[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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],{"_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",6487686,"mediaKeyId","5561735-803353672e9d691991763bc018b86f62","parentId",5561735,"title","Lancaster County council approves first reading of PDD 26 amendment after debate over parking and permitted uses","audioSeconds",2680,"startMs",1427000,"endMs",4107000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5561735-803353672e9d691991763bc018b86f62&start=1427&end=4107","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5561735-803353672e9d691991763bc018b86f62/thumbnail_1427000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6487686/Lancaster-County/South-Carolina/Lancaster-County-council-approves-first-reading-of-PDD-26-amendment-after-debate-over-parking-and-permitted-uses","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6487686-cc04d9d1807544bbe0b4bece9bea53de/orig.mp4?Expires=1776350964&Signature=LDGiTpt-M~0DHIaz1TsU82tiz9hwfyKw-cuEEf~HMgZ6KTiyyr02dd2S7aKqr50tnBkli~k3u7uAxXYF5tDcYlvbvwcyx36PLMEhzmi2lfWWzCeVi6-HroRkoLhcfTCziw7Wz0KMUN74g4MjWhS9sP3tfrzLOd6G52ipa6OkphNCT5jCeSuZTX4msrPZNvPzZ8tczN-eh6S47e91CI3FNsd-SGNCYHNf7XcFP04s4m3s36cqb6LzDf6~qWIPHTZrbjGt3QjsN5un4RHas8pi7zptXy7Sl7w5cyYF4HhppnK6MyjOqiNlf5ZlpIKF3J7QqFiBgCQmjllmMTtvshjyJA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Lancaster County, PA","date","2025-08-11T18:57:45Z","article","Lancaster County Council gave first reading to an amendment to the development agreement for Planned Development District (PDD) 26 on Collins Road on a unanimous 7-0 vote, advancing a proposal that would realign density between portions of the master plan and change how parking is calculated for new flex, retail and institutional buildings.

The ordinance, which amends ordinance 2015-13-46, would move lot lines and transfer density between Villages F and H of the PDD and would replace an impractical 1 space per 300 square feet commercial parking ratio with a proposed “flex” parking approach. Council and staff agreed to move the measure forward for a second reading while staff and the applicant work on clarifying which specific uses will be allowed in the flex buildings and how many spaces will be required.

Why it matters: the parcel in question is the last remaining developable parcel in PDD 26 and the proposal would permit two multi-use “flex” buildings and a single-story medical office. The parking ratio and the list of permitted uses will determine how the site is developed and how it interfaces with nearby residential areas.

April Williams, county planning staff, told council that the current controlling UDO language would require parking that is “not very realistic” for the proposed product. Williams said the site could require “almost 600 spaces” under some calculations and noted that the governing 1998 PDD/UDO contains many possible uses, which complicates a single parking standard. “Because we have such a wide variety of uses that could go in this property, there is no way for us to determine what specific uses are going into the property, so there’s no way for us to calculate parking based on that,” Williams said.

Elena Kiewit, representing Saint John Properties and the project applicant, described the developer’s analysis and why a different standard is needed for flex product. “We proposed 1 per 450 square feet based on a blended analysis of likely uses,” Kiewit said. She added that the company operates the buildings long-term and therefore favors a realistic ratio to maintain tenant viability.

Council and staff focused on two issues: 1) whether the PDD ordinance’s list of prohibited uses and the PDD’s statement that the ordinance supersedes the UDO leave ambiguity about which uses are permitted in practice; and 2) whether a reduced parking ratio could allow a future tenant with high parking demand (for example, a church) to occupy a building without providing sufficient parking.

Williams said staff had provided a use-interpretation letter that flags certain industrial and automotive uses as not permitted under the PDD amendment; the applicant asked staff to revisit that interpretation. Williams said she issued a final determination and explained appeal procedures under the UDO.

Council members pressed both sides to produce a clear list of authorized and prohibited uses for the second reading. Council member Steve Harper said he wanted the council to see “what we’re actually disputing” on second reading. Another council member said the parties are “not that far apart” and suggested staff and the applicant appear on second reading with a narrowed list of disputed uses and a parking plan showing an attempt to add roughly 20 additional spaces if needed.

Council voted to advance the ordinance on a 7-0 voice vote. No amendments were adopted at first reading; the motion and second were made on the record and the item will return for second reading with requested clarifications.

Quotes in context:
\"Because we have such a wide variety of uses that could go in this property, there is no way for us to determine what specific uses are going into the property,\" April Williams, county planning staff, said.

\"We proposed 1 per 450 square feet based on a blended analysis of likely uses,\" Elena Kiewit, representative of Saint John Properties, said.

What’s next: staff and the applicant will attempt to reconcile the list of permitted uses and whether the parking ratio can be adjusted to accommodate the small number of additional spaces staff requested. The ordinance will return to council for a second reading and a final vote. If the second reading does not resolve the questions, council members signaled they may withhold final approval.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Lancaster County Regular Council Meeting 8-11-2025","oneSentenceSummary","Lancaster County Council gave first reading to an amendment to the development agreement for Planned Development District 26 on Collins Road on a unanimous 7-0 vote, advancing a proposal that would realign density and change how parking is calculated for planned flex buildings.","taxTitle","Lancaster County, South Carolina","taxId",56441,"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},6487676,"Lancaster County Council: key votes include opioid settlement, personnel policy changes and contract/lease amendment; executive session held on impact fees",4019,968000,4987000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5561735-803353672e9d691991763bc018b86f62&start=968&end=4987","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5561735-803353672e9d691991763bc018b86f62/thumbnail_968000.jpg","/articles/6487676/Lancaster-County/South-Carolina/Lancaster-County-Council-key-votes-include-opioid-settlement-personnel-policy-changes-and-contractlease-amendment-executive-session-held-on-impact-fees","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6487676-f9ef03cd487b4c9407cb87a414bc07bf/orig.mp4?Expires=1776350964&Signature=VXfWvTPcijYRZ64wDIfvc6YY4gL6~ovAKYKjZcr5lS97PtJT0gMQhEpPiliPg8-dUNozl4tcNXhZGhK5yx2Kasm8LQuJ-d~TP~N4NQjysizstEkVfxo4VsrsRBKYD0PeTJmhgG4siJp5VbdmOcdjjTkH8BgatTRAQvkZKLn3MXXEsNfIorGNfLFbiFr59ol1OSf38Nwc~b-9WPeliwByGd723sJKtWcXA8FSlCIM1J3lK9wEYrq8CmFg1dR06Zt3RlK4dsFUbNu7eH3XBpYt9U1VKbLagANWlAlpVM2O3dwrkHMyTA29yICcXDDz0k887Xt-tmT4P7vAWRLhF8lNsQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Lancaster County Council approved multiple agenda items on Tuesday in unanimous votes and met in executive session to receive legal advice regarding a potential contractual matter related to impact fees.

Key votes at a glance
- Resolution 12 98-R2025 (Sandoz opioid settlement allocation agreement): Council adopted a resolution authorizing the county to opt into the state-level Sandoz settlement allocation process. The resolution passed unanimously. County staff said the exact county share depends on how many other local governments opt in; past settlements have yielded up to about $1.2 million for targeted opioid-related programs in Lancaster County.

- Ordinance 2025-19-80 (personnel policy amendments, second reading): Council approved second reading of an ordinance amending the Lancaster County personnel policies related to travel reimbursement/per-diem and adding a performance-based floating holiday. The change removes GSA city-specific per-diem language and returns the county to a flat per-diem model, with annual review as part of the budget process. The floating holiday will be awarded to employees who meet a specified performance threshold and must be used the following fiscal year; no budgetary impact was identified. Vote: unanimous 7-0.

- Ordinance 2025-19-81 (first reading; installment purchase/base lease and conveyance agreement amendments): Council approved first reading of an ordinance authorizing amendments to installment purchase/use and lease and conveyance agreements between Lancaster County and the Lancaster County Public Facilities Corporation. The amendment carves out roughly five acres of a detention-center parcel to be used for a coroner’s office and is a technical action related to prior bond and lease documents. Vote: unanimous 7-0.

Consent agenda
- The consent agenda (items 6a–6e) passed 7-0; individual consent items were not debated on the record.

Executive session
- Council moved into executive session to \"receive legal advice subject to the attorney-client privilege regarding a potential contractual matter related to impact fees.\" Council reported afterwards that it met in executive session on that single item, no motions were made and no votes were taken in executive session.

What was said
County attorney/bond counsel context: staff described the Sandoz settlement as part of a series of state-level opioid settlements and explained that the county’s exact allocation depends on the number of local governments that opt into this defendant’s settlement. On the personnel policy, Human Resources staff explained the rationale for returning to a county flat per-diem structure and described the proposed floating holiday as a non-monetary performance incentive.

Actions and voting details
All votes recorded on the transcript were unanimous; specific mover/second notations recorded on the transcript are included in the structured record below.

","Lancaster County Council approved several items on Tuesday by unanimous votes, including a resolution to opt into a Sandoz opioid settlement allocation process, personnel policy changes on travel and a floating holiday, and a technical amendment to lease and bond documents to set aside five acres for a coroner’s office.",{"_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},6487681,"Neighbors urge Lancaster County enforcement after trees cleared at Barbourville Road site",420,211000,631000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5561735-803353672e9d691991763bc018b86f62&start=211&end=631","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5561735-803353672e9d691991763bc018b86f62/thumbnail_211000.jpg","/articles/6487681/Lancaster-County/South-Carolina/Neighbors-urge-Lancaster-County-enforcement-after-trees-cleared-at-Barbourville-Road-site","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6487681-dc46c525f0a22f3c1cd32fa05ccc7c0d/orig.mp4?Expires=1776350964&Signature=IMDOE8y59lka16h5YsBwTSM9tB1~-H7ElUqb49hcdDdOt-4TeqMn2CKnVrkM2h6kJt34DVfihQVz3NdZF4h53w7nReyNZpnK~pW9-UlFeyuuWAiGdxPDqtBo4WTzoqLxBg8aLZn4AIUHC-vnhANZDbjzt10XjPziED4G3JKY75MSH9-pf62rTKCeuWBsOKQAU4pD0aXGVs336ERxxzWDOwpy6w6ry70vEgIjVz~~mivpDI9po72~gDQZQ4dhQCTJ2~8~n~n-8tGkUvmiyJlPW5zWPxJIbViQc1EMi~hQxW9Ohf5tnE-n58oUZCwXsaxP4RdUJEUaqtTkl2pCqYo0PA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Several residents of Oliver Terrace in Indian Land urged Lancaster County Council on Tuesday to investigate a development at 9901 Barbourville Road, alleging land-use violations, removal of large canopy trees and poor communication from county planning staff.

The comments came during the meeting’s public-comment period and were not a formal council agenda item; residents asked council to instruct staff to investigate and, if appropriate, issue enforcement actions including a stop-work order.

Jeff Larson, who said he lives at 2010 Oliver Terrace, told council the site near Highway 160 was re-subdivided in 2024 and again more recently and that the developer is using a minor subdivision pathway although the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) chapter 9, he said, requires use of the major-subdivision process when a prior subdivision’s parcel count is increased. \"This is a major subdivision, subverting the rules under the guise of a minor subdivision,\" Larson said. He said he filed a formal complaint with county staff in August and additional complaints in March and that he believes staff has not investigated as required by the UDO.

Larson also alleged the applicant advertised the project as retail/office in marketing materials while applying under a day-care classification that carries smaller setback requirements; he characterized that discrepancy as possible falsified documents submitted to obtain smaller setbacks. \"They applied for a day care ... in their brochure, their website, their LinkedIn posts, they all advertise it being retail, office, and collocated multiple tenants,\" Larson said.

Neighbor Janine Clifton said trees removed from the site included canopy trees she estimated at 20–50 feet tall and larger than 24 inches in diameter; she said the developer’s proposed buffer planting uses small ornamental shrubs rather than large canopy trees that would provide a meaningful barrier. \"We're getting little bitty shrubs that are gonna be less than ankle and knee high,\" Clifton said.

Anne Gable, another Oliver Terrace resident, said neighbors had attended multiple planning commission hearings last year where a similar commercial plan was denied, and she questioned why the county did not notify residents when permits were issued or why a stop-work order was not issued after the demo began. \"What is the point of the UDO if the county does not enforce it?\" Gable asked.

Council did not take formal action during the public-comment period. County staff referenced the UDO and appeals procedures in a later agenda item; residents said they had filed complaints and expected staff to investigate. No county response committing a specific enforcement step was recorded on the transcript.

Quotes in context:
\"This is a major subdivision, subverting the rules under the guise of a minor subdivision,\" Jeff Larson said, describing the filing pathway used by the applicant.

\"We're getting little bitty shrubs that are gonna be less than ankle and knee high,\" Janine Clifton said about the buffer planting proposed by the developer.

What’s next: residents asked council to investigate and to ensure staff enforces UDO requirements for subdivision classification, tree retention and buffer plantings. The transcript records complaints filed in August and in March but does not show a staff-initiated enforcement action or a council directive taken during the meeting.

","Residents from Oliver Terrace in Indian Land told county council they believe a commercial project at 9901 Barbourville Road is being advanced through a minor-subdivision pathway contrary to the UDO and that large trees were removed with inadequate buffering.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Lancaster County council approves first reading of PDD 26 amendment after debate over parking and permitted uses

Lancaster County Council: key votes include opioid settlement, personnel policy changes and contract/lease amendment; executive session held on impact fees

Neighbors urge Lancaster County enforcement after trees cleared at Barbourville Road site