A 303-acre annexation into the City of Clinton was moved forward on a 6-1 vote Monday by the city council, after 16 people participated in public comments.
This was not a public hearing - since the City Planning Commission already has conducted a public hearing, another hearing is not required under a city ordinance modified last year. Council can have a second (or more) public hearing if it chooses to do so. Second (final) reading of the annexation ordinance is expected in June.
At one point in the council’s discussion, Mayor Randy Randall refused to allow a motion to table the matter, and later gaveled quiet the audience which applauded a city council member’s objection to the project, by saying, “This is not a cheering section.”
The proposed ordinance in the Council’s on-line agenda packet is not what the Council ultimately approved.
Developers wanted this property divided into 4 zoning classifications - one of which, R-3, would allow apartments - but that request was rejected by the Planning Commission. If the developers want to move forward, the entire tract will have to be R-1, single family homes.
With the 4 zoning designations, the property would accommodate 607 dwellings (which could include apartments but would not, according to the developers, because of deed restrictions). With the entire property coming under R-1, the tract could be developed into 700 single-family home sites, based on the city subdivision ordinance’s lot sizes.
The matter now goes back to the Planning Commission for the developers to submit a R-1 plan, if they choose to do so. Or, they could submit a new plan directly back to the City Council.
Of the 16 people who spoke to council (under “public comments”), 14 spoke in opposition or concern about this proposed development, Cambridge Farms. One of the 2 others spoke about unsightliness at a Habitat for Humanity home in the city, and Mo Farhan asked the council to instruct city officials to grant a sign permit so the re-located House of Pizza, on Musgrove Street, could open next month.
Opponents of Cambridge Farms come mostly from neighborhoods that are not in the city limits; however, these residents said their opinions should nevertheless be heard. Some said they own businesses in Clinton.
“It is narrow-minded to dismiss opinions of people who live outside the city limits,” Brenda Stewart said.
One area of question for this development is this: If it is not annexed and developed as a city-approved project, and it remains “in the county” property, can it be developed under Laurens County’s subdivision ordinance?
Stewart said she checked with County Administrator Thomas Higgs and County Council Chairman Jeff Carroll and was told Cambridge Farms does not meet county specifications for a subdivision, as proposed.
Still, the development plan made available to city council members says, in one part, “If the property is not annexed into the City of Clinton, the property could be developed under the Laurens County development standards which are much less than those of the City of Clinton.”
The developers asked for annexation of 246 acres of residential property owned by Bush River Sporting Clays and 67.5 acres of separate agricultural property owned by Frank J. Wyman, III.
The developers are from Simpsonville, Lexington, Greenville, and Lyman.
The 14 people who spoke against or with concern about Cambridge Farms said the adjoining Bush River would be adversely impacted, traffic on Highway 56 would be increased too much, a proposed access road out the back of the property would infringe on another subdivision, it is too far off the interstate to be attractive to commuters and Clinton already has residential development closer to I-26/I-385 that has not yet shown that it can sell, the judgement of the Planning Commission in zoning the entire property R-1 should be upheld, council does not know enough about the building quality, financial condition, and number of developments (said to be 10 projects in 9 towns) by the company to move forward, and a lack of transparency.
Ashley Martin said the developers have engaged in “small group meetings” with council members, and the council as a whole has been “small-minded on development.” She asked the council what will happen when the Thornwell farmland and the Presbyterian College intramural fields-adjacent property starts to develop and large-scale housing is “at your back door.”
“We want growth, but we want the right kind of growth,” Charlotte Strickland said.
Owner of more than 200 acres adjoining the back end of this property, Sammy Lanford said, “I cherish it. I would love to keep it the way it is.”
“Years ago, we decided we need a Planning Commission. They voted on this, support them and their judgement of R-1. We need a recess in development,” Ann Cornelson said.
“Table it, and become informed. I would prefer it to be timberland and farmland,” Corey Cannon said.
“I do not want to see our community hurt by a careless venture,” Lisa Chapman said.
“Once it is owned, they can build what they want,” Teresa Corley said.
Council Member Anita Williams expressed a similar concern - “this is Bush River Resort again; they started with a shed and now there is a building supply business there. Even with R-1 zoning, the houses will cost $500,000 - what is the purpose to have rooftops that are empty?” She asked the council to put “a hold” on the development, pending further study; but Randall said that would not be in order (even if Williams could get a second on a motion to table).
He said the council’s only action would be “just to annex and zone it.”
Williams countered, “When we OK the annexation, they will do what they want to do. It may be good now, but is it going to be good down the road.” That’s when Randall gaveled silent applause from the audience.
Williams voted against the annexation and zoning approval motion, which was made by Danny Smith and seconded by Danny Cook.
In the time between 1st reading approval in April and 2nd reading consideration in June, Smith said, “Can we address the Bush River concerns?” And Cook added that more information is needed on the developers’ finances, a traffic study, green-spaces, and wetlands.
Council members were concerned that utility revenues and impact fees would be coming to the city “years down the road” but a 303-acre development would have immediate impacts on police, fire, sanitation, and schools.
This April 7 session was the Clinton City Council’s regular monthly meeting; and after transacting a few more business items, council adjourned to a closed session to discuss the “personnel matter” of hiring a new city manager.
The council’s full agenda packet (minus executive session matters), which includes the proposed Cambridge Farms development, is here: https://www.cityofclintonsc.com/vertical/sites/%7B55F7B4D2-DDA3-4E24-B36B-2DCD490E9E5E%7D/uploads/Council_packet_4.7.25_safe.pdf
Veranda Homes, USA here.
