← Preserve TR · Active Project
A developer is proposing a 6-home subdivision on Williams Road and requesting that the City of Travelers Rest annex the back portion of the parcel from Greenville County. The pitch comes with a threat attached. Here's what the public records actually show.
Last updated: May 22, 2026
01 / The Proposal
At a community meeting on May 21, 2026 at Grace Church in Travelers Rest, residents heard a developer's plan for the parcel known as TMS 0503030101600 — a 19.6-acre tract off Williams Road, jointly straddling the city/county boundary. The developer plans to build 6 homes on a new private road accessed from Williams Road, served by individual septic systems.
The parcel currently has split jurisdiction. About 12.32 acres of the front portion is inside the City of Travelers Rest, zoned R-15 (single-family residential, 15,000 sq ft minimum lots). The back 8.05 acres remains in unincorporated Greenville County and is unzoned. To develop the parcel as one project, the developer is asking the City to annex the county portion.
Annexation is not automatic. Under South Carolina law, annexation is a discretionary act by City Council, which has the authority to approve, condition, or decline the request based on whether annexing serves the City's interests, infrastructure capacity, and Comprehensive Plan goals.
02 / The Sewer Claim
What was said at the meeting
The developer told residents that because the development would use a private road off Williams Road, they would not be required to connect to city sewer service — and presented the 6-home, septic-based project as the natural fit for the site.
The public record complicates that framing.
Fact 1 — The parcel IS in a sewer service district
Greenville County GIS records show the parcel is located within the Metroconnects / Metropolitan Sewer Subdistrict, the regional wastewater utility serving northern Greenville County. Sewer service is administratively available.
Fact 2 — A sewer line runs along the road adjacent to the property
The sewer main extends along the road bordering the north side of the parcel. The distance from the north property line to that road is approximately 580 feet, measured directly via the county's mapping tools. Williams Road, on the south side, also has sewer infrastructure. The parcel is bracketed by sewer access, not isolated from it.
Fact 3 — Private roads do not automatically exempt a development from sewer connection requirements
Sewer connection requirements in South Carolina are typically driven by the distance from a structure to an available sewer main and by local subdivision ordinances — not by whether the access road is public or private. The "private road exemption" framing should be verified against the City's actual ordinance language by the Planning Department before being accepted as fact.
03 / The "38 Homes" Threat
What was said at the meeting
The developer told residents that if the City required them to connect to sewer service, the cost of extending the sewer line and meeting full city subdivision standards would only make economic sense if the project were expanded to approximately 38 homes — spreading the infrastructure cost across many more lots.
It is true that running sewer to a site costs money, and that those costs get spread across lots. But the threat as presented has a few problems worth understanding before Council takes it at face value.
The threat is also an admission
Saying "the only way sewer-connected development works is 38 homes" is the developer admitting that the 6-home septic version shifts long-term wastewater infrastructure cost off of them and onto homeowners, the City, and Metroconnects. Septic systems eventually fail. When neighborhoods built on septic eventually need to convert to sewer — and many do — the cost typically lands on residents through assessments, on the City through extensions, or on Metroconnects. The "we'll do 6 cheap if you leave us alone" version harvests the upside and externalizes the downside.
The sewer is not far away
A common reason sewer extension is expensive is distance. In this case, sewer mains are approximately 580 feet north of the property line and along Williams Road to the south. That is a short run by sewer-extension standards. The "we can't make sewer pencil out at low density" framing deserves scrutiny against an independent cost estimate from the City Engineer or Metroconnects — not asserted numbers from the applicant.
"38 homes" is at or near the zoning ceiling, not a free choice
R-15 zoning requires a minimum lot size of 15,000 sq ft (≈0.34 acres). The 12.32 city-zoned acres alone yield a theoretical maximum of roughly 35-36 lots before subtracting road right-of-way, stormwater detention, setbacks, and unbuildable areas. Adding the 8.05 county acres (if annexed) gets near 38 only if the entire parcel is treated as a clean buildable slab. It isn't — see the next section. Hitting 38 homes likely requires variances from R-15 standards, probably through a Planned Development (PD) overlay. Each variance is another discretionary city approval.
The City does not have to accept either menu item
The choice presented — "6 cheap homes on septic or 38 dense homes with sewer" — is the developer's framing, not a constraint imposed on the City. Council has discretion to approve, condition, or decline both the annexation and the development plan. If the developer cannot make a moderately-sized sewer-connected project pencil out, that is information about the project's economics — it is not an obligation on the City to approve a denser project to rescue the developer's pro forma.
"38 with sewer or 6 without" is the developer dictating terms. The City does not have to pick from the menu.
04 / Buildable Area
Whether the project is 6 homes on septic or 38 homes on sewer, the same soil and slope constraints apply to the parcel itself. You cannot put homes on hydric (wetland) soils. You cannot easily put homes on steep slopes without major grading, retention walls, and stormwater infrastructure. Sewer changes the math on wastewater. It does not change the math on what is physically buildable.
The USDA Web Soil Survey documents the following soil composition for the parcel area:
| Soil | Description | % of area | Constraint |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wehadkee | Hydric, frequently flooded floodplain soils | 21.8% | Likely wetland (water table 0–6 inches, hydric — potential U.S. Army Corps Section 404 jurisdiction) |
| Pacolet sandy loam | 15–25% slopes | 35.4% | Steep slope (major grading, stormwater concerns) |
| Cecil-Cataula complex | 10–15% slopes, eroded | 29.1% | Moderate slope |
| Cecil sandy loam | 6–10% slopes | 8.5% | Workable |
| Pacolet clay loam | 10–15% slopes, eroded | 3.2% | Moderate slope, erosion |
| Cartecay & Toccoa | Floodplain soils | 2.1% | Flooding |
Roughly 24% of the surveyed area is in floodplain or hydric soils that are difficult or impossible to build on under federal wetland regulations. Another 35% is on slopes of 15–25%, where development is technically possible but expensive and disruptive — and where stormwater runoff onto downhill neighbors becomes a serious issue. The hydric strip runs roughly through the middle of the parcel, following the small stream visible on aerial imagery.
What this means for the "38 homes" claim
Even with sewer, the realistic buildable area on this parcel is substantially less than its 19.6 gross acres. Subtracting the hydric/floodplain strip, roads, and stormwater infrastructure, the buildable area is roughly 12-14 acres. Fitting 38 lots into that envelope requires either (a) accepting major grading on steep slopes, (b) granting variances from R-15 standards via a Planned Development (PD) overlay, or (c) both. Each of those is a discretionary city approval — and each is another moment when residents can weigh in.
What this means for the "6 homes on septic" claim
Septic systems require suitable soil for both a primary drainfield and an equivalent "repair area" reserve. The hydric Wehadkee soils are unsuitable for septic at any density. The steep Pacolet slopes are rated "very limited" for septic by USDA. Even the 6-home version needs careful siting on the workable soil portions of the parcel — and a real wetland delineation before any approval, not after.
05 / What This Means
Annexation is the leverage point here. Without annexing the county portion, the developer cannot subdivide the full parcel as a single project under city rules. The City does not have to approve.
If Council does consider annexation, the questions that should be asked, on the record:
06 / What You Can Do
Sources
The Williams Road project — and other developer proposals like it — get decided at meetings most residents don't know about. We track the agendas and email you when something needs your attention.