Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge halt to Hazel Hill subdivision until state improves dangerous intersection; council weighs options
Summary
At public comment, speakers urged the council to stop development at the Hazel Hill subdivision near highways 25 and 290 until the intersection is improved; councilors noted limits on county authority because the roads are state-maintained and suggested PND review and a possible workshop on subdivision process.
Two members of the public used the council’s public-comment period on March 17 to press elected officials to reconsider recent approvals and to call out what they described as unsafe conditions at a rural intersection.
Joe Dill told councilors a subdivision called Hazel Hill was approved at the intersection of Highway 25 and Highway 290, an area he called “one of the most dangerous places to get in and out of in Greenville County.” Dill said a friend had been killed at that location and urged the council to stop further subdivision development until the intersection is improved.
Ed Paxton used his allotted time to criticize perceived mismanagement in local sanitation governance and urged broader structural changes, including a referendum on the county’s form of government and the removal of the Greenville Development Corporation; his comments were framed as political critique and did not prompt an immediate staff response in the record.
During council discussion, members expressed sympathy for the safety concerns but explained legal and jurisdictional limits. Several councilors observed that both roads at issue are state highways, meaning major changes require the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) approval and possibly action by state legislators and GPATS (Greenville-Pickens Area Transportation Study). Councilors recommended options short of litigation: have the Planning & Development (PND) committee investigate the subdivision approval pathway, hold a workshop to re-educate members on subdivision and staff approval processes, and encourage residents to contact state-level representatives for road improvements.
Council members noted subdivision approvals sometimes bypass county council when zoning is unchanged, and that efforts to reverse approvals after developers have vested rights can lead to lawsuits and taxpayer costs. The council agreed to add discussion on the subdivision process to an upcoming agenda so members and the public could better understand how approvals move through staff, planning commission and council.
