears throat] In title only means we have no information in the packet. Um and so I can't imagine there's much discussion, but any discussion, gentlemen? Or in person? Always excited to see what's coming to Kershaw County in the form of business. Mr. Tucker, any discussion? No, sir. Seeing none, we'll move to vote. Mr. Tucker, how do you vote on 10A? Yes. That's a yes remotely from Mr. Tucker. For those who are present and voting, raise your hand if you're in favor. >> Mr. Chairman. I had a comment. Oh, go ahead. Any further discussion? >> I apologize. It's just, you know, you're or y'all are moving a little bit quicker for me tonight. Tonight. Um, I just wanted to say that I'm always excited about this and and this is under new leadership because we've had these things in the past entitled only that went absolutely zero nowhere. Okay. So, I hope this one moves forward. Well, with your support, I hope it does, too. I hope it does. I will support it, but thank you. Okay. So, for those who are present and voting, raise your hand if you're in favor. On 10A, it is unanimous uh in favor. So, none opposed. Thank you, Ms. Hannah. All right. Item number 10C. This is third reading um an ordinance to amend a joint industrial park. Do we need any additional update, Mr. Templer or Mr. DeBose before we move it to a motion? Do we have a motion on 10B? I'll make a motion. Mr. Braswell has the motion. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Thompson has the second. Mr. Braswell, any discussion? No discussion. As we've done this every time we have a business come into town, it's a it's a This is a cleanup. Yeah, it's just a mandate that we have to do. Mr. Thompson, no comment. Any other discussion from those who are present? Mr. Tucker, any discussion remotely? None. How do you vote, sir? Yes. That's a yes remotely from Mr. Tucker. For those who are present and voting, raise your hand if you're in favor on 10B. Uh it's unanimous in favor, so none opposed. Thank you, Ms. Hannah. All right. Item number 10C. This is third reading related to an ordinance to implement a building permit allocation system. We've got the uh first and second reading dates identified. Is there a motion? I'll make a motion we adopt the permit allocation system. Mr. Shoemake has the motion. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Thompson has the second. Mr. Shoemaker, you have the floor. I have some amendments that Should I make those now, Mr. Chair? Yes, sir, if you like. Yeah, I'll make the amendments and I'll sort of explain some various things. So, this is This is basically [snorts] an amendment to uh five things and I'll kind of make it as one motion to amend if that's acceptable. Um basically what this would do and this packet is before uh all the folks on council. It's got these yellow tabs on it. So, basically this is would be an amendment to amend the permit allocation system. Uh the first There's five parts to this. First, in section 7-7 for permit allocation, uh what we would effectively do is uh combine A2. Um we would combine the multi-family dwelling and accessory dwelling unit category and I can explain these after I get through with them. That's part one of the motion. Uh part two would be to add an 80% uh allotment to folks who've already had site plans approved in section 7-7. The other piece in section 7-7, the third piece, is that uh no applicant will get more than 20% in the minor subdivi- or in the subdivision outside of or the housing outside of major subdivisions. Uh part four would be noting that the application is not complete until the permit fee is paid. And then the fifth part of the amendment would be um that the county may periodically evaluate the system as needed and desired by the council. Uh those are the five and again they're in front of everyone, but those are the five amendments and I can explain those if I get a second. We have a motion we just heard [clears throat] described and we have it in writing. Is there a second? >> Second. Um We have a second, Mr. >> going Are we going one by one or are we going to package Are would you like to package these together all as one? >> This is one amendment. This is one motion to amend. And if I can Since I've got a second, Mr. Chairman, if I >> You got a second, you have the floor. >> And I'll speak to the larger points later, but basically what this does is uh one of the comments we've heard as recently as tonight is how this ADU unit is kind of small with two three units it can create management problems. We also have these multi-family uses duplexes, triplexes, all sorts of things. We're seeing those on the decline in large part because of some of the ordinances we've done. So, what we're doing is rather than have four categories, we have three. We have single family inside a major subdivision, single family outside, and then multi-family and ADUs. So, this would combine combine these permit numbers. So, instead of having two ADUs and 50 multi-family units, you'd have 58 total to be used amongst multi-family and ADUs. So, it eliminates that problem of running out of ADU permits. It also gives us this overage category. As we go into our 6-month reviews, if we're finding we're not issuing many of those, we can reallocate those permits to the other uses and still be under our cap. So, it gives us a a much more flexibility on that front. The second amendment, it just what it does, we've gotten some questions about grandfathering and I'll talk about that more when we get to the main amendment. But, what it says is that for the major subdivision category, 80% of the allotted permits will go to those site plans that have already been approved. So, a new person can't come in, get an approval, and then take 25% of the permits. Mr. Shumack, I just want to clarify. You said your second amendment. You mean the second part of your first >> Second part, yes, the second part. Part two. [clears throat] Go ahead, sir. >> [cough] >> So, basically, it says that 80% is going to be devoted to those who have already had site plans approved. So, it gives them top priority. The third piece the third piece of the amendment is for the other category, single family outside of major subdivision, it says no applicant shall receive greater than 20%. So, by way of example, you know, in one of our categories, we have 238 annual, it would just say that no individual person gets more than about 24. And we've talked to individual builders and no individual outside of major subdivision builder is building 25, 30 homes outside of a major subdivision. And so, that just prohibits, you know, I don't think it will happen. We've had some concern that what if a big builder comes in and decides to start building one-off homes? It would prevent any one applicant from getting more than uh 20% of that whole share. We don't see that I don't think that's likely, but that addresses those potential concerns. Um, part four just says you have to pay the permit fee just to make it very clear as existing rules are that the permit is the permit application is completed when it's paid for. And that would also prevent someone from coming in and applying for 15 permits, paying nothing, and taking up those numbers. Um, and then part five, the monitoring evaluation, just says that we may periodically evaluate. It gives us the ability, it puts these numbers in place for a two-year period and gives us the ability to evaluate at any time. So, if there's an an alarm bell, if somebody says, "Hey, wait, there's this massive unintended consequence." It gives us the ability to revisit instead of putting it on a very specific calendar. Now that we've laid our numbers out over the first two years of the program, we can evaluate it as needed. Um, so that that is the explanation of the amendments themselves. Mr. Tomlinson, you have the second. Any further discussion? Um, no no discussion. [clears throat] Appreciate Mr. Shoemake putting this very detailed packet together and giving a great explanation. >> [snorts] >> Any further discussion from council members? Mr. Brazel. Mr. Tucker, any discussion remotely? No, I just want to thank Councilman Shoemake as well for the compromise and the amendments and getting in touch with his colleagues. Thank you, Shoemake. Okay. Seeing no further discussion, we'll move it to a vote then on item number 10c on third reading. Uh, this is on the Shoemake amendment. So, for those who are present and voting, all in favor of the Shoemake amendment, raise your hand. That is Shoemake, Council, Cato, Tomlinson voting in favor. And those who are present and voting against, raise your hand. That is Brazel and Jones opposed. Mr. Tucker, how do you vote on 10C third reading? Mr. Tucker? We just had him. He's off? He just logged off. Okay. Well, just be aware if he pops back on like we've done in the past, he might want [laughter] to amend um as we've done in the past. So, um we'll we'll be stuck with the vote that we had, which was four to two. He's back. All right. We're still in the middle of the vote. Mr. Tucker, are you with us? Yes, I am. That's what you get for hitting the wrong button. Oh, well, we were calling for your vote on item 10C. It was four to two and I can recite uh the vote for those who were present if you need it. No, I I don't. How's your vote on 10C third reading? With the amendment? Yes. Yeah, this is the amendment, by the way. All right. So, that's yes on the Shoemake amendment. Any further amendments on 10C? Mr. Tucker, any amendments on 10C? No, sir. Okay. Now, we're back on the original amendment or the original motion uh for third reading. Any further discussion on the original? >> Chairman, I did want to bring up I did get a call earlier and I um spoke to Mr. Shoemake and I think I mentioned it to Mr. Brazel and Mr. Cato but prior to the meeting but just wanted to be able to put this in a in a public meeting setting cuz it was a a genuine question. Um so, when developments are built, you have a model home. Model home serves as somewhere that, you know, it does have a permit but sometimes it's three, four, five years before it's sold. Um and they use that to pretty much market your neighborhood. Um and that was a question that was asked if So, if that is included in your permit cap allocation, which I thought was a very good question. So, I wanted to bring that up um tonight and see if there was any discussion on it. Um, and this is something I mean as it was said before, I know that we're going to be revisiting um, in 6 months on things. So, if that's something that we would like to look at in 6 months, I'm I'm happy for that, too. But, I I wanted to bring make sure I brought that up tonight. May I respond to that? Yes, sure. So, the it would count when you pulled the permit. So, you know, obviously that living unit. But, the flip side is when it's time to sell that living unit, you get to sell it without having to pull a building permit. So, whatever sacrifice you lose by, you know, having that house not being used to be sold, you get on the back end because now you get a home to sell without a permit. >> Yeah. I would also note that we only have about I forget the exact number cuz I don't have it in front of me, but we have approximately less than a dozen, I believe, approved subdivisions. Some of those already have model homes. So, you'd really be talking about a number a single-digit number. >> Yeah, you're looking at three, four houses. But, that I mean, when you're looking at a at a cap on on percentage of houses, that single permit could add up in situations, especially when you have that much money and the overhead for for development. But, I'm I'm happy to look at it down the road. I just really wanted to bring that up in our conversation. >> it's fair. I think it'd be it's something to be mindful of as we look at it. I don't see that as moving a needle. And if it does, again, you get a benefit on the back end as well. So. Thank you, Mr. Schuman. >> Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Any other discussion? Again, we're back on the original um, motion as amended. I have a couple of points, but I'll I may Let's Whoever wants to speak first can, but I'll go. Everyone's had an opportunity. Go ahead. So, I just wanted to point out a couple of things. And a a lot of this And forgive me cuz I mentioned some of this last week already or last meeting. Um, but, you know, there was some discussion about sort of the business impact and you know, we heard that from a couple of folks. I have reached out to folks who've reached out to me about, you know, the economic impact of this and we've had discussions and I I don't see where this sort of this massive financial impact, particularly to the point of causing a business to close. I would note that under all the amendments we've made over the last two meetings, because we're using historical averages, in the first year of this permit allocation system, we're actually allowing more homes in major subdivisions than we're allowed in the last 2 years. So, from year to year. So, we also checked with planning and zoning. No single development has pulled more than about 25 I don't remember the exact number, but about 25 permits in a single year. And so, you could still do that fairly easily inside of the system. We've also had a one of the newer developments reach out to a Councilman Tomlinson and I and discuss moving to the PDD route and doing a direct negotiation with direct negotiation for infrastructure. So, that's an option as well. Um that sort of dovetails with the grandfathering in. Because we reserve 80% of these permits to folks that have already been here in the major subdivision category, and because we do these averages, you know, folks really aren't dealing with, you know, substantially reduced numbers. I would note just as a point of fact, if our growth rate is estimated to be about 21.5% under the models we have. This permit allocation system, if it's renewed all the way through 2030, would reduce our growth rate growth rate to about 19.3%. That's under 20%, which is good, but it's still triple the rate we're growing. So, this idea that we're killing growth, I mean, we're still going to see growth. And it's a 2-year program, so if we don't, we can, you know, we we can look at other things. The BIA came again and spoke about some different things. I appreciate them acknowledging that Kershaw County is growing at an extreme rate. On that, we we certainly agree. But I would note that they did propose some ideas at the last meeting, but most of those involved overlays. And while those are great ideas as companion zoning discussions, they don't really directly address the slowed growth rate. I know some of our council members have reached out to BIA and gotten similar responses, but no actual response to say, "Here's how you can limit your growth." By the way, to the extent what we've done works, then you just won't hit the caps. The beauty of this system is it's a cap system. It's not We're not cutting growth. We're not saying whatever permits are applied for, we're going to cut that number. If in fact what we've already done Kurt has already curbed growth and we simply won't hit the caps. In which case we'll need We'll see the program isn't necessary and we can phase it out. So, to the extent growth is not guaranteed or you know, this what we've already done works, we can judge that by seeing whether or not we hit the caps. Um So, PDD still exists. I don't think adding MPDs is a bad idea at all. It gives us another tool to negotiate. Um I'll talk about impact assessments later. That's not this ordinance. Um and impact fees for schools, the same thing. Um you know, Mr. Jones, I respectfully as we have sometimes in the past, I respectfully disagree. I think you know, I don't I think it's good to move with uh with purpose. I don't think we're moving too fast. I do think we're moving with purpose. You know, we're doing nine ordinances that have been discussed over eight months in our committee. So, you're looking at roughly an ordinance a month. I don't think that's too fast. I don't agree with slowing down and starting over. Uh but we have two years to look at this. And if this doesn't work, I'll be the first to stand up and say, "Well, it doesn't." But what I don't want to do is acknowledge there's a problem, have a solution on the table, and say, "Well, it's not the absolute best solution that we could ever possibly come up with cuz I don't know that there is ever exist." I think this is the best solution for the moment. It may not be the permanent solution and that's why it's a two-year program. So, I would add into this and incorporate my other comments that were made in the first and second reading. Um and that is why I think this is a good idea as a first step. Councilman, can I ask you just Mr. Brazel, go ahead. brief clarification. So, um if if we are to utilize for major development the PDD, the MPD, will that will that certainly free up the allocation that for the rest of the permits that that would have been allocated towards that type of development and would that go back into the pot for regular home builders and or families that are building homes? So, it would be up to us how to look at it, but my argument would be it could depend So, this is all based on historical averages. So, if we saw over the next 3 years that our single or not I'm sorry, next three cycles or next two cycles. Let's say over the next year or next 6 months. That the number of permits being requested for single family homes inside of major subdivisions were you know, we had a 100 cap and only 70 were being pulled. Then, I think we can have an argument to look that percentage is now lower and those permits should be reallocated. They wouldn't happen automatically, but we could absolutely move those over. I think we'd have justification for that. Just so you're aware the way the system works now is that unused permits in a category stay in that category for the next cycle. But, there's nothing to prevent us and that's the other thing I want to do with the multi-family. If we start seeing a decrease in multi-family units being built because of our ordinances, then that percentage can be used and we see it people hitting the cap in the single family, then we have all the justification we need to move those permits over. It would still keep the cap in place. So, you're not adjusting the cap, you're just adjusting the allotment inside the cap. We can absolutely do that. And this allows us to do that not just at the 6-month interval, but we could do it periodically as we see fit. So, that's a it's not exactly a yes, but it's we could absolutely do it if the numbers support it. And we could do that with a single vote not three readings, correct? I don't I think that we should be able to, but I think Mr. DeBose may have a different opinion, but I do think because it's an existing ordinance, pending ordinance would apply. So, if we did it for a single reading, pending ordinance should apply and change the number. Even if we have to have three to make it official. Okay, I just like some clarification on that. Typically, um, equal dignity rule requires that, um, an ordinance amend an ordinance, um, but there may be I don't want to look at it in this particular instance, but there may be an ability to invoke, um, ending ordinance, um, that is limited in the type of, um, ordinance you can exercise it in, but, um, certainly something we can look at. Yeah, I I'd like the I'd like the ability to fast-track needs. Yeah, and I I would have I would personally think the pending ordinance could apply and we could say it does and, you know, it and face that challenge head-on if we needed to, but I I would think that if we saw a need to make an adjustment, I see no reason why I wouldn't say a pending ordinance should apply. Thank you. Any other discussion, council members? Mr. Discussion uh Mr. Tucker, we're on the ordinance as amended for a third reading. This is 10C. Any further discussion on as amended? Uh no, sir, I'm good. Thank you. How do you vote on the ordinance as amended on 10C? Was that a yes? >> Yes. That's a yes remotely Mr. Tucker. Miss Hannah, we've got you. That's a yes for those who are present and voting, raise your hand if you're in favor on 10C as amended. That is Mr. Shoemaker, Mr. Connell, Mr. Cato, Mr. Tomlinson in favor. Those opposed? Mr. Brazell and Mr. Jones opposed. It passes on third reading. Miss Hannah, for the record. All right, gentlemen, that takes us to item number 10D. This is a third reading related to amendment for section 533 major subdivision design standards. We've got the first and second reading dates noted. Is there a motion? Mr. Chair, I would like to, if there is an objection or an amendment, I would like to take items D through J up at once. The reason I want to leave K is there were some discussions about the impact assessments that I'd like to address, but I would like to take items D through J as a single packet of votes unless someone has an amendment to those. They would be as amended on second reading. Mr. Brazell had some amendments last time, but those are now incorporated in all of them. >> I'll second that as long as K is left out. >> Then it would just be D through J. Let me check if we have any potential amendments from council members either present or absent. We have addressed it as a block on first and second reading for those items that either were not controversial or no amendments were desired. For those who are present, any amendments desired on D I do have one question. >> through J? Yes. Is is it true that in in one of these ordinances we are mandating off-street parking every 500 ft? Is that Is that part of the packet? Yes. Yes, that is the that is G. Um how do we feel like that would affect someone's home or or lot, if you will, if if they built a house and then there was off-street parking that felt like it was inside of their their home. I've never seen that. What's major Gentlemen, if I can just for for maintaining order, sounds like we need to exempt item G from the block motion. We'll maintain it. So, we're talking about D through F and then H, I, and J. >> That's fair. Yes. No amendments desired? No objection? Mr. Tucker, any amendments or objection on D through F or H through J being voted on as a block? No, sir. Any issue from legal counsel on doing that again as we've done on first and second reading? No. All right. So, um we'll seek a motion to approve on third reading D through F and then H through J. Is there such a motion? Yeah, we move Yeah, I'm sorry. I thought I made that motion. Yeah, I know your motion earlier included G. So, D through F and H through J. >> motion. Okay. I'll second the motion. Then we have a second. Any discussion on D through F or H through J? Mr. Tucker, any discussion on D through F or H through J? This is under item number 10. Um nothing. No objections. All right, since I've got you, how do you vote on D through F and H through J? >> Yes. That is a yes remotely uh Miss Hannah from Mr. Tucker. For those who are present and voting, those in favor of D through F and H through J under item number 10, raise your hand if you're in favor. That is Mr. Shoemake, Mr. Brazell, Connell, Kato, and Tomlinson in favor. Any opposed? Mr. Jones is opposed. It passes uh D through F and H through J under item number 10, Miss Hannah, pass third reading. Next item is item number 10G. Item number 10G, do we have a motion on item number 10G? I'd make a motion we adopt item 10G, which is the off-and-on street parking restrictions. Okay, item number 10G has a motion. Is there a second? I'll second. Miss Kato has a second. Mr. Shoemake, you have the floor with the motion. Um So, well, I'll defer to Mr. Brazell cuz he had a question, so I think it's easier to go that way. Mr. Kato, you yield? I yield. Mr. Brazell. Yeah, so I just um John DeBose, you ought to be intimately um in tune with this ordinance. Um tell me about the off-street parking that that has to be added to the to the actual roadway because I I I I think that'll potentially devalue someone's property or home, potentially make that home harder to sell. Um It's just odd. I've never I've never seen that in a subdivision. So, provisions like this exist in um other jurisdictions, have been used in other jurisdictions. Um example drawings of what these parking areas look like are contained in the um agenda packet. Uh Again, I think it is a policy question um for council whether um this [snorts] type of parking arrangement uh accomplishes y'alls policy and land development goals. Um again, So, so is it man- mandated that every 500 ft we have two spaces, four spaces? Yeah, I wasn't sure where you got that from. I'm just trying to look in the ordinance itself. That's where I wanted to Look at this >> What What's What's What's the ask? Is Is my question. I feel like if we're going to vote on it, we need to know exactly what we're voting on and and It looks like that uh that particular page is got omitted um from the agenda materials. Let me see if I can pull it up. >> Yeah, it's there. It's just we got the strikeout version. That's the problem. This This is not as This what's in the agenda package shouldn't be the strikeout version. It says >> Correct. Yeah. >> off-street parking. This is Here you're going to man. This is what you're looking at. It just It should have been the non-strikeout version is all. No fewer than four spaces um located every 500 ft. Okay, so since we don't have the proper material, can can we push this um until we can get this corrected? Because we're voting on something that's striked out and that's I don't know that we're I don't know that the vote's soluble because I think if y'all acknowledge that we made a motion to underline everything in that exhibit to indicate new matter versus stricken matter. I believe those strikes carried over from the um from the Planning and Zoning Committee uh proposed recommendation to remove that off-street requirement major subdivisions. But this text is precisely what uh was included. Again, it's not currently in the regs, this 3613 section, the first two pages of strikes and the diagrams. Um again, the ordinance itself on its face speaks to requiring this off-street parking. I think council could certainly amend the exhibit to indicate uh those are new matters versus stricken matters. Um certainly within the power of council to defer it if that's their will as well. Well, I I'm not saying I'm against it. I'm saying I'm confused because is is I've read through this I I thought all this was stricken and and now it's um It's four four parking areas every every 500 ft, which in a mile is uh 40 parking areas. That's a lot. >> Mr. Bazzle, I think we looking at it now, if I recall what what happened we did when we packaged together last time we did did away with any of the planning and zoning amendments. The planning and zoning amendment was stricken the off-road parking, which was never updated in this current packet. Basically, it was still giving the amendment that was given by planning commission, if I'm correct. >> we just I Can we just push this But I'm I'm fine. I'm fine to push this back to make it make it fit. >> to make sure this is right. >> I'm fine to push it. I agree. Let's push it to the >> I mean, like this isn't this isn't the end of the world. This is just something that needs to be clarified. Gentlemen, I was not present last meeting. I will defer to the wishes of council. >> a motion to defer this to next meeting. I'll second. All right, we have a motion and a second. You withdraw your original motion, Mr. Shoemaker. Any discussion on tabling and deferring to next meeting. All good. On This is on 10G. Seeing none. Mr. Tucker. How do you vote on the motion to defer or table 10G to next meeting? Yes. That's a yes from me. All those in favor who are present and voting, raise your hand. It is deferred to the next council meeting. That's 10G. All right, last one for third reading under ordinances is item number 10K. This is third reading on section 5293 impact assessments and related provisions. Do we have a motion? I'd make a motion that we adopt this. There's a motion on 10K by Mr. Shoemaker. Is there a second? Second. Second, Mr. Tomlinson. Mr. Shoemaker, you have the floor. Yeah, so I want to There there was some comments made about impact assessments, and I wanted to address those uh with this. So, let me just talk about what this does. Um what this does is changes our ordinance to uh say that the planning uh commission who evaluate and consider impact assessments when they approve neighborhoods. Right now, it's not very clear that they can do that. There's been some discussion about mandating impact assessments. I'm actually very supportive of that. However, there have been some bills at the state level that are dealing with that exact issue. And part of the concern in smart growth was you know, if and my understanding is it's not going to make it this session, but given that this is actively being discussed at the state level, there's some concern that we may be getting ahead of our skis into something. If they're if they're saying they are if they're debating this now and we come in and say, well, we're going to mandate it. Because here's the problem. Lexington did it and backed away from it. So, it's concurrency. And here's the problem that you run into. What happens if you mandate them? Then, for example, the Chris County engineer or the fire department could say, "I'm just not giving you one." And effectively kill every development that ever exists. And that's exactly why the concurrency ordinance got to the state level. So, the school district, for example, if we mandate an impact assessment that you have to have one to move forward, we would be putting the ability of outside agencies outside of our council or planning commission to kill any development by just not submitting one. So, the question is how do you do that where you say they So, what we did is we said they may they must consider it if they're submitted. We can't mandate these entities Some of them we can't cuz they're ours, but we can't mandate some of these entities, you know, like the school district, we can't mandate that they do the impact assessments. Although, to be fair, they're one of the few entities that always do theirs. But, we can't mandate that they do their impact assessments. So, the question is how do you deal with that? I'm not saying this is the answer. I'm saying this is a step forward while we have that discussion. And at the state My hope was the state law would change and they would have addressed the issue, but if we have to address it on our own, that's fine. Let's do that. But, right now, I'm not I don't have a good answer for how we mandate the planning commission or how we mandate impact assessments be submitted when we don't have the ability to make the entity submit them. So, that's the part first part. The other part was about um What was the other piece? I'm I'm blanking here a little bit on the other piece about impact assessments that was brought up. Won't we just push the whole thing and then and then have time to work on it? Oh, no, no. We we we talked about these in smart growth. We were aware of these issues. That's why we wrote them this way. We're We were fully aware of this issue. What this does is give some teeth to the planning commission. So, for example, if the school district does submit an impact analysis that says this subdivision will overcrowd Lenny Elementary School, which is exactly what happened in a prior subdivision, they felt like they didn't have the ammunition to legally say no to it because it didn't require they consider them. This mandates they consider these impact assessments if submitted. It just doesn't mandate that they be submitted. But, if the school district submits an impact assessment that says this subdivision is going to overcrowd Lenny Elementary School, the planning commission can deny the subdivision on that basis. And in smart growth, we put up we had a list of 10 or 12 different entities and went went through a lot of discussion 10 I think we added up to 15 different entities throughout the county um and they're listed within that ordinance uh that will be reached out to to submit um an impact study if if warranted. Yeah, the other issue I remember now. The other issue was made right up is the 40 units. That's been in the ordinance which for a long time. We opted not to change it because while we were doing nine at a time, we were actually trying to be cognizant of not doing a total overhaul of everything. So, right now, as has been the law for a long time, impact assessments are only required for subdivisions greater than 40 units. What we have not seen over the last 7 years is any proliferation of sub-40 major subdivisions. We have We have not really seen I don't think we have any If we do, we only have one. I don't think we have any subdivisions that are less than 40 but more than five. If we do, there's only one. So, because we haven't seen a proliferation of these in this ordinance has been on the books for some five, six, seven, eight years at least. We felt like let's not change this now and just make this one adjustment. So, the only adjustment to this impact ordinance is that the planning commission shall consider any submitted impact assessment and can use it in their decision-making to approve or deny. I don't have an objection to revisiting that number of greater than 40, but I would like to do that later during the rewrite because we did talk about that and staff's recommendation was that we keep that there because they're just not seeing an issue with these five to 40 home subdivisions. So, I think that addresses some of the issues that were brought up and that's Those were not These are not new issues to us, but these were issues we discussed in smart growth that I haven't had the benefit of explaining out here at the dais. And on the comment for being vigilant tonight, one thing, you know, we've never had a PDD of any substantial size or at all. Is that correct, Mr. DeBose, in Kershaw County? That's my understanding. >> Yeah, so never had a PDD. And so, at some point, if a PDD comes and wants to apply and and talk, perhaps there might be an economic development component to it. Some of that's covered by confidentiality or NDAs initially. I just want to make sure that the timing for getting impact assessments from various entities, we would take into account whether or not there's some type of NDA or whatever might apply under a PDD that has not been disclosed yet. So, they're not making impact assessments in a vacuum and we get accurate information, they get accurate information, then it it it filters up the way it needs to. That was my only comment. Any other discussion on 10K for those who are present? Mr. Tucker, any discussion remotely on 10K? There's no amendments. No, sir. My vote is yes. Your vote is yes, Mr. Tucker? And >> Okay, that's what I thought I heard. For those who are present and voting, all in favor raise your hand on 10K. That is Sheumake, Connell, Cato, and Tomlinson voting in favor. Any opposed? Mr. Brazell and Mr. Jones opposed. It passes uh on third reading. That's Kim as Hannah for the record. Thank you, gentlemen. That takes us to item number 11A. Place this on the agenda for a reappointment. We talked and we've spoken many times about uh the importance of volunteers who serve on these commissions or boards. And uh I make a motion that we reappoint Lynn Blizzard. She's indicated a willingness to serve. Do we have a second? I'll second. We have a second. Ms. Blizzard has served uh well and faithfully for a while on the assessment appeals board. Um they're not as as busy as the planning commission, for example, but the work they very they do is very important when it does come up. And so, we appreciate their service. Any discussion from those who are present? Any discussion, Mr. Tucker, on the assessment appeals board reappointment of Lynn Blizzard Lynn Blizzard? Was that Cato to second your motion? Say again. Mr. Cato, yes. >> Cato who second? Okay, thank you. That's all. No discussion. Yes, yeah, for your notes. All right, how do you vote? >> [clears throat] >> Yes. That is a yes from Mr. Tucker remotely on the reappointment. For those who are present voting, how do you vote on the reappointment? This is 11A. It's unanimous in favor. For those who are present voting, Ms. Hannah? She is reappointed. Council member briefings. Mr. Cato. >> [laughter] >> Well, I I don't have a whole lot tonight. I I want to again thank the families that come out for the ALS um awareness night tonight. And again, my heart goes out to them. I also want to uh thank the council for allowing me to go forward with this proclamation for the North Central High School weightlifting team. I appreciate y'all let me add that and get so I can get that taken care of. I I that's very important for us to show our young people with those kind of achievements what that we support them and we back them and we're willing to recognize them. Uh that's that's quite a feat to get to a state championship not just once but three times. Um as far as tonight, I appreciate the council the way they've handled themselves tonight and I think it's important or shows our willingness to work and and do what we think is best even though there's a lot of different opinions. And uh I appreciate everything that everybody's done up here for that. Derek, you especially, you worked really hard on this and I I thank you for that. That's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Cato. Mr. Tomlinson. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I Mr. Cato and Mr. Jones, thank y'all for putting the ALS on on the agenda. Um I shed some tears. That That was impactful. Um the words that were said, you you you saw love in this room and a lot of times up here we don't see love. But you saw love today in this room and it was it was a absolute blessing. Um and I I had a few tears dripping on my cheeks. So thank y'all for putting that on the agenda. I really appreciate that. And um to you on a lighter note, I'd like to welcome Mr. Shoemake's better half. >> [laughter] >> Uh Miss Shoemake's in the back of the back of the room. I appreciate her coming out today. >> Glad I behaved myself. >> Yeah. Um Derek definitely outpointed this coverage but Helena, welcome. Yeah. And that's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Tomlinson. Mr. Jones. Thank you so much. I didn't mean to interrupt you but Lord have mercy. I'm glad I sit in an ugly >> [laughter] >> Oh, anyway, um I just want to say that echo from colleagues that Cato and and and Grant. I appreciate what you did and I appreciate the opportunity to get to go and meet with this wonderful lady, Miss Jackie. And I tell you to to know that we we've lost friends, Danny, and you they were their families were here tonight. And it does it goes and shows you how what's really important in this life. It's it's short, guys. We may disagree on this council. But it's good to see that we're able to keep it civil and it's not personal. We don't try to go out and just attack each other. It's okay to have difference of opinions. But uh anyway, I I can't say anymore, but I just appreciate this council's support and willingness and and Miss Chairman taking the time to let everybody process this in tonight when we were doing the proclamation. Very very important and also so glad your dad is doing better. Thank you. Thank you for that, Mr. Jones. Mr. Tucker, any report remotely from you? Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. >> excuse [clears throat] me. Uh once again, I want to say um our prayers and love go out to your father and family and uh tell him that um we're continue to pray and send our love and to continue to recover. Um I also want to ask for your prayers uh for my uh father-in-law, the Norwood family, uh which passed Sunday morning. Um [clears throat] and um we're in the middle of making those arrangements here so we can funeralize him. We also had couple deaths over the last couple days in the county. Uh the drowning up at the lake, uh fatality off Highway 34 uh east early this morning. Uh keep all those families in your prayers as we move forward. And um I want to end with a good note. I had the opportunity [clears throat] to go to Duke University uh this weekend, Friday. I had a niece who graduated there with a double major. Um she has a BS in chemistry with a biochemistry concentration and a BA in sociology with a medical sociology concentration and will be researching in Boston at Boston Children's Hospital along with Harvard Medical School teaching hospital for two two years in the pediatric cardiac ICU. So I'm very proud of my niece, Aleia Nicole Tucker. That concludes my report. Congratulations to her. Thank you so much, Mr. Tucker, for your kind words. Mr. Shumake. A couple of things, obviously been, you know, with all with your dad. So glad to hear Joe's doing well. Can't wait to have him popping back in the office. Um one thing that we won't be meeting again till after it's here. We only have one of our law enforcement attendants, but this is Police Week through May 16th and at May 15th at 10:00 a.m. at the Sheriff's Department there at the future site of the law enforcement memorial, they're going to have a celebration. So again, this is a week where we honor those who protect and serve our community and many of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in doing so in our law enforcement ranks. So thank you for being here. Um end of the school year for those of us with kids, college kids returning home, high school kids getting ready to graduate, little kids moving up. So congrats to everyone who's you know, taking that next step. Graduations for the high schools here are all next week, specifically on Thursday, May 24th, our daughter Abigail will be graduating. So congratulations to Abby. Um when I again say hello to my wife as he is Brian took my thunder and saying hello to my wife, which is something. But so >> [laughter] >> but but he did. That was from both of us. So you know, as the young lady said up here, you know, we are better together and I just you know, this this week particularly for a lot of reasons that some of my colleagues up here know, we've been talked about some stuff both political and governmental and it's been a very rough week a very not even rough but a very tough and just it's been a it's been a interesting week for me these last couple of weeks. So I appreciate my colleagues up here. Um you know everyone up here does care about Kershaw County and when you see us sometimes getting into it with another it's because it comes from passion and I can promise you the one thing you don't want is a body of representatives watching out for you that are devoid of passion because then they'll just go along to get along and that's when you know the hard personalities take over. So everyone up here has a lot of passion and I respect and appreciate everyone up here and thank you all for your work. Thank you Mr. Shumpert. Mr. Brazell. Thank you chairman. Um I would also like to to mention the fact that um the the stories in the in the prayers from the lady regarding ALS were were pretty impactful. Um if I understood her correctly the doctors gave her two to five years and here she is 15 years later. >> [snorts] >> And that's the healing power of Jesus Christ. If you don't know him I'd be happy to share with you my personal beliefs and my Christian faith with you because he does he does change lives and perform miracles and I think inside this building tonight that that was a living testament to the miracles that he can provide. And um I did want to highlight that. It was it was an an emotional moment and and it gave me a a great deal of perspective in a moment in which I needed it. So I was thankful for that. Um regarding the drowning at Tailrace if I'm not mistaken that's the third one in two years. Something like that. Times pass fastly but um Will Glover and I have have discussed uh and and Danny, I'd like to discuss with you a potential meeting with Duke to find ways to make that area safer. We know that when the water rises, it can become unsafe. I'm not saying that's what caused this, but it's been it's been too much tragedy, and I would not be doing my job if I did not try to facilitate a way to make it safer. I know people like to fish up there, catfishing and and straight bass fishing is is pretty good, and >> [snorts] >> I think there's a a platform and a railing that could be implemented. Not to say somebody couldn't go around it, but I would like to try to work with Duke Power and Kershaw County to make that safer. My heart goes out to the families. Um And and Councilman Tucker, I did not know the situation that your family was in. Uh we'll be praying for you as well. Um With all that being Yes, sir. Yes, sir. God bless y'all. Um With all that being said, um I want to thank all of my colleagues, and and and Derek, you you poured your heart and soul soul into uh the ordinances. Whether I liked them or not is irrelevant. Um I know your intention is good, and what what I'll ask is that if we do run into potential problems, and if builders are having trouble um if if local builders are having trouble and it's affecting their families, if it's affecting uh them in a negative manner, that we can work through that together in a positive manner. That that would just be my only ask of you. And um you know, the votes the votes fell the way they did, and so we must accept it and move on the best we can. Uh lastly, I'd like to uh give a shout-out to a county employee uh Yuless Lance is the deputy assessor. And I've had to call him about a couple of uh miscues on taxes uh where where something was incorrect. The The assessment was wrong. And within 10 minutes I had a resolution and uh a fixed bill. And I just wanted to say publicly how impressed I am by him. And uh Danny, I want to say to you and and Gerald how impressed I am by him. I I visited him today, shook his hand, and told him thank you because it's been two or three occasions that that I needed something and and he was the person to help me and he's just a very impressive individual and um his customer service was exceptional. So, I wanted to highlight him tonight. So, and that that's it. That's all I had to say. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Brazell. Um I would be remiss if I didn't thank this council for the support through the very very challenging time of my dad's uh sickness. I would be remiss if I didn't thank the professionals at MUSC and the emergency department at uh Prisma Health and their neuro ICU and surgical department and now at Midlands Rehab Hospital. I have no doubt that but for the power of prayer uh my my dad would have passed away based on his diagnosis, the severity of his stroke, and the fact that he had two concurrent surgeries and the physicians came out and, you know, gave us that grim look of it doesn't look too good. Um but miraculously I I now know it's it's not the best way I would suggest experiencing how it feels to have your family lifted up by thousands of prayers, but it's real. I can tell you that much. The power of prayer is real. I'll share one small experience to show, I think, how the Lord wraps up small prayers and big prayers together to combine for a greater whole and how he cares about everyone, whether you're struggling struggling or mourning or if you're on top of the world and at the risk of of pride as well. My family was rotating and and praying and staying with my dad overnight. I guess that's one advantage to having six siblings. And um I share this in part because many times we've tried to minister to others, even folks in this room and serve their family members or those who are present. It's an interesting thing to be served and loved and lifted up. It's very humbling and I'm extremely grateful for it. But it as we were rotating through, there's a little chapel off to the side in Prisma Health's surgical area where you get to wait. And so we would go through and we were just constantly praying and getting I'm sorry for those who I haven't replied to. I've got hundreds and hundreds of text messages and so of all my siblings for the life of friends and contacts who were praying for my dad. But I went in there and I knelt down in the little chapel they have and was praying for, I don't know, the how many how many times it was that day. And as I knelt down, I just knelt next to a red chair, same location I had a couple times that day. And as I got up and finished praying and had a mighty wrestle with the Lord in trying to plead for my father, I looked down and I saw this little earring. And I thought that was odd. I hadn't seen it the multiple times before. And so I looked down, looked like a a nice, you know, diamond type earring. I picked it up and said, "I'll go check at the front desk." And so I went to go to the front desk and asked one of the staff members there who knew us because we'd been there all day while he was being operated on. And I said, "Whose earring might this be? Has someone been looking?" And she says, "Oh, this is so-and-so's earring. She works right over here in the side room. She's been looking that for that. We would looked for it for about a week in that room. Cleaning went through and tried to tear the room apart and find it. So, I go over and I meet this young lady and I hand her this earring, which seems like a very small thing. But, it meant a lot to her because of who she got it from and she'd been praying for about a week plus to get this little earring. And so, when I go and give it to her, she says, "Isn't your dad getting surgery?" I said, "Yeah, he's been in it all day." She said, "I I've seen y'all walking back and forth and praying. We needed somebody to pray for." And within 2 minutes, uh she had like 60 additional people, like some prayer chain or something, she said. And she went in there and started praying herself. And that was so powerful to me that Lord is concerned with the small details of our lives that he might make a a earring show up so somebody can find it in the moment of need. And then you can reissue the power of prayer and get that moving in somebody's life. It's just so powerful to me. And so, I thank God. I'm very grateful that my father's alive and I'm just so thankful. That concludes my report. All right, Danny, sorry to lay that on >> [laughter] >> That was a short report, Danny. Any briefing that we have? I was just going to talk about Rex stuff. So, Um [snorts] just a few things, a quick update. I know we still have some executive session material. So, um a lot of our parks are coming to fruition. They're they're, you know, we're working on the final stages, the punch lists. A lot of the punch lists are done. We're just waiting on grass to be cut and curated or manicured, rather, so we can get uh hopefully get some games on them before the end of the season. Um, so Woodward Park is really coming along. They the CEO that's certificate of occupancy has been um, issued for the concession buildings and equipment shelter. Uh, I went over there the other day. There's sidewalks, there's there's mulch and everything in for the landscaping. It looks really good. They were waiting on some paving over there uh, to be done, but it's it's really shaping up. It's going to be a beautiful beautiful amenity. Um, the basketball courts are finished minus the goals being attached and some striping. But, um, so there it's a lot of work has been done on that and that's been obviously the biggest project. So, I'm proud of the way that thing is shaping up. Um, the river park or with the uh, boat ramp, um, still looking at that for some amenities to add in over there. A lot of these projects are finished as it relates to the project itself, but there's always going to be room for improvements, especially over there. Um, we want to look at some lighting because it is a all essentially a 24-hour access, um, ramp. So, we want to improve safety and things like that over there. Uh, probably look in higher ground some, um, solar lighting possibly just to keep some areas lit and, um, deter any kind of activity over there that might, um, impact some of the people using the river the boat ramp at night. The, um, we'll talk with Fairfield to maybe get some some quick lights on poles over there to, uh, again improve lighting in the parking area. So, when folks are using that at night, they have a little bit more peace and security over there. Uh, and then I know we have where the ramp ends, there's a little bit of an issue there with mud as as the water goes down tracking mud up onto the, uh, uh the ramp. So, we're going to look at what the core will allow us to do to put into the river to attenuate that mud coming up on there. Um we always have to ask the blessings of the core for anything we put into the river because of the way that's it's classified. It's a navigable waterway, which they make it sound like tugboats and everything are going down there. Not the case. Uh if can I just mention one thing, Danny? Not interrupt you, but um our engineering firm has recommended a certain uh type of concrete block that can be embedded in the mud at the bottom of the ramp. Could we look into that just to get a little extension because I know at low water we've had some people with their trailers kind of bumping or falling off. Um if you could just do that, you just remind me. Thank you. >> Yeah, sure. Absolutely. Um the just a few other quick notes, Pisgah Community Playground, we've got a sign ordered [snorts] for that and the handicap swing set. Danny, I know you and I had talked about that um at length, so that looks to be delivered within the next five to or five to 10 days in in that time frame there. Um and then our pool officially opens this Saturday. So, um that's kind of always a milestone for summers here when the pool opens, so look forward to offering that amenity to the community. And um that is all I have. Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. The pecan orchard, is there an update on that? Where do we stand? Um we are still moving forward with that. I've reached out to uh we've been in negotiation with the the owner of the parcel that uh that empty lot there. We heard back from them today. Just point uh offer counteroffer kind of thing. So, I feel like we have a price there on that. And then the other property owner was not amenable to an outfall right away. So, I'm still in communication with with that individual to get that and to make sure that there's nothing we can do before we get a hard no on that outfall towards the Latchco end. So, what what is the I guess what I want to say is can we expect something in the next meeting or what? Yes, and then um Yeah, so we should know a whole bunch more there. Um it's certainly my next meeting. It is kind of the I don't want to say due diligence, but more of a negotiation kind of approach right now with getting these very important outfalls. But you say for the one piece of property you pretty much have you have got something settled on that or recommendation? Yes, we have a recommendation and then it's it's within the uh you know, when council authorized us to do that negotiate it's it's within And and plans on bringing all that to us. Yes, sir. If if we get everything ironed out um it would be potentially by the next meeting. Okay. And and y'all are staying in contact with the people, the residents? Yes. When there's something to brief, I don't want to just send something out to send something out, but this will be brief worthy. These these next two items. So, yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. uh administrator. Mr. Bose and report on privilege. All right. That brings us to executive session. We have two items for executive session and I understand no votes anticipated, correct, gentlemen? Um so, these will be two matters under section 30-4-70 A2 related to the matter covered by attorney-client privilege. That's 15 A and B. Do we have a motion to enter executive session? Make make a motion we enter executive session. >> Mr. Cato has the motion. Mr. Thompson has the second. Any discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Tucker, how do you vote on an executive session? Yes. That's a yes from Mr. Tucker remotely. All in favor who are present and voting, raise your hand. On executive session, it's unanimous. We're in executive session. >> Mhm. >> Discussion on executive session. >> None. None. We'll move to the vote on executive session. All in favor raise your hand. Miss Hannah, we don't have Sammy, but you do have four votes and you have a quorum. And so that's >> You you do have me. Sorry. Okay. Sammy, how do you vote on executive session? So yes. That's a yes, Miss Hannah. So you got five votes. With the other two um absent. Seek a motion to adjourn. >> Motion to adjourn. So moved. We got a second from Miss Tucker. All in favor of adjourning, raise your hand. Good night. It's unanimous. Mr. Shemwell, can you raise your hand? I. It's unanimous for those who are present and voting, and that is a yes from Mr. Tucker remotely. Miss Hannah, for the record. You get that, Florence? >> Good night. Good night, Sammy. Thank you. >> very much, gentlemen. All right. Thank you.