Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

which are Michael good evening like welcome you to the regular scheduled meeting for the Granville County Planning Commission June twenty fourth twenty twenty six but today's meeting will receive a review rezoning application subdivision applications and other items brought to us by staff unless the commission members have a question for the applicant we will not accept additional public comment on the rezoning applications the rezoning cases were presented at a public hearing, and that was the opportunity to hear public comment in favor or in opposition of the rezoning cases. At today's meeting, the Commission will be making its recommendation on the rezoning cases. Detailed information on each of the cases will be provided to us. It was provided to us in our electronic packet in advance of this meeting. Our recommendations will be forwarded to Greenville County's Planning and Development Committee for their consideration and decision. The subdivision matters we will review today were previously reviewed by the Subdivision Advisory Committee, SAC. At that meeting, the reviewing agencies presented their preliminary findings to staff based on the comments from the SAC along with the review of the applicable sections of the ordinance, staff has prepared recommendations, conditions of approval or denial for such preliminary plans. These recommendations were provided to the Planning Commission as part of our review for each request. Anyone wishing to address the commission on subdivision matters should have signed up to speak, and I do have a list of folks. Again, you cannot address the commission during the meeting on rezoning requests. The official public hearing on those cases has already been held. All right. Again, we'd like to welcome you here. We've got a good crowd tonight. We will move on to our invocation, and please silence your phones. Alright, let us pray. Dear Heavenly Father, we come to you this afternoon asking you to give us wisdom as we conduct the county's business. Please be with everyone here, that we may just be civil and remember that we're all here to make sure that we are doing things as we are supposed to do. And just please give us the wisdom that we are seeking. Please be with us as we travel home this evening and let everybody have a great rest of their day. And we pray these things in your name. Amen. I'm going to add something. We haven't been doing this. We're going to say the Pledge of Allegiance. So please stand. Attention. Salute. All right, next we have approval of the minutes from our May 27, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

I'll make a motion. We approve.

We have a motion from Vice Chair Phillips. Second. And from Commissioner Manasevic. Have a second. All in favor? Aye. Motion passes. All right, next we'll move on to rezoning requests. Our first docket will be CZ 2026-029. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon. The following is a brief explanation of the planning commission process to consider rezoning cases. Each docket will be presented, including the requested zoning, specific details of the site, as well as maps and photos of the site and surrounding area. The presentation will conclude with the staff recommendation. Staff recommendation is a result of feedback from a team of internal and external county stakeholders who review each case. After each presentation, the Planning Commission may either vote with or against staff's recommendation, in addition to offering any additional amendments to the recommendation. All items forwarded from today's meeting will be heard by the Planning and Development Committee in person in the Committee Meeting Room in the North Building, which is scheduled for July 13th at 5 p.m. First docket is CZ-2026-029. The property is located at 913 and 919 Levon Road, Highway 417 and Woodruff Road, Highway 146 in Simpsonville. The applicant is Gene Hinkle of GMC LLC for John Orgain of Ryland Properties LLC. The 15.92 acre subject property consists of two parcels and is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Woodruff Road and Lee Vaughan Road. It currently contains vacant land. This is zoning the surrounding area. Subject property outlined here is zoned PD, planned development district. The request is for R6, single family residential district. You can also see the surrounding property zones. The applicant states that the proposed land use is a residential development. This is the subject site and photos showing the area surrounding the subject site. Staffs of the opinion that successful rezoning to the R6 single-family residential district would not be consistent with the Plain River County Comprehensive Plan future land use designation of suburban neighborhood, nor the Five Forks Area Plan future land use designation of suburban mixed use. The requested district would also not be consistent with similar zoning in the area. Based on these reasons, staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning to R6 single-family residential district.

Mr. Chairman. Thank you. All right, commissioners, do we have any questions for staff? Any comments? Motion?

I was going to see if anybody had comments first. I did have a question. This is already zoned PD, and I know what the whole concept was with the PD here. So, I mean, ultimately, if this wasn't approved, They could still go forward with that PD. However, being the PD dates back to 2015, 2016, are there certain characteristics that might need to be re-evaluated? I mean, I'm sure DOT would require an upstate traffic study, that sort of thing. But other than that?

So correct. As under the current PD requirements, those crimes that are in place, the property could be developed for that use, which just for the people present was meant to be a anchor grocery store tenant with some ancillary commercial uses. And I believe the PD allocated seven acres of open space or something about there. So, yes, the site could be developed as long as whatever was proposed fell within the statement of intent requirements for that PD.

And whatever else was not noted might have to meet the current regulations if they're different from previous, correct?

Correct. So if they had to get some new driveway accesses or any sort of traffic calming features, DOT may require an updated impact study for that.

And we have a section of the zoning ordinance that talks about minor major changes. So we would look to see where that would fall in those. And if it does something to trigger a major change, an additional ingress-egress point, a removal of an ingress-egress point that was approved, those kind of things would have to go back through the major change rezoning process. Okay.

That's what I thought. I just wanted to verify that. Thank you. If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion that we recommend denial based on staff's recommendation.

I second.

I think Mr. Parham had the second. Vice Chair Phillips had the motion. All in favor of denial, raise your hand. Unanimous. Passes. All right, our next docket was withdrawn. So I guess now we will move on to preliminary plan applications.

I want you to have a comfortable chair.

Right.

Case number pp dash to 2, 6, dash 0, 6, 4, Cypress gardens is a private proposed conventional subdivision. It is located on Vaughn Road, which is a county road. The applicant is requesting 14 lots on 2.77 acres for a density of 5.05 units an acre. Access will be provided off of Vaughn Road. Here's the site highlighted in red. Here is the site plan that was included in the packet. The project includes one ingress-egress point, two internal roads, one cluster mailbox, five foot screening buffers around the perimeter of the site, one detention pond, and 639 linear feet of private road. Here is the zoning of the site. The subject site is part of the Greenville County Comprehensive Plan where it is designated SN, Suburban Neighborhood. The suburban neighborhood character area is generally defined as residential subdivisions of medium lot homes with relatively uniform housing types and densities. Homes include attached garages. Local streets are laid out in a curvilinear pattern with the occasional cul-de-sacs. Streets may or may not include sidewalks. New single family subdivisions should be designed with sidewalks, street trees, neighborhood parks, and community open space connections. The suburban neighborhood character area type recommends a density of three to five dwelling units per acre. Cypress Gardens is proposing a density of 5.05 units per acre. Here is an image of the site. East of the site. north of the site, south of the site. Staff recommends conditional approval of the plan with the standard and specific requirements. Conditions of approval are as follows. Please provide an approval letter from the Malden Fire Department stating that they have reviewed and approved of the layout of this plan prior to land disturbance permitting.

All right, thank you. Can everybody hear her okay in the audience? Not quite? Yeah, maybe we can. I've noticed that in some reviews of past meetings, it's hard to hear everyone on the Wi-Fi, so maybe we can speak a little closer. I don't know. Okay, so... We have two people signed up to speak on this matter. Do we have the applicant present? You want to come up and speak first, sir?

Kevin Tomlin, Freeland & Associates, 323 West Stone Avenue in Greenville. This project is an FRD, Flexible Review District, and it's already been approved by county council. They saw the preliminary development plan during the rezoning, so they saw the layout, lot count, setbacks. home sizes. So all of that was seen, and they rezoned, of course, the FRD. And then since then, the staff has reviewed and approved the final development plan. So they've approved everything you see, which is the layout, lot count, lot sizes, buffers, landscape plan, fence material, front monument sign, building materials, and architectural style. So all of those things are tied to the FRD zoning. And so we're locked in on this. And everything they've seen, we have to do. And it's a great site. It's going to be a nice development. And just happy to answer any questions you have.

Do we have any questions at this point for the applicant?

All right. Mr. Chairman, when was the county council approving given? Approximately.

I don't have the answer to that.

Give me just a minute.

We adopted this project, so we weren't part of the preliminary development plan, so that's why I couldn't answer. All right. Is that all you've got? You've got ten minutes. Well, no, just, you know, again, I just want to stress that the county council has already seen it. The FRD rezoning has been approved. Everything we've got to do is locked into that zoning. Nothing can change. If it does, it has to come back to council or you guys or staff. And so everything they've reviewed and seen, it will be built that way.

All right. Thanks, sir. Thanks. All right, we have one person signed up in opposition. Chris Bond. Yes, thank you for hearing me out. Name and address please for the record.

I'm sorry.

Name and address.

My name is Chris Bond. I live at five vicinity lane, Greenville properties adjacent to the proposed development. Prior to that, I lived in the Claremont neighborhood, and I've been in this neighborhood for 15 years. I was involved in the rezoning request and the public hearing in 24, and based on the planning commission's recommendation against that rezoning request and the logical and rational opposition to that request at that meeting, I was very shocked to learn that the rezoning request had been granted in October of 24. The primary concern that I have and that the property owners in my neighborhood have, and I believe that the Claremont Homeowners Association has, is one of safety on Vaughn Road. That road is inadequate today for the traffic that it already carries and has been for quite some time. Living there for the last 15 years, I've seen that traffic flow grow with the growth of the Greenville County and the city. It's surprising to me that we would be able to justify a multifamily higher density development with only access to it on that road. I remind you that there are three brand new apartment complexes that have been developed within two miles of this property on Butler Road and on the corner of Tanner and Vernon Road. And I would estimate that those probably have over, well over a hundred doors each. That's just going to add to the traffic flow and make the Vaughn Road that much less safe. I get on it frequently. Obviously, every day I leave my house, I'm driving on it. I also run in the mornings and use it to access another safer neighborhood to run in. I also cycle on occasions. And there's no shoulder. There's no sidewalks. And as I understand, this development is going to be targeted at first-time homeowners. And you can only imagine that those are going to be folks that are going to have children sometime when they live there. And these children are going to be, you know, subjected to this unsafe road, quite honestly. And I was very disappointed to see that the zoning request was granted with no contingency whatsoever for considering the traffic flow or addressing the traffic concern on this road. So that's my point of contention. I understand that... You know, the zoning request has been granted. We have what we have. But to go forward with developing a higher density piece of property without making any kind of consideration for the safety of the new residents as well as the existing residents with the flow of traffic on Vaughn Road is, I think, both reckless and negligent. And something should be done to address that.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. All right. With no one else signed up to speak in opposition, commissioners, do we have any questions for staff, the applicant?

Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Phillips.

I think I remember when this FRD was coming through, there was some conversation about Vaughn Road. And the council representative at the time, I thought, was going to – try to incorporate some improvements. Are they on the radar for this roadway at all? Do we know? Because I know, you know, it's a cut through. And when I pull out behind Culver's in the back and try to turn right and can't see and it drops down and, you know, I drive a truck so that's okay. But it's very dangerous. So I'm just wondering if that's on the visionary side.

Looking to see if we had our traffic engineer. I'm looking at it.

It was resurfaced five years ago. We've upgraded sign-in. That's it? Yeah. Okay. We don't have room to widen.

Okay.

We've done everything we can do with it.

All right. The notes are one of the conditions states that A response from Malden Fire Department. Did they not provide any comments regarding this?

No, they did not.

So we don't know if The road width is sufficient at this point.

Well, I mean, they would have reviewed it, I would think, as part of the rezoning because it is sent to them at that point as well as part of their review process. However, when we requested comment during this period, we did not hear back from the Maldon Fire Department.

Okay. Are there records from when the zoning was changed and they would have reviewed then?

No, we don't have. I mean, the plans get sent out. We meet with our internal staff from building codes that looks at and can look at fire turnarounds for apparatus and things of that nature. Nothing was brought to staff's attention that there would be any concerns with this.

But yet we haven't heard from the fire department directly that anybody is aware of.

That will be forthcoming, I assume. But yeah, I mean, this is the layout that was approved during the rezoning. So those individuals would have looked at it at that point and provided any comments. We didn't have any comments on the turnaround. and we've had the final development plan as well which also gets reviewed and there's been no comments on that so this this layout is locked in with the final development plan it has to be developed in that in that manner and this is going to be private roads no County adoption that would be a question for the applicants private all right and only 20 feet wide well I'm showing 20 on the map 20

I have one more question. One of the conditions of the FRD was the maximum 35 feet high. I don't see that. Should that be included on the plan?

That is part of the rezoning. It's stipulated in the and is approved as far as the final development plans.

So it will follow through?

Correct.

Okay.

I just wanted to make sure that wasn't... And it'll go, once it gets to permitting, it'll be looked at at that time to make, to ensure that the height is at that set, that doesn't go over that set height.

All right. Commissioners, any further questions, comments? Commissioner Moore.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a private road, as I understand it. That means the people who own these lots or houses will have to maintain it. And Greenville County has a problem with paved private roads because 20 or 30 years down the road, no one has the money to repave the road. And that's a concern I have. Now, granted, there are regulations with regards to private roads. Some of them pay, but the better ones are gravel, and I'm sure this isn't going to be gravel. So that's one of my concerns about it. The other one is the lots that are on the northern side have very large houses on them. In some cases, the footprint of some of those houses are bigger than these lots. And when I read flexible review district, in the intent, the very last sentence is, development should be aesthetically pleasing, harmonized with the surrounding developments. To the south, the properties are almost an acre. To the north, properties are a little over half an acre. Much larger than what this is. And I have a problem understanding how it harmonizes with the surrounding properties.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to just, if I could have a moment. So that was discussed and that came up during the rezoning process for this to be flexible review district. And so council was aware of that when they voted to adopt the preliminary development plan and the statement of intent, which outlined the fact that these lots could be the size that they are. So that was part of their review whenever they approved that.

Okay.

all right any anyone else question comment do we have a motion well unfortunately we were around when this frd was approved um which does tie this in and it appears that staff has covered all of our major concerns and the rest are out of our jurisdiction. Can you put those conditions for approval back on the screen, please? Thank you. I'll make a motion we approve based on staff's, with staff conditions as well.

I'll second.

All right. We have a motion by Vice Chair Phillips and a second by Commissioner Corum. All in favor, raise your hand. Those opposed? All right. That's six to three. We pass. All right. Next on the agenda will be... Tickner woods PP 2026 dash 0 5 0.

Conventional subdivision it is located on a really fork road which is a state road. The applicant is requesting 56 lots on 57.93 acres for a density of 0.97 units an acre access will be provided off really fork road. Here is the site highlighted in red. Here is the current plan that is being held from last month. This is the plan that is currently under your consideration. This project includes one ingress-egress point, four internal roads, one cluster mailbox area with five parking spaces, 20 foot screening buffers around the perimeter of the site, additional stream buffer along the creek on site, three detention ponds, and 4,251 linear feet of new public road. The application had been held to allow SAC to review a variance request relating to a secondary access. However, the applicant has submitted a revised plan as shown on the screen that includes one less lot and the required secondary access point connecting Elvale Avenue and Fitzwilliam Place. SAC has reviewed and provided comments at the June SAC meeting and they were provided in your packet. The project includes two ingress-egress points, five internal roads, one cluster mailbox area with five parking spaces, 20-foot screening buffers around the perimeter of the site, additional stream buffer along the creek on site, three detention ponds, and 4,701 linear feet of new public road. If the Commission chooses to entertain this plan it would need to be added as a condition of approval. Here is the zoning of the site. This subject site is part of the Greenville County Comprehensive Plan where it is designated SMU, Suburban Mixed Use. The Suburban Mixed Use Character Area is generally defined as a mixed use place type including a variety of single family, detached and attached, and multi-family building types. Housing types should be designated as a cohesive, connected neighborhood rather than isolated subareas. Buildings should be of high quality design and developments should include common neighborhood amenities and open space connections. The suburban mixed use character area type recommends a density of 6 to 20 dwellings per acre. Tyner Woods is proposing a density of 0.97 units per acre. The subject property is part of the South Greenville Area Plan, where a portion of the parcel is designated as rural residential, one to two units per acre, and the other portion of the parcel is designated as transitional residential, two to three units per acre. Tyner Woods is proposing a density of 0.97 units per acre. Here is the subject site, west of the site, north of the site, south of the site, Staff recommends approval with conditions of the plan with the standard and specific requirements. The conditions of approval are as follows. One, provide a revised preliminary plan by July 5th, 2026, addressing the following items. A, show appropriate traffic calming on any street over 1,000 feet in length. B, show fire hydrant at entrance to subdivision and revise to show them at no more than 500 feet apart. c show an approved apparatus turnaround when access roads are more than 150 feet per appendix d of the ifc 2021 d label roadway eop to eop number two provide updated signed form from both rewa and metro And three, provide either septic or sewer approval letter from either REWA and Metro or SCDES. Depending on which type of approval is given, updated documents and a revised preliminary plan may be required. If sewer is selected prior to land disturbance permitting, a signed sewer availability letter and a feasibility connection path to sewer will be required, with updated preliminary plan to show location of sewer lines and connections slash easements.

All right. Thank you very much. Do we have the applicant here?

I'm not the developer. I'm the property owner. Does that make me the applicant?

I'm Tigner Culpepper. Well, you have signed up to speak, but can you answer the questions of the applicant?

I don't know if Dave, your attorney here, right? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. He's the applicant. He's representing the applicant. Why don't we call on you afterward? Yes, sir. Right. Thank you.

Well, we'll decide who we call on. You come up here and talk to us about it.

Mr. Chairman, I'm Ron Tate. I'm with Gallivan, White, and Boyd Lawyers for the developer who is TMC Development.

And your address, please, sir, for the record?

Yes, sir. My address is my business address, 55 Beatty Place in Greenville. Thank you. My client is a local developer. I've got Michael Roth here and Michael Short with TMC. And, of course, the owner, Mr. Tigner, is here as well, and we'll be happy to address you if you please. This is a zoned property, and the zoning requires $25,000. square foot parcels. Kevin Tumlin is here. He is the engineer and he designed 57 total lots on 58 acres. He calculated and it came up last month when we were here about the acreage and he stated in May that he had calculated the acreage and While it deviated from the estimated anchorage on the GIS, he was confident in the numbers. This preliminary design, there are some issues, of course, that the subdivision administrator pointed out. Those issues will certainly be resolved as the design is developed. Further, surrounding areas, of course, are two residential subdivisions to the north and the south. And so, you know, the the and the issues of secondary access, of course, were identified prior to last meeting. And those issues now have been incorporated into the revised design plan which is before you now and that this secondary access road has been has been made part of the design so the developer heard what you said and and was pleased to make that change. Mr. Tumblin can address any of those technical issues that may come up. So a variance is not now before you as it was last time. The sewer issue, I believe, has been handled in the conditions. The conditions state that an approval by DES may be made and a revised approval letter or a revised position letter, I guess, by REWA and Metro will be provided. But as we stated before, and I'll say for the record, the sewer issue is really not properly before this panel. The sewer issue cannot be dictated by REWA or Metro because they simply don't have the authority to do that because taking a position that sewer is required in this particular subdivision would be contrary to Greenville County ordinances and state law because the sewer is simply not available or feasible, regardless of what REWA or Metro might tell you. So our position is very clear that this is a very appropriate development for septic. And if the DES will approve it, then that's the way it should be approved. So as you have it, the plan is before you. It meets all of the requirements of the zoning, and we would hope that this committee, this commission will approve it. The owner, of course, is here if you want to hear from him.

Sure. How much time do we have left?

Five minutes and 30 seconds.

All right. Mr. Culpepper, if you'd like to come up.

Thank you. I was told not to talk too long, so I timed it for only two minutes.

Excellent. If you can give your name and address for the record, please, sir.

And I'm just going to tell you a little bit about myself because I've been there over 40 years in this area. Hello, my name is H. Tigner Culpepper. I'm a United States Vietnam War veteran, born in 47. After that, I became a dentist. and opened a general dentist practice.

Your address, please, sir, for the record. Sir? Your address for the record, please.

Oh, 329 Chatham Air Drive, Pelzer, South Carolina. That's Lake Trollingwood Community, just two miles down the road. Thank you, sir.

Yeah.

And then after that, I became a dentist and opened a general dental practice in Greenville County on Donaldson Road, right near Donaldson Center. in nineteen seventy seven and i've been practiced and then a few years later i bought the property in trolling wood and i've been driving up and down this road for over forty years so i'm very familiar going by this property and then it became for sale in nineteen ninety eight ninety nine bowling farm went for sale and i said well you know i'd like to buy that for an investment so i did and so all uh... So it did that, and so I've driven by the property every day 40-plus years. And then two sub-developments a few years ago popped up. Reedy Lake, which borders the property on the north side and then across the road is King Fields. And those are on half-acre lots. They've all been developed. They're on septic half-acre lots. And I've been driving up and down this road for years, and even at that, Reedy Fork Road is not heavily traveled. And I've never really noticed lines trying to get out of those sub-developments at all, ever. And so I don't think that this, and although now they've addressed, because one of the neighbors in the area has always said there's only one entrance. Well, those two sub-developments only have one entrance. And we're only having the 56 lots. They said it was 52 acres. Now they're saying it's higher acres than that. But that's not high density. And so I'm just saying this is not. And now they're going to make another access road. So there's really going to be no problem on Reedy Fork Road for additional traffic. And this developers, TMC Development, are going to really make a higher end market. It's going to increase the values. Unlike right before that, the houses were a lot smaller than the neighbors. This is going to be even more. So that's going to increase the values of the property around there. It's going to be a good tax base increase for the county. And there's nothing but just everything about this community. Years ago, I stopped. Somebody tried to buy this in 99 for me, and I found out they wanted to build a trailer park. And they already had to put money in, and I changed. I made it where they couldn't do that, and they backed out. Because I didn't want that to happen. I want this property to be very nicely used. So I would be... very um, can please consider approving have this property developed in the most wonderful way that will only add advantages to this Greenville County area where I've lived for over 40 years.

Thank you. Thanks, sir. How much time do we have? All right, the next on the list is Mr. Ron Tate. Well, do you have anything else? Okay, Michael Roy.

All right, Kevin Tomlin. All right.

Anybody else want to speak in favor? All right, seeing none. We'll bring up the opposition now. Mr. Jim Gilbert. You have 10 minutes, sir. You can take all 10 or you can mix it up.

No, I won't take all 10. Thank you. My name is Jim Gilbert. I live at 120 Mill Creek Road in Piedmont, 29673. And I've been there for 50 years. Been here before this commission many times. Matter of fact, Brad Watch and I decided back in 1999 that we needed rural zoning in Greenville County. We didn't even have it. And so we started to work on that, and we were able to get the rural zoning ordinance for Greenville County, and we then petitioned Greenville County to zone 15 square miles down through that area, a combination of RR1 and RR3. But several, because I do have a history there, several people in the community asked me to come and present some information today. But as far as this Tignor Woods subdivision is concerned, we are opposed. And for several reasons. One is that Woodmont High School is already overcapacity. The capacity at that school was designed at 2012 students. Current enrollment is 2152 students. and that's 145 over capacity already, and there is a subdivision, West Point subdivision, being built right beside Woodmont High, and another one, Meadow Acres, or something like that, is being built behind, so that's going to add another 245 to 345 additional students, we estimate, to Woodmont High School, which is already over capacity. As far as road conditions that Mr. Tigner discussed, there was a time when I could leave my home and go to the four-way stop, and I'd be the only person there. I could sit there for five minutes. I wouldn't see another person. Today, you go to that four-way stop, and you're going to be seven to ten cars deep in all four directions. I'll guarantee it. And Mr. Tigner can come up, and he and I will go up there one day if he would like. Another thing is we're concerned about flooding. In the packet last month was presented some pictures, some photos of flooding in Mill Creek. They do not show that this property really adjoins a little creek called Ray Branch. And it's more than a branch, it's a creek. And that creek floods. As a matter of fact, if you look in your packet from last month, you'll see the flooding that happened just a few years ago, and in Mill Creek we have only one bridge across that creek. And if that bridge washes out, 23 of the 25 homes in Mill Creek are stranded. We don't have any fire service, we don't have any EMS service, we have nothing. Now, that might not be your problem, but it's something you can consider. When that bridge was built, Greenville County built that bridge actually lower than the floodplain. If you go back and search it out, that bridge was built lower than the floodplain. It needs to be corrected, but it isn't corrected, and if that bridge washes out, then we've got a problem. There's not been a traffic study on Reedy Fork Road. Those people who live on it and who have lived on it for as long as I have know that there's not been a traffic study out there for many years. My suggestion is that if this thing goes forward, that we consider an acceleration lane going north and a left turn lane coming south on Reedy Fork Road. As far as the sewer service is concerned, I know that The plan, their application calls for Metro. It says Metro. It doesn't say anything about septic. Don't know where that came up, but it says Metro. And there is no Metro sewer out there. There is one sewer line running up Reedyport Road. It's a dedicated line that the Greenville County School District built for Woodmont High School. and it connects to a pumping station up behind Reedy Fort Baptist Church. And people have tried to tap into that line before, and the line is insufficient. And so, you know, there would have to be a new line run. And then looking back at the history... One of our residents in that area, we have a lot of historians, I guess you would say, out in that area. And one had an uncle who owned a lot of property out there, and that uncle was a Cherokee Indian. And the Cherokee used to winter down in that area because there are two creeks there, Huff Creek and Ray Creek, or Ray Branch, if you want to call it that. And they used to come down and winter on those creeks. And this person here, who is now deceased now, Catherine Ashmore, She wrote this letter, and I'm going to submit it for the record here in a minute, saying that she was aware that there were Indian burial sites on that property. Well, she contacted the Cherokee Nation. And they contacted the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology. And they came up and actually walked that property many years ago. And what they said was that I noted several features of the land that showed modification by historic human agency in several areas that bore careful consideration. And And then they went on to say that this person who came up with the University of South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology said that they met with Mr. Culpepper and had a frank and direct discussion with him and that he agreed that he was willing to put aside a certain area that they had identified and put a 50-foot buffer and simply assume that it is a potential actual burial site. A letter to the planning commission has formalized the voluntary agreement and then this letter was the letter from the first tribal chair of the Remnant Nation of Indigenous Tribal Peoples to the Greenville County Planning Commission where they, I don't know if they can do this or not, but they laid claim to the land because of their ancestral burial sites. But I'm going to submit this if I can. And the other thing that I'd like to leave you with is a couple of things regarding trees. This property is heavily wooded with old-growth trees, and we all know that that's where our oxygen comes from. And if you go to the USDA site, you'll find that one acre of mature trees absorbs 2.6 tons of carbon dioxide. and produces enough oxygen to support 18 people for a year, roughly 260 pounds of oxygen per tree annually. And so if you take that and multiply it out, you'll find that that acreage there is supporting oxygen for 1,044 people. And an acre of forest typically absorbs about 2.5 to 2.6 tons of CO2 each year. And that is roughly equivalent to the CO2 emitted by driving an average passenger car for 26,000 miles. So I'll leave you with that information. And if I could, could I submit this for the minutes?

Yes, sir. You can leave that with those folks over there.

But for those reasons, we would ask that this committee deny this request.

Thank you, sir.

Sir, his name was under his name.

Pardon? That's correct. How much time do we have left? I would like to. All right. Mr. Jennings, you were also signed up in opposition. Got to give him time to finish.

I thought we just had 10 minutes total. Come on.

He didn't use 10 minutes. But the folks that were in favor of this didn't use their entire time. So if you need an extra couple of minutes, I'm going to let you have that.

I appreciate that.

Yes, sir.

My name is John R. Jennings. I live at 106 Mamie Black Road. I served in the Marine Corps for 30 years. I served at Operation Desert Shield, Desert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Afghanistan. I came in here a couple of weeks ago and I presented a broad information pertaining to the infrastructure. Reedy Fork Road is a disaster. Potholes from everywhere. It's like you're driving on a crater. They have other subdivisions, just like Mr. Gilbert said, that has Not even finished yet. Other subdivisions that's been approved that they haven't even started on yet. And the school has already reached its limit. I would ask you to consider that. And also consider what I brought to the table the last time. I'm not against growth. Let's say that. But I am pro-infrastructure. And that infrastructure in that area, nothing has been done to it since I was in high school. It's the same two-lane roads. I'm a fire commissioner. We have two, three, four million dollar fire trucks that have to travel on those roads to try to serve the people that are in that district at the current time. Those roads are barely wide enough for a fire truck to travel on. It would be a travesty. to continue adding things to that area, building subdivision after subdivision. I understand this gentleman wants to sell his property, but we have to think safety. A couple of weeks ago, a tree fell on a kid down in Fountain Inn. That's taxpayers' – that's our fault. They said the tree had been leaning since Helene. Since Helene. That's the adult's fault. We – somebody should have said something. I'm up here to say something pertaining to the area that I live in. I live on Mamie Black Road. My grandparents bought that property over 100 years ago. I've been in that area since I was 63. And I will pray and ask you guys to not approve this. The last time they was up here, they tried to blow smoke over you guys. They said that sewer had been approved. It had not. If nobody hadn't brought that up, then I guess it would have been passed. When y'all brought it up and said, what about sewer? The attorney, he was stumbling over his paperwork. He didn't even know what to say. They couldn't even answer that. So please, do not let these guys who do, your guys. I ask you to disapprove this.

Thank you. All right, commissioners. Questions for staff applicant?

I have a question, Mr. Chair. Mr. Parham. I think it was Mr. Tigner. Question for you. How many acres did you purchase? You said you purchased this back in 98, 99, somewhere in that time frame. 52 acres.

Can you approach the? You can come up to the podium, sir.

Come up here. Yes, they can hear us.

It always said 52 acres plus or minus on the deed, you know, all the way. But today, he's saying, the lawyer said they've recalculated this more than that. But the bottom line for me is only like 56, 57 acres. houses, that's not going to increase Woodmont. I mean, all these things, you know, students, how long are kids going to have to be born to go there? I mean, Woodmont is a huge district, and this is just down the road. It's not going to have a contributing there.

So you said you purchased how many acres? The whole tract. Yeah, how many acres did you purchase? 52. Okay.

That's what it always said. That's what I was always on the deed, everything. When I get my tax statements, it's 52 acres.

Right. So then they're saying there's 57. He's just recalculated.

He recalculated geometrically.

How did that go about like, lick your finger, put in the air? How'd that you go? I don't know. I don't know.

That's the first I've heard of that. That's the first I've heard of that.

Hey, listen, you're out of order.

You are out of order. We can ask any questions that we want to of anyone in this room. Unless we speak to you directly, you cannot speak to us.

One of the problems, if you go back on these old deeds, they're very arbitrary, and they'll say, you know, a stone here and a tree there that's been long gone. But Mill Creek has stakes in the back. They have... I went back there in the woods years ago, but the backside of their lots is surveyed, and then Reedy Lake has that backyard. So it's pretty much a surveyor can come in and they can calculate, and that hasn't really been done.

I'm just trying to get a clarification and make sure we've got the right thing we're looking at plot-wise, like how many homes can go in there, because I've got something in front of me that looks to be the deed, and it's got 54 acres, and then we're here in 57. So that's one of the things I'm a little concerned about.

And you're telling us you're paying for 52. Yeah. On the tax so you know, I've never been in that.

I just bought it I just bought it and I've had people want to develop it and I've had developments turned down and Because you know anyway But this is they want and obviously the first thing they have to do when they're approved to spend money for a new survey a new survey has never been done when I bought it I didn't have to buy a new survey. I just I Bought it the deed was there from the Bowen farm. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Thank you One of the comments that was made is about the school district and being overcrowded this body nor other believe the County Council and Councilman fan is here and he can back me up on this. We have no control over the school That is a separate They have their own board that is elected. They make the decisions to add to schools, build new schools, and so forth. That is not part of this body. They do have a seat at the table in the sack, and to my knowledge, no one has ever said, slow down, let us catch up, have they?

for this case was. I can't speak on previous matters.

Right, but what I'm saying is they didn't say, oh no, we can't absorb 56 more houses.

That was not the school district's commentary.

Okay. I'm just saying that for clarification because that's not part of us. We have no control over that. Mr. Parham.

I have just a quick statement and question for staff. Along the lines of what our chairman's mentioning, one of the things our land development regulations and our zoning does, among a number of things, it really says what can go where, what the density is, et cetera. It does not say when. That is a major gap in our land development regulations, and that is one of the things I think our citizens want to see changed. We can't change that. County Council has to vote to change those ordinances, but we're going to be making recommendations. So talk to your county councilman and ask them to support the recommendations that we'll be putting forth soon about when something can go in an area, as in can the infrastructure handle it or is it already failing? We can't do a whole lot about that right now. My question for staff is, I think there's a couple of requirements around what should be on the plat. The land development regulations require there to be a notation about a direction and where the sewer is or the sewer hookups.

If sewer is proposed. Right. It requires it be shown if sewer is proposed.

Right, so my understanding is that both REWA and Metro have denied sewer. It's not approved. And my understanding is if they don't have any authority, why do you all as government staff members give us that information if it's useless?

So, I mean, it's required that we provide it on the plan, what type they're choosing. It's not a statement as to whether we support or, you know, go with REWA or not. We've spoken to our county attorney about this, and the understanding is that we still require that information, but we have to accept the application in as well. However, since REWA and Metro are not the permitting authority, DES is, they would provide the permits.

In our comments, and it just left my screen here because I pushed the wrong button, it said, REWA said that septic was denied. And then Metro also, they didn't have any comments, but under their conditions, it also said septic was denied.

They are not in support of sewer or septic for this area.

And if I remember correctly, last month sewer was about 3,000 feet away. roughly, I believe that's what was stated to us. Is that right? Yeah, I mean, it's three quarters of a mile away. Okay, that's right. downstream. Okay. So, you know, we're left with, you know, what defines what is available, what defines what is feasible, because it doesn't spell it out. as sewer being available? Well, if it's within 3000 4000 5000 feet, does that make it available? Or is it within 100 feet, it makes it available. And if it costs $100 to add 100 feet of pipe, or it costs a million dollars to add 3000 feet of pipe. That's not in the regulations. Setting and we're just, you know, we're kind of stuck.

I mean, I think that's kind of the point is that, I mean, Rewind Metro, they're saying it is feasible, but feasible to them is a different thing than feasible might be to a developer or to, you know, what's actually on the site.

And that is our point because now you set the precedence that every developer that doesn't want to spend the money to hook that up, they'll just put in septic. And before we know it, we have water contamination. With all these septics going in everywhere all over the county, the rate we've been growing.

Right. I mean, the county has some regulation for that. Most of it's related to unzoned. As it stands right now, we have to accept these applications in for our attorney's office. And then the assessment of whether this is an appropriate development using septic at this site is kind of on the table. However, like was stated, it is three-quarters of a mile down the street.

Yeah. And I also have some concerns about flooding. It was mentioned earlier. You know, you got all these septic tanks there, you end up polluting these creeks. And I think there's like a reservoir or something close by also.

Yes, there is there's a watershed watershed watershed a dam there, right there by the site, our soil and water conservation director, as well as our land development division director, and our floodplain manager as well, have all looked at this, they all have a plan for properly maintaining access to it and making sure that it is continuing to meet the requirements that they have in place for these particular dams.

Who owns the damn Greenville water?

I don't know that actual owner.

Core. Thank you.

Something that, if you don't mind, can I speak on? It seems like the acreage was a large discussion moments ago. I would just want to mention the plan requirements. It's in 3.3.4 of the LDR. A preliminary lot layout and a GIS survey of the property of the proposed subdivision showing bearings and distances along with the following note. undersigned engineer surveyor acknowledges that these are GIS-based boundaries which will be fully surveyed using state plane coordinates at final plat. So something to understand with this. That number 52 that you see when you pull up GIS and you click on the site, that is what it's been taxed at. That's the real property data that's in the system. That doesn't mean that it was ever surveyed or even used a GIS-based boundary. to get that. The deed says 54 more or less. I will say I went back through the deeds all the way to the 1920s, and it has said 54. However, the original plot that was made back in the 1920s, not something that we have on file. It's with the Land Bank of Columbia, which actually doesn't exist in the same entity today. So looking at that, but here our LDR, what it requires is a GIS-based boundary. If you take our measurement tool in GIS, and you measure out plot by plot point, you get roughly approximately 58 acres. So at this point, the engineer has done what is required, regardless of the discrepancy. That's kind of where staff stands with it.

Yeah, and my concern was coming from if that's wrong, you're going to have, because many of the lots were barely the 25,000.

If it's wrong and they have to change those lots drastically, it will come back to you.

Okay. Who goes out and checks that?

So the surveyor will do a survey, and it will be signed by a licensed surveyor at that point.

Now, Dr. Curlpuffer, we're not trying to increase your tax bill if you say you've been paying for 52 acres and you really have 57 or 58. That's not our attention. Can I? Mr. Schoenberg.

Easy question. I'm looking at a survey.

Turn on your microphone, please.

I'm looking at a survey done by Freeland on June 1st that says 57.93 acres. Is there a question whether that's accurate?

A deed from 1999, I'm a professional land surveyor. A deed from 1999 means nothing. I mean, the property before that could have been surveyed in 1900, could have never been surveyed. And what gets put on a deed is sometimes just as close as they can get it, and that happens every time it's sold. So until you go back out and actually do a survey, a current survey, the numbers just aren't important. And like she said, if it ends up being 50 acres, 40 acres, we can only do 25,000 square foot lots. So if it goes from 57 to 50, then that is what it is. Oh, Kevin Tomlin, Freeland Associates, 323 West Stone Avenue. All right, commissioners.

I have a question. Commissioner Manning.

The question that I have, I'm looking at staff recommendations, recommending approval with the conditions of the plan. Why wasn't this taken care of ahead of time? I mean, these are basic issues. Fire hydrant at the entrance, approved apparatus turnaround for access roads. Why was this not taken care of initially?

Because they're not that simple. When we did the first plat, some of these comments we didn't find out until the meeting. Until this meeting last month. And then because they wanted to get it on the SAC a week later, we had to quickly turn that plat around and get it turned back in.

So you didn't know about the fire hydrants or the approved apparatus turnarounds and what have you?

The new plan shows a fire hydrant at the boat, even though that's not required. I don't know where this came from. The other thing about the turnaround, they're asking for a – a turnaround from Appendix D of the fire code, which is a 96-foot diameter. And the county requires a 70-foot diameter. So we can do a 96-foot diameter cul-de-sac, but Greenville County is going to have to own and maintain it. So, I mean, there's nuances to all this, and some of this stuff just doesn't make any sense.

So is the staff asking for a 95-foot turnaround, or is it 70?

I don't know who's asking for the turnaround from Appendix D.

What are we asking? These comments came from the fire department?

So that's a 96 foot cul-de-sac.

This is part of your staff recommendations. So the approved apparatus turnaround when the access roads are more than 150 feet per appendix D of blah, blah, blah. So what type of a turnaround are we going to have?

If we use that, it'll be a 96-foot turnaround, be the biggest cul-de-sacs in all of Greenville County.

And Ms. Megan, what are we doing here? I mean, that is what the fire department requested. Some of these things have been taken care of. If you'll remember, this application was held from last month. We didn't take away anything because that's what was presented to you. So anything that he updated in the revised plan, these may not be necessary for. The only item that was added was label roadway EOP to EOP. I don't think the other ones were. The other ones were from previous.

So are these turnarounds we're seeing in the plat mat right now are 75 foot?

70 foot diameter.

They're 70 foot in diameter.

And that's what Greenville County requires.

Additionally, the Greenville County will not accept a 96 foot. So there's a discrepancy between what the fire department is asking for and that's convenient.

The fire department is asking for 90 foot turning radius, 96. Diameter. And you're saying that the county will only, they won't accept that?

That's right. They won't accept to maintain that because it doesn't meet their regulation.

So we only maintain to what? But if the manufacturer of the fire engine says that you have to have a larger turnaround radius, then what do we do?

but that's a lot that's a life safety issue so let me get this straight in other words if we have a fire in this in this subdivision if we have a fire in the subdivision you're telling me that a hook and ladder is gonna have to back and fill

I don't know. I'm not an expert on that, but I know every other cul-de-sac and every other fire has a 70 foot radius in the cul-de-sac. And I've seen lots of fire trucks turn around in that.

That needs to be revisited because that's a life safety issue. I know I've done some investigating on some other subdivisions. I was a fireman for 35 years and I've talked to several fire marshals who are the law in that particular district or whatever it is. And they tell me they always go by the manufacturer of the largest truck they have and what that turnaround radius needs to be. And so if you're telling me that the county isn't going to limit them to 70, 75 feet, what do we do with the other 20 feet? We just don't take care of it? Just let it go? I mean, what's been happening? I mean, this can't be the only time this has ever come up.

Well, the fire department, they always ask for a lot more than what's required. We're only required to do what's in that development regulation.

But if the manufacturing of a fire engine is asking for 96 turn radius.

Ms. Manning, might I comment? Absolutely. So I reached out to South Bramble Fire Department yesterday because we didn't have any comments in our packet, just to see. what they had. And they had not seen the new plan with the second access that was added. And he also sent me just the standard list and it's copy and paste of what they previously requested. In addition to what I'm seeing for conditions for approval, They also requested roadways to be 24 foot wide. He said the reason is 22 and 20 feet is creating two narrow roads. People park in the roads, and they do, everywhere in neighborhoods. We know that. It's for not just the safety of the residents, but for our emergency personnel so they can get in and out and get their ladder trucks and their equipment where they need to go and don't, don't spend time trying to maneuver around vehicles before they get to an emergency. You know, hey, guys, three seconds, one second, that could mean your life or mine. I mean, 30 seconds could mean my house burns down or it doesn't. I mean, it just depends on how fast they get there. So, I mean, from what he explained, the fire marshal, they look at their state code manual and what that gives them. And they look at the counties, cities, wherever they are, their regulations. And a lot of times, whichever gives them the most they can get, that's what they go with. I mean, if the county says, hey, roads need to be 24 foot, and the code says 22, they're going to go with 24. You can't blame them. If we were in those trucks, if we were in those emergency vehicles, I think we'd be seeing things a lot differently. If we were that home at the end of the cul-de-sac that the fire engine was trying to get to, we would definitely want these extra couple feet. But at the end of the day, with the acreage discrepancy and the lots, I mean, that can make a huge difference with the whole end result of this plat and this

Can I speak to that? Application. There's no acreage discrepancy. What I'm saying, the acreage is correct. I'm a professional land surveyor.

I understand that, but there's nothing that tells us any different.

I'm telling you. I'm a professional land surveyor.

Well, if you did the survey, why isn't it on file?

Because you don't have to record surveys.

Right. So this is what we have to go by.

No, what you have to go by is what we put on the plat and what I've signed and verified. And as far as the issues with this, if y'all want to approve it with these conditions, we'll do 24-foot roads and we'll do 96-foot cul-de-sacs. But the county's going to turn it down. And I don't know what to do then. I guess we can go to private roads, but you can make them conditions, and we'll have a discussion with the fire people and the county, and we'll get it figured out. But there's nothing up there that should keep us from doing this subdivision.

Mr. Moore.

The fire department is asking for 96 feet. The county says 30 feet.

70.

96 foot diameter, 70 foot diameter. Sorry. The state code 629 states that counties have the authority to make regulations stricter or greater than those in the state code. That means if they want to make it bigger, the county has that Now we have people here saying, well, we're stuck with this narrower place, but I can interpret that because regulations are so vague that it could be 96. And that's the trouble we've got right here. And if the fire department says it's going to be 96 and it's a safety issue, 629-1120, I'd say I can't vote for it because it's a safety issue.

But if it's a condition of approval, then we have to do it.

And that's all that says. The staff is saying they won't approve it. You just said they won't approve it. Well, not staff.

We're talking about the whole county at large. We could do private roads. If we end up having to do 24-foot roads and 96-foot cul-de-sacs, we could make it private. So if you put these conditions on it, then we have to deal with it no matter what. But it's a much larger issue. Commissioner Franklin.

So the secondary exit or entrance is on Fritz Patrick?

Yeah, I think that's the name of the road and the adjacent subdivision we're going to connect to.

Fritz William. Have you spoken with them to get permission?

It was already.

The final plot for that subdivision, Reedy Lake above, shows an access point coming through here on their final plot.

And, Denise, we were out there this afternoon, and already they are starting to move and open up that space. We were at the cul-de-sac, and we saw the workers starting to open it up for an access point. FYI.

I have a question.

Ms. Sternberg. How wide is that cul-de-sac that it goes into? It's 70 feet.

They all are. Okay.

Mr. Chairman.

Yes.

We held this application at the last meeting.

We did.

For secondary access. There was supposedly a variance that didn't go through SAC for that secondary access alternative. Correct? That's correct. I'm just confirming. And then now we're back this month. And there's no longer a variance, but there's a new plat that has a second access on it, which looks like it's probably dual. However, that's not, I mean, we held it for the addressing of the variance and was that And now we have a new plat that wasn't posted for the public to view. And did that new plat even go through SAC?

This plat did go through SAC.

The new plat? Yes, and that is stated in our presentation that we provided moments ago. Okay. But the fire marshal and the fire department had not seen that.

If I may have a moment. Please. I'm looking at the plan in our Bluebeam review system right here. The plan is dated 6-2. It was sent through SAC. I've got the fire marshal's comments on this plan. It is also in the report with the date that was provided with the updated, I think it's 6-11, that the comments were pulled from that system. And I've also dated the new comments in the packet on page 7.

Might I submit this copy of the information I got from the fire marshal to you? Okay.

At this point, it's like the fire marshal signed this one as well.

Several things here, and this was as of yesterday when he pulled the plaques up. I mean, I think they're the same comments he'd submitted prior. They're just not the same as what's listed as conditions. Now, a question I do have for Mr. Walters. 24 feet wide roads, is that a problem? Does the county frown on those too?

It's just what's in the LDR. I mean, it depends on the traffic volume the road's going to produce. So they could, depending on the number of lots, it could be 20, it could be 22, it could be 24.

But if, so, I'm looking at the fire marshal's recommendations of 24 feet wide roads, excluding shoulders, which may, you know, 24 feet. I guess with the curbs, they'd be, what, 26?

Yeah.

Would the county take over those roads as public roads, or would they have to be private? Okay.

That was several years ago, wasn't it? Several. Or maybe we need to update ours.

And I'll just add this, that same Appendix D shows fire apparatus road details and turnarounds with 20-foot roads. Correct.

Yeah, the plaque does not reflect these.

No, I'm talking about that Appendix D that they referenced there, and where they say they have to have 24 feet. Well, that same Appendix D that he referenced for the turnaround size has details of roads and turnarounds that are only 20 feet wide. So he's just all over the place.

Well, can I ask? Did you entertain any conversations as the representative for this development and have any meetings or conversations with the fire marshal regarding this? I mean, in the last 30 days, this was the situation?

Well, I did not know that the fire marshal or whoever hadn't looked at anything. I mean, we got comments from staff and the fire people. She's confirmed that they made comments. They've talked about it. I mean, I wouldn't reach out to the guy just to talk to him.

Well, but it sounds like you don't understand his comments completely.

No, I understand his comments. His comments differ from what the county requires. And so it's a difference between the county and the fire people. And if it's approved with those conditions, then we'll have to figure it out. And then we will meet with him, and we'll meet with the county, and we'll come to an agreement.

Might I suggest, you know, maybe these conditions, these conditions are too stringent. Maybe instead we request a letter. This is totally up to y'all. A letter from the fire department saying that they are okay, that they've made an agreement on what size is appropriate before moving forward. If an agreement is not made, then the application can't move forward to permitting. That's something you could could choose to entertain.

Well, you know, Commissioner Phillips has spoken to the fire marshal directly yesterday, and then you're saying you do have comments from him the first of the month.

I think the fire marshal signed off on the plans. So the fire marshal did sign off on the plans, regardless if they made additional comments after the fact. They approved the plans with the comments when they did their review during the review period that they are given. After the fact, if they add additional comments, those are things that staff has not been privy to. Staff has not been able to discuss with the applicant. That's above and beyond what... Has, you know, they approved it. They approved it whenever they reviewed the plan during that window of time that they have to review the plan.

All right. Can I speak very quick? No, you may not. Do we have a motion or any further questions for staff or the applicant? Staff.

Staff question. I read through all this. What page is the fire marshal?

There's nothing there.

They're on page seven of the staff report. And then in the whole packet, what page? I can get that for you.

I received one comment from the fire marshal.

So page 30 of the packet is in the staff report where we included an additional comment. And then, actually let me make sure that's the right one.

Yeah. So my question is, it just says an approved apparatus turnaround. Approved by?

So like I said, the comments said originally the number that you see on the point of that we were requesting, um, they did update their comments. So the, the conditions should be updated to meet their new comments, but they're not, they're not updated. Okay.

Commissioner Phillips.

I mean, Franklin is recommending a traffic study. We don't have that.

Recommendation is for their encroachment permit process. It wouldn't get reviewed at this stage.

That's right. That comes later. All right, commissioners. Do we have a motion? Further questions?

Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Manasevich. To get the ball rolling, I will make a motion for approval with the list of conditions that staff has recommended and is on the screen right now.

All right. We have a motion for approval with the list of conditions that are on the screen. Do we have a second? Second that. All right. Commissioner Sternberg has seconded that. Let's have a show of hands that vote for approval. All right. Show of hands that vote to not approve. All right. Motion fails. Do we need to vote the other way to satisfy any legal or anything?

Yes, sir.

Okay. I believe we do. All right. Would anybody like to make a motion for denial?

I'd like to make a motion for denial.

Yes, sir. Based on?

Well, let's see. We can start with the units per acre.

Speak to your mic.

We can start with the units per acre. They don't meet that requirement. That's really where I'm going to stop right there. That and the fact that septic has not been approved by either sewer system that is out there in the area.

Mr. Chairman, this does meet the zoning ordinance requirements for density.

I'm afraid we are stuck with the law of the land at this point. And I don't like it any more than anybody else does. But these are the rules that we have to go by at this point. And some of this stuff is out of our purview. But we do have a motion on the floor for denial. Do we have a second? All right, Commissioner Franklin has a second.

Mr. Chairman, for the record, we will need something based on the LDR for the denial. We will need a section of the LDR base for denial.

I have a question.

Mr. Parham.

LDR, excuse me just a second. LDR 3.3.4, item G. I believe it states that the names and owners of the utilities in that area, that district, should be named and included in the preliminary plan. Is that accurate?

That they be shown on the plan.

Then I believe we can deny based on that requirement.

The sewer is not available in that area.

It's just an argument of whether it's feasible or not. And so it has N.A. on there. It is in the area. There's a definition issue here of whether it's feasible, it's available. Because that is a sewer district.

Well, I think my response to that would be that sewer might be available anywhere in Greenville County. It's just whether or not you want to spend and be able to have the thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of feet to reach that sewer line. So while sewer might not be readily available to people up in the northern portion of Greenville County, sewer's available, but they're going to have to pay to get... more towards the center of the county to get to it. So I think that just because it's available in Greenville County doesn't necessarily mean that it's available at all properties in Greenville County.

Can I say something? Go ahead. I've had several conversations with DES about this project. They just won't issue a preliminary letter at this stage because they do permitting on an individual lot basis. So until you're ready to have them come out and do the inspections on every single lot, they won't issue a letter. But I was told that there's no reason that this site couldn't be septic tanks. Now whether we get 57 lots or not depends on rock and all of other conditions. So if we can't get that then we're wrong. But DES has no issues with septic tanks on this parcel.

Did we have a letter of any of that?

We had SEC comments that said it was denied.

That's where the confusing part is.

Yeah. I mean, it's very confusing to us because it says in the comments that septic was denied.

Can I address that? Yes, sir. The sewer providers have said that they deny septic. and would not like to see septic. They don't have the ability to deny whether or not a septic tank is permitted on a property. Only DES has that. So they're just saying they don't want it. They don't want septic tanks. They would rather it be a sewer. So they're denying the fact that someone has a septic tank, but they don't have the authority to do that.

Can I say something?

Mr. Jennings. Yes, go ahead.

What about the generational taxpayers that's on whales? These septic tanks contaminate whales.

I know some people with contaminated whales. We hear you, sir. But I know that they just keep walking up here talking. Again, I don't need you to tell me how to run this meeting. Would you like to step outside? I don't need you to tell me how to run this meeting. I gave you an opportunity to speak and you chose not to, okay? I'm sorry. That's the way it is. Again, I'll ask. We have a motion on the floor and a second for denial. We need a reason.

I gave the reasons that I had. I guess I'm going to have to revoke my denial. Withdraw it.

All right. Mr. Braswell is withdrawing his motion. So we're back to square one. What do you all want to do?

I'll make a motion we approve with the following conditions.

Following conditions.

That an updated form and evaluation be provided by Rewind Metro. prior to any permitting that the document, the email I got from the fire marshal with the requirements along with the new plat dated July 2nd be sent back to South Greenville Fire Department and reviewed and that information received And if the lot size is determined to be more than an acre less than what is shown, it comes back to the Planning Commission.

I'll second that motion.

Oh, I'm sorry. In addition to everything else you have.

that was in our packet. Yes.

A second.

All right. Chairman has motion. Mr. Parham has a second. Everybody clear with how we're voting? Show of hands for approval. Show of hands with the motion and the conditions for approval. That's six. Denial? Two.

Did I count wrong?

Seven. Seven to two. All right. It passes. All right. Moving on. Whitehorse Road commercial buffer variance. LDR 10.3.5. Yes, ma'am.

The applicant is seeking a variance from the requirements of LDR section 10.3.5, which requires a wall, fence, compact evergreen hedge, or combination of fence and shrubbery at least six feet in height along the side and rear exterior lines adjacent to residential use. Additionally, a 15-foot landscape buffer along the exterior property lines adjacent to residential uses shall be maintained. The request is to remove the 15 foot buffer requirement against the residential use as it occupies the existing 15 foot driveway along the existing building on the property. The building is under new ownership and will have a change in use. Here is the site plan. The area shown in green is for the variance request. Here is the site. West of the site? North of the site? South of the site? SAC produced no comments in opposition or concerns related to the request. Staff recommends approval of the variance as requested.

Thank you, ma'am. Commissioners, questions, comments, thoughts? Motion.

I have a question for staff. Mr. How long has this been out of compliance and how did we know about it? Did they come forth and or was this you guys went out checked because there's a change

So the building's been there for a number of years. If you've been down Whitehorse, you've probably seen the little hamburger that sits out.

Yeah, I went up there.

Recently, that business owner closed that business. They submitted for a change of use, which is required to do zoning feasibility, to make sure that you have enough parking or whatever it is you may need for that new business type. when they did that they were required to come into conformance but this site is existing non-conforming and the only way for them to provide the parking that you see on the plan that is required is through that drive access aisle so it's kind of a catch-22 in which if they provided the buffer you wouldn't be able to get to the dumpsters or get to the required parking and then that would need a you know some sort of variance possibly with the Board of Zoning Appeals so

Yeah, I'm pretty sure if this was new construction, there wouldn't be a variance given for this, but that's kind of what I was wondering. Has it been that way for a long time?

Yeah, I think this building, I wouldn't give you a specific date, but it's been there for many decades.

Yeah, okay.

Mr. Chairman.

What is the new use?

Josh, do you have any idea? I'm not sure. A change of use came in.

So it was like a restaurant?

Actually, it was like an antique-y oddities kind of store. Okay.

But, I mean, is it going to be? I'm just, you know, what kind of change in use? I mean, it could be a huge change in use. You know?

It will be a change of use that's permitted in that zoning district.

Within the zoning. Which could be a huge change.

It's possible that the applicant is here and I can tell you a little bit more about what their plans are.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to have a motion to approve.

Well, applicant is going to come up and speak. Hold that just a second, Commissioner Manning. Yes, ma'am.

My name is Jenny Guerrero. I'm with Alvarez Enterprises, the general contractor in charge of this project. And so we represent the owner. He bought the building recently, and he wants to start making bread, and he only wants to have like six or seven employees, so it's not going to take too much space. And the alteration is only going to be interior alteration, so nothing exterior. The building is going to be the same and the site will be kept the same.

Okay. Thank you, ma'am. All right. Commissioner Manning has a motion for approval. Do we have a second?

I'll second.

Commissioner Manasevic has a second. Show of hands for approval. It's unanimous. It passes. Thank you, ma'am.

Good bread baking.

All right. Next on our agenda is VA 2026-069.

The applicant is seeking a variance from the requirements of LDR section 10.3.7, which requires rooftop equipment to be screened by a parapet or other architectural element that is equal to the maximum elevation of the equipment and is complementary to the building's architecture. The request is to allow the replacement of existing rooftop HVAC units with the new units of identical size, location, and function without the screening requirement. The applicant states that the replacement RTUs will extend approximately one foot above the parapet. Despite this, the units will not be visible from adjacent businesses, public roadways, or the parking lot, and therefore will not impact the visual character of the surrounding area. For the applicant, the replacement will not change the building's appearance or create any additional impact beyond what already exists. Here is an image of the proposed replacement HVAC units. Here is the site. South of the site. East of the site. West of the site. SAC produced no comments in opposition or concerns related to the request. Staff recommends approval of the variance as requested.

Thank you, ma'am. Commissioners, any comments? Motion?

I move to approve. I'll second.

Commissioner Manning has the motion to approve. Commissioner Phillips has the second. Show of hands for approval. All right. Thank you. All right that brings us to reconsideration request for PP 2026-053 Mountain Creek Overlook. We have to in order to reconsider You have it. Reconsideration. The commission may reconsider any review when so requested by the governing body or when an applicant brings to the attention of the commission new facts, a mistake of facts in the original review, correction of clerical error, or matters not the fault of the applicant that affect the result of the review. In the event an applicant is requesting reconsideration of a plat that has been denied by the commission, the request must be made in time for the reconsideration to be included on the published agenda for the next regular commission meeting after the meeting where the plat was denied.

Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Parham.

I make a motion to not reconsider.

I'll second.

And what is your reasoning for not reconsidering?

There's been no evidence given of any of the qualifications you just read.

We haven't heard any. All right. Mr. Parham has made a motion for denial of reconsideration. Ms. Manning has made the second. Show of hands to deny reconsideration. One, two, three, four, five, six. Show of hands for reconsideration. One, two. Did you not vote? Okay, you're abstaining. All right, because you weren't here. Ms. Franklin is abstaining, so we have six to two.

Well, you weren't here either.

You can vote. She's choosing to abstain. She's choosing to abstain.

Do we need to for the record? And for evidence, do we need to document why we chose not to reconsider?

One of these three considerations here.

Well, to echo that, there was, and I'll just provide the evidence, nothing has changed that's been brought to us except for the removal of the variance and the incorporation of the buffer back in, which, I mean, the initial intention was to not have a buffer, which is why the variance was there. So we don't feel like anything changed. changed to be considered as reconsider a lot.

There was no mistake made.

No mistake made. We did not make a mistake. We had all the information in front of us.

So the vote count will be six to two with Commissioner Franklin abstaining. All right, next planning report.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this evening, it's pretty short and straightforward. I'll give you an update on the Cherokee Foothill Scenic Corridor Plan. Our staff has held a couple of community meetings this week, and we received a lot of good feedback in those meetings. Staff is reviewing that feedback and going through the process now of incorporating that into the plan, incorporating the public feedback. So that'll be happening over the next few weeks. We also met June 9th, this is for the comp plan subcommittee, we met on June 9th to discuss the scope of work that we'll be working forward to amend the future land use map. We had a good discussion together in that meeting about what it means for comp plan, the future land use map, and for ordinances to align or match. Currently, members of the committee are reviewing the copies of the proposed scope that we worked on together and we'll be meeting again on July 10th. Now, once this meeting is complete and the scope is approved by the subcommittee, staff recommends that Planning Commission review that scope as a body and then vote to approve that scope and authorize the subcommittee to proceed with the work of drafting amendments to the Future Land Use Map. That way it keeps everybody involved and we keep all the legal processes going forward. As far as transportation planning, GPAT's policy committee had a specially called meeting this past month. They were looking at their planning, sorry, unified planning work program budget for 2027. Part of that work involved looking at the Woodruff Road Congestion Relief Project, and they decided to hold any vote on funding that project until August. And then our LRTP, our long-range transportation plan update is proceeding on schedule. We've completed our first round of public input meetings. Those were held last month. And our consultant is currently assisting us with project selection and moving forward with developing the plan. And we will do another round of public meetings next month. And I'll have those dates for you. I'll send them out in email. I don't have them quite yet. And other than that, the next GPATS policy committee meeting is July 13th. And that's all I've got for you this evening. All right.

Any questions? All right. Any old business? All right. New business. Just to make the commission aware, I did send an email out today to Mr. Carlisle about a joint training session with Greenville County Council Commissioner Chairman Blunt and I have been in discussion about us and the council getting together to discuss Article 9 and to discuss other items that several subcommittees have been working on just to kind of get a question and answer session and basically just make sure we're all still on the right track. And that has been tentatively scheduled for Thursday, July the 9th at 530. We don't have a room yet. I would assume we would be in the main council chambers. And so Draper has said that they're working on that looking at the calendar. He said that was a busy week for people on vacation, but hopefully we can make that happen. Mr. Moore, do you have anything to add to that?

Yeah, one of the one of the things is just going to be a little different than any other workshops we've had in the past. We're going to invite the public to give us comments on Article 9. We're going to go over the five or six key areas, big issues on Article 9, which is roads, guys. It's all about roads. And then we'll follow that with probably a joint discussion about the cluster ordinance and LDR has been put together. But this is going to be an open discussion, debate, however you want to look at it, is how does the staff How does the council and how does the Planning Commission want Article 9 to look like? Because right now it's pretty obvious it's broken. Give you an example of broken. Anybody here want to guess what percentage of the subdivisions we've seen in the last seven months get a TIS?

What percentage get a TIS?

For a TIS, the way the regulation is written right now.

15%.

what well if I take out Owens Glen only 5% get reviews no wonder there's a problem with roads in this county that's just one of the issues But that's what's on deck with this is an open discussion for the public to see. I think we're going to ask for a portal so they can give us comments we can look at later and ideas so we get an Article 9 and something that's useful for the county and not what we have right now.

All right.

Mr. Chair, if I may just briefly.

Yes, sure. As you and I discussed, that is a busy week with vacations and stuff, both for council members and for staff. So if we could hold that date and just let us look at calendaring that, we will get it set up in July, but July 9th might be a little hard to get to.

If you can just let us know sometime maybe early next week so we meet the qualifications for putting it out there to the public.

Absolutely. We'll make sure there's plenty of public notice.

Right. But we definitely want to try to do something in the evening so that everybody can be in attendance and we can get as many folks in the public here. And, of course, we want as many council members to be in attendance also as possible.

So this is more like a workshop.

It is a workshop, yes. It's a time for discussion, questions, and answers, and let everybody see how the sausage is made, I guess. That's a good analogy.

Discussion and debate on what they want to see. Yes. Because, as I say, there's a lot of work that needs to be done on it.

All right. Does anybody else have anything else? Hearing none, we stand adjourned.