Commission approves Tigner/Tiner Woods subdivision after hours of debate over roads, sewer and fire access

The Greenville County Planning Commission on June 24 voted to approve the preliminary plan for Tigner/Tiner Woods (PP-2026-050), a proposed conventional subdivision on Reed Fork Road, after lengthy public comment and technical debate about access, sewer availability and emergency vehicle turnarounds.

Staff presented the plan as a 56-lot proposal on roughly 57.93 acres and recommended conditional approval, citing standard requirements including traffic-calming measures, fire-hydrant spacing, an approved apparatus turnaround consistent with the International Fire Code (IFC 2021) and documentation from sewer authorities or DEES regarding septic or sewer feasibility. Ron Tate, attorney for the developer, said the parcel is already zoned for the proposed lot sizes and that the developer revised the plan to include the required secondary access point following a SACE review.

Opponents raised several concerns at the meeting. Jim Gilbert, a longtime resident, warned that Woodmont High School is already over capacity, saying, “The capacity at that school was designed at 2,012 students. Current enrollment is 2,152 students and that’s 145 over capacity already.” Residents and commissioners also cited poor Reed Fork Road conditions, historic flooding along Ray Branch/Mill Creek, and claims of archaeological features and potential burial sites that some say warrant protection.

Developer and owner representatives told the commission the site can be built as shown under current zoning and that septic could be an option if DEES issues the necessary lot-level approvals. Owner H. Tiger Co Pepper told the commission he has owned the tract for decades and said the development would be “a good tax base increase for the county.”

Commissioners and staff spent significant time clarifying technical points that became focal to the approval: an apparent discrepancy among deed/tax/GIS acreages and a recent engineering GIS measurement (staff explained that final state-plane surveys at platting will determine exact acreage), whether sewer is “available” or only “feasible” (county staff said DEES issues septic permits at the lot level and that sewer providers had differing comments), and an apparent mismatch between the county’s Land Development Regulations and the fire marshal’s preferred apparatus-turnaround and roadway-width standards. The fire marshal’s recommendations included wider roads (24 feet) and larger turnarounds (the fire review cited Appendix D/IFC), while county maintenance acceptance and LDR practice typically assume narrower dimensions.

To address these concerns, the commission added conditions beyond the packet’s items: an updated REIW/Metro utility evaluation prior to permitting, submission of the fire marshal’s most recent comments and the revised plat for direct fire-department review, and a requirement that the project return to the planning commission if lot sizes or counts change materially after final survey. The motion to approve passed on a show of hands recorded as seven in favor and two opposed.

The commission’s approval is a recommendation that moves to the Planning & Development Committee and permits the developer to pursue the subsequent permitting steps required by county rules. The commission repeatedly noted limits to its authority over school capacity and large-scale transportation funding, and several commissioners urged County Council and staff to consider amendments to Article 9 and the LDR to better align infrastructure timing with residential approvals.