Developer seeks plan-development zoning for Heddle Hill site; neighbors warn 600-unit cap would strain roads and schools

UCP Heddle Greenville LLC asked Greenville County on a public hearing night to rezone about 50.05 acres on Rutherford Road from industrial and services districts to a PD (plan development) that would allow mixed commercial uses and new residential development, including up to 600 dwelling units under one potential future configuration.

The request matters to residents because, if approved as proposed, later phases could permit a maximum of 600 total units without additional public rezoning review. Neighbors and community groups said that scale of housing would worsen already-congested intersections, stress local schools and infrastructure, and risk environmental impacts to wetlands and Mountain Creek.

Nathan Kirkman, representing the applicant, said the revised proposal responds to county staff and neighborhood feedback and narrows earlier language that had used the term "light industrial." "In our previous application, we used the term, light industrial… and that was not our intent," he told the council, saying the team shifted toward "industrial services" uses and made changes to site design, screening and buffers.

Under the concept plan shown to the council, the project would allow a mix of townhomes (about 75 shown in the concept), multifamily podium buildings (conceptually 300 units in one illustration), retail and service uses, shared parking, and three full-access entrances off Rutherford Road, Delmar Avenue and East Bellevue Road. The plan calls for a 25-foot external landscape buffer where the site abuts residential parcels, a minimum of 10 acres of open space, sidewalks and lighting with full cutoffs limited to 16 feet.

A staff representative told the council that, if the developer removed Building 2 and used that footprint for housing, the maximum theoretical unit count could reach 600 across the site. Kirkman said the team had discussed school impacts with Greenville County Schools and that district staff estimated the project might add roughly nine students per year across K–12, a level they did not consider an overburden based on district calculations.

Multiple neighbors urged the council to deny the PD or require a binding cap on housing. Brenda Butchik, representing participants in the Mountain Creek overlay process, said the community supports the applicant's commercial proposals but asked the council to "deny this PD request and require the developer to reduce the number of requested residences." Jan Willis, a neighborhood representative, said she and her group "cannot support the potential construction of 600 homes as allowed by the proposed plan development zoning." Laura Blackmore, a nearby resident, told the council she supports the retail and commercial components but "cannot support the residential component they are requesting." Angela Hunt, another resident, said she expects a child to attend nearby schools and worries additional units will affect capacity.

Neighbors also flagged traffic: speakers said the Stallings Road–Rutherford Road intersection is already rated F by state measures and worry that hundreds of new units, combined with several other developments in progress nearby, will increase congestion and delay school buses. The applicant pointed to a traffic study submitted with the application that raised no safety concerns and described the project as a long-term, phased redevelopment of an existing industrial campus rather than new greenfield construction.

Developers also described outreach with historical groups tied to the site and said they have explored a potential on-site memorial to Camp Sevier, which formerly occupied part of the property. Kirkman said the team had improved visual buffering between new residential areas and the remaining campus buildings and that materials would include brick, metal and residential siding.

No vote was taken at the hearing. As explained at the start of the evening, this public hearing is the beginning of a multi-step process: comments will be forwarded to the Planning and Development Committee for review in June 2025 and then to county council readings if the committee advances a recommendation. Council members asked whether the applicant would accept a lower unit cap; the applicant said the team was "open to dialogue" but did not make a binding commitment that night.

Pending the committee and council process, the project remains conceptual and subject to additional design, permitting and review requirements.