Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Subdivision Mcconnell Landing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Greenville County planning commissioners deny McConnell Landing subdivision after residents raise traffic and safety concerns

Greenville County Planning Commission · March 25, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After extended public comment and debate over traffic modeling, slope and wetlands delineation, the Greenville County Planning Commission voted 5–4 to deny the preliminary plat for McConnell Landing, an 89-lot subdivision proposed off McConnell Road.

The Greenville County Planning Commission voted 5–4 to deny the preliminary plat for McConnell Landing, an 89-lot rural-conservation subdivision proposed on about 87 acres off McConnell Road.

Residents who live on nearby Sturgeon Bay Drive urged the commission to reject the plan, saying McConnell Road is narrow, poorly maintained and already used by heavy trucks. “If you spent a week, you would be amazed at what you would see,” said resident Elizabeth Murray, who described daily cut-through traffic and said the development would worsen safety for children and pedestrians.

Developer representatives and planning staff said the proposal includes more than the required open space, preserves creek buffers and that a traffic impact analysis (TIA) found the site access would operate at level of service B under the study assumptions; the developer said the plan envisions individually owned single-family lots. “We kept that density at one per acre because we knew that we were limited in how many accesses we could get to the property,” said Paul Harrison, a developer representative.

Commissioners focused much of their debate on the TIA’s assumptions. Several commissioners and members of the public questioned the TIA’s background growth assumptions — residents pointed to recent apartment and multifamily construction nearby and said traffic growth has been faster than the 2% annual rate used in the study. Staff and the developer responded that the scope of the site study was coordinated with county and state traffic engineers and said additional permitting steps (including encroachment permitting) would require further review and any required roadway modifications before final approval.

Other concerns included steep slopes into a creek/floodplain area, whether wetlands have been delineated (staff said delineation is typically done during the land-disturbance permit phase), and uncertainty about the types and amounts of open-space acreage once field delineation is completed.

Commissioner Mattis moved to deny, citing the commission’s responsibility to protect neighborhood infrastructure and saying McConnell Road and nearby St. Mark’s Road were not adequate to support the proposed development. The motion to deny passed 5–4. The developer may revise and resubmit or pursue remedies through subsequent permitting processes.