Council rejects Planning Commission recommendation to rezone 5.78 acres on Ebenezer Road to IB over traffic and access concerns

Council voted on May 27 to reject the Planning Commission recommendation to approve annexation and Industry Business (IB) zoning for a 5.78‑acre parcel on Ebenezer Road (applicant: Duane F. Versper & Associates, LLC). The action followed a detailed staff presentation and public comment expressing traffic and noise concerns.

Planning staff said the parcel fronts Ebenezer Road, an SCDOT principal arterial that currently operates as a two‑lane corridor with average daily traffic exceeding 10,000 vehicles. Staff told council they could not recommend approval because the proposed direct access onto Ebenezer could create safety issues and exacerbate congestion. Staff noted the applicant submitted a preliminary trip estimate (roughly 304 daily trips under an earlier five‑building plan) and that earlier plan had been scaled back to three buildings to reduce trips, but SCDOT would still closely scrutinize any new encroachment permit. Staff advised that direct access onto Ebenezer would likely be allowed only if the developer widened the road (to three lanes or otherwise per DOT requirements) and paid for the widening; alternatives such as obtaining access through adjacent commercial parcels were discussed.

At the public hearing, nearby residents and a long‑time property owner (Bernard Mangum) raised concerns about buffers, the potential effect on existing businesses and the difficulty of road widening near existing structures. The applicant’s representative, Zack Wooten, told council the property was consolidated from multiple lots and said the proposal reflected a family‑run local development; he said the plan had already been reduced in scale after DOT feedback.

Councilmember discussion focused on the appropriateness of a straight rezoning versus a planned development approach to better lock in buffers, hours and building sizes; several council members expressed discomfort approving a straight IB rezoning given the unresolved access, buffer and sewer questions. A motion to reject the Planning Commission recommendation carried, and subsequent annexation and zoning items failed for lack of motions.

What’s next: Because council rejected the Planning Commission recommendation, the applicant may return with revised proposals (for example, a planned development with explicit site commitments, alternate access strategies, or designs that demonstrate DOT‑compliant access and buffering) if it chooses to proceed.