Fort Mill council denies Arden Mill Phase 2 annexation and related rezoning after wide public comment

FORT MILL — The Fort Mill Town Council on the evening of the recorded meeting refused to move forward with an annexation and accompanying rezoning package for the proposed Arden Mill Phase 2 development, denying four related ordinances after extensive public comment and a town staff presentation.

Residents who live near the proposed site pressed the council to reject annexation and the MXU (mixed‑use) rezoning, citing traffic safety, loss of mature canopy and water‑quality concerns. "Please deny this zoning and annexation request," said Jeffrey Wagner, a Spring Branch Glen resident who told the council he and neighbors were fighting to preserve natural land and community character.

Why it mattered: The developer and property owners argued annexation into Fort Mill would allow the town to capture impact fees and require higher local standards, and they presented a revised site plan that reduced the lot count from 108 to 88 and added a 45‑foot undisturbed perimeter buffer for adjacent lots. Property owner Will Barbieri said the plan “provides seamless continuity for infrastructure, connectivity, public safety, and character” and pledged the developer would mill and repave Nims Lake Road and fund intersection improvements.

Technical background: Town staff and the project's traffic consultant, Amy Massey of Kimley Horn, reviewed the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). Massey said the TIA projected conditions in 2030 and — even accounting for regional growth and other approvals — showed the Nims Lake/North Dobie's intersection at level of service D in the morning peak and E in the afternoon peak; the Arden Mill/Fort Mill Parkway intersection would be LOS F without a signal under the projected build traffic. Massey also said the study modeled 109 single‑family homes (a conservative scenario compared with the current 88‑lot plan).

Council action and next steps: Council members moved and seconded motions to deny the first readings of the annexation (item 4a), a separate parcel annexation (4b), an in‑town rezoning (4c), and the MXU concept‑plan amendment (4d). Each motion passed; the transcript records oral “aye” votes but does not provide a roll‑call tally in the audio record. (Vote counts are not specified in the meeting transcript.) Mayor Savage recused himself from votes on which he had a conflict of interest related to residency, per remarks on the record.

What proponents said: Fred Nims, a property owner, told council the homes would be marketed toward older buyers and that the family had worked with the developer for eight years and made changes based on neighbor feedback. Supporters including Stacy Rogner and Brian Cox said the developer had meaningfully reduced density and improved buffers.

What opponents said: Neighbors repeatedly raised concerns about putting construction traffic onto narrow Nims Lake Road, the potential for increased peak‑hour delays, emergency access, and the loss of mature trees and habitat. Several speakers provided photos and cited near misses for pedestrians and school‑drop‑off congestion.

What happens now: Because the council denied the annexation and related rezoning ordinances, the developer can pursue county approval as an alternative; as resident Ryan Newkirk noted in public comment, if Fort Mill rejects annexation the landowner could seek approval through York County, and the houses could be built without town impact fees or town zoning conditions.

Provenance: topicintro SEG 233, topfinish SEG 2525.