Greenville County Deserves More Than “Good Enough for now”: Why We Need to Get the Unified Development Ordinance Right

Councilman Blount’s Newsletter 11-7-24

At this weeks Council meeting on Election Day, Greenville County Council voted 7-5 in favor of advancing the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to a third reading, despite public concerns and significant questions raised about the plan’s completeness. I want to be clear—I am not opposed to a Unified Development Ordinance. In fact, I believe a UDO is essential for managing the tremendous growth we’re experiencing and ensuring it’s done thoughtfully. But I am opposed to implementing an ordinance that we already know is flawed, especially when we have an opportunity to address these issues now.

“It’s Not Perfect”

At the public hearing for the UDO, we heard from dozens of residents who voiced their support. What was peculiar—and concerning—was that nearly 90% of them echoed the exact same phrase: “While not perfect, this ordinance is what Greenville County needs.” It’s almost as if I had heard this before! When nearly identical language is used in public comment, it signals an orchestrated effort rather than a genuinely diverse cross-section of perspectives—sometimes even coordinated by people either working for the County or in close relationship. Are these really the voices of our citizens, or is this repetition intended to quell serious debate? I also noticed the number of voices recruited from a specific district. Nice touch!;)

Regardless, if the general consensus is that the UDO isn’t “perfect,” then it’s our duty to ask, “Why not?” and “What can be done to make it better?” My argument is simple: Greenville County shouldn’t settle for “not perfect,” especially when we know specific areas where improvements can and should be made.

Why Rushing the UDO Is a Risk

The UDO has many valuable components that we need to ensure sustainable growth and balance diverse community needs. But if we rush it through with known issues, we’re simply laying the groundwork for future problems. As a councilman, my job is to advocate for the best possible version of the ordinance—not the version that merely meets a deadline.

One of the arguments I’ve heard from some staff members is that this ordinance has been “four years in the making.” But time spent is not a substitute for quality. The same issues that have surfaced over recent months were raised in earlier drafts, and we need to confront them head-on. Yes, this process has taken years, but that is all the more reason to make sure we finish strong—not rush through an incomplete product at the finish line.

There’s also an unspoken factor here: the clock. With a new council coming in next year, there seems to be a push to finalize this ordinance out of concern over the incoming council’s approach. I’ve been told, flat-out, that there’s worry the incoming council may lack the will to keep the UDO intact or advance it in a similar direction. I believe in the competence and commitment of my future colleagues and see no reason why their potential actions should dictate a rushed timeline now. This approach sidesteps the structure and principles by which local government is supposed to function. Decisions of this magnitude should be made based on their merits, not on assumptions about the future council’s ability or intent.

Fixing Issues Now vs. Fixing Issues Later

Once an ordinance of this scale and complexity is adopted, even minor changes can be labor-intensive and require extensive bureaucratic processes. If we know today that there are areas needing improvement, we owe it to our constituents to address them before final approval. Making adjustments now is far easier than navigating an amendment process down the line. And while ordinances can always be revisited, we all know that a “revised” ordinance rarely has the same impact as a carefully crafted original.

Think of the UDO as a blueprint. If the blueprint has errors, every brick laid based on that plan only compounds the initial mistakes. When we have the knowledge and capacity to refine the blueprint, why would we choose to build around errors instead?

The issues

One of my biggest concerns is the power shift from elected bodies to bureaucratic oversight. If passed as is, the UDO will hand control over development decisions to unelected officials, reducing my—and every council member’s—ability to represent your interests directly. It removes important checks and balances that exist to protect citizens from overgrowth that doesn’t align with their needs or the community’s long-term vision. The UDO gives the zoning administrator the ability to bypass your typical residential zoning standards and put multifamily developments into current residential zoning like R-12. In District 19 where we are already overrun with multifamily developments and rental properties, this alone is reason enough to fight the new ordinance until the proper amendments are made!

This ordinance introduces provisions that could fundamentally alter our communities, all while giving elected representatives less power to advocate on your behalf.

Here are some more specific areas of concern:

1. Increased Density in Open Space Subdivisions

The UDO includes a 20% density bonus in Open Space Residential Subdivisions for developers who add affordable housing. While I support affordable housing, this provision could have unintended consequences. The purpose of open space subdivisions is to offer lower-density living, preserving green space and community character. Increasing density in these areas contradicts that goal and may result in crowded neighborhoods that don’t reflect what residents originally sought. If we want to promote affordable housing, we need to find solutions that don’t compromise the defining features of our open space areas.

2. Relaxation of Lot Size Requirements

The UDO eliminates minimum lot sizes in open space subdivisions (unless restricted by environmental regulations), which could lead to high-density growth in rural areas. Many of these areas are valued for their larger lots and open feel—a stark contrast to the suburban or urban landscapes some residents specifically want to avoid. This change doesn’t just alter neighborhood aesthetics; it shifts the entire character of our rural communities, potentially transforming them into densely populated spaces that don’t reflect the local preference for open land and privacy.

3. Expansion of Townhouse Developments

Another significant shift is the UDO’s removal of restrictions on townhouses in open space subdivisions. Traditionally, these areas have been reserved for single-family homes to maintain a certain atmosphere and lifestyle. But under the new ordinance, we could see an influx of high-density housing types like townhouses, which could change the low-density character of neighborhoods and create a more urban feel in rural areas. For residents who moved here to escape that kind of density, this change could be deeply unsettling.

4. Broad Use of Density Bonuses

Density bonuses, often used to incentivize affordable housing, are applied broadly across numerous zoning districts under the UDO. This could increase housing density even in traditionally suburban or rural areas. While density bonuses have a place in promoting affordability, a one-size-fits-all approach risks creating development patterns that don’t match the preferences or expectations of the residents. Instead of carefully targeted density bonuses, the broad application here could lead to overdevelopment in areas not suited for higher density, compromising neighborhood character.

5. “Open Space” Cluster Developments

The UDO promotes cluster developments—grouping homes close together to preserve open space within the same development. While this sounds appealing, it means homes will be built closer together, which could create a more crowded living environment. For some, the trade-off of having preserved open space nearby doesn’t outweigh the downside of crowded residential clusters. Open space should enhance community life, not come at the cost of residents’ day-to-day experience of their own neighborhoods.

6. Streamlined Approval for High-Density Projects

The UDO simplifies the approval process for high-density projects, making it easier for developers to increase housing density. Streamlining can certainly speed up development, but it also reduces the scrutiny that high-impact projects should undergo. This process opens the door to overdevelopment that our current infrastructure—schools, roads, utilities—may not be able to support. Developers gain flexibility at the expense of community oversight, putting our neighborhoods and resources at risk of being overstretched.

7. Lack of Required Infrastructure Upgrades

Finally, while the UDO encourages higher-density development, it does not ensure infrastructure keeps pace. Denser neighborhoods bring more cars on the roads, more students in schools, and a greater strain on utilities. But the UDO includes no requirements for roads, schools, or public services to be upgraded to meet these demands. Without proper infrastructure plans, we could face a future of congested roads, overcrowded schools, and strained public services.

Why This Matters for Greenville County’s Future

At the heart of my opposition to the UDO as it stands is a responsibility to future generations of Greenville County residents. This is not just another piece of legislation; it’s a roadmap for how Greenville County will grow and evolve. The stakes are high, and the implications are long-term. A hasty ordinance that leaves questions unanswered or needs unmet may protect the interests of a few, but it does not protect the broader interests of our community.

The UDO has the potential to shape the county in ways that foster prosperity, sustainability, and community. But it can only do that if it reflects the best thinking we have to offer. I have met with staff, made recommendations, and urged them to slow down and listen to the concerns not just from me, but from other council members, professionals, and citizens who believe this ordinance needs refinement. We all want a UDO that serves Greenville County’s needs—not just for the next election cycle but for the next generation.

My Commitment to You

I am committed to fighting for an ordinance that isn’t just “good enough.” This isn’t about obstructing progress; it’s about ensuring that we have the highest-quality plan possible. A UDO should be a legacy of thoughtful governance, not a rushed document born from arbitrary deadlines or misplaced assumptions.

The people of Greenville County deserve an ordinance that we, as their representatives, can look back on with pride, knowing we took the time to get it right. We’re close to something great, but “close” isn’t close enough when it comes to shaping our future.

I will discuss what I guess you can call my “nuclear option”, should this ordinance continue to be pushed through by our staff and Council in my next newsletter. If you are a developer looking to jump into this ordinance before the end of the year, I highly suggest you pay attention to that newsletter. I want you to know what you may be getting into before it happens.

Thank you for trusting me to fight for the best version of Greenville County’s growth plan. I welcome your feedback, insights, and thoughts, as we all work together to shape a future that’s worthy of the county we can all call home. - BBD19