Weekly Council Agenda, Public hearings on Election Day, Rushed and Incomplete UDO, and the irreversible lack of trust that hangs in the balance.

Councilman Blount’s Newsletter 11-3-24

As always, I’m grateful for the opportunity to connect with you and keep you informed about important developments that could shape the future of Greenville County. As your County Councilman, I’m committed to making sure you have a clear, transparent view of what’s happening in local government, especially on major decisions like the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and other impactful topics on this week’s agenda. Your engagement and feedback are crucial in guiding our community’s direction, and this week, I encourage you to stay involved as we tackle an unusually heavy list of items at both the committee and council levels. From zoning hearings to a critical second reading of the UDO, there’s much at stake that will affect our county’s growth, character, and infrastructure. Here’s a rundown of the upcoming County Council and community meetings that you may want to attend:

• Monday, November 4th

  • Planning and Development Committee at 5:00 PM

  • Zoning Public Hearing at 6:00 PM

  • Dunklin Fire Rescue District meeting at 6:30 PM

• Tuesday, November 5th

  • Committee of the Whole at 4:00 PM

  • County Council at 6:00 PM

For a complete list of meetings and livestream links, click here: Meeting Calendar

---

This Week’s Council Meeting

The upcoming Greenville County Council meeting on November 5 is set to cover an unusually weighty agenda, with some high-impact items like fire district bonds, the sale of county-owned property, and a critical second reading of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) . Also on the docket are multiple resolutions for inducement agreements, sewer boundary expansion, and various zoning ordinances. This extensive list reflects significant decisions affecting local infrastructure, economic development, and zoning standards.

---

Why Hold Such a Heavy Agenda on Election Day?

Holding a meeting with such impactful items on Election Day raises serious concerns. For many, Election Day is a time to focus on civic duty at the polls, not necessarily on navigating complex policy issues at a Council meeting. Asking constituents to choose between voicing their concerns at a Council meeting or voting could suppress public input on critical matters. Given the importance of these agenda items, such as the UDO, it’s vital that the public feels fully informed and engaged, yet Election Day meetings risk diluting the public’s ability to engage.

Additionally, this schedule can contribute to perceptions of inconsideration toward the community. Holding high-stakes Council discussions on Election Day may appear to disregard citizens’ priorities, signaling a lack of empathy for those juggling civic responsibilities. While I am committed to attending the meeting and representing community interests, I find this scheduling decision shortsighted and am concerned it may further undermine public trust in local government. I am personally ready to go in the opposite direction in terms of trust in County Government. You deserve a Council that acts on your best interests rather than the political and bureaucratic agendas.

---

The Unified Development Ordinance (UDO): Rushed and Incomplete

Among the meeting’s crucial topics is the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), currently set for its second reading. This ordinance represents a significant overhaul of the county’s zoning and development standards, but it appears to be rushed through the approval process before year’s end. A key driver behind this urgency seems to be concern about next year’s Council composition, which may be less inclined to support the UDO in its current form. Rushing complex, foundational policies due to political pressure is not the standard that government should aspire to uphold. In my opinion, it speaks to a larger problem of internal operatives (staff) having more control of your government than you do! That has been something I have been cataloging ever since I took office and will speak directly to this in the weeks to come.

As a friendly reminder, this is what our organizational authority chart looks like! Notice where you SHOULD be: Greenville County Organizational Chart

A major concern is that even county staff have acknowledged the UDO is only about 75% complete. Knowing this, why would the Council consider passing an ordinance that is acknowledged to be unfinished? Approving a partially complete ordinance is not only poor policy; it exposes the county to potential lawsuits. Taxpayers—not staff—will bear the financial burden of any litigation resulting from incomplete or poorly constructed regulations. Given these risks, finalizing the remaining 25% is essential before moving forward with any implementation.

As we approach this second reading, it’s crucial for the public to understand the UDO’s potential impact on Greenville County’s development landscape and quality of life.

---

Some Concerns with the Unified Development Ordinance

• The UDO allows for non-detached residences (town homes) in neighborhoods like those in R-12 zones, potentially altering the character of these communities by introducing denser housing in areas intended for single-family homes. This can also be decided by one person, with no input or decision power from County Council.

• The UDO also lacks minimum lot sizes for open space developments, which could lead to lots as small as 2,000 square feet in areas otherwise zoned for larger single-family homes, disrupting neighborhood character.

• The UDO does not fully account for infrastructure needs, meaning that more lots could be approved in open space developments than the existing infrastructure can support, leading to overbuilt neighborhoods with inadequate space for roads, ponds, and community facilities.

• The UDO reduces the Planning Commission’s authority to review preliminary plans, particularly around open space requirements. This could allow developments that aren’t aligned with zoning objectives to move forward unchecked.

• The UDO would apply warehouse parking standards to mini-storage facilities, which may lead to impractical requirements and increased costs.

• The UDO’s tree ordinance would require arborist reports and inspections, raising development costs and potentially impacting housing affordability.

• The UDO centralizes the Plan Review process and could create confusion by blending County Council and Planning Commission roles, making their responsibilities harder to distinguish.

• The UDO does not require input from the school district for projects over 300 lots, potentially leading to strain on school capacity and infrastructure.

• The UDO also lacks infrastructure standards that could ensure adequate support for surrounding areas, risking environmental sustainability and infrastructure compatibility. It essential does away with TIS (Traffic impact studies) in the decision making process.

Read that last sentence again and make it make sense………

---

(UDO) Environmental Concerns and the Role of Advocacy Groups

Several environmental groups are supporting the UDO, encouraged to promote it as a green initiative. However, some provisions could have unintended environmental consequences. Allowing smaller lots and denser developments can strain local ecosystems by reducing habitats, limiting green space, and increasing stormwater runoff, which harms wildlife and contributes to erosion. District 19 has had several examples of this in my short time on Council already.

The tree ordinance’s high costs may discourage developers from including trees, leading to reduced tree cover, which affects air quality and increases heat. Weak infrastructure standards may also lead to overdevelopment in areas that cannot sustainably support increased housing density, risking pollution and impacts on water quality.

I will not allow them to unfairly weaponize these great organizations against those on Council that oppose this ordinance in the current form. As you can see, my concerns about the UDO do not concern environmental protections that it gives.

---

Why I Will Be Opposing the UDO in Its Current Form

The UDO has the potential to reshape Greenville County for the better — or for the worse. The timing of this vote, on Election Day, sends the wrong message about transparency and accessibility. Our community deserves a fair opportunity to discuss, understand, and influence this ordinance without competing with Election Day distractions.

I have been voicing my concerns about this ordinance for months now and there are many more layers to the onion concerning why it is currently being pushed through. I encourage you to go back and find my previous articles and newsletters concerning the UDO. They will give you a much more in depth look into what the ordinance will mean to future development in Greenville County.

Click below to read these articles and more:

---

As one your representative, I believe Greenville County Council should always prioritize transparency, fairness, and accessibility. By moving forward with significant votes like the UDO on Election Day—when our community’s focus is understandably elsewhere—I fear we may send the wrong message about our commitment to public involvement and accountability. This ordinance has the power to fundamentally reshape our community, and I remain committed to ensuring it serves your best interests. I encourage you to continue voicing your concerns and asking questions, as you deserve clear answers and policies that reflect your priorities, not political or bureaucratic agendas. Let’s work together to build a future for Greenville County that we can all stand behind with confidence.

Whenever I ask the questions, I unfortunately almost always get half truths or blank stares.

Maybe they will respond better to their bosses…..YOU!