Rezoning request for 10.74-acre Saluda Drive site deadlocks after contested public hearing

The Demorest City Council deadlocked April 7 on a request to rezone about 10.74 acres off Saluda Drive from Agricultural to R-2 to allow a proposed 34‑lot subdivision.

The public hearing drew months of preparatory review and more than an hour of testimony. Matthew Benson, the applicant’s representative, said the proposal aligns with the 2023 Joint Comprehensive Plan, cited a proposed density of 3.16 units per acre and said the developer would require a minimum finished-house size of 1,500 square feet. Benson told the council that rezoning is “only step one” and that “rezoning to R2 for the purpose of single family homes is not an issue.” He also urged the council to treat the owners consistently with past applicants and proposed relaxing a staff‑recommended rental cap from 10% to 50% to avoid hardship for homeowners.

Opponents, including nearby landowners and one resident who identified himself as Rick Austin, raised multiple concerns: the project’s steep slopes (applicant materials and staff analyses cited average slopes on the site between roughly 26.9% and 37.7%, notably higher than adjacent developments), potential stormwater and watershed impacts, limited fire access because the plan calls for a single entrance, and use of private, HOA‑maintained roads in the Habersham Meadows subdivision that residents said are in poor condition.

The city’s staff report flagged possible stormwater and erosion-control challenges and noted the project would require detailed hydrologic analysis for 25‑, 50‑ and 100‑year storm events and engineered on‑site detention and stream buffers before any land‑disturbance permit could be issued.

After rebuttal from the applicant and clarifying legal remarks from City Attorney Thomas Mitchell that rezoning itself does not authorize construction (preliminary and final plats and infrastructure approvals come later), Councilman Jimmy Davis moved to deny the rezoning; Councilman Donnie Bennett seconded. The vote was recorded as two in favor and two opposed, producing a tie. Because a majority was not reached, the motion failed and the council took no final action on the rezoning at the April 7 meeting.

The hearing produced sharply worded exchanges: opponent Robert Hibbard invoked what he called “Henry’s Rule of Real Estate,” saying, “Whatever you value most is the first thing the next people will trash.” Benson compared the staff’s professional role to domestic objectivity when he described them as a “pastor’s wife,” saying they were “objective, educated, and paid to perform their analysis.”

What happens next: Because the council did not adopt a rezoning ordinance, the application remains pending. Council members discussed adding a condition that would revert the zoning if a final plat or first building permit were not achieved within a set timeframe (suggested three years), but no such reversion condition was adopted on April 7.

Provenance: Topic introduced SEG 002; topic discussion and vote recorded through SEG 006.