York County Council approves revised Newport Commons plan, reduces apartment density and requires traffic improvements

York County Council voted Nov. 3 to approve the second reading of rezoning Case 25‑17, a major amendment to the Newport Commons planned development that reduces allowable apartment density and adds a large commercial component.

The council action replaces elements of the 2008 PD that would have permitted as many as 630 apartment units with a plan the applicants say would deliver about 195 residential units (approximately 60 townhomes and 135 single‑family lots) and 148,000 square feet of commercial space along Old York Road. Developers and staff said the new plan increases pedestrian connectivity, preserves roughly 30% common open space, and includes mitigation work to address area traffic.

The applicant team — Prestige Land and Site Works (the majority property owner) and RISE Partners (retail developer) — presented a revised site plan and explained changes since the 2008 approval. Alex Bridal of Prestige and Greg Wilson of RISE emphasized that the amended PD reduces overall residential density and adds public amenities. "We are meeting all the open space requirements of 30%," a project representative stated during the presentation.

Nick Burns, the project's traffic consultant with Impact Designs, summarized the traffic study and proposed improvements: "We ended up with 5 turn lanes, 1 new signal, 1 signal modification, and 1 safety improvement." Burns said some off‑site safety work on Parham Road was coordinated with SCDOT and that the developer has agreed to participate in that project.

Several neighbors spoke against the rezoning during the public hearing, citing existing congestion on Old York (Highway 161), limited emergency access, school capacity pressures and the cumulative effect of multiple nearby developments. Beth Crosby, who lives near the site, said existing bottlenecks and narrow two‑lane connectors would worsen and pressed the council to ensure buffers and road improvements are sufficient.

Planning staff confirmed the amendment removes high‑density apartment uses from the 2008 entitlement and reduces trip generation compared with the earlier plan because apartments and some office uses were eliminated. The county planning director said the PD will still be required to meet county standards for open space and buffers; the applicants asked for three technical amendments related to townhouse guest parking, building separation, and amenity counting that were discussed on the record.

Council members debated the tradeoffs of preserving existing PD entitlements versus approving a plan that reduces overall density. Several members noted that the 2008 PD remains a by‑right entitlement unless amended, and that the revised plan likely generates fewer trips than the original entitlement. After discussion, the council approved the motion to adopt the amended PD on second reading; the record shows the motion carried by voice vote.

What happens next: the PD amendment is approved as drafted on second reading and will follow any remaining administrative permitting steps. Staff said traffic‑study details and the full PD standards will be part of final permitting and site‑plan review.