Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Highway 905 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer proposes 372 homes, traffic improvements on Highway 905; residents ask whether nearby parcel is guaranteed for commercial use
Summary
A development agreement and associated rezoning were presented for 186.84 acres on Highway 905 proposing up to 372 single‑family homes, extensive perimeter buffering, a $5,800 per‑lot county fee and developer contributions to turn lanes and a traffic signal. A resident asked whether a 4.18‑acre parcel would be rezoned to commercial use; the applicant said the agreement does not guarantee rezoning.
The Horry County Planning Commission on June 25 heard a staff presentation and public input on a development agreement tied to a rezoning along Highway 905 (Old Rees/Ulrichs Ferry area) that would allow up to 372 single‑family homes on 186.84 acres.
Staff member Grayson said the development agreement sets a 7,000‑square‑foot minimum lot size, a 40‑foot maximum building height and naturally forested perimeter buffers ranging from 100 to 200 feet. He said the plan includes walking trails, relocation of an unimproved road to preserve access, no lots in floodplains and an estimated wetland impact of 0.07 acres. The agreement would reserve 25 feet of right‑of‑way for future Highway 905 widening and require several off‑site road improvements, including turn lanes and a traffic signal at Highway 905 and Old Rees Ferry; the commercial developer would contribute $200,000 toward the signal and the project would assess a $5,800 fee per lot payable to the county.
During public input, Michelle Kemp, who identified herself as a nearby resident, asked about a 4.18‑acre parcel referenced in the agreement and whether the county’s approval and signatures on the development agreement would guarantee that parcel’s rezoning to commercial use. "It's unclear from the documents if upon county council vote to approve this rezoning and signatures for the development agreement, that the 4.18 acre property ... is guaranteed to be rezoned for commercial use for the developer," Kemp said. She urged clearer public notice if commercial rezoning were implied.
Applicant Jeff Guyton responded that "the commercial developer was included in this DA solely for the purpose of the contribution towards the light and the reservation of the right of way. They're not guaranteed any rezoning by way of the development agreement itself." Grayson added that the commercial use cited is allowed in the current zone, so a separate rezoning would not be required for that specific use.
The commission received the presentation and public comment; no formal vote on the development agreement was recorded at the workshop. The item will return to the public record as part of the formal rezoning and council process.
Speakers quoted or cited in this report are drawn from the meeting record: Grayson (staff), Jeff Guyton (applicant), and Michelle Kemp (resident).
