[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86,98],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6378401,"mediaKeyId","2137668-3dc6a1d41292f49b3a6b621b5bc52448","parentId",2137668,"title","Votes at a glance — York County Council, Jan. 21, 2025","audioSeconds",4047,"startMs",2664000,"endMs",6711000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2137668-3dc6a1d41292f49b3a6b621b5bc52448&start=2664&end=6711","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2137668-3dc6a1d41292f49b3a6b621b5bc52448/thumbnail_2664000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6378401/York-County/South-Carolina/Votes-at-a-glance-York-County-Council-Jan-21-2025","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6378401-e277dd52fb09b200cff707122189bec0/orig.mp4?Expires=1773539371&Signature=KAKqWrB3e1W2jUP9ZAvMU0E47jO6-a6W5xVZYztMwlpsMXBbN9C4t7RL13292WWOGMrr3R2xdXFh8lzht13fXbDNxzQkOhZ1D5iKVBSq8ZoIrqkooarvzVvuG8ejl4s9qmUjtmYxZlrrfiQulJcysXSRduxGUBKOiIQ6JbzgFIZ2qZbKo19XwZ0Z2QUnDDVDIDi13AYDkxnquI3GJCstfBnVqfy-rS9e2eepAY~MFPmUnB8wjy39KiiH1X2enFKnwJ-zYGz0bOiPs6C255daX-X~ZdzYrww9Kg7zCy7LZCkw3Wv7YHBJ3MQoVlYAYEgucXwmRT1zNU24womWBswwYQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-01-22T13:24:46.49Z","article","Below are the formal actions taken by York County Council during its Jan. 21 meeting, compiled from the transcript. For each item we list the council action, the case or agenda identifier when given, and the recorded outcome.

- Tractor trailer text amendment (Chapter 155, tractor‑trailer storage on AGC parcels): Approved first reading (targeted amendment to allow on‑property trailer storage for bona fide farming operations). Vote recorded as unanimous.

- TIA egress amendment (Section 154.365, Level of Service for egress movements): Approved first reading (reduces LOS requirement for some egress movements; Planning Commission recommended 7‑0). Vote recorded as unanimous.

- Rezoning, Case 24‑52 (tax map 46400 00019; AGC → RUD; 3.02 acre parcel, District 2): Approved on second reading; vote recorded as 6‑1.

- Rezoning, Case 24‑57 (tax map 2570008; AGC → RUD; 7.x acre parcel, District 3): Approved on second reading; vote recorded as 6‑1.

- Rezoning, Case 24‑58 (tax map 529000061; AGC → RUD; 5.2 acre parcel, District 4): Approved on second reading; vote recorded as unanimous (7‑0).

- Rezoning, Case 24‑59 (tax map 56100 0022; RMX‑20 → LI; 1.47 acre parcel, District 2): Approved on second reading with a condition that a deed restriction be prepared and returned to council before third reading; vote recorded as unanimous (7‑0).

- Rezoning, Case 24‑61 (RSF‑40 → RMX‑10; two parcels totaling 0.71 acres, District 7): Deferred by council at requester’s motion.

- Rezoning, Case 24‑62 (48 parcels consolidated to remove split zones, District 3): Approved on second reading; vote recorded as unanimous.

- $20,000,000 general‑fund loan to accelerate Pennies resurfacing program: Approved (loan to be repaid within three years); vote recorded as unanimous.

- Parks and Recreation implementation tied to FY25 Parks Administrative budget ($1,256,582): Council approved additional personnel and capital expenditures as described in the staff request; vote recorded as unanimous.

- Post‑executive session authorization: Council authorized a recommendation regarding project number 17228‑011 (Flint Street drainage improvements, multiple tracts listed); vote recorded as unanimous.

Votes noted in the transcript were reported as roll calls of “aye” vs. “opposed” in standard council procedure; where a numeric tally was announced on the record, that tally is recorded above. If a recorded vote indicates a unanimous outcome but no numeric count was stated, the summary reports the vote as unanimous (seven‑member council assumed present). Additional readings, deed‑restriction language and any conditional documentation referenced by the council remain outstanding items for follow‑up prior to final adoption of ordinances.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","York County Council Meeting January 21, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Summary of formal actions taken by York County Council at the Jan. 21 meeting, including zoning votes, technical code changes and budget/implementation approvals.","taxTitle","York County, South Carolina","taxId",5759,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6378404,"Council approves rezoning to allow marine/dredging use; residents urge action on Lake Wylie invasive plants",4597,1193000,5790000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2137668-3dc6a1d41292f49b3a6b621b5bc52448&start=1193&end=5790","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2137668-3dc6a1d41292f49b3a6b621b5bc52448/thumbnail_1193000.jpg","/articles/6378404/York-County/South-Carolina/Council-approves-rezoning-to-allow-marinedredging-use-residents-urge-action-on-Lake-Wylie-invasive-plants","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6378404-bec05dc1b9cb43c57fbf8291c707b267/orig.mp4?Expires=1773539371&Signature=OzKEt1R3dT6K0drdlQQxNXaj-TRK766aafBAW5FYE7DS55CG6Lf6Ipft5FE3ezw6oJ7qhcOvjzluS8~HUSbYw1q0UvKmDZt7o2UHQdxiVzeuODHQkmXE0-aelZIzCvCFaA~Yl4utVF7aJb1uLIC3sm~LtfssXsvDZDtYXFQKkZ1k9NInoM25KSMjzqW5eTiESSlntnrPWKXvA8n4pjNISBbCDJIeU-NiSqBse~vOrPc~5lwtd6kLsWvqi79JBVIJBwwygSueRpzQBKrMrh4zzg-lwWNykpqh3FoMKTw2h6ql~mtKXGjhCfTOMK6GgP9sbZCN17w8tObuXuJw9ynKxA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Speakers during the Jan. 21 public forum urged York County Council to act on two lake issues: expanding Lake Wylie’s invasive‑plant treatment program and permitting local dredging services. Ray Weber, chairman of the Lake Wylie Marine Commission, told the council a new invasive species, identified locally as \"lingbia,\" was spreading and that treatment will likely require multiple years and repeated cost increases. He said partners including Charlotte Water, Duke Energy, North Carolina State University and state wildlife agencies participated in a recent symposium on the issue and that the Lake Wylie Marine Commission spent about $30,000 from reserves on treatments last year; staff estimates to treat current acreage are in the low tens of thousands per year.

Later in the meeting council considered a rezoning request, case 24‑59, to change a 1.47‑acre parcel from RMX‑20 to Light Industrial (LI) to allow a marine construction/dredging business to operate. Several council members voiced support for permitting locally based dredging and marine construction to help property owners maintain lakefront access and property values. Staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial citing the county’s future land‑use map designation of the area as neighborhood residential, but the full council approved second reading after adding a condition that a deed restriction be prepared and filed before third reading; the motion passed with a unanimous vote.

Supporters argued the rezoning would provide local service capacity for ongoing dredging and lakework that residents say they need to protect docks, navigation and property values. Opponents (including planning staff and the Planning Commission) cited comprehensive plan compatibility and neighborhood land‑use concerns. Council members who voted to approve emphasized the practical need for dredging services and requested deed restrictions to limit incompatible uses; several members noted that final language on permitted/forbidden uses would be provided before third reading.

What council approved: second reading to rezone tax map 56100 0022 from RMX‑20 to LI for a 1.47‑acre parcel, with direction that deed restriction language be drafted and presented before third reading. The council recorded the vote as unanimous. What remains: final deed‑restriction language to be drafted and reviewed by council before third reading; any future permit approvals will follow standard land‑use and environmental review processes.","Public speakers told the council about invasive aquatic plants and dredging needs on Lake Wylie; council approved a rezoning (case 24‑59) to allow a 1.47‑acre light industrial site for marine/dredging operations with a planned deed restriction, despite staff and Planning Commission recommendation to deny.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6378406,"Council eases egress-level standard in traffic impact analysis to help redevelopment",1001,2943000,3944000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2137668-3dc6a1d41292f49b3a6b621b5bc52448&start=2943&end=3944","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2137668-3dc6a1d41292f49b3a6b621b5bc52448/thumbnail_2943000.jpg","/articles/6378406/York-County/South-Carolina/Council-eases-egress-level-standard-in-traffic-impact-analysis-to-help-redevelopment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6378406-e0e7a04c52364b8424b6ff7013e3d188/orig.mp4?Expires=1773539371&Signature=U8tfDuI8bSpZQCCZJ3Wgtlon3Ll3Qp5M2wWnGn66Q5eD~YoUtU-ssep54uAaTj-brghxg85FIDSaZ-VBfavPKkr2oZWzhCbM7zUxC7HgwFxapuwez9UuktxTanIPjAaTZfjaTxzAjeetilY9ZsvweQisNnju8rcKjHcoweAWrL~99nfngquL~~GMTfwGq3SHB2enmXR6G~ehaWZJzZlz5TTMDKa0-WrjQI9grcTGp3dF2xPzDrg9TjYtDQCeoTaH4BEQB4mMHt6lLC9B4VtckgsrXjoPzfjQuiCfV37gixnZ0e155b63m4FXd3zl5dO~3XK4A54mI686LmKiFlxlTA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","York County Council on Jan. 21 approved a text amendment to Section 154.365 of the county’s Land Development Code that revises Level of Service (LOS) criteria used in traffic impact analyses (TIAs) for site egress movements. The change lowers the LOS requirement for new developments from D to E for egress movements and allows existing developments to accept a higher delay in certain circumstances, subject to limits.

Jonathan, a county planning/transportation staff member, told the council the tweak is narrowly targeted to the egress movement — the delay that drivers experience when leaving a site — and is intended to make redevelopment on existing corridors more feasible without requiring extensive traffic mitigation. He explained that the maximum change for new developments translates to a roughly 25‑second increase at signalized intersections (LOS D allows up to 55 seconds; LOS E up to 80 seconds) and a smaller change at unsignalized intersections.

“It's really a maximum difference of a 25 second delay,” Jonathan said, describing the proposal.

Staff said the amendment does not alter capacity or delay on the main thoroughfare itself but instead affects internal delay at the driveway or development egress point. Examples included a site on Highway 160 where staff had recommended eliminating a left‑turn egress during peak periods; under the amendment that site could retain full access and accept a larger internal delay, giving drivers the option to wait for a left turn at off‑peak times or choose alternative routing.

The Planning Commission recommended the amendment in a 7‑0 vote. Supporters said the change helps promote infill development on corridors that already have thoroughfare capacity and can reduce pressure to push development further into rural areas. Some council members raised safety questions and asked how the proposed standard aligns with state Department of Transportation practices and signal warrants; staff replied the amendment is site‑specific and most affected egress movements involve unsignalized access.

Council voted to approve the amendment in the meeting; staff said the change is within planning and design best practices and is intended as a limited, technical fix rather than a wholesale rewriting of access management policy.","York County Council approved a text amendment to the land development code adjusting Level of Service (LOS) thresholds for site egress movements, loosening the standard for new developments and providing limited relief for existing sites with marginally failing egresses.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6378408,"Council approves first reading to allow farm tractor‑trailers to be stored on agricultural parcels",1156,1757000,2913000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2137668-3dc6a1d41292f49b3a6b621b5bc52448&start=1757&end=2913","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2137668-3dc6a1d41292f49b3a6b621b5bc52448/thumbnail_1757000.jpg","/articles/6378408/York-County/South-Carolina/Council-approves-first-reading-to-allow-farm-tractortrailers-to-be-stored-on-agricultural-parcels","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6378408-41800f0438d3f4014478cfe480bb04c4/orig.mp4?Expires=1773539371&Signature=fLkOAyhurrBpsTC~lC37yBkHC5BRsE2Q3~CsWCFI1WSus8vhMYrOK3aEeFancwW8f9t~aBm3ucAxBIUzIu1RsZPAtINHE7LU~8Xjk0WT7P8q7Zz1WwvjEKzuNqKnnAsevbj19fY0DKS2UcsUzPL79niSIsbwLEUvIoAXL6RUzeKD0fC5WK1IcwuQr~PyGbaaNxWoUJOZGKKAUV387UAvNWAZI0qKMFkCk0izM9nU0Y39iU6D7c3vJ8ctbuZw6AM-Lyu9TwooJwlj4dxPajphsGNS8sYx~8c2doisbXu7wv7mjywks9CGopkOInpevjtz3aNC~xEPXtJNIdPS4-vBhw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","York County Council on Jan. 21 approved first reading of a text amendment to Chapter 155 of the county zoning code that allows tractor‑trailer trucks and associated travel containers to be stored outdoors on AGC‑zoned land when the equipment is essential to a bona fide farming operation and is owned, leased or rented by the owner or tenant of the property.

The change responds to citizen complaints about tractor‑trailers appearing to be used as storage yards rather than as farm equipment, and it follows a unanimous recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Rick Abood, the county’s principal planner, told the council the committee framed the amendment around three principles: storage only for agricultural purposes, evidence of a bona fide farming operation, and ownership/lease by the property owner or tenant.

Abood said the planning committee “came out with 3 principles they wanted to follow. 1 of them was, the vehicles and equipment, maybe stored, for agricultural purposes only, and they're essential to the operation, and we have a bonafide farming operation on the land.” The staff presentation noted the amendment is intended to prevent the conversion of agricultural parcels into de facto trailer‑storage or parking lots.

Council members pressed staff on details the amendment does and does not change. The council was told the setback, enclosure and garage requirements in the existing regulation do not apply to tractor‑trailers under the proposed text; separate code language governs shipping containers, which are treated differently and currently limited by separate provisions. Council members also asked how staff would distinguish seasonal or intermittent use — for example, trailers used only during harvest — from long‑term storage. Staff responded that the rule requires trailers to be on parcels that are actively farmed and that code enforcement could rely on observable activity as a signal of active farming.

Council discussion ranged from support for the targeted fix to explicit warnings that the county may need to broaden the code review later. One council member said the council should be “prepared to address it for the other end of the spectrum” if businesses seek similar allowances in non‑agricultural areas; another urged that staff be ready to monitor complaints and violations as they arise. The council adopted the amendment in a vote recorded as unanimous.

What the ordinance does not do: it does not remove agricultural protections, does not create a quantity limit tied to acreage in the adopted language, and — according to staff — does not change the separate code limits that apply to shipping containers (those remain subject to existing container rules). Staff recommended, and the Planning and Zoning Commission supported, the narrower fix to address the immediate complaint while leaving broader code questions for a future code‑wide review.

Council members repeatedly asked staff to flag any unintended consequences and to consider a follow‑up charge to Planning and Zoning to examine trailer and container storage countywide. The council approved first reading of the amendment; additional readings and final adoption will follow the county’s regular ordinance process.","York County Council approved a zoning text amendment in a 2025 meeting to permit tractor‑trailers and similar equipment to be stored outdoors on agricultural (AGC) parcels when the vehicles are essential to a bona fide farming operation and are owned, leased or rented by the parcel owner or tenant.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance — York County Council, Jan. 21, 2025

Council approves rezoning to allow marine/dredging use; residents urge action on Lake Wylie invasive plants

Council eases egress-level standard in traffic impact analysis to help redevelopment

Council approves first reading to allow farm tractor‑trailers to be stored on agricultural parcels