The York County Planning Commission on Feb. 9 deferred action on two waiver requests tied to a proposed roughly 6,000-square-foot retail building behind an Ace Hardware at 1785 Gold Hill Road.
Staff planner Jeff Kirschner told the commission the applicant, identified in the agenda as WTX Exploration LLC, requested waivers from the county’s land development code for driveway separation and for required vehicle stacking. The site currently has two legal nonconforming driveways onto Gold Hill Road; the project proposes adding a new driveway (Driveway C) to Lake Vista Boulevard and constructing the new retail building behind the existing store.
Krischner said staff does not believe the requested 325-foot driveway‑separation waiver meets code findings because an alternative (Driveway C to Lake Vista Boulevard) would meet the access-management intent; staff recommended denying the driveway-separation waiver. Staff recommended the requested reduction of vehicle stacking from 60 feet to 40 feet as an improvement because the applicant’s plan increases stacking length compared with current conditions.
At the public hearing, property owner Heng Yang and broker Brian Tan said closing one or both Gold Hill driveways would conflict with an existing agreement with Ace Hardware, hamper deliveries and fire‑truck maneuvering, and imperil a prospective tenant. Tan asked the commission to consider the applicant’s contractual obligations and the months already invested in design work.
Commissioners asked staff and members of the public follow‑up questions about turning radii inside the site, the location of the nearest fire hydrant (across Gold Hill Road), where loading and unloading occur, and whether a one‑way in/one‑way out design or SCDOT review could address safety concerns. Staff said a one‑way design had not been submitted and that coordination with SCDOT and the fire marshal could be explored.
To allow more time for the applicant, Ace Hardware, staff and DOT to evaluate alternatives and the operational implications, an unnamed commissioner moved to defer the waiver requests to the next planning commission meeting; the motion was seconded and the commission voted to defer.
The commission did not make a final finding on either waiver at the Feb. 9 meeting. The matter will return to the commission for further review and possible action at its next regular meeting.