RICHLAND COUNTY – Richland County planning commissioners recommended approval Monday of a request to rezone approximately 80 acres along Wilson Boulevard for high-density residential development, despite concerns that development of the property could leave an existing homeowner fighting in court to preserve access to his own property.
The Sept. 14 rezoning request was submitted by applicant Steven Mark Ivy for property at E/S Wilson Blvd. and 9317 Wilson Boulevard. The property is currently zoned Homestead and Agriculture (HM/AG), and the applicant is seeking Residential-3 (R-3) zoning.
County staff initially listed the property as 78.79 acres, but during the hearing corrected the acreage to 80.76 acres after adding another tax parcel that had not been included in the original total.
Staff said the requested R-3 zoning is consistent with the county’s Comprehensive Plan and with the pattern of increasing development occurring along Wilson Boulevard.
Jason Winkler, representing Ivy Development, told commissioners that the company is only anticipating building about 180 units. However, under R-3 zoning, the developer is permitted to build about six residential units per acre, or roughly 480 units total, not accounting for infrastructure.
Winkler insisted that approximately half the site would likely remain open space.
But much of the commission’s discussion centered on the property of Charles Rumpleton, who lives at 141 Lever Acres Road, inside the property proposed for rezoning.
Rumpelton told commissioners he has lived there for more than 10 years and opposed the rezoning. He said the proposal affects Lever Acres Road, a Dominion Energy power line easement and the easement through which his Columbia Water line reaches his property.
Rumpelton also raised concerns about wetlands and mature trees on the property, as well as stormwater runoff and increased traffic along an already busy Wilson Boulevard.
The access issue was initially a concern for several commissioners.
Commissioner Michael Johnson recalled that a previous rezoning application involving the same property had come before the commission and that the landlocked parcel had been an issue then as well.
Staff said the previous application received a recommendation for de nial from the Planning Commission but was withdrawn before County Council acted on it.
Johnson asked staff what would happen to the interior property owner’s access.
“They couldn’t just landlock them and not provide access,” a staff member said, but added that the matter would essentially be between the affected property owner and the adjoining property owner.
That answer prompted Commissioner Sena Lloyd to question whether approving the rezoning could put Rumpelton in the position of having to go to court to protect his access.
“I get that they can’t landlock this individual in—like, it’s not legal, it’s not cool,” Lloyd said. “However, they can actually do that, and then it’s up to the individual—that we potentially put in place, if we approve this—to fight that legally through the court system.”
When another commissioner asked whether an access easement currently exists for the landlocked property, staff acknowledged they did not know.
“There could be, but the county hasn’t looked into that since it’s an existing lot of record,” staff said.
Staff cautioned commissioners, however, that the landlocked property owner was not to be considered and that the matter before them was a zoning map amendment— whether R-3 zoning is appropriate for the property.
The commission also discussed whether R-3 zoning fits the surrounding area.
Johnson noted there are no immediately adjacent R-3 properties.
A member of staff said that a nearby Planned Development District is being developed residentially, although commissioners pushed back that a PDD is not comparable to R-3 because planned developments can contain multiple densities and uses.
Traffic along Wilson Boulevard was another concern that was initially discussed, then disregarded by the commission.
One commissioner questioned how much additional development could be placed along the highway before infrastructure improvements are made, noting there are no planned improvements to the corridor.
Johnson ultimately said he believed the county’s housing needs and recently adopted Comprehensive Plan weighed in favor of the rezoning.
“Given the amount of time and effort that the county has put into the new comp plan and the fact that our housing numbers are upside down, at almost 80 acres, it is an opportunity to, within the growth boundary, to provide something that’s not inconsistent with the plan,” Johnson said before making the motion to recommend approval.
Lloyd reversed course from her earlier concern as to whether the commission would be setting the landlocked property owner up “for a very negative outcome” even if he ultimately prevailed.
“That’s not a very nice thing to do,” she said, but then voted for the developer’s request before adding: “I do think that the developer needs to work with the owner of the landlocked parcel.”
Commissioner Christopher Yonke cast the lone dissenting vote.
“This development is going to landlock it [Rumpleton’s property],” Yonke said after the vote. He said the situation made him “very uncomfortable,” and he also cited concerns about leapfrog development and the amount of development already occurring along Wilson Boulevard.
The rezoning request will next go before Richland County Council for a public hearing that is scheduled for 7 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 22, in County Council chambers, located at 2020 Hampton Street in Columbia. It will be followed by two other readings and votes by council. County council is not bound by the commission’s recommendation and could vote to approve or deny the request.
The Sept. 22 public hearing is the only opportunity for public input; citizens are not permitted to speak during the second and third readings. Those who wish to address the issue at the public hearing must arrive a few minutes ahead of the meeting to sign up to speak.
View the packet of information for the rezoning request below. The complete meeting packet can be viewed here.