Here’s a recap of the June 15 Greenville County Council meeting:
Approved: Motion to move forward with replacement of land development ordinance
In a 7-5 vote, Greenville County Council moved forward with a replacement for an article of the county’s land development regulations.
Voted yes: Ennis Fant, Steve Shaw, Steve Tsouvelekas, Willis Meadows, Xanthene Norris, Lynn Ballard
Voted no: Joe Dill, Butch Kirven, Liz Seman, Dan Tripp, Chris Harrison
That specific article, known as Article 3.1, governs how developments can be built on the roughly 500,000 acres of unzoned land within the county. It has been the subject of fierce debate since Councilman Willis Meadows proposed a repeal of the rule in early spring. The move to replace the article came after six lawsuits were filed on behalf of developers seeking to overturn the rule on the grounds that it is unconstitutionally vague.
Article 3.1 states that potential developments must meet the following rules:
- Adequate existing infrastructure and transportation systems must exist to support the project.
- The project must be compatible with the surrounding land-use density.
- The project must be compatible with the site’s environmental conditions, such as but not limited to, wetlands, flooding, endangered species and/or habitat and historic sites and/or cemeteries.
At the heart of the debate is a tug-of-war between the rights of individual property owners and the rights of a community to protect itself from unwanted development.
Heated debate
That debate took center stage during council’s Committee of the Whole meeting before the formal County Council meeting on Tuesday.
After an hour filled with personal attacks, arguments about the future of Greenville County and disagreements regarding parliamentary procedure, council members voted to send the replacement ordinance to second reading at the next County Council meeting.
It will now need to be voted through two more times to go into effect.
The replacement article would mandate that any developments in unzoned county land would need to include 30% of open space, but that open space does not necessarily mean wooded land or green space.
County staff had already issued a proposal for a replacement to Article 3.1 that mandated developments contain 40% of open space, but Councilman Mike Barnes proposed an amendment to that proposal during an ad hoc committee meeting that would lower that requirement to 30% and also allow developers to include swimming pools, subdivision streets, clubhouses and other amenities as “open space.”
“All you want to do is destroy my community,” said councilman Joe Dill, who represents a district in Northern Greenville that contains the largest swath of unzoned land in the county. “I’m not going to sit back and let you do it. What was done in that [ad hoc] committee meant that we could do most anything if we were a developer and we wanted to do a commercial subdivisions. That’s what this thing says.”
In pushing for council to use the original county staff proposal, Dilll said the modified change proposed by Barnes would turn the county’s rural, unzoned land into another Woodruff Road.
“I don’t plant to see my children and my grandchildren and my neighbor’s children grow up in that environment,” he said. “And we don’t have to let that happen. We could stop right now and fix this thing. I would amend it right now and put it back to the staff’s original proposal.”
‘The community is not behind this’
Procedural questions also emerged, as Councilmen Chris Harrison, Butch Kirven and Dan Tripp argued the county was opening itself up to further lawsuits by not sending the proposal through the planning and development committee or the planning commission, which would be tasked with implementing the new rules down the line.
“Potentially what we’re saying is, this document could make it all the way through the process without going to [planning and development committee] or planing commission who actually is the one who has to see it on a monthly basis and use it to make subdivision decisions,” Harrison said. “Is that kind of what I’m hearing? That seems really… that’s just… ugh…”
“I’m telling you, the community is not behind this,” Tripp said. “And we’re going to be getting all kinds of grief from the community who see this as a sellout to the [Home Builders Association] … The language to weaken the definition of open space, the only person it accrues to the benefit of is developers. And I’m not anti-developers, but this issue is going to divide Greenville County.”
“Could go for legal challenges … I think a lawsuit is possible if we follow through on this,” Kirven added.
Dill said instead of developers suing the county, lawsuits would now come from regular citizens.
“We’re going to start getting sued by the common people who are afraid you’re going to destroy their homes,” Dill said.
But any move to return to the original county staff proposal or delay the process on the amended replacement from Barnes was ultimately voted down 7-5.
The matter will be up for further debate at council’s next meeting
