Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I call this meeting of the Planning and Development Committee for August 3rd, 2026 to order. If you bow your head, we'll pray. We thank you, O Lord, for this day. We thank you, O Lord, that we are able to come and serve the people of Greenwood County. We pray, Lord, for the wisdom and the knowledge that you have. place in our hearts and our minds and our souls, Lord, to carry out your will in this county. In Christ's name we do pray.

Amen.

Approval of the minutes for the July 13, 226 committee meeting. And a motion to approve the minutes.

Motion to approve the minutes from last meeting.

All in favor say aye. Aye. All right. We're ready to go to the first docket.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first docket is CZ-2026-031, which is to amend Article 8, Special Purpose and Review District Regulations of the Greenville County Zoning Ordinance, to add Section 8-13, MCC Mountain Creek Community District. The proposed amendment would establish Section 813 MCC Mountain Creek Community District as part of the Greenville County Zoning Ordinance. As initiated, the requirements of this overlay district would apply to new major subdivisions, new review districts, major changes within existing review districts. Within the district boundary, applicable developments would have a 50-foot undisturbed perimeter buffer with additional screening required from roadways. There would be a 100-foot riparian buffer along all streams and jurisdictional waters of the state. Sites must be developed to store stormwater runoff to a 100-year storm event and incorporate low-impact development features. Also, 50% of the total site acreage must be dedicated towards protected open space. Lastly, all historic sites on the subject property must be noted on PLATS. Staffs of the opinion that proposed amendment would increase watershed protections for the Mountain Creek area, which are major concerns for the local citizens. The community is concerned that the increase in impervious development and loss of vegetated areas along wetlands and streams could worsen flood events. Staff does, however, recommend revisions to the version of the text amendment, which was initiated by the Planning and Development Committee. These revisions are to better align the language of the proposed Section 813 with existing language in the county's land development regulations and stormwater ordinance. They would also clarify the variance process from these requirements. Based on these reasons, staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment with the submitted revisions. Greenwood County Planning Commission recommended approval with revisions as amended. So Mr. Chairman, I suppose just to add some extra context here. So the revisions that staff was recommending within the initiated version of the Mountain Creek Community District, there were requirements for there would be a minimum of 100-foot riparian buffer, and then the sites would need to attenuate for a 100-year storm event. We haven't proposed any changes to those minimums. However, we have added language and definitions into it that correspond with direct language in our land development regulations and our stormwater ordinance so that we wouldn't have potentially contradictory standards between those different regulating documents. As previously stated, we also added in some descriptions and clarification on how the variance process might work if somebody wanted to ask for a variance from those requirements. And then also under the initiated version, there was a 50-foot perimeter buffer. It would be a vegetated perimeter buffer. However, there weren't established standards for if there either was not existing vegetation or if vegetation was cleared from that buffer area. So we have added in some proposed changes, so actual metrics for what would have to be planted within that buffer area, ever so many linear feet, to give some of that proper guidance and, again, some reviewable metrics for that buffer. And I'd say those are probably the main revisions between the two. Correct. And then Planning Commission, they did vote in favor of the approval with those revisions with one amendment. Within the staff proposed revisions, there would be a two-year sunset clause where the intent of that would be after two years, council could kind of reassess how the overlay district was performing. Planning Commission didn't like the idea that I suppose they liked the thought of if it was approved, then it would be approved. And if at some point need to be revisited, then you would have the ability to do that as any regular text amendment. So their amendment was to remove that two year sunset clause from the proposed ordinance.

Any discussion?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the sunset clause, I guess, I mean, I get why staff would want to have the timeline in there to review it, but I also don't like sunsets, too, because that means if council completely changes and all the staff goes away and a whole new group of people come in, they might forget about it. But is there a way to trigger some kind of a – review on the calendar versus having a sunset per se or something that way in two years it can be out there to review.

You could easily amend the ordinance to have it revisited within so many months, six months, 18 months, whatever you wanted to do. That is something you could do. That would be that time that we could Take a look at it.

Maybe that would be a way to allow staff to have the security of knowing that they could revisit it at that point in time. But that was my only thought on it. Just from what I've heard, I think that would be a way to maybe make everybody happy on that one. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Anyone else? Councilman Mitchell.

So would you recommend taking out the sunset clause altogether and put it in a review clause or something else?

Because the planning commission suggested removing it completely, correct? Correct.

So the way that the current statement reads, it says the provisions and requirements of this ordinance shall expire two years from this effective date unless readopted by the Greenville County Council. I believe there was similar language incorporated into the repair and buffer amendments that happened to the land development regulations.

Yeah, I mean, I think the overlay, it seems from the the the public something they they want to be obviously way more existent than two years so removing that and trying to put language just basically says it'd be a good time to review it and see if it is successful would be whatever that wording is okay Because I know, you know, for our plans that we have, I didn't know with our community plans when they were up to be reviewed and that kind of thing. So if there's something set in stone with the timeline, I think that would help a lot. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. I would, I would encourage my colleagues to get rid of the sunset clause and here's why. So we've come up with this product, which is a decent product. Uh, you know, developers sit here and go, you know, a year from now and go, I'll just wait a year. If they forget about it, I'll file it the day after. Next thing you know, they got back to the old regulation. So, uh, I will make a motion to amend this to remove the sunset clause from this when we're ready to do that because I don't think we should do that. If we have a problem with the product, we'll come back and fix the product. That's the easier way to do it is come back and fix the product. Don't sunset something. Why are we even doing it then? If it's not good enough to be done, don't do it. If we don't think it solves a problem, don't do it. If it's solving the problem, then we'll do it. And if we need to come back and adjust it, we'll make adjustments. But sunset clause I think is a bad idea. Okay.

Mr. Chairman?

Yes, sir. Staff, would this be the time when we would need to go ahead and make that motion and do that? Well, I mean...

motion before you or not the motion the the recommendation before you right now is to uh is you know approval staff's recommended approval planning commission recommended approval uh with staff's revisions that we've discussed discussed with the additional amendment to remove the sunset clause so that's you know that's how it's presented to you now if you wanted to make And then another amendment or revision to it to put back in something about a six month review or something like that, that would be something that, you know, you would need to do as a motion.

It's good as it is, it sounds like, because it's already the suggestion of planning commissions there.

It's still in the ordinance. So we passed this ordinance before us right here. Sunset Clause starts out very first paragraph.

Sorry, it should expire.

I mean, it's right in there still. So if this is the one we're voting on, I thought if what was before us is removed, it's not removed.

It could be that what they're saying is that this recommendation from the Planning Commission and Planning and Development would just go forward to full counsel for adoption with those suggested amendments.

We could amend this right now.

You can make a recommendation to amend it, but it would have to be amended, I believe, by full counsel. Okay.

Are you sure? Because this is a committee. We can amend any ordinance before it comes out of committee. It doesn't have to go to – because we can make amendments in committee. That's why we have committees. Otherwise, we wouldn't have – this would go straight. It would bypass the planning commission, the planning P&D.

What was the question again? Maybe I missed the question.

I think the biggest question is just are amendments made in committee or are we recommending them to be made at council when it gets there?

Okay, I'm sorry. I think I was a little confused. Yes, you can make an amendment and then recommend it to be approved with your amendment on it.

Does that make sense? We can amend it. And when it gets to the floor, when he reads it, he'll say, I have an amendment.

And then we amend ordinances and committees and they come out and they go like that. They don't see all the all the options we had and then they can pick which one they want to counsel. That's not how this works. We make amendments in committee and whatever amendments we make, that ordinance then goes to counsel for approval. It doesn't work that they get to choose what amendments they know in committee. We make amendments.

I'm pretty sure we do amendments. He reads the motion, the ordinance, and he brings up the amendments that we approve. And then they approve the amendment and then they approve the ordinance as amended.

No, they approve the ordinance. It comes out of committee amended. We don't take amendments to council that we recommend amending.

No, that's why we have committees.

I absolutely ask that we stop this meeting right now and check this out because this is not right. I'll bet I have a thousand bucks in my pocket. I'll put it out.

We're wrong.

100%. Anybody in the room want to offer their thoughts? But I'm telling you, that's not the way it works.

Amendment gets offered. We approve it.

We're a committee. So just think about the federal level. Bills go in committee. They don't go to the full Senate and say, oh, well, they had this amendment. They're recommending you approve it. No, that's the ordinance or bill as it comes out of committee is how it's approved. It's the same thing at the county level.

I'll make a public apology if it's wrong. That's serious. Let's just go ahead and amend it. And then if it has to be voted on as a separate amendment to amend the ordinance, we can do that. You don't think so. I think so.

Why do we have committees then?

I don't think so. If I can weigh in. I did get confirmation from Chris that you are still making a recommendation because it is a text amendment. So the same as any of the rezoning dockets that you have, those are always done as recommendations out of this committee. So you can... you can amend it, but you're still recommending, it's the only coming out of this committee as a recommendation to full council.

And I'll also say under section article 327 of the zoning ordinance action by county council, it reads that a planning and development committee shall consider information presented at the public hearing and the staff review and recommendation received from the Greenwood County Planning Commission before making a recommendation to county council. In its recommendation, the planning commission may request a district public comment session. The planning and development committee may return the zoning docket to the Planning Commission and require additional public comment on the zoning docket based on committee's determination. Should the docket be returned to the Planning Commission? It goes on about some information about that, but it's a recommendation coming out of the P&D.

Absolutely. Everything's a recommendation, right? So here's where we're getting lost in language. When this goes to full council, it should not have on it the provisions and requirements of this ordinance shall expire two years from its effective due date unless readopted. That should not be on there. We're recommending to them, this is the product we have approved. We're recommending you pass it. It's not recommending, here's what staff came up with, and we didn't want that. We amended it, but you're going to see it all. That's not how this works. Absolutely, it's a recommendation. On the final product we get, 100%. We amend this now. You should take it out of there, and when it goes in front of the council, it goes in front of the council without it. Call Chris. I want Chris to come down here. Absolutely. It's a recommendation. We're recommending it gets approved as we put it through. But when we take stuff out, we make an amendment. It comes out. It doesn't stay on there. And then, well, we recommend you take it off. Absolutely not. We're recommending as approved.

You can you can amend it in committee and then recommend it's your recommendation to counsel that they adopt it. It should not be what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is this needs to be taken out.

Correct.

So when the council gets this, that sentence should not be in there.

There should be... You don't have to say, I'm the chairman, I got an amendment.

Yes. And we amend it, and then that should not go to council with that sentence in it.

You don't have to read there is an amendment. It just did in here. Yeah. We don't have to vote on the amendment, and then we vote on the ordinance as amended. I'm only paying you $2.

Then why do we have committees? Why don't we just send it to council?

Because we're coming up with good stuff to fix it with.

We, you saying not showed, we just really like doing math. We've shown them the work that we've done. This came out of staff. It came out of planning commission and we changed it in the planning commission.

Rick, I a hundred percent understand.

And so why wouldn't the council need to know that?

They don't because, because that's why we have committees. Otherwise we wouldn't have committees. Everything that comes from anybody would just go straight to the county council.

That's amended. It doesn't change a thing. It's going to depend upon how it shows up out there. It should not be in there. But us doing it today won't change it.

Educate me why we have to go through and make amendments and then we have to tell them all the amendments we made. No, here's the document we approved out of committee.

It's not going to work that way.

Why not? Show me. Show me.

Well, it because basically it full council has to have the authority to reject what we suggest. But there's no way for them to reject it if they don't see the original.

I never put it in there. You see, guys, what I'm saying is, OK, you're missing just for clarification.

If that sentence with the sunset clause was only in the revisions that staff made, then yes, that could be amended and taken out here. But that sentence was in the original ordinance that first went to public hearing. So it's not in the revisions that staff, well, it is technically in the revisions that staff's proposing, but it's not part of those revisions. It's part of the original ordinance.

Okay, then I'll make a motion that we amend it and have another public hearing before it goes to county council without that sentence in it.

Well, if we were to, I mean, if we're, let me ask this hypothetical, then if we were to amend it in committee and that was an improper step, once we get the full council, what is the next step at that point?

I mean, my understanding is if you want to fully amend the actual ordinance under consideration, that would likely require a new public hearing.

We're not fully amending it, though. We're making a text amendment.

I think – I mean, I think – I'm just speaking. I'm trying to work through all this in general, but I can't recall a time. It seems like in any committee, it's the working session, so we're putting them together, but I always know that they're sent to council, and then we have to vote on those amendments to the motions so that they are a motion as amended.

Show me where it shows that in the Enabling Act.

I don't know if that's in there.

Ennis, I know you're upset and you just want to push it through, but that's not the way to do things, man. We've got to get the process down correctly. The process is correct.

What you want to do does not change anything. It will get fixed by the time. Either way, if we're wrong, when we get there, either he won't have to announce there's an amendment or he will. It doesn't matter. Just go ahead with your amendment and we'll fix it. OK. All right.

And was it not in the public hearing? It was said the two year. It's a public. So we had to address.

But no, I disagree because there would be public hearings at county council. So the public gets three more times to speak, two more times to speak on this.

Mr. Chairman, I will note there is still a motion on the floor, Mr. McGahee's motion to send this back for a second public hearing.

No, because the first was to make an amendment. I withdraw that. Okay, make an amendment. We'll straighten this out afterwards. I'll make an amendment to remove the sentence. Provisions or requirements of this ordinance shall expire two years from its effective date unless readopted by Greenville County Council. I make a motion to amend that to remove it.

I think we need to vote on the motion for the public hearing first. I'll do it.

They withdrew that motion. Okay.

You heard the motion? We have a motion to remove the language of the sunset clause. Is that what I'm understanding? Yeah. From the amendment? All right. We have a motion. So all in favor remove it and say aye. Aye. All right. No in the polls. All right. Now is amended. Well, any more discussion before we go? All right. Now, I need a motion to pass this as amended.

I make a motion to pass the ordinance as amended.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Next docket, please.

The next docket is CZ-2026-032. The property is located at 15 Renfrew Avenue in Traveler's Rest. The applicant is Benjamin Wofford III of Kiel Concepts, Inc. for April Allen of Ansley Daniel Properties, No. 1, LLC. The 0.85 acre subject property consists of a portion of one parcel and is located approximately 1.3 miles northwest of the intersection of Highway 276 and McElhaney Road and currently contains a vacant commercial building. This is the zoning of the surrounding area. Subject property outlined in shaded here is zoned C1 commercial district. The request is for I1 industrial district. You can also see the surrounding property zones. The applicant states that the proposed land use is warehousing and distribution. This is the subject site and photo showing the area surrounding the subject site. Stabs of the opinion that successful rezoning to the I-1 Industrial District would be consistent with similar zoning in the area and would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding properties. Based on these reasons, staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning to the I-1 Industrial District. Greenwood County Planning Commission also recommended approval. Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Todd. Any discussion?

Move approval.

There's a motion for approval. All in favor say aye. Aye. This has been approved. Next docket, please.

Next docket is CZ-2026-033. The property is located at 907 Highway 14 in Simpsonville. The applicant is Carmen Vlad of Harnick Properties, LLC. The 0.57-acre subject property consists of one parcel and is located approximately 0.02 miles northwest of the intersection of Highway 14 and Adams Mill Road and currently contains a single-family home. This is the zoning of the surrounding area. Subject property outlined here is zoned R15, single family residential district. The request is for C1 commercial district. You can also see the surrounding property zones. The applicant states that the proposed land use is a business office. This is the subject site and photo showing the areas surrounding the subject site. Staffs have the opinion that successful rezoning to the C-1 Commercial District would not be consistent with the Plain Grove County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Designation of Suburban Neighborhood, nor would it be consistent with similar zoning in the area. Based on these reasons, staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning to the C-1 Commercial District. Greenwood County Planning Commission also recommended denial. Mr. Chairman.

Any discussion? Council Mitchell.

I just want to go on the record that I had concerns about entrance and egress on that property if it was rezone, and I would have been voting against it anyway.

Isn't this the one with a tax, she's a tax attorney, and this is going to be her new office?

Yes, I believe she's some sort of tax specialist or accountant. I want to convert this to a business office for that.

And they was different zoning that they could apply for that would better suit

They were also considering the OD district. I believe that's what they originally intended to rezone through, but the existing structure couldn't meet the setbacks for the OD district. So they chose to go for the C1 instead. They have since submitted an application to our Board of Zoning Appeals to try and get those setback variances for the existing structure. I believe they intend to retry for the OD district in the future. Thank you.

Any other?

So do they want us to hold this in case that doesn't happen?

No, it can continue through the process. If the C1 request is denied, they could immediately resubmit for OD since it would be a more restrictive zoning classification.

Okay. We have a motion for a no. All in favor say aye. Aye. This motion has been denied. Next docket, please.

The next docket is CZ-2026-036. The property is located at Grove Reserve Parkway and Interstate 185 in Piedmont. The applicant is Rick Cawthon of International Properties LLC. The 0.95 acre subject property consists of a portion of one parcel and is located approximately 0.2 miles southwest of the intersection of Grove Reserve Parkway and Augusta Road, Highway 25, currently contains vacant land. This is the zoning of the surrounding area. The subject property outlined and shaded here is Zone C3, Commercial District. The request is for Iowa and Industrial District. You can also see the surrounding property zones. The applicant states the proposed land use is a speculative industrial building. This is the subject site and photos showing the area surrounding the subject site. Stabs of the opinion that successful rezoning to the I-1 Industrial District would be consistent with the plan of Greenwood County, comprehensive plan, future land use designation of industrial. The requested district would also be consistent with similar zoning in the area. Based on these reasons, staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning to I-1 Industrial District. Greenwood County Planning Commission also recommended approval. Mr. Chairman.

This is the one with 36, 37, all those are, okay. Any questions? Any discussions? I need a motion. Move for approval. I'll move for approval.

That one's still in case. I didn't want to jump in on it. I know it's going.

We got a motion for approval. All in favor say aye. Aye. So this passes. Next docket, please.

All right. Next docket, CZ-2026-037. Property is located at Grove Reserve Parkway and Interstate 185 in Piedmont. The applicant is James Malm of NAI Earl Furman for Gruster Grove PASCO 2 LLC. The 3.56 acre subject property consists of a portion of one parcel and is located approximately 0.2 miles southwest of the intersection of Grove Reserve Parkway and Augusta Road. It currently contains vacant land. This is the zoning of the surrounding area. Subject property outline is shaded here, zoned I-1 Industrial District. The request is for C-2 Commercial District. You can also see the surrounding property zones. African States City proposed land use is commercial. Subject site and photos showing the area surrounding the subject site. Staffs of the opinion that while the requested zoning district may not be consistent with the planned Greenwood County comprehensive plan, future land use designation of industrial, the successful rezoning to the C2 commercial district would be consistent with the South Greenville area plan, future land use designation of commercial. The requested district would also be consistent with similar zoning in the area. Based on these reasons, staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning to the C2 commercial district. Greenwood County Planning Commission also recommended approval. Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Any discussion?

Motion to approve. That's what he meant.

We have a motion on the floor for approval, so all in favor say aye. Aye. This docket passed. Next docket, please.

Next docket is CZ-2026-038. The property is located at Grove Reserve Parkway and Interstate 185 in Piedmont. The applicant is Rick Cawthon of International Properties, LLC. The 0.9 acre subject property consists of a portion of one parcel and is located approximately 0.2 miles southwest of the intersection of Grove Reserve Parkway and Augusta Road and currently contains vacant land. This is the zoning of the surrounding area. Subject property outlined and shaded here is zoned C3 commercial district. The request is for C2 commercial district. You can also see the surrounding property zones. The applicant states that the proposed land use is commercial. This is the subject site and photos showing the area surrounding the subject site. Staffs of the opinion that while the requested zoning district may not be consistent with the planning of a county comprehensive plan, future land use designation of industrial, a successful rezoning to the C2 commercial district would be consistent with the South Greenville area plan, future land use designation of commercial. The requested district would also be consistent with similar zoning in the area. Based on these reasons, staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning to the C2 commercial district. Greenville County Planning Commission also recommended approval. Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Any discussion? It's not moving over.

Motion to approve.

I have a motion. Motion to approve. For approval. All in favor say aye. Aye. Those against? Who else is approved? Next docket.

The next docket is CZ-2026-039, which is to amend Article 6, Section 6213, Home Occupation of the Greenville County Zoning Ordinance. Under current home occupation requirements, all home-based business operations must take place within the footprint of the home and cannot occupy more than 25% of the structure. This limits the types of businesses which may be operated from a home site. The Board of Zoning Appeals requests that a text amendment be made to the home occupation regulations of the Greenwood County Zoning Ordinance to allow for more flexibility in how home-based businesses operate. Section 1 would add a land use definition for small-scale urban farming which reads, small-scale production of agricultural products such as produce and flowers grown to sell through a marketing channel such as a farmer's markets, CSAs or other means. This does not include the production of animals or their products. Section 2 would continue to limit the amount of non-residents employed on site, but would remove the verbiage that allows for employees that are not members of the applicant's immediate family. It would place a limit on the number of clients that could be on the site at any one time, up to a maximum of three, excluding daycare clients. The amendment would also add four new uses to the accepted home occupation list. These are artists, massage therapy, real estate professional, and small-scale urban farming. These are among the more common requests that staff receives. Artists and small-scale urban farming would be able to utilize up to 25% of the parcel area. Staffs of the opinion that proposed text amendment would reduce the frequency of use by special exception requests submitted to the Board of Zoning Appeals for home-based businesses by adding some of the more commonly requested business types to the permitted use table. This would create more opportunities for citizens looking to start a home-based business while also reducing the added time and cost associated with going to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Based on these reasons, staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment. Greenville County Planning Commission also recommended approval. Mr. Chairman.

Any discussion?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the... I mean, there's a couple things that I was... a little curious about one of those i know they added artists but with artists that could be i mean there's a lot of people who consider themselves artists and i don't know if they are or not but there's there's a wide variety that's why i just didn't know especially with parcel size and the 25 if it's a a person who makes art out of rebar and they have an 80 acre lot can i mean Is that something that could turn into a, you know what I mean? I, there's just little caveats that I don't know if we've got quite worked out yet that I'm a little concerned about on, on this one, but, um, I don't know if this, I know, I think I spoke to the chairman about potentially, is this the one we're talking about seeing about sending back to the planning commission to look at the changes there first to.

Yeah.

Yeah, it was, um, yeah. One of my concerns was it's more scale to the urban. Instead of out in the rural areas where if I got three cars in my driveway, guess what? You're not going to know it because I'm a half mile off the road. So there was several things that brought to my attention that I think we need to address before we push this on through. But I like most of it. I just think we could.

I think one thing to keep in mind with the amount of people, the clients, and the parking, it's not so much the parking that we're concerned with. It's the amount of people that's in the dwelling. Dwellings are built for your home. It's not built for you to really run a commercial business where you've got – a lot of clients a lot of patients whatever it may be i'll give an example if you are a dance instructor and you have a nice basement that's got a that's got a really nice floor and you've got five couples you're teaching that's ten people most basements don't have a door directly to get out of it if a fire breaks out upstairs there's a huge life safety issue there. And our building director is really concerned with allowing businesses and having people come into those businesses without it meeting any ADA accessibility, without meeting any life safety regulations and being reviewed as a commercial business. So that's why we're trying to limit the amount of people.

The non-resident piece for employee, is that paid, non-paid employees? And the reason I'm asking is because if it's limited to one, and there's a student or an intern that wants to learn something, would they be restricted from working with that entity because they already have an employee, or would they also be allowed as another kind of category?

If it's an employee, then they would fall under that, just like it would be today. If they're teaching someone, if they're teaching a trade and that person is helping them with that business, then yes, they would be considered an employee, just like it is today.

Okay.

Any other discussions?

And as far as the world goes, we're not limiting farming in rural areas of the county. We're just saying that if you want to run a business out of your home and sell items and take things to the farmer's markets and use your property to be part of that business, that's where that comes into play. It's not saying you can't farm on your property.

Within the rural zoning districts, RS, and above, commercial agriculture is permitted outright. You wouldn't have to do that as a home-based business. This is really more just targeting the more residential areas, just making sure those stay residential in nature. All right.

Thank you, Council Member.

Did we discuss in the public morning that we might have discussed some of these things that we were talking about? something else too but oh for existing people who are operating certain businesses out of their home is there any kind of a grandfather thing there or somebody has seven clients for whatever it is for go go to whatever do they then have to comply to the new standard

We don't have anything in here that discusses nonconformities or grandfather clause. What I would say at that point is if we received a complaint, we're gonna look at it on the basis of, okay, what section of the ordinance is it not meeting? Is it just because it's more people than the three? And if that's the case, then I'm gonna lean on the fact that it's existing, it was there, we gave you permission to be there prior to the ordinance. Now, if it's somebody that never got a home occupation, That's an illegal business. They never got approval by Greenville County. Now, if it's something that is causing a nuisance under one of the criteria of being a home business, then we may look at, you know, is there some type of violation there? But we're not going to go after all the current home occupations and say, now you've got to comply with all this.

Any other discussion?

I don't want to give it out this time. I was just saying it's a little restrictive, but you don't want to not pass it. So first, as I sit here needling, trying to do amendments, Mr. McGee. Let's just let it go. And if problems arise that cause a problem, we can just always go back and address them later. That's my thought.

I think there's a way to make it work. I just want to make sure it doesn't negatively impact some people who figured out unique ways to make a living at home.

Right. And as far as the park, back to the parking real quick, one thing I did fail to mention is that we do regulate the amount of people that you can have on your property by the parking regulations currently. The reason why we're proposing to take that out is because it says to it that it would adhere to section 12.9 of the zoning ordinance. Section 12.9 of the zoning ordinance says... 12.1, I'm sorry, 12.9 is landscape. Section 12.1 of the zoning ordinance, which says... It talks about the number of required parking spaces. It also says if you're going to have parking spaces, you have to have handicap accessibility parking. If you're going to have handicap accessibility parking, now you've got to add ramps to your home. You've got to change the size of your restrooms and do all that to accommodate and meet all ANSI requirements. So that's why we took that out was because that would be essentially making that into a commercial business at that point and altering the character of the residential dwelling.

Any other discussion?

Move for approval.

We have a motion for approval, so all in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Aye. This passes. Next docket, please.

Next docket is Docket CZ-2026-040, which is to amend Article 6, Section 6-2-10, Dwelling Single Family Attached and Dwelling Two Family Duplex, Article 7, Table 7.1, Minimum Lot Area, Permitted Densities for Single Family Residential, Article 7, Section 7-2, Open Space Residential Development, Section 7-2.5, Open Space Residential Development, Option 2, and Article 7, Table 7.2, Open Space Residential Development Options of the Greenville County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendment revises the current open space development regulations within the Greenville County zoning ordinance. The goal of these changes is to help regulate open space developments with regards to density, required open space, and overall preservation of natural areas of Greenville County. Here you can see a breakdown of the major changes addressed by this amendment. It would eliminate the unique standards for single family attached dwellings and R10, R7.5, and R6 zones to bring them more in line with the requirements of the underlying zoning. The permitted residential density for open space developments has been reduced in all associated districts. The amendment would eliminate open space development option number two and consolidate the regulations into a single open space development option. The amendment would also cap the number of units within a development which could be single-family attached unless the property is within an area designated by the comprehensive plan as having a future land use density of three units per acre or greater. There would be a 20-foot roadside buffer, 25-foot exterior setback, and a scaling setback from existing public roads. Staffs of the opinion that proposed text amendment would provide a compromise between council members, planning commissioners, and citizens concerned with residential development and private landowners and developers looking to utilize their property for these developments. The amendment would also consolidate the open space development options, creating more cohesive review criteria. Based on these reasons, staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment. Greenville County Planning Commission also recommended approval. Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, sir. Discussion.

Mr. Chairman, I just think that, you know, after they spent months doing this, I know you worked on it very heavily, Mr. Chairman. We had a good mix of input from developers. We had input from citizens. We had a lot of input on this one. I tell you, this is a very good, one of the better things I've seen come out of one of those workshops like that. So I would urge my colleagues that this is going to help the county dramatically.

Any other discussion? Councilman Moore.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I still have some concerns about... certain places, and this is not something I'm wanting to hold it up, but it's something I think we work on going forward. But there's certain places like where it discusses certain areas can have 100% townhomes. That wasn't the possibility before. I know in certain areas, that's a very big concern, especially in my district. As well as in, we have for our six areas, R7.5 and I think it was R12. 10. 10. We were allowing for the duplexes. Was it R10? I'm a little concerned about that just for the potential, even though I've heard that R6 is not very likely that they would actually move forward with it because it doesn't seem like it's cost effective for them. But that's why I would question why we even have it in there. I know people that, again, in my district, R6 zoning is already a hot button issue because they feel like there's certain areas that are too crowded as it is. And it's just going to at least optically look like we're paving the way for them to do even more of that.

So a couple things. When it comes to R6, 7.5, and 10, we currently allow duplexes in those districts now. What I'm referring to is a lot of record that's existing in fill. We allow those duplexes meeting the requirements of single-family dwellings, the front side mirror setbacks. When it comes to the townhomes, The future land use will not override the zoning of what the property is zoned. So if the property, whenever that property is zoned, if it does not permit the townhomes, regardless of whether or not the future land use for that area allows, you know, has a three to five or whatever greater, That property, they couldn't do it unless they rezoned it. So it doesn't just carte blanche say all properties in that future land use is allowed to have townhomes.

Right. But I guess the question would be at that point, though, it wouldn't override it, but it would change the approval process from where it would normally be a rezoning to more of an internal decision versus a council decision.

It would go to still go to planning commission for review, I think, right?

Yeah, I think it would go to planning commission. It would still go to planning commission. But it wouldn't come to council. Correct. Yeah, you're right. We are changed, so that's another piece of control that we're losing by doing that. So it's just something to think about.

I didn't want to amend that.

No, it's more of right now, as is, I can vote to move it forward, but I can go ahead and say that I would not support it as is at council right now until we can work through some of those things.

I'm going to vote for it here, but I'm going to be a no when we get to full council unless the amendments are there.

What amendments are you proposing?

Townhouse issue. Okay. That is a grave concern. It doesn't bother me, but it bothers me.

Turn on your mic.

I'm with Chairman Blunt. If we can amend that to address that, because people will just get all just tore up and call you on Sunday while you're eating dinner.

And I guess the reason I'm not wanting to throw out amendments is because I know that there's a group of people somewhere in this room and everybody worked really hard to put this together. I know it was push and pull and making compromise, but Even in the compromise, there's going to be some things that us as council and our respective districts are going to have to put up a little bit of a debate on.

How likely is this going to be a problem about the townhouse issue?

What do you mean by a problem?

I don't want calls on Sunday while I'm eating dinner.

That can happen any time.

It already does.

So the way it would work, once again, is if the property is zoned to allow for townhomes, if the property, whatever that zoning classification may be, if the property is in that future land use category that has a higher density, then there's no rezoning and it would go through to the... planning commission as 100 town home development um that's i mean uh it if it i can't say how likely i don't know how many you know how many properties but let me fix it because that is something that that was one of the major conversations and uh and discussions we had was with town homes uh i think we talked several meetings regarding that you remember mr chairman um so i we went back and forth and that's why we landed on Do what? Oh, yeah. You want the microphone? Here. No. Take the whole stand.

Councilman Vann, if you're asking when you can address it, there's actually a six-month review built into the ordinance as drafted with mandatory 18-month reviews thereafter. So if anything needs to be addressed, that was one of the things that we envisioned. I know that this is new ground that we're covering and like Councilman McGehee said it is a product of compromise and we know that we might not hit 100% but there is at least a fail-safe for a six-month review okay thank you well and then maybe add to that follow up with that question it also says that the townhome design standards

All of them were kind of taken out together from the original language, and only some of it was put back. Is there a reason that some of those were taken out or removed?

You're talking about for Condition 10? So, yeah, we did take those out for Condition 10.

Section 724-4 is what it... Oh, no, that was different than 4-4.

So is that one correct? I don't think we put that out. Give me one second on that one. You said 724-4?

Yeah. Okay, so that's what he said. And that was on my notes, but I'd have to go back and actually... Bobby took that out. It was where basically in the ordinance it was section one was redlined.

So we changed it to A. It says two-family or townhome. So we've revised that to where it says that any attached unit must be a townhouse and excludes condominiums to say to include that two-family use as well, the duplex as well. Okay. Okay.

Well, that's something I can look into and get. I'll just send you an email on the questions I have on that one. Yeah.

As long as it reflects what you can do.

Townhouses can only be built if it's zoned RM, correct? RM 20? Is that all the places? Can't be R6?

I mean, it can, but... Yeah, we didn't change Table 6. Yeah. So that stays the same. Townhomes are permitted in... Or let's just say attached residential dwellings... nope nope stop yeah it is permitted and will stay permitted under um this one dwelling oh sorry i was looking at the wrong one dwelling attached R6 through R20, R20A, and then RM2 through RM20. R6 through R20. Okay.

I mean, it's one of those things where I, and RMA, this is one of the, I'll say it this way. It was one of those strange things. It's weird for me. Cause I know where my pain points are in my area, but fixing those doesn't necessarily fix the overall problem for the county. So that's why it's harder for me just to throw these out. Cause for me, I'd just be saying, let's remove these and take them out. Cause I already know that it's not going to go over well, but I don't, I also want to make sure we get something across the finish line to replace the ordinance that we've been working on.

They had to build a townhouse in R6 through R20. Well, it's not feasible for the builder to make any money.

Right. You're not going to do a townhome development in R6 through R20 unless you do it in what's called now a cluster. Because you're not going to have each individual unit to have 6,000 square foot. So that would mean that if you've got a building of four, each unit would have to have 6,000 square feet of land. So your builder is not going to do that.

Any more discussion? Just move on.

Do you want to amend it now so then when it goes to council it's already amended? No. No.

Well, I think on this one, I would be good with us moving it forward and amending it later just so some of these I could at least filter through some of the committee group that put it together. Because, I mean, obviously it seemed like this was a give and take, and I don't know what taking away is going to turn into the give, if that makes any sense. So I don't want to mess something up before we get there.

And I don't want to react with my assumption before it actually happens. I'll just fall on the floor when it does. But I don't want to just assume that's going to happen. I just have a feeling it might. That's all. We can just move forward.

What I would also recommend, since I know that there is a scheduled workshop discussion tomorrow on this very topic, you might gain more clarity on that in going to full council. Additionally, since this is a joint zoning plus an LDR portion, and right now they're separated and on separate tracks that will merge again at County Council, any amendments that are made would be better contemplated when you can look at both of those. So if you do have suggestions for amendments to allow us time to process those to make sure that the LDR portion and the zoning portion talk to each other so that we don't wind up into something that may cause more confusion than benefit. That's just a suggestion, though.

No, I think it's a good idea. And plus, we also got to keep in mind that we're basically coming up on the timeline for the moratorium, too. So that's another reason why they want to just hold the process up here is that we're getting close to that timeline. So at full council, I think we can navigate what we need to do if we have to push it out farther that way.

I think it's close enough where we can fix it. If that's the only thing I'm hearing is the townhouses, I think that's fixable. We need a motion.

All right, motion to approve and pass on to full council.

We've got a motion to approve. All in favor say aye. Aye. All right, we have one more.

Motion to adjourn.

Adjourn. All in favor say aye. Aye. I forgot that one.