Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Greer council approves annexation for proposed Mrath Road subdivision despite resident opposition
Summary
After hours of public comment, Greer City Council approved Ordinance 5-2026 to annex property on Mrath Road and establish Traditional Neighborhood zoning for roughly 67 single-family lots; the measure passed 6-1 amid residents' concerns about privacy, wildlife and narrow roads.
The City of Greer approved the second and final reading of Ordinance 5-2026 to annex property owned by Curtis C. Hipp (also referenced as Clarence C. Hipp) on Mrath Road and to assign a Traditional Neighborhood zoning classification that staff said accommodates about 67 single-family lots.
The vote followed public comment from neighborhood residents who urged council to reject the annexation. Donna Booth, who identified her address as 125 Cosmos Lane in Greer, said residents bought into the area for its "privacy and tranquility" and feared construction and increased traffic would reduce home values and harm wildlife. "We go out on our decks in the morning. We enjoy the peace and tranquility of nature," Booth said during the public forum.
Charles McAfee, who lives on Foster Circle, described a long-standing, wooded character next to his property and said recent nearby apartment development had already reduced wildlife and privacy. "That road is a narrow country road that it's hard already to pass people," he said, warning the proposed neighborhood would exacerbate safety and congestion concerns.
Staff and the applicant defended the proposal as consistent with the city's future land-use map and UDO standards. Planning staff said the requested Traditional Neighborhood zoning allows densities similar to suburban zoning near downtown and requires sidewalks, buffers, minimum tree preservation and contributions to road widening. Planner Miss Cotti told council the planning commission held a public hearing on March 9 and recommended approval.
Waverly Wilks, an engineer with Gray Engineering representing the developer, circulated a conceptual layout and said the plan includes the required type-one buffer (a minimum 10-foot planting strip with trees and shrubs), interior and exterior sidewalks and frontage contributions to an existing city road project. Wilks said there is "ample frontage" for an entrance and that the layout meets the zoning requirements staff described.
Council members pressed staff on details including green-space calculations, how detention ponds are treated in open-space math and where road improvements would be required. City staff said the developer would be expected to participate in a separate road project and that bids for associated road work are being scheduled; the city engineer indicated the bidding process would open this Friday with a tentative close date of May 7, with final contract approval to return to council.
Council framed the decision as a trade-off: annexation brings a development into the city's regulatory framework so the city can require higher design and infrastructure standards than county development, but that does not eliminate neighborhood disruption. One council member said, "when this landowner does something with their property, the only way we have to influence that development is if it happens within the city." Another stressed empathy for residents facing sudden change.
On a roll-call vote the ordinance passed with six votes in favor and one opposed (council member Lander voted no). The ordinance now completes annexation and zoning formalities; site-level engineering and subdivision approvals will proceed through the city's development review process.
Council also heard, in the same section of old business, three separate second/final readings of easement conveyances (Ordinances 9-2026, 10-2026 and 11-2026) related to the sports complex; staff reported no substantive questions and each ordinance passed by roll call vote.
