Greenwood County Council voted 3–2 on Jan. 6 to deny a rezoning request for about 21.96 acres at 425 Cobb Road that would have changed the property from R-1 single-family zoning to R-3 single-family (allowing greater variety and density).

Planner Carol Coleman told the council the applicant originally asked for R-5 and proposed 128 townhomes, but revised the plan after public and council concerns to request R-3 and roughly 65 single-family patio homes, a 49% reduction in density. Coleman noted utilities were available and that the site contains drainage corridors down to Rocky Creek; she said the planning commission recommended approval of the revised R-3 request.

Chip Bundberg, the civil engineer on the project, said the revised plan preserves about 40% of the site as undeveloped, includes a 45-foot undisturbed buffer along Rocky Creek and uses a primary access point reviewed with the state Department of Transportation. Bundberg also said the development did not meet DOT thresholds requiring a traffic study.

A steady stream of neighbors objected during the public hearing. Bonnie Grantselli, who lives on Highway 246 North, said she opposed “all the building” and worried about taxes and the effect on long-term residents. Glenn Collin, whose future address will be adjacent to the parcel, told the council adding 65 homes could generate “five to six hundred car trips per day” on a hilly, curvy section of Cobb Road where drivers already speed. Several speakers urged the council to retain the property27s R-1 status to preserve lot sizes and neighborhood character.

After debate, a motion to approve the rezoning by Councilman Allison received no second and died. An alternate motion to deny, offered by Councilman Templeton and seconded by Councilwoman Griffin, passed on a voice vote reported as 3 to 2. The council did not adopt any mitigating conditions as part of the denial.

The denial closes the matter for now; there was no procedural action to appeal or remand recorded during the meeting. Council members who voted against the rezoning cited traffic and incompatibility with surrounding R-1 lots as key reasons for their votes. The council did not record an exact roll-call tally in the transcript excerpt beyond the 3–2 result.