[{"_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",6425668,"mediaKeyId","5885527-bbe3354b4972639b5e90743326930e1e","parentId",5885527,"title","Commission hears overview of The Haven at North Corner rezoning and development agreement, council forms ad hoc review committee","audioSeconds",360,"startMs",1716000,"endMs",2076000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5885527-bbe3354b4972639b5e90743326930e1e&start=1716&end=2076","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5885527-bbe3354b4972639b5e90743326930e1e/thumbnail_1716000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6425668/Lancaster-County/South-Carolina/Commission-hears-overview-of-The-Haven-at-North-Corner-rezoning-and-development-agreement-council-forms-ad-hoc-review-committee","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6425668-68073046bbde3341cce0f7a2d41321fa/orig.mp4?Expires=1775242387&Signature=RBwr8OxhgcK3ldmtDwJKcHsey68nIn9F1az22kgx1y0y-mrX--DgMPP8XQSPUk6~J5wR8PRSHSV~zZLEyOUxI8GFumuawgYqRcb35oR01BvMMsstcb9~fyzixRXM9GB3DmMWkOGIIkn9Aktq62M6iOPBA2XE3yDcVE0uJBU7V2x6NHX-fB4erpP093mTUbMlyQ8K~aZf6XgcW3tMDDD4T9IE0OVI61clJaKFNW3gbVnMcH2uNnfvNZXhCNwyyMzCQkgU65Gwi0R1rBgVNGFELpOhLrKO0NfpY6evZHJip8LpxYj1jSK6TGBPF72fVJNkSWRmYEOyZ-1v36kkgmbIGg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Lancaster County, PA","date","2025-10-03T10:47:14Z","article","The commission discussed a request to rezone four parcels and an associated development agreement for The Haven at North Corner (DA 20242259 and RZ20242259). Planning staff described the proposal as a typical MDR rezoning with a cluster-subdivision overlay that triggers a development agreement because of voluntary land donations and other negotiated provisions.

Staff told commissioners that the council has created an ad hoc committee to review the development agreement in parallel with the planning commission’s recommendation. “The UDO lays out the procedures for a development agreement,” planning staff said, noting council can add an ad hoc committee or consultant and that the council chose the ad hoc committee option for this case.

Commissioners asked whether related nearby projects that propose land donations are interdependent — for example, if one project is approved and another is not, could a shared donation for a school be jeopardized. Planning staff said developers described their projects as interlinked and “like the 3 Musketeers,” but acknowledged that if one parcel is not approved it could leave insufficient acreage for some shared public dedications such as a school site; staff said those eventualities would have to be resolved in the approval and development-agreement language.

Several commissioners also sought clarification about utilities. Staff read the development agreement language that potable water, sewage treatment and disposal would be supplied to the property by the Lancaster County Water and Sewer District.

The commission did not take a vote on the DA or rezoning during the workshop; staff said edited draft development-agreement language and staff-proposed edits will be circulated to commissioners prior to the public hearing so the commission can consider a recommendation after council and administration coordination.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Lancaster County Planning Commission Special Meeting 10-2-2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Lancaster County Planning Commission on Oct. 22 reviewed a rezoning and development agreement for The Haven at North Corner (DA 20242259 / RZ20242259) and heard that county council has created an ad hoc committee to review the DA in parallel.","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},6425671,"Developer resubmits Riverside single-family plat unchanged; commissioners flag SCDOT, fire and school impacts",154,3003000,3157000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5885527-bbe3354b4972639b5e90743326930e1e&start=3003&end=3157","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5885527-bbe3354b4972639b5e90743326930e1e/thumbnail_3003000.jpg","/articles/6425671/Lancaster-County/South-Carolina/Developer-resubmits-Riverside-single-family-plat-unchanged-commissioners-flag-SCDOT-fire-and-school-impacts","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6425671-3098a1521094970fa9d8f8175ff428ae/orig.mp4?Expires=1775242387&Signature=JC6RmwjNtX7d4Gxf9vDF~flSrQY~G~4pP5cbJDV1eQZYNH9HsjRHFV7lTio-rK6JDx-txzH2fjUymoj9YvNyme03Y118o75igpD8zfpwkvABSKAkhCugJNErfaV1siFti6IQET7gd8TmHHmgbiwobVEsslJAC~qhTSVtJjChnw~vdKjY0IbhUO5iJHkcbl-8KrZlMBqb331ZiLpzWaH4j3qtCW5xia2N123k2ydFoIDkiArj4b63qb6tQBbCJi3tsv9SkKgqJf8NAMLQqcznilAWufP7T0C3bWv4fI~dldfSE-0pOUD~SY6-YSiJ3Xy9KPSdG7O7aT-v99VutUGkkA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Riverside single-family subdivision returned to the planning commission on Oct. 22 with the same preliminary plan the commission reviewed in August. Planning staff said the applicant resubmitted the identical layout as a by-right development.

Commissioners and staff flagged several outstanding technical and public-safety concerns. A commissioner noted the project’s SCDOT review comment that “the proposed access location shall not be considered approved until sight of distance and spacing requirements are met,” and asked whether that means the entrances could be required to change post-approval. Planning staff and the commission discussed precedents where SCDOT required later modifications that could be handled as a minor modification or, if substantial, require a return to the commission.

Emergency-services access drew attention. Commissioners asked whether recent fire-station additions had changed response times; staff confirmed the project lies in the Van Wyck Fire District and offered to seek specific response-time estimates from the fire marshal. Commissioners asked staff to include TRC correspondence (SCDOT, fire, schools) in the packet for future meetings.

School-capacity concerns also surfaced. A commissioner pointed to the school review note that capacity south of highway 5 is at or near capacity and urged staff to cross-check other local projects and the proposed impact-fee study for consistency. Planning staff said schools are separate from the county’s impact-fee RFP and that the school district has its own consultant and schedule.

Several commissioners said they were surprised the developer submitted no plan changes after the prior review; staff explained the applicant asserts the development is a by-right proposal that meets UDO requirements. Commissioners requested staff follow up with the fire marshal for response-time estimates and with SCDOT for any site-specific sight-distance analysis prior to final approvals.

No final vote on the plat was taken at the workshop; commissioners discussed whether the commission should ask for additional mitigation or redesign before a formal approval hearing.","The Riverside single-family subdivision returned to Lancaster County’s planning commission on Oct. 22 with the same preliminary plat previously reviewed; staff and commissioners reiterated concerns about SCDOT sight-distance, emergency access, and school capacity.",{"_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},6425676,"Planning commission amends rules to clarify secretary role, allow abstention on minutes",483,733000,1216000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5885527-bbe3354b4972639b5e90743326930e1e&start=733&end=1216","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5885527-bbe3354b4972639b5e90743326930e1e/thumbnail_733000.jpg","/articles/6425676/Lancaster-County/South-Carolina/Planning-commission-amends-rules-to-clarify-secretary-role-allow-abstention-on-minutes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6425676-b5e1f532f09b1073474cf9743e0d7f86/orig.mp4?Expires=1775242387&Signature=b4-lsZSz4T3ilQFicz1zkeG1sZet~0Ywrlrq6-qnfSgiUBFgrRhTOHl~7FrJXEIfp00OtkbPpq7xxqvTqKIhBfKs-MNcwAqslWhgCnn0RdQritSeKPbHppAmkJTvI85yY-vKVJwrwluZP6CLpDwTTZTzz-4hdSnnWji5K0Q5YGLTObRf7Ka98Nh2v2E648NgDA60tiQaIcqYoghRY4K2QIsJGu9PLciKE6jbGVE47xcO5PL48ZAmiEGt~7QErJtexGWMlsu93ZTjcZLVDCRsb2O4CMUoS8Jz3gr8VWx1d45ORwP4sdd0ILQ-Xv~W59o-RaMOv86tN8w~GBGTWlnbtQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Lancaster County Planning Commission on Oct. 22 adopted two targeted amendments to its rules and procedures: a clearer description of the appointed secretary’s role and a provision allowing members to abstain when voting to approve minutes for meetings they did not attend.

Planning staff explained the changes and said the abstention wording stemmed from a member request. “There were 2 specific changes that we did to, the adopted rules and procedures. 1 was to clarify the role of the appointed secretary ... And then the other 1 was in section 5, the voting, where we added a sentence saying abstention may be allowed during the approval of meeting minutes if the member was absent at the meeting to which the minutes being voted on apply,” planning staff said.

Several commissioners said they preferred a practice of not approving minutes for meetings they had not attended. One commissioner said she found it “common sense” not to vote to approve minutes of meetings you did not attend; another noted the county attorney had told the commission that voting while absent was allowed. Planning staff said the amendment is permissible either way and that the commission may adopt the rules that reflect its own preference.

A motion to accept the amended rules and procedures carried in a show-of-hands vote recorded in the meeting as 6 yes, 4 no, 0 abstentions. Planning staff told commissioners that the change does not prevent members from asking questions of staff directly during meetings and that the chair retains the procedural authority to recognize speakers to maintain orderly discourse.

The commission adopted the amended rules and procedures for use at future meetings.","The Lancaster County Planning Commission voted to accept two changes to its rules and procedures: clarifying the role of the appointed secretary and allowing abstentions when approving minutes for meetings a member did not attend.",{"_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},6425678,"Planning commission tables countywide impact-fee RFP; asks staff to collect edits",608,116000,724000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5885527-bbe3354b4972639b5e90743326930e1e&start=116&end=724","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5885527-bbe3354b4972639b5e90743326930e1e/thumbnail_116000.jpg","/articles/6425678/Lancaster-County/South-Carolina/Planning-commission-tables-countywide-impact-fee-RFP-asks-staff-to-collect-edits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6425678-3e65f75d795cfb67b111e90b0546aeb6/orig.mp4?Expires=1775242387&Signature=U3sRiFkhM9kfB7VtiXxInm7qOpW5p~pFywHWJPY8VMSTFxgiJ2LGgIUH~F9wglFPPWWNWWBjjJSu-C6yWjsD7bnwD0fg4aalFvv-mPLmPF-NA246ZWbpg3G0xYOk9m-QNcIqXSoUMcRSM8oZZA4Oqnto5kYHm-UpSnWXC1KhbUtFwepW~HNc8x77WHCjSW2cOEUfKnY0hdhhx~CnAZRuR3vcYr2dp-XOvvxQ0suRD5cA4gmAVXpETd9z9UTjB4UKommVcFUNPjUuUMR83H88wq7wCMATIkCyD4KJhb8R3jfFoWm7sx9adjdHfRBpzTl-wDDNXlp984lMLCe0W4yv2Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Lancaster County Planning Commission members on Oct. 22 discussed a draft request for proposals to hire a consultant to complete a countywide impact-fee study and voted to defer formal action until the commission’s October public meeting.

The planning commission chair opened the item by explaining the document’s purpose: “This is a the RFP request for the proposal to have the, to find a consultant to do the countywide impact study,” and said the draft lists the topics the county expects the consultant to address. Planning staff said the draft will be sent out for bids once the commission approves it.

Commissioners raised several substantive questions about the RFP’s scope. One commissioner asked why the draft names specific services — sheriff, emergency medical services and parks and recreation — rather than leaving the eligible services broad. Planning staff replied that state law limits the services that can be funded through impact fees and that, per the presentation the commission had previously received, fire was omitted from this study because the county is examining other funding sources for that service. The chair added that the school district is pursuing its own schedule and consultant for school impact fees.

Several commissioners asked for clearer deadlines in the RFP. Planning staff said a statutory minimum bid period applies to government procurements; the selected consultant’s contract would set the study schedule because consultants typically define the time they need to reconcile and validate data.

Commissioners requested additional information from the absent consultant referenced in the prior workshop presentation, including more detail on the alternate funding sources for fire, and asked that staff incorporate typographic edits submitted in hard copy.

Because commissioners want to see those clarifications and edits incorporated before voting, the commission made and approved a motion to table the RFP until the October full meeting. Planning staff asked commissioners to submit additional comments within seven days so staff can gather responses and update the draft in time for the public agenda. The motion to defer passed, recorded in the meeting as 6 in favor, 9 against.","Lancaster County planning commissioners discussed a draft request for proposals (RFP) to hire a consultant for a countywide impact-fee study, raised questions about scope and timing, and voted to defer action to the October public meeting so staff can incorporate commissioner edits and get answers from absent consultants.",{"_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},6425674,"County posts draft UDO; staff plans public roadshows and flags moratorium implications",713,4488000,5201000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5885527-bbe3354b4972639b5e90743326930e1e&start=4488&end=5201","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5885527-bbe3354b4972639b5e90743326930e1e/thumbnail_4488000.jpg","/articles/6425674/Lancaster-County/South-Carolina/County-posts-draft-UDO-staff-plans-public-roadshows-and-flags-moratorium-implications","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6425674-43e4ad7c5af7494f0fbb6e4dea544568/orig.mp4?Expires=1775242387&Signature=YSWLTwlP-CUDQoN8hQ9OUzhdSsxJGaXiA7oEXZri0Fa6Yo6zvkk0wCAGDHQcktycknTdIWvkgHlkVBnS73~5txKR2j41GHaVFmRMbn38mH3CyKJ~8xou5RvuC0uDEaczm79nXI34-inlE1Syz1aOPmEJCoMUbwOT~uzq9B-b4ykyDraA-0fLP3F5H5U6ff2Ru5-~qvx-DjhU0bql56zwMSv2YLT~xJStQJHuNKaxwBmfYa5u~c3QHbDEKXMq3ab1ZWTdyFeC8QVwAwSN-PW0ak1m0bV95YmrcWuLrhWAQpxgTp-AxyIMIfm9KS8QRlRmp12yIE5RHkyec3fpIXCySg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Lancaster County planning staff told the planning commission on Oct. 22 that the consultants have delivered a draft Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and that staff will launch a multi-region public outreach campaign to review the document with residents.

Planning staff said the consultants submitted two tracked-change versions: a marked-up version and a clean copy. Both are available to commissioners in PDF and Word formats. “This document is 770 some pages. The document without it, a clean document without the notes and everything, it ranges in the 590 some range,” staff said, and noted the files are on commissioners’ flash drives for review.

Staff outlined next steps: the UDO will be presented to county council at a Committee of the Whole (CAL) meeting on Oct. 15 for an overview, and the planning department plans a “road show” of public meetings in each region of the county to gather public comment. Commissioners were asked to attend meetings in the areas where they live to help translate local concerns.

Staff also described how a separate moratorium ordinance before county council interacts with the UDO process. The proposed moratorium would restrict new applications for specified residential subdivisions and multi-family developments within a defined area (the transcript lists the northern Panhandle/Indian Land area) while the UDO is finalized. Staff said existing approvals and development agreements would generally be allowed to proceed but new rezoning or subdivision applications in the moratorium area could be held until UDO adoption. The moratorium ordinance’s legal ad has been published; if council invokes the pending-ordinance doctrine, it could act after first reading.

Staff said they aim to complete public outreach and avoid using the full nine-month moratorium window if possible, but confirmed calendar and staffing constraints could extend the schedule. Commissioners and staff discussed outreach logistics, library meeting-room availability, and scheduling conflicts for late-November and December.","Planning staff reported delivery of the draft Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) by consultants, outlined a public outreach schedule and explained how a proposed moratorium for parts of the county would interact with the UDO process and pending applications.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission hears overview of The Haven at North Corner rezoning and development agreement, council forms ad hoc review committee

Developer resubmits Riverside single-family plat unchanged; commissioners flag SCDOT, fire and school impacts

Planning commission amends rules to clarify secretary role, allow abstention on minutes

Planning commission tables countywide impact-fee RFP; asks staff to collect edits

County posts draft UDO; staff plans public roadshows and flags moratorium implications