Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Level Of Service topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council eases egress level‑of‑service standard for new developments to reduce build blocks on outparcels
Summary
York County approved a text amendment to the land development code that slightly lowers the required level of service for site egress movements, intended to allow some infill and redevelopment to proceed without expensive intersection mitigation.
York County Council approved a change to the land development code Jan. 21 that reduces the minimum level‑of‑service requirement for certain site egress movements used in traffic impact analyses (TIAs). The amendment reorganizes section 154.365 and lowers the required LOS for new development egress from level D to level E, and allows more limited relief for existing developments when the projected delay increase at an egress point is not greater than 25 percent of the current delay.
Senior Planner Jonathan Bono (staff) told council the change responds to recurring feedback from traffic engineers that the ordinance’s requirements for leaving a site (egress movements) are too stringent and effectively block redevelopment of outparcels adjacent to busy thoroughfares. Bono said the change preserves limits on main thoroughfare operations while recognizing that the delay being adjusted is internal — the time a driver waits to leave a site rather than delay on the main road.
Bono illustrated the issue with examples: a proposed site on Highway 160 where a TIA had recommended right‑in/right‑out only (removing a left‑egress), and a Tractor Supply example on Charlotte Highway where adjacent vacant parcels could be prevented from developing because an existing egress movement was just at a failing threshold. Council members and staff discussed coordination with SCDOT (state DOT) timing and signal warrants; staff said most of the affected egress movements are unsignalized and the amendment does not force or preclude a traffic signal but aims to avoid requiring costly mitigation that would prevent infill.
Supporters said the amendment helps redevelop infill parcels where access alternatives exist and would avoid pushing development into more rural areas. Dissenting council members cautioned the change may produce unintended safety tradeoffs and suggested researching whether to remove egress analysis entirely or to collect funding for frontage roads and other infrastructure. Planning staff told council that the planning commission and the planning committee reviewed the amendment and recommended approval (planning commission vote 7–0). The council approved the amendment on a motion and second; the public hearing closed with no speakers opposing.
