Council Defers Highway 160 Drive-Thru Rezoning, Rejects Baxter Golf Cart Ordinance, Passes Contentious FY27 Budget on First Reading 4–3, Adopts Ambulance Franchise Ordinance
The May 4, 2026 York County Council meeting was a long and substantive session marked by heavy public turnout, particularly from residents concerned about the QTS data center project and several rezoning cases in the Fort Mill area. Council swore in two new board appointees, recognized county employees and correctional officers, and worked through a 21-item consent agenda with one item pulled for further discussion. In public hearings, Council unanimously approved three rezonings (Cases 26-03, 26-10, and 26-13 on first reading; 26-12 on first reading; and 26-07 on third reading), denied the Chapel View Court gas station rezoning (Case 26-11) by a 6–1 vote following staff and Planning Commission recommendations, and adopted the Ambulance Service Franchise Ordinance on third reading. In old business, Council deferred third reading of the Highway 160 Fort Mill commercial rezoning (Case 26-06) to allow for a community meeting with the developer, and the proposed Baxter Village golf cart ordinance failed on third reading after concerns about enforcement and precedent. The most contentious item was first reading of the FY27 operating and capital budget, which passed 4–3 after Councilmember Audette offered a sweeping amendment package aimed at producing a net-zero tax increase by eliminating a facility study, several management positions, the proposed 6-mill capital reserve increase, and reducing proposed water and sewer rate increases. The pulled consent item, a $1.4 million mobile command vehicle purchase, was deferred to the next meeting because the price exceeded the $1 million originally budgeted. Committee reports covered fire services, board conduct policy, and a request from Winthrop University for $250,000 toward a new advanced manufacturing engineering degree program. Council went into executive session for litigation updates and personnel reviews, took no action, and adjourned.
Opening Items
Call to Order, Invocation, and Pledge of Allegiance. Chairwoman Christi Cox called the meeting to order. Councilmember William “Bump” Roddey delivered the invocation, asking for a moment of silence for departed family members, friends, and neighbors, and offering a prayer that recognized law enforcement in attendance and asked for guidance for the council’s deliberations. He then led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Oath of Office. County Attorney Laura Dover administered the oath of office to two newly appointed board and commission members: Andrew Steers, appointed to Keep York County Beautiful from District 7, and James Underwood, appointed to the Board of Disabilities and Special Needs in the at-large position. Council thanked both for volunteering to serve their community.
Appearances and Recognitions. County Manager Josh Edwards recognized York County’s more than 1,340 employees in honor of Public Service Recognition Week, noting the week also included Firefighters Recognition Day and Teacher Appreciation Week. He asked all county employees in the room to stand and be recognized. Sheriff Trent Faris and Chief John Hicks then recognized York County Correctional Officers for National Correctional Officers and Employees Appreciation Week. Chief Hicks emphasized the difficult and varied roles detention officers play — acting as first responders to fires, medical emergencies, and mental health crises inside the jail — often outnumbered 64 inmates to a single officer and carrying only handcuffs, a radio, and respect. The sheriff added that the detention center likely has fewer incidents than any comparable facility in the state, and noted the volume of compliments the office receives about its officers’ professionalism. A group photo was taken with the officers in attendance.
Public Forum Session
A large number of residents signed up to speak. Chairwoman Cox redirected several speakers who were registered for items appearing later as public hearings, asking them to reserve their comments for those agenda items. The forum was dominated by concerns about the QTS data center project and related issues.
- Krisha Patel (Anvil Draw Place) raised concerns about constant industrial noise, bright nighttime lighting, and other quality-of-life impacts from the QTS data center construction, asking for transparency, accountability, and a real community voice in how the project moves forward.
- Vladimir Drozhzhov (Cranbourne Chase, Fort Mill) outlined a timeline of the Silfab solar manufacturing expansion in Fort Mill, raising concerns about federal 45X manufacturing tax credits being monetized into private funding while, locally, he alleged permits were issued without proper zoning compliance. He also questioned the proposed $560 million county budget and a 114% increase in council-related costs.
- Kaylee McLiberty (Gentle Winds Court, Fort Mill), a resident of Fieldstone at Waterstone and a local realtor, spoke against rezoning Case 26-06, asking Council to keep the parcel adjacent to her community as Planned Development rather than General Commercial. She argued that current PD zoning already allows a coffee shop and ice cream store and that GC would invite drive-thru commercial uses incompatible with adjacent residences, with traffic, lighting, and safety concerns.
- Robert Smith (Gentleman’s Court) echoed concerns about Case 26-06, noting the property is 250 feet from his front door and citing safety concerns, including two recent late-night shootings at a nearby commercial establishment, and asked whether a stormwater runoff study had been completed.
- Steve Penland (Campbell Road) reported that no residents on Campbell Road received notification of past or upcoming QTS community meetings and questioned the format of an upcoming panel session in which questions must be submitted in writing the day before. He challenged statements about closed-loop water cooling, surrounding air-temperature impacts, and electrical bill effects, citing data showing electrical costs rising 267% over five years where data centers are constructed.
- Justin Murray (Gentleman’s Court) opposed Case 26-06, arguing that drive-thru commercial use directly adjacent to residential homes is incompatible, that proposed buffering is insufficient, and pointing to existing impacts at the nearby Goodwill site as a cautionary example.
- Julie Ferraro (Vandor Lakes) addressed proposed data center ordinance changes, calling for a moratorium on future permits until ordinance protections are in place, and asking that any new permit requests on existing properties conform to those new ordinances. She criticized the “by right” talking point and noted that the County had previously owned the property and chose who to sell it to.
- Rebecca Sichi (Allison Acres, Rock Hill) asked for greater transparency on the County’s data center FAQ page, noting that a recent FOIA response revealed much of the information came from QTS directly via the public information officer. She asked the County to restore information about health impacts that had been removed and to address ISO ratings, construction parameters, and noise/lighting impacts.
- Stacy Armstrong (Wedgefield Drive) reported FOIA results showing zero water usage by QTS, but discovered the company holds permits allowing unlimited water tank fills for $630 per permit, totaling about $5,670 annually for nine permits. She compared this with a QTS facility in Fayetteville charged $200,000 in stormwater fees for illegal taps, and asked Council to consider phased water-usage programs and ensure consistent decibel-level documentation across county records.
- Jackie Allabee (Gentle Winds Court) formally opposed Case 26-06, arguing that PD zoning provides enforceable protections — buffers, landscaping, screening, setbacks — that GC zoning would remove, warning of spot zoning precedent.
- Chris Kellogg (EPS Farm developer) used his time to publicly thank Assistant County Manager Tom Couch for exceptional customer service in helping resolve permitting issues with his event/wedding venue project on North Doby’s Bridge Road in Fort Mill.
Chairwoman Cox responded by noting that the QTS data center had been approved prior to current council action, that a pending data center ordinance is under review by the Planning and Zoning Committee, and that ongoing litigation has been filed against the County, requiring that information be channeled through the county manager’s web page.
Consent Agenda
Council voted unanimously to approve the consent agenda, with one exception. Councilmember Audette pulled Item 6 (the $1.4 million mobile command vehicle purchase), which was reassigned for separate discussion under new business. The remainder of the consent agenda — covering meeting minutes; third readings of rezoning Cases 26-04, 26-08, and 26-09; the City of York CDBG subrecipient agreement for Wooded Valley Park; the LaBella engineering contract for the Highway 557 sewer upgrade; the Kimley-Horn Amendment #1 for the Hwy. 49/Bonum/Montgomery intersection; donation of a 1988 Ford fire pumper to Cherokee Kings Creek VFD; multiple vehicle and equipment purchases for Public Works, the Sheriff’s Office, and Parks & Recreation; the Mongoose sewer jetter; proclamations for Public Service Recognition Week and National Correctional Officers and Employees Appreciation Week; SCORF grant applications and carry-forward funds for the Solicitor’s Office and Keystone Substance Abuse Services; and the IT Department’s State and Local Cyber Grant Program application — was approved as a single bundle.
Public Hearings
Case 26-03 — Blessed Hope Road (District 3): GC to RMX-20, 12.80 acres. Long-range planner Thomas Nuland presented the request, explaining that only the portion of the split-zoned property with access to Blessed Hope Road would be rezoned to RMX-20, with the GC frontage along Highway 321 (Alexander Love) preserved. The applicant intends to subdivide the property into three large residential lots, and has agreed to apply a deed restriction to keep the lots large in perpetuity. The property sits within a “donut hole” of City of York jurisdictional planning, and staff confirmed the original request had been for AGC, but staff and Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of AGC because it didn’t match the City of York’s comprehensive plan; the applicant then revised the request to RMX-20, which was unanimously recommended for approval. Councilmember Adkins asked clarifying questions about the geometry of the rezoning. Applicant Dan Baker spoke in favor, expressing his desire to maintain large lots and large homes given the prevalence of stacked, multifamily infill development in the area. Council unanimously approved first reading, with the motion-maker requesting the applicant to confirm the deed restriction before second reading.
Case 26-10 — Glen Ridge, Steele Meadows, and Sheffield Point (District 7): RMX-20 to RMX-6, 184 parcels. This was a council-initiated rezoning to correct existing illegal nonconformities for 184 parcels of townhomes in three Fort Mill–area communities. The RMX-6 district, created in 2022, is the only district that currently allows townhomes. Certified letters had been sent to all affected property owners, and the rezoning has no effect on how properties are currently used. Staff and Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. No one spoke against or in favor. Council unanimously approved first reading.
Case 26-11 — Chapel View Court (District 5): NC to RC, 1.62 acres. The applicant proposed a gas station and convenience retail strip at the intersection of York Highway, East View Road, and Chapel View Court. Staff recommended denial because the request was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and would allow more intensive commercial use on a road primarily accessed by residential driveways; the Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial as well. Janet Clawson and Christian Gonzalez (both Chapel View Court residents) spoke against the request. No one spoke in favor. After the public hearing closed, Chairwoman Cox (the district representative) requested a motion to deny, which was made and seconded. Councilmember Adkins asked whether the site could be redesigned to remove the Chapel View Court access; staff explained that the parcel’s geometry made redevelopment difficult either way. He noted that the corner has heavy traffic and existing commercial uses across the street and would support a gas station with proper buffers. Other members supported denial as inconsistent with the comp plan and too intensive for the area. The motion to deny carried 6–1, with Adkins voting opposed.
Case 26-12 — Grayson Road, Rock Hill (District 6): UD to LI, 0.99 acres. The applicant proposes to build and operate a machine shop with office, warehouse, and a truck-loading bay between Big Oak Lane and Grayson Road. Although the future land use map designates the area as Single Family Residential, staff recommended approval because the property sits within a light-industrial corridor where residential development would be inappropriate, and the rezoning removes another instance of the legacy UD district. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. No one spoke against or in favor. Council unanimously approved first reading.
Case 26-13 — True Road, McConnells (District 3): RSF-40 to AGC, 43.18 acres. The applicant, the Deckert family, sought rezoning to permit construction of a barn to facilitate use of the property for timberland. Staff recommended approval as consistent with the future land use designation of Agriculture; the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. Howard Wright, a neighboring property owner, spoke in favor. Another speaker rose during the close of the public hearing to express family concerns about an adjoining 48 acres set aside by his mother for her grandchildren, fearing the rezoning would affect future plans for the family’s separate land. Chairwoman Cox encouraged him to meet with staff before second reading and clarified that the proposed AGC zoning is actually less dense than the current RSF-40 designation. After discussion of whether to defer, Council declined and approved first reading on a voice vote, with two readings remaining for any concerns to be addressed.
Case 26-07 — Gold Hill Road and Highway 21, Fort Mill (District 7): LI to GC, 50.803 acres (third reading). This previously heard rezoning was renoticed for a second public hearing. Applicant Stephen McCrary, Jr. and resident Scott Cook spoke in favor, with the applicant noting the management partner’s intent to deed-restrict the property against LI to preserve the legacy of the 100-plus-year Eubanks family ownership. No one spoke against. Council unanimously approved third reading.
Ambulance Service Franchise Ordinance (third reading). Assistant County Manager for Public Safety David Garner presented the ordinance, referencing EMS Strategic Plan Goal #2 — establishing a unified framework for EMS system regulation, franchise accountability, and quality assurance. He explained the ordinance creates a franchise application process, an oversight committee, and a system to evaluate providers and hold them accountable to county standards, while not negating any current contracts. No one spoke against or in favor. Council unanimously approved third reading.
Old Business
Case 26-06 — Highway 160 W., Fort Mill (District 1): PD to GC, 1.776 acres (third reading). The motion to deny was made and seconded. Councilmember Audette explained that the location is not appropriate and emphasized concerns about expansive traffic. Councilmember Roddey then asked detailed questions of staff comparing what could be developed under the existing PD zoning versus the proposed GC zoning. Staff explained that the PD, which locked in 2008 development standards, allows virtually all the same uses as today’s GC except for hamburger drive-thrus, gasoline sales/stations, and self-storage. The trade-off is site design: contemporary GC standards include better vehicle stacking, escape lanes for drive-thrus, and dark-sky lighting, while buffers to adjacent residential are equivalent (30 feet plus a fence in both). Roddey emphasized that denying the rezoning would still allow the proposed coffee shop and ice cream shop to be built under outdated 2008 standards, with worse traffic-circulation requirements. Roddey then offered to support either path but said better protections would result from approval. Councilmember Litten (the motion-maker) withdrew the motion to deny and made a motion to defer, requiring a public meeting on-site with planning staff and the developer to explain the trade-offs to the community. The motion to defer carried unanimously.
Baxter Village Golf Cart Ordinance (third reading). A motion to approve was made and seconded. Councilmember Roddey strongly opposed the ordinance, arguing that the state had already taken the lead on golf-cart regulation and that picking specific neighborhoods for additional rules sets a bad precedent and creates enforcement difficulties for law enforcement, particularly for nighttime use. Councilmember Audette supported the motion, noting Baxter is a recognized overlay district, the local board has been seeking enforcement tools, and the ordinance would consolidate golf-cart crossings of Sutton Road to a single location. Councilmember Linton asked who would enforce the ordinance, and the County Attorney clarified that enforcement of public-roadway operations would fall to the Sheriff’s Office; the local board would have no enforcement authority. The Sheriff’s representative explained that the lack of clear-cut jurisdictional boundaries for a neighborhood-only ordinance presents enforcement challenges and creates concerns about future neighborhoods seeking similar exceptions. A motion to amend the ordinance to apply countywide was ruled out of order because that would exceed the public-hearing notice. Chairwoman Cox indicated she would not support countywide application after hearing law-enforcement concerns and would consider a deferral, but as no deferral motion was made, the original motion to approve was put to a vote. The motion to approve failed, with the opposition carrying.
New Business
FY27 Operating and Capital Budgets — First Reading. Councilmember Audette moved to approve first reading with a comprehensive package of amendments aimed at achieving a net-zero tax increase. His motion included: eliminating the $1.2 million facility study; hiring only frontline personnel and the previously approved legal personnel (with funding moved to the County Attorney’s budget); eliminating positions for EMS Director, recruiting specialist, principal planner, contract administrator, accounting manager, SharePoint administrator, and director of budget and CFO; eliminating the proposed 6-mill increase for capital reserve (instead funding capital projects through capital surplus); reducing the proposed water rate increase from 6% to 3% and the sewer rate increase from 10% to 3%; and accepting only a 0.5-mill rural fire increase, offset by general-fund reductions. The motion was seconded.
A lengthy debate followed. County Manager Josh Edwards expressed disappointment that the ideas had not been previewed before the meeting, walked Council through the “big rocks” driving the budget — including the Motorola 911 contract, a 10% Sheriff’s Office raise, Moss Justice Center work, the increase from $2 million to $4 million for county roads, and capital-maintenance fund needs — and explained that the budget calendar called for a public hearing on May 12 followed by second reading on May 18, with a workshop on the same day as the hearing. He emphasized that the County’s water and sewer fund balance has been drawn down for years, that capital reserve needs cannot be deferred without higher costs later, and that fire-services apparatus must be paid for in advance because of two-to-three-year lead times. He asked Council to reconsider and let major changes happen after the public hearing.
Councilmember Roddey supported the budget motion to keep the process moving but argued that York County is not over-taxing residents and presented a chart showing very modest property-tax increases on a $300,000 home from 2010 through 2025. Councilmember Watts pushed back on across-the-board cuts, saying Council has voted for “shiny things” but never wants to fund them, including parks, fire services, water/sewer improvements, and a major water system purchase that now requires significant capital investment. Councilmember Adkins and Councilmember Litten supported the call for fiscal restraint, noting residents are facing high gas and grocery prices and that government should tighten its belt before asking taxpayers to do the same. Councilmember Huckabee declined to support the omnibus motion because too much was packed into it, urging discrete amendments at second and third reading. Chairwoman Cox said she could not support a tax increase given a $12 million reassessment-year revenue increase, an estimated $14 million transfer from surplus, and projected $8–10 million surpluses, and raised concerns about how the budget was presented to council and the public, including how the PIO department’s reorganization made it appear there was a spending decrease when in fact spending had moved between accounts. She also raised concerns about the Rural Fire budget request including a $180,000 study while simultaneously adding $1.3 million for new positions, with three of four new firefighter positions slated for a single fire department — a structure she said had never been used before for rural fireboard money.
The motion carried 4–3 on first reading, with two more readings, a workshop, and the May 12 public hearing remaining for refinement.
Item 6 (Pulled from Consent) — Mobile Command Vehicle Purchase. David Garner explained the County’s current mobile command unit is a 2002 ATF-donated, repurposed vehicle that is borderline inoperable due to slide-out and stabilizer issues. The new $1.4 million unit would be the County’s first purchased command post and would be available to any agency through Emergency Management. Chairwoman Cox confirmed that only $1 million had been previously approved in the budget for this purchase and the additional $400,000 had not been formally approved. As a matter of process, she said items in consent agenda should never exceed previously approved budget amounts, and recommended deferral to allow time for questions. A motion to defer to the next meeting was made, seconded, and approved unanimously.
Committee Reports
Justice and Public Safety Committee (April 22, 2026) — Chair Tommy Adkins reported that the committee, also attended by Councilmembers Huckabee and Audette, received a brief update on fire services (firefighter-paramedic hiring underway; pilot program with Flint Hill and Bethel fire tax districts), an update on Tier 2 fees to fund the high-performing hazardous material incident management program, and feedback to the interim county attorney regarding board and commission member conduct. Attorney Dover will draft a social-media-guidance ordinance for board members and follow up at the next meeting on appointment processes.
Economic Development Committee (April 29, 2026) — Chair Watts Huckabee, joined by Councilmembers Cox and Audette, reported on a presentation from Winthrop University’s Provost and VP of Academic Affairs, Dr. Sebastian Van Delden. Winthrop is requesting a one-time $250,000 commitment from York County (matching Rock Hill’s $250,000) to support a new four-year advanced manufacturing engineering degree program covering AI, cybersecurity, machine learning, and material science. The committee also received a marketing and communications update from ED Director Mitch Miller and Caroline Floyd, heard from Clover Mayor Bo Legg and Robert Lewis about the American Thread Building and the Bailey Bill, and went into executive session on a contractual matter (Project Palmetto Rock) with no action taken.
Council Member Comments
Councilmember Adkins recognized May 4 as International Firefighters Day and recommended awaiting state action on data center legislation before further county action. Chairwoman Cox returned to the topic of agency funding, noting that nine agencies are receiving a combined $621,286 in the FY27 budget (a $25,000 reduction from the prior year, taken from Safe Passage). She suggested replicating the structured criteria framework that Council adopted in 2017 for H-Tax allocations to govern these one-time agency contributions, including funding-source determination, eligibility criteria, and an application process. She also raised the idea of Council adopting a resolution declining to offer fee-in-lieu (FILOT) agreements to future data centers and other industries that stress county utilities, noting the current comprehensive plan update presents an opportunity to make adjustments to the use table.
Executive Session and Adjournment
Council went into executive session for a general litigation update and personnel reviews of the Clerk to Council, County Manager, and County Attorney. No action was taken following executive session. Council noted a councilmember’s birthday, sang Happy Birthday, and adjourned.
