Planning commission denies preliminary plat for Silver Run subdivision amid traffic, school-capacity and topography concerns

The Lancaster County Planning Commission unanimously denied approval of the preliminary plat for the proposed Silver Run subdivision, a 44-lot single-family development on roughly 25.25 acres off Silver Run Road.

Planning staff presented the proposal and said the project met many Unified Development Ordinance requirements but had several outstanding Technical Review Committee (TRC) comments; staff declined to make a recommendation and left the decision to the commission. Staff noted road-stub and street-extension requirements, outstanding TRC comments, site-topography challenges, and school-capacity concerns raised by the Lancaster County School District.

The developer, represented by Chris Hanson of Broadstreet Homes and Skyler Brown (engineer), described the plan as 44 homes with more than 9 acres of open space and a roughly one-acre park. Hanson said his company would keep density well below the maximum for the site (about 1.7 units per acre versus the 2.5-unit maximum) and said Broadstreet is a local firm that can adapt home plans (walkout basements, taller crawl spaces) to work with the site’s topography. The engineering team said they had already revised the stub-street alignment in response to TRC comments. Hanson also said the developer would consider fencing or buffers to address adjacent homeowner concerns.

Neighbors from adjacent communities, including Rosemont and Bridal Lane, urged the commission to deny the preliminary plat. Speakers cited existing cut-through traffic, speeding on neighborhood streets, school overcrowding in nearby schools (Harrisburg Elementary, Indian Land Intermediate and High School noted by staff), stormwater and runoff risks, and the proposed site’s narrow configuration and steep grades. Several residents said they had collected local traffic counts and installed temporary traffic-calming measures to address cut-through traffic. Neighbors asked whether the development’s price point and lot size would depress surrounding property values.

Commissioners questioned how the proposed grading and lot tie-ins might affect existing neighbors’ yards and foundations and whether park placement could encourage unsafe crossing of Silver Run Road. The planning director and county engineer told the commission that some of those questions would be addressed in civil review but that the commission could require design changes as conditions of approval.

Commissioner Tinklenberg moved to approve the preliminary plat; the motion was seconded and placed on the floor, but the roll-call vote returned unanimous votes against approval. The commission’s denial was recorded as unanimous; the applicant may choose to revise and re-submit or seek a continuance at a later meeting.

Staff had specifically flagged: TRC items including required street extension to the property line, sidewalk connections, spacing of street trees, lots placed within prohibited intersection setbacks, SCDOT concerns about two full accesses, and incomplete traffic analysis fee/payment. The county’s staff report also noted that the schools projected to serve the development are among the highest-capacity schools in the area. The applicant indicated they would seek a continuance or revise the plan to respond to TRC and SCDOT comments.

The denial means the preliminary plat will not advance to final plat stage in its current form and the developer must address the TRC comments and neighbors’ concerns before bringing the plan back to the commission.