Lancaster planning commission denies CF Smith rezoning after residents cite traffic, safety concerns

The Lancaster County Planning Commission on Dec. 16, 2025 declined to recommend rezoning RZ20252538, a 71.1‑acre proposal by CF Smith Property Group along Charlotte Highway in Indian Land, after sustained public opposition focused on traffic congestion and neighborhood safety.

Planning staff had recommended approval, saying the rezone from low‑density residential to regional business aligns with the county’s comprehensive plan and the site’s designation as “core mixed use.” Staff told commissioners the parcel’s location within a moratorium zone did not bar commercial review because the proposal is for commercial uses and that required highway‑corridor and buffering standards would apply.

Residents and neighborhood leaders told commissioners the corridor along Highway 521 is already congested and unsafe for left turns and emergency vehicles. “This rezoning should either just be declined or slowed significantly,” said Jared Callas, a licensed architect whose home backs the subject parcel. Other residents cited frequent backups, near‑gridlock conditions, and the risk of large “big‑box” retail in a location that abuts single‑family neighborhoods.

Developer representatives said the application is in an early feasibility stage and that conceptual drawings shown to the public were placeholders. Neil Robinette, CEO of CF Smith Property Group, said the company intends to work with SCDOT on a traffic impact analysis and to keep open space permanently as deeded green areas. John Parker, the developer’s project lead, said the team has discussed a realignment of Laurel Hill Road and that “we’re going to be dedicating those spaces, permanently making them open space where they can never be developed.”

Commissioners’ debate centered on whether regional business zoning — which can accommodate higher‑density commercial uses — is compatible with surrounding low‑density and medium‑density residential parcels. Some commissioners said the comprehensive‑plan label of “core mixed use” does not automatically justify large footprint retail that would undermine walkability and transitional design goals.

A motion to recommend approval was made and seconded but failed in a roll‑call vote in which six commissioners registered against the motion and none voted in favor, effectively denying the planning commission’s recommendation for rezoning. The item had been before the commission as a recommendation to county council; the commission’s denial and the hearing record (including 63 emailed public comments submitted to staff) will be part of the record forwarded to the council.

The application’s specifics that were recorded in the hearing include five parcels totaling 71.1 acres, proposed zoning of regional business, current zoning of low‑density residential, and developer commitments to fund roadway improvements identified by DOT and to continue community meetings. Planning staff noted that the county UDO does not currently authorize data centers in the regional business district without a text amendment.

What happens next: RZ20252538 was considered as a recommendation item to county council; the commission voted not to recommend approval. The public record and staff report will be available with the minutes for council consideration and any further action by the applicant or council.