Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Bellwyn topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors decry lack of notice, loss of open space as Planning Commission denies Bellwyn revision 8–1
Summary
After residents said a revised Bellwyn site plan was not posted online and enlarged stormwater ponds would remove old-growth trees, the commission denied the revised preliminary plan 8–1 citing inadequate developable open space under LDR requirements.
The Greenville County Planning Commission on Jan. 28 denied a revised preliminary plan for the Bellwyn subdivision, concluding the changes reduce meaningful developable open space and were inconsistent with local land-development requirements.
Residents of adjacent Sugar Creek testified that they first saw the revised Bellwyn plat less than an hour before the meeting and that plan materials posted online were incomplete. William (Bill) Johnson told commissioners that the plat includes area 'K' as developable open space even though the prior plat labeled that area as a setback, saying: 'Without k, this drops down to the low thirties in terms of percentages, and therefore, it doesn't qualify for the open space option.' Michael Fox told the commission the public had been disadvantaged by the lack of posted materials and said the schematic increases developable acreage 'like magic.'
Charles Greer, representing owner William Bradshaw, read a letter saying staff directed the developer to redesign stormwater facilities to a 100-year standard (rather than the previously approved 25-year standard), which increased pond sizes and added a third pond. Greer said those changes were not discretionary design decisions by the developer but directed by county staff.
Commissioners debated whether the changes — particularly the enlarged and added retention ponds — undermined the open-space benefit that initially supported Bellwyn's earlier approvals. Citing deficiencies in developable-open-space calculations and LDR compliance, Mister Parham moved to deny the revised plan under LDR open-space provisions. The motion passed 8–1; Mister Hammond recorded the lone 'No.'
The commission’s denial will be recorded as the Planning Commission’s recommendation and provided to County staff and the applicant. Developer and staff comments at the meeting noted the stormwater permitting process is still in progress and that construction-level plans are maintained by Land Development and, for security reasons, copies may require a FOIA request.
