Cliff Notes: The Unified Development Ordinance
Councilman Blount’s Newsletter 11-22-24
A constituent recently suggested creating “cliff notes” to make the UDO more digestible. Another example that our citizens are the true experts!
Challenge accepted!
This is my attempt to break down the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) into bite-sized, easy-to-understand pieces. Think of this as your cheat sheet for one of the most impactful (and in my opinion controversial) decisions facing Greenville County.
Below, I’ll outline what the UDO claims to achieve, then discuss my concerns about its potential pitfalls, and also share actionable steps you can take to make your voice heard if you find it concerning as well!
What is the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)?
The Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) consolidates and updates Greenville County’s land use regulations. It integrates zoning, development, and other standards into one framework. The following is what the document says about the new ordinance, however the section following will discuss my concerns over the validity of some of these claims and what you can do to speak out about it.
• The UDO ensures development aligns with public health, safety, and welfare while preventing overcrowding and promoting efficient land use.
• It applies to all unincorporated areas of Greenville County. Zoning-specific rules apply only in zoned areas, while general provisions apply countywide.
Zoning Districts
• The UDO includes four categories: Base Districts (e.g., residential, commercial), Review Districts (site-specific like Planned Developments), Overlay Districts (additional rules, e.g., Historic Preservation), and Legacy Districts (obsolete zones no longer in use).
• Notable changes include the consolidation of residential zones (e.g., R-M categories) and the introduction of new districts like Agricultural Preservation and Rural Residential, which focus on conservation and low-density development.
Scuffletown Rural Conservation Area
• This area emphasizes preserving rural character with buffers and subdivision limits.
• Protections for riparian zones and scenic roads are included.
Use Regulations
• Zoned areas have specific tables outlining allowable uses, conditional uses, and special exceptions by district.
• Unzoned areas have broader categories with fewer restrictions.
• Temporary uses like events and seasonal activities are better defined.
Design Standards
• New standards address parking, landscaping, and lighting to improve aesthetics and safety.
• Tree preservation and buffering requirements are strengthened for new developments.
Connectivity and Transportation
• Updated street design standards for subdivisions are included.
• There is an emphasis on multimodal transportation, such as sidewalks and bike paths.
Stormwater and Utilities
• Improved stormwater management emphasizes low-impact development techniques.
• Easements and utility improvements are standardized.
Historic and Environmental Preservation
• New protections focus on scenic and ecologically sensitive areas.
• Stronger requirements for tree conservation and open spaces are introduced.
Administration and Enforcement
• The UDO streamlines zoning and development approval processes.
• Penalties for violations are clearly outlined.
Eminent Domain
• The UDO restricts eminent domain to projects with true public benefit.
• Condemned land cannot be transferred to private entities unless explicitly allowed by the state constitution.
Key Takeaways for Constituents
• Zoning is simplified for better clarity on property use.
• Environmental preservation is prioritized with tree conservation and sustainable development requirements.
• Processes for approvals are faster.
Potential Problems With the UDO
1. Approval Powers Shift from Council/Planning Commission to Staff:
• Decision-making authority for certain zoning and development approvals now resides with the Zoning Administrator and Planning Staff, reducing County Council’s oversight as well as the planning commissions (appointed by Council). This includes decisions about density increases and other multifamily developments within single-family residential districts.
2. Expanded Density Allowances:
• The UDO introduces mechanisms such as density bonuses for developers who preserve trees or offer other incentives. These bonuses can allow for higher density in areas not traditionally zoned for such development.
3. Impacts on Rural Areas:
• New provisions allow for more growth in rural and agricultural districts through open-space subdivisions and relaxed density standards, potentially accelerating urban sprawl.
4. Fee-In-Lieu for Tree Preservation:
• Developers can pay a fee instead of meeting tree preservation standards, reducing direct conservation requirements. The funds are managed by staff with limited Council input.
5. Residential Encroachments:
• The zoning administrator is empowered to approve higher-density projects (e.g., townhomes or multifamily developments) in areas currently zoned for single-family residences, impacting community character.
6. Procedural Consolidations:
• Zoning districts have been redefined, merging or eliminating certain categories. For instance, several residential mixed districts were consolidated, potentially altering prior zoning protections.
Potential Conflicts with the SC Enabling Act of 1994
I have additional potential conflicts of interest which I have submitted to our legal staff to consider and give an opinion on prior to 3rd reading, but here are some overall concerns about State Law conflict:
1. Removal of Council Oversight:
• Under the South Carolina Local Government Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act of 1994, zoning decisions must follow public hearings and Council approvals. By shifting authority to staff for density and development approvals, the UDO may violate these procedural requirements.
2. Increased Density Approvals:
• The UDO’s density bonuses and fee-in-lieu programs lack direct Council oversight, potentially breaching the requirement for uniform application of zoning rules within districts.
3. Comprehensive Plan Misalignment:
• The UDO may conflict with the county’s Comprehensive Plan if new zoning and density rules fail to align with the plan’s stated goals for preserving rural character and managing growth.
4. Fiscal Implications for Taxpayers:
• Increased reliance on fee-in-lieu programs and expanded rural growth may necessitate infrastructure upgrades (roads, water, sewer), potentially increasing taxpayer burdens.
Concerns with the Current Process
1. Rushed Adoption:
• The UDO is being expedited for approval with the support of only four returning Council members, ahead of newly elected members assuming office. This approach limits opportunities for comprehensive review and seemingly undermines the will of the citizens of Greenville County.
2. Unfinished Draft:
• Staff and fellow Council members have indicated that the UDO is only 75% complete. Critical elements remain undefined, raising concerns about unintended consequences for developers, taxpayers, and communities.
3. Precedent for Future Governance:
• Passing an incomplete ordinance before a newly elected Council assumes office sets a dangerous precedent. It undermines transparency and public trust in the legislative process.
Why This Matters to You
The UDO will shape the future development of Greenville County for decades to come. Decisions affecting neighborhood character, environmental sustainability, and taxpayer responsibilities require thorough review.
As it stands:
• Council has limited ability to influence density, zoning, and fees under the UDO.
• Communities risk increased density and reduced rural protections.
• Taxpayers may shoulder the costs of rushed, incomplete planning, especially if the next Council has to appeal the proposed ordinance and revert back to our old documents until the proper changes can be made.
Call to Action
The UDO has reached the 3rd and final reading coming up in December. This is your last chance to ensure the UDO serves Greenville County’s long-term interests.
Contact your County Council representatives and request:
1. A delay in the UDO’s adoption until it is fully reviewed and completed.
2. Reinstatement of Council authority over density and zoning decisions.
3. Transparency and additional public input on the final ordinance.
Let’s take the time to get it right. A rushed decision benefits no one, but a thoughtful approach ensures Greenville County remains a great place to live, work, and thrive!
I have discussed my concerns about the UDO more in detail and will list those newsletters below, but I wanted to give the most clear and easy to understand version of what we are looking at in this weeks newsletter. Please check out the other articles for a deeper dive and thank you as always for taking the time to hear me out on issues that impact all of us in Greenville County.
Zoning administrator and staff should not be allowed to make these decisions, they do not answer to the voters like council. Also no incomplete bill should be allowed to be voted on , this seems awfully unconstitutional . It doesn’t smell right!
This UDO sounds like it was written solely for the benefit of the developers and leaves the taxpayer holding the bag.
No protections for neighborhoods.
No required funding by developers to pay for improved infrastructure required to support their developments (they simply get to profiteer at the expense of residents)
We already do not have enough protection for trees and open space, from how I read these notes now developers can simply clear cut and simply pay a fee to avoid the rules (leaving everywhere looking like an ugly, asphalt urban desert like Woodruff Road or Wade Hampton 🤮
They should have modeled the rules on what Hilton Head of Bluffton has done to preserve the character of the area.
We’re going to look at ugly as the sprawl around Charlotte and Atlanta and the out of state developers will clear cut, slap up cheap houses, condos, and apts, pocket the profits and leave us with the mess.
I want to know what’s happening behind the scenes between the developers and council members.