On the agenda: Fort Mill meeting — Data Center (Jun 16)

TOWN OF FORT MILL
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 16, 2026
205 North White Street
6:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
[Pages 2 - 5]

1. Regular Meeting: May 19, 2026
NEW BUSINESS
No new business items.
INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION

1. Text Amendments: Presentation from Jake Petrosky, Community Planning Project Manager, Bolton &
Menk consulting.
[Pages 6 - 39]
ADJOURN

The following press was notified of the meeting by email or fax in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act:
The Herald, CN2, WRHI, WSOC, and WBTV. The agenda was also posted at the entrance to Town Hall the
required length of time and on the Town website. The Town of Fort Mill is committed to assuring accessibility with
reasonable accommodation, of Town services and facilities for all individuals, in compliance with federal law.
Please contact the Town Manager’s Office at 803-547-2116 if you need assistance.

1

Present:

TOWN OF FORT MILL
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 19, 2026
205 N. White St.
6:00 PM
Chairman Mark Kerr, Vice Chairman Matt Lucarelli, Dan Stout, Jonathan
Hutchinson, Daniel Reynolds, Sarah Curtis, Director Penelope Karagounis,
Deputy Planning Director Joey Adams-Raczkowski, and Planner Emily Hawkins

Absent:

Dawn Williams-Zabicki

Guest:

See attached sign-in sheet

CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Mark Kerr called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday,
May 19, 2026.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman Mark Kerr asked for a motion to approve Planning Commission meeting minutes
from April 21, 2026. Commissioner Sarah Curtis made the motion to approve. Commissioner
Daniel Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion to approve the minutes from April 21, 2026,
was approved by a vote of 6-0.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Annexation/Zoning Maps Amendment Request: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital

Authority

Planning Director Penelope Karagounis stated that the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital
Authority (CMHA) is requesting annexation and zoning map amendment for two parcels
with Tax Map Numbers 661-00-00-030 and 658-00-00-106. The parcels are located in the
southwest corner of Sutton Road and I-77 interchange, contain approximately 10.9861 +/acres, and are contiguous to the existing town limits.
Ms. Karagounis confirmed that this project conforms to the neighborhood center place type
in the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. Rezoning the property to MXU is consistent
with the remainder of the property that is part of the project. Additionally, a Traffic Impact
Analysis will be required to mitigate any off-site traffic impacts that occur due to this
project. However, given that the annexation is not adding additional units to the project, the
TIA is not required prior to annexation. Commissioner Stout emphasized the need to
address traffic concerns with the roundabout at Masons Bend Drive and Sutton Road.
Chairman Kerr summarized the decision before the board, to annex these two parcels from
York County into the Town of Fort Mill with a zoning designation changing from General

2

Commercial to MXU, which is the same district as the remainder of the current property
owned by CMHA. Chairman Kerr than asked for a motion. Commissioner Sarah Curtis
recommended approval of the annexation request for the two parcels with a zoning
designation of MXU. Commissioner Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously 6:0.
2. Request to Amend the Existing Mixed-Use Concept Plan and Development Agreement for
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority.

Planning Director Penelope Karagounis introduced this item by stating that the request is for
the 4th amendment to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority (CMHA) which adds
the two parcels from the annexation and updates the current concept plan and Development
Agreement. The development schedule is also being updated, as well as adding language
that confirms the developer’s commitment to support the Carolina Thread Trail by making
improvements on the CHMA property that will include new facilities and trail connecting in
the direction of the existing or future trail sections along the Catawba River. Ms.
Karagounis emphasized that these actions will not increase the building entitlements for the
CMHA property. Instead, the added property will allow greater development flexibility
within the Atrium Fort Mill site.
During board discussion, Ms. Karagounis confirmed that the buildings on this site will come
back before the Planning Commission for Commercial Appearance Review. Representing
the applicant, attorney Jonathan Rawsthorne added further clarification regarding the overall
project and development schedule. Mr. Rawsthorne also clarified that the additional
property will allow for better site design, buffering, and circulation within the site. Mr.
Rawsthorne also stated that there will be parking available on the Atrium Fort Mill hospital
site to support the Carolina Thread Trail.
With no additional discussion from the board, Chairman Kerr called for a motion.
Commissioner Reynolds made a motion to recommend approval of the proposal as
presented, including updates to the current concept plan, development agreement, and
commitment to the Carolina Thread Trail, with the understanding that no additional building
entitlements are being requested. Mr. Hutchinson seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously 6:0.

3

INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION
1. Text Amendments Discussion
Planning Director Penelope Karagounis explained that town administration worked with the
Town Council to survey and prioritize a first round of text amendments that work toward the
implementation of various portions of the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan and
Downtown Master Plan. Council identified the following five categories:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Development Density (changing how many units, home many square feet, how tall,
etc., a development project can be).
Trees/Land Conservation (protection of existing, requiring new, incentivizing
developing portions of property and leaving portions untouched, etc.
Buffers and Setbacks (i.e., creating more separation from one use to another)
Open space/Trails (creating standards for open space, what trails look like, where
they go, etc)
Table of Uses (updating the uses allowed in each district, provide alignment with
new future land use plan). Also create a Downtown Core District.

Ms. Karagounis reviewed the project timeframe and explained that the consultant, Bolton
and Menk, will be presenting an overview of the amendments at the June 16, 2026, meeting
for information and discussion, with formal consideration by the Planning Commission at
the July 21, 2026, meeting. Ms. Karagounis asked that each board member review these five
categories and email any ideas or suggested changes emailed to her by Tuesday, May 26,
2026.
General discussion with the board included density, table of uses, looking at regulations from
other jurisdictions, a complete rewrite of the code / creation of a UDO is not likely, and
balancing the ability to still grow but maintain the historic small-town feel and quality of
life.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, Mr. Lucarelli made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Curtis
seconded the motion. The motion to adjourn passed unanimously 6:0.
The meeting adjourned at 6:41 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joey Adams-Raczkowski, Deputy Planning Director
June 10, 2026

4

5

Implementation
Planning Commission
06.16.2026

6

Comprehensive Plan
Implementation
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments

AGENDA

Gen H Comprehensive Plan

I. Background, Process and Schedule
II. Priority Issues
III. Policy Framework and Draft
Recommendations
IV. Discussion and Next Steps

7

2

BACKGROUND AND PROCESS
Background and Need
• Our Path Forward Comprehensive Plan and Downtown
Master Plan adopted March 23, 2026
• Moratorium adopted March 31, 2026 to align
ordinances with recent key planning documents
• Moratorium remains in effect until September 30, 2026

Process Steps
• June: Draft text amendments, gather Planning
Commission Input on amendments
• July: Planning Commission to consider text
amendments, suggest revisions
• Aug / Sept: Town Council to consider draft text
amendments
Our Path Forward | Comprehensive Plan Implementation

8

3

PROJECT SCHEDULE

Our Path Forward | Comprehensive Plan Implementation

9

4

PRIORITY ISSUES
Issue #

1
2
3
4
5
6

Development Density

District allowances, density, lot size, bulk,
height, width and depth standards

Buffers and Setbacks

Required buffers and setbacks for districts
and uses

Tree Conservation

Protection of existing trees and tree canopy,
requirements for new plantings, incentives

Open Space and Trails

Updated requirements and design
standards for open space

Permitted Uses / Table of Uses

Update Article II to include a Table of
Permitted Uses noting permitted and
conditional uses by district, minor updates to
allowable uses, use types and definitions

Downtown Core District

Create a Downtown Core District including
purpose, permitted uses, conditional uses,
and other requirements

Our Path Forward | Comprehensive Plan Implementation

10

5

PRIORITY ISSUES

Development Density / Intensity

Open Space and Trails

Buffers and Setbacks

11

Permitted Uses / Table of Uses

Tree Conservation

Downtown Core District

6

POLICY FRAMEWORK
AND DRAFT
RECOMMENDATIONS
12

DENSITY: ISSUE OVERVIEW
Issue and Input
• Many residential districts are not
used or intended for future use
• Concern over allowable density
in some districts
• Residential districts need to be
limited to 3 stories, except near
Downtown
• Secondary concern over
housing design (vinyl siding, lack
of architectural variation, etc.)

Our Path Forward | Comprehensive Plan Implementation

13

8

DENSITY: POLICY FRAMEWORK
Zoning Map

Base Residential
Districts

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

R-25 - One-family Residential District
R-15 - One-family Residential District
R-12 - One-family Residential District
R-10 - One-family Residential District
GR - Residential District
GR-A - General Residential-A District
R-5 - Residential
RT-4 - Residential District (Unmapped)
RT-8 - Residential District
RT-12 - Residential District (Unmapped)

Special
Purpose
Districts

Current Zoning District Structure

•
•
•
•

PCD - Planned Cluster Development District
PND - Planned Neighborhood Development District
MHP - Mobile Home Park District (Unmapped)
MXU - Mixed Use Development District

Our Path Forward | Comprehensive Plan Implementation

14

9

DENSITY: POLICY FRAMEWORK
Zoning District Summary (Acres)
7,000
5,814

6,000

Legacy / Underutilized
Residential Districts

5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000

789

1,000
-

35

RC

272

1,258

916
11

R-25 R-15 R-12 R-10

Our Path Forward | Comprehensive Plan Implementation

725
210

166

70

39

3

R-5

GR GR-A RT-8 PND MXU

UD

15

639
85

INST

LC

22

HC

LI

512

GI

10

DENSITY: POLICY FRAMEWORK
Future Land Use Map

Fort Mill Comprehensive Plan
• Single Family Residential
•
•
•
•
•

Medium-lot single-family detached homes
Small-lot single-family detached homes
Conservation subdivisions (clustered smalllot homes with open space)
Accessory dwelling units
Amenity buildings (clubhouses)

• Mixed Residential
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Medium-lot single-family detached homes
Small-lot single-family detached homes
(including patio homes)
Pocket neighborhood cottages
Attached single-family (townhomes,
duplexes, triplexes, etc.)
Small-scale multifamily (condos,
apartments)
Accessory dwelling units
Amenity buildings (clubhouses)

Our Path Forward | Comprehensive Plan Implementation

• Downtown
•
•
•
•

Attached single-family
Multifamily
Upper floor lofts
Artists’ studios

•
•

Attached single-family
Multifamily

•

Single-family homes

• Activity Center
• Agriculture

16

12

DENSITY: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
R-12 Neighborhood

Draft Recommendations / Options
• Short Term elimination of unmapped districts from code
• Keep MHP as option, rezoning is legislative decision
• Potentially keep RT-8 as option with better
conditional standards, may be appropriate for infill
or well-located sites
• Potentially move some districts to “legacy districts”
list like R-5 – including RT-12, RT-4, and the GR
districts
• Long-term potential for larger-scale district
consolidation and remapping
• R-12 District underutilized. Potentially remap to R-10
or R-15. Then remove RT-12 district from code or to
legacy district list.
• Implement / update residential standards section
Our Path Forward | Comprehensive Plan Implementation

17

R-10 Neighborhood

13

DENSITY: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
Fort Mill Downtown Plan

Draft Recommendations / Options
• Implement / update residential standards section
• Need to define major / minor subdivisions.
Potentially at 5-10 unit threshold.
• Article IV could potentially be revised to be
Development Standards
• Or add section to Article I, Sec. 7: General
provisions
• Add open space requirements (priorities and
standards)
• Review and revise height restrictions
• Most are 35ft. Though RT districts are 45 ft. MXU
allows higher buildings
• Downtown Plan recommendations on height

Our Path Forward | Comprehensive Plan Implementation

18

14

DENSITY: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
Planned Neighborhood Development District
• Current Regulations
• 8 DUA maximum + 20% density bonus potential
• 35% Open Space requirement
• Density bonuses for +10% open space, greenway system,
second floor residential units, daycare
• Recommendations
• Standards
• Reduce maximum density from 8 DUA to 4 DUA
• Update loading, dimensional standards
• Port some standards into a general residential standards
section
• Eliminator or revisit density bonus structure
• Process changes (now or long-term)
• Convert to a legislative approval that requires concept plan
review and approval by PC / TC, community meeting, etc.
Our Path Forward | Comprehensive Plan Implementation

19

PND Neighborhood

15

DENSITY: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
Planned Cluster Development District
• Current Regulations
• Currently allowed in GR, GR-A, LC, HC
• Allows 6-8 DUA with 14% Open Space
• No minimum setback or lot size
• Recommendation
• Remove or convert to conservation subdivision option in R-10
and R-15
• Suggested changes:
• 2.5 DUA max for R-15, 40% minimum open space
requirement
• 3 DUA max for R-10, 40% minimum open space requirement
• Loading: 50% of lots may be alley loaded
• Setbacks: 25ft – front loaded, 10ft – alley loaded
• Lot width and size: 50% of lots must be > 7,500 sqft and >75ft
in width
Our Path Forward | Comprehensive Plan Implementation

20

16

DENSITY: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
Mixed Use Development District
• Current Regulations
• Development types have different
dimensional requirements
• 20% open space
• Recommendations
• Update dimensional requirements for
cottages, townhomes, and multifamily
• Adjust lot area, width, setbacks, height
• Update open space and tree planting
requirements
• Move some requirements to general
development standards (e.g. ADA
parking, landscaping, screening, etc.)

Our Path Forward | Comprehensive Plan Implementation

Elizabeth
(MXU
District)

21

17

DENSITY: DRAFT RECS SUMMARIZED
Existing Districts

Notes / Recommendation

Applicable FLU District

R-25, R-15, R-12, and R-10

Keep, implement base open space
requirement and perimeter buffers
for major subdivisions (except R-25)

Single Family Residential

GR and GR-A

Convert to legacy districts

N/A

RT-4, RT-8, and RT-12

Convert RT-4 and RT-12 to legacy
districts
Update standards for RT-8

Mixed Residential

Planned Neighborhood
Development (PND)

Update standards
Potentially convert to legislative
review process

Single Family Residential or
Mixed Residential

Planned Cluster Development (PCD)

Convert to conservation subdivision
option for R-10 and R-15

Single Family Residential

Mixed Use Development District
(MXU)
Our Path Forward | Comprehensive Plan Implementation

Update standards for development
types
22

Single Family Residential or
Mixed Residential
19

BUFFERS AND SETBACKS: POLICY FRAMEWORK
Current Requirements
• Separation buffers only required in MXU District
• Spacing and buffering between residential and
commercial/industrial areas should be sufficient
depth to limit light and noise into residential areas
utilizing natural vegetation as much as possible.
• Concern over depth of driveways to allow for car
parking without blocking sidewalks.
• Tied to street standards / typicals

Our Path Forward | Comprehensive Plan Implementation

23

20

BUFFERS AND SETBACKS: DRAFT RECS
Draft Recommendations
• Implement new landscaped buffer and street
buffer standards for different land use types
• Based on adjacency
• Variable buffers between residential and
commercial, etc.
• Review and revise setbacks in base residential
districts and special purpose districts
• Consider changes to loading and street standards
• Allowance for alley-loaded in some cases
with appropriate street standards
• Vary setbacks based on loading

Our Path Forward | Comprehensive Plan Implementation

24

21

TREE CONSERVATION: POLICY FRAMEWORK
Current Requirements
• Definitions for trees
• Define heritage and historic trees in ordinance
• Also defined: shade tree, tree (small, intermediate,
major), evergreen tree (small, major), tree density
standard, tree density unit, tree protective zone,
unacceptable species
• Limited requirements for tree preservation currently in
the ordinance.
• Credit for preservation of trees in some cases
towards required plantings (LC District, Art II, Sec. 8)
• Except for Scenic Highway PDD
• No clearing of vegetative buffer within 100ft of the
ROW in Scenic Highway PDD.
• Shall not exceed 40% of parcel
• Waiver process with PC and TC approval
Our Path Forward | Comprehensive Plan Implementation

25

22

TREE CONSERVATION: DRAFT RECS
Draft Recommendations
• Review and revise definitions for trees.
• Clarify and address conflicts.
• Add Development Standards section to Article I, Sec. 7: General
provisions or Article IV to require tree preservation for many
development types
• Implement tree canopy preservation requirement (i.e. a minimum of
10%) for sites larger than 10 acres or over a certain number of units)
• Codify existing policy: Historic trees (30”) currently defined in Tree
Mitigation Policy for Large Tracts, requires sample inventory.
• Can codify and potentially update/expand to include 20” trees
• Specify inclusion on submittals, minimum preservation
percentage with replacement and/or fee in-lieu option
• Revisit survey / sample methods, calculations and 3”
requirement
• Goal is canopy tree plantings (not just street/yard trees)
Our Path Forward | Comprehensive Plan Implementation

26

Natural Area Open
Space Type
23

OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS: POLICY FRAMEWORK
Tie to Comprehensive Plan
• Top Community Priority – Preserving Open Space (from Public Input).
• Big Idea #1 – Integrate Trails, Opens Spaces, and Amenities into the
Community
• Expand trails and open space, connect to the Carolina Thread
Trail, and weave amenities into neighborhoods.
• Recommendation 1.01 – Pursue Funding Options for Constructing
Priority Trails Identified in 2024 Trail Master Plan
• Recommendation 5.01 – Update Zoning Ordinance
• Revisions may include requiring open space and trail
connections
• Recommendation 6.05 – Encourage Landowners to Preserve Open
Space through Programs like York County Forever
• Vision (Investing in a Network of Open Space) –
• Placing a 50’-100’ buffer along existing and proposed trails,
streams, creeks, and the Catawba River
Our Path Forward | Comprehensive Plan Implementation

27

24

OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS: POLICY FRAMEWORK
Tie to Parks and Recreation Plan
• Policy and Funding Recommendations – Update Policies
or Ordinances
• Update development regulations to support parkland
dedication, impact fees, and shared-use agreements
• Clarify maintenance, safety, and accessibility
standards across park assets
• Implementation / Action Plans
• 1.6c: Partner with schools, HOAs, and private entities
to leverage shared-use facilities.
• 4.6b: Utilize development-related funding tools where
appropriate (e.g., impact fees, dedication
requirements)
• 4.6c: Formalize public private partnerships that
reduce operating costs or generate revenue.
Our Path Forward | Comprehensive Plan Implementation

28

25

OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS: POLICY FRAMEWORK
Issues and Opportunities
• No or low base open space requirement in many
residential districts
• Need for passive / improved open space types and
requirements
• Clarify priorities and limit what counts as open
space
• Incentives
• PCD was meant for incentives for open space.
Need to rewrite / clarify intent.
• Lower density and more open space may be
goal.

Our Path Forward | Comprehensive Plan Implementation

29

26

OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS: DRAFT RECS
Draft Recommendations
• Implement base open space requirements for most residential
subdivisions.
• 15-20% for major subdivisions may be appropriate
• Incentives for more. Could customize the PCD.
• Limit what counts for open space (i.e. perimeter buffers,
stormwater, etc.)
• Potentially 50% of passive max for stormwater
• Perimeter buffers should not count unless of a certain
depth
• Improved open space / gathering space
• For every XX number of homes (i.e. 50-100) there should be
an open space for of sufficient size for children to play,
neighborhood gatherings, relaxation, etc.
• Provide list of eligible recreation features
Our Path Forward | Comprehensive Plan Implementation

30

Neighborhood Park
Open Space Type
28

PRECEDENCE - ROLESVILLE, NC
Rolesville, NC (LDO)

Open Space Requirements

• Adopted Feb 3, 2026
• Updated from 2021 LDO Framework
(replaced prior UDO)
• Ongoing text amendments to refine
standards

• Residential
• 0–50 ac: 1 small + 1 medium (<10
ac: 1 small)
• >50 ac: (1 small/medium + 1
large), or (1 small + 2 medium)
• ≥50% of units within ½ mile of
medium/large park
• Mixed-Use
• <25 ac: 2 small
• 25–50 ac: 2 small + 1 medium
• > 50 ac: 3 small + 2 medium
• Commercial
• <25 ac: 1 small
• 25–50 ac: 1 small + 1 medium

Open Space Types (by Size)
• Small: 500 SF–1 ac
• Medium: 1–2.5 ac
• Large: ≥2.5 ac

Our Path Forward | Comprehensive Plan Implementation

31

29

PRECEDENCE – FOUNTAIN INN, SC
Fountain Inn, SC (UDO)
• Similar district structure before UDO
update
• Added base open space requirement
to all residential districts >2 DUA
• New open space design standards

Open Space Requirements
•
•
•
•
•
•

Active and passive requirements
10-50 Lots = 1 Active Recreation Feature
>50+ Lots = 2 Active Recreation Features
50% must be accessible from public streets
Minimum width and area requirements
Primary and secondary conservation areas

Our Path Forward | Comprehensive Plan Implementation

32

30

OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS: DRAFT RECS
Draft Recommendations
• Trail standards needed
• Paved vs. unpaved
• Connections to trails
and between
neighborhoods
• Requirement for trail
easement and connections
based on trail plan
• Incentives for construction
and appropriate design

Our Path Forward | Comprehensive Plan Implementation

33

31

TABLE OF USES: DRAFT RECS
Draft Recommendations
• Table of Permitted Uses
• Consolidation / modernization of uses
• E.g. retail uses
• New Uses (Definitions and Conditions)
• Accessory Dwelling Units
• After School Programs / Clubs
• Gyms
• Doggy daycare and boarding
facilities
• Vape Shop
• Data Centers
• Solar Farms

Our Path Forward | Comprehensive Plan Implementation

34

32

TABLE OF USES: DRAFT RECS
Accessory Dwelling Units
• Define use
• Add conditional standards
• Setbacks – Add requirement
• Parking – 1 space
• Height – Shorter than primary
dwelling
• Size – Maximum of 800 sqft
footprint

Our Path Forward | Comprehensive Plan Implementation

35

33

TABLE OF USES: DRAFT RECS
Data Centers and Solar Farms
• Define uses
• Add conditional standards
• Minimum property size
• Enhanced Buffer
• Setbacks (from property line)
• Separation (from certain uses such
as schools, churches, residential
structures)
• Maximum size w/o Special
Exception (~100k sqft for data
center, 50 acres for solar farms)
• Only allow in LI
• Potential for Special Exception process
• Would require hearing by BZA
Our Path Forward | Comprehensive Plan Implementation

Proposed Data Center in Aiken, SC
Source: DataCenterDynamics.com
36

34

DOWNTOWN CORE DISTRICT: ZONING
Current Zoning
• LC District covers Downtown currently

Our Path Forward | Comprehensive Plan Implementation

37

35

DOWNTOWN CORE DISTRICT: DRAFT RECS
Draft Recommendations
• Create a new Downtown Core
Zoning District (DC)
• Flexible uses – in line with
Downtown and Comp Plan
recommendations
• Conditional standards – site
design, building form, etc.
• Removal of barriers
• Shared parking / no parking
• Change approach to buffers –
fence / plantings adjacent to
single family residential
• Public space requirements
• Allow for legislative rezoning
requests
Our Path Forward | Comprehensive Plan Implementation

38

36

DISCUSSION AND NEXT STEPS
• Thoughts on priorities and
options?
• Next Steps
• July 21st: Planning Commission
Meeting to review draft
amendments
• August 24th: Town Council to
consider amendments (1st
reading), public hearing
• September 28th: Town Council 2nd
reading, potential adoption
Our Path Forward | Comprehensive Plan Implementation

39

38