Lancaster County Planning Commission denies Barberville Commercial subdivision, approves 1,490-lot Catawba Ridge plat and four rezonings

The Lancaster County Planning Commission met on May 19, 2026, with newly seated District 1 commissioner Richard Crandall bringing the body back to a full membership of seven, although Commissioner Frances Liu (District 7) was absent. In the night’s most contested decision, the Commission voted 5-1 to deny a preliminary plat for the Melanie Lane/Barberville Commercial subdivision in Indian Land after more than two hours of testimony from a dozen residents of the adjacent Overlook at Barber Rock neighborhood, with Commissioner Judianna Tinklenberg citing the project’s failure to meet Highway Corridor Overlay (HCO) requirements under UDO Section 4.3.2(A) and Appendix B. The Commission then unanimously approved a preliminary plat for the 1,490-lot Catawba Ridge (Contender) residential community on 840 acres north of Great Falls Highway, though several commissioners voiced concern about fire response capacity at the volunteer Bell Town station and the timing of a long-awaited Catawba Ridge Boulevard extension. Four rezoning applications — for a 7Brew drive-thru in Indian Land, a medical/community-center use proposed by Dr. Kumari Ramesh on Charlotte Highway, a residential rezoning on a private airstrip property requested by Gary Pettus, and a tree service business on Yarborough Road — all received unanimous 6-0 recommendations of approval to County Council. The Commission also approved the April 21, 2026 minutes as amended (correcting a vote characterization on Legacy Point road names submitted in writing by absent Commissioner Liu), declined to hold a separate June workshop, and received updates from staff on the impact fee study (awarded to TischlerBise, contract signed April 13), the pending comprehensive plan update, and the dormant status of the recently authorized housing subcommittee.

1. Call to Order

Chairwoman Michelle Richards (District 5) called the meeting to order. The clerk called roll, and a quorum of six commissioners was confirmed present: Richard Crandall (District 1, newly seated), Yokima Cureton (District 2), Lynette Hinson (District 3), Judianna Tinklenberg (District 4), Michelle Richards (District 5), and Sheila Hinson (District 6). Frances Liu (District 7) was absent. Chairwoman Richards welcomed Commissioner Crandall as the newest member and noted that the Commission was now back to its full complement of seven. She also reminded attendees of meeting decorum following disruptions at the prior meeting, asking that speakers not be interrupted, applauded, or jeered. The Pledge of Allegiance and opening prayer followed.

2. Approval of the Agenda

A motion to approve the agenda as presented passed unanimously, 6-0.

3. Approval of Minutes — April 21, 2026 Regular Meeting

Chairwoman Richards relayed a written correction submitted by absent Commissioner Frances Liu regarding language on page 10 of the minutes (page 13 of the packet) related to road names for Legacy Point, case NRN-2026-417. The minutes had described the motion as passing unanimously, but Commissioner Liu had voted in opposition, making the vote not unanimous. After procedural guidance from the County Attorney that the amendment and the amended minutes required separate votes, the Commission first voted 6-0 to approve the amendment and then 6-0 to approve the minutes as amended.

4. Citizens Comments

No one had signed up to speak under general citizens comments. The Commission moved directly to the public hearing items.

5. Public Hearing Items for Planning Commission Decision

a. SD-2026-0834 Melanie Lane/Barberville Commercial — DENIED 5-1

Application: Moody Group/Jan Ringeling on behalf of Barberville Developers LLC and Martin Senior and Associates LLC for a preliminary plat for a multi-parcel commercial development totaling 9.74 acres at the northwest corner of Barberville Road and Fort Mill Highway (TM #s 0006-00-057.00, 0006-00-058.00, -058.02, -058.03). Council District 4 (Tinklenberg). The property is split between two zoning districts — General Business (GB) and Neighborhood Business (NB) — and falls within the Highway Corridor Overlay. An existing cell tower remains on the property under the proposed plan.

Staff presentation: Staff explained that the preliminary plat had been conditionally approved by the Technical Review Committee (TRC) pending Planning Commission decision and had been reviewed by Lancaster County Water and Sewer, Public Works, Fire, and E-911. Staff stated that because the project is a preliminary plat for a commercial subdivision with no specific users identified, a new comprehensive Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is not required at this stage; a TIA covering an earlier, separate site plan for the upper parcel had been completed, and any future specific commercial uses on the new parcels would trigger additional traffic studies. Staff noted that an existing minor subdivision had previously been approved for the upper portion in March 2026, and that the current major subdivision request would create the new parcel configuration with shared stormwater infrastructure and a shared private road (Melanie Lane), to be built to county road standards with a right-of-way.

Commissioner questions to staff: Commissioners pressed staff on (1) the adequacy of relying on a TIA covering only one of the two parcels, (2) how two different zoning districts could be combined within a single commercial development (staff clarified the parcels are not being combined for zoning purposes — only shared infrastructure), (3) the process for transitioning from a recently approved minor subdivision into a major subdivision, (4) whether posted public-notice signs were on site (staff said they were, though some may have been removed by road-shoulder workers), (5) the northbound left-turn lane shown on the plat and SCDOT’s encroachment permit, and (6) whether the existing common-area BMP/stormwater facility was sized for the full buildout.

Applicant statements: Attorney Dan Belaloo (113 East Main Street, Rock Hill) stated the applicant had consulted with staff at every step to conform to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), described the property as appropriately zoned, sitting within a Highway Corridor, and where this type of development should occur. Jan Ringeling of Moody Group (Terra Plantation Boulevard, Monroe, NC) explained that GB and NB parcels were each subject to their own permitted-use requirements, that a new TIA had been prepared but was not required for the preliminary plat stage, and that additional improvements would be addressed as individual users came forward. The project’s civil engineer (Roper Lane, SC) explained that stormwater had been pre-engineered based on maximum buildable area per parcel, with runoff routed to the common BMP.

Public hearing: Chairwoman Richards entered three emailed comments into the record from Larry and Janice Bennett, JNM Markham, and Jeff Williams, all Overlook at Barber Rock residents raising concerns about road alignment, buffers, runoff, the cell tower, traffic, tree cover loss, and noise. Eleven residents then spoke in person, all in opposition:

Janine Clifton (2023 Oliver Terrace, Indian Land) characterized the project as a “Trojan horse,” contending that the applicant’s marketing materials advertised a convenience store and gas station not disclosed in any filing, and that the developer had not consulted with neighbors despite earlier Commission direction.
Carrie Baker (1044 Harbor Bay Drive) asked the Commission to formally find that the earlier parcel-one development and this major subdivision constitute a single unified project, arguing that “piecemealing” the development circumvents proper review.
Cody Hinton (4627 Kingswood Drive) described tree removal that shook houses and broke glassware in cabinets and argued that a Type B buffer per UDO 7.1.5.B.2 — with no species, size, or density specified — cannot screen a building whose foundation sits roughly six feet higher than adjoining homes.
Thomas Hinson (6408 Ancient Way) cited UDO 4.3.2.L.2 and 7.1.2 mandatory tree-preservation requirements, noting that a formal written complaint had been submitted to the County in August 2024 — before tree removal — and ignored.
Jared Calhoun (8535 Hope Court) raised the 154-foot cell tower fall zone under UDO 5.11.5.E, noting that the lease covers only 13% of the fall zone and that proposed parcels 5, 6, and the common area fall within the radius.
Jeff Larson (2010 Oliver Terrace) argued that the recombination plat was not validly recorded under UDO 6.2.2.B because it lacked the required “exempt pursuant to Lancaster County UDO” language, that Melanie Lane is legally a private driveway (not a street), and that the plat violates UDO 6.1.8.1.H.1, which permits no more than five lots accessed by a newly created private drive (the plat shows eight).
Andrew Misulo (8536 Hope Run Court) summarized a written packet of UDO violations distributed to commissioners, including incomplete minor subdivision compliance, Melanie Drive’s connection to Barberville Road as a thoroughfare, parcels lacking required street frontage under UDO 1.4.3.B.4, the cell tower fall zone, the August 2024 tree-preservation complaint, and an expired TIA.
Shannon Hinson (6408 Ancient Way) spoke to the community’s residential expectations and that the neighborhood was not designed to absorb commercial development encroaching into it.
Jerry Carter (4621 Kingswood Drive) cited the developer’s TIA showing the Barberville Road/Highway 160 intersection at level-of-service E moving toward F, referenced the County Council’s October 2025 Indian Land moratorium for outpaced infrastructure, and noted the only conditional approval from the Fire Marshal.
Charles Anthony (6401 Ancient Way), an attorney speaking only for himself, cited the April 2026 South Carolina case Alliance to Preserve the Old White Horse Corridor (Greenville County) and a September written legal opinion by Mr. Dose of the Smith Robinson law firm — relied on by staff — confirming Melanie Lane is “denominated as a private 50-foot right of way” and not a street, meaning proposed parcels 2, 3, 4, and the common area do not front a street as required by UDO 1.4.3.B.4 and UDO 4.3.2.F.1.
Ann Gable (20002 Oliver Terrace) — whose home directly abuts the property — described construction vibrations breaking dishes, construction debris falling into her yard, dust accumulation, the unanticipated tie-in of the development’s sewer and stormwater into her cul-de-sac, and direct overlooks into her windows.

Applicant rebuttal: Attorney Belaloo stated that none of the materials submitted by neighbors constituted evidence of UDO violations, that the County Attorney would not have allowed staff to overlook violations, and that the applicant had complied with the UDO at every step. He acknowledged staff turnover and changes in interpretation along the way. Ms. Ringeling apologized for not having communicated more with neighbors and described the project team as small-scale developers who relied on county direction.

Commissioner discussion: Commissioner Tinklenberg, whose district contains the project, walked through her review of UDO 4.3.2(A) (Highway Corridor Overlay purpose and intent) and noted that, treating the project as a unified development with combined gross floor area likely exceeding 40,000 square feet, the plat did not demonstrate compliance with required pedestrian-scale common areas (minimum 500 square feet of pocket-park or playground), the 8-foot multi-use path called for in Appendix B, or other HCO design standards. She emphasized that the Commission should not feel pressured to “rubber stamp” the project to resolve prior issues not of the Commission’s making. Commissioner Sheila Hinson questioned whether the project’s first construction priority should be the road and the buffer, raised the elevation differential, and stated that the common area as drawn (containing the cell tower easement and BMP access) would not satisfy the HCO common-open-space requirement. Commissioner Crandall asked about phasing of the cell tower fall zone, the buffer option, and the sequencing of any new TIA improvements relative to construction. Commissioner Cureton expressed difficulty making an informed decision based on the information presented.

Vote: A motion by Tinklenberg to approve “for the sake of discussion,” seconded, failed by roll call 1-5 (Crandall, L. Hinson, Cureton, Tinklenberg, S. Hinson voting against approval; Richards in favor of approval). The County Attorney advised that a motion to deny must cite specific ordinance violations supported by evidence. Commissioner Tinklenberg moved to deny based on failure to meet UDO 4.3.2(A) and Appendix B (Highway Corridor Overlay). The motion was seconded and passed 5-1 on roll call (Crandall, L. Hinson, Cureton, Tinklenberg, S. Hinson voting to approve denial; Richards opposed). Because preliminary plats are final decisions of the Planning Commission, the matter does not advance to County Council.

b. SD-2023-0867 Catawba Ridge (Contender) — APPROVED 6-0

Application: ESP Associates (Matt Mandel, 3475 Lakemont Boulevard, Fort Mill) on behalf of Catawba Ridge Holdings LLC for a preliminary plat for a 1,490-lot residential community on 840 acres north of Great Falls Highway and along Catawba Ridge Boulevard (TM #s 0128-00-012.00 and 0126-00-048.00). The site is part of PDD-2 (the Bear Creek planned development) and is located adjacent to the existing True Homes portion of PDD-2. The proposed plan includes 168 acres of open space and privately maintained streets.

Staff presentation: Staff reported that the only non-approval on the TRC matrix was from the Planning Department, which simply reserved the final decision for the Planning Commission. The closest SCDOT count station, about a mile away, averages roughly 4,000 trips per day. The site is in the Bell Town Fire District (volunteer), with Station 3 the nearest EMS station. Affected schools are Erwin Elementary, South Middle, and Lancaster High. The future land use designation is Master Plan Community, consistent with the proposal, and the application meets PDD-2 requirements. Staff recommended approval.

Applicant statements: Mr. Mandel and Allison Tucker (200 Smith Hines Road, Greenville) confirmed that Phase 1 of the Catawba Ridge Boulevard extension is already under construction, with Phase 2 plans under review. They stated the intent is to build the boulevard connection to Highway 200 as soon as possible. On the existing boat-landing access road traversing the property, the applicant confirmed a stub will be provided per TRC comments and expressed openness to a more direct access. They acknowledged a commercial bubble within the master plan (potential grocery store) but had no specific timing. The TIA was acknowledged as reviewed and approved by SCDOT.

Public hearing: Phil Grove (40120 Crooked Stick Drive, Edgewater) urged the Commission not to grant any extensions on completion of the Catawba Ridge Boulevard connection to Highway 200, noting that Edgewater (approximately 800-1,000 homes) currently has only a single ingress/egress at Bethel Boat Landing, with recurring accidents, downed trees, and a recent jackknifed semi blocking access for hours. He asked that the connector road be completed as quickly as possible.

Commissioner discussion: Chairwoman Richards, whose district contains the project, pressed on the timing of the boulevard extension, the preservation of public access to the Old Springs Park county boat landing, and expressed strong disagreement with portions of the TIA — specifically traffic count assumptions (60 cars per hour maximum at certain points) that she said do not match her firsthand observations from living on a road off Bethel Boat Landing. Commissioner Tinklenberg raised fire-response concerns at the Bell Town volunteer station and questioned whether per-home fire assessments were being collected, as the Fire Marshal had previously told her was required; staff agreed to follow up. Commissioner Crandall asked about sequencing of traffic mitigations (signals, roundabouts, decel lanes) relative to phasing, and about whether the boat-launch access would remain operable through construction. Commissioner Cureton asked about Erwin Elementary capacity and sequencing of buildout. Staff confirmed the project sits outside the County’s current impact-fee area.

Vote: Motion by Crandall to approve, second by L. Hinson. Approved 6-0 on roll call. As a preliminary plat, this is a final decision of the Planning Commission and does not advance to County Council.

6. Public Hearing Items for Recommendations to County Council

a. RZ-2025-2390 7Brew — RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 6-0

Application: HeBrews South Indian Land and Cory Pritchard (Alan Mosley, BL Companies, 10005 Breakmaker Lane, Indian Trail, NC) to rezone a 0.525-acre parcel at 8458 Charlotte Highway (TM 0013-00-016.01) from General Business (GB) to Regional Business (RB) to allow a drive-thru-only coffee shop and associated parking.

Staff presentation: Staff explained that the subject parcel is being rezoned so it can be recombined with a contiguous parcel immediately to the north already zoned RB (where Swig is located and where the developer is in the sketch plan phase). The recombination is needed to obtain sufficient area to meet code. Surrounding uses are predominantly commercial (GB, RB) with some Institutional (Indian Land Intermediate area), and the Cross Creek commercial development (Publix anchor) is nearby. The future land use designation is Core Mixed Use. The application meets Chapter 9 provisions and aligns with Panhandle Area Objective 4.1. Staff recommended approval.

Applicant statement: Mr. Mosley confirmed the rezoning is needed because the two parcels must share the same zoning before they can be combined.

Public hearing: No speakers signed up.

Vote: Motion by Tinklenberg to approve, second. Recommended for approval 6-0 on roll call. Advances to County Council.

b. RZ-2026-0503 Dr. Ramesh — RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 6-0

Application: Dr. Kumari Ramesh (1928 Smarty Jones Drive, Waxhaw, NC) to rezone a 7.09-acre parcel at 7319 Charlotte Highway (TM 0016-00-048.00) from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Neighborhood Business (NB) to allow commercial development including offices and a community center. The parcel has frontage on both Charlotte Highway and Charles Pettus Road.

Staff presentation: Staff described the parcel as largely undeveloped on the Charles Pettus side, with a single-family home and existing driveway access on the Charlotte Highway side. Surrounding zoning is predominantly LDR with some GB and Institutional nearby. The future land use designation is Growth Area, and Neighborhood Business is a permissible district within that designation. The application meets Chapter 9 provisions and aligns with Lancaster County Goal 1.2. Staff recommended approval. Staff noted that the existing single-family home would become non-conforming if the rezoning is approved, and that continued driveway access onto Charlotte Highway is not guaranteed — SCDOT (Cory Barnes confirmed in a preliminary conversation) would re-evaluate access at the civil site design stage, particularly given the Highway Corridor Overlay.

Applicant statement: Dr. Ramesh stated that she practiced internal medicine and geriatrics at Lancaster Hospital from 2003 to 2015, that she relocated to North Carolina for her children’s schooling, and that the project is intended to give back to the community through medical services for the growing elderly population.

Commissioner discussion: Commissioner Tinklenberg raised compatibility concerns given surrounding residential uses and the 55 mph speed limit on Charlotte Highway through that area, and asked about access management.

Public hearing: No speakers signed up.

Vote: Motion by Cureton to approve, second. Recommended for approval 6-0 on roll call. Advances to County Council.

c. RZ-2026-0725 Pettus — RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 6-0

Application: Gary Pettus (Lee Pettus, 10954 Old Pettus Place, Indian Land/Fort Mill) to rezone an 8.001-acre parcel off Aero Lane (portion of TM 0041-00-004.00) from Institutional (INS) to Rural Residential (RR) to allow construction of a residence. The parent tract on Shiloh Unity Road contains a long narrow private dirt airstrip, which is the basis for the current Institutional zoning.

Staff presentation: The applicants have already obtained an approved minor subdivision plat to carve out the parcel, but cannot obtain a building permit until the zoning supports a primary residential use. Institutional zoning allows residential only as a secondary use (e.g., a parsonage attached to a church) and not as a primary use on a separate parcel. Surrounding uses are predominantly Rural Residential, with some LDR to the west. The future land use designation is Rural, compatible with the RR request, and the application meets all UDO Chapter 9 provisions and aligns with Comprehensive Plan Goal LC 1.2. Staff recommended approval.

Applicant statement: Lee Pettus described the project as their “empty nest chapter”: she and her husband are private pilots who want to live on the airstrip property, where they were able to purchase from the original founders of the airfield (in their 80s, residents there since 1985) after building a trusted relationship.

Public hearing: No speakers signed up.

Vote: Motion to approve, second. Recommended for approval 6-0 by show of hands. Advances to County Council.

d. RZ-2026-0736 Justin’s Tree Service — RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 6-0

Application: Brandon Roope and Billy & Jane St. Clair on behalf of Justin’s Tree Service to rezone a 6.08-acre parcel at 9595 Yarborough Road (TM 0007-00-014.01) from Professional Business (PB) to Regional Business (RB) to allow commercial development for a tree service business. Brandon Roope and Justin Roope spoke for the applicant (8821 Houston Ridge Road, Charlotte).

Staff presentation: The parcel sits at the end of Yarborough Road adjacent to the Bales Ridge business park. The current owner has marketed the property under PB for years without finding a buyer that fits the PB use category. The proposed use does not draw customers — the tree service operates offsite — and the applicants intend to up-fit the existing home as offices and use the property to store equipment. The site has substantial natural buffering, including a creek and floodplain to the south separating it from the Asbury residential subdivision (in civil plan stage). Future land use is Growth Area, which directs commercial development toward this corridor. The application meets all UDO Chapter 9 provisions. Staff recommended approval.

Applicant statement: Brandon Roope confirmed there will be no mulching, no burning, and no loud operations onsite — equipment is stored on the property, and all work is performed offsite in the Indian Land/Fort Mill/Ballantyne service area.

Public hearing: No speakers signed up.

Vote: Motion to approve, second. Recommended for approval 6-0 by show of hands. Advances to County Council.

7. Other

Preview of June agenda: Staff (Jennifer Bryan and Kirsten Willis) advised that the June meeting will include one County-initiated text amendment, one preliminary plat for a residential project outside the moratorium area, a rezoning in Heath Springs, a county rezoning, a third rezoning paired with a Comprehensive Plan future-land-use amendment, and three new road-name applications (one group list for civils, two for private properties).

Text amendment workshop: Rather than convene a separate workshop, the Commission asked staff to circulate written background on the text-amendment process to commissioners by blind-copied email ahead of the June meeting.

Impact fee study: Staff reported the impact fee study has been awarded to TischlerBise, with the contract signed April 13. A kickoff meeting is being scheduled; the County must first designate its internal team given recent staff changes.

Comprehensive Plan update: Staff will bring an updated Comprehensive Plan document — previously distributed in formal form last year, since revised — to the June meeting in place of the workshop.

Housing subcommittee: The authorizing ordinance has received three readings and final adoption and has been posted on the County website, but the subcommittee has not yet been formally constituted and no appointments by County Council have occurred. Applications must be submitted via the County website for Council appointment.