Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. I'd like to welcome everyone to the regularly scheduled August Planning Commission meeting. At today's meeting, we will review rezoning applications, subdivision applications, and other items brought to us by staff. Unless the Commission members have a question for the applicant, we will not accept additional public comment on rezoning applications. The rezoning cases were presented at a public hearing, and that was the opportunity to hear public comment in favor of or in opposition of the rezoning cases. At today's meeting, the Commission will be making its recommendations on rezoning cases. Detailed information on each of these cases was provided to us in our electronic agenda packet that we received in advance of this meeting. Our recommendations will be forwarded to County Council's Planning and Development Committee for their consideration and decision. The subdivision matters we will review today were previously reviewed by the Subdivision Advisory Committee, or SAC for short. At today's meeting, the reviewing agencies presented their preliminary findings to staff. Based on the comments from the SAC, along with the review of applicable sections of the ordinance, staff has prepared recommended conditions of approval or denial for each preliminary plat. These recommendations were provided to the Planning Commission as part of our review of each request. Anyone wishing to address the commission on subdivision matters should have signed up to speak. And I do have about seven pages of folks that have signed up to speak. Again, you will not be able to address the commission during this meeting on rezoning requests. The official public hearing on those cases has already been held. So again, I'd like to welcome everyone today. We do have a large crowd. which is great because we believe that the public needs to be present and participating in the local government here. Next on our agenda will be our invocation, and Mr. Paul Grace will come up with that.

Dear Heavenly Father, we thank you for this day that you've given us. We thank you for your many blessings. We pray that you'll be with us as we go through this meeting. We pray that you'll give us your guidance and your wisdom as we make the decisions that we need to make. We ask that you give us your praise as well. We pray and ask all these things in your son's name. Amen.

Amen. Thank you. Please join me for the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and

All right, next we have approval of the minutes from our July 22nd, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. Trust everyone's had a chance to look them over. Do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion we approve the minutes. Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All right. Next, we will open with rezoning requests. The first one will be CZ2026-041. Mr. Baxley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. The following is a brief explanation of the Planning Commission process to consider rezoning cases. Each docket will be presented, including the requested zoning, specific details of the site, as well as maps and photos of the site and surrounding area. Presentation will conclude with the staff recommendation. Staff recommendation is a result of feedback from a team of internal and external county stakeholders who review each case. After each presentation, the Planning Commission may either vote with or against staff's recommendation, in addition to offering any additional amendments to the recommendation. All items forwarded from today's meeting will be heard by the Planning and Development Committee in person in the committee room in the North Building, which is scheduled for September 14th at 5 p.m. First docket is CZ-2026-041. The property is located at 707 Staunton Bridge Road in Greenville. The applicant is Johnny DeVore of CalArk Ventures LLC for Annette Sullivan, Michelle Ivory, and Coretha Sullivan. The 0.59 acre subject property consists of one parcel and is located approximately 0.74 miles north of the intersection of Staunton Bridge Road and Interstate 85. It currently contains single family residential. This is the zoning of the surrounding area. Subject property outlined here is zoned R15, single family residential district. The request is for R10, single family residential district. You can also see the surrounding property zones. The applicant states that the proposed land use is single family residential. This is the subject site and photos showing the area surrounding the subject site. Staffs of the opinion that successful rezoning to the R10 single-family residential district would be consistent with both the Plain Grove County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Designation of Suburban Neighborhood and the South Greenville Area Plan Future Land Use Designation of Suburban Residential. Staff does not believe that requested district would have a negative impact on the surrounding area. Based on these reasons, staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning to R10 single-family residential district. Mr. Chairman.

I'll just mic back on. Any questions? Do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion. We recommend approval.

All right. Ms. Phillips made the motion. We'll give this one to Ms. Sternberg for a second. All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

All right. Thank you. Next, we'll have CZ2026-042. Mr. Baxter. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Docket CZ-2026-042. The property is located at 909 State Park Road in Greenville. The applicant is Clarence Hare for Christina Hare. The 0.23 acre subject property consists of one parcel and is located approximately 0.8 miles southwest at the intersection of State Park Road and North Pleasantburg Drive and currently contains a single family residence. This is the zoning of the surrounding area. Subject property outlined here is on C1 commercial district. The request is for R10 single family residential district. You can also see the surrounding property zones. The applicant states that the proposed land use is single family residential. This is the subject site and photos showing the area surrounding the subject site. Staffs of the opinion that successful rezoning to the R10 single-family residential district would be consistent with the planned Greenwood County comprehensive plan future land use designation of suburban neighborhood and would be consistent with similar zoning in the area. Based on these reasons, staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning to R10 single-family residential district. Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. All right. Any questions? Do we have a motion?

Mr. Moore. I make a motion. We approve the staff recommendation. All right. Mr. Moore has a motion.

Ms. Franklin has a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All right. We'll move on to CZ 2026-043. Mr. Baxter. Aye.

Next talk at CZ-2026-043. The property is located at Whitehorse Road in Greenville. The applicant is Gary Brock of the Berea Fire Department for the Berea Public Service District. The 0.85 acre subject property consists of a portion of one parcel and is located approximately 0.77 miles south of the intersection of Fairs Bridge Road, Highway 103, and Whitehorse Road, Highway 25, and currently contains vacant land. This is the zoning of the surrounding area. Subject property outlined here is zoned OD Office District. The request is for R12 Single Family Residential District. You can also see the surrounding property zones. The applicant states that the proposed use is a fire station. This is the subject site and photos showing the area surrounding the subject site. Staff said of the opinion that successful rezoning to the R-12 single-family residential district would be consistent with similar zoning in the area and would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding properties. Based on these reasons, staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning to R-12 single-family residential district. Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Questions for staff? Do we have a motion?

Mr. Chairman, I move since it is in my district, and I would certainly be talking to my councilman if I didn't say, please, let's go ahead and accept the staff's approval for a new fire station. Thank you.

All right. Ms. Manning has a motion for approval. Do we have a second? Second. Ms. Phillips has a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All right. Next, we have CZ2026-044. Mr. Baxley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Next docket, CZ-2026-044. The property is located at 18 Wilkin Drive in Greenville. The applicant is Nathan Kayser of Renaissance Custom Homes, LLC. The 1.1-acre subject property consists of one parcel and is located approximately 0.4 miles northwest of the intersection of Farsbridge Road, Highway 183, and Huntsbridge Road and currently contains a single-family residence. This is the zoning of the surrounding area. The subject property outlined here is zoned C1 Commercial District. The request is for RMA, Multifamily Residential District. You can also see the surrounding property zones. The applicant states that the proposed land use is multifamily development. This is the subject site and photos showing the area surrounding the subject site. Stabs of the opinion that successful rezoning to the RMA, Multifamily Residential District, would be consistent with the Plan Greenwood County Comprehensive Plan, future land use designation of transitional corridor, and would allow for a similar residential density as other zoning in the area. Based on these reasons, staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning to RMA, Multifamily Residential District. Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. All right, commissioners, questions for staff on this one? Ms. Manning.

The surrounding neighborhood, is it mostly single families or is it also multi-unit?

So at the moment, it is primarily single family. There is some duplex development down off of KD Lane and KD Drive there, sort of the southwest. But it is primarily, I'd say, single family at the moment.

I think the concern that people have in that particular area is that it may or may not be consistent to have apartments so close to single family units.

So to that point, I would say the site is located in an area where there are some larger roads and adjacent commercial as well. It is a location where, at least under the comp plan, it's calling for some higher density infill of that area. If this was a larger parcel, staff might have had a bit more discussion or hesitation on it. Given the limited size of the property and the fact that they would have to maintain certain buffer and setback requirements from those adjacent residential properties, we didn't feel the potential multifamily development would be large enough to negatively impact the single family.

Acreage is 1.1 acres, is that correct?

Correct.

And how many units could they get in there?

I believe it works out to about 22 potentially units.

I mean, I don't want another fiasco like we had a Lilly Lane and West Parker.

Correct. So, like I said, it is potentially up to about 22. Let me double check that. Yeah, 22. But I will say, for each of those units, you're going to have to have a certain minimum amount of parking for them, as well as there's a minimum amount of open or recreation space required per unit. And then that combined with the fact that they will have to have 25-foot setbacks from the adjacent residential properties, a minimum 15-foot vegetated landscape buffer, as well as the stormwater requirements for the impervious they're going to be adding, it really starts to eat away at that site. I wouldn't imagine that they would get anywhere close to that actual 22 number.

What is the setback on the commercial side, on the back, on the east, and on the, I guess, the southeast portion there? Those look like commercial.

For a multifamily development, I believe it's a 25-foot external boundary regardless. Okay. Yes, sir. Okay.

I'm rather concerned putting in multi-units among an established neighborhood of single families. I understand property owners' rights, but I also look at the property owners that already are there, and I think they have rights too to have a peaceful enjoyment of their property. And 22 units, how tall can they build?

It's the maximum height of 45 feet.

Of 45 feet. And it appears as though many of these single families are single story?

I believe so. So the west image here is one of the duplexes that's to the west of the site.

That looks like it's a single story.

It is.

Would you say?

I believe so.

Okay. And what you're asking is that we approve basically an okay for 22 units, possibly with a 25 foot boundary from the existing single families around it, but okay to 45 feet.

So based on the criteria that staff has to review for these, primarily being the comprehensive plan, it does allow for higher density in this area. So we feel comfortable recommending the approval.

Well, I feel a little uncomfortable ignoring the rights of the existing single family owners that are there. I don't know. Are there any owners that are in this immediate area? Well, being a single-family resident myself of a 70-year-old property, I would be a little bit concerned about having a 45-foot, 22-unit building next to me. I'm going to ask that in terms of a motion that we turn this down, my motion is to turn down CZ-2026-044.

I'll second.

Thank you.

All right. So Ms. Manning has a motion for denial, and Mr. Parham has the second. Any further discussion?

I wanted to add, Mr. Chair. Yes. At the zoning hearing, based on my notes... Based on my notes, Ms. May, I think it was 12 to 15 units is what they were looking at adding. Fifteen is not much better than 22. No, it certainly isn't.

And at 45 feet, it would be kind of a.

So that's what I had. And so based on that and your comments, I'm very good. Thank you.

Can I add a comment as well? This is part of the Berea community plan, correct?

Yes, it is.

So I finally got it to load. The medium density states that it's recommended a maximum of eight housing units per acre. Is that not lower than what could possibly be built there with the current request?

Yeah. So under the Berea plan, it was, I believe, four to eight units under that future land use. I will say the Berea plan was from 2017. The current comp plan is from 2020. I think given the more recent comp plan and the potential 20 units per acre allowed next door in the RM20, we still felt comfortable with the approval.

Okay. Well, I'd like to note the Berea Community Plan and its density recommendation as well to support the motion.

Any further discussion? Seeing none, we have a motion and a second for denial. Let's have a show of hands that are voting for a denial. Three, four, five, and six. All right. Motion to not deny, two. So it passes denial, seven, two, two. Next docket, CZ2026-045. Mr. Baxall.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Next docket, CZ-2026-045. The property is located at 18 and 20 Marcoll Street in Greenville. The applicant is Benny James for Tabernacle Baptist Church. The 2.83 acre subject property consists of one parcel and a portion of a second parcel and is located 0.25 miles southwest of the intersection of Easley Bridge Road and Whitehorse Road and currently contains multi-family dwelling and vacant land. This is the zoning of the surrounding area. Subject property outlined here is zoned RMA, Multifamily Residential District, and the request is for C2 Commercial District. You can also see the surrounding property zones. The applicant states that the proposed land use is a care center. This is the subject site and photos showing the area surrounding the subject site. Staffs of the opinion that successful rezoning to the C2 commercial district would be consistent with the Planned Greenwood County comprehensive plan, future land use designation of mixed use corridor, and would be consistent with similar zoning in the area. Based on these reasons, staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning to C2 commercial district. Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Folks, I believe you remember this came to us, I believe it came to us, was it last month, month?

It was somewhat earlier this year. Yes, sir.

Do we have any questions for staff on this? Looks like they've made some adjustments to their... what they originally had sent us.

Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Phillips.

This is the one where I believe Tabernacle Baptist Church was requesting to build a new children's home there.

Correct.

I think that's a great thing. What worries me is the zoning category. Are there any other zoning categories that they could utilize that weren't as intensive?

So potentially... I think the reason we went with the C2 after discussions with the applicant is if you look at the current site, there's an existing senior apartment complex there. So originally the applicant was looking at a different zoning altogether. The issue they ran into is they want to be able to keep the existing senior living apartments there. and in addition to the care center nearby. In order for all of that to happen on the site kind of as they want to lay it out, The best option that we could think of would be under a mixed-use development, which is only allowed in the commercial zoning districts. Of the three commercial zoning districts, the C1 district allows for a maximum residential density of 12 units per acre, while C2 and C3 allows for 16 units per acre. I believe they needed the higher residential density for the existing apartments.

Okay. But I believe... The ones that are theirs. Otherwise, they'll have to demolish them and start from scratch, which would be... Okay. That's understandable.

So they will use the existing property or the existing facility that's there.

So these senior apartments would remain as senior apartments. And I believe the idea is for the care center to go on the other side of the access drive from them.

So no remodeling or...

of the existing structure? Not that I'm aware of, but I can't say that for certain.

Any further questions for staff? Do we have a motion? Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve. All right. Mr. Manasevic has a motion for approval. Do we have a second? Mr. Braswell has a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes. Next, we have CZ 2026-046. Mr. Baxter.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The next docket is CZ-2026-046. The property is located at 6340 Whitehorse Road in Greenville. The applicant is Jenny Guerrero of Alvarez Enterprises for Juan Celis and Gloria Pena. The 0.95 acre subject property consists of one parcel and is located approximately 0.37 miles northwest of the intersection of Whitehorse Road, Highway 25, and Saluda Dam Road and currently contains a vacant commercial building. This is the zoning of the surrounding area. The subject property outlined here is Zoned C1 Commercial District. The request is for S1 Services District. You can also see the surrounding property zones. The applicant states that the proposed land use is a non-retail bakery. This is the subject site and photos showing the area surrounding the subject site. Staffs of the opinion that successful rezoning to the S-1 Services District would not be consistent with the planning of a county comprehensive plan, future land use designation of transitional corridor, nor would it be consistent with the Berea Community Plan, future land use designation of commercial slash office. Based on these reasons, staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning to S-1 Services District. Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Questions?

I have a question. Ms. Manning.

We looked at this before, I believe, and I thought that it was going to be a bakery. Am I wrong?

That's what they said at zoning, that it would be a bakery.

That would be a bakery.

Is that still the case?

So under the letter of explanation we received, so it would be a bakery. I believe they would have some other suites potentially. But there wouldn't be any retail at the site. So it would be a non-retail for, say, distribution to other sellers or resellers or restaurants, that sort of thing.

So if they change that so they did have maybe in the very front a small area where there would be retail, they could possibly get this passed through?

So the majority of their sales would need to be on-site retail for it to be able to go under a restaurant, which the use would be then, which I don't think is their goal business model. But yes, if the retail component was the majority of the revenue, then yes.

Has that been discussed with the applicant?

I believe so.

I'm seeing Josh go, yeah. And they kicked it back to you?

There's been some multiple discussions, I think, about this one, and we've kind of exhausted all of the possibilities of an explanation of what can go, what can't go, retail. I think the main goal here is to – is this the one that's the – for the – Yeah, I'm not even going to try to say that. I think they make a lot of tortillas and things like that. So I think that's what the majority of this is, and it's not to be the retail component of it.

Everybody loves tortillas.

So when I looked at it, I was scratching my head as to how they would load and unload, like if delivery trucks were coming in. Because they obviously can't go to the left of this property. It doesn't seem tight enough. It looked like it might be 10 feet.

Actually, we approved a variance, I believe.

We did approve a variance, what, a couple months back. But I had a question about this range view circle. Could they enter from that side and come behind this C1 commercial strip development? It looked like a lot of folks were already doing that. Yeah. from this road and behind, and it looks like it goes all the way over to this piece of property.

And it looks like there's two trucks in the very back area.

Well, those trucks weren't there Saturday when I was there.

So, you know. I don't know if there's an easement for that access on record or if it's just a handshake agreement. Yes, you can use my property to access. Sure. I'm not sure.

So is the applicant here?

No, they weren't at the public hearing. Yeah, there was no one that showed. There was an appearance at the public hearing.

I mean, I like the idea of this, but again, I mean, there's several unknowns with this. Mr. Moore.

If it gets changed to an S-1, which I think it is, what else could it be if they decide to sell this property and someone else wants to put something there?

um so s1 allows for a long list of service uses so things like equipment sales rental auto repair other industrial service uses which is what their use would fall under production of foodstuffs it could also include assembly operations uh things of that sort okay thank you the the variance that we approved was that was for screening was it not Correct. So it was for the required buffering screening. To the neighbors to the north of this map here.

There is a fence.

But if you had the delivery truck, I don't know that they could turn in and make that 90 degree down the side of that building. And if they definitely you can't have two vehicles passing right there.

So is the building currently vacant?

It is at the moment.

How long has it been vacant?

I'm not certain on that. I know from looking at permit history, there was a owner upfit permit for just some general interior upfit works earlier this year, maybe end of last year. The last use was a furniture store, I believe, but I'm not sure how long ago they had closed.

Well, since I'm in the Berea area, I mean, I'm all for trying to keep empty buildings filled with businesses, for heaven's sakes. But I'm a little bit concerned, as Josh had indicated, that you've gone around and around and around on this whole bakery idea, and we're not getting any further than a no. Is there just a misunderstanding here as to zoning, and is that a possibility? I'm just trying to find a way to fill an empty building, basically.

Like I say, from the discussions we've had with the applicant, if their ultimate goal is to have a more industrial size food production operation, the property would have to be rezoned to at least S1.

And that's basically what they're saying, that they want to have industrial size.

Yes, ma'am.

I'm seeing Josh go, yes, yes, yes. Okay.

And there's no way to have a, retail commercial component with that zoning?

So if it was primarily on-site retail or on-site consumption of the food, then it could go under maybe a restaurant or grocery store or something like that. And then maybe if they have extra that they send off. I was going to say Krispy Kreme, for example, but I imagine that their donuts are made in a larger facility as well.

But since you've said that, the Krispy Kreme on 291 is primarily, their primary goal, I believe, is not for retail sales. It's for commercial sales out the back. And they just happen to have a retail store there.

There are some uses where it's S1 uses. I'll use U-Haul as an example. You go to a U-Haul or a Penske business to rent some type of truck or trailer or whatever. You're going there to rent, and that's equipment sales and rental, and that's an approved use in S1. While you're there, you may say, oh, well, I need to pick up a few more boxes. And over here on the side is a little – stand that has some boxes, maybe you buy a trailer hitch or something like that. We classify that as kind of incidental sales because you're not going there to go shopping. You're going there for a different use. You may get something while you're there. A pool cleaning business is something similar. You're not walking out of there with a swimming pool. You're not going there to just go shopping. So It would be if they had something like that where they sold maybe their t-shirts over on the side, we would kind of treat that as incidental. But if their goal is to sell these items, these baked goods to the public, then that's going to throw it into a restaurant or more retail. And retail is what's the issue. And now if it's a restaurant... That's different, but if it's just retail sales, then that's what's not permitted. All right. Ms. Franklin, I believe you had a question.

Yes, I have a question for the staff. So you said that you guys did have this conversation with the applicant. You discussed other uses.

I think so. I'm not the plan staff member who had been having a communication with them about their permitting process. From discussion I have had with that staff member, I know there were some earlier versions of the plans we saw at least that did show a small retail or display component in a portion of the building. Based on the use letter we received with the rezoning application, it doesn't appear like that's part of the plan any longer. But regardless, the...

They opted not to, the applicant opted not to make any changes to their current request that was submitted to us. Is that correct?

Correct. So our understanding is that the ultimate goal is for, like, say, the more industrial food production.

Okay. And there's... Go ahead. I'm sorry.

Based on that, I move that we accept the staff's recommendation...

For denial.

For denial.

All right. Ms. Franklin's made a motion to accept staff's recommendation for denial. Do we have a second? Mr. Moore has a second. All right. With a show of hands, everyone is voting for denial, staff's recommendation. Opposed to denial? All right. It passes eight to one. All right, next we have CZ 2026-047. Mr. Beck.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The next docket, CZ-2026-047. The property is located at 3799 Old Easley Bridge Road in Greenville. The applicant is Austin Allen of Arbor Land Design LLC for Felicia Johnson of the South Carolina Vocational Rehabilitation Department. The 16.74-acre subject property consists of one parcel and is located approximately 1.9 miles southwest of the intersection of Old Easley Bridge Road and Whitehorse Road, Highway 25, currently contains vacant land. This is the zoning of the surrounding area. Subject property outlined here is zoned RS, residential suburban district. The request is for FRD, flexible review district. You can also see the surrounding property zones. The applicant states that the proposed land use is a care center. The applicant is proposing to rebuild a previously destroyed rehabilitation center on the site. Due to the amount of time elapsed since the last center was destroyed, it cannot be reestablished under the current zoning. The FRD would allow up to a 45,000 square foot care center and up to 1,000 square feet of ancillary storage. The main facility materials would include masonry, brick, stone, hardy board, glass, or a mixture thereof in neutral colors with a maximum height of 45 feet. The site would use an existing access off of old Easley Bridge Road. A minimum of 32 parking spaces would be provided for the site with a maximum of 50. The applicant is proposing a 25-foot perimeter setback and buffer area. Screening will be provided from adjacent residential properties with existing vegetation or where existing vegetation is lacking at new plantings with a minimum mature height of 6 feet or a 6-foot opaque fence. A single monument sign will be provided near the entrance and site lighting will be dark sky compliant with a maximum mounting height of 16 feet. This is the subject site and photos showing the area surrounding the subject site. Staffs have the opinion that successful rezoning to FRD Flexible Review District would allow a previously occurring use to resume on the property and would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding properties given the rural setting and limited number of adjacent residential homes. Based on these reasons, staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning to FRD Flexible Review District. Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Any questions for staff on this one? Ms. Manning.

We've looked at this quite some time, as I understand. And I want to put a motion together to accept this. Changing to an FRD makes perfect sense. They're simply trying to rebuild exactly what they had before. And they had it mis-zoned, I guess you can call it. But I think now bringing it to an FRD makes perfect sense. And let's... Let's get this thing going. Let's get it going. So my motion is to approve the staff's recommendation to approve CZ2026-047. I'll second.

And might I add, we asked them to come back with a better plan, and I think they've done an exceptional job. Bravo. And I look forward to seeing it when it's done.

So we have a motion by Commissioner Manning, seconded by Commissioner Mansevic. One question, there's a lot of mature trees on this property. Will they be able to keep most of those?

Let's see. So I believe most of those mature ones around the border. The plan shows some existing trees on it. Realistically, once they get in to start doing the grading of stormwater, I'm not sure how many of those will actually be able to stay.

There are a couple of big oak trees on that property. It would be nice if they could stay because they're between 50 and 75 years old, it looks like.

You would think the arbor land design would make sure that happens.

Right, absolutely. Okay, so we have a motion for approval with a second. All in favor, raise your hands. Looks like it's unanimous. Passes. Thank you. All right, next we have CZ2026-048.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our last rezoning docket tonight is CZ-2026-048. The property is located at 839 Fairview Road in Simpsonville. The applicant is John Daron of Daron Engineering for William Pecora. The 1.12 acre subject property consists of one parcel and is located approximately 1.3 miles southeast of the intersection of Fairview Road and Harrison Bridge Road. It currently contains a single family residence. This is the zoning of the surrounding area. Subject property outlined here is zoned RS, Residential Suburban District. The request is for FRD, Flexible Review District. You can also see the surrounding property zones. The applicant states the proposed land use is single family residential with commercial components. The applicant is proposing to expand the permitted uses on site to include non-residential ones. There is an existing pre-engineered metal building on site which would remain. The structure is 10,000 square feet in size and 20 feet tall. Under the FRD, there would be a maximum square footage allowance of 12,000 square feet on the site and a maximum building height of 45 feet. Up to 1,500 square feet would be used for residential, with a potential 2,000 square feet of future residential, and up to 10,000 square feet could be used for the following non-residential uses. Warehousing and distribution, cabinets and carpentry shop, and equipment sales and rental. Permitted building materials would include pre-engineered metal, steel frame, masonry, concrete, and wood-framed construction. An existing access off of Fairview Road would be utilized, and seven parking spaces would be provided in front of the building. There would be a 40-foot front setback, 10 feet sides, and 25 feet rear. A six-foot opaque privacy fence would be provided along the northern and southern property lines. Any future signage would adhere to the Greenville County Sign Ordinance, and any site lighting would adhere to Section 12-1.1 of the Greenville County Zoning Ordinance. This is the subject site and photos showing the area surrounding the subject site. Staffs of the opinion that successful rezoning to the FRD Flexible Review District would not be consistent with the Plain River County Comprehensive Plan future land use designation of suburban neighborhood, nor would the commercial development be consistent with other development patterns in the area. Staffs concerned about setting a precedent for future builders who may try to establish a commercial site in this way. Based on these reasons, staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning to FRD Flexible Review District. Mr. Chairman.

All right. Questions. I have one. A proposed 40-foot front setback, would that be from the center line of the road or from the edge of the property?

So that would be from the edge of the right-of-way line for Fairview Road.

I don't believe there's 40 feet there, do you?

So based on the site plan, at least, I think it's measuring about 66 feet. No way.

It seemed pretty tight. Okay. All right, any further questions?

No, I want to commend the staff in terms of their concern about setting a dangerous precedent because I think we need to play by the rules and this is certainly skirting them from what I can see. I've got to recommend accepting staff's denial on CZ2026-048. All right, we have a motion for...

Approval of denial. Do we have a second?

Second.

All right. Ms. Manning made the motion. Mr. Braswell made the second. Further discussion. Mr. Sternberg.

I have a question. I mean, just a metal building. What's the current use? Why is it zoned residential?

There's an apartment on top.

So the structure was built under a new residential construction permit. It does have a residential dwelling unit in it at the moment. The permit, I believe, specified a barn dominium or barn dough-style construction, which we occasionally see in rural areas. So, yes, that's what it was permitted under.

And with the denial of concrete in the document,

So it's gravel from conversations with the engineer. We have been talking with our floodplain department and our land development department. And since that development was done into a riparian buffer, it would most likely have to be removed and mitigated for. Yes, sir.

And that is the sewer that's being put in behind and to the north of that piece of property on this map.

Correct. So you can see it kind of on the north of the property, then going over and behind the stream here. That is a new sewer line.

All right, so we have a motion and a second for approval of staff's denial. May I have it, Mr. Chairman? May I ask a question?

Question for staff. It says staff is also concerned about setting a precedent for future builders who may try to establish a commercial site in this way. And I think I understand where you're getting at, but could you please expand on that particular sentence just so we're all clear what you meant by that?

Right. So... We occasionally run into instances where people may try to pull the wool over our eyes.

Just say it. Just say it.

It was built under a residential permit. Residential is what is allowed on this site. We do not want to then see that property get changed into a commercial property. As a workaround, you know, we don't want somebody to say, well, I have built this. It's there. You know, why can't I use it for a commercial? Say, well, because that property is not zoned for that. You knew that ahead of time. Should have planned accordingly.

And one of the things that kind of brought this on staff's radar was a lot of calls we were receiving from potential buyers, since the property is leased to sell, not leased to sell, but is on, you know, to sell, that we were getting a lot of calls wanting to, you know, put certain uses in there that our SZOIN does not permit. And so that's kind of how it was all came to staff's attention that, you know, the situation here. So that's how we got here.

All right. One more question. Oh, go ahead.

How long has this been there? Permit was in 2025. Okay.

So not very long at all. Okay. Ms. Phillips.

This building doesn't look like your typical barn dominium at all. It went through, I'm assuming, construction permit process, did it not? No. And I know there's several checks as you go through that, or was it a permit applied for late in the game?

No, it was submitted, inspected, and we don't do residential plan review. So what was submitted was for residential structure with an attached garage, and what was constructed was a residential unit with an attached garage. And so that was what was approved.

So the design, because we don't have technical.

Okay. Thank you. Do you have the photo, the site photo? Yeah, that looks very industrial to be, to have a residential component in it. Okay. But that didn't throw any red flags to the inspectors? Okay.

I can't speak to that.

Okay.

So that's a different department than your department?

It is. That is correct, yes.

What department is it?

That's the building codes and permitting department.

The building codes. Thank you.

Okay. All right. Any further questions for staff? All right. Seeing none, we are voting to approve the denial. Let's have a show of hands, everyone voting for approval of the denial. Looks like it's unanimous.

Mr. Chairman, if you and the audience will bear with us, we'll change over to the subdivision resident. All right.

Thank you very much.

And.

Okay.

Mr. Chair, just a friendly reminder from Julie, if you guys could make sure you're speaking directly into the mic for recording minutes purposes. Oh, yes, please. Just make sure we're capturing everything that's discussed.

I thought Ms. Franklin had the softest voice among us. I was curious earlier if your mic was turned on. Yeah, get up there and eat that thing. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry, because I know Julie probably, she's at 3 o'clock in the morning trying to remember or hear what we said, so... Yes. All right. You ready? Yes. All right. Here we go. This is a preliminary subdivision applications, PP 2026-0-113 Langston Ridge.

Langston Ridge is a proposed conventional subdivision. It is located on North Parker Road. The applicant is requesting 19 lots on 10.60 acres for a density of 1.79 units an acre. Access will be provided off North Parker Road. Here is the site highlighted in red. Here is the site plan that was included in the packet. The project includes one egress point, two internal roads, one cluster mailbox, 20-foot screening buffers around the perimeter of the site, two detention ponds, and 918 linear feet of public road. Here is the natural resource inventory. Here is the zoning of the site. The subject site is part of the Greenville County Comprehensive Plan where the site is designated as SE, Suburban Edge. Suburban Edges are low density residential areas that offer opportunities for low intensity development that is well integrated with the natural landscape and agricultural uses. residential development may occur as individual single family structures on large lots or cluster homes designed to preserve large amounts of open space which should be interconnected as part of the county's larger open space system the suburban edge character area type recommends an entity of zero to one dwellings per acre langston ridge is proposing a density of 1.79 units per acre this subject property is not within any area plan boundary here is the site north of the site east of the site south of the site staff recommends approval of the plan with the standard and specific requirements all right thank you um do we have the applicant here you guys want to come up and say anything

You get 10 minutes total for those in favor. I have three people signed up to speak. Eric Skoloff, looks like Austin Allen, and Adam Aspel or Askel. Is that any of you two?

I'm Eric.

Okay.

Okay, thanks for having us. So my name is Eric Skoloff. My partner, myself and my wife represent a local small development company here. We're Greenville based. I've been in the city for 35 years. So we work on very specific projects throughout the course of the year. My wife is a designer. She kind of has her hand in everything that we do. We look for specific pieces of land and try to add value to the community that we come into. Several projects ongoing right now in the city. One specifically off of Lawrence Road where we've got full community involvement and support. Excited about this piece of property. The plan is we've partnered with a custom home builder, again, a local company. The plan is to build some higher-end single-family homes to support that area. We're excited about it. I brought Austin Allen here from Arbor as our engineering team to provide some details and answer any questions about the specifics on the site. Questions about the company, questions about our team?

Anybody have any questions for the app? All right. Mr. Allen, you want to say anything?

Yeah, I'll say a couple quick words. Like staff said, we're seeking your consideration for approval of 19 single family detached lots, all 10,000 square feet of bigger lot width, 65 feet. Depths kind of started about 155, but some of them get deeper than that. We're proposing about 2.3 acres of common area within the property. Within the 20 foot undisturbed buffers, there is substantial existing vegetation that we're looking to preserve and protect. As staff said again, we're proposing one point of access on North Parker Road. The site distance provided far exceeds what is required and recommended by CDOT. Last thing of note, there is a high point within Langston Ridge Court, so we will have to split the stormwater. We have a pond in the back that collects all of that rear runoff We have another pond directly adjacent to Lot 19 where we'll collect all the runoff from that side of the high point and catch it, slow it down, and treat it before it is released back to North Parker Road where it currently goes today. Happy to answer any questions.

Mr. Chairman.

Phillips.

Mr. Allen. This was – this came – or an application for the same parcel, same name, subdivision came to subdivision administration maybe last year or the year before, and it looks like it was withdrawn. Were you the same applicant?

No. And I can address that. Okay. The applicant was actually a home builder who decided they didn't want to do the development. So we took the project over from that applicant. So that's all we do. We don't do any vertical design. We don't do any vertical building. We just do the horizontal structure on the properties.

Okay. So you do everything.

That's right. But no vertical building.

Gotcha. Yep. Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Manning.

These are going to be single-story or two-story or three-story? Two-story. There's going to be two-story. The other question I have for staff is that this is zoned for how many units per acre?

This is our 10.

Give me one second. I'm getting there.

I want to know what the zoning is. The zoning is, I believe, isn't it one? It's R10.

So it's 10,000 square foot lots. And I'm getting the one second.

I'm getting there.

You said during your presentation, when you did your initial presentation, you said that it was zoned for, I thought you said one unit per acre, I thought. Maybe I'm wrong.

So for R10, it's 4.4 units per acre, but they are proposing a density of 1.79 units an acre.

Okay, very good. I just need to have clarification of that. So it's a nice, you know, I went out this afternoon. The only concern I have at this point right now is doggone it, those roads. Those roads.

Out of our control.

I know it's out of our control, but those roads. Okay. Thank you.

All right. You guys have anything else for us? No, sir. Still got about five minutes. Okay. We appreciate that. All right. Seeing none, we have no one signed up in opposition for this particular application. Oh, we did.

There were three.

Yes. Eric Sokoloff. Eric Alston and Adam. So somebody signed up. They don't want to speak. Adam, did you want to speak?

You're good. I'm just with the fire department.

Very good. All right. Fire department's good with it. All right. Okay.

I have a question for staff.

Mr. Parham.

We had a bunch of ecological or habitat studies this time, and this one had one also. I believe I saw it dated as August of 2025. How long are those good for? Because the report itself was dated August 15th, I believe. So it's a little over a year old. While you're looking it up, my point is that this is about a year old. And if it's still legally binding, great, fine. My concern is that it was done a year ago. If the report was done in the middle of August, a day or two or older than that is when the on-site survey had to be done. And a lot can change between now and then. You know, do you have nesting, migratory birds, whatever out there now? for the same reason that you did it a year ago. Is there another one required now? I'm not sure. That's why I'm asking.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Parham, I'm not seeing anything in the ODR that dictates the time frame for these. I know we have time frames for some of our other submittal items like TISs and things like that, but I'm not seeing anything for that.

Okay. Well, I guess there's legalities and there's common sense. And common sense tells me we probably should have had one done more recently because a lot could have changed. But legally, that's something different.

All right. Any further comments? Do we have a motion? Mr. Sternberg made a motion for approval. Do we have a second? Ms. Franklin has a second. All right, by a show of hands, approval of Langston Ridge. I believe it's unanimous. Thank you, fellas.

Contact the staff for next steps.

All right, next on the agenda will be PP2026-119.

Fox Creek Estates is a proposed rural conservation subdivision. It is located on East Georgia Road. The applicant is requesting 42 lots on 47.25 acres for a density of 0.89 units an acre. Access will be provided off of East Georgia Road. Here is the site highlighted in red. Here is the site plan that was included in the packet. The project includes one ingress-egress point, one emergency access, two internal roads, one cluster mailbox unit, 50 foot screening buffers around the perimeter of the site, one detention pond, and 2,278 linear feet of public road. Here is the zoning. The subject site is part of the Greenville County Comprehensive Plan where the site is designated SN, Suburban Neighborhood. Suburban neighborhoods are generally shaped by residential subdivisions of medium lot homes with relatively uniform housing types and densities. Homes include attached garages. Local streets are laid out in a curvilinear pattern with occasional cul-de-sacs. Streets may or may not include sidewalks. New single-family subdivisions should be designed with sidewalks, street trees, neighborhood parks, and community open space connections. The suburban neighborhood character area type recommends a density of three to five dwellings per acre. Fox Creek Estates is proposing a density of 0.89 units per acre. The subject property is part of the Scuffle Town Area Plan. The site is designated as rural residential. The intent of this classification is to provide for low-density, large-lot, single-family residential development, as well as agricultural and forestry-related land uses. These areas are generally rural, agricultural, and character. The rural residential classification recommends a density of 0 to 1 dwelling units per acre. Fox Creek Estates is proposing a density of 0.89 units per acre.

Here is the site.

North of the site. East of the site. West of the site. Staff recommends conditional approval of the plan with the standard and specific requirements. The conditions of approval are as follows. Please provide a revised preliminary plan by September 4th, 2026 showing the following. One, please show emergency access at 24 feet wide as it connects to a state road per LDR table 5.1. Two, minimum street width must be 24 feet when connecting to a state road with minimum 100 foot taper to 22 foot width, 42 foot right of way per LDR table 5.1. Three, show road B, 20 feet wide with 40 foot right of way per LDR table 5.1.4. Four, show fire hydrants on plan no more than 500 feet apart.

All right. Thank you very much. We have a long list of folks that have signed up. First, can we have the applicant? I believe that's Susan Anderson.

Mr. Chairman, Commission members, I'm Sean Faulkner, Gallivan-White Boyd. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. We're here to present this, what we believe is a very good use of this land under the current zoning designation, 42 lots on 45 acres with a 0.88 density and over 51.4% of the subdivision being open space. We're just excited about the ability to be able to develop that property with those lots, those large lots for the community. Susan Anderson's here on behalf of the applicant. We have Josh Baker here with the engineers to answer any technical questions you might have.

All right.

Anything from you guys at this point?

I got one quick question before we continue. It looks like the main road is It says 26 feet, or is that curb to curb?

So the fire department asked for us to do a 26-foot ride road through the subdivision, which we provided. Obviously, the conditions that were just read are asking us to go down. So, I mean, the fire department is the one who asked for that, so that's what we provided.

Yes, I was going to ask for that if they hadn't. Thank you.

All right. Anything else, guys? All right.

Mr. Chair. Mr. Farham. I just want to double check. I think I saw a required emergency access. Okay. Never mind. Thank you.

Ms. Phillips. Oh, Mr. Moore.

I can't hear you. Speak up. How else do I turn it on?

I think the regulation requires you to have access to the open space. When I look at the creek, there's a piece of open space, as I think it says developable, on the northeast side. But there's a riparian buffer on the creek all along. How do you get access to it without disturbing the buffer?

Well, access through the open space is just walkable access. So you can walk across the buffer. It's not us disturbing the area to get over there. It's more of just a resident's ability to access that part of the open space.

Okay, thank you.

You just can't drive a vehicle.

That's the issue is how do you prevent somebody driving a vehicle on it?

Neighbors complain, according to the HOA.

Right. Ms. Franklin, did you have?

Ms. Sternberg.

Because of the proximity to school, we just have sidewalks, but I don't see that on here anywhere.

We actually do have sidewalks on there on one side of the road throughout the division. It's just kind of a, it's a big plan.

So I need bifocals on here. Okay. It didn't say anything in the notes. So where are they on here?

They're on one side of the road throughout the site. Okay. Whoops.

that little thin white line why it progresses all right okay all right thank you folks thank you all right opposition let's see the first three looks like they scratched their name out uh i have a scott uh katross and uh it doesn't say if you're in favor or in opposition i will explain that Okay, good evening.

I submitted some comments.

Can you give us your name and your address for the record, please?

I'm Scott Kutrosh. I live at 101 Club Drive, which is that corner lot on the northwest portion of that map.

Yes, sir.

I submitted some comments earlier. I'm just curious if they were submitted, passed around. No. We did get your comments, yes, sir. Okay, so my wife, Wendy, and I live in that corner. We've lived there about five years. There are approximately 72 landowners that are affected by this subdivision. There are five that are directly surrounding the subdivision. And I just want you to know that I was asked by these people to speak. And I think the majority of them are here today.

We've got the Dobsons. Sir, if you will address us with the microphone, please.

We have the Dobsons, the Nelsons. We have Mr. Ken and I forget his last name. What was the last name? Lawson. Lawson, sorry. And additionally, Fox Run subdivision is abutting this property as well as Clear Springs subdivision. So I didn't mark yes or no on this for a reason. And that's because we're not necessarily saying don't approve the subdivision. I respect the rights of landowners to be able to develop property as long as they meet all the zoning and state law requirements. And specifically here, we have more strict requirements under the Scuffle Town Rural Conservation District. So we're not opposing outright the development. Our concern is how it's being developed, how it's designed, and whether it meets all of the requirements by statute and the ordinance. So I have set forth four key issues to discuss. The first are the required buffers and open space requirements. The site plan is a little bit ambiguous, the top north portion of this, where East Georgia Road runs. You can see a portion to the right of the road that goes through the subdivision. It does label that as 150 foot. How is it labeled? Sorry, buffer. Yes, required buffer. To the west between my house and this property is not labeled, and I want to make sure that is clear. That's a 150-foot buffer. Additionally, there should be a 50-foot buffer that goes all the way around the perimeter of my property, and again... It's not clear on the proposed plan. I want to make certain that is clear. Also, a question that landowners have had for your consideration is about the 150-foot buffer. And if that is a requirement for this rural conservation district, Why is that tract of land, there's four tracts that are south of East Georgia Road, why are they labeled developable land? That's a question we have. Additionally, Section 3-7 of the county ordinance for the SCRD requires that the developer to designate the ownership of open space And we would like to know how that is proposed because future development risk for all of the surrounding landowners will obviously be reduced if these tracks are either owned by the HOA or collectively by the landowners in the subdivision. So that's our first concern. The second concern is something you guys have already spoken about a little bit, and that's the roads and the safety of traffic. Our roads are atrocious. It's embarrassing how bad our county roads are. And the safety on East Georgia Road, I can tell you, is a extreme problem. I live in that corner, and I watch cars do 60, 70 miles an hour. I have seen motorcycles literally speed up from the right side of this map past my house and jump over the road at 100 miles an hour. There are never cops here. The speed limit of 45 miles an hour is too much to begin with, and it's not followed. But the other consideration you've got to have is you have Clear Springs subdivision directly across the street, 66 landowners. You have Rudolph Gordon School, which is not just an elementary school. It's K through 8, and that's less than a mile away. We also have additional proposed subdivisions. You have Braxton Ridge, two subdivisions on the backside of Fox Run. You also have another subdivision that appears to be coming Right at the intersection, if you go to the right of this site plan, about a quarter of a mile down the road, there's a four-way stop. And in that corner, all of that property has been sold, and we believe that the future is going to be to develop that land as well. So my point is you have a very narrow road. It should be a reduced speed limit. It's not well kept. All of these trucks, these massive trucks, are tearing the road up. And the traffic, especially in peak hours, you know, I watch traffic when school goes, and it's really bad. So, you know, we are asking at least that there is a turning lane to get in and out of this subdivision. basically assist both Clear Springs and this subdivision. But first, we believe, I personally believe, and I believe everybody here believes, there needs to be a traffic study before we approve this plan. And I also want to mention, and I know you said this isn't part of your problem earlier. But the roads in this area are so bad and the traffic is so bad. And I brought this up in my notes that I presented to you guys. But East Georgia Road is unbelievable. And I'm just telling you, in the mornings, you cannot turn left on East Georgia Road. And I've seen four, five, six wrecks since I've lived here, personally witnessed these wrecks. The roads are awful. We need additional turn arounds or four-way stop signs. We definitely need to reduce the speed limit from Simpsonville all the way down through Scuffle Town Road. That should not be 55 miles per hour with all the traffic that's coming in and out of here. But that's an additional consideration because all of these new subdivisions are funneling right during peak hours down this road and down this subdivision. So we ask you to consider the traffic study and a turning lane. Another problem that our concern we have, and again, not saying don't approve this subdivision plan, But something that's been said here three times, at least that I heard, are large lots. And I want to know what a large lot is because I live on two acres in that corner, and I don't consider that necessarily a large lot. But these are 0.46 acres on septic systems. And I just want somebody to explain how you can do this. Okay, this condition of this soil in this area is not good. And I know personally, because in the last year, I had to add an additional drain field in my yard. $8,000 to put a drain field and a giant pit, a 40-ton pit in my yard, because it just quit running out. It wasn't stopped up. The drain was not working. So when people say large lots, and we're talking about less than half an acre of I'm just stunned that somebody could make that comment. I really have concerns. We all have concerns about the septic feasibility on 20,000 square foot lots. There is surface rock in this area that we know of. The conditions make septic drain fields seemingly impossible on half an acre. And then, you know, my question is, what are they gonna do when they start developing the property and one of these lots can't support a septic system? And more importantly to the future landowner that is in that house and faces this condition that I faced, What are they going to do when they have a problem? Because there's not enough land to put additional drain fields. Also, for consideration on the septic feasibility, is the proposed subdivision sits upland of the recharge area for the Durban Creek Watershed.

Mr. Cross, you've got about one minute left.

Okay. The watershed supplies clean drinking water for more than 25 homeowners. So I want to bring that up. And then last, we talk about surface water runoff buffers and the protection of adjacent landowners. Many of these people will tell you during heavy rains, we already have water flow problems in this area, especially on the south part of this where the Lawsons, excuse me, where the Dobsons live and the Nelsons. In addition, there is a 0.74 acre detention pond here. It doesn't show where discharge water will go from that detention pond. It also is right beside Fox Run. So it's unlikely... Wrap up. You've got about 10 seconds. Okay. It's unlikely they're going to get permission from Fox Run or anyone else to discharge onto that land. So... In conclusion, we're asking you to consider these issues. I've laid these out very clearly in this letter. And if you have any more questions, have an answer.

All right. Thank you very much. Thanks. All right, folks. I know there were a few others signed up, but Mr. Katross took up the 10 minutes.

I thought he made it clear he wasn't speaking in opposition.

He's not speaking in opposition or in favor. Commissioners, would you like to hear from anybody else that has signed up in opposition?

I think we can recognize them by counting.

I think we can allow maybe an extra 10 minutes. We have... We have one, it looks like two, that have definitely, looks like three, because some of you signed up and then scratched your names out. Let me give a little additional time to these folks that definitely signed up in opposition, and we'll give you two minutes apiece to come up and speak, and the first one will be Lynn Ramirez.

Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for your consideration in this. I'm Lynn Ramirez. I live at 412 Lee Creek Drive. I am running for State House District 16, so I'm not just in the neighborhood. This also would be my district. So my big concern is about the numerous projects already approved in this area, but not built yet. And this one being built without a traffic study just kind of adds to all the complicated things going on in this area. It's not a big deal if there's one being built, but in aggregate, all these are putting tremendous strain on our infrastructure. The one development that he was talking about being built, it's already been approved. It's in the works. It's just a matter of time to build it, is the Otteray project. This is about 1,900 homes. That doesn't include the hotel. That doesn't include the professional offices that they'll have there also. So this is a huge, huge problem in this area. And when we look at these and constantly approve these different things at different times, we're not looking at the aggregate or the you know, the total problem it will cause. And this is what my concern is, is the numerous amounts that are already approved in this very vicinity that aren't built yet, but will be affecting this area. He's already concerned about the traffic right now. Wait till we have a hotel, 1900 other units and all the other lots being built. So this is my huge concern.

Could you give us your address for the record, please?

412 Lee Creek Drive, L-E-I-G-H, as opposed to leave on.

Thank you very much. All right, next on the list is Mr. Ray Monahan.

I have a quick comment to Lynn. If you're running for the Statehouse, help us out here.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay?

Yes, ma'am.

Help us out here. We need some help in terms of being able to consider road conditions and what have you. And I know, as the chairman has talked about, we can't consider that. Oh, absolutely. But the Statehouse, you might want to consider.

Ms. Manning, this is not the place for that. Very good.

Yeah. But I will let you know that the state wants to shuffle that responsibility onto the counties. So, yeah.

Gary Tomlin is a great person to listen to. Let's bring this back. Thank you. Please. All right. Mr. Monaghan.

My name is Ray Monaghan. I live at 82 Heron Drive in Fountain Inn. I represent the Carolina Springs Homeowners Association. We live on the golf course out there, and all of those lots there are above 35,000 square feet. I think what they're trying to do here is to squeeze in septic systems on 20,000 square feet when RS clearly says that it's 25,000 feet minimum. So I don't know why staff would reduce that by each lot by 5,000 square feet.

You addressed it. Also, there should be two egresses and something this big. Hold on, this won't count against your time, but Ms. Phillips is going to explain to you why that is.

Your logic makes complete sense, sir. However, if you read the scuffle down conservation regulation, because of the open space and the large buffers it requires, the minimum lot size, I believe, is 6,500 square feet. The fact that you're questioning... septic yes that's questionable however the applicant will have to go to um des and they'll have to have done all their soil tests and and make sure everything perks before before they build um that that's the only safeguarding systems we have in place we can't we cannot we can't okay control that and and the i'm just pointing out because a lot of people don't realize they think we live in the conservation district and oh yeah we're safe i don't live far from you all okay so i understand um But but the sixty five hundred square for a lot minimum, that's a big difference, isn't it?

I mean, that's how you do that. It's like something with a septic. So I agree on twenty thousand.

So I'm going to recommend you talk to your councilman in the future to maybe see if some things can change in the ordinance. But as but I'm but just so you understand why staff. I have another question.

It's gotten to this point. All right. To finish up on that before you ask your next question, REWA and Metro, both in the SAC comments, REWA said development is submitted as club-derived subdivision. Septic request for 42 lots has been approved as of June the 12th of this year. And Metro said Metro has no objection to septic on the 42 lots.

They've got to put line plans in place.

I know that they said that's okay, but everybody else that lives out there doesn't have that. Sure. This gentleman has two acres. Right. I have almost an acre on the golf course.

All right. So we're going to start your time back. Okay.

You've got about a minute. Okay. So the other thing is, I sat on a planning commission in another state for five years. So why do we not, under the comprehensive plan, have it where before somebody even applies for a permit for a subdivision, If you're going to have septic systems, they perk it first so they know what perks and what doesn't. I think we're doing this a little backwards. So that would be a consideration that I'd like to see changed in a comprehensive plan.

No objections. Would staff like to comment on that at all? Well, let's say something quick, if you could just something quick.

So the county isn't the permitting agency? That's correct. And so, unfortunately, it's not in our purview. We wouldn't be able to pass a regulation that would require that. Let me get this straight.

You can approve a subdivision, but yet the permitting process may or may not have been done because it's being done by somebody. That's correct.

It's still preliminary. For the septum permit, that's correct. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Yes, sir. Thank you. All right, next we have the third speaker. Let's see who didn't scratch their name out. It looks like Lisa Lasso. I'm sorry, Kathy Lasso.

I feel like so to want East Georgia pretty much just right across the road from the entrance to the subdivision and with all due respect to my other neighbors. I do not think the subdivision should be approved in any shape form or fashion. There is no need for further housing development in that area, within 1.5 miles of my home, there are no less than probably 500 houses already being built and no less than 500 houses already built down Howard Drive. I don't know what y'all think is going to happen to Rudolph Gordon Elementary slash middle school. I don't know how you're going to afford to be able to continue to fix roads and build. I will tell you that my street, as he said, is in horrible condition. I gauged it one year right in front of my house. They come out every two months to fix potholes. They came in February, April. December before that, I mean, they're not keeping the roads up. I don't think they ever plan on keeping the roads up. And I don't see the point of more housing when there's so much already going on down there. And as he said, we don't know what you guys are going to approve or have already approved for the corner of East Georgia and Scuffle Town. I mean, we can't absorb any more housing. anymore. We cannot absorb anymore. Thank you.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you. All right. I will come back to the applicant. We gave six extra minutes of time. Do you guys have anything further you would like to say, maybe to answer a question or two for these folks?

All right. So I want to first address the developable open space comment. It's just something that was in the LDR as a developable and undevelopable land as to call it out on the plan. So that's what we did. It's not saying you can develop that area. It's more of just saying that it's good land versus the wetlands and the repairing buffer in that area. So the open space ownership would be a part of the HOA. wouldn't be individual lot owners it would be a whole as the hoa um we are showing a 150 foot buffer off of east georgia road as per the ordinance and we are showing 50 foot buffers off of every property owner around us these buffers are no disturbed buffers we can't go in there and And greater anything unless there's a house or something or the existing home that we have to take out, but it'll have to be replanted and per the for the ordinance serve for a visual 6 foot screening. Additionally, the septic comments out there, a 20,000 square foot lot can support septic system with an engineered system or with a smaller bedroom count. It's pretty widely known within the SEDES handbook that 20,000 is usually the minimum. Obviously, it depends on the soil perkability and quality. all the the soil scientists information that goes out there but these will have these have to go through sedes for their permitting process and um and all all these homes will be perked and will be permitted so if there's something wrong with the soil that's some that's something that des will will account for For the runoff issues, we're showing one detention pond on the site. Greenville County requires us to reduce the 210, 25, and sometimes the 50 and 100-year storm. So I would venture to say this would be one of those cases where we'd have to address the 100-year storm. And what that means is we have to reduce the peak flow, not the velocity, but like the peak flow of the water coming off the site below pre-development conditions in those storm events. And additionally, for the traffic study comment, we're below the threshold with both the SCDOT and Greenville County. Obviously, we have to go through SCDOT for their permitting process of a driveway, and we'll address any comments or anything that they have on the driveway entrance because East Georgia is a DOT road.

And same with the stormwater drainage.

Yeah, stormwater drainage, same thing with Greenville County and DES. There's a double check there with Greenville County reviewing it and DES overseeing that.

Anything else? All right. Thank you very much. All right. Commissioners, questions? Well, Mr. Sternberg first, please.

Well, it's a question for possibly – we're looking at being on the golf course. Where is the detention pond sit? I'm trying to – it looks kind of weird. That's hole 16 at the course. How does that – where does that all lay?

We're showing the detention pond in the back right, the bottom corner. Right. Obviously, it's a conceptual plan that when grades come into play, that could shift north or south. Odds are it's going to go right there. It'll discharge to a low point on the site. And if there's not already a creek on our site or something like a drainage ditch, then we have to provide a level energy dissipator to dissipate the water so it's not a point discharge.

So just to get my bearings, is that equal with the tee box there? There's a tree out in the fairway. Don't show on the map here where that lays.

I'm not sure where it is in relation to the golf course. It would be next, I mean.

There's a couple branches of the creek. Is that below the tee box? Any discharge would go around that? You can't go into the creek. It would go into that creek back there. Which goes into the pond that's there on hole 14. Correct.

But you're going to build to a 100-year flood is what you're proposing?

That's what I'm anticipating the county engineer requiring. Gotcha. Okay. All right. Ms. Manning.

How far is a sewer from you guys?

It's roughly three miles, but you'd have to get easements to get to.

That's wild off West Georgia Road that there's no sewer.

It's East Georgia. Well, East Georgia, sorry. East Georgia. It's a long way off.

Yeah, that's crazy. All right. I was just kind of curious. Thank you.

Any further questions for the applicant? Questions for staff? Comments?

I have a question for staff.

Mr. Parham.

Do we have any information on the level of service for the roads right in this area? Do you all have any of that? I mean, I'm just trying to, are they already failing? Anybody have any information on that?

I don't think DOT provided that in their SAC review comments. Draper, do you have?

I was just going to say that, yeah, we don't have the traffic study on this.

Okay.

No traffic study required.

Yeah, no traffic study required. I do have a quick comment. It's mostly a couple of my planning commission peers have mentioned We have to try to go by. We have some discretion. We have to go by what's in the LDRs. And, you know, we do have some discretion, variances, et cetera, and keeping the public interest in mind, public safety. But in large part, many of these things that were discussed tonight that you guys have brought up, you need to take to your county councilman. And we actually have, you can go on YouTube and find it, we actually have some recommendations that we've made already that we're trying to push forth for Article 9, the traffic study. One of the things is to reduce those traffic counts because of what someone said. You get 40 or 50, I'm exaggerating a little bit, but you get a lot of homes that are 85. What was the point? You missed the boat, okay? So we're trying to do some of those things. Contact your county councilman. They're the ones that can pass the ordinances. We can only make recommendations.

Any further questions?

Comments? Question for the Sternberg. How many bedrooms are limited on a 20,000 square foot?

Ma'am. Order.

No. Please come to the podium. Name and address, please.

Susan Anderson, 247 Wood River Way. The bedroom count has not been established. Again, as we spoke, this is preliminary. This is the approval will then facilitate our ability to go and do all of our due diligence and look at the property in more detail with the septic permitting and design, which will go through Greenville County for stormwater. But right now, I mean, we can build anywhere between three and five bedrooms. Like Josh did mention on the The smaller septic lots, sometimes they are restricted, bedroom restricted by the size, and that will be determined when we do our soil classification to make sure that these lots do perk and what they will be able to handle as far as either an engineered or a conventional septic system.

All right. So the engineer doesn't just be by the fact that it's going to be engineered. So it's special because of the size. There's not a standard or maximum. No. You got to speak up into the mic, Eddie. No, that's fine. You answer the question.

So there's a separate. So Josh Baker's our civil engineer. Then we will coordinate with a septic, an engineer that designed septic systems specifically. And then those bedroom counts can be determined when we do the soil classification and what that lot will handle as far as a conventional system versus an engineered system for septic.

You'll be able to put conventional systems on 20,000? You'll be able to put conventionals?

That'll be determined when we do our due diligence with the soil classification and testing.

All right. Any further questions for the applicant? Any further questions for staff?

I just wanted to make sure both East Georgia and scuffle town up farther where it intersects as opposed to state roads. Correct. Okay. Thank you.

All right. Do we have a motion?

Could we make, um, I'd like to make a motion. We approve with staff's conditions and I would also like to add an additional condition. that the 50 foot buffer next to the surrounding residents not be disturbed during construction is that possible I mean, no, they don't know if it's possible or not.

I believe it's possible, but there is a couple of the existing structures within that buffer, which we intend to demolish those and provide tree cover so that there's a buffer between the neighbors.

Okay, well, I'll restate that to include the 50-foot buffer adjoining residential properties not being disturbed except for the removal of the existing structures that need to be removed.

Second.

All right, we have a motion by Ms. Phillips, seconded by Ms. Franklin. Any further discussion? All in favor of approval, raise your hand. All those opposed? All right, you pass eight to one. Contact staff for next steps.

All right.

Moving forward, we have PP26-121. Hawkins Ridge.

Hawkins Ridge is a proposed rural conservation subdivision. It is located on Hawkins Road. The applicant is requesting 22 lots on 9.254 acres for a density of 2.38 units an acre. Access will be provided off Hawkins Road. Here is the site highlighted in red. Here is the plan that was included in the packet. The project includes one ingress-egress point, two internal roads, one cluster mailbox, 50-foot screening buffers around the perimeter of the site, one detention pond, and 864 linear feet of public road. Here is the zoning of the site. The subject is part of the Greenville County Comprehensive Plan where the site is designated as SE Suburban Edge. Suburban Edges are low density residential areas that offer opportunities for low intensity development that is well integrated with the natural landscape and agricultural uses. Residential development may occur as individual single-family structures on large lots or clusters of homes designed to preserve large amounts of open space, which should be interconnected as part of the county's larger open space system. The suburban edge character area type recommends a density of 0 to 1 dwellings per acre. Hawkins Ridge is proposing a density of 2.38 units per acre. The subject property is not within any area plan boundary. Here is the site. North of the site? East of the site? West of the site?

Not much of a shoulder.

staff recommends conditional approval of the plan with the standard and specific requirements the conditions of approval are as follows please provide a revised preliminary plan by september 4th 2026 showing the following number one a designed drivable maintenance access to the stormwater management facility is required number two ldr 22.3.6 d primary and secondary access points to open space shall be shown as part of the open space and shall not be part of an individual lot nor shall it be an easement

please provide a second open space access point for residents all right thank you very much uh do we have the applicant here

Good evening. Stephanie Gates, site design, civil engineer and surveyor on the project 220. My address is 225 Rocky Creek Road in Greenville. We have an unzoned property here and we do have access to sewer, so we're able to do some smaller lots and access the sewer. And when we started looking at this property, We thought that this would be a good spot to do some single-family residential as opposed to other uses that might be allowed in the unzoned properties. Happy to answer any questions, but I just want to make sure that it's clear. I think at one point we had a 25-foot buffer shown and make sure that everybody saw the 50-foot buffer. We have complied with staff's comments on that, and we have no issues with staff's recommendations. We can make those work within the developments.

All right, any questions for the applicant? All right, Nathan Kasser, is that you? Yes. Do you have anything you'd like to add?

Only if there's questions for me.

Mr. Kasser is the developer.

Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Phillips.

This probably is an error on the data sheet. It states 2.31 acres of open space is required, but zero is provided. I see open space in green on the buffer, but does buffer count as open space?

I have a quick question for you.

While looking that up, yes.

Perfect. How many total units are you going to be doing?

There's 22 units shown on here.

Okay. And the density is generally one dwelling. You're at 2.3 units per acre. Had you thought about staying within the zoning of Suburban Edge?

So suburban edge is not the zoning. It is an unzoned property. And we do have access to sewer. And I believe a lot of the suburban edge areas where you see zero to one are meant to be more of the septic areas. And we actually do have access to sewer. I don't know if the sewer wasn't there when the comp plan came through or not, but having sewer does allow you to get a little bit more density.

This is quite dense. I was out there this morning. It's a beautiful area and they've got some very interesting larger homes that are there on fairly large lots. I'm just a little bit surprised at the number of units that you have here and the size of the lots. Just a comment.

So I think, you know, the suburb of Menage does mention clustering the units, and that's how I would see this development as being mentioned as those cluster of units, as the comp plan mentions.

Staff, you guys have any luck over there?

No. Okay, so they have provided 45% and there was only 25% required of open space.

And you have 45%. 40.5.

40.5. Right.

And, Mr. Chair, as to the discrepancy on the data sheet, there was no area table, no open space area table on the plat when it was originally submitted and the data sheet was created. That has since been corrected. You have that information on the plat, but that's why the data sheet says what it says.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right. Any further questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you, folks.

May I ask one more question? Yes. Can I ask a question of Ms. Manning? Would that be okay? Certainly. Ms. Manning, if you don't think 22 is appropriate, what do you think would be appropriate on this?

I'm certainly not a developer. I'm simply a planning commissioner, and I'm looking to make sure that we get a neighborhood. I'm looking to basically have a neighborhood. That area there on Hawkins Road is – quite rural with significantly larger lots. And I, once again, I'm just concerned about the over-densification, if that's a word, of some of the subdivisions. That's it. That's my concern. Okay.

I mean, we are very close to, like, some townhome subdivisions and things like that, like if you were to zoom out a little bit. It is very close to those.

It is unzoned.

And it is unzoned, which, you know, would allow for density.

Correct. All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right. So I have two in opposition, Mr. Patrick Holliday and Ms. Mary Ellen Holliday. I'm assuming you're related, so who would like to go first?

All right.

Yes, sir. You said that. I did not. All right. Name and address, please, for the record.

Patrick Holiday, 5720 State Park Road.

Thank you.

So I kind of want to start with a couple of land development, some LDR violations. LDR 3.3.4 Delta owner is incorrectly identified on the drawing, still shows tall pines in the right-hand side of this, as well as LDR 3.3.4 point kilo. Plat does not label the road radii or sidewalks as required. as well as the final ldr violation we found of 5.2.9 the plat does not label the cul-de-sac as required pardon me i do public speaking about as well as i go through barbwire so The plat does not demonstrate adequate fire code access, as well as the cluster mailbox is poorly designed. LDR 8.19.2 Exhibit 8 offers a better solution to that. There absolutely, as well, needs to be a natural resource study conducted, specifically looking for bunched arrowhead, dwarf flowering heartleaf, as well as the presence of Piedmont seepage fords. All of the Valley Links properties is not vacant residential, except for the immediate area of the two home sites, all the properties agricultural land use. The whole of the Valley Links properties are pastures, fenced, and including homes, as well as my home. It is not even shown in the submitted documents, except in the overview of, I believe, I guess, the previous submitted documents. My house from the property edge to the proposed subdivision property edge is 20 feet. My house is 80 feet from that property line. And we're talking about adding 22 homes within a combined space of 130 feet to that. Currently, within those 20 acres that I live encompassed by, We maintain pigs, sheep, cows, and poultry. These animals are maintained by fence along the entirety of the property of Valley Links. Agricultural land immediately adjacent to a cluster development or high density subdivision is not normal good mixture lands. Around the proposed subdivisions, they're very low density, as we heard, of about zero to one. Having a cluster development immediately next door to an agriculture operation is also not the best interest for either party. You have different reasons for that, one of them being the acoustic shock and panic for the prey animals that we do have. We have reproductive failure caused by high stress, noise disturbance, the ewe fertility, and lambing complications, as well as the stray pets that will come when a subdivision like this will be built that borders those fence lines. The predation comes with the sheep and cause issues. In addition, that fence is electrified on the top line, as many livestock fences are. It has 30,000 volts on it. It is low amperage, so it is no danger other than a just nasty shock. But it poses a risk for anyone back there or any animals that are not intended to get zapped by that fence. The roadway of Hawkins Road is not very good on one side down by the rewa plant to the west of that drawing is two very good sharp hairpin turns the road itself is 18 feet wide and reference south carolina fire code 503.2.4 turning radius The required turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be determined by the fire code official. The radius of the cul-de-sac has not been annotated in the drawing. 503.25 is dead ends. Any roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning radius of fire apparatus. Rebecca Crest Drive is labeled as 503 linear feet. Again, the radius is not listed for the cul-de-sac. For fire flow testing, an adequate fire flow test must be performed for this property. The developer may have a letter in hand from Greenville Water that water is available at the site, but a proper fire flow test has not been performed. A water model showing flow does not take the place of an accurate fire flow test. For an accurate flow test to be done you would need an immediate connection or tie-in point at the existing main. There's no hydrant there at this point in time. The test residual hydrant shall sit at the junction or on the upstream main feeding the extension, while the flow hydrant should be located downstream or immediately adjacent to stress the correct main segment. The future land use map, Hawkins Ridge density, like they said, is greater at 2.4 dwellings per acre, which we believe makes it incompatible with the character area recommended density of zero to one dwellings per acre. The neighborhood does not meet the existing characteristics of the existing neighborhood and therefore will reduce all the values of the existing neighborhood and all the property owner's values. Natural resource study like I mentioned earlier should and needs to be conducted. As we own the 20 acres right next to it and slightly under 20 more immediately adjacent. All of our properties. Piedmont seepage forest bunched arrowhead or flower heart leaf and wild orchids specific the pink lady slippers. A natural resource study is required for this property due to the geological or endangered plants. The Piedmont seepage forest is only an area between Furman and Henderson, North Carolina. It is only in our area. For example, the Gateway Village townhomes in Traveler's Rest is directly downstream of this area. It had to be redesigned and a number of the units reduced due to the presence of bunched arrowhead and other listed endangered species. The lot sizes for this proposed development are extremely small. They're approximately 5.5 houses per acre as density. The lots are as small as 25 feet wide. And for reference, With the buffers that you need on five foot either side of that, a mobile home is larger than 15 feet wide. So these lots where they're going to put a single family home will be narrower than a single wide mobile home. The steep slope on the parcel will also cause a lot of storm water runoff, which will be present after development. At the most on the side of the property which adjoins Ms. Dorothy Bishop, which is the most downhill side of the property, the elevation falls 30 feet in a short distance. It's a very steep slope and will not be able to protect from construction operations or final occupancy sheet stormwater flows. You got about a minute. Okay. I'll do it quick. Just because someone purchased the property and has to come up with a development plan doesn't mean that the development should be approved. The developer and purchaser should have obtained due diligence period in which all these items could have been addressed as opposed to purchasing the property sight unseen basically and discovering items in which they are pitfalls. In summary, we're prepared to file suit against Greenville County and the developer at a minimum for the following, which we've covered above. not conducive to our cheap breeding and agricultural land use operations. The proposed plan is not accurate in that it does not show a residential home within its plan. Failure to comply with South Carolina fire codes, land use, proposal does not fit the characteristics of an existing neighborhood and surrounding areas, and failure to perform a natural resource study, and the detrimental effects of building a cluster development on a steep parcel of land. Thank you all. Thanks, sir.

All right. That was the only person in opposition. And so now do we have questions for staff?

Mr. Chair.

Mr. Farham.

I would like someone on staff to address a couple of points about the plan missing particular attributes like in the radius of the cul-de-sac, etc.

It's there. It is there. I can't see. It's there.

It's not shown on the drawing.

It's not shown on the drawing.

The radius is listed. It is just small.

It's not on the cul-de-sac there, right? It's in a table is what you're saying?

Yes.

Is that considered compliant is my question.

It's on the table.

It just says the table? Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Okay.

Any other comments? Do we have a motion?

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Manasevich.

I will make a motion that we approve this with the staff's conditions of approval that they have shared with us.

All right. We have a motion for approval. Mr. Manasevic, do we have a second?

I'll second.

Mr. Parham has given the second. All right. A show of hands for Hawkins Ridge for approval. Three, four, five. All right, a show of hands in opposition of approval. Five to four. All right, so now we need a denial motion.

Not necessarily by Robert's rules, we do not.

Well, by Robert's rules, we don't, but the county rules, do we need a reason?

There needs to be a reason for denial as to what the basis for your denial is on. All right.

Would someone like to take that?

The what? The density does not comply with the future land use recommendation on the county comp plan, nor is it compatible. There have been several comments made and which are obvious by the plat and the topography that show that there's some severe issues. natural hazards here that could arise and the road conditions are unsafe so i mean this is unzoned so it's unzoned we can put up whatever density but it's also unzoned it is in the comp in the comprehensive plan you know designates it you know why is it suburban edge suburban whatever i don't know um we put sewer where we will where we i don't know why sewer goes in rural areas a lot of times quicker than other areas either but Um, that's my, so I will base it on the fact that it doesn't comply with our, our county comprehensive plan.

Mr. Moore.

I'd like to add to that. We had a workshop about a month and a half ago where it was made very clear that we need to have our regulations match the comp plan. And that's what we're attempting to do right here. So for the record, that's what we want written down is this is an attempt to start moving towards what that came up in that workshop that all of us attended to make sure these things start matching.

Okay. So do we need to vote again in opposition or are you good with that as an explanation of why we voted in opposition? Yes.

For clarity, go ahead and have that other motion made. All right.

I'll make a motion we deny.

Based on?

Based on my prior statements.

Second. All right. Ms. Phillips made the motion. Mr. Bracewell made the second. So, again, we are now voting for opposition for Hawkins Ridge. All those in favor of denial, raise your hand. Five. All those in favor of... not denying hawkins ridge raise your hand three four all right five to four it's denied all right moving on uh next is uh pp 20 oh i'm sorry uh we would like to take five minute recess

See you guys next month. You can Photoshop anything.

yeah okay great . . . . Next month, I'll bring a donut. No, I don't know off the top of my head. It's not that I can't find out. I don't know the answer. I guess in three years you'll figure out the fourth Wednesday.

My wife said, what are you doing? She's on her phone all day long.

I said, just go online, you'll see me.

All the flora of the invention was in the study. All the flora of the invention was in the study.

I checked all the boxes.

And what do you think that costs?

Probably only a handful of companies. Well, that's it.

No, I'm going to take it.

Just so you know what we're gonna do on that, we have the same score. We're just going to, we're going to multiple. We're going to collect the opposition.

We're going to give kind of a, we're not going to give everyone, y'all, all 140. So it's going to be just kind of like a one bar.

like what the topics are yes we don't yeah we don't we don't they go they'll go as cool as

With BCA, we can't stand that. We're not going to give this 140 emails, but we'll just give this one.

Well, we'll just do like a talk. These are the reasons.

We received this many emails.

Thank you. Thank you.

So they sort of just wait for the ceremony to get answered.

It's pretty good.

pretty much closed but just like

Like, almost all the way, and then just put it down. That way it still locks on the signal.

We're back in session. All right, staff, next we have PP 2026-122.

The willows at Gibson, and we also have a variance, 2026-108. We'll deal with the variance first. The willows at Gibson, LDR 8.8.1a. The variance first. Right. Right.

The Willows at Gibson is a proposed conventional subdivision. It is located on Gibson Drive. The applicant is requesting 70 lots on 66.12 acres for a density of 1.06 units an acre. Access will be provided off of Gibson Drive. Here is the site highlighted in red. Here is a site plan that was included in the packet. The project includes one ingress-egress point, two internal roads, one cluster mailbox unit, 20-foot screening buffers around the perimeter of the site, two detention ponds, and 3,250 linear feet of public road. Here is the zoning of the site. The subject site is part of the Greenville County Comprehensive Plan where the site is designated SE Suburban Edge. Suburban Edges are low density residential areas that offer opportunities for low intensity development that is well integrated with the natural landscape and agricultural uses. Residential development may occur as an individual single family structure on large lots or clusters of homes designed to preserve large amounts of open space, which should be interconnected as part of the county's larger open space system. The suburban edge character area type recommends a density of zero to one dwellings per acre. Fox Creek Estates is proposing a density of 1.06 units per acre. The subject property is not within an area plan boundary. Here is the site. north of the site, east of the site, west of the site, VAR 2026-108 was submitted to address secondary access requirement per LDR 8.8.1a, which requires secondary access when 20 lots are present. In lieu of a second access, the applicant will be widening the paved surface of the main road to 26 feet to the first intersection. According to the applicant, a secondary access is not feasible due to limited frontage of the property.

Okay. So we're going to look at the variance first. Actually, do you need to hear? Do we have the applicant present?

Michael Fernandez, 401 Roper Creek Drive, Greenville, South Carolina, 29615 as the developer. I'd like to just rewind just a bit to give some background on this site. Sure. Originally, when I put the site under contract, I met with Councilman Benton Blount. I invited him into my office and I proposed one that was an R15 zoning and then one site plan with the existing RS zoning. This was originally a septic deal. We had a 68-lot layout done by Site Design for the septic side. And for the R15, I believe we were north of 100 lots. We did decide to kind of go near that 80 to 90-ish. I can't remember off the top of my head. The exact is where Mr. Blatt and I kind of... agreed on. We did submit for a rezone. We were denied on the rezoning due to not having sewer with Metro as well. And I did secure a sewer easement through Greenville Tech. I went and met with the COO of Greenville Tech, Julie Eddy, and spent months going back and forth with their board. We did secure the sewer easement on the southwest side of the site. I've walked it with their grounds maintenance, walked where that creek buffer is and that crossing and they approved it subject to some requirements that I have to do in the field to make sure that we're compliant, not disturbing anything there. But did want to give you that background on where we landed. So what I'm proposing, so my hair doesn't look like Josh is at my age soon, is a sewer RS site and not go through the hassle of trying to rezone. I'm more than happy with our 70 lots, which is right where we landed with the septic. Josh, do you need a minute?

Did you say who?

He was falling asleep over there, so I was seeing if he was. He's only 28.

What does hair look like?

It looked about like this at 28, so go ahead.

I'd like to keep mine, so we're requesting a 70 lot on our S and no rezoning. But if Stephanie would like to speak to the variance side, I'd like to invite her up. Please.

Stephanie Gates with Site Design, Civil Engineer, 225 Rocky Creek Road. Since we are speaking to the variance first, and we're only speaking to the variance right now, is that true? Yes. Okay. 8.8.1a actually specifically addresses that if you are not able to provide the secondary access that you may, in lieu of doing that, provide the 26 feet to the first intersection, which we have done. So we're actually meeting the LDR, but in the past – or five years staff has always required that we actually submit for the variance as well as that and staff can probably speak to that so what's the fire department saying about uh have you got we got we have comments on that okay there and they're okay with it no okay okay We will comply with anything the fire department has as part of, as you know, this is just the first step of the process and in what we're doing and part of our requirements now probably more than maybe you've seen in recent times is when we go to get our stormwater approvals for Greenville County, the fire department is one of those reviews that we have to go through now and we actually have to provide an approval letter from the fire department as part of that approval now. So you may not be aware of that, but I thought it'd be good to speak to it to make sure you know this cannot go forward without a letter from the fire department.

And there's no way to have an emergency access down here around your sewer easement somewhere.

No, because we're crossing a creek there.

Crossing the creek.

We did provide the stub out easement as required by the LDR, but it is pretty close to the front entrance over there. And we did look at possibly crossing the creek and doing something larger. We looked at purchasing other properties, but that was not something that was feasible.

Okay.

Go ahead, Mr. Moore.

Maybe this is a question for the staff, because I recall in the past, There's been some debate about whether or not the county will give the 26 feet access versus the 24 that's in other regulations.

As far as maintenance.

As far as maintenance is concerned.

As far as this goes, the LDR specifies that it does have to be 26 feet to the first intersection because there is no secondary access. So the county would accept this and maintain it.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Phillips.

Mr. Moore, I believe I asked that. Something similar to that last meeting as well. And Mr. Walters confirmed that that was the case. And I even asked about what if we extended that width, the entire length of the main access road. And he said they wouldn't have a problem with that either with a county taking over that road and maintaining it.

Good question. Any other questions for the applicant on the variance?

Might I ask staff a question?

Yes, ma'am.

I don't necessarily see where they commented on the variance requests. I see a bunch of other comments from the fire department. Do we have anything specific for that?

The fire department had commented that.

I might have missed it, but I know they had several other requirements.

Yeah, I think they were okay with, because they met the 26 feet, and the only other additional was the turn radius, which was addressed, but they were okay with the 26 feet.

Would you be willing to extend that entire main road to 26 feet instead of just to the first intersection? The whole length?

To how far? So right now it's... Let me look at the plot.

Mm-hmm.

And then both this and this are 24. So it would be that much more. Just the main road or the other cul-de-sac as well? Just the main road.

Well, if you take the whole main road, it goes all the way into the next cul-de-sac.

Yes, the long stretch of road. I'm trying to get it pulled up. From the entrance, yes.

Of Creek Bend Drive.

Correct. Mr. Chair, so Mr. Walters is indicating that it would only be 26 feet up to the first intersection. It couldn't be the whole stretch of road.

Right. That's all that's required. It would go to Stonebrook Trail. Per the LDR. Right. So we can't.

So if they were willing to give us that extra two feet, the remaining length of that road, the county wouldn't take it over? It's debatable. That's a lot of homes for emergency access. I think two feet might make a difference. Yeah. Would Would the applicant entertain that? We'll just, we'll leave it at that. If you can answer.

I think that that would have to be, we'd have to work with the county on that because it sounds like the county may not be willing to take that. All right.

Thank you. Mr. Chair.

Mr. Farham.

So my understanding, the reason for this requirement that you're asking for a variance on It's for life safety issues. And, you know, I remember when Helene came through and that doesn't happen every year, but it happened and there were a lot of neighborhoods that I saw that were actually blocked in. And so I think the reason for this is to have secondary entrance. I think there's a, is it 30? There's a cap for 30 on that. It's above 30. We've also had a lot of storms that I've seen bring down a lot of trees lately. And For that reason, I don't think I can support this variance. We've had some of these things pop up recently, and I'm being pretty consistent on how I've voted on those. So for that reason, I can't support this, and I'd actually like to make a motion to deny the variance based on life safety issues and the fact that it is the Planning Commission that has discretion on approving variances or denying variances. And there's three conditions that are given under Section – 1.6.3 of the LDR, and it also states in that section that it is of the opinion of the Planning Commission, so that clearly delineates our discretion. And because of these life safety issues, I can't support this, and I stand by my motion to deny the variance.

All right, so we have a motion for denial of the variance. Do we have a second?

I'll second it.

Ms. Manning has a second. Any further discussion on the variance? Ms. Franklin.

So if the variance is not approved, does that kill the subdivision?

Well, they can't build it as required. You would have to go back to the design board.

I presume it would be out of compliance. Am I correct?

It is out of compliance. Is that correct? Yes. We would be out of compliance, and that would kill the subdivision. Well, right, but they would have to come back with another design to give us a secondary access, even if it's only an emergency access.

Correct.

Okay.

Given the other landowners around it, I don't have a secondary access. That parcel that's on the southwest side, they're not willing to sell. And the other, I believe, is owned by a public entity, I think. Might be even REWA.

Yeah.

It says REWA. Yeah. Yeah, it's just a tough lot.

And 8.1a does specifically say that we are allowed to do this as part of it. So I just want to make sure that's clear. I don't know why staff, I mean, maybe staff can speak to why we have to ask for a variance for this.

I think it's item F, item F in that same section that you're referring to. Okay.

And to Ms. Phillips' point, I'm flexible on if we can sort that out with the county, widening the road.

We have a second motion on the floor.

We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the variance?

Can we clarify if the variance is denied, does that... clearly deny the subdivision application? Or is that an additional decision?

I think with the approval of the applicant, you could agree to hold the application to see if they can rework the design. But as I've said, that might be challenging. So it just depends on what you're willing to entertain to allow them to try and move forward if you deny the variance.

Yeah, I've held this site three times when we were doing the, you know, sewer easement here. I've worked with Councilman Blount a lot on this. This is pretty much where we're at.

So, would we...

Would you consider holding until our next meeting in September? Well, if it would give you a way to maybe reconfigure this design to allow for a secondary entrance.

I mean, we're completely surrounded by creeks, except for a couple of places, but based on what you said, I don't believe that you would approve an access that was so close to the entrance. We could offer to do a wider entrance that may be allowed for sometimes they will do an island and have entrances on both sides, but that only gets you so far into the property. I'm still not sure where the 8.1 F comes into play, but I mean, I think the F actually gives you the ability to approve in a case like this when you have creeks and streams and wetlands that would have to be crossed for that secondary access.

I understand your opinion.