[{"_1":2,"_108":-5,"_109":-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",[32,75,86,96],{"_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",6537043,"mediaKeyId","3639800-2c8a2d6a7b9ea802b7a30fe070fa68df","parentId",3639800,"title","Council approves zoning code updates, data‑center height amendment and several rezonings in June 2 meeting","audioSeconds",1193,"startMs",1413000,"endMs",2606000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3639800-2c8a2d6a7b9ea802b7a30fe070fa68df&start=1413&end=2606","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3639800-2c8a2d6a7b9ea802b7a30fe070fa68df/thumbnail_1413000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6537043/York-County/South-Carolina/Council-approves-zoning-code-updates-datacenter-height-amendment-and-several-rezonings-in-June-2-meeting","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6537043-be3526c1b3aa8e124a00fff9224cf50d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771154206&Signature=DhLaKdo7XUaPGEdXEKwzpGxLk~Sd-0yEnFH57g0Vc~STd4uX-Pc6Zo92LsvdBkB3O0eGVwJMjlvbddFkq8w6VBm1~x8uX-EEJtj4d8AjX912P2kdgf3AWfc-WMS2JlyoCuu0PXxLov7aJ1vTfVxjdnhx5tA2DAxNs8MlEy1cEjguTZSVZ2EZFDjBXXHhLwH3upA6ObysUkwudcOQp9lzb0Nozmc7QDhCzT30ZPxoYASA6XJRvmYxdKTj0ENbKs4Jt2ygLdqbLRImnmC~Rr-E966OApvWFd0NTYZkGzhA8GBFuBEwxXjgRuCfay60poUVU~ts7LIR9Aa6QXJzrq2hRQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","York County SC","date","2025-06-03T21:46:48.28Z","article","At its June 2 meeting York County Council approved several zoning and land‑use measures, including a transportation corridor overlay update, a text amendment to allow greater building height for data centers with trade‑off setbacks, and multiple rezoning approvals.

Transportation corridor preservation overlay: Council held second reading on an ordinance updating Chapter 155 to remove completed Penny project corridors and add projects from Penny's 5. Planning staff said the overlay prevents new structures in near‑term funded right‑of‑way corridors and only applies to unincorporated parcels. The ordinance passed second reading unanimously.

Data center height amendment: Council approved second reading of a zoning text amendment to allow data centers up to 80 feet in height provided side and rear setbacks increase by 2 feet for each additional 1 foot of height over the district maximum (for example: 20 feet of extra height requires 40 feet extra setback). Staff said rooftop equipment such as parapets and limited mechanical arrays are exempted from the height calculation. Planning Commission recommended approval 6–0; council approved the measure unanimously.

Rezoning cases: Council considered and approved multiple rezoning matters on first reading, including:
- Case 25‑12 (Tax map 6390000153): UD to LI, ~3.8 acres in District 5 to make an existing trucking/vehicle‑repair operation conforming; approved first reading unanimously.
- Case 25‑13 (tax map 4460000065): GC to RUD, 0.68 acres in District 3 to accommodate subdivision entrance (Holler Estates); approved first reading unanimously.
- Case 25‑15 (tax map 4570000012): RSF‑40 to AGC, 10.72 acres in District 2 (applicant proposes agricultural uses and a second duplex/unit); approved first reading unanimously.
- Case 25‑16 (tax map 3860000007): RSF‑40 to AGC, 14.49 acres in District 2 to align multiple estate parcels in common zoning; approved first reading unanimously.
- Case 25‑18 (tax map 7210000027): UD to LI, 5.73 acres in District 7 to recognize an existing warehouse/distribution facility and permit outdoor storage; approved first reading unanimously.

Planning staff told council that most rezoning requests were consistent with future land‑use designations and that Planning Commission recommended approval in each instance.

Why it matters: The zoning text amendment for data centers reflects changing technology and market demand; the overlay update protects near‑term roadway projects from new construction that would interfere with planned right‑of‑way. The rezonings regularize existing uses or align parcels with future land‑use recommendations.

What’s next: Several items were approved on first or second reading and will return for subsequent readings as required by the ordinance schedule.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","York County Council Meeting June 2, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","York County Council approved a set of zoning and land‑use items on June 2: an update to the Transportation Corridor Preservation Overlay, a text amendment allowing taller data‑center buildings with increased setbacks, and multiple rezoning requests. Most items passed on second or first reading as noted.","taxTitle","York County, South Carolina","taxId",5759,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_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":73,"_74":73},6537047,"Residents urge council to block Silfab plant near schools, cite chemical‑hazard concerns",0,473000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3639800-2c8a2d6a7b9ea802b7a30fe070fa68df&start=473&end=473","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3639800-2c8a2d6a7b9ea802b7a30fe070fa68df/thumbnail_473000.jpg","/articles/6537047/York-County/South-Carolina/Residents-urge-council-to-block-Silfab-plant-near-schools-cite-chemicalhazard-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6537047-b185ba9965a0030c4dbb34baae72c48c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771154206&Signature=dnGHcXjs5jC12LK5gW3U3fOyy3o9GZrpShavERx1cgG~zOe0lOND1-m~BsVPOmbHL9otg-75pUjOWWPgUVGUEqUwwG1HC2a01pN6eKsIXO3zVh2IKi5EWxJGow6VYVJxrF4lD9vdtYX5gdTaukapDfyLe1pn6BlyPPBUht5esBMw8LBjwmbKcbcqW9uKeIIZZbrBw1O~Jji9YAP-ac2z9lfCmyZU~nlxUtwJAF7E09GtkvPdY4qA1nlP4xQQloMTSuQCo3oPzSLlT8crB~7AYWwXqf6K7BpPV68hWXBmV4a-ECoOaRT7hrlm-eMpcqwOx7jZkGSpUr26g2MtvZrKUg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Several residents used the council’s public comment period on June 2 to object to the proposed Silfab (referred to in public comments as Silfab/Dilfab) solar‑panel manufacturing facility planned near Fort Mill schools and neighborhoods.

Frank Jernak, a retired engineer with 42 years’ experience in industrial plants, said the plant would be heavy industry and warned of chemical risks. Jernak described silane as “pyrophoric” and warned of “a risk of significant explosion from the 23,000 pounds of silane gas at this site or on our roads by regular deliveries.”

Alicia Paris told council the site sits “just feet from our schools, separated only by a fence,” and called the county’s handling of permitting and approvals “a betrayal of trust.” She cited a University of South Carolina risk assessment and said it estimated that “over 53,000 people could be affected by a spill.”

John Worth, who said he has more than 40 years of engineering and manufacturing experience, disputed a county press release he said misrepresented the status of litigation and permit decisions. Worth said no court had ruled and that the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) had stayed some matters pending appeal. He said the BZA had determined solar‑panel manufacturing is not allowed in the county’s light industrial zoning district and argued the county should respect that ruling.

Speakers also raised transportation and permitting concerns. Several referenced ongoing litigation and expressed distrust of permit reviews and claims made in public statements.

Council did not take action on the plant during this meeting. County staff reiterated that litigation and permitting matters for the project are the subject of ongoing legal process and public information releases.

Why it matters: Residents described the proposed plant as involving hazardous materials and expressed concern about proximity to schools and neighborhoods. Several said a zoning board ruling and litigation remain unresolved and urged council to intervene or require stricter review.

What’s next: No council action recorded in the meeting minutes on the plant; speakers said court appeals and the BZA process were still active and likely to determine next steps.","Multiple residents told York County Council on June 2 they oppose a Silfab solar‑panel manufacturing facility planned near schools, citing silane, hydrofluoric acid and other chemical hazards. Speakers said litigation and Board of Zoning Appeals rulings are unresolved.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":78,"_43":89,"_45":89,"_47":90,"_49":91,"_51":92,"_53":93,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":94,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":95,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6537051,"York County adopts FY2026 budget after amendments; council approves third reading 5–2",6011000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3639800-2c8a2d6a7b9ea802b7a30fe070fa68df&start=6011&end=6011","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3639800-2c8a2d6a7b9ea802b7a30fe070fa68df/thumbnail_6011000.jpg","/articles/6537051/York-County/South-Carolina/York-County-adopts-FY2026-budget-after-amendments-council-approves-third-reading-52","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6537051-f7a8715436b3c6c952f2040e26753176/orig.mp4?Expires=1771154206&Signature=L~ReHH6J4BE0ufzlzLIhyACSksjxMH2PcTUnB4sO6oaAZVVQRvTedEmoq4lMHrMewSEe3rIjOMe1phTKWMsugFC6deoxpxk-yfh5lYNtXOISzj9B03Q0G0WxFgAAZWVZdU4CTK-1uzPqUlCogNh-RODgwniTNPhEuFceOsd7DJsB1RFGqq7yBq0~O1zfhVgf~MTpFIDMl~pSmLHEL-HxWmXJkDBDaNkRUjGxdgTaa~K7F1VfiV5Eg6YDKSQ94Pq7YlCki78-0FfYQVJKN-oM~AeI2jVGduE9m4Y3oaagaUcDi00NNBYkexjgx5A0HnJHd-HJNz0V450d0DUdrQ1RXA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","York County Council adopted the FY2026 budget on June 2 after a lengthy third‑reading session that included multiple last‑minute amendments and debates over staffing and one‑time funding.

Budget Director Trish Startups briefed the council on differences between second and third reading, saying, “All the approved second reading motions are reflected in the third reading of the FY26 budget ordinance,” and noting reappropriations for open purchase orders and a health insurance (PEBA) increase were added to the third‑reading ordinance.

Councilmembers then proposed and debated a number of amendments. Among them were: authority to fund a set of one‑time facility studies if staff could not do those studies in‑house; reallocation of a 0.2‑mill public‑safety adjustment that had been an unintended consequence of prior changes; a one‑time allocation to the Flint Hill Fire Tax District to use prior‑year fund balance for capital and building repairs; and a number of smaller reallocations to nonprofit partners and county programs.

Council also debated and then rejected (by 6–1) an amendment to restore three ongoing positions (capital budget analyst, events/marketing manager, and planner) that staff had proposed; the positions were discussed as part of the county strategic plan but council declined to add ongoing costs without a revenue source.

Other approved amendments included one‑time uses of fund balance to fund county camera/UPS replacement and a set of modest funding requests for nonprofits and local partners; council also approved a one‑time $50,000 appropriation to Visit York County (the county’s tourism organization) funded from reserves.

After multiple motions and votes, the budget ordinance — as amended — passed third reading by a 5–2 vote. The county manager and staff will now begin implementation and the program managers will report back on the funded one‑time studies and capital projects as requested by council.

Why it matters: The FY2026 budget sets county operating levels and capital priorities for the year that begins July 1. The adopted ordinance packages reappropriations for prior commitments, adjusts for benefits cost increases, and includes both one‑time studies and programmatic funding tied to the county strategic plan.

What to watch: Council directed staff to return with implementation details for the one‑time facility studies, capital projects funded from fund balance, and an accounting of nonprofit awards and associated outcomes.","York County Council adopted the FY2026 budget on June 2 after amendments and debate. Council passed the third‑reading budget 5–2. Staff said changes from second reading included reappropriations and health insurance adjustments.",{"_33":97,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":98,"_41":99,"_43":100,"_45":101,"_47":102,"_49":103,"_51":104,"_53":105,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":106,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":107,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6537054,"York County Council abolishes Recreation Tax District, backs stipend plan after heated debate",1976,4344000,6320000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3639800-2c8a2d6a7b9ea802b7a30fe070fa68df&start=4344&end=6320","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3639800-2c8a2d6a7b9ea802b7a30fe070fa68df/thumbnail_4344000.jpg","/articles/6537054/York-County/South-Carolina/York-County-Council-abolishes-Recreation-Tax-District-backs-stipend-plan-after-heated-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6537054-f02e951370896b0c14a1474c3186ea7b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771154206&Signature=AQcotQotxhxTNVomQJeb9Hrjb~s~sAUJeoJVK7VqRHsjPmsoEZtmjy~0hlvan5vpFKtNywk~LKVjQuqt7N1RaKXaqMPQN-Ey7BVf7hHSBdr7OnX4dARqnh50MLV~KhxogYYKSO6XnGGLfh8LYCyR6~HgUlzQiq4DHFRRLf1fovsviwoNT8e7-UnQ7jDa6TqBxhP555PbO3NN4~r9eoxb4POK8iTk9yW5pay9YGcH8CZb0Pwi8xQyWwr7AJEB8O5zZ5yAkOQnUXac5qfFtzNXitRh47qY3HU4KET1KJTwiKRDcYQ~jIznQLfCCTfiDw1dJYFxJtVr0f95BWEngredAg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","York County Council on June 2 approved third reading of an ordinance abolishing the York County Recreation Tax District and approved a county-managed stipend approach for municipal recreation programs, passing the measure 5–2.

The decision follows months of discussion and a public hearing that drew residents, municipal officials and recreation advocates. County staff and the county manager presented a plan that would end the 1.5-mill unincorporated recreation tax and instead direct county funds to municipalities using a data-driven stipend model aimed primarily at youth recreation, with a modest capital grants program.

Assistant County Manager Tom Couch, who led the staff briefing, said the stipend approach is meant to “fund our parks and recreation services, while at the same time trying to provide a reasonable funding stream for the municipalities.” Couch told council the staff proposal included a per‑registrant stipend (staff presented $75 and $100 scenarios during the hearing) and a capital grants program beginning at $25,000 annually for smaller towns.

Public comment split along predictable lines. Several unincorporated residents urged the council to act quickly. John Gossett, a York County resident, criticized how the old tax money had been distributed and said the county needed a “database” approach. He said, “The way the 1.5 mil rec tax has been distributed up to this point has been haphazard.”

Other speakers urged delay and joint planning. Jim Bradford, who identified himself from York, asked the council to keep the existing district in place for another year and form a joint county‑municipal task force to work toward a longer‑term solution: “Take a step back, take a year to get it resolved for the long run,” he told council.

Several municipal officials and residents warned the change could reduce funding for trail maintenance, therapeutic programs and non‑youth services. William Perkins, who said he uses municipal bike and walking trails daily, told the council that reductions could force the cities to cut non‑youth services: “If the City of York loses … park money, I’m afraid the bike trails, the walking trails … are the first things that are gonna go.”

Council members debated how large the stipend should be, whether to include lifelong‑learning and therapeutic programs in addition to youth sports, and whether to provide capital grants. The council adjusted staff recommendations in several small ways during the meeting and asked staff to continue meetings with municipal leaders to refine detail and data sharing.

The ordinance was adopted on third reading by a 5–2 vote. Following an executive‑session discussion, council also voted 5–2 to authorize the county manager to formally terminate outstanding intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) tied to the abolished tax district so the county could implement the new funding approach.

The council and staff repeatedly said the stipend would be paid to municipalities, not to individual families. County staff said they would attempt to verify county residency through municipal registration data and work out implementation details before payments began.

Why it matters: For nearly two decades the unincorporated recreation tax funded municipal active‑recreation programs used by unincorporated residents. The council’s action replaces that long‑standing mechanism with a county‑directed stipend and modest capital assistance, a change that will alter how municipal rec programs are funded and monitored.

What’s next: Staff said they would continue to negotiate practical implementation details with municipalities, including data sharing for registrant addresses, rules for third‑party leagues, and how to treat out‑of‑county participants. The termination of the IGAs will be handled administratively as the council directed.","After extended public comment and hours of debate, York County Council voted 5–2 on June 2 to abolish the York County Recreation Tax District and replace it with a stipend and limited capital grant framework for municipalities. The move drew objections from municipal leaders and some residents who urged a longer, joint process.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council approves zoning code updates, data‑center height amendment and several rezonings in June 2 meeting

Residents urge council to block Silfab plant near schools, cite chemical‑hazard concerns

York County adopts FY2026 budget after amendments; council approves third reading 5–2

York County Council abolishes Recreation Tax District, backs stipend plan after heated debate