Residents press Greenwood County council to reject master‑plan rezoning at Old Abbeville Highway
Loading...
Summary
At a packed public‑comment period, residents urged the Greenwood County Council to deny a first‑reading rezoning request for about 46.5 acres at Old Abbeville Highway, citing traffic safety, existing housing inventory and neighborhood character; staff said the developer reduced lots from 107 to about 100 and noted SCDOT traffic‑study thresholds.
The Greenwood County Council heard more than a half‑dozen residents oppose a proposed master‑planned residential rezoning for a 46.48‑acre site at 615 Old Abbeville Highway on first reading.
Marion Moore, who said he lives at 206 Johns Creek Road, told the council the site is “a very desirable piece of property” but urged developers not to “cram” houses together and to match the pattern of nearby Folly Bend. He said developers who “have no tie to Greenwood other than just making this development and then getting out” worry neighbors.
Tina Escalona, whose family owns a nearby farm, focused on safety and process, saying she had submitted South Carolina Highway Patrol statistics and asking that council “slow down a little bit” and explain traffic and safety analyses to residents. Gaye Harmon Marshall cited local listings and calculated hundreds of homes already marketed in Greenwood, asking why an additional 107‑lot development was needed. Devlin Amicks said he has lived in the area 53 years and urged the council to preserve the area’s low‑density character. Sherry Lewis described counting 263 cars in a 32‑minute morning span in front of her house and asked for traffic and environmental studies before rezoning.
Carol Coleman, speaking for county planning staff, described the request as a change from R‑2 (single‑family) to MPR (master planned residential) and said the developer originally proposed 107 lots on the 46.48 acres but later reduced that number to about 100. Coleman said utilities are available but that the site contains a power‑line easement and a protected creek buffer; when staff removed easement and protected areas from the buildable area they estimated a theoretical maximum of roughly 120 lots under current zoning but emphasized that topography and wetlands could reduce that number.
Coleman also noted that the Planning Commission recommended denial of the rezoning based on public input (an 8–2 vote), while staff supported the MPR as meeting master‑plan standards that encourage open space and buffers. She confirmed that SCDOT requires a traffic analysis once a proposal reaches about 90 homes and that turn‑lane or access improvements would typically be addressed at the development stage.
Several council members asked procedural questions and urged a fuller public hearing when the item returns for second reading. The chairman reminded residents the current hearing was first reading and title only and encouraged them to participate again at the next meeting; no vote on the rezoning was taken tonight.
What happens next: the rezoning request will return for a formal public hearing and second reading at the council's next session (councilmembers indicated a hearing is scheduled for Feb. 17).
