County Council - public_hearing

Thank you.

You're live, Mrs. Chairman.

Recording in progress.

Before we start, let's go to the Lord in prayer. We thank you, O Lord, for this day. We thank you, Lord, for each one that's here. Thank you, Lord, that they were here and that they are looking out for Greenville County. Lord, we pray that you would be with us, that you would lead us, that you would guide us. for the knowledge from above to do what is right and just. Well, thank you again for this day. In Christ's name I pray, amen. Tonight's public hearing is for the public comments on rezoning requests identified as docket number CZ2026-31 through CZ-2026-40. The county council members present tonight are, from my right, Benton Blount, District 19.

Steve Shaw, 20.

Frank Farmer, District 22.

Kirk McGehee, District 21. Bradley Count, District 26.

Kyle O'Mesle, District 23.

Ian Fant, District 25. Dan Tripp, District 28. Commissioners available to view tonight's live stream of the meeting are, before I get started, Liz Seaman is on Zoom. Again, plenty of commissioners available to view tonight's live stream. Of the meeting are John Holland, the chair. Never can say Kenneth's last name. Manasseh. Oh, Bruce Bracewell, Deborah Manning, Corey Pollum, Jonelle Phillips, Eddie Sternberg, Denise Franklin, and Jim Moore. I work on that. I got three more months. I'll get it before I'm gone. Also representing county staff are Joshua Hendricks and Todd Batchelor. Tonight's hearings were revised in the Granville Journal. In addition to the advertisement, public notice signs were posted on the properties, and detailed information was available on the Internet. In order to properly study all comments and give them due consideration, the hearing is being recorded as a matter of record. Procedure for the hearing of each case is as following. Summary information about each case will be presented by the staff. The applicant, his or her representative, and anyone in favor of the rezoning request will be given the opportunity to speak for a combined total of 10 minutes. Those opposing the rezoning request will also be given the opportunity to speak for a combined total of 10 minutes. Council will not allow rebuttals from opposite sides. Granville County Planning Commission will make a recommendation for each case based on staff and allies in their meeting on July 22, 2026. The Planning Commission analyzing the recommendations along with the comments at tonight's public hearing will be discussed by the County Council Planning and Development Committee August 3rd, 2026. At that time, the committee will prepare the recommendations to the County Council. Additional written comments by the citizens may be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Office. Since passage of any zoning change will require three readings by the County Council, a request may be denied on second reading. Ten of the dates for reading for tonight's request are following. First reading, July 26th. Second reading, August 8th. Third reading, September 1st, all of the year 2026. To assist Granville County in reducing roadside litter, applicants should remove the public hearing notice and signs from their property within the next five days. At this time, I ask the staff of the Department of the Zone Administration to provide us with instructions regarding tonight's meeting and then present their first case.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good evening, members of council. Tonight's public hearing is for informational purposes only and to provide all interested parties an opportunity to speak. No votes or recommendations will be made at this meeting. This meeting is the beginning of approximately a three-month long process. Recommendations and votes will be made on the dates provided by the chairman. All future meetings are open to the public, and you're encouraged to attend. Sign-up is not required to speak at tonight's public hearing. In the event a Planning and Development Committee refers a docket back to the Planning Commission for additional public comment, or the Planning Commission recalls a docket, another opportunity will be afforded to speak for those who use the sign-up sheet located in the rear of the room. Please be aware this is only for those persons interested in becoming a party of interest in the event a docket is referred back to or recalled by the Planning Commission for additional public comment. As always, you may submit any letters, petitions, or similar information to the Office of the Zoning Administrator, clerk to council, or directly to council members at any time. Todd?

The first docket tonight is CZ-2026-031, which is to amend Article 8, Special Purpose and Review District Regulations of the Greenville County Zoning Ordinance to add Section 8-13 MCC Mountain Creek Community District. The proposed amendment would establish Section 8-13 MCC Mountain Creek Community District as part of the Greenville County Zoning Ordinance. As initiated, the requirements of this overlay district would apply to new major subdivisions, new review districts, and major changes within existing review districts. Within the district boundary, applicable developments would have a 50-foot undisturbed perimeter buffer with additional screening required from roadways. There would be a 100-foot riparian buffer along all streams and jurisdictional waters of the state. Sites must be developed to store stormwater runoff for a 100-year storm event and incorporate low-impact development features. Also, 50% of the total site acreage must be dedicated towards protected open space. Lastly, all historic sites on the subject property must be noted on PLATS. Now, Mr. Chairman, I should say that those are the requirements as initiated at P&D. Since that initiation, staff has done some additional review of that draft ordinance. And we have made some adjustments to that language which those have been provided at each of your chairs I wouldn't say there's not substantial changes to what was presented it was more to align language of the MCC especially related to the stormwater elements to requirements that we already have in our land development regulations and our stormwater design manual and ordinance just to make those a bit more consistent across the different regulations I believe we also added in some actual criteria for the perimeter buffer landscaping requirements as well as clarified how the variance process from these requirements would be worked out. But if y'all, like I said, you have the more updated version at your desks, if you have more questions on that, we can certainly answer those.

Any questions? Seeing none. I guess we can move on to the next docket. So we asked anybody that has anything, anyone? Do we need to ask anyone in favor of this ordinance? Do we have anyone in favor? I knew you would. You got 10 minutes total.

I promise it'll be shorter.

Thank you.

Brenda Buczyk, 200 Barrow Way, Taylors. Thank you for your service and the opportunity to speak. As we continue through the approval process for the Mountain Creek overlay, here are critical reminders because what happens over the next two months will shape the future of our watershed. The final vote remains September 1. why the Mountain Creek overlay matters and why it cannot wait. It's all about the water. Every decision we make now determines whether Mountain Creek continues to function as a healthy watershed or becomes a long-term flooding and infrastructure crisis. Water doesn't negotiate. It follows the laws of physics, not zoning. Our friend John Cook, who is a degreed civil and environmental engineer who has studied the movement of water within the Mountain Creek watershed, notes that the difference in elevations between the Mountain Creek watershed and the NRE River explain the velocity forcing the creek, which results in erosion. We must protect the character and stability of our neighborhood. Our community thrives because of long-term homeowners engaged neighbors, and development patterns that respect the land. The green you see on the map isn't empty space waiting to be filled. It exists because our development has not been dense. We have yards, small farms, tree canopy, and open space that naturally manage the water. Once those are gone, they're gone forever. Our history created today's vulnerabilities, and we must address them. More than 2,000 parcels were built before any floodplain, stormwater, or water quality ordinances existed. If each parcel were even 20 lots, that's 40,000 homes and businesses built without modern protections. We are living with the consequences of decisions made before we understood the risks. The overlay is our chance to correct course. Pebble Creek was originally planned with data restraint, and respect for the land. Mr. Tom Jackson and his partners studied the topography, flooding patterns, and water table behavior they built where the land could handle it and intentionally used the golf course as open space to absorb water. That thoughtful planning is the reason our community has remained viable for so long. Decades of unchecked change have pushed the watershed to its limits. Clearcutting, impermeable surfaces, and infill development in the Mountain Creek floodplain have stripped the land of its ability to move and absorb water. The result is not theoretical. It's happening now. Runoff into yards, homeowners paying thousands of dollars to install French drains and emergency fixes, flooded basements. These are not future problems. They are present-day consequences. The overlay is not about stopping growth. It's about preventing irreversible harm. It is the only tool we have right now that directly addresses the water, the slope, the soil, and the development patterns that determine whether Mountain Creek remains a functioning watershed or becomes a long-term disaster zone. Thank you for your time.

Good evening. My name is Emily Poole, and I'm a staff attorney at the South Carolina Environmental Law Project. Skelp is a nonprofit public interest law firm, and our mission is to use legal expertise to protect land, water, and communities across the state. I am here to share my support for Item 5A on tonight's docket, which would amend Article 8 of Greenville County Zoning Ordinance by adding Section 13 and establishing the Mountain Creek Community District. For the last year or so, I've been working with Brenda Bucik and the citizen group that is leading the charge on this new overlay district. However, for the last three years that I have been in this role at Skelp, I have been contacted many times about the severe flooding that this community experiences during heavy rain events and the threat of stormwater pollution further degrading the sensitive environmental features found in this area. Tackling these issues before it's too late is often very difficult without substantive policy change. Thankfully, the county is considering protections through this overlay district that will mitigate severe flooding risks and water quality degradation along Mountain Creek. Its provisions are specifically designed to protect the environmentally sensitive features of the area, including waterways, wetlands, floodplains, aquifers, riparian areas, areas that provide groundwater recharge, wildlife habitats, mature forest, tree canopies, unique geological formations, steep slopes, bridges, gorges, ravines, and historic lands. These are the natural defenses that the Mountain Creek community has to combat excessive and devastating flooding and the extreme sediment pollution that accompanies stormwater. And it is much more effective and affordable to protect nature's built-in defenses to stormwater and flood control than to attempt to fix things afterwards. Truly, the provisions of this overlay district are necessary for the protection of Mountain Creek, the neighborhoods located in this watershed, and the wider Broad River Basin. You all have heard me ask for better protections of our county-sensitive areas before, namely through the amendments to the environmentally sensitive district Paris Mountain, or ESDPM. Both staff and council did incredible work to see those protections through, and because of those efforts, the pristine ecosystems on the mountain will be better preserved for current and future generations. The Mountain Creek community is now seeking similar protections that are specifically tailored to their needs and environmental features so that extreme flooding can be better absorbed stormwater pollution can be mitigated, and water quality can be preserved. Therefore, I hope that you all will support this new overlay district so that these necessary protections become a reality for this community. I also encourage you to invoke the pending ordinance doctrine to allow these provisions to apply while it's still moving through council's process. Thank you.

We still have a little over three minutes. Do we have anybody else to speak in favor of this ordinance? Anybody else? Seeing none, do we have anyone opposed to this ordinance? Anyone opposed? Seeing no one, we'll move to the next docket.

The next docket is CZ-2026-032. The property is located at 15 Renfrew Avenue in Traveler's Rest. The applicant is Benjamin Wofford III of Kill Concepts, Inc., for April Allen of Ansley Daniel Properties No. 1, OLC. The 0.85-acre subject property consists of a portion of one parcel and is located approximately 1.3 miles northwest of the intersection of Highway 276 and McElhaney Road and currently contains a vacant commercial building. This is zoning the surrounding area. Subject property outline is shaded here, Zone C1, Commercial District. The request is for I-1, Industrial District. You can also see the surrounding property zones. The applicant states that the proposed land use is warehousing and distribution. This is the subject site and photos showing the area surrounding the subject site. Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Todd. Anyone here? The representative here? Come give us your name and address and what we got going on.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Ben Wofford of the Keele Concepts, as Todd mentioned. Our client is looking to rezone this building from C1 to I1. The adjacent properties, like Todd had mentioned, are also industrial. The use of the building, there are two buildings on site. One is like a craftsman brick building that they would want to keep as an office building for their operations. And then what used to be an existing church sanctuary would be the distribution warehouse component, which is currently not allowed in C1, so that's why we're looking to rezone it to I1. But we feel like the The rezoning of this property still fits within the surrounding context of the adjacent properties and wouldn't hinder any of the future development of these sites, keeping in mind the future land development as you all move forward in that process.

Any questions for an applicant? Thank you, sir. Do we have anybody in here who wants to speak on behalf of this ordinance, this zoning docket? Anyone speak in favor? Anyone? Anyone speak against this docket? Seeing none, we'll move to the next docket.

The next docket is CZ-2026-033. The property is located at 907 Highway 14 in Simpsonville. The applicant is Carmen Vlad of Harnick Properties, LLC. The 0.57 acre subject property consists of one parcel and is located approximately 0.02 miles northwest of the intersection of Highway 14 and Adams Mill Road. It currently contains a single family home. This is the zoning of the surrounding area. Subject property outlined here is zoned R15, single family residential district. The request is for C1 Commercial District. You can also see the surrounding property zones. The applicant states that the proposed land use is a business office. This is the subject site and photos showing the areas surrounding the subject site. Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Is the applicant or his or her representative here? If you come, give us your name and address and what we're doing.

My name is Adam Buccolo. Oh, it's loud. This is my wife, Carmen Vaud. We live at 303 Saybrook Road in Simpsonville. It's about 1.4 miles from the subject property. So, yes, we are seeking a zoning change to C1 for Carmen to use as her professional office. I first moved here in the end of 95, beginning in 96. And, you know, I've raised two kids here. Carmen's raised a daughter here. They're both headed off to school in the fall. Carmen started her business here shortly after. Carmen moved here eight years ago. Started the business here first working out of the house, dealing with all those complications, and then has subsequently been leasing office space at a bigger office building. And so this is kind of a continuation for us to continue to reinvest in the community. I have a small manufacturing business. I employ 10 to 12 people. That's in Greer. And so, I mean, we are very invested in the community. And we... We had the opportunity to go around and talk to a bunch of the neighbors to get their feedback, make sure that we were good community members and good neighbors. And the biggest feedback we received was something we actually agreed with, especially living in the community and starting businesses here, raising businesses here, volunteering with different organizations in the community. And that concern is that this would be kind of the first domino to fall for other commercial development. And so the subject property is right on Highway 14 where Adams Mill comes into it. Across the street there's two churches, one of which used to be the YMCA. There's a fire department two doors down. Up the road, maybe eighth of a mile, there is some storage units and a paint shop or automotive body shop, I think. But that's actually, I guess, residential from years ago when it was... I guess, kind of grandfathered in, so to speak. And so we actually feel that the proposed change to see one is going to be in keeping with the, I guess, the expectations and the hope of the community. And it's actually our hope that we will kind of limit future kind of like uncontrolled growth. You know, I don't want to speak for anybody behind me, but the one thing that we heard over and over again was something along the lines of, you know, we don't want this to turn into another, you know, Lawrence Road or Pleasantburg or, you know, Lord forbid, Woodruff Road. And if you just look at the zoning map, that's kind of understandable. But like in a lot of ways, office building, So we have kind of planned on keeping the residential feel of the property. We don't want to have a whole bunch of additional development in that area, but we feel that the nature of the business and the nature of the professional, I guess, commercial business that's conducted there is more in keeping with a residential feel than, you know, all the other... businesses, I guess, the churches and the storage units and things like that. Also, you know, the commercial designation would basically allow us to meet with clients or allow Carmen to meet with clients. I don't know anything about taxes. In a professional setting, away from the 100-pound dog that we have, it'll allow us to reinvest in the community and still kind of keep the residential character and feel and add things like three or four parking spaces, some very conservative signage, things like that. Also, I'm not sure how much more time I have left, but it's come to our understanding that The office district zoning classification may also be an option for this property. We tried to choose the most restrictive zoning classification that was available. We looked originally at the OD classification, but on the left side of the property, there's The house is located 17 feet from the property line, and from my understanding, the setback on that side, the requirement is 25 feet, and so we're at 17 feet, so we're just a little outside of that. If council so wishes, we would happily entertain that as an alternative classification, and I guess kind of depending on your... PREFERENCE AND INSIGHT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD BE HAPPY WITH. THE ONLY REASON WE DIDN'T CHOOSE THAT TO BEGIN WITH WAS AGAIN THE SETBACK ISSUE. SO WE HOPE THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO BE GOOD COMMUNITY MEMBERS. WE'RE ALREADY A PART OF THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE WE LIVE WALKING DISTANCE AWAY. AND WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER OUR CITING APPLICATION.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL?

So all you're doing is you're just converting the home into what office, like a tax office?

Yes. Carmen's an enrolled agent, IRS enrolled agent. Don't worry, she's not. She just worked for the IRS. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Basically a CPA for tax preparation. Yeah, yeah. So, yeah, that's it. Her office there and, you know, help her during tax season type thing. Mm-hmm.

And you're not knocking down the building, you're just... No, yeah, no structural changes to the building.

Just a three-bedroom house now. It's a storage room and, you know, an office and an office for a helper. Anybody else?

Thank you. What was the other classification you considered? I missed that real quick.

The office district, OD. OD.

Have you considered neighborhood commercial district? My only concern is if, you know, like I say all the time, and I'm a broken record here, once we put the commercial district in, if you guys sell the property a year later, they could put a gas station in there. So we have to be very careful about how we approach these things. I mean, it's come to bite us a few times. So have you considered that?

We looked at that originally. We were trying to decide between that and the OD or C1. And the biggest concern really was probably just our ignorance in terms of what is – you know, a zoning classification that I've never heard of. What all does that entail? And does that end up doing something weird down the road?

Well, just in my opinion, I think you'd build a lot more, personally for me and my thoughts on development in Greenville County, that if you want something like the neighborhood commercial district, it would be much more favorable to me saying yes. Simply because we've run into a lot of problems with commercial districts next to residential districts. And I mean, people know what I'm talking about, but that's just something for you to consider. So, Maybe we can talk after but I think that's something sure.

Yeah, there was there was another reason why we Just opted to kind of go the OD and then the c1 route, but to be honest, I can't remember what that was But yeah, we can we'd be amenable to it It's thank Thank You mr. Chairman the and what is that across the street? There's the church. Yeah, there's a church I I think, is it a Baptist church across the street on the left and then the Fellowship Greenville is across the street on the right. I believe that was the one that was the former YMCA, but I'm not 100% sure.

And for Mr. Josh, Is there not in the residential there a special use for home occupation of tax preparation?

Absolutely, yes. And I think that's what they, that I've alluded to this. Oh, he did. I'm sorry. Yeah, what they're doing right now, I think what they've been doing is working and running an office out of the home under that, you know, guise of a home occupation. And then this, you know. gets them out of that situation. But yes, that is something that is viable. And then back to Councilman Gahee's comment, just for the OD and the NC, those are viable options. Obviously, they do until additional steps as far as possible variances and things like that that would take place prior to the rezoning. But those zoning districts do allow for the office use.

So he could do, they could do what they're doing in their house right now, they could do it on this property, just have a special use.

If they live there?

Oh, you have to live there. Okay, gotcha.

And I believe there's some restrictions that like 75% has to be for residential use. For the home, and then 25%, correct.

Yeah, there's some criteria on that. Thank you. What are the kind of contours in the neighborhood for residential use? So you're talking about the neighborhood commercial district? So the way I explain neighborhood commercial district, it's like a smaller review district. It is a special district, but it's not as strenuous or onerous as an FRD or a PD. The items that are required to be submitted are not as much as what those districts would require. There is a set of uses in the use table that can go in that district, but you can also write in uses that will not be there. And so it's kind of like a blend between a review district and a conventional district. You can kind of make it as strict as you want or leave it as open as you want, but there are some things in there with regards to how buildings and parking is associated in the buildings. It can't be at the front. It has to be, I think, to the side or the back. things like that.

So there's some certain regulations on layout and design.

They're bound by them, but once again, if they don't put in, let's say a certain use is permitted. I'm I'm going to pick one, but let's just say the use is permitted under the table 6.1. If they don't want that in the future, they can go ahead and opt in by putting that in their kind of statement of intent, their report that X use will not be permitted. And then if you come along and you purchase the property and you want to put that use, you're back and going through the rezoning major change process to be able to do that.

Any more questions?

Yeah, I may if I just, so under that table 6-1, THIS APPLICANT BECAUSE WE WANT TO GIVE HIM THE LEAST, YOU KNOW, RESPONSIBLE. WE WANT HIM TO BE RESPONSIBLE TO THE COMMUNITY BUT WE DON'T WANT HIM TO HAVE TO LABOR MORE LABOR INTENSIVE TO GO TO REZONE IF WE CAN DO IT THAT WAY BECAUSE I THINK THE C1, I DON'T WANT ANOTHER CAR WASH POPPING UP IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA BECAUSE WE KNOW THE HISTORY THERE. BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE CONDUCIVE TO PUT THAT RESTRICTIVE LANGUAGE IN THERE. That would be for me and my constituents.

And, you know, the option of OD allows for the proposed use. It's not a review district. It is a straight conventional district, but it removes those commercial uses like what you're in, and it limits it to office-related type uses. It does have to have a variance because some of the buffers or the setbacks are a little bit different. So it would require going to the Board of Zoning Appeals prior to the rezoning, but those are some possibilities. And if that's something that Council Planning and Development Committee wants to pursue down the road during this process, that is something that can be

And just to follow up, I think what you've done, come in with the least amount of structural change, that might even be a better option because, again, once you open up a corridor to C1, I mean, but again, with that restrictive on there saying if you were to sell for whatever reason or the property was to transfer, it has to revert back to the process with your restrictions and then come back through the process again. I think that would be the best way to go. That's my opinion. Thank you.

Hey Josh, what's the quickest, because obviously you're trying to make the county more efficient here and I want you guys to go back and start at first base. What's the quickest way if they want to amend this for them to do that? What's the quickest way here?

Well, due to the fact that variances are required, we can't just necessarily change it at P&D to MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE IT TO OD. WE'VE DONE THAT IN THE PAST. Y'ALL CHANGED IT AT THAT POINT AT THE APPLICANT'S, YOU KNOW, REQUEST. BUT THE FACT THERE'S A VARIANCE NEEDED, THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME FIRST. SO WHAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO IS, YOU KNOW, IF THAT IS THE CASE, YOU WOULD NEED TO LET THIS DOCKET KIND OF RUN ITS COURSE. IF THE APPLICANT WITHDRAWS THE DOCKET, THEN THEY'RE GOING TO BE HELD TO A SIX-MONTH PENALTY. if you let this run its course and you decide that, you know, and then they go ahead and submit something to move forward with a different zoning district, if it's denied, OD is a stricter zoning district. So there is no penalty. There's no one-year penalty if they wanted, if it was reversed. If they were trying to get OD and you said no, they'd have to wait a year to come back at C1. If it's a more restrictive zoning district, they can come back immediately. But they've got, but they can go ahead, I apologize for interrupting, they can go ahead In the meantime, if that's the desire of the applicant, they could go ahead, submit their variance application, get that ball rolling, and then that way when it's time to, if the C-1 is denied, submit an application for the OD.

So how does that differ from doing a neighborhood?

Once again, neighborhood commercial, they're going to have to spend a little bit of money up front on submitting plans, on submitting reports, getting necessary information, kind of drafting up the uses, the design of the building, the design of the proposed development, all that stuff that had to be presented like a review district, just not as much.

If they're not changing the structure, they would just...

It would be... Yeah, Todd, do you want to weigh in? I mean, you know that a little bit more than I do, I think, probably.

Yeah, so as a special review district, as part of the application submittal for a neighborhood commercial district, they would still have to have their statement of intent where they establish the site-specific regulations for this district. They would also have to have their preliminary development plan of how the site's going to be developed. even if it's not very much in this case. The reasons for that is because as a staff, we need to actually be able to review any plans or permits that they've submitted against the regulations put in place at the time of rezoning And then if for some reason they sell the property or somebody else acquires it down the line, we need to be able to have those requirements to look back at it, tell people what applies on this site. So accruing that information can take them a little bit more time up front, but it allows the public, council, planning commission, everybody to kind of review that up front and then decide if they are comfortable with approving it or not.

And there are follow-up.

That would be a new application.

And after that, there's always, excuse me, going to be those final development plans like with a PD or an FRD that comes in place every time there's going to be a change or something. So there's those minor major changes that come into play as well.

Any other questions? One last question from our zoning. The possibilities with the zoning that they're asking for right now, vape shop, CBD oil shop. Okay, so that's, if you all understand, that's what we're dealing with right here. So thank you for being a little bit patient with the process.

Anything else? And I'll just say that if y'all would like to discuss further, please feel free to email one of us, schedule some time, and we'll sit down with you.

Okay. Appreciate it.

Thank you. All right. There's three minutes and 52 seconds left for anyone else in favor.

Anyone to speak in favor of this docket? Anyone? Anyone else speak in favor? Seeing none, do we have any to oppose this docket? Give us your name and address for the record, please.

You've got ten minutes. I'm Fred Finch. I live at 102 K Drive, Simpsonville. I'm speaking to the rezoning of property at 907 Highway 14 from residential to commercial. I first want to thank the gentleman who purchased the property for his thoughtfulness in notifying us of the potential zone change. I was born and raised in this area and lived most of my early age as 903 Highway 14. My mother and father previously owned the property at 903, 907 Highway 14, and property at 102 K Drive, which I own, and at 104 K Drive, my neighbors. Thus, this property is a little bit sentimental. But above this, there is a hazardous area at the intersection of Highway 14 and Adams Mill Road at the red light. At any time of the day, there is a long line of traffic at this intersection. Never does any of the area controlled by the red light clear completely, and the traffic continues to back up. This property at 907 Highway 14 is only a few feet from the red light. So entering or exiting this property is almost impossible. This is the only entrance to this property, unless people chose to enter or exit from the back by using my driveway off K Drive. This area is posted, no trespassing. The driveway runs behind the property at 903 Highway 14. The driveway runs 100 feet to the point of an L shape and then continues several 100 feet to my front door. I own all the property that connects to the back of the property at 907 Highway 14. A fence separates the property and is placed on my property. There is a sizable gap at the turn of the driveway. In previous years, we removed this part of the fence to make entering there wide enough for the fire department to come to my residence if needed. This could be attempted to be used by others if they so desired. Thank you for listening. I do understand the tax office would only attract the minimum amount of traffic at any time, but congestion at the red light would increase. And if in a few years this business ceased, I understand this property could never be converted back to residential property, correct? So what business would there be next? Please, I request this property not be zoned commercial. Thank you.

Do we have anyone else to speak against? So I have seven minutes. I need your name and the address or director.

Yeah, Chris Norris, 101 Circle Slope Drive, Simpsonville. I do have a zoning condition you were asked to bring to this meeting. I don't know who I'd give this to. So like I said, I live at 101 Circle Slope Drive in the Holly Trace neighborhood. I'm also president of the Holly Trace HOA and a practicing licensed architect in the state of South Carolina. I'm here today speaking on behalf of the Holly Trace neighborhood. And if I could take a minute, would anyone else oppose? Please raise your hand. Sorry. Anybody else oppose? Please raise your hand. Thanks.

Keep your hands up so we can get a count. Keep your hands up so we can get a count.

I'll continue. Highway 14 from Woodruff Road to Main Street Simpsonville is almost exclusively a residential corridor with very few exceptions. From this particular site, there's no zoned commercial use for over a mile in each direction. Our concern is not so much with how this particular family would like to use the property, but rather the future implications of rezoning this site at all. If this site is changed to C1, it's almost a guarantee that it will never be residential again. The property directly behind this property and sitting directly adjacent to Holly Trace is made up of larger sites owned by only a few property owners. So 5, 10, 15 years down the road, this could very well not be a business anymore. And what's to stop a developer from buying up property around this site and making a case for it all to be commercial? And now all my neighbors on the east edge of Circle Slope Drive have the back end of a strip mall in their backyards. That's a grim but very possible outcome if this is to be rezoned. One of the things that makes our neighborhood special is that it's buffered on all sides by other neighborhoods. It makes our neighborhood feel tucked away, special. It's part of what gives our neighborhood its character and makes it a joy to live in. Changing this little site to commercial might seem inconsequential, but it has the ability to steamroll into something much larger and undesirable for our neighborhood. That's our fear. And that's why approving this would not be the right thing to do. There are plenty of areas in Simpsonville and beyond with appropriately zoned and available spaces that could be leased or purchased for their proposed use. Changing this site would be very convenient for them, but with the implications that has on the future development of our neighborhood along this residential corridor of Highway 14, it's not the right thing to do. There is a right way to rezone. But a rezoning an area needs to be done with thoughtful and careful consideration for the entire area, not just the sole interest of a single party. Thanks.

Name and address. We got four minutes.

Start of the clock so I can say on Greg Ince. Address is 224 Bethany Road in Simpsonville. I am the pastor. of the church that you see in the photo there. One thing that I wanted to make clear as I was listening, the tax office is no longer currently operating out of their home. They said they were started in their home. They've moved to another business that they have been leasing, and now they're trying to purchase this home here. Just so that was clear, it seemed like there may have been some confusion on that. So they're in the tax office. leasing a place, trying to move into another place, see one, they're there, they're gone in another 10 years when they get to retire, hopefully, then what? My history is I've been part of Faith Baptist Church there on Highway 14 for 46 years now. I started attending there when I was a student, and when I was In college, we used to drive back and forth from college to church there on Sunday nights. And even out there on Tanner Road, as we were driving two lane roads, 385 hadn't even been completed at the time. Woodruff Road was two lane. Everything has changed greatly. We even had a friend cow out there on Tanner Road. As we would drive back and forth, there was a spotted cow that would be there by the fence. So me and my buddies, we would bring it snacks from our lunches from college that weren't worth eating, but we had them anyway. And we nicknamed that cow Spot. To our horror, when we came back in September for our next year of school, it was now a subdivision. What happened to Spot? I don't know. We have seen this area grow. We've seen it go through times of rezoning attempts. The property right beside, as we would be looking at it to the left, was tried to rezone into a commercial warehouse. The house that you see behind the property with that nice pretty white driveway, They tried rezoning that to a dance studio. Along with that, we went through the process of having a lot of our property taken from us when the Highway 14 was rewidened. If you look at the nice pretty curved road, which is a whole lot better, they took a lot of land from us to widen the road there and to make it where Adams Mill teed into Highway 14. When we approached the rezoning of THE PROPERTY BEHIND US ON ADAMS MILL ROAD, I USED THE TOPIC STATEMENT OF COMMERCIAL CREEP, WHICH I'VE REFERRED TO. YOU PUT SOMETHING DOWN AND IT'S THIS ZONING, IT'S JUST GOING TO KEEP GROWING AND GROWING AND GROWING AND GROWING. IT'S JUST THE WAY THAT IT IS DOWN AT THE ADAMS MILL OR THE WALMART AREA, FOOD LINE AND ALL THAT. IT IS GROWING AS WE'VE SEEN AND HAVE HEARD OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE GOING ON. Think about this. I don't know what's gonna happen down the road, none of us do. If we could, we'd be in a lot different place than where we are now, so we have to take it a piece at a time. That piece of property, Spot doesn't live there. But if Spot did live there, I'd hope he'd be able to stay and not turn into some business. but he'd have to go away. Thank you for your time.

That's for 10 minutes. We've got like 10 seconds left. We'll move to the next docket.

The next docket is CZ-2026-034. The property is located at 100 Mill Street, Rays Creek Drive, Shark Court, and Donkel Road in Greenville. The applicant is James Richmond of Greenville Land LLC. The 27.01 acre subject property consists of three parcels and is located approximately 0.23 miles northeast of the intersection of Stallings Road and Rutherford Road, currently contains vacant land. This is the zoning of the surrounding area. Subject property outlined here is zoned RM2, multifamily residential district, and I1, industrial district. The request is for RM5, multifamily residential district. You can also see the surrounding property zones. The applicant states that the proposed land use is townhomes. This is the subject site and photos showing the areas surrounding the subject site. Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Todd. The applicant, his or her representative here, if you... Come up and give us your name and your address for the record.

Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Sean Prouty. I represent the family and the company that owns the land. I'm at 148 River Street here in Greenville. Mr. Richmond has taken ill. I was asked to speak on his behalf, so I just wanted to note that. We are a longstanding family business with multiple divisions in the state of South Carolina. We've employed hundreds, if not thousands of employees in our 50 years of presence here. We have a large standing fulfillment center in Lawrence County. I moved myself down here about 15 years ago with my wife and children and couldn't be happier from considering where I came from, New York City. Our family-run business is diverse. We have textile, we have manufacturing, we have charitable foundations, in addition to some other channels. Real estate is also part of our portfolio. The owner is of a certain age where he would like to consider doing some things different that can create a greater legacy for his family, obviously himself, and ultimately for the employee base that we support. We are hopeful to develop this property in vain of the Greenville County initiatives. very green space oriented, properly oriented to the community that surrounds it. This was a former mill site that we owned and operated that we discontinued use in 2003. But it was a woolen mill in its creation in 1940s and was converted to a printing mill for textiles in 1981, I believe. We are hopeful, since the land has been unused for almost 30 years now, to make some good use of it and in turn allow our company and our family's footprint to continue to grow and prosper here in the state of South Carolina.

And I'm Paul Dales with Site Design. I'm the engineer on the project 225 Rocky Creek Road, Greenville.

Any questions for an applicant?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm Steve Shaw. That's District 20, so that would be in my district, so to speak. The railroad track there, you're proposing apartments. Where would the traffic go to get out and go to school, to work, to play? Where would everybody have to go to get out?

It's going to go out through the neighborhood there.

We have multiple access points from Mill Street. We also own additional parcels there not shown that will be referenced in the next point. Rays Creek is one of the main artery points, and we would consider, and we are in the process of acquiring a potential Donkel Road entrance and access point as well for a tertiary point of reference for traffic flow in and out.

Do you live there? Do you even know the traffic flow there?

you'll have your chance and I did actually have another question but I got okay so you're saying you have the possibility of PURCHASING SOMETHING TO GET YOU OUT ONTO DONKEL.

CORRECT.

THERE'S RED LINE THERE. WHAT ARE THE RED LINES RIGHT NOW?

WE OWN THE RED LINE ALL THE WAY TO DONKEL. IT'S A SHARED ROAD WITH THE RADIO INTENNA PARCEL THAT'S BEHIND IT. WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF ACQUIRING THAT PARCEL TO TAKE THAT ROAD AND PUT THAT INTO PLADE SO THAT WE HAVE A, LIKE I SAID, THIRTIARY ACCESS POINT FOR TRAFFIC FLOW.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

ANY OTHER FROM COUNCIL?

Real quick.

What's the proposed number of units?

It varies.

Total, entire project.

The main parcel will be 110 units. The next project that comes up, the next dock, it will be 36. And then if we develop the donkhole parcel where the tower is right now, we're still working on design for that.

So 147 right now. Okay, thank you. Yes, sir. Any more questions?

Thank you, sir.

Thank you. If the last parcel is acquired and developed, it would yield close to 180 in total townhomes at a fair price point and reflect the community's demand. We think it's an excellent use of this property. It is high. There's no line of sight issues. I understand the congestion dynamic in that area. It's not lost on us. That's why we're making every effort to find additional access points for traffic flow and ultimately make it a more beautiful site. The railroad there is light use and is rumored to be probably discontinued in the coming years since that was asked of us. Though heavy use is the one to the right.

This is just one of those out of curiosity questions. Has anybody ever looked into what it costs to build a bridge over that railroad track? And I don't want that to happen. I'm just curious. Do you have any idea what that would cost?

A million, two million dollars? I could ask the city who has been putting in pedestrian bridges and double that a few times. But the biggest issue would be trying to get upgrade and then back down. So even if it was $100,000, it's just not really possible given space.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for clarity, I know you mentioned Donkel, but are you suggesting that there will be access points on both Rays Creek and Shark Court, or would it be just Rays Creek?

Mill Street, Rays Creek, and Donkel would make up the three access points we're working on.

The mill is the current access point to the property.

Okay.

And it's not great. It's a narrow road, and so that's why I'm trying to have other access points so that people can use multiple places. All right.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Any other questions for the representative?

Mr. Chairman, our chairman had the same question I did. I just wanted them to name the other roads that you were thinking about. Okay. So we're fine.

Anybody else?

All right.

Thank you, sirs. We're on our free time. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. Do we have anyone to speak in favor of this docket? Anyone else speak in favor? All right. Seeing none, do we have any opposed?

All right.

We've got 10 minutes. One speaker can do it, or 10 at one minute. Whatever you want. You've got a total of 10 minutes.

Members of the council, Mr. Shaw, thanks for being our councilman. Members of the council.

Name and address so we have a record.

John Kudlak, Dr. John Kudlak, 39 Race Creek Drive. Thank you. It's my house right there, the fourth one. What they're talking about is these properties in here. This Segway, the first docket was a great Segway, and pictures are worth a thousand words. This is what happens after it storms now. right behind these houses on the west side of Grace Creek Drive. Okay. People, neighbors, some of them are holding their own sign. This is what they experience every time that there's a water rain.

And as you can see, we have our own sinkhole.

Okay. And the difference in some of these pictures is a five-foot culvert and a six-foot culvert. Okay. Now, I may be a physician, but I put myself through school digging ditches in West Virginia because my dad was a public servant. So I worked for pipelines. But in medicine, it's pi r to the fourth. When you're moving gas, when you're moving fluids, resistance is pi r to the fourth. So that one foot in diameter means a lot because that r to the four power. But what they're talking about right in here, it's a saddle. When you come into our community, It comes up, it comes down, and it comes back up. There's a large retention pond right here that is very well maintained right behind Ingalls. And the water goes that way, and that's what you see in some of these pictures. The rest of the water comes this way. There's people in this room who have put $15,000 into their backyard where it's already eroded. Okay? But right here you have a lot of permeable surface. Angles right here, no permeable surface. So that water comes this way. When they start putting roofs, driveways, roads in here, they're not permeable. That water's gotta come somewhere. So like I said, that's a saddle. You saw the difference in damage from a five foot pipe to a six foot culvert. This is all the culvert. that is going through that saddle. There is a retention pond up behind where I'm taking the picture from. It's not maintained. There's trees in it that are probably 10 to 15 years old. So when they start developing that, that water's going to come rolling. And it's got to come to this. There's a drain right here that I'm standing on. But that is a 24-inch drain. That's a five-foot drain. These ones were six foot. There needs to be a water impact study, a hydrologist, because there's going to be a lot of water rolling downhill. That damage right there, some of that, is only from about one quarter of that lot rolling that way. The reason why we don't have that damage coming this way is all the permeable surface there. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

We have around six minutes. Anyone else want to speak? Name and address for the record, please.

Good evening. My name is BJ Flora. I'm the president of the Linkside 309 Couples Court. I'm the president of the Linkside 3 Property Owners Association, representing all of us over here. While other speakers will address additional concerns, I would like to focus on two issues I believe are critical to your decision, traffic and safe access and egress. Linkside 3 has a single entrance and exit located just 587 feet from the intersection of Rutherford Road, STALLINGS ROAD. ACCORDING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA DOT, THAT INTERSECTION ALREADY OPERATES AT A LEVEL OF SERVICE F, THE LOWEST POSSIBLE RATING. CURRENT ESTIMATES SHOW APPROXIMATELY 516 DAILY TRIPS ON RACE CREEK DRIVE. IF THIS REZONING IS APPROVED, THAT NUMBER IS PROJECTED TO INCREASE TO APPROXIMATELY 1,667 DAILY TRIPS. MORE THAN 1100 ADDITIONAL VEHICLE TRIPS EVERY DAY, THOSE VEHICLES WILL ULTIMATELY FEED INTO AN INTERSECTION THAT IS ALREADY FAILING. This corridor is already under tremendous pressure. Along the 2.9-mile stretch of Stallings Road between Rutherford and Reed School Road, there are 753 additional homes that are either completed or under construction. Before much of that development even occurred, the Rutherford Road and Stallings Road intersection experienced 380 crashes, including 94 with injury between 2017 and 2021. These facts demonstrate why comprehensive traffic impact study should be completed before any decision is made. The county should evaluate the cumulative impact of existing development, approved projects, and this proposed rezoning before adding even more traffic to an already overburdened roadway. My second concern is access and emergency egress. The application identifies Rays Creek, Mill Street, and Donkel Street as access points. Each presents significant concerns. Race Creek is the only entrance and exit for Linkside 3. Connecting this development through our neighborhood would force two communities to depend on a single access point. Mill Street is less than 30 feet wide and to our knowledge cannot be widened because of existing right-of-way limitations. The proposed Donkel Street connection is even more concerning. This access corridor is only 27 feet of property and as narrow as 17 feet wide in places. and follows an indirect route around a radio tower, a cemetery, before exiting between two commercial businesses. It does not provide a direct, reliable, or adequately sized access route for a high-density residential development. In addition, both Mill Street and Donkel Street cross active railroad tracks, creating the potential for delayed or blocked emergency response when every minute counts. As Greenville City Planning Manager Shannon Larvin said, growth that is unchecked and unguided is not what we are pursuing. I believe that principle applies here. We are not opposed to growth, but growth must be supported by infrastructure that protects both existing and future residents. For these reasons, I respectfully request the Council require a comprehensive traffic impact study and fully evaluate the proposed access and emergency egress before considering approval of these dockets. Until those issues are addressed, I respectfully ask that these rezoning requests are denied. I have also provided some documentation for your review that better illustrates Donkel Street, Mill Street, and Race Creek. Thank you.

Good evening, counsel. I'm Evan Whaley. I live at 100 Couples Court. And so that is in Linkside 3 community directly adjacent to this property. I work full time in residential real estate here in Greenville County and I'm asking you to deny this rezoning for four reasons. The first, this request contradicts the county's own plan. Most of this land is zoned industrial today and the county's future land use map designates this area as industrial. Research on train noise shows why that plan makes sense. It found no meaningful effect on commercial property values, but a 14% to 18% value loss on residential. This property sits directly against a railroad, as we've already found out. Rezoning it for housing would put the most noise-sensitive use in the one place that data says it does not belong. Second, we are concerned about what this project could become over time. We already kind of heard this one before. But a rezoning like this is permanent and runs with the land. And this concept has not shown that it will be binding. So the zoning of RM5 and RM10, these parcels could carry actually even more units, actually up to 172 units just for this land we're talking about today. Configured differently than it's shown. Under this owner or a future one. If the development truly intends to build what is shown, you have an ordinance from the planned development district that would make that binding. And they just chose to do a simple rezoning instead of to leave that option open. The third, the market does not need this product at all. There are 645 townhouses for sale in our market right now, while only 639 in Greenville County sold in the past six months. That's a six-month of supply. In real estate, that means we're in a buyer's market, just so everyone knows. New townhouses take approximately 113 days to sell, whereas single-family houses take 67. The market is telling us plainly Greenville County does not need 110 more townhouses. Fourth, this project shifts real costs onto families already living here. Today, the woods on this site buffer our homes from the railroad. They absorb noise and generate none. This proposal clears that buffer, replaces it with 146 dwellings, parking lots, and around-the-clock lighting. The research is clear that more noise around a neighborhood translate directly into lower home values. Access is unresolved as well. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE GOT SOME CLARITY ON THIS AND BEFORE WE DIDN'T QUITE HAVE FULL CLARITY. BUT WHETHER THIS DEVELOPMENT USES MILL OR DONKEL, NEITHER CROSSING IS READY FOR IT. MILL STREET IS PRIVATE TODAY AND CONVERTING IT TO PUBLIC TRAIN HORNS THAT DO NOT SOUND THERE TODAY WHILE DONKEL HAS NO GATES, NO LIGHTS OR BELLS ON THE FEDERAL INVENTORY. EITHER ROUTE MEANS TAXPAYERS FUNDED INFRASTRUCTURE OR SOME ADDITIONAL COST THAT HAS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE. Crossing safety upgrades, wider roads, and improved intersections. There's been no acoustic study done or safety review that we're aware of. So the county's plan calls for industrial use here. The market is not asking for more townhouses, and the cost would be substantial to the families already living here. So I respectfully ask for you to deny these requests. Thank you.

We have used our ten minutes, so we'll move to the next topic. We have moved to use our 10 minutes, so we'll move to our next docket.

The next docket is CZ-2026-035. The property is located at Rays Creek Drive in Greenville. The applicant is James Richmond of Greenville Land, LLC. The 3.77-acre subject property consists of one parcel and is located approximately 0.16 miles northeast of the intersection of Stallings Road and Rutherford Road. It currently contains vacant land. This is the zoning of the surrounding area. Subject property outlined here is zoned C2 Commercial District. The request is for RM10 Multifamily Residential District. You can also see the surrounding property zones. The applicant states that the proposed land use is apartment buildings. This is the subject site and photos showing the area surrounding the subject site. Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Todd. Is the applicant or his or her representative here? We know who you are, but for the record, give us your name and address again.

Making so many friends today. Again, Sean Prouty, Senior Vice President of Operations and Legal Affairs for the Richland family, as well as the Richland Asset Base and Company, 148 River Street, Greenville. This is an additional parcel that is adjacent to the ones we just discussed, and our intent is to continue to develop areas that we company owns into a more prudent and useful purpose. This is an idea we have that we think would benefit the community because there is a lack of RM10 zoning, and we'd like to limit it to this parcel only to have as least disruptive aspect as possible. We continue to make every effort to account for environmental and any other impact. We are a responsible partner. We have been in this state for 50-plus years. We employ hundreds of people, like I have said, and we have every intention of being a good neighbor. I maintain the property as it is now, and our company will continue to do so in perpetuity.

I'm Paul Mills, engineer of site design, 225 Rocky Creek Road. To respond to a few of the comments people made, right now we are in a very schematic design level and still working through things, but we will follow all of the Greenville County zoning and land development requirements as we always do. And assuming the Mountain Creek addendum goes through, which it probably will, that requires a 100-year stormwater detention. And so usually it's 1025, and so that's going to go to 100. And even if that does not get passed, we can do a 100-year detention pond to lessen any issues that may occur. But we will follow all the rules. We work with Josh and Todd all the time. And there's a lot more to this project than what we have talked about tonight as far as what we're going to do to limit disturbance to anyone. And it's just very early in that process to try to get too early to get into the weeds of it.

Any questions for applicants?

I'm sorry. And I don't know the answer to this, but why is it always residential in this? IN THE SAME AREA THERE. IS THERE NO MARKET TO PUT MORE SERVICES THERE OR OFFICES OR THINGS THAT ALL THESE PEOPLE WHO ALREADY LIVE THERE AND THE NEW PEOPLE WHO HAVE COME TO USE? IS IT JUST RESIDENTIAL IS THE MOST HIGHEST AND BEST USE FROM THE DEVELOPER'S PERSPECTIVE?

It's what the family has decided to do, is residential. And it was industrial before, and they do industrial now. They could always go put another factory there if they wanted to. I don't know if that would be a better option for the neighborhood. If you want to look at stores, retail, restaurant, bars, whatever, that's always an option that they could look into doing. But it just seems that having another subdivision behind an existing subdivision and the use they need, especially the multifamily, There's no other multifamily in this area. It just seems like a better use for the property and more cohesive with the surroundings.

And thank you. And then that leads me to another question is why not compatible single-family large lots? You know, can not enough – that's not a good use or highest and best use?

There are some environmental limitations for subdividing the property, so the property would not be subdivided. It would be that the townhomes would be on one parcel.

Yes.

So this, just to make sure I'm clear on these, this is the parcel for the apartments, correct? Correct. How many units?

Right now we have 36.

And then all that would be Race Creek Drive since there's no other access points, correct? Correct.

Well, right now, the current plan has an access point going from Race Creek to Mill. And if they're able to purchase the donkle, then accessing somehow through donkle. And yeah, the existing property line that goes through donkle to donkle is not an actual road that we could drive down as far as traffic, amount of traffic getting a fire truck down it. So the developer has already looked at and talked to the people who own the two parcels behind the cemetery there and the tower building, tower parcel, about obtaining some property from them to have a proper driveway going through there. So those are all discussions that have been had already and are still in the works.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Palmer. What are the environmental barriers that are preventing you from subdividing it?

The mill was a woolen mill in its early operations. Woolen mills used diethyhexamethylene in terms of their woolen cleaning process. This would have been about 60 years ago, which was discontinued. Groundwater studies showed that there is diethyhexamethylene in the warm groundwater, and as an advisory from the EPA as well as DHEC, that to not develop a single family with exposed yards. We could, in theory, import dirt and do things to overcome that obstacle, but that is how it's written currently. Dirt's expensive. Thank you.

Any other questions from council? All right. Seeing none. Y'all have anything else? All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. All right. We have anyone else to speak in favor of this docket? Anyone else in favor? All right. We have 10 minutes for those who are opposed.

John Kudlak, 39 Race Creek. I just want to go on record as well as my friends, so come on up. But that water is all rolling to that Ingalls retention pond that is flooding those yards.

My name is Tom Glass. I'm at 109 Shark Court around the corner from this shown up here. I'M ALSO THE TREASURER OF THE LINKSIDE 3 HOA ON THE HOA BOARD. SO SUMMARIZE A COUPLE THINGS HERE AND THEN I'LL TALK ABOUT MY TOPIC. BUT THAT MILL STREET THAT THEY'RE REFERENCING, IT COMES OUT IN A VERY DANGEROUS CURVE. RUTHERFORD, I THINK THE SPEED LIMIT IS 45, ROUTINELY SEE 50, 55, AND PEOPLE SWING AROUND THERE. SO IF YOU'RE COMING OUT OF MILL STREET JUST AS A PRACTICE, IT'S PRETTY MUCH pretty difficult to go left or right out of that exit. So I wanted to add to that. My main point is environmental, and they kind of referenced the limitations for that. But the Rich Loom Fabric, they did submit a voluntary cleanup WITH THE SCDES, I BELIEVE, WHICH IS COMMENDABLE. IT WAS FILED, I THINK, 2023. SO THERE'S NO COMPLETION CERTIFICATE YET. AND SO AS SOMEBODY THAT LIVES MY PROPERTIES DIRECTLY ADJACENT ON THE BACK, I HAVE A PRESENT CONCERN AND THEN A FUTURE CONCERN. PRESENT IS IF THIS GOES THROUGH, THEY START DEVELOPING AND MOVING DIRT, WE'RE IN SOUTH CAROLINA, In the heat of the summer, we're going to have a lot of dust. There's also, in that voluntary cleanup, there was deodorant was one of the contaminants, which is an insecticide in the ground, in the soil. So it's a potential carcinogen. So that's a present concern. If they start grading and moving that dirt, that's going to be dust to our community right in that immediate area. But then also in the future, for the potential future residents, As they said, what impact is there being put in place to that? I think the cleanup does indicate that they would put a restrictive covenant on limiting wells. But again, what about the soil component? So those are my two concerns environmentally, in addition to the watershed and traffic that our community has already indicated. Thank you.

Anyone else care to speak? Opposed? Come up. Name and address for the record.

Brenda Bujik, 200 Barrow Way, Taylors. I live in the same community as this development, as you all probably know. I just want to stress something that's already been mentioned, that once it's an RM-5 and an RM-10, there is no commitment About whether they're going to acquire the other land for another entrance nor is there any Commitment as to what will be done with the land and we all know Five years from now it could be sold with these new categories on it Which could be much worse than what they have suggested but even so the traffic situation and the egress in that particular location for Rays Creek Ingalls and businesses across the street, and there is another subdivision just up Stallings from this one. So that's all. Thank you.

Got six minutes. Anyone else want to speak against?

My name is Greg Mazak. I'm here with my wife, Nancy. We live at 18 Bobby Jones Cork, Greenville, South Carolina. My wife and I, we've been residents of Greenville County for over 40 years. We've raised our three daughters here. They're now living in Greenville County as well with their husbands. And I just want to thank you guys that we have an opportunity to express our concerns, especially Mr. Shaw, our councilman. As you hear about what's being proposed, I just want to help you to realize that all of this is basically going through our subdivision. If I were to ask you, would you be okay with somebody putting up 200, 180 units and the main point of access and departure would be through your subdivision? If I speak to you as parents, as I speak to you as grandparents, as I speak to you about people who care about safety and care about the area that we live in, I am confident that if any of you gentlemen would come and visit us, even this evening, my wife and I invite you over for coffee, and you would be welcome to come, that you would immediately say, if I lived in this community, I would not want there to be the kind of traffic that we're talking about going through our quiet neighborhood that's going to be supporting roughly 180 apartments and townhomes. And I've always thought it's a good thing to treat others the way you want to be treated. And if you would, again, come and visit our area, I think you would understand that what we're requesting is actually quite reasonable. Thank you so much for this opportunity, and thank you for your time. God bless you.

Anyone else care to speak against? We still have four minutes. Come and give us your name and address.

Gentlemen, I'm Brody Brick. I live in one Bobby Jones court, and I had not planned to speak. I want to just leave you with one word, houses, houses, houses, but how does that impact our schools? I spent 53 years as a school administrator in Greenville County, and I If you come down to Stallings Road, you guys know because y'all approved for zoning. You got Roberts Farm up there with all those houses. The others that are on the golf course that they haven't built yet. But Taylor's Elementary, Severe Middle, and Wade Hampton High School are greatly impacted. So as you think about adding more houses, and the gentleman I couldn't see that said maybe some other businesses, I'd vote for that. We have enough residents. And you cannot get on Stallings Road if you're going to work from 7 o'clock to 8 o'clock. So schools, think about that as we approve all of these different houses and 88 more in our neighborhood that will come right out. I live right down that corner, and they're going to come through my yard. But that's all right. You know, I hope that won't happen. But anyway, thank you. Just remember, schools, as you continue to change zoning for houses and multi-drillings. Thank you.

Come on up, we've got three minutes. Gentlemen, just one short thing.

Give us your name and address so we'll have it clear.

Elmer Lott, 331 Rays Creek Drive, Greenville, South Carolina. Thanks to Tom Jackson here, I'm sure y'all know him. Everybody else does if y'all don't. We have our lots and homes in that area. We have 700 to a million dollar homes in that area. 700,000 to a million. One just sold for a million, what, 26? And one is on listed for $926,000 right now as we speak. We do not need any apartments or town homes. And they said they were gonna put how many town homes in there? They're gonna put about 190. townhomes in that section, and 32 apartment units. That will devalue our homes tremendously. And I certainly oppose it, and I hope you all do. Thank you. Thank you.

You know what? We got a minute. A minute and 20-something seconds. Anyone else want to speak? Name and address for the record, please.

Kyle Rowan, Four Couples Court. I talked to some of you fine gentlemen on Tuesday of last week. Appreciate the time and everything here. But, you know, one of my friends here, Mr. Kudlak, mentioned that we had spent money protecting our yards from runoff. That little creek running through this proposed area, Me and my wife just anted up about $12,000 to protect our backyard from runoff that's been going on for 20 years of living there. So here's a face with $12,000 about that creek. Thank y'all for y'all's time.

35 seconds. Anybody else? All right, we got one more.

Jason Weckl, Eight Couples Court, Reno, South Carolina. We moved into the neighborhood in February because our house near the clubhouse in Pebble Creek had seven feet of water and when Hurricane Halit hit. When we moved into this neighborhood, our kids are 11 and 9. The thing we love the most is the children of just riding bikes, scooters, playing everywhere. It feels like it would be a danger to the children to have 180 units times however many cars to eliminate that problem. I APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.

MR. CHAIRMAN, DO YOU WANT TO LET

Good job. Good job. I'm good. I got it.

The next docket is CZ-2026-036. The property is located at Grove Reserve Parkway and Interstate 185 in Piedmont. The applicant is Rick Cawthon of International Properties, LLC. The 0.95 acre subject property consists of a portion of one parcel and is located approximately 0.2 miles southwest of the intersection of Grove Reserve Parkway and Augusta Road, Highway 25, currently contains vacant land. This is the zoning of the surrounding area. Subject property outlined and shaded here is Zone C3, Commercial District. The request is for I-1, Industrial District. You can also see the surrounding property zones. The applicant states that the proposed land use is a speculative industrial building. This is the subject site and photos showing the areas surrounding the subject site. Mr. Chairman, I should just add that dockets 36, 37, and 38 are sort of all related. We'll go through them one by one, but I believe the applicant may want to kind of speak to them all together here.

Mr. Chairman, Lynn Soulsby, 718 Lowndes Hill Road, Greenville, 29607. And as Todd mentioned, all these three dockets related, I was just going to kind of do one quick presentation for the first docket. As things go on, if you want me to pop back up and answer any questions, if any come up, I'm happy to, but... Do you want me to go to the... If you could. Okay. Also, I had a few more... things that I didn't get in slides before I gave it to Todd, and I believe they've been handed out to you that maybe at the end of the day would make things a little clearer. Okay, next slide please. So the existing zoning, this is basically what Todd showed is my client owns the industrial purple area, and they've entered into a land swap agreement with, and that's the Pasco folks, and then the Wong family, international properties, owns the C3 property. And the goal is we want to rezone these properties to square the properties up and make them developable for both commercial and industrial, because right now, The C3 pushing into the industrial makes it fairly undevelopable or difficult. Next, please. And we acknowledge the land use map. Future land use map recommends all of this property to be industrial. We respect and I love doing industrial development, so I'm a big fan of it. We very much want to be able to do industrial development here, but we've got to zone some property around to square it up and make it REASONABLY DEVELOPABLE. THAT'S THE KEY TO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE HERE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, DOCTOR. SO THIS IS JUST, I'VE BEEN KIND OF TALKING THROUGH THIS, AND YOU'LL SEE THIS IN THE EXHIBITS THAT COME UP NEXT, PARCEL 1B WONG WILL BE ZONED C3 TO I1 And we'll then go to PASCO so they can square it up. And that's one of the sheets you've got. You'll see how it ends up. And then on the back side of that sheet, there's a preliminary site plan showing how we would put two industrial buildings back to back with a shared truck court. And then parcel 2B will be rezoned from I-1 to C-2 and swapped to Wong. Parcel 2B, Wong would then be rezoned C-3 to C-2 and remain with Wong. And the reason we're pursuing the C-2 is if you noticed on the The zoning map is Spinks or Enigma owns, I think, two or three acres along 25 that's sown C2. And it was our belief that it is possible, there's no guarantee on how these things work, but because of some of the various access issues along 25, we feel like it's reasonable and likely that they will eventually put their properties together. Who will be the ultimate developer, I don't know. And we were trying to avoid having a split C3, C2 thing, and just have it all consistently C2. Next slide, please, Doc. And so you can see it's a little small from here, but you can see what is purple is now the Wong's property that will go from C3 to C2, and the red on the left is owned by Wong's. They will swap that to Pasco, and it will become I1. Next, please. And that's just a little more detailed without the background, so it's a little clearer what's red and what's sort of red and blue or purple. Next, please. And then the purple area, that would all become C2. That's now owned by PASCO and is zoned I1. Next, please. Any questions? And then you can see that I apologize for not being able to get it in time to get to Todd. Any questions?

Council, any questions? All right. Can we go ahead and ask for... All right. We'll see anybody here who wants to speak up on behalf of this ordinance. This is a zoning, sorry. Anyone speak on behalf? Anyone? All right. Anyone speak against? Anyone? All right.

We'll move on to the next docket. The next docket is CZ-2026-037. Property is located at Grove Reserve Parkway and Interstate 185 in Piedmont. The applicant is James Malm of NAI Earl Furman for Augusta Grove Pascoe II, LLC. The 3.56 acre subject property consists of a portion of one parcel and is located approximately 0.2 miles southwest of the intersection of Grove Reserve Parkway and Augusta Road, Highway 25, currently contains vacant land. This is the zoning of the surrounding area. Sorry about that. Generally the same property, but this is the subject property in question. Subject property outlined and shaded here is zoned I-1 Industrial District. The request is for C-2 Commercial District. You can also see the surrounding property zones. The African states that the proposed land use is commercial. And this is the subject site and photos showing the area surrounding it. Mr. Chairman.

Do we want to go through the process? Well, we need to. We need legal. We have to. This Damon address for the record.

Lynn Solsby, 718 Loudsville Road. Happy to answer any questions if something came up in the last three minutes that I missed. Any questions?

All right. Thank you, sir.

Anyone here to speak on behalf of this zoning? Anyone? Seeing none. Anyone to speak against this zoning? Seeing no one. Next docket, Todd.

This might look familiar. The next docket is CZ-2026-038. The property is located at Grove Reserve Parkway and Interstate 185 in Piedmont. The applicant is Rick Cawthon of International Properties LLC. The 0.9-acre subject property consists of a portion of one parcel and is located approximately 0.2 miles southwest of the intersection of Grove Reserve Parkway and Augusta Road. It currently contains vacant land. This is the zoning of the surrounding area. Subject property outlined and shaded here is on C3 commercial district. The request is for C2 commercial district. You can also see the surrounding property zones. The applicant states that the proposed land use is commercial. This is the subject site and photos showing the area surrounding the subject site. Mr. Chairman.

Is his or her representative here? Name and address for the record.

Lynn Solsby, 718 Louds Hill Road. Best way I've got my steps in lately. This is good. Any questions?

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Anyone here speak on behalf of this zoning? Anyone? Seeing no one. Anyone here speak against this zoning? Seeing no one. We'll move to the next docket.

The next docket is CZ-2026-039, which is to amend Article 6, Section 6213, Home Occupation of the Greenville County Zoning Ordinance. Under the current home occupation requirements, all home-based business operations must take place within the footprint of the home and cannot occupy more than 25% of the structure. This limits the types of businesses which may be operated from a home site. The Board of Zoning Appeals requests that a text amendment be made to the Home Occupation Regulations of the Greenwood County Zoning Ordinance to allow for more flexibility in how home-based businesses operate. Section 1 would add a land use, apologies, Section 1 would add a land use definition for small-scale urban farming, which reads, small-scale production of agricultural products, such as produce and flowers grown to sell through a marketing channel, such as a farmer's market, CSA, or other means. This does not include the production of animals or their products. Section 2 would continue to limit the amount of non-residents employed on site, but would remove the verbiage that allows for employees that are not members of the applicant's immediate family. It would place a limit on the number of clients that could be on the site at any one time, up to a maximum of three, excluding daycare clients. And then the amendment would also add four new uses to the accepted home occupation list. Artist, massage therapy, real estate professional, and small-scale urban farming. These are among the more common requests that staff receives. Artists and small-scale urban farming would be able to utilize up to 25% of the parcel area. Mr. Chairman I guess I should add so this proposed amendment stems from under our current home occupation requirements there are some limits on the There's a fairly short list of the types of home-based businesses which are permitted outright. If somebody wants to do a business that is not on this list, they have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals and ask for a special exception. So some of those more common requests that we do receive have been added to this list. Also, some businesses, some properties may be larger in nature, more rural in nature, and if somebody wanted to have a business where they were an artist, maybe needed some separate artist space or maker space on the site, or if they were looking to do some sort of agricultural, small-scale farming type of use, they would need to be able to utilize more of the property, where under the current home occupation requirements, they can only utilize up to 25%. of the actual home footprint. So this change was geared towards, you know, helping those people with those larger rural lots try to use more of that property. If you all have more specific questions, like I said, we could kind of go through this in a little bit more detail.

And I'll just say that I know there was some concern, speaking with, kind of from Blunt today, excuse me, regarding daycares. Like Todd said, This will not affect daycare centers with regards to the amount of people. What Todd's referring to as three, if you'll go back a slide, Todd. Under J there, no more than three clients, patients, pupils, excluding daycare, maybe present on the property any one time. We have some of these uses, like Todd mentioned, office uses, beauty bar or things like that, that we currently have no regulations on the amount of people that can be there. So the amount of people that's there generates more traffic. GENERATES POSSIBLE LIFE SAFETY ISSUES. SO BY LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT THEY CAN HAVE, WE'RE, YOU KNOW, IN ESSENCE GOING TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF PARKING AND TRAFFIC AND ALSO REDUCE ANY KIND OF HOPEFULLY LIFE SAFETY ISSUES THAT COULD OCCUR. BUT ONCE AGAIN, IT DOES NOT, THAT DOES NOT PLAY INTO DAYCARES AT ALL.

You made a comment that the lists have been populated with requests that you've received that are general. I take it these are requests you've received that have been approved? Correct, yes. Okay. Do you get any of the requests that are not approved?

We have. I believe most recently we had a request for a nail salon that was going into the basement of a home. That was turned down after quite a lot of pushback from community. And then also the board did not feel that it could meet the requirements for a home occupation due to the types of modifications that would have to be done to the home. So those kinds of requests would still have to go through the board? They would, yes.

Okay, thank you. Chairman Blunt?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So just, I'm looking at the chart now, but just to clarify, based on the prior screen for instruction and tutoring, academic tutor, music teacher, dance instructor, would that apply to them as far as the limit of what they can have?

Correct. So it doesn't turn their front yard or backyard or property into a parking lot due to the amount of people. And obviously there's turnover, you know, if there's someone that's You know, if they're teaching three people and the next group's coming in, I mean, and there's possible turnover, you know, that's okay. You know, we'll work with that. But it's just to limit, because we do get complaints. You know, there's cars parked along the road. You know, there's always cars in the driveway. You know, things of that nature is to help try to just reduce that.

And second follow-up question is I don't know. When it comes to education, to that aspect, I don't know how certain groups do, but some may have more than three students. So is there a way for them to get an exception or variance through BZA if they do have more?

That's correct. So the conditions are what they have to do. If they want to seek a variance from those conditions, that can be done through the Board of Zoning Appeals. Either way, the use... If the use is not approvable on a staff level and they have to go to the board, that's a use by special exception. And if they're wanting to seek a variance to do something that is not in line with those conditions, then they can seek that variance. For example, we have one where – and I know the chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals is here as well and can answer questions. But we had a request for someone to utilize a detached structure for a gun – I can't remember what was it, gun assembling or firearm assembling, something along those lines. And they sought a variance on top of that and was granted a variance to be able to do that in the detached building. So, you know, those, even though it says on there, it can only be in the principal dwelling. So there are opportunities for that.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Any other questions?

All right. Seeing none, do I have anyone to speak for this? It takes a minute. Give me a half.

Good evening, Chairman. Good evening, Councilors. I'm Michael Roth, 1415 Lawrence Road. I serve as your chair of the Greenville County Board of Zoned Appeals. I'm here tonight to speak on behalf of this text amendment to amend the home occupation. This amendment was not meant to be a policy change on driving home occupations. What it does is really clean up the drafting that we feel has not kept pace with our growth. And it's some of the drafting that the board runs into again and again of what you've heard from staff. So one of the clearest examples was the current tax requires that home occupation be conducted in principal structure. And then separately limited to 25%. There were some questions because there was a principal structures mentioned later down and we would have civil arguments on the board as to whether the principal structure or principal structures reigned because there was no definition in our zoning ordinance as to what a principal structure actually was. And so we would have people that would argue that a detached garage could be a principal structure of their residence. Yes. So again, this gives staff a little more leeway to approve a lot of the uses that we have seen. So for example, that nail salon that came before us, there was a clear example where they had three or four booths, if you will. I don't know what you call them, booths, of which they would have a number of people working there. And it was a very clear example that it did not fit the intent of a home occupation. Again, we feel like this amendment makes a handful of other common sense updates in the same spirit. It replaces an outdated and ambiguous employee provision line with a simple standard. That's Section A that you see on your screens. It adds a definition of small-scale urban farming, reflecting the growth of farmers' markets and community-supported agriculture in our county. It also modernizes the terminology through some of the sections. Again, we feel like this is very important for the residents as home occupations is how some of the residents in this county earn a living. They come to us at the Board of Zone and Appeals, and sometimes it does not quite fit their situation. And at times, we have been hamstrung because of the text as it's written. When the ordinance is clear and internally consistent, residents get predictable answers. And staff can administer the ordinance evenly, and the board can decide on the merits rather than wrestle with drafting conflicts. When it is not reasonable, people are told no for reasons that have nothing to do with the actual impact to their neighborhood. The board reviewed and passed this amendment. working with staff and because we felt that it kept with the zoning ordinance as what it was supposed to do, serve the residents of Greenville County as the ways that they live and work, as work continues to evolve. So on behalf of the board, I respectfully ask that you consider, that you favorably consider this. Thank you and I'm happy to answer any questions.

I do. The ability to conduct business outside of the principal residence or structure, is that only agricultural, the small farming, or some guy... No, no, that really gives... We had a case, for example, I think dog breeding, actually.

There was a dog breeding case that came before us, and it was technically a detached garage. And... We, again, there were some previous questions that says principal structure, but then it also later in another section says principal structures. And so we used to have arguments on the board as to what that actually means. And so in that case with the breeding operation, they stated, well, they were only having people come to the garage to pick up the dog rather than actually raising or breeding the dogs in the garage. So I think this gives a little bit clearer case for us to allow a variance for a detached garage or like an accessory structure on the property for rural and semi-rural areas in our county.

And also, there are the two uses, as you can see there, artist and small-scale urban farming. If you were to come in today with an application to do that, staff can approve that as something that is outside of the principal dwelling. If it's a use that is not one of those two and you want to use a detached building, that's the process you would still go through with the variance and ask the board because it's varying a set of the regulations that's there.

Okay.

And then they would go, that gives the opportunity for public comment from surrounding property owners that could be affected from that use.

All right. And I was on the BCA, by the way. And one of the things that had come up is that sometimes the applicant isn't up front about their HOA not allowing something. Do you guys have a rigorous process of making them bring in the covenants and BECAUSE YOU CERTAINLY WOULDN'T WANT TO, ONCE THEY GET AN OKAY FROM YOU, THEY THINK IT'S STILL OKAY. SURE. BUT IT'S NOT OKAY. DO YOU STILL HAVE A PROCESS?

THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I'D HAVE TO DEFER TO STAFF ON THAT. We have a checkbox that says, is this against any, you know, this is against CCRs. So if someone's not, you know, if someone's lying on their application, we don't have a way to correct that. I think staff normally does a good job of researching for us to provide us the necessary information in our packets ahead of time. And I think there's also a mechanism of which residents can complain because if they were lying on their application, that would immediately revoke their special use permit.

Yeah, South Carolina Planning Enabling Act states that local government jurisdictions have to ask, have to inquire whether or not there are deed restrictions. It takes us out of the title search process for trying to research those deed restrictions, because, you know, as you know, some of them can be old, but still are active. So we ask, we have that on our application, are there any, and if they say no, yes, then we automatically, okay, provide those to us and we'll make sure if there are anything that would prevent us from moving forward. If they say no, then we move forward with that until we receive, you know, the state law says that if we are given the documents that show otherwise, I mean, then that's pretty much where we stop and say, you got to clear this up first. You said no, you got to go clear this up and then come back.

I think we've had a few examples of that, too, with people that send emails and complaints to us.

Yeah, and we find out at the meeting when someone comes and speaks in opposition, and then we hold the docket and say, y'all got to figure that out first before we can move forward. Perfect. Okay.

One last question was, does the sheriff know about all these applicants doing small-scale farming inside their house?

That I cannot speak to.

When we tell somebody currently that they can only do it inside their home, they kind of shy away from it. So we have asked if people want to do, Todd, we've had some want to do the microgreens and their basement with the hydroponic system.

We've definitely gotten that question.

Home last thing I think I mean the Planning Commission's all here and thank you guys That's a lot of service on these boards and it's volunteers.

So thank you Does homeschooling fall under the definition of child daycare home That's a good question If you don't mind if it if it is a parent teaching then

That has nothing to do with us. If you're teaching your own kid and homeschooling your own child, we're not going to get involved in that. If you are homeschooling another child, we would probably put that more under a tutoring or something of that, which would be something that staff could approve. But once again, you start getting into multiple...

Like a co-op.

Yeah, then you're going to start getting, you know, it's that life safety aspect. And one of the things that was on here, Todd, if you'll go back to where we struck the parking, I think, we did take out, maybe it's not on there, the zoning ordinance currently has a section to adhere to Article 12 of the zoning ordinance for parking. Well, these home occupations cannot adhere to Article 12 because Article 12 requires there to be handicapped parking. If you have handicapped parking, You've got to have handicapped access. You've got to have handicapped restaurants. You've got to have the whole structure has to be handicapped. So in essence, you're completely altering the home into a non-residential use at that point. So that's why we took out parking adhering to Article 12 and just put a limitation on how many people could actually be there.

Mr. Chairman. Well, Mr. Henderson, people were complaining about people parking in the driveway and

We have received complaints about there's always cars here and there's always cars on the road.

I mean, I understand cars on the road, but I'm trying not to.

You would be surprised at some of the complaints that we do receive.

I'm trying not to blow a gasket over people just trying to treat our county like an HOA.

We receive complaints on someone throwing birthday parties.

But just to counter that, and I don't disagree with you, we've had, on the BZA, we had it where, say, the boyfriend drops the girlfriend off to go in and get massage or nails or whatever, so you got a boyfriend sitting around outside for two hours out, and you got kids walking down the street, so it creates uneasiness to parents.

Councilman Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So the child care would be exempt from the ADA requirements?

Child care has to fall under, why can't I think of it, Todd?

DSS.

DSS, thank you. I've got too many acronyms running around my head. It would fall under their requirements, so whatever their requirements are. We defer to them. We just allow it. They have a certain number of kids that they allow in a home, in a home daycare center or situation, so we just defer to their regulations. That's because they're the inspecting authority?

Correct.

Thank you.

Any other questions? I will just add to that that DSS, they will often reach out to us to ask if somebody has gotten their approval or permits through us first before they... do their part as well.

As well as anything related to firearms. ATF requires for them to get an ATF license, ATF requires them to go through our process first.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just doing a quick glance, it could be likely more, but speaking of the co-ops, what would this do if adopted to the co-ops that would have more students, if it's a parent that helps teach 15, or would they have to then comply?

We've had those situations currently. And, you know, in essence, that's not really a home occupation because they're doing – They're operating a business, a non-residential use, in probably more than the 25% that's permitted in the home due to all the different classrooms that they would have. So we've actually had that situation where someone has moved into a residence and now is operating a full-blown school out of it. They may live in a one-bedroom upstairs, but then the rest of it's a school without any permits, without any life safety permits. and without any approvals. And that is a major concern. When it comes to that, that's first and foremost.

Right. And I guess the only reason I'm asking is because I have three children. So if I happen to homeschool my children, I meet the threshold.

Once again, if you're homeschooling your own children. Right.

But if, let's say, I did become a co-op and I had six versus three, then I guess where is the three number? Where was that decision? Where did that come from?

Actually, that came from me. That's past practice that I've worked in other jurisdictions where it was three, you know, that same number was three. It's nothing... It's just a number pool. It's nothing that, you know, was determined off of any type of surveying or, you know, any type of metric or anything. It was just, you know, three was a good number of people that you could have. If you've got a beauty salon, you know, if you've got you and your friend working there, that's two booths and you've got somebody waiting. So, I mean, it's, we can change that number. I'm not, you know, I'm not stuck on that. That was just something that we had proposed.

I wasn't trying to argue it either. I was just curious to see where the number came from and just trying to think through any kind of situations where there might be some people impacted by that.

And I will say, co-ops, now we're starting to bleed into that. It's more than just homeschooling. Now it's getting, I mean, the school system is really more involved in it at that point. And I think at that point we're going to start looking and saying, okay, We got something different than just a home occupation at this point. You're actually running, it's not a daycare, it's an actual, you're running something off of the scholastic system which falls under the school definition of a ordinance.

If I could expand just briefly. I remember in conversation with the board about the three people, a lot of it was kind of that overlap on cars. If we were going to have three, we felt like if you have some overlap, that could be six cars. And that felt like... good number not to exceed as far as a co-op and you know we'd actually do see schools a handful of times because they come to us for use by special expert special exception permits generally those are handled I mean we have not seen a co-op yet to this day we've seen charter schools Greenville County Schools and the big conversation is traffic obviously as as you guys know you are hearing that about every development. So that's just some more color on where that three came from.

Question for staff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A lot of the problems I have with a lot of things in some of these ordinances are just the verbiage used and where we define what that thing is. So let's go down to number H. And in my own neighborhood, I have a guy that runs a home insulation business OUT OF THERE AND THE EMPLOYEES GO 70 MILES AN HOUR UP AND DOWN MY STREET. IT IS WHAT IT IS. BUT WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED A NUISANCE OR CAUSE UNDUE DISTURBANCE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? WHAT I'M ASKING IS WHEN PEOPLE COME IN FRONT OF YOU, WHAT'S THAT THRESHOLD? WHAT THRESHOLD DOES THE BOARD USE TO SAY THAT'S A NUISANCE? That's undue disturbance.

I mean, age always gives me heartburn.

Okay, it does. So now's our chance to fix it. We put stuff in there like this and it causes us heartburn. So why are we going to put something there and not fix that while we're doing this?

That is a very ambiguous statement. And we've had this conversation in our office. You know, it's, I mean, what is a nuisance to me as the current zoning administrator might not be a nuisance to the person following me. So my recommendation is let's smart people in the room get together and fix that before we see this again. Well, we're happy just to take that whole line out at that.

I mean, there's sure.

Yeah.

But that's those are kind of things that keep me up at night when I'm sitting there dreaming about the county all night. Things like this. That was a joke to lighten the room up a little. It's okay to laugh. We're human.

If I could expand on that, I think the nuisance actually gives the county some gray area to operate. If someone's speeding down your neighborhood, there's a legal ramification there. I can think back to a case where we had an outdoor contractor who had more than... not obeying with a few of these he was keeping trucks you know guys were parking on the street and they were going off from jobs from his house right so he wasn't hitting a few of those but you know some of that rises to a level of nuisance now you know Mr. Farmer mentioned about running an HOA you know there's in HOAs that there's nuisance language in there a lot and it's how do you how do you define a nuisance right it actually gives the county and the board some gray area. Okay. And so if we want to take it out, I mean, that's fine. No, no, I want the discussion like we're having. I think it gives you, you know, that nuisance, quite frankly, though, could change. You know, what the board that I've sat on for three years and you guys appointed me for another three years and this spring, that nuisance could change in six years, you know, because of the makeup of the board. I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing. I'm just saying that gives you some gray area to operate.

And I would say also if someone comes in and says that they are doing X use and it's, you know, let's just pick one of the lesser, you know, like just an attorney's office and it's just them and that's what they get approved to be. And then all of a sudden we start getting complaints about, you know, whatever those complaints are, then we do have something to say, look, you know, You said that this is what you're going to be doing, and now you're doing something different. Or, you know, it does give us a little bit of enforcement authority there as well. So, I mean, we can look at that and tighten it up. But I do think, like Michael said, I do think it does kind of give us a little bit of room to be able to enforce, and I don't want to say shut down, but to make sure that the businesses are in compliance with the zoning ordinance.

Sure. And, you know, you mentioned something, too, when you came up, and this is a great discussion. is that you want people to have clear answers. So that's why, while that gray area can be good and bad, I just think if there's any way we can make it a little more directive or what is it, do we have in any of our audiences have what a nuisance is,

We'll look into that. I'm sure we do in the international property maintenance code or something like that. We'll look into that.

Just so we can reference a definition.

I think it's generally sound, smells, noises. I think that's generally the reference.

Maybe some language like a reasonable person. I mean, things like that. I don't know. I actually hadn't thought about what you said, so that's awesome.

It lets us, you know, I think if staff thinks there's a potential nuisance, then it gets brought to the board to actually argue whether there's a nuisance or not. And that nuisance is in the eye of the beholder.

Absolutely, yeah. No, thank you for that. That's great feedback. Yeah, we'll look into that and see if there's a way we can tighten that up a little bit.

Not to belabor it, but as a suggestion, the legislative intent is very important. So you can solve that by a declaration saying it's the intention of this to preserve the general neighborhood character. And then that gives you some grounds to build up the nuisance ideas on.

Anybody else? Mr. Chairman, thank you. Yeah, the nuisance is recommended and defined in the noise ordinance. So you would default to that maybe?

I will look for something that is, you know, that we can pull to or pull from. Yes, sir. Thank you.

Anything else? I think we have covered the...

I will just say that it's possible that this could look a little bit different moving forward if we do make some tweaks to this with maybe additional definitions or something of that nature. So just be, you know, cognizant of that.

We over 10 minutes for this. So anyone wish to speak against this, this takes a minute.

HANNAH LITZINGER, Good evening. My name is Hannah Litzinger. I reside at 1407 Old Gunther Road. I want to say thank you for addressing some of my concerns. I hold a home occupation permit and operate as an art instructor. here in Greenville County, and I'm here to address a proposed amendment limiting home occupation permits to three people on a site at a time. A rigid cap negatively impacts diverse home businesses, youth enrichment programs, and the families who rely on them. This blanket restriction ignores vast differences in property sizes. Many home occupations safely operate with ample space, sufficient parking, and zero neighborhood disturbance, while maintaining and complying with home occupation safety and nuisance guidelines. Instead, Greenville County could determine capacity limits by evaluating individual property size and capability while enforcing existing nuisance guidelines. Please reconsider the blanket cap for more flexible framework. And lastly, if this passes, will there be a provision for special exceptions?

So I do want to actually say thank you guys for mentioning that you

You addressed a lot of our concerns as we don't fit in childcare, and we also aren't a big co-op school educational service at all like that. I'm an art educator and I tutor students, but... Yeah, three students at a time, a cap at three is ideally not my ideal tutoring session. I would love to have, you know, like five, six, five, six, seven, eight, a small group like that. And that's where I am wondering if at this point, would I then need to be filing as a special exceptions permit?

So to answer that question, The way to look at this is we have provisions in the ordinance that if you come in today and say this is what you're going to do and you meet all of these provisions and that use is in that table, staff can approve that. Cool. If you have an issue with one of the provisions and the regulations of those, that's what you see to the Board of Zoning Appeals. And it's up to the Board to determine whether or not. You know, having additional people, you know, would be sure that that's kind of essentially opposed to the amendment whatsoever.

It's the only issue was like the three students and the parking. But we're not in a subdivision. We're on six acres and we're 140 yards from the road. And we have. our own parking section and we've done everything. We were originally in our shop, detached shop. They moved us all the way back into our garage and now we work partially out of the shop only to run the 25% in the garage because of the primary dwelling. So we had to change a significant amount of our business for that. And we did make it happen. But now we're worried that if this were to go through, that that would shut us down now. And I don't think it will if we could apply for a separate.

It would shut you down, number one. Number two, it would also open the door. This amendment, proposed amendment, would also open the door to allow you back in that detached building that staff can approve on a staff level. And if you want more than the three people, that's where you see covariance to the Board of Zoning Appeals and get their permission to do that. What that does is it opens up the ability for people surrounding you to know what's going on and be able to speak either on your behalf or if they've got to answer questions. So that's how you would go about that.

Awesome. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Anyone else to speak against? Anyone else? All right. Before we move to the next docket, I have information about it I need to make public and let the other council members know. Docket 2026-040. Due to the amount of public interest in this zoning text amendment, Greenville County Council will be holding a second courtesy public hearing for zoning docket, again, the 26-40 at the regular county council meeting on Tuesday, August 18, 2026. at which time the docket is slated to be considered for second reading. The speakers will have the opportunity to be heard prior to the council's vote. Anyone wishing to speak must sign at the kiosk outside the council chambers between 515 and 545 on the evening of this meeting, as with all council-related public hearings. So we have a lot of interest in this, and the night will satisfy the state. And then next... It will satisfy our citizens. So let's move on to the last docket, please.

All right. The last docket is CZ-2026-040, which is to amend Article 6, Section 6-2-10, Dwelling Single-Family Attached and Dwelling Two-Family Duplex. Article 7, Table 7.1, Minimum Lot Area Permitted Densities for Single-Family Residential. Article 7, Section 7-2, Open Space Residential Development. Section 7.2.5, Open Space Residential Development, option number two, and Article 7, Table 7.2, Open Space Residential Development Options of the Greenville County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendment revises the current open space development regulations within the Greenville County zoning ordinance. The goal of these changes is to help regulate open space developments with regards to density, required open space, and overall preservation of natural areas of Greenville County. Here you can see a breakdown of the major changes addressed by this amendment. It would eliminate the unique standards for single family attached dwellings in R10, R7.5, and R6 zones to bring them more in line with the requirements of the underlying zoning. The permitted residential density for open space developments has been reduced in all associated districts. The amendment would eliminate open space development option number two and consolidate the regulations into a single open space development option. The amendment would also cap the number of units within a development which could be single family attached unless the property is within an area designated by the comprehensive plan as having a future land use density of three units per acre or greater. There will be a 20-foot roadside buffer, 25-foot exterior setback, and a scaling setback from existing public roads. Mr. Chairman.

Any questions for the staff? Do we have anyone to speak on behalf of this text amendment? Anyone? Anyone? Seeing none, do I have any to speak against the text amendment? Name and address for the record, please.

Yes. William Johnson, 220 East Shallowstone Road. I HAD SENT OUT AN E-MAIL TO SEVERAL OF THE COUNSELORS EARLIER TODAY BECAUSE I TRIED TO GET THE CHANGES THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT AND I WAS NOT ABLE TO GET IT. I'M NOT SURE HOW ANY PRESIDENT OF GREENVILLE COUNTY COULD HAVE GOTTEN IT BECAUSE THE LINKS IN THE AGENDA DID NOT WORK. I HAVE NO COMMENTS ABOUT THE CHANGES BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THEM. SO HOW DO WE GET THEM? WHEN DO WE GET THEM FOR THE LDR AND ALSO THE ZONING? SO THAT WE CAN BE INFORMED BEFORE THIS IS DISCUSSED FURTHER?

THE RECORDING, IF I'M CORRECT, REGINA TOLD ME THIS WOULD BE, THIS IS WHY WE HAVE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING. SO THAT INFORMATION SHOULD BE AVAILABLE. soon, if not in the morning. And it will just be on the zoning, because the zoning's got to catch up with the LDRs. I know. But that's being fixed, if it's not already. So that is the main reason we're having another public hearing prior to the vote, so the public will have access to this.

Could you repeat for me exactly when that meeting will be?

August 18th.

August 18th. Yes. So you have ample time before then. And tomorrow evening is the county council meeting, and I think these two things are going to be discussed there as well. No. No? No.

This will go to a first reading tomorrow for council to move it forward to a planning commission.

There will be no discussion. It will just be consent.

Consent. Pretty much consent only just to move it forward. Just move it forward.

But county council will refer this to the planning commission? Yes. For their, what is it, January, the July 26th meeting?

22nd. It'll be this Wednesday. 22nd.

Okay. All right. So I should check in the morning to see if I can obtain these things?

So let me just clarify one thing. When we put our agendas online for rezoning dockets that include text amendments, we don't link the information of the proposed text amendments at that time. WHAT WAS UNDERLINED ON THE AGENDA WAS THE SECTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE THAT ARE BEING AMENDED AS JUST A TITLE NAME ONLY. IT'S JUST THIS SECTION IS BEING AMENDED. AS YOU KIND OF SEE, TODD, IF YOU'LL GO BACK TO OR YOU CAN ACTUALLY, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE IT ON THAT ONE, BUT IN TODD'S PRESENTATION, IT HAD THOSE SECTIONS AND IT WAS UNDERLINED. SIMILARLY, IF YOU WERE TO ITALYSIZE SOMETHING. SO THERE WASN'T AN ATTEMPT TO LINK THE ITEMS. WHAT HAPPENS IS WHEN And this is a weird month because we've got such a quick turnaround. We're public hearing, first reading planning commission, all within one week. But typically the way we work is we have the public hearing. After the public hearing and prior to the planning commission meeting, we put our staff reports online. And those staff reports will have information about the rezoning dockets, information about the text amendments, and things like that. That's at the time that that information is publicized. This one... Going to another public hearing, we'll have that at that point. But we'll also try to get the staff reports on tomorrow. I got a person out of the office ill right now, so we're doing the best we can. So we are making an effort to get that where you can see it.

So do you think the public will have this information before tomorrow night's meeting?

We will try to make sure the staff report goes online tomorrow morning.

And where will we go to get it?

Yeah, it's through our website, through the zoning page. You would, Todd, do you want to, I mean, do you want to contact?

If you want to send us an email, we can make sure we get that information to you. Okay, yeah, that would be helpful. If you'll hang around, actually, after this, I can get your information. Okay, great.

All right, thank you. Appreciate it. Anyone else to speak against? Thank you. Thank you, sir. Name and address for the record, please.

Good to see you guys. Thanks a million. You too, Josh. Todd, good work.

Thank you. Give us your name and address for the record, please.

Okay. Gail Crawford, 222 Greenview Circle. Greenville.

Okay.

All right. I know you've all seen this, but I just want to offer one suggestion that would help us old people. Usually what we like to read is when there's a change in something that's very legal that we really are interested in, you would present the old one, and then it would have some red lines through it, meaning that's the change. And then underneath it, same place, you'd have what's new. You would have a magnificent document. And you would not have folks lined up like me standing here and wondering, okay, now I've got to find two things. I've got to find the old one, and then I've got to find the new one. And holy cow, by that time I've had three glasses of water and 14 glasses of wine, and I still can't find it. So if you would just really think of a way to do that, that would be cool. Okay? That would be a big help. Okay, now, Josh.

Mm-hmm.

I asked you last meeting to do one thing, and you did it. So I want to say thank you. You're welcome. What I ask you to do on your zoning signs is to make the handwriting good enough that old people can read it from their cars, and even if they have to pull over and make a picture of it, which I've done several times, and I ask you to make that handwriting a little bit better.

Okay. We'll look into that.

And you did. Okay. Now, there's one other thing. In this world, there's only 999,642 area codes. Guess what? I called the zoning number, the 146. It didn't even have one. It just had 467. Okay. What did I do all my life? 800, 803, 866, 828. So guess what I put in? 1-800-467. What did I get? Somebody trying to sell me a Social Security Medicare Advantage plan. I was more messed up than ever, and I just said, oh my Lord in heaven, that's two more cups of coffee. Okay, that was cool. Now then, the other thing is, on your docket, the ones that I'm here interested in, because those are all my neighbors and church members. Now, it's great that you list all of the addresses. of all these, especially the Donkel one. Do you know how long it took me to find Donkel? There is no rezoning sign on Donkel and Rutherford, but yet you have it on your document. I could not find Mill because there is nothing that even describes Mill. Let me give you the zoning number real quick here. And I'll finish, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Okay, Shark Court. This is number 34, 034. Okay. At Donkel Road, where it intersects Rutherford Road, that's the main traffic. You obviously didn't want anybody on that road to see the rezoning sign because when I went back there, it was a dead-end road. The cemetery's on the left. You can't get to it because there's survey stakes all the way around it. Can't go that way. So I went on down about another 100 yards, and there... was one resigning sum, one. So if anybody looks at Donkel and says, oh, man, where's the zoning at? I visited three businesses on Rutherford and Donkel this afternoon, and I think Brenda is prepared to give you a report another time on what those businesses had to say, because I'm sure my time's up. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I have no clue when I'll be here next, but the only thing I can tell you is when I come, I promise you, it's in my heart to speak to you. And Frank Farmer, I don't know you, but I think you dress very nicely.

Thank you. I appreciate it.

All right. Mr. Chairman, if I may real quick, staff, so will that be out and available tomorrow?

WE HAVE TO GET OUR STAFF, WHEN WE DO OUR PACKETS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION, WE PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS IN OUR PACKETS. IN THE MONTHS WHERE WE HAVE THE SHORT TURNAROUND WHERE IT'S BACK TO BACK IN THE SAME WEEK, We're unable to do that because we haven't had the public hearing yet. So they've already received their packets. We'll send them all of the conclusions and recommendations tomorrow in preparation for the Wednesday meeting. We'll also try to get the staff report that will have the conclusions and recommendations in it uploaded to the website for that docket.

Okay, and so my other question as the final is, who originated the text amendments changes right now?

For which docket? Docket 40? Yes. So that came from, it started with the moratorium that was put in place on the open space cluster developments. From there, a committee was formed of different stakeholders. That committee has been working together. Council Bradley, for what, about a year now? About a year. And out of that committee came the amendments that you'll see. For the record. Thank you.

All right.

Any other questions? All right. We are done. See you all tomorrow.