Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. I would like to welcome you to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting for July the 22nd, 2026. It's hereby called to order. At today's meeting, we will be reviewing rezoning applications. Subdivision applications and other items brought to us by staff. Unless the Commission members have a question for the applicant, we will not accept any additional public comment on rezoning applications. The rezoning cases were presented at a public hearing, and that was the opportunity to hear from the public comments in favor or in opposition of the rezoning request. good? At today's meeting the Commission will make its recommendations on the rezoning cases. Detailed information on each case was provided to us in our electronic agenda packet in advance of this meeting. Our recommendations will be forwarded to the County Council Planning or to the Council Planning and Development Committee for their consideration and discussion and decision. Subdivision matters that 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 comments from the SAC along with a review of the applicable sections of the ordinance. Staff has presented recommendations, conditions for approval or denial for each preliminary plat. 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. I do have a list of folks here. Again, you cannot address the commission during the meeting on rezoning request. The official public hearing on these cases has already been held. All right. Again, we'd like to welcome you all. Mr. Parham has our invocation.

Bow your heads, please. From Psalm 32, verse 2. Yes, what joy for those whose record the Lord has cleared of guilt, whose lives are lived in complete honesty. So while someone's record may be expunged by man in this world, in the end, what really matters is what we all write on the ledger of your own life that the Lord is keeping. With that in mind, Lord, please grant us wisdom and discernment as we serve the citizens of this county, and that we demonstrate complete honesty, integrity, and that your will may be done tonight. I ask that you protect us from evil and keep us safe on our journeys home from here tonight. I ask these in the name of Jesus. Amen.

Amen. Please join us for the Pledge of Allegiance. Attention, salute, pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice. All right. Approval of the minutes from our June 24th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. I trust everyone's had a chance to look them over. Do we have any additions, subtractions, amendments?

Mr. Chair.

Mr. Barham.

I have a question regarding the content. There doesn't seem to be anything about, in our minutes, the interruptions and yelling, outbursts, the out of order, disrespectful comments that were made. And in particular, it was from a developer applicant that is also a member of a county board. I realize that the minutes aren't supposed to reflect every single thing that's said, but if that's supposed to be an official legal record, should that kind of thing be in there or at least some mention of it?

So as you pointed out, Mr. Parham, the minutes are not a word-for-word verbatim transcript. That's under Robert's rules, which this body follows. It's supposed to hit the high points, the exact wording of motions and so forth are included, but the discussions, it's not word-for-word. Now, if you all make a motion and want to include some of that, we can add it in generally as an amendment, but it wouldn't be a word-for-word transcript of what happened.

Right, and that's kind of what I would expect.

Does that answer your question?

Yeah, I believe so.

All right. Thank you. Thank you. So do we have a motion for approval?

Mr.

Chair, I move that we accept the minutes as presented.

All right. Ms. Franklin has the motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. Mr. Manasevic has a second. All right. Everybody in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right, next we'll move on to resuming requests. Our first docket number is CZ2026-031.

Good afternoon. The following is a brief explanation of the Planning Commission process to consider rezoning cases. Each docket will be presented, including the requested zoning, specific details of the site, as well as maps and photos of the site and surrounding area. Presentation will conclude with staff recommendation. Staff recommendation is a result of feedback from a team of internal and external county stakeholders who review each case. After each presentation, the Planning Commission may either vote with or against staff's recommendation, in addition to offering any additional amendments to the recommendation. All items forwarded from today's meeting will be heard by the Planning and Development Committee in person in the committee room in the North Building, which is scheduled for August 3rd at 5 o'clock p.m. 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 813, MCC, Mountain Creek Community District. The proposed amendment would establish Section 813, 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 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. And lastly, all historic sites on the subject property must be noted on PLATS. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendment would increase watershed protections for the Mountain Creek area, which are major concerns for local citizens. The community is concerned that the increase in impervious development and loss of vegetated areas along wetlands and streams could worsen flood events. Staff does, however, recommend revisions to the version of the text amendment which was initiated at the Planning and Development Committee. These revisions are to better align the language of the proposed Section 813 with existing language in the county's land development regulations and stormwater ordinance. It would also clarify the variance process from these requirements. Based on these reasons, staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment with the submitted revisions. And Mr. Chairman, I should add, so staff, we did send those staff reports with both versions of those to Planning Commission earlier, and the staff report has also been placed on the county's website as well.

Thank you. All right, commissioners.

Mr. Chairman. Could staff summarize the precise nature of the changes for us? It was a little challenging to look at both copies and discern the differences. Correct.

So substantially they are still accomplished most of the same things. So as part of the changes we have added in some definitions to some of the terms used in the riparian buffers and in the stormwater requirements. We have also aligned the language of those two sections. There are certain standards that are set within the land development regulations and the stormwater ordinance as to what our land development department that reviews those items, what they expect to see and the criteria they have to follow. So we just wanted to make sure that the actual verbiage between these documents aligns as consistent with each other. We don't want an instance where we have conflicting language or design standards. On top of that, the old version had the 50-foot perimeter buffer, but there were no established planting requirements in the event that there was not vegetation or if vegetation happened to be cleared. So we've added in some metrics for planting or replanting of those buffer areas. Let's see, what else? As stated, the... Last section that's been added in here, 8.13.11, now talks about administration relief and enforcement of these requirements. Just so it's clear, if there needed to be some sort of enforcement action or somebody needed an appeal or a variance from the requirements, how that would be processed. and what sort of documentation staff might require. I believe they have to have, under these requirements, our land development department would now have a compliance review that would be submitted with material that goes to the Board of Zoning Appeals for them to consider when looking at a variance request. Aside from that, we added in language that allows for removal of invasive species as part of open space maintenance. We thought that might be critical or important to have. And then under the open space requirements, we changed some of the language there to better align with the proposed open space development revisions that are happening in the zoning ordinance and the loan development regulations at about the same time period. So we wouldn't end up with... conflicting language in this section of the ordinance, and then when the amendments, if and when amendments to the open space requirements change, you know, wouldn't have conflicting language there. So just believe that's a comprehensive view. It was quite a bit to go through. Thank you.

Any other questions? Ms. Manning.

So the language of open space and repairing buffers and what have you, does that apply to also conventional subdivisions or just simply the open space clusters?

So the Mountain Creek District in general would apply to any new major subdivision that would come before Plain Creek.

Great. So it could be applied to a conventional subdivision.

Correct.

Where it is not applied in a conventional subdivision down south with us down here.

Correct. Yes, ma'am.

Very good. Thank you.

Any further questions?

Mr. Chair, I have a question.

Mr. Farrell.

Getting back to your line of getting things in sync with the potential passing of the, I think, open space amendments, If it goes the other way, meaning we pass this move forward tonight and through council and then the open space changes, how difficult and who would be making those changes to get this back in sync with the open space?

So on that point, I'll say the main change in that regard is We'll get to this under Docket 40. Docket 40 tonight is going to be the open space change. And that removes some of the current language underneath Section 7.2 of the zoning ordinance, which talks to open space residential developments, as well as some of the... And then independent from that, in the companion LDR amendment, which has already gone through second reading with council, they are removing some language from the cluster development regulations there. In this amendment, docket 31 for the Mountain Creek, there was some language that had been copied over from the current version of the ordinance in LDR. That has been taken out of the Mountain Creek, and instead it now just references sections 11.3 and I believe 11.4 of the LDR, which is what the Docket 40 does. Now, I will say, Docket 11.3 and 11.4 of the LDR, even if the changes to the LDR don't happen, the reference would still be viable. So it would still be referencing the current standards of the LDR, which means that even if just this portion passed, it would still be relevant or consistent with what the LDR requires.

Okay, and if they're ever in conflict, would the Mountain Creek Community District override

The sections of the Mountain Creek District that specifically spell out the regulations would override. If it is a reference to a specific section of another ordinance or another regulating document, then whatever that document requires is what would take.

Okay.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Phillips.

Sunset Clause. Mm-hmm. What is the reasoning behind the sunset clause? Because we know the characteristics and the topography are not going to change here.

So the sunset clause, that was something that was debated. It was put in, taken out, put back in. Ultimately, we decided to leave it in for this portion. It just gives counsel the ability to reconsider or reassess at that two-year point after it's had some time to use the ordinance. Potentially, if any issues come up that have been identified or if it's not working quite as intended, it's just an opportunity for them to reassess that.

So the intention is it would work kind of like a reminder my understanding kind of like referendums could we move forward with this and make a recommendation to P&D that they remove the sunset clause I mean I'm sure the people in this neighborhood in this area would are going to be vigilant and If anything comes up, and staff as well, as you work with applications, see things come up and we can coordinate with council on things that need to be changed going forward.

Yeah, I'll answer that. You can make – the recommendation you make can include revisions to it. When we get to P&D, due to what we presented to you, we're going to present the same thing we presented tonight to P&D with our revisions and recommendations and everything. We'll also present what you have further amended – at that point, and then it'll be up to P&D and then on to council as to, you know, if they want to move forward with. Right now, we've got it as approval with conditions. So it would be because we've got the conditions that it, you know, be revised to what we presented tonight. Okay. And then it would be approval with conditions as amended if that's what is decided moving forward. Does that make sense? Yes. I tried to make sense. Yes, it makes sense.

I'd also like to comment that I think this is very well written. I know it's been a long undertaking, and I understand the pain. Believe me. I think there's several things in here I would have loved to see in the open space criteria as well. Just a comment.

I just want to say, you know, she's in here. Suzanne is somewhere back in the back. Suzanne from our staff has worked very diligently with the community on getting this together. So I commend her for that.

Do you have any comments, Suzanne, while you're here? Do you have any comments for us? Suzanne?

Do you have any comments?

No, I just had, it was hard work, but definitely worth it.

All right.

Well, thank you for your hard work on this. Yeah, thank you. Any further questions of staff?

Not of staff, but I want to support Commissioner Phillips. I think having a sunset clause doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I don't want to sunset this group of people up in the northern part of Greenville County. You can review it, but in terms of a sunset clause, that gives the option of completely reversing the good that's being done with this particular amendment here. Okie doke.

Thank you. Mr. Farrell. Along those same lines regarding the sunset clause, how many community districts do we currently have right now? Roughly.

You're talking about countywide?

Yeah, countywide. How many plans do we have?

We have, I believe, three community overlays in the zoning ordinance currently. Taylor's Main Street, Scuffle Town. Actually, that would be two, and this would be the third.

Well, no, we've got Pelham Road. If you want to count the airport and Byron's overlays.

So at least a half dozen. Or a little more, maybe. How many of those, if you know, have sunset clauses in them?

I'm not aware of any of them. I believe the last ordinance revision that had a sunset clause was the repair and buffer amendments to the LER.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Mr. Moore.

Yes, I just want to... voice my support for not having a sunset clause. But I also think that if somebody thinks they need a sunset clause, I would recommend they look at a review period at which time everybody takes a look at it so that it doesn't sunset and it stops being enforced. And that way you make the revisions on the fly as opposed to sunsetting the whole thing and deciding what to do next.

So, Mr. Baxter, is that something we can add in to the comments from Planning Commission to go to?

So if Planning Commission wanted to, so right now staff's recommendation is, you know, approval with the conditions or with amendments. So if Planning Commission wanted to, you could... Accept this with your own amendment to remove that sunset clause if you wish. Do we need a motion for that?

Yes, sir. All right. Do we have any further comment before we move forward with a motion?

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Manasseh.

Since the packet has the first version and not the staff amended a version, how long is the sunset clause? I'm having a little trouble coming up with that email.

It would be two years.

Two years. Okay. That's what I thought. Then may I make a motion, sir?

Yes, sir. Please.

All right. My motion will be to accept and to recommend the proposal with the sunset clause phrasing stricken from the rest of the document. Otherwise, it would be identical to what staff presented to us yesterday.

And I'll second that.

All right, we have a second.

Can I ask one question, please, Mr. Chairman? Is that the entire sentence as it reads, the provisions and requirement of this ordinance shall expire two years from its effective date unless readopted by Greenville County Council? I would say yes. Yes, sir.

We'll make sure. Thank you. So a motion by Mr. Manasevic.

That was my intent. Thank you.

So we have a motion and a second. Let's have a vote. Everybody in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. All right. Next docket number will be CZ2026-033. Mr. Baxley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry, 32.

Yes, sir. Next docket, 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 Ainsley Daniel Properties, No. 1, LLC. 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 the zoning of the surrounding area. Subject property outlined and shaded here is on C1 commercial district. The request is for I1 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. Staff is of the opinion that successful rezoning to the I-1 Industrial District will be consistent with similar zoning in the area and will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. Based on these reasons, staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning to the I-1 Industrial District. Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Commissioners? Comments? Motion?

Mr. Moore? Can you share what the comprehensive plan calls this area to be?

Under the comprehensive plan, it is rural corridor. I believe the property is actually split, but the portion that is to be rezoned is rural corridor.

Sorry.

Anyone else?

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Manasevic.

I make a motion that we recommend approval of the zoning change.

I'll second.

All right. We have a motion from Mr. Manasevic. We have a second from Ms. Phillips. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.

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 and 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. Staffs of the opinion that successful rezoning to the C1 commercial district would not be consistent with the planning of a county comprehensive plan, future land use designation of suburban neighborhood, nor would it be consistent with similar zoning in the area. Based on these reasons, staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning to C1 commercial district.

Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Baxley. Commissioners, comments?

I have a question for the staff. Mr. Barham? In Monday night's hearing, there was a lot of discussion about this. I believe some of you actually might have spoken with the applicant's It sounded like a path forward was a different zoning request. That's correct. And that was the best thing for them. The best way to get that there for them is how. We would like your guidance on that. There's a couple of different places, but I think we need to probably... deny it and move forward, but I don't want to penalize them.

Right. I've already had the conversation with them yesterday, and I've laid out exactly what they need to do step by step, and they're in the process of getting that ball rolling. They're aware that this docket just needs to ride out and be denied. If it is denied, It being C1, they can come back and immediately ask for OD since it's a more restricted district. They're not penalized at all. So they're just going to let this one ride and not withdraw because if they do withdraw, then they're hit with a six-month penalty. So they're aware of what they need to be doing and the next steps.

Okay. There won't be any additional fees or anything of that nature for the applicant, will there?

There will be.

Are they aware of that? They are. Okay. Yes.

And you mentioned what I was thinking this probably would be. I think you said OD. Because I think I saw one on the map already, maybe, or maybe I didn't see that clearly.

Yes, on the other corner right there.

Oh, yeah. What is that, ROI?

That's ROI.

That's the city.

Yeah, never mind.

Isn't there one close by, though, that they pointed out the other night?

I thought so, but anyway.

They spoke to some that they said, I believe, were north up the road that were existing nonconforming. They were commercial properties in residential zone.

The other conversation was neighborhood commercial, and that is a path for them as well. That path is obviously a little more strenuous, it being a type of review district. So they're going to go... and pursue the OD route and see how that goes.

All right. Yes. Mr. Sternberg.

Yeah, so I was at the meeting too, and the concern was setting a precedent for the rest of the, so which of the, you know, the OD or the neighborhood, there's discussion if they were to sell the house, the next owner, EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT WHICH MORE PROTECTS THE NEIGHBORS THAT MORE COMMERCIAL DOESN'T. IS THAT WHAT YOU DISCUSSED WITH THEM?

So of the two options, so the two districts that were thrown out on Monday night were OD and then neighborhood commercial. So OD is a standard zoning district. Any use that is listed as permitted in the zoning ordinances use table in OD would be permitted there regardless of who owned the property that was rezoned to that. Under the neighborhood commercial district, that is a special review district. So as part of the rezoning, they would establish a statement of intent and preliminary development plan. where they would establish site-specific regulations and permitted uses. So it would be a more restrictive zoning district, and anyone who came in to acquire the property after it was established would have to adhere to those restrictions that were established up front. All right.

Any further questions from staff?

I'll make a motion we recommend an IOM based on Let me just state why we're denying. Based on the incompatibility with future land use and the character of the neighborhood.

And Ms. Franklin, you're seconding? Yes. And can we also add that we're doing this with the knowledge of the applicant and their understanding of the process? Yes.

I think neighborhood commercial might be a better way to go, but I don't know. We'll see.

Okay. All right. So does everybody understand we're voting for denial and the reason why? All right. Everyone in favor of denial, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. The motion carries and the application is denied.

Rezoning dockets 34 and 35 have been withdrawn by the applicant, so the next docket will be 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, and currently contains vacant land. This is the zoning of the surrounding area. Subject property outlined and shaded here is zoned 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. Staff is of the opinion that successful rezoning to the I-1 industrial district would be consistent with the planning of a county comprehensive plan, future land use designation of industrial, and the requested district would be consistent with similar zoning in the area. Based on these reasons, staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning to I-1 industrial district. Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Commissioners, questions?

Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, could you go back to the zoning? Yeah, one right there. The parcel that is up at the top that C1 has the same tax number as the parcel at the bottom.

It does.

But what we are discussing tonight has no bearing whatsoever on the northern parcel. Correct.

It does not. There are two land hooked parcels, but at the moment we are just considering this C3 portion down here and the C1 property is not part of this request.

All right. I just want a clarification. Thank you. You're welcome. Also, thanks to Josh for sending along the notes that I requested on this.

I was going to ask to make sure you did receive this.

I did, and I enjoyed the clarification that it brought.

So basically it's a decoder ring, I believe is what I would call it.

And what did you call that? It's the two pieces of property? Land hooked. Land hooked?

Yeah, if you ever notice on GIS, we don't have it shown here. If you ever notice on GIS, there's two pieces of property on both sides of the road, and you see a black line that kind of looks like a Z or something. It's a land hook that connects those two sections of land under one parcel. Okay.

But it's the same map ID number? Mm-hmm. Okay.

Okay. Even though there are several parcels and a street that is in between, right? Okay.

Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Phillips.

I'll make a motion we recommend denial. I mean, approval. Approval. I think this is the best area, no matter commercial, industrial, looks like it's flexible there. Great.

I'll second.

All right. We have a motion for approval from Ms. Phillips and a second from Ms. Franklin. Any further comments? All right. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Ayes have it. Mr. Baxley, CZ 2026-037.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Next docket is CZ-2026-037. The property is located at Grove Reserve Parkway and Interstate 185 in Piedmont. The applicant is James Malm of NAI Earl Furman for Augusta Rove 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. 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 applicant states that the proposed land use is commercial. This is the subject site and photos showing the area surrounding the subject site. Staffs of the opinion that while the requested zoning district may not be consistent with the plan of a county comprehensive plan, future land use designation of industrial, a successful rezoning to C2 commercial district would be consistent with the South Greenville area plan future land use designation of commercial. The requested district would also be consistent with similar zoning in the area. Based on these reasons, staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning to the C2 commercial district.

Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

Commissioners?

Mr. Chairman, I recommend that we accept this. We approve it.

All right. I'll second that. Ms. Franklin has a motion for approval. Mr. Mansevic has a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Ayes have it. All right, Mr. Baxley. CZ 2026-38.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The next document 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 zoned C3 commercial district. The request is for C2 commercial district. You can also see the surrounding property zones. Applicant states that the proposed land use is commercial. This is the subject site and photos showing the area surrounding the subject site. Staffs of the opinion that while the requested rezoning district requested zoning district may not be consistent with the planning of a county comprehensive plan, future land use designation of industrial, a successful rezoning to C2 commercial district would be consistent with South Greenville area plan, future land use designation of commercial, and would be consistent with similar zoning in the area. Based on these reasons, staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning to C2 commercial district. Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Any questions? Motion.

I'll make a motion. We recommend approval.

Ms. Phillips has a motion for approval. I'll second. Mr. Parham has a second. All those in favor for approval say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Ayes have it. Next we have CZ 2026-39.

Next docket, 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 a text amendment be made to the home occupation regulations of the Greenville County Zoning Ordinance to allow for more flexibility in how home-based businesses operate. 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 farmers markets, CSAs, 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-site at any one time, up to a maximum of three. This is excluding daycare clients. 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. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed text amendment would reduce the frequency of use by special exception requests submitted to the Board of Zoning Appeals for home-based businesses by adding some of the more commonly requested businesses to the permitted use table. This would create more opportunities for citizens looking to start a home-based business while also reducing the added time and cost associated with going to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Based on these reasons, staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment.

Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Baxley. Commissioners, do we have any questions for staff on this?

I do.

I think this is a long time coming. I mean, to encourage home businesses I think is fantastic, and so I would like to put a motion together to approve per staff's recommendation of CZ2026-039. Mr. Moore.

I think this is a long time coming as well, but I'd like to amend the motion that was presented, and that is this looks very good for a residential urban site area, but half this county is rural. And if you implement this, you just shut down three businesses within a mile of me. It needs to be looked at from the perspective of the entire county. because out in the rural areas, the houses are away from the road. You can't see them. They can have four or five people there, and you'll never know it. And rural people are not complaining about that. So I would recommend that this be put on hold such that a group can go together and make sure we're meeting the requirements of all the citizens of the county. As I say, it needs to be done. No argument there. but consider the rule of character of the county as well.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address that. I completely understand and respect that. The only thing is that in those instances, those would be considered not home-based businesses. This is more for a home occupation where someone is running it out of their home. It's not for the larger rural activity of the rural farming that takes place. That could fall under a different use. We're not talking about that. If they are doing that, then If it's a residential property, then there's other uses that are not permitted. But a home-based business, this is strictly just working out of your home.

Yes, but I can name a spinning business, a chiropractic business, and a digital business all within a mile of me that this does not support. How does it not support it? Because they have more than three people, okay? spinning business is not on the list. And then that would go to the Board of Zoning Appeals. But my point is, I don't want to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals because this list now says you don't have to do that. So I'm trying to give more flexibility to the rural part of the county.

Well, what I will say as far as the number goes, we met with the building official and To be honest, he doesn't want to allow anybody to come to residence because it's a life safety matter. Because those homes are approved and have a certificate of occupancy to be a home, not a business where the public is coming into. When you invite the public into that home, it becomes a commercial establishment. And there's life safety issues. There's handicap accessibility issues. There's things that would turn that home into something other than a home. We settled on the number three, mainly because he felt that if we start increasing it more than that, there's going to be some major life safety issues that they need to start seeking feasibilities. They will fail feasibilities, and they won't be able to have the business at all. So that's kind of why we landed on that number three, because when you start increasing it more than that, you're going to get into life safety matters.

The other night at the zoning hearing, we had a couple, I believe they were doing a dance studio or something.

It was an art tutoring business.

I thought somebody said something about dancing. And you can't have a set of partners and a half if you're teaching dancing lessons. You've got to have at least four people if you're going to have two couples.

And once again, that is something that would go to the Board of Zoning Appeals. That's a there.

So I guess one thing I would just want to make clear. Most of these standards already exist in the zoning orders. We already have a home occupation process. This is just an amendment to those current standards. The uses that we have proposed adding to this list are the ones that we see most frequently. If we were to try to account for every type of home business out there, then this is going to be a very, very long list. So we're really just trying to stay focused on what we're addressing there.

You bring up a point that I didn't mention. Wouldn't it be a shorter list to identify the things you don't want them to do? I would think that would be much shorter.

Well, he'd never capture all that either.

People are very creative.

Right. They are. But I think the goal is here not to create more work for the citizens of the county by having to go to the BZA or just, you know.

Mr. Chair.

Mr. Barham.

I have a question regarding homeschooling. That was some of the topics that were brought up. What was the limit for that? Is that three?

Three children? If it is somebody homeschooling their children, we don't want anything to do with that. We're not going to regulate that. Is that the point? If you start bringing on lots of other people onto your property, then that starts to look more like a commercial business, not so much a small-scale home business.

So if someone has five children and they're homeschooling, this does not apply?

If they're their children. Okay. What happens in the event that you've got a couple of mothers that are in the same co-op, school co-op, I believe that's the correct term for that, and they decide, you know, today we can't go to the church or to the – gym that they meet in for their weekly or bi-weekly activities, and they have to come to someone's house to do that.

So we're not, my understanding is if it's for some sort of religious purposes or anything, you know, we're not going to touch that for sure. I will say if it's more actual educational, we have had, previously we've had schools, we've had churches that do actual educational, like if We've had churches that, say, use their auditorium space or fellowship space for actual co-op tutoring throughout the day. And those have gone to border zoning appeals previously.

But I was referring more to someone's home. You know, you just... whatever reason, they can't go to the co-op today. And maybe the other families have decided, okay, we'll just keep our kids at home. But maybe one set of parents has made plans to do something else, and they need to send their kids to a friend's house.

I mean, are you going to have zoning people running out and checking the number of children that are in various houses?

If we get a complaint, we would.

Okay.

I will say to date, I don't know that we've had anybody approach us about a home business for tutoring to that scale, which is why it's something that we really didn't consider as part of these amendments. But that's something we could potentially look at for the future.

And I think one thing is we don't want to lose in mind here, keep in mind here, is that We're talking about homes. We're talking about dwellings. And under the ordinance, those are supposed to be protected as dwellings. And the zoning ordinance says that home occupations are supposed to be incidental to the primary use of the property, which is a dwelling. When you start bringing in more and more people, when you start having more and more outdoor activity, and you start having more and more storage of things, you start doing all these things that's not keeping with the residential character of a home, it's going to become something else. At that point, we're essentially making that home into something that's not permitted in the zoning district of single-family residential.

But like you said, if you get complaints, you'll go out and investigate those things. Exactly. So at this point right now, this ordinance simply says, let's have some home-based businesses. You don't need to be worried to go to BZA to get a zoning change.

What this is saying is that right now we have a list of uses, and especially since COVID, and even a little bit prior to COVID, we've had some of these uses that have become more and more prevalent. artist studios, massage therapists, chiropractic care, things like that, that staff can approve on a staff level, or have not been able to, sorry, have not been able to approve on staff level because they were not in that list of having to take them to the Board of Zoning Appeals. you know, after a discussion with the board, they wanted to see that list start dwindling down of number of types of uses. So that's why we've added some of those more prevalent uses that we've seen into this list so staff can approve that because people are working out of their homes still since COVID. So that was the intent of this.

Well, it would seem to me that it would clear up a heck of a lot of traffic for BZA simply doing this.

And this came out of the BZA, correct?

Correct.

May I ask?

No, go ahead.

All right. I was on the Board of Zoning Appeals for a term. I would have loved to have had this at our disposal at that time. By the way, if her motion was never seconded, I'll second it. Thank you. It would have no impact on the types of businesses that Mr. Moore mentioned. They're basically just going to continue with no real change to the rules for them, as far as I can see. And it will help the BZA clear up some things and keep their docket to a more reasonable level. So I support it. I think it's great.

Mr. Chairman?

Go ahead.

I did have a question. So at the state level, they passed just recently the permits of farm stands, right?

That's correct.

So explain to me the difference between small-scale urban farming and road stands.

So we do not have the ability under the new state law, and forgive me, I can't remember what that number is. We do not have the ability to regulate farm stands. It does not go in to say what constitutes a farm stand. It only says that... The farm stand can only be used to sell items that are grown on that property. So if we give someone a home occupation to run a business by small-scale urban farming where they may take their stuff over here and sell it or may take it over here and sell it, we'll still do that. But if they want to build a farm stand, and it doesn't matter if it's the size of this desk that I'm sitting at or if it is the size of the house, we have no regulatory action over that. We have no building code, life safety, or any regulatory responsibility to govern that building.

So, for example, and I'm trying to make sure I understand this, not because I'm going to do it. I'm just giving you a scenario. Say I want to sell muscadine grapes that grow.

Do you grow muscadines on your property? They grow wild. They grow wild.

And I build a road stand. I don't have to get a home occupation, right? That doesn't apply to me. But if I use part of my home to grow vines or plants to sell, then that would...

Let me answer that question to part. If you go to some wild area and pick muscadines and bring them back to your property and sell them at your farm stand, you would not be in compliance with the new state law.

No, if I pick them off my property.

Now, that's what we're getting at. If you are picking them on your property and selling them, we would get a home occupation agreement for the business, but we would not regulate the buildings.

Okay.

We would not. The building does not have to meet any setbacks, does not have to meet any size requirements or anything like that. We would just say, because you would probably want to get some type of business registration. And to be able to do that, you would have to have that home occupation.

Okay.

All right. Mr. Moore.

My intent for the whole thing is to expand this list so we don't have to go to the BZA so many times. And this list is too short, as far as I'm concerned, for those in the rural areas. And that's the reason I'm making the amendment that we put it on hold, put a group of people with knowledge of the rural areas and the suburban areas to put this list together that satisfies the needs of the citizens of all of Greenville County.

Why don't we at least take this one step at this point? And if you want to have additions to it, can't we come back and do additions if you have your committee that talks about rural?

One thing I do want to say is that the reason why we don't want to have every use listed in the table is because the intent is a use by special exception. And one of the requirements of a use by special exception is it cannot be a nuisance to the surrounding area. These are things that staff has seen and the board has seen as non-nuisance uses. When we get into some that some neighbors might consider a nuisance, it gives them the opportunity to come and speak in front of the board in that public hearing atmosphere so they can be able to state whether or not they are in favor or in opposition. So that's why we try to keep this as much as we can tightened up. We have a lot, and I'll be frank with this, we have a lot of I can't remember the term. It's not gun manufacturing. It's firearm assembling, I think is the term. Gunsmithing. Yes. Exodermy. While that might be something that ATF is involved in and something that it seems like we may be able to approve, due to the nature of the fact that it is involving firearms, staff does not feel comfortable approving that. We would rather open that up to the board, let the surrounding property owners know what's going on, so they had the ability to speak in favor or in opposition of that. So there is that public hearing. Mr. Moore.

I understand I really want to see something like this go through, but it needs to be expanded. And if you wait, then you're going to have to put another list together, take three more readings, go through all the rigmarole again. When you've got it open right now, fix it now.

So did you make a motion earlier to amend it?

Ms. Manning made the motion. It was seconded. Mr. Manning received a seconded, and Mr. Moore has asked for an amendment to the motion.

So no motion for an amendment, just a request. That's kind of what I'm getting at. If you want to amend it.

What is the amendment?

The amendment is to put this on hold, put a sub-team together with knowledge of the various areas of the county, or at least knowledgeable people about what to make the list of, and expand the list to reflect those not only that would satisfy the needs of the entire citizenry of the county,

We stall and stall and stall. We don't need to stall on something home-based businesses. I would like to have this passed, and then if you would like to add additional businesses, that's perfect. We can come back and revisit it. But I think at this point right now, it's time to make a stand and allow home businesses to do what they want to do, a home business.

The process would not come to us, would it?

And I also want to state that this item cannot be held at a Planning Commission level. It has to go to Planning and Development Committee. That would be the committee that would hold this docket, since it is a rezoning docket.

So if we can't hold it, then why are we even seeing it? It's a text amendment to the zoning ordinance. Again, if we can't...

Make amendments to it or... You can make amendments. It's just that it has to move forward to the P&D, just like rezoning dockets do. It follows that same process.

And I have a motion on the floor at this point right now. It has been seconded by Ken Matysiewicz.

I have a quick question if you'll... There's an amendment to amend your motion, so... We have to vote that and roll it back.

Mr. Chairman... There was a request for an amendment. I did not hear the amendment because the amendment needs to have substance to it.

I may have not used the proper words, but I would like to make this amendment.

To add to the list.

To add to the list from a group of people who are knowledgeable of the entire county.

But staff says we can't hold it. So can we make them... an amendment to your motion to maybe have somebody look at it to add to the list.

No, I think the motion stands as is. I'd like to accept exactly what staff has recommended. They're experts in this. They have looked at it and looked at it and looked at it. It's a good recommendation, and I think that talking to Mr. Moore, that he can add this after we go ahead and at least get these home-based businesses at least started, and additional businesses then can come in later on.

So we have a motion for an amendment. What I'm hearing from staff is even if we all unanimously voted to pass that amendment and it makes its way to P&D, it's not going to matter. Is that what you're saying? No. They get to change it if they want to, right? Yeah, they can change it. Just like always.

They can change it, but we can send it to them with additional requirements.

Okay. In the interest of moving this along, I'll second his motion. We'll go through a quick vote. It'll either roll up or it'll get unrolled.

He's asking Ms. Manning to amend her motion.

I thought he made a motion. And I'm refusing to. Thank you.

He's making a motion to amend her motion.

And I just seconded it.

Well, and Ms. Manning is refusing to. That's right. Okay. So we need to vote.

Vote on hers.

We need to vote on Ms. Manning's motion that Mr. Manasevic seconded to move this forward to P&D.

Would you be willing to give me 30 seconds to ask one clarifying question?

Certainly.

So getting back to the homeschool, I don't want these people that are homeschooling to be punished by this because their cranky neighbor doesn't like the kids being out in the yard the next day or whatever. Is this only for, because it's home occupation, if there's no fees involved, you get a couple of mothers together and there's a total of five kids, whatever the mix is, who owns those kids? If there's no fees and they're not making money off of it, does that still fall under this?

It does not.

Okay, thank you.

Home occupation is solely, it is a transaction of, monetary transaction for a service of some type.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Josh.

Thank you for your patience.

Okay. All in favor of Ms. Manning's motion, raise your hand.

Mr. Chairman, according to Robert's rule, you vote on the amendment first and then the motion.

That's right. All right. Well.

Mr. Chairman, what is the precise wording of the amendment that has been offered? Because I don't know. Mr. Moore.

amend the proposal for Ms. Manning to say the list will be reviewed by a group of people familiar with the citizenry of Greenville County so that all the citizens are considered when looking at home occupation businesses.

All right. We have a second for that? I second. All right.

Yes, ma'am. For clarification, If we vote to make an amendment, does it carry any weight? If we vote to do a subcommittee to study this, does it carry any weight?

Well, once again, Texas amendments follow the same process as rezoning dockets. It's not a subdivision. Your planning commission's role is to make a decision and a recommendation to P&D committee. So holding it would not meet that requirement of making a recommendation to P&D. the planning and development committee so therefore that that's why I said you can't necessarily hold it here because it's got to go through that process and get the planning and development committee and council are the ones that in the body to hold an item you know either at the applicants request or at their request but it would have to move forward to them now you can make a motion to approve I guess maybe you can make a motion to approve with the condition that a request that Planning and Development Committee hold the item for further discussion, but it would have to go to that committee.

They would have the final say.

Right. We're just making a recommendation. All right. So are you okay with that? Yeah. And your amendment? I'm okay with that. You want to restate? Yeah.

Not sure I'll get it all right. Amend Ms. Manning's recommendation to the P&D that they further review this with a group of knowledgeable people from throughout the county so that all the citizens' needs are met with regards to this.

And we have a second? I second. Mr. Parham. All right. All in favor of Mr. Moore's amendment, raise your hand. Four. All in oppose? One, two, three, four. Motion fails. All right. Now we're back to Ms. Manning's motion for approval with Mr. Manasevic as the second. All in favor? Raise your hands. All opposed? carries. All right, next docket, CZ 2026-40.

Next docket, CZ-2026-040, which is to amend Article 6, Section 6210, Dwelling Single Family Attached and Dwelling Two Family Duplex. Article 7, Table 7.1, Minimum Lot Area slash Permitted Densities for Single Family Residential. Article 7, Section 7.2, Open Space Residential Development. Section 7.2.5, Open Space Residential Development, Option 2. And Article 7, Table 7.2, Open Space Residential Development Options for 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 would be a 20-foot roadside buffer, 25-foot exterior setback, and a scaling setback from existing public roads. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed text amendment would provide a compromise between council members, planning commissioners, and citizens concerned with residential development and private landowners and developers looking to utilize their property for these developments. The amendment would also consolidate the open space development options, creating a more cohesive review criteria. Based on these reasons, staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment.

Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Commissioners, comments, questions for staff?

I think we should all, Mr. Chairman, I think we should all express a word of gratitude to the people that worked on this because I know they slaved over it for a while. I am pleased with the result myself.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Phillips.

I appreciate some of these changes that were made. I have a question. When was the tree ordinance last updated? I'm concerned that we're relying on a tree ordinance that's very outdated.

Honestly, I'm not 100% sure. It's been a long time. Excuse me. Yeah, and that's something that we have looked at. We actually are, you know, we have a revised tree ordinance that we're, you know, wanting to move forward with. I think maybe we need to. pull that back out and off the shelf and make sure that everything's still what we want. But as of right now, yeah, it's been a while since that was amended.

Mr. Chairman? I was on the committee with Mr. Moore, and we were able to meet with developers, with a whole variety of different people. The tree issue had to be tabled because there were so many other things we had to be concerned about in terms of open space. Absolutely, we need to re-look at the tree ordinance. Absolutely. But I do also want to thank Mr. Moore for a lot of the work that he did. We worked very, very closely with a number of the developers, and we were actually able to have the developers shake our hand and say, okay, we now understand where Planning Commission is coming from. We're looking to be able to not necessarily increase housing. We need to have communities. We need to have neighborhoods. And that's what they started to understand. And it was good to be able to have a face-to-face confrontation with them because then they began to realize that we are here to be able to help the overall development and the overall look of Greenville County for now and into the future. So I want to also thank Mr. Moore as well for his hard work.

I think you meant to say conversation, not confrontation. Yes.

That's right.

All right.

Well, it was a little confrontational a couple of times there. Would you not agree, Mr. Moore?

I've got a couple more comments. Jim, Mr. Moore. Go ahead.

Yeah, I also want to repeat what Deborah just – Ms. Manning just mentioned. It was the first time I saw a real group of public, private – staff get together and start compromising to something everybody could agree to. And what was amazing about the whole thing is when we first got started, we identified the five big items that we thought we were going to have a problem with, and it turned out none of them were real problems. We could all work to a conclusion that everybody could live with. So to the development community for your support, thank you very much.

Ms. Phillips.

One more item. Does this affect the open space matrix we have? And has that been revised as well? Open space matrix. It's not here.

Oh, the one, the document that's on.

It's posted. It's there. The one?

That's something that's on our website. I mean, yes, we will look at that, but we'll probably be taking that down.

Okay.

Yeah.

So, does the city want to have any more comments? I was going to make a motion.

Any further discussion? Well, we didn't. Comments?

Go for it.

We recommend approval and that the tree ordinance be prioritized. ASAP to go along with this, as well as other documents that may support it that really don't need to be on the website. People are going to use that. I mean, they're going to look at those things and if they contradict, that's a problem.

If it's not valid, it doesn't need to be found.

Well, keep in mind there's going to be also a six-month review on this as well. So there is a fail-safe device.

All right, Commissioners, we have a motion by Ms. Phillips. Do we have a second?

I second.

We have a second from Mr. Parham. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Ayes have it. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes the rezoning portion. If the audience will please bear with us, we'll transition over to subdivision matters.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Baxter.

Thank you. Thank you.

I don't think they are.

You ready? All right. We'll now move on to preliminary subdivision requests. This first one is PP2026-089.

Green Heart Village is a proposed conventional subdivision. It is located on Fork Shoals Road. The applicant is requesting 16 lots on 13.03 acres for a density of 1.22 units an acre. Access will be provided off Fork Shoals Road. Green Heart Village was previously approved in March of 2025 under case number PP-2025-035. This request adds an additional four lots. Here is the site highlighted in red. Here is the site plan that was included in the packet. This project includes one ingress-egress point, one internal road, one cluster mailbox, 20 foot screening buffers around the perimeter of the site, one detention pond, and 782 linear feet of public road. Here's the zoning of the site. The subject site is part of the Greenville County Comprehensive Plan where the northern portion of the site is designated MEC, Mixed Employment Center, and the southern portion is designated as RL, Rural Living. Mixed Employment Centers are a new type of office park or corporate campus-like development geared toward meeting the needs of mid to large businesses Typical features include signature architectural elements and a campus-style development pattern that connects jobs to amenities and places of residence in a well-organized fashion. The mixed employment center character area type recommends a density of 8 to 30 dwellings per acre. Rural living place types are transitional areas that offer opportunities for low intensity development that is well integrated with the natural landscape and agricultural uses. Residential development may occur as individual single family structures on large lots or clusters of homes designed to preserve large amounts of interconnected open space. Hobby farms on large lots with residential homesteads are common land uses. The rural living character area type recommends a density of one dwelling per two plus acres. Greenheart Village is proposing a density of 1.22 units per acre. The subject property is within the South Greenville area plan boundary, where it is designated as suburban residential, three to four units per acre. And again, Greenheart Village is proposing a density of 1.22 units per acre. Here is an image of the site. West of the site. north of the site and south of the site. Staff recommends conditional approval of the plan with the standard and specific requirements. The conditions of approval are as follows. Please provide a revised preliminary plan by August 5th, 2026 showing the following. One, please provide required CBU parking space and two, please add density to the site data table.

Okay, thank you. Do we have the developer here?

Hi, I am Melanie Giles. I'm with Blue Water Residential, Blue Water Civil Design, representing the developer. We're at 718 Louns Hole Road, Greenville, 29607.

All right. You've got 10 minutes, and you did sign up to speak in favor. Yes, sir. So you can take it all or take some.

This is actually just an increase to what we had already presented. That was 12 lots, and that was approved last year. And now the developer has decided to go a different way, and the large three-acre lot that was to the northeast side, They've decided to split that up. They're not going to keep that anymore, so they're going to split that up. And we added four more lots.

Okay. Anything else?

Did you have any questions about the site?

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Manasseh. Which four, can you tell us about the four additional lots part?

So lots 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. were actually one overall three-plus-acre lot in the original approved plan back last year. The owners were going to keep that lot for themselves, and that's why they wanted to keep the three acres, because they just wanted a little bit more solitude. They have decided that that's not what they're going to do now, so they just decided to divide it up so that they could sell the additional lots at the same acreage as the remainder lot. Thank you.

All right. Anything else for the applicant? All right. Thank you.

Oh, I'm sorry. I was a little slow. I was trying to read this. It doesn't look very good on 8 and a half by 11. Lots 15 and 14, those have shared access with the lots in front of them than enjoying the main road. Is that correct?

That's correct. It's the same as it was before. Right. They both have a 20-foot flag with a shared access, yes.

And I remember this because I remember saying that corner lot. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. All right.

Anyone else for this applicant? All right. Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Paul Harrison. You got eight minutes.

I'm good.

Nobody signed up in opposition.

Okay.

Do you all have any questions for Mr. Harrison? All right, commissioners. Any discussion? Mr. Moore?

I recommend we approve it.

We have an approval from Mr. Moore. We have a second from Mr. Sternberg. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. Passes. Thank you. Next, we have PP2026-090, Arbor Crest.

Mr. Chairman, that was approval with the conditions, right?

That is correct, yes. That's how it was listed with us. It's listed on the packet that way. Okay.

Arbor Crest is a proposed conventional subdivision. It is located on West Georgia Road. The applicant is requesting 46 lots on 25.18 acres for a density of 1.82 units per acre. Access will be provided off West Georgia Road. Here is the site highlighted in red. Here is the site plan that was included in the packet. The project includes one ingress-egress point, two internal roads, one cluster mailbox, 20-foot screening buffers around the perimeter of the site, one detention pond, and 2,080 linear feet of public 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. Suburban neighborhoods are generally shaped by residential subdivisions of medium lot homes with relatively uniform housing types and densities. Homes include attached garages. Local streets are laid out in a curved linear pattern with occasional cul-de-sacs. Streets may or may not include sidewalks. New single-family subdivisions should be designed with sidewalks, street trees, neighborhood parks, and community open space connections. The suburban neighborhood character area type recommends a density of three to five dwellings per acre. Arbor Crest is proposing a density of 1.82 units per acre. And this is not the most up-to-date zoning. It is zoned R15 now, but the map hasn't been updated yet. Here is an image of the site. East of the site. North of the site. South of the site. A variance was submitted to address secondary access requirement per LDR 8.8.1 , which requires a second access when 30 lots are present. In lieu of a second access, the applicant will be widening the paved surface of the main road to 26 feet wide to the first intersection. According to the applicant, River Shoals has made it clear that they will not allow a secondary access to connect from Arbor Crest to their community and that this alternate was coordinated with and approved by the South Greenville Fire Marshal. Staff recommends conditional approval of the plan with the standard and specific requirements. The conditions of approval are as follows. Please provide a revised preliminary plan by August 5th, 2026 showing the following. Please show and label blue line streams on property. Two, label lot frontage for each lot meeting the 30-foot requirement for R15. And three, if perennial or intermittent stream is found on the site during land disturbance permitting phase, riparian buffers will be required.

All right. Thank you. So I believe we need to deal with the variance first. So do we have any questions for staff on this variance? There is no one signed up to speak in opposition. Mr. Charles Greer has signed up to speak in favor. You're just here for information, though? All right.

Mr. Chair, I have some questions. Ms. Farham. So I think it was in the last month's meeting.

So 26 feet, the entire length of the road.

Yes, the entire roadway. New road. Yeah. Which is what the variance states.

Unless the servicing fire marshal is okay with it going.

No, they requested it.

No, they were the ones who requested that, so.

And I appreciate you adding that.

Yeah.

Now, this was just recently approved. You all had a, you all want, thank you. Good. Went back and forth with council, and I believe you added some deed restrictions to max the cap on this. Yes, ma'am.

It's deed restricted to 46 lots.

I know there was a lot of discussion around some road improvements, and I remember, I mean, it looks like P&D, you got them all the evaluation, and everything that you said you were going to do is in here.

Yes, ma'am.

All right. Do you have anything else you'd like to add? Nope. Any further questions for the applicant?

I have a question for staff.

Go ahead.

So when you were showing the plat earlier and then also earlier in this commission meeting, there was some talk about the map being spread on two sides of the road. earlier in this meeting and then the same things appearing here it looks like they're only developing on from the point of view on the left side okay I presume that the acreage that's being used for the density is only for that big portion. Correct. Nothing's going to be done on the right-hand side of the road where that's split.

That's correct. That parcel is going to remain with the current landowner and not be sold.

Okay.

All right.

Anything else? Ms. Manning?

I visited that today along West Georgia Road. A lot of traffic, of course, because it's West Georgia Road. But I'm a little bit concerned on the blind curve. How do you plan on addressing that issue? Because I'll tell you, those cars are coming around not at 30 miles an hour. They're coming around at about 55 miles an hour, and you've got a blind curve that's there. I would be a little bit concerned about people trying to get out and about onto West Georgia Road.

Yep, so we verified with DOT, and we've checked the clear sight distance, so we're meeting everything based on that speed limit for the requirements from the state. So we have that as well as the approved traffic study in that we're going to be doing a left turn lane into the site, so there's going to be a road widening that should help with that curve.

Thank you for explaining that. I appreciate that. Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

What is the site distance? Do you know off the top of your head? I don't. It's actually at the very bottom of the page. It's got it. I think it's required to be, I want to say, 335 feet for a 45-mile-per-hour road. We actually exceed that. Yeah.

500. Okay. Thank you.

Yes, sir. Does anybody have any further questions for the applicant? All right. There's nobody signed up in opposition.

So, sorry, I'm at the very bottom. I just didn't know who was all going to sign up. Right. Michael Caine. You're Michael Caine. I'm the applicant. So, Charlie's our civil engineer. Right. I just, sorry, 124 Verde Boulevard, Suite 203, 29607. I just want to say we worked hand-in-hand with River Shoals Community, which surrounds this whole entire property. We've had two neighborhood meetings with them. They've been a great neighbor, just letting us be able to address their questions and concerns. But so far, everybody's looking forward to seeing this one come through. So happy to answer any questions on that end. But I think this is straightforward. Again, to Charlie's point, if there's any technical questions, we'd be happy to answer those.

Okay. All right. Thank you. All right.

Do we have a... Mr. Chairman, may I make a motion? I make a motion to approve the variance with the details as were given in our packet here.

All right, we have a motion for the variance to approve. Do we have a second? All right, Mr. Manaseeva made the motion. Ms. Franklin made the second. All in favor of the variance, raise your hand. Any opposed? All right, seven to one passes. All right, now we will move to the actual PP 2026. We've got to vote on the application, that's correct. So we voted for the variance. Now we're voting for the application. Does anybody have any questions of the applicant?

I'll make a motion we approve the application with staff's conditions.

We have a motion for approval. Mr. Sternberg has a second. All in favor of this application?

Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of staff first? Yes, please. The information he just gave us a moment ago about the road widening, was that also part of staff's recommendations, or was that a separate matter with DOT? It will be required by DOT to get a site access. Okay. And you've already verified that? Yes, sir. Okay. But that's not included in the staff recommendations.

We're required by the state to do it.

I was just seeking clarification on where that worked in. I have no further questions. Thank you.

Mr. Chair.

Mr. Powell.

A quick question for staff. We saw this six months ago, something like that. Does anybody know?

Zoning. It was zoning.

Okay. That's why it was sticking in my head. All right. And I think at that point we denied it for the zoning change. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Okay, so we have a motion and a second. We're ready to vote. All in favor for Arbor Crest, raise your hand. Any opposed? Passes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Contact staff for next steps. All right, next we have PP2026-096, Hayden Farms.

Haddon Farms is a proposed conventional subdivision. It is located on Old Whitehorse Road. The applicant is requesting 43 lots on 37.28 acres for a density of 1.15 units an acre. Access will be provided off of Old Whitehorse Road. Here is the site highlighted in red. Here is the site plan that was included in the packet. The project includes one ingress-egress point, three internal roads, one cluster mailbox, 20-foot screening buffers around the perimeter of the site, one detention pond, and 3,169 linear feet of public road. Here is the zoning of the site. The subject site is part of the Greenville County Comprehensive Plan where it is designated SE, Suburban Edge. Suburban Edges are low density residential areas that offer opportunities for low intensity development. that is well integrated with the natural landscape and agricultural uses. Residential development may occur as individual single-family structures on large lots or cluster of homes designed to preserve large amounts of open space, which should be interconnected as part of the county's larger open space system. The suburban edge character area type recommends a density of 0 to 1 dwelling per acre. Haddon Farms is proposing a density of 1.15 units per acre. Here is the site. south of the site, east of the site, west of the site, A variance was submitted to address secondary access requirement per LDR 8.8.1 , which requires a second access when 30 lots are present. In lieu of a second access, the applicant will be widening the paved surface of the main road to 26 feet wide to the first intersection. According to the applicant, there is not enough road frontage to provide a secondary access. Staff recommends conditional approval of the plan with a standard and specific requirements. The conditions of approval are as follows. Provide a revised preliminary plan by August 5th, 2026, showing the following. One, please provide width of required riparian buffer on the plan. Two, label roadways EOP to EOP. Three, provide traffic calming to discourage speeds. And four, provide mid-block pedestrian crossing on Haddon Farms Way and Farrier Drive.

All right. Thank you. So we'll need to, again, deal with the variance first on this. Do we have the applicant here?

Kevin Tomlin, Freeland Associates, 323 West Stone Avenue. As far as the variance, I'm happy to answer any questions you've got. We've talked to the fire department, got approval for that, so they're good with the layout.

Okay. They're okay with the length of the road? Okay. Do we have any questions for the applicant on the variance? All right. We have one person signed up to speak. If you don't have anything else to add to the variance? Not to the variance. Okay. Mr. Chris Wright is here to speak in opposition of the variance. Did we lose Mr. Wright? Okay. All right.

Any comments from the Commission?

Any questions for staff on the variance?

I have one question.

In terms of traffic calming, what does that entail? All right, thank you.

So next up, Mr. Moore.

Yeah, as some of you remember, this has been going on for about six months now. We started off looking at the comprehensive plan update, and we're going to focus on some key areas in our first approach to this until we had the workshop with staff, with council, where we got pretty clear direction from council members. They wanted us to start looking at this comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and LDR, so they all link or whatever kind of combination you want to call it. So we revised at our last meeting, I think. Was it last meeting? Last meeting, we revised the motion to look at the critical areas in the comp plan that we could begin working on in an effort to make changes to the ordinances for zoning ordinances and LDRs in a way which we didn't want to do everything twice. Well, as staff started looking into it, we found that we were going to have to do everything twice, which was not a good use of citizens' funds or taxpayer money, and it would be more efficient to just start early. with the whole comprehensive plan. So we have a motion here to look at the comprehensive plan and put a proposal together that we can send to council for them to give us some direction on how they want to move this forward, because we have council members that want us to do it right now, and we have council members that want us to slow pace it. And without direction, I don't know how you make a recommendation to them, THAT DOESN'T GENERATE A LOT OF UNUSEFUL CONVERSATION. SO DO WE HAVE A COPY OF THIS ON THE SCREENS? CAN WE PUT A COPY OF THIS ON THE SCREENS? AND I THINK YOU ALL HAVE A COPY OF THE MOTION. AND I'M TOLD I HAVE TO READ THIS BECAUSE IT'S A MOTION, SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BEAR WITH ME. EVERYBODY GOT ONE? Whereas the comprehensive plan review subcommittee was established pursuant to the motion adopted by the Planning Commission on June 24, 2026 to develop a scope of work to schedule a target update for the future land use map. And whereas in the course of that work, the subcommittee was considered observing growth and development conditions in the county input from the infrastructure and service providers received through the Infrastructure Coordination Council and related consultation indicated that the future land use map no longer corresponds to certain areas of infrastructure and service conditions on the ground. And the proximity of the requirement of the South Carolina Code, which is listed there, that the Comprehensive Plan, including all elements of it, be updated at least every 10 years. Whereas the subcommittee has concluded that the targeted

...update for the future land use map...

to procure professional planning consultant services and support the public engagement required for the update. Pursuant to the county council's authorization of authorization and initiation of the update to the comprehensive plan as per code, direct the comprehensive plan subcommittee and planning staff prepare for review and approval by the planning commission a project charter scope of work for the update which shall, A, conform to the South Carolina Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Enabling Act, including the character of the comprehensive plan and the elements as an expression of the Planning Commission recommendations to the governing body under the code implementing through the separate adopted ordinances and regulations. Provide for the preparation of the Planning Commission review of plan elements in increments as permitted by the code with Commission action at defined milestones throughout the process rather than solely upon completion. C. Establish a public engagement plan that reaches residents, property owners and partner agencies, and stakeholder organizations across the county including unincorporated and unzoned areas. Designate a county project manager within the planning department through whom all direction to the consultant is provided and define the roles of staff and planning commission and county council in the process. Require a documented methodology for the future land use element and the future land use map, including the data sources, analytical methods, and engagement inputs on which designations are based. direct that the comprehensive plan subcommittee provide a progress report on the update of the planning commission, not less than quarterly, and the county council upon request. That's the motion. I think there's probably a need to do a little explanation about why we're presenting options. Funding comes through the budget and it's either in the budget or it's not and if it's not it has to be addressed through an appropriation. Right now it's not in the budget and there we want to explore ways that we can address the funding and as well as get the county council on board that we want to do an early appropriation of The county council is on board with it. It makes no sense for us to make that recommendation, and they say, no, we're not going to do it. So we want to present options, both schedule and funding, for council so they make the decision of what priority they really want to put on this.

I second the motion. I think he just read the motion, didn't he?

So that's your motion. That's my motion. So Mr. Moore has made the motion. Mr. Parham has seconded discussion.

How much do you think this is going to cost?

I'll tell you once we talk to the consultants.

Do you have some clue?

Past year, it's over $400,000.

over the next four to six months and then get it going formally early next year. We might need a little bit of initial funding for early next year, but then they get into the budgeting side, budgeting in early spring, I think, usually, how that works. So that is why I second it. I think it's something that we need to do and move forward with and not wait a year and a half, two years to get started on the process. It's going to take probably two years. So my thoughts.

Mr. Chairman, we start the cheaper it is.

I would like to acknowledge that the work the staff has done with us has been outstanding. And we really appreciate what you guys have done. I'll second that motion. Thank you very much. Yes.

I agree. And I know I also in conversation said, hey, why are we doing this when we've got, you know, we're going to have to redo the comp plan in two years. I'm wondering with the verbiage in this, I mean, this is exactly what we are voting on, correct? Right. Yes. It refers to update. Update of plan Greenville County. That's really not what we're doing.

Am I correct? We're really creating a new plan.

Comprehensive plan. That's what we do every 10 years.

We are effectively starting the comprehensive plan. A new comprehensive plan.

Might we revise that to reflect not, I mean, maybe a different wording? I don't know exactly what wording.

I think some of it was copied verbatim from the Enabling Act that may have said update every 10-year cycle. So that's probably where a lot of that's coming from.

And essentially we do update. We update our statistics and our findings and all that, but we update. But we create a new comp plan.

Correct. The verbiage in here matches that of the name, just like Mr. Parham said. But you are correct. The result would be the next iteration of the comp plan.

And then in 2030, we don't have to start. We're already there. And then if we have to make a few changes here and there, we adopt it. And whatever month in 2030, it gets adopted.

Well, hopefully it's before that.

Yeah, before that, but when we need to officially, then it's already in place. And the work has been done. Great.

Mr. Chair, because the law just says it has to happen every 10 years. It doesn't say you can't do it after eight. And to your point, this is not like the five-year update that we got. It was more like a report. I think this is a brand-new comprehensive plan.

Mr. Chairman, I'll have to take everybody's time, but maybe it's important to give some context around this. The Enabling Act was done in 1994. The status of South Carolina was far different than what it is today. It was not growing, it was losing textile business. In fact, losing population. Now we're in a different situation, but what's interesting about it is there are only 10 or 12 counties out of the 48 counties that are growing like crazy. There are many, many more counties that are even still losing population. So when this was put together back in 1994, things were much different than they are today. but we're dealing with an act that was written back in those days. This enables us, like some of the other counties, to bring the comprehensive plan early to reflect the growth that's going on because right now, as we found looking at the future land use map within the group, it doesn't fit areas anymore, and that's just a mere five or six years ago. So there is a justification for putting this together so that it reflects what we're really dealing with today and not what happened 10 years ago. Sorry to take up the time.

No, you're good. I think that the key to all this with talking with county council is to remind them about the phenomenal influx of people coming here and where do we put them. And I think that's going to be the keynote to be able to convince them that we need to have it revised and we need to have it reflective of the Enabling Act.

Any further discussion, comments? We have a motion and a second on the floor. We're ready to vote. All in favor of this movement here to go ahead and get started, raise your hand. Any opposed? Eight to zero. All right. Next on the agenda, new business. Anything else?

Mr. Chairman. Oh, go ahead, Jim.

I don't know if this is a new business or not. I guess it's a question for staff. The packets we get, all 200 some odd pages sometimes, are under password protection. Why is that?

That was just a guess. That was just on.

So I don't know the answer to that. I don't want to say that's the way it's been, but that's the way it's been. I know that it is a portal that we use and provide to you for us to be able to put things in. It may be used in the future to do things other than just the packets that might be for your eyes only as planning commissioners at that time. That would be the extent of what I could...

Is any of that information not, I mean, were someone from the public requested, is any of that information they would not be able to obtain? Yes, yes, some of that would be redacted. Julie's shaking her head.

Well, I mean, typically we only redact things that are personal information. And we don't really, I mean, we do have applications in there, but those applications, you know, like on a rezoning application, we provide or they provide us the applicant's name and telephone number and address. And a lot of those we put in our legal ad. So there may be things that might get redacted, but it would be to that. It would be the personal information.

Mr. Chair. Thank you. Perfect.

The minutes are not yet approved either. So one thing, the packet that we send you have minutes that have not been approved.

But would it be possible just to recognize the minutes have not been approved and let the public see the packets? Yes.

I don't know any. We need to speak with our legal counsel. I don't know the legal reason. There may be one that I'm not aware of.

I would like us to consider making the packets available to the public the same time we get them. Okay. And the reason is not because, for transparency, obviously, but sometimes the packets are more up to date than what's on the websites. And the public needs to be working from the same data we are when they're standing up there.

You put your stuff on, your staff reports online before planning. You don't? No. Okay. We try to get our rezoning staff reports where you stock it up. Sometimes in a week like this, it's difficult. But let us talk to see if there's a reason that I'm not sure of, that I'm not aware of, that when I started here, there has always been that problem.

Well, I think the purpose of this question is the password and the access have not changed. And I've been here. I'm starting my third year on the Planning Commission, and we've had people roll off, and the codes have never changed.

So they're supposed to have changed, and we need to look into that if we haven't changed those. We should change those after each, you know, any time someone. Any time.

That's exactly where I was going. This stuff either needs to be public and everybody can get it or only planning commissioners. Sure.

But, again, if it can be public, let's post it for the public.

Yeah, it's a public information.

But we don't want to create more work on your part to redact stuff.

No.

Just because we want to post all that.

If there's good reasons that it doesn't need to be public, policy, county policy, et cetera, that's fine. But we need to get that password changed. Right.

Just look at it.

Yeah, I mean, because I was just asking, we don't, rezoning, we don't include the applications. She doesn't include the applications. It's the data sheet that that information has already been to SAC and all that. So if there is any redaction, I don't, it might be very, very minimal. But, well, I mean, let us talk and see if that's, because if that's something that y'all would like to have these packets be public. If there's no issue with that, it should not be difficult.

They need to be seeing the most recent things. People show up and we get it late. This week's been a crazy week. I hope we don't have any more like this on the calendar for the rest of the year.

I don't think we have any more, but don't hold me to that.

Okay.

They happen. There's always about one every year that just happens where it's just a short month or it's a back-to-back. Right, okay. With holidays and everything, it's hard to do. Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

Anything else on this subject? All right. I'm going to ask Ms. Phillips to give us an update on our... Planning Commission bylaws. She's chair of that committee.

As some of you remember, we created a bylaw ad hoc committee about over a year ago, and I was designated as chair, and it's been on, you know, kind of on hold. I am in the process of drafting. The committee was formed out of several of us. Ms. Manning, Mr. Holland, myself, Mr. Hammond, and Mr. Bickle, who are no longer here. Regardless, this is a group effort. We're all planning commissioners.

Can you let us know when the meetings are?

Yeah, if I have a meeting. Definitely. But so, I mean, I've taken a lot of notes and I've done a lot of drafting. And so any of you, if you have any suggestions or key items in there, if you could send that to me, like maybe in the next week, I can finalize this and we can move forward. So hopefully we can have a final draft through legal and staff for next month.

Can you email us a copy of that? Yes. Thank you.

Yes.

Would you send staff a copy of that as well?

Yes. I sent staff. I'll have it to you by the end of next week, the final.

I have a comment maybe for adding to your list while we're all sitting here. I don't need to send an email later tonight when I'm tired. I think it would be a great thing if, and I'm throwing this out there for discussion if we need to, if there's any disagreement. I think it would be a great thing if the application for planning commissioners, and this would probably have to come from county council or from Yeah, that the application have on there to disclose whether or not you've had any business dealings, real estate development dealings with any current or prior commissioners or council people. And also in our bylaws, because that was more of an application thing, so if any council people are listening, maybe they put that forth in the new applications. But for us in our bylaws, we declare that every year. writing and we turn it in at the beginning of each session which typically right now starts in June. We turn that in, we declare it that we have not had or we have had real estate development dealings with any current or prior planning commissioners or County Council current prior in the last year. That is transparency and transparency creates accountability.

I think that may be a good idea. I think we'll send it. One of my suggestions were for Council to update their description of Planning Commission to maybe include, hey, by the way, you applied for the Planning Commission. It's going to take more than two hours a month. So that is something that we can ask them. However, I do think it can be an advantage for someone to have real estate experience. I mean, maybe just not as long as they recuse themselves.

We have two great folks here that do that. My point is just transparency. Transparency. Yeah.

Gotcha.

Okay. Any further suggestions for that that come to mind as we're sitting here?

That is covered.

Yes. All right. Anything else for the good of the group?

I have one thing. I feel like I've been taking a lot of time tonight, probably been the case. Anybody that was at county council meeting last night or listened in, there were comments made by someone on the council that were just not true. And I want to say that in a public setting here, for the record, these are great people up here that are giving a lot of their time. And to start bashing us publicly is pretty much a disgrace and a lack of leadership. Either be part of the problem, either you need to be part of the solution or you're part of the problem. And if you've been there for years and you're complaining about LDRs and things going a certain way, get the LDRs changed. Where you been? Thank you.

All right. Anything else? If not, we stand adjourned.