Planning staff: permitting software migration caused reporting gaps; county schedules April 22 code-rewrite briefing

Planning staff told the Lexington County Planning Commission that a migration of the county’s permitting software to a cloud platform temporarily disrupted some reporting and inspection workflows and that staff expect to restore reporting and begin online permitting development within the next two to three months.

During the activity report, planning staff said the migration of the county’s “blueprint” permitting system began Jan. 6 and that the vendor’s customer portal will support a future online permitting review and submittal process. Staff acknowledged “hiccups” with inspection and permitting processes during the migration and said they will return to the commission next month with more complete building-permit data.

Staff also reviewed permit and plat counts included in the packet: the packet listed the total number of site-built residential permits as "15 19," described 4 38 manufactured home permits, and reported preliminary plat approvals at 21, bonded plat approvals at 56, final plat approvals at 37, and summary plat approvals at 23. Staff said those figures align with the number of new houses and plats under review. Because migration caused temporary reporting limits, staff said they did not include the pipeline projects and asked commissioners to direct questions before the next meeting if they need additional information.

Code analysis and possible rewrite Planning staff briefed the commission on an upcoming committee-of-the-whole meeting on April 22 to present a code analysis and assessment conducted by a consultant group (referred to in the meeting as "Clery"), which prepared the county’s comprehensive plan. Holland (staff) said the committee-of-the-whole meeting will be a joint session so planning commissioners can hear the full report, and described the next steps if council decides to proceed: a full rewrite of zoning and subdivision ordinances followed by an implementation phase comparing the existing code to proposed language.

Holland told commissioners the process is expected to be conducted in three steps: code analysis and assessment (complete), a full rewrite if council directs it, and an implementation phase pairing old and proposed code to highlight changes. Staff told commissioners the April 22 meeting will likely be “02:00 or later that afternoon,” but a final start time was not confirmed; elsewhere during the discussion commissioners mentioned the time interval could fall “somewhere between 1 and 5.” Staff encouraged commission members to attend because the rewrite work would heavily involve the commission if council moves forward.

Training and next commission items Staff also reminded commissioners that training opportunities are available via the South Carolina Association website (instructions were in the packet) and said the commission would likely have at least one concurrency review in April and possibly another in May, depending on approvals.

Quotes from staff included: “We had a few hiccups with our inspection process and our permitting process,” and that the migration “started January 6.” Planning staff asked commissioners to submit questions in advance of future meetings so staff can prepare requested information.