Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pp2025202 Aetna Springs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission denies Aetna/Etna Springs Phase 2 revision after residents raise flood and safety concerns
Summary
Commissioners voted 5–4 to deny the revised Aetna/Etna Springs Phase 2 preliminary plan (PP2025202), citing traffic, infrastructure and plan‑consistency concerns. Staff had recommended approval with conditions; the applicant said the revision was required by Duke Energy pole locations and stormwater constraints.
The Greenville County Planning Commission denied a requested revision to Aetna (Etna) Springs Phase 2 after residents and several commissioners raised concerns about flooding, traffic and whether the proposed changes complied with area plan character and safe access requirements.
Staff presented PP2025202 as a revision to a previously approved phase: the revision reduced lots from the earlier approval and proposes 32 lots on 15.05 acres (2.13 units/acre). Staff recommended approval with conditions including previously required traffic improvements to be installed once 40 lots have been recorded and noted that bridge requirements would be addressed at permitting. Staff also said the original approval for other phases remained valid and that the land disturbance permit for phases A and B could proceed even if phase 2c was denied.
Multiple residents speaking in opposition cited the Mountain Creek watershed overlay process, historic flooding on the site, the apparent disappearance of a natural pond shown on earlier plans, and omissions in required LDR submissions. Jan Willis told commissioners that piping a blue-line stream in a floodplain requires U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits unless the stream had previously been piped in the same dimensions; she urged the commission to consider that requirement.
Engineer Stephanie Gates and developer representatives said the revision was needed after the planned alignment of Cloud 9 Court conflicted with on-site Duke Energy transmission poles and easements: moving poles would have required major transmission-line replacements and large towers, so the applicant revised lots and roads, reducing the lot count by six. The applicant also said parts of the site cross FEMA floodplain and that the design uses an arch culvert at the crossing; they reported floodplain approvals for land-development plans and said the fire department had reviewed access in SAC.
Commissioners questioned whether the traffic-impact analysis was current and whether the cumulative effect of several nearby subdivisions had rendered local roads (including Stallings Road) overloaded. Staff said that for a revision to an approved plan a new traffic study was not required in this case. Some commissioners emphasized deference to technical staff and SAC recommendations; others said the commission has discretion to consider broader community impacts under the county’s enabling statute.
After debate, a motion to deny the revised phase carried by a 5–4 vote. Staff reminded the commission that the denial would prevent phase 2c (Cloud 9 Court) from moving forward but that previously approved phases and an open land disturbance permit would still permit work on other parts of the project.
What happens next: Because other phases retain approval and an active land‑disturbance permit exists for parts of the site, grading and permitted work on unaffected phases may continue. The denial of phase 2c will require the applicant to revise plans if it seeks that phase again.
