[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-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",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_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":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6265108,"mediaKeyId","3094124-48aa603215d62611dbb558e8916f35b1","parentId",3094124,"title","Votes at a glance: committee approvals — grants, subdivision concurrency and applications","audioSeconds",3980,"startMs",448000,"endMs",4428000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3094124-48aa603215d62611dbb558e8916f35b1&start=448&end=4428","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3094124-48aa603215d62611dbb558e8916f35b1/thumbnail_448000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6265108/Lexington-County/South-Carolina/Votes-at-a-glance-committee-approvals-grants-subdivision-concurrency-and-applications","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6265108-823761a1b79983571e36241b74a79664/orig.mp4?Expires=1771166527&Signature=jMJtiFSdYgSeesp2EaaHshpEPLv-Ry~dhF~P2spsg0HdErfcmp1s6G4Y5jw0uXc9d4UPQdnceH1vuxX3EfuoCX8HIuF~Sja5T-BATBiJc4qKOV8iQHMoL9cAvwiCDC~PoYlFCw8HINqv5hecVNbgDEVmOzH0LK5Yl05FX9lgxALIzpLBnNNGxx7TqSaFL~LeC5pVwzpLPk2f5dn4-1TqGJGwiY-kPhkahoOBR6SqHuYrHupcjUJpLshEjcIOC4rZnQT5Z-kcJGMfiu-jZj9RMxEoPwsRfsxbXzTT7N0MFNKP5247NgUYh-t1g4zV-79GWjzvqlX8XA3QbRzxNF3qJg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Lexington County, SC","date","2025-04-22T00:00:00Z","article","Several motions and grant actions across Lexington County committees were approved in committee session.

- Hazard Mitigation Grant application (SCEMD) — Approved: Community Development recommended applying to the South Carolina Emergency Management Division (SCEMD) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program to update the Kinley Creek stormwater management study. Staff said the FEMA/SCEMD match is 75% federal/state and 25% county. Committee members made and seconded a motion to approve staff’s application request and the motion passed.

- Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) grant acceptance — Approved: Library Services staff reported a $2,000 award from the South Carolina State Library to support a summer reading and learning program (total project cost $3,136 with $1,136 in staff in‑kind support). Committee vote: motion to accept the grant passed.

- ASPCA Rescue Effect campaign grant application — Approved to apply: Animal Services asked to apply for a $20,000 ASPCA Rescue Effect Campaign grant to support rescue diversion and care (vaccinations, microchips, treatment for animals destined for rescue). Committee motion to apply passed; staff said the grant would incur no county match.

- Pleasant View Tract residential subdivision — Concurrency recommendation approved: Community Development presented a revised sketch plan for a mixed single‑family and duplex development totaling 624 dwelling units on 221.17 acres; the planning commission reviewed the accompanying school district questionnaire and unanimously recommended council consideration. Committee motion to accept the planning commission concurrency recommendation for the Pleasant View Tract passed.

Other routine motions: multiple committees approved March 25, 2025, meeting minutes during the session.

Votes noted in the public transcript carry no recorded roll‑call tallies in most cases; where vote counts were not read into the record committees reported motions “pass” or “approved.”","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","04-22-2025 - Council Committee Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Several committee items were approved across Lexington County committees: a county application to an SCEMD hazard‑mitigation grant, library LSTA grant acceptance, an ASPCA rescue program grant application and a subdivision concurrency recommendation for the Pleasant View Tract.","taxTitle","Lexington County, South Carolina","taxId",19113,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6265113,"Public Works proposes shifting C‑fund allotment to accelerate planned dirt‑road paving projects",346,3622000,3968000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3094124-48aa603215d62611dbb558e8916f35b1&start=3622&end=3968","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3094124-48aa603215d62611dbb558e8916f35b1/thumbnail_3622000.jpg","/articles/6265113/Lexington-County/South-Carolina/Public-Works-proposes-shifting-Cfund-allotment-to-accelerate-planned-dirtroad-paving-projects","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6265113-9862c22e3953f75807c33e7617df6bbe/orig.mp4?Expires=1771166527&Signature=NhDDkhO8p5CYzLSwvjw0XLvRAK2GeAyjRFfchofBhXtxCDq7Z3BPkNbQNBxcDB~ZespzNQQB6EuBqYI9s7HwVpY1vMLDw7EVykgHNuk8IXH053Xn8mz0RjZUZqkae9PmOTW1v4iswSGjI5AC4RTaT85ot1M6mkuVADfZmpR9rhgzhEBRzV5ytvHDUKBQIIssKjbNqlGrzue3BcPHn0-0W3c-wXf5RilXDYVt8C~rygimEWokptvepatAuuMeOywTpqXWpXaHhnvA41BCEYxS1vq~FqlMC196u1qZKLkcbAprMLpebOnEXzZOK4K9egLKH702NqlKAuuSUg8VpHwH0g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Public Works staff briefed the Public Works Committee on proposed adjustments to the county’s County Transportation Committee (C‑fund) plan to better match funding with a set of dirt‑road paving projects now in design.

The C‑fund program distributes state gas‑tax dollars to counties; Lexington receives roughly $7 million annually (the exact apportionment varies year to year), with about one‑third of the apportionment required to be spent on the state highway system. Derek (Public Works) said the county currently reserves $1 million annually for dirt‑road paving but that current project estimates (including turnkey design and construction) are closer to $1.4 million per mile. To deliver several near‑design projects over the next two to three years staff proposed increasing the dirt‑road allotment to $2.5 million while preserving roughly $2.5 million for asphalt maintenance.

Committee members asked for details on the petition list and how roads are selected. Public Works staff said the petition list holds more than 300 roads (more than 200 miles) and that the list includes older petitions submitted decades ago. Members discussed whether roads should be ranked by maintenance need, traffic, school bus service and resident interest and whether a clearer process is needed to update or remove long‑standing petitions. Staff agreed to distribute the transportation plan and to work with council members to identify local priorities and to consider a ranking approach to differentiate maintenance‑only roads from roads where full paving is warranted.

The committee discussed alternatives such as a graveling/rocking program where right‑of‑way and drainage easements are available; staff said gravel programs can extend short‑term access but asphalt provides longer‑term durability. The committee did not take a formal vote on the plan allocation at this meeting; staff will distribute the draft plan to council and solicit feedback.

Public Works also moved to executive session later in the meeting to discuss a contract negotiation regarding a drainage easement on Woodford Road; the committee returned with direction for staff to pursue a solution with the property owner and no votes were taken in open session.

Next steps: Public Works will circulate the draft C‑fund plan to county council, provide the petition‑list details and work with council members on prioritization and right‑of‑way issues; staff will explore gravel vs. paving tradeoffs where drainage easements exist.","Public Works staff outlined adjustments to Lexington County’s County Transportation Committee (C‑fund) plan to increase funding for dirt‑road paving from $1 million to $2.5 million to deliver several projects currently in design; committee members asked for a petition‑list review and clarified gravel vs. asphalt tradeoffs.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6265118,"Consultants present code assessment recommending unified development ordinance and hybrid zoning approach",4248,4700000,8948000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3094124-48aa603215d62611dbb558e8916f35b1&start=4700&end=8948","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3094124-48aa603215d62611dbb558e8916f35b1/thumbnail_4700000.jpg","/articles/6265118/Lexington-County/South-Carolina/Consultants-present-code-assessment-recommending-unified-development-ordinance-and-hybrid-zoning-approach","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6265118-8ccca84f55a01756139498b43d4672b4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771166527&Signature=YLuXdLKvW8~YafIw3kfjRdRmzIL0bE7M6ccPOS~XOlq6Fgtu6rZIttHjWwrXSTt7PCuS7s6Zzk3VoLxXVFp3G-0CtwH56FN0QGRuKaVKC7MJXOyK7A1g6GjZX99cH6SOGY7w7T~--hlbjazZuo0blcuD~fxdckXLi5fguKvecpXfPjeGrDwX~nnUh8fmEEfn1LuiMt-wlB7K4muhCKrzK9d9wPd0xHY7UsKErBzOr5aDW9nhI9tMzLlReOcT15OiyL91t0184p1RZPBpIOZjGvEx5ApppqZnzeD7Ris3t2C7lF57NvImk1z7B4ceVt4wsRHKyU7HGpdXUuHqcUKiqg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Consultants Clarion Associates presented a code assessment to the Lexington County planning committee and recommended a multi‑phase rewrite of the county's development regulations to implement the comprehensive plan.

Clarion senior advisor Craig Richardson and project director Leanne King told the committee the assessment’s central recommendations are to (1) consolidate zoning, subdivision and landscape/open‑space regulations into a single unified development ordinance, (2) move from a dominant performance‑based zoning framework to a hybrid approach that combines performance, Euclidean and form‑based elements aligned to the county’s Future Land Use and Character Map, and (3) modernize development standards and procedures with clearer graphics, tables and standardized review steps.

The consultants said the county’s current performance zoning places most unincorporated lands into two broad districts, which can allow a wide range of uses with impacts controlled largely by a road‑classification system and buffers. Clarion recommended a restructured district set tied to the comprehensive plan’s character map (for example: Rural/Agriculture, Residential Estate, Complete Neighborhoods, Community and Regional Commercial, Employment Focus) and a clearer approach to density limits, permitted uses and form standards for each district.

Clarion also recommended improved user friendliness through integrated graphics and two‑page district sheets, consistency by consolidating procedures (site plan review, administrative adjustments, formal interpretation procedure), and more measurable compatibility and buffering standards. The consultants advised adding an administrative adjustment procedure to permit minor numeric adjustments without a variance and codifying interpretation/appeal rules.

Council members asked how the proposed district structure would be applied to the existing county map. Clarion said some legacy districts could remain temporarily while staff and property owners pursue a phased remapping and that municipal coordination would be crucial where overlay districts abut town limits. Questions also focused on timing — Clarion estimated a multi‑year process if the county proceeds to a full rewrite: assessment (complete), code rewrite and a testing phase applying the draft to sample developments.

The committee did not vote on a rewrite at the meeting. Staff said that if council elects to proceed, the county will issue an RFP for the ordinance rewrite and follow a phased implementation plan that includes testing the draft against existing development cases.

Next steps: council to review the assessment document; staff to collect questions and to return with options and a procurement plan if council requests a formal code rewrite.","Clarion Associates presented an assessment that recommends consolidating Lexington County’s zoning, subdivision and landscape/open‑space rules into a unified development ordinance, adopting a hybrid zoning structure aligned to the county’s Future Land Use and Character Map, and modernizing development standards and procedures.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6265123,"Council planning committee weighs Eastern Overlay zoning changes and coordination with municipalities",577,2443000,3020000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3094124-48aa603215d62611dbb558e8916f35b1&start=2443&end=3020","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3094124-48aa603215d62611dbb558e8916f35b1/thumbnail_2443000.jpg","/articles/6265123/Lexington-County/South-Carolina/Council-planning-committee-weighs-Eastern-Overlay-zoning-changes-and-coordination-with-municipalities","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6265123-07bd6727cde8ffd1736ad6087d30375c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771166527&Signature=ixczRluEtgVEH1qyS9h~F1V-lWJMohSr~rtlGOXg5D7ftonSsE6Tq-WpeR7Aw6EYDSjxHgu7ex08WxewrK7geC2Dmpw2yUHadgkIC9Y7TGqtJUtgbFTkTg3rWicHj2Mecdqj1clYLNxEi0x1UncugGT~0BX~EmRiCu8-TCizgr3XoFF2odF51RCuNnZ9WhKtA-OSb88rhOv6LGY7ZkV1n4CNP01OYHO6x~rbhlFX0Svmt4XpC9JoweBnRKZsesWON4AHC9VujUNU5Jq2WsAMWp-bP0GGJFDq8tKCZ3rnvixu0CDBijPyifjRF7rRcmjYhCUVRPe0tUsI2EwDx~cUtw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Lexington County planning committee members discussed proposed changes to the county zoning ordinance — including an Eastern Overlay District intended to guide infill and preserve municipal edges — and a parallel set of landscape and open‑space amendments.

Robbie Derek of Community Development explained the overlay's goal: to focus higher‑density growth near municipalities and existing infrastructure, promote interconnectivity, require traffic‑impact assessments in certain areas and offer developers design flexibility while retaining maximum dwelling unit caps. Derek said the overlay would apply the county’s Future Land Use and Character Map across multiple municipalities and would include options such as architectural standards, conservation‑oriented open space, a sliding scale for minimum open space (15–35 percent) and expanded access/ingress requirements for larger subdivisions.

Committee members raised several questions about mapping and timing. The town of Lexington’s mayor had requested a “central overlay” that mirrors municipal future growth plans; Derek said staff had been in contact with Lexington and other municipalities and intended the overlay to be consistent across municipal boundaries where applicable. A recurring suggestion was to require traffic‑impact studies in the overlay and to adopt the town of Lexington’s access standards for subdivisions where feasible.

Members asked how the overlay districts would be applied to the existing map and whether legacy zoning districts should carry forward in some places. Derek noted that a full county remap is not expected at once; staff proposed a hybrid approach where a majority of the county could be remapped to the new districts while some legacy districts remain until property‑level rezoning requests are considered. Several council members asked for more time to digest the draft; they suggested additional reviews with the Stormwater Advisory Board, municipal partners and a field visit to exemplar sites.

The committee did not take a vote to adopt the overlay or the landscape/LD amendments at the meeting. Derek said that if council elects to proceed, the amendment process would follow the standard ordinance path — three readings, planning commission review and public hearings.

Next steps: staff will continue municipal coordination, present the draft to the Stormwater Advisory Board and return to committee with mapping options and consolidated comments before any first reading.","Committee members and staff discussed draft amendments to zoning (ordinance 25‑09) and landscape/open‑space rules (ordinance 25‑10) to implement the county’s Future Land Use and Character Map; staff will coordinate with municipalities, the Stormwater Advisory Board and bring more detailed mapping and options back to the committee.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6265127,"Lexington County planning committee debates raising limits of disturbance, new erosion controls and stop‑work penalties",1914,516000,2430000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3094124-48aa603215d62611dbb558e8916f35b1&start=516&end=2430","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3094124-48aa603215d62611dbb558e8916f35b1/thumbnail_516000.jpg","/articles/6265127/Lexington-County/South-Carolina/Lexington-County-planning-committee-debates-raising-limits-of-disturbance-new-erosion-controls-and-stopwork-penalties","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6265127-433874a472f42791eb7be4a672b95a3a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771166527&Signature=F~ESK-30aWX9DQII9uDlTHI8qhzXwkmSshosktHg~Hj9FiAR0MyhxJZ4tzBYe2hraPkDKI5by2bkH72AL46CykMDz2CuBHSzugeTt2Z9qCBfrG~KgbGyhueFKNgBGToRzYQPkALOwDQ8ZGahznXONKaWSI58a9ONA5Fo0tqjVzv0xA5xOyzyLfhC-WHBpjVh36vTuQEnaZv-tVTyK5UejbGV6pfasQRJvMzr~1dWBiE~NX8Q8INf8dpN7CgeeOovSwbj1jIT4E3oiIkWrPZA6QBRPNu~QCUAs8bnt02u0AaEXivHo~XBWvpf~pJZTZgH-qXiy0uPMI4rZ2Pyw0cHNw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Planning committee members and staff on Tuesday discussed proposed amendments to Lexington County’s Land Development Manual that would change how many acres a developer may disturb and add new erosion‑control requirements and enforcement measures.

Community Development Director Robbie Derek told the committee the draft text would simplify the manual by using a single set of disturbance tiers similar to the county’s commercial rules: staff approvals for 0–20 acres, an “expanded master plan” process for 20–60 acres and a review by the Stormwater Advisory Board and then county council for sites over 60 acres. Derek said the expanded master plan would require additional best management practices (BMPs) drawn from the Georgia Erosion and Sediment Control manual and locally derived measures, plus public notification signage listing the engineer, contractor and developer contact information.

The draft also would allow phased stabilization so a developer can open more acres once a project engineer and county staff confirm stabilization, Derek said. On enforcement, he read that “Each day such violation continues shall be considered a separate offense,” language the staff drafted to align stop‑work orders with other county ordinances.

The proposal prompted extended debate among council members. Some members said the current 20‑acre cap had reduced complaints and mass clearing in the past and worried that raising thresholds would reopen the problems the cap solved. Councilman Daryl said the 20‑acre limit “works” and reported complaints stopped after the limit was set. Other members welcomed the added BMPs on the redline and recommended additional review. Councilman Clifford Fisher noted several of the new BMPs — turbidity sampling, increased sediment basins, soil testing and storm buffer adjustments — and praised that the draft added measures such as compost blankets and slope stabilization.

On the question of enforcement, Derek explained that staff issue notices of violation and stop‑work orders and then document noncompliance for referral to the Lexington County Sheriff’s Department code enforcement unit, which writes citations and may pursue magistrate court action. Derek said the sheriff’s office has discretion on timing and that, historically, citations typically were pursued only after a documented failure to cooperate; if a defendant is convicted and the judge does not impose remediation, citations can be assessed for each day a violation continues.

Committee members pressed for more technical review. Several asked staff to circulate the redline to developers, engineers and the county’s Stormwater Advisory Board and to schedule a field trip to a local site so members could see the impacts of different disturbance and stabilization practices. Derek said staff would take the draft to the advisory board and to user groups and return with their comments; he emphasized the draft was for discussion and that the formal ordinance process would require public hearings and planning commission review if council elects to proceed.

The committee did not vote to adopt the amendments at the meeting. Instead it directed staff to seek further input from the Stormwater Advisory Board, developers and engineers and to bring back recommended edits.

Next steps: staff will present the draft to the Stormwater Advisory Board for formal review, coordinate developer and public comment and return to committee with updated text and recommendations. No first reading or ordinance adoption occurred at this meeting.","County planning staff proposed draft amendments to the Land Development Manual that would expand disturbance thresholds, require more best management practices and add stronger stop‑work enforcement; the committee agreed to take the draft to the Stormwater Advisory Board and to solicit developer and public review.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: committee approvals — grants, subdivision concurrency and applications

Public Works proposes shifting C‑fund allotment to accelerate planned dirt‑road paving projects

Consultants present code assessment recommending unified development ordinance and hybrid zoning approach

Council planning committee weighs Eastern Overlay zoning changes and coordination with municipalities

Lexington County planning committee debates raising limits of disturbance, new erosion controls and stop‑work penalties