Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Votes Summary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Votes at a glance: Kershaw County Council actions, Sept. 23, 2025
Summary
Summary of formal actions taken by Kershaw County Council on Sept. 23, including readings, approvals and ordinances advanced. Includes motions, movers and brief notes on outcomes; procedural votes such as adoption of the agenda and approval of minutes are included.
At its Sept. 23 meeting, Kershaw County Council recorded the following formal actions and procedural votes (summary):
- Adoption of the agenda — Motion passed (unanimous among those present). (Mover: not specified on the record.)
- Proclamation recognizing the South Carolina State Guard / National Preparedness Month — Adopted (presented to Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Higgs). (Unanimous.)
- Approval of minutes (prior meeting) — Approved (unanimous). (Mover/second noted during meeting.)
- 9a — First reading: Rezoning of a half‑acre parcel at 1306 Skyview Drive (R‑10 to B‑2) for Second Chance Fellowship Church (pastor Marvin Jones presented). Motion to approve first reading passed on a roll call of those present. (Mover: Councilman Thompson; Second: Councilman Cato.)
- 9b — Second reading: Kershaw County Comprehensive Plan update. Motion to approve second reading passed unanimously. (Mover: Councilman Shoemake; Second: Councilman Tucker.)
- 9c — Second reading: Joint multi‑county business park (with Lee County) under SC Code 4‑1‑170. Motion to approve second reading passed unanimously. (Mover: Councilman Tucker; Second: Councilman Shoemake.)
- 9d — Third reading: Clarification of ZLDR timelines applicable to zoning amendments and public‑hearing timelines. Motion to adopt on third reading passed (majority; one recorded opposed: Councilman Jones). (Mover: Councilman Shoemake; Second: Councilman Tucker.)
- Executive session — Council convened in executive session to discuss personnel and attorney‑client matters under SC Code §30‑4‑70; council returned to open session and indicated a possible vote would be taken on item 14c (no public action described in open session minutes).
Notes: Where the transcript did not record a full roll‑call vote, the meeting minutes counted motions as "unanimous" for those present; recorded oppositions (for 9d) were noted by the chair during the vote. Specific vote tallies were not read aloud for all items in the transcript; the council clerk's official minutes should be consulted for precise roll‑call voting records.
Ending: The items above reflect the council's formal actions and next procedural steps; several matters (notably the large proposed data center rezoning) were discussed during public comment but were not the subject of a formal council vote on Sept. 23.
