BLYTHEWOOD – With a motion by Richland County Councilwoman Gretchen (Barron) Cooper to approve, County Council voted, without discussion, 10-1 to approve rezoning for 255 homes on 157.44 acres that border the Town of Blythewood. Cooper and Derek Pugh, both of whom represent Blythewood, voted for the rezoning to permit the 255 homes.
The proposed residential development in Blythewood 29016 (but in the unincorporated area of Richland County) drew opposition from residents during a Richland County Council public hearing Tuesday night. [A 60.5-acre property in the Town of Blythewood that is just above and bordering the 157.44-acre property will come before the Blythewood Town Council Monday night, May 25, for a request for high density zoning.]
The applicant requested that Richland County Council rezone the 157.44 acres – that include parcels with Homestead (HM) and Agriculture (AG) zoning – to R2 residential zoning for the development.
The properties to be rezoned are at Blythebrook Road and 1509 Fulmer Road, and identified as TMS numbers R12400-02-08 and R12400-02-09. Prior to the public hearing Tuesday night, county planning staff determined that the request is “not compliant” with the county’s comprehensive plan, nevertheless, the Richland County Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval last month.
Developer Phillip Reams of Haven Communities told council members the proposal had been significantly revised following discussions with residents and County Councilwoman Cooper.
“We listened carefully to the community and Councilwoman Cooper’s feedback,” Reams said.
R2 zoning allows residential, manufactured homes, and limited public, civic, and institutional uses.
According to Reams, the project would include 14,000 square-foot lots, additional green space and amenities including a pool, walking trails, pocket parks and open space areas. He said homes would feature “quality exterior materials such as brick, fiber cement, stone and vinyl combinations” with expected sales prices averaging around $350,000.
Despite the promises, nearby residents voiced strong opposition to the rezoning request, citing concerns about traffic, infrastructure, water, sewer, and school capacity, environmental impacts, wildlife habitats, and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods.
Donna Mears, who lives in the Ashley Oaks subdivision, spoke at the public hearing, saying she opposes the development. She told council members the area’s infrastructure is already strained.
“This change will lead to increased traffic congestion, which is already a significant issue in our neighborhood,” Mears said. “Road improvements are needed.”
“We need smart growth. We’re drastically reducing the natural landscape of the community,” she said.
Resident Rebecca Nelson, whose property borders the proposed development site, said growth should be evaluated by what it preserves as much as by what it builds.
“The intersections and the local roads and highways can’t handle that right now on Fulmer, a two-lane road,” she said.
She also expressed skepticism about whether the final development would match the promises initially presented to residents.
“They begin one way, and they make all these promises,” Nelson said. “And then not even halfway through building the neighborhood, those nice lots that were 50 feet in the front become six to an acre.”
Blythewood Town Councilwoman Trish Hovis also opposed the request, pointing out that the rezoning conflicts with the county’s comprehensive plan.
“To me, that’s a red flag. You have a comprehensive plan for a reason,” Hovis said. “Where is the data that shows there is an actual housing deficit and why that it would be remedied by building in an area such as this?”
Later, Cooper defended the R-2 density for not currently complying with the comprehensive plan but suggesting that the comprehensive plan is undergoing changes and will soon comply with the increased growth.
Hovis said residents who attended a recent community town hall meeting were unanimously opposed to the project.
“There’s not one single voice that I heard at the town hall meeting that wanted this,” Hovis said.
Following the public presentations, Cooper spoke in full support of the development, stating that growth in the Blythewood area has just “naturally taken place” over time.
Cooper challenged Hovis’ statement that no one at the town hall spoke for the development. Cooper said the community members at the meeting were just asking questions, “not necessarily in opposition”.
Without acknowledging the fact that Hovis is a Blythewood town councilwoman, or that other Blythewood council members were in the audience, Cooper said she had extended an olive branch to the Blythewood Town Council to meet with her and Richland County Councilman Derek Pugh, both of whom represent Blythewood.
“Because we want to talk about planned development, and we’ve not had that opportunity to meet with the town council. That opportunity is still open,” she said.
Following the meeting, Blythewood Mayor Pro Tem Andrea Fripp commented on Cooper’s statement.
“An olive branch implies there is some of sort of adversarial relationship between the Town of Blythewood and Richland County elected officials. Clearly this is not the case as Town officials attend various county town hall, planning commission and county council meetings.
After Town Council sent a letter to County Council in December 2025, expressing concern about development that is under the purview of Richland County but borders the Town, County staff, instructed by Councilwoman Cooper, offered several dates for a meeting between members of the two councils but the times were during work hours and members of our Council, who work full time, were not able to attend on short notice. We would welcome attending a meeting at a time we could collectively agree upon.”
Richland County Council will have two more votes before the rezoning is final. Had County Council voted unanimously in the public hearing on Monday night to pass the ordinance, the rezoning would have automatically been included on the consent agenda for a vote without any discussion at the next two council meetings. However, since Richland Councilwoman English voted “nay,” the item must be put on the regular agenda for discussion and a vote at the next council meeting.
Either way, the public will not be allowed to speak out a second time on the issue. The public can correspond with and make phone calls to the council members before the next two meetings.