Florence planning commission unanimously denies rezoning for Clark Branch townhouse project

The Florence City Planning Commission on an November evening voted unanimously to deny a rezoning request that would have allowed townhouses on two parcels on Clark Branch Road.

Planning staff introduced PC2025‑39 as a request to rezone two Florence County parcels (tax map numbers 0009801 002 and 491) from Neighborhood 1 / C 6.1 to Neighborhood Conservation NC 6.3 to permit townhouses, duplexes and multifamily. Staff said the owner proposes combining the remaining lots of a previously subdivided strip to build townhouses; the associated sketch plan was listed as the next item on the agenda.

The vote followed a public hearing in which nearby residents described recurring drainage and flooding on Gloria Court and said morning and afternoon traffic near three nearby schools already causes long delays. "I bought in the neighborhood in 2022 ... I was told at the time that it would only be ... available for single family houses," said Michelle Moore of 451 Gloria Court, who spoke against the rezoning and urged the commission to protect the neighborhood's character. David Poston, another Gloria Court resident, testified that the undeveloped lots flood now and said adding impervious surface without a retention pond would worsen flooding.

The applicant, Chris Langmo, who owns six single‑family houses on Clark Branch, said he purchased the remaining parcels in 2023 and intends to build townhouses designed to match existing homes. Langmo told commissioners the sketch plan includes a retention pond to address drainage and said the market demand and costs make townhouses more financially viable. "There's a real, real need for the luxury higher end townhouses," Langmo said. Supporters including Robert Thomas of Greystone Properties argued townhouses could provide more affordable housing options than new single‑family homes priced around $300,000.

Commissioners acknowledged Florence needs more housing but said the bar for a zone change inside an existing neighborhood is high. One commissioner summarized the view: the commission's role is to "protect citizens from each other" and the burden is on the developer to justify changing a zone where homeowners bought expecting single‑family development. A motion to deny the rezoning was made, seconded and carried unanimously.

Because rezoning is ultimately decided by city council, staff noted an applicant could choose to pursue council action despite the planning commission vote; the applicant elected to defer the related sketch plan (PC2025‑40) pending next steps. The planning commission recorded the concerns about drainage, school‑time traffic and neighborhood character in the minutes.

The commission did not adopt any changes to the Unified Development Ordinance or other statutory materials during this item; staff said future engineering and stormwater control would be required for any development and must be approved before construction.