Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer seeks feedback on 3.49-acre multifamily proposal in New Ellenton; water, sewer and traffic flagged
Summary
A prospective developer presented plans for a phased multifamily project on 3.49 acres in New Ellenton and asked the council and staff for guidance on water and sewer capacity, zoning density and traffic impacts. Residents raised concerns about flooding on Summit Drive and unpaved road access.
A prospective developer asked the New Ellenton City Council for feedback on building multifamily housing on a 3.49-acre site in the city, saying zoning would allow 12 units per acre and could be approved up to 16 per acre.
The request matters to residents and the council because the proposal could add dozens of rental units near existing neighborhoods and could require water‑line upgrades, sewer connections and traffic changes.
The developer described the parcel as commercially zoned and said local zoning would permit “approximately 12 units per acre up to 16 with approval.” He told the council his preliminary math put the project at about 42 units at 12 units per acre and as many as 56 units at 16 units per acre. He said he is under contract and is still completing due diligence, including soil work, and expects a 45‑day due‑diligence window with a possible ground‑breaking roughly six months away if approvals and studies allow.
City staff and council members discussed infrastructure constraints. Staff said the nearest sewer main is about 50–75 yards away and appears large enough — likely an 8‑inch main — and that gravity connection could be feasible; where gravity would not reach the developer might need a small lift station. Regarding water, the developer reported the line serving the site is a 2‑inch line and said he had been told the supply would need to be “at least a 6 and a half” (inch) to support the project; staff directed him to verify capacity and location with CPW.
Residents who spoke during public comment raised localized impacts if the development proceeds. A Summit Drive resident said existing drainage and an unpaved segment of Summit Drive cause repeated flooding near a detention pond and expressed concern that additional traffic from a new development would worsen congestion. The resident said the unpaved road funnels dirt into the drainage system when it rains and asked whether paving the road is on a work list. Council members said Summit Drive is a South Carolina secondary road and that paving would require right‑of‑way agreements and a petition process with the state DOT for state secondary road projects.
Council and staff recommended the developer procure an engineer to produce a site plan, run a water/sewer capacity letter with CPW, and return with a clearer plan and site engineering so the council can assess traffic, drainage and any needed public improvements.
The developer did not present a formal application or request a vote; the discussion was for input and next steps. Council members and staff offered to provide technical contacts and encouraged the developer to submit engineering information during the 45‑day due‑diligence period.
Looking ahead, the council will consider the developer’s formal application, infrastructure reports and any required permits. If the developer proceeds, the city will evaluate water upgrades, sewer tie‑in details, stormwater/detention design and potential off‑site road work that could be necessary to serve the project.
