Blythewood Planning Commission fails 3-2 to recommend approval of 104-unit Pecan Grove townhome subdivision

The Blythewood Planning Commission voted 3-2 on a motion to recommend approval of the applicant’s latest site plan for a 104-townhome subdivision called Pecan Grove, denying the recommendation at its meeting after commissioners raised concerns about traffic, buffers and prior approvals.

The item, listed as a subdivision request for 104 townhomes (TMS number read in the meeting as Romeo15100Dash06Dash08), drew presentations from planning staff and representatives for the applicant. Kirk, the town secretary and planning staff member, told commissioners the developer had returned to the commission after prior reviews, submitted a tree‑removal and mitigation plan, and revised interior sidewalks from 4 to 5 feet. He said the applicant elected the ordinance option for a 20‑foot landscaped buffer with a fence, wall or berm (rather than a 50‑foot undisturbed buffer).

The applicant’s representative, Rob Links, said the team had addressed the 15 comments staff provided and planned a planted berm along the shared edge with the adjacent Blackwood Farms neighborhood. “We’ve addressed all 15 comments that staff gave us,” Links said. Josh Rabin, a CEC engineer working with the applicant team, said the project previously received a certificate of appropriateness from the Board of Architectural Review (COA) that later lapsed and was reissued before the application returned to planning commission.

Traffic and access were central in commissioners’ discussion. Todd Anderson of the traffic group explained the development’s traffic study and said a 104‑unit development would generate about 49 additional trips in the AM peak hour (37 outbound, 12 inbound) and 59 peak hour person‑car trips (35 inbound, 24 outbound). “It’s not a tremendous number of trips to add to this area,” Anderson said, while also noting averages can mask a wide range of individual delays.

Commissioners questioned whether nearby intersections — particularly Langford Road at Sandfield Road and the approach to a new interstate interchange referenced in the study — could absorb additional delay. Anderson said some intersections already operate at low levels of service (LOS D or F) during peak hours and that the additional delay from this project was small on average; he also said SCDOT signal warrants and national standards govern whether new signals are installed.

Scotty Newman of CEC described efforts to coordinate possible realignment of the subdivision entrance with Sandfield Road and to explore signalization options with SCDOT, but said the DOT district engineer indicated a signal would not be granted at the present time. Newman said the team evaluated about six alignment and signal concepts and discussed potential property swaps and longer‑term realignments with town officials.

Commissioners also reviewed the development’s tree preservation and mitigation plan and the choice of a berm and plantings for screening between Pecan Grove and Blackwood Farms. Kirk noted the tree removal and mitigation plan was included in the packet.

After questions and public comment from the applicant’s team, Commissioner Yasopp moved to recommend approval of the site plan; the motion was seconded. The commission then took a roll‑call vote that resulted in three votes to two to not approve the site plan as presented. The chair announced: “Vote carries 3 to 2, to not approve the site plan as presented.”

The commission did not direct specific follow‑up actions at the meeting. No formal conditions or alternative approvals were adopted; the planning commission’s vote was a recommendation and does not itself approve subdivision plats or construction permits.

The meeting concluded with no further items on the agenda.