Neighbors urge denial of rezoning at 280 Rock Road, citing floodplain damage and prior enforcement actions

Louis Young, the applicant, told Greenville County planning officials he seeks to rezone a 5.241-acre parcel at 280 Rock Road in Greer to AG (agricultural preservation) to use the property for small-scale plant production and nursery stock, including tomatoes, zucchini, hostas, Japanese maples and camellias. Young cited South Carolina Code Section 12-43-230(a) in describing qualifications for agricultural real-property classification and said he is participating in USDA and state agribusiness programs.

The request drew extended opposition from nearby homeowners. Jen Auslin, who said she represents the Pelham Falls homeowners association, urged the planning commission to deny the application, saying the site “is a flood plain primarily” and that the applicant had already “clear cut the land leading to severe erosion and dangerous flooding near the adjacent properties.” John Corvin, Chatsworth neighborhood HOA president, said changing the zoning to agricultural could allow structures, animals and equipment storage that would harm neighborhood character and property values. Several other residents described long-standing problems with erosion, debris and prior development proposals on the site.

Why it matters: neighbors say the parcel sits along Rocky Creek, where repeated flooding and recent clearing have increased erosion and risk to adjacent subdivisions. Multiple speakers said a substantial portion of the property is within the floodplain, and one speaker submitted a petition with more than 250 signatures opposing the rezoning.

Details and context: Young said his family has held the land for decades and that, after completing horticulture training, he intends to run a small family farm and qualify for USDA programs. He acknowledged the parcel briefly fell below the county’s five-acre threshold for certain agricultural classifications after subdividing part of the tract, which prompted his current application to consolidate acreage under his name. A county staff member told the hearing there is an active code enforcement case on the property that is proceeding through enforcement under the county’s land development department.

Opponents argued the agricultural zoning could be used to circumvent county stormwater and land-disturbance permitting. Several speakers referenced past applications tied to the property (a 2009 Chatsworth subdivision proposal was mentioned) and said prior county communications found the owner’s stated intent “appears to be inconsistent with agricultural uses.” Residents cited Greenville County guidance on riparian buffers and said removal of mature overstory and understory vegetation along Rocky Creek has degraded the bank and will take years to repair.

Process and next steps: County staff and the chair emphasized this meeting was informational; no votes or recommendations were taken. The planning commission will consider its recommendation at a regular meeting, and the planning and development committee will review the docket on the scheduled committee date, after which the county council will conduct readings. Written comments were accepted for the record.

Ending: The hearing provided detailed objections from multiple nearby homeowners and responses from the applicant; the county will continue its multi-step review before any formal council action is scheduled.