Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gaffney Planning Commission recommends denying ECS annexation, rejects R‑4 and NC zoning
Summary
After a public hearing with about 16 speakers, the Gaffney Planning Commission voted to recommend City Council deny ECS Development’s annexation petition and unanimously rejected R‑4 and Neighborhood Commercial zoning; commissioners instead recommended a majority R‑20 mix with smaller R‑12 and R‑8 areas.
The City of Gaffney Planning Commission on Jan. 13 voted to recommend that City Council deny an annexation petition and rejected portions of the developer’s proposed zoning map for a roughly 566‑acre ECS Development project.
Representatives for ECS — engineer Josh Baker of Grey Engineering and Paul Aho, president of ECS — presented a plan that would attach the parcels to the city by a 30‑foot corridor and designate 3.38 acres Neighborhood Commercial, 382.16 acres R‑4 and 180.81 acres R‑8, with the proposal estimating about 2,200 new homes. The public hearing drew a large crowd; the chair limited individual comments to five minutes and extended the hearing to allow more speakers.
Commissioners and members of the public raised repeated concerns about density and public services, potential loss of farmland and the pace of outward growth. Public commenters urged “smart growth” inside existing city limits, warned of impacts on schools, fire and police services and cited environmental and stormwater sustainability worries. The commission was also told a petition opposing annexation had gathered more than 1,400 signatures, reportedly mostly from county residents.
On motions: the commission unanimously voted to recommend City Council deny placing R‑4 and Neighborhood Commercial districts within the proposed tract. Commissioners then approved, by a 4–1 vote, a recommendation that the council consider a zoning mix favoring a majority of R‑20, a smaller percentage of R‑12 and the smallest percentage of R‑8 (Commissioner Amareia Dawkins opposed). Finally, on a separate motion the commission voted 4–1 to recommend denial of the annexation petition itself (Chairwoman Mary Pat Tyndall opposed that motion).
Alison Hall, representing staff, reminded the commission that its role is to provide a recommendation to City Council and that City Council retains decision authority on annexation. The commission’s recommendations will be forwarded to City Council for consideration; no council action occurred at the Jan. 13 meeting.
The proposal materials presented to the commission listed required compliance with state and local stormwater regulations and noted surrounding roads are owned and maintained by the South Carolina Department of Transportation. The commission’s action does not change the status of SCDOT or state environmental reviews, which staff said would be addressed in later permitting steps.
