Neighbors oppose rezoning for proposed Highway 93 pharmacy; planning commission sends negative recommendation to council

A Clemson business owner told the Planning Commission on June 8 that he is seeking a CP2 rezoning for a set of lots at Highway 93 and Abel Road and plans to locate a pharmacy there, including sidewalks and landscaping to buffer adjacent homes. The applicant, who identified himself as Tom, said the city’s 2045 Comprehensive Plan targets the Highway 93 frontage for commercial conversion and that his concept “would include sidewalks, trees and landscaping” to reduce impacts.

Neighborhood speakers pushed back forcefully during a lengthy public comment period. Henry Young, who lives nearby, said, “We don't need another drugstore in the city. We got five already,” and other residents raised similar concerns about added traffic on Highway 93, children’s safety, proximity to churches and a community center, and loss of residential character. Adrien Jackson Garner, executive director of the Little John Community Center, urged more community dialogue before land-use changes, saying the neighborhood’s children are a key consideration.

Staff described the limits that would apply if the site were rezoned: a 25‑foot buffer where the commercial edge abuts residential lots, required sidewalks and street trees on street frontages, and a 40‑foot height limit for the proposed district. Jacob Peabody, zoning administrator, noted that CP2 allows drive‑thrus only as a conditional use and that any future development would still require Board of Architectural Review review and any required state reviews for roadway access.

Commissioners pressed the applicant and staff about the comp plan map, noting that two of the four lots at the corner are shown as commercial on the future land‑use map while the rear lots remain in a residential reinvestment area. Commissioners sought assurances that rezoning the frontage would not unduly threaten the protected residential area behind it; staff explained how connected parking easements and buffering could be required at the development stage.

After discussion, commissioners considered two procedural options: postponing to allow a neighborhood meeting or taking a vote. A motion to postpone to the next meeting failed for lack of majority. The commission then voted on a motion to recommend the rezoning. The roll call was: Crowley—no; Franks—yes; Yoder—no; Hay—no; Chair Herb Tyler—yes. Because a majority opposed, the Planning Commission will forward the request to City Council with a negative recommendation.

The applicant said he remains willing to meet with neighbors and city staff to continue dialogue. Next steps: the item goes to a public hearing before City Council, where councilmembers will receive the Planning Commission’s negative recommendation but may still act independently.