Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Greenville County Council denies several rezoning requests, rejects Roberts Road plan after infrastructure concerns
Summary
Councilors rejected multiple rezoning requests at second reading after planning commission recommendations and infrastructure concerns; a contested Roberts Road rezoning (RS to R10) failed on a 4–6 roll call after councilors warned of traffic and drainage issues.
Greenville County Council voted on multiple zoning ordinances at its March 17 regular meeting, denying several second-reading rezoning requests and rejecting a contentious Roberts Road proposal after councilors raised infrastructure and traffic-safety concerns.
The council followed the planning commission and committee recommendations and denied rezoning petitions including CZ2026-00006 (231 Morrow Road, from R12 to RMA) and two other applications after motions to deny were moved by Councilor Bradley and carried by voice vote.
A longer exchange preceded the council’s decision on a separate rezoning for parcels at 51, 355 and 359 Roberts Road (request to change zoning from RS to R10). Councilor Bradley, presenting the committee’s action, moved to approve the ordinance at second reading. Several councilors raised objections during discussion, citing limited road capacity, a steep grade near the entrance, and a lack of supporting infrastructure. One councilor said the parcel currently contains mobile homes and described replacing those with stick-built duplexes as an improvement, but others stressed traffic impacts on Five Forks Road at morning peak times.
Because members anticipated opposing views, a roll-call vote was requested. After procedural confusion about whether the motion on the floor was to approve or deny, the recorded tally was four in favor and six opposed; the motion failed and the rezoning was denied.
Council members said the Roberts Road item highlighted broader process questions about how subdivisions and minor rezoning requests reach the council and whether some approvals should return to committee or require additional road studies. Several members recommended a workshop or committee review to clarify the subdivision approval process and the role of the planning commission, staff approvals and potential legal implications.
The council’s decisions on the rezoning items leave those parcels at their existing zoning classifications while staff and committees consider next steps. No formal appeals or legal actions were recorded in the meeting minutes.
