Council members at the Easley work session debated the procedural question of what text the council should consider at the second reading of Ordinance 2025-11, the proposed Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The discussion focused on whether the ordinance before the council reflected the version passed at first reading or an amended version the planning commission had reviewed, and whether the public received adequate notice of the amendments.

The issue matters because the UDO would replace the City of Beasley (sic) zoning ordinance and land development regulations; council members repeatedly said they needed to be sure the record shows exactly which changes are being adopted. A councilmember who identified themselves only in the record as a council speaker said, "I am not clear on what we are voting on tonight because the document that was placed in our packet is what was passed by the planning commission last Monday. This document that we received is not what passed at first reading." They added that what was in their packet had not been what they believed they had voted on at first reading.

City legal and planning staff responded that it is proper to amend an ordinance between first and second readings and that staff had compiled an itemized list of every amendment ("every single change page by page") to make the record clear for the council. A staff speaker recommended a motion adopting the itemized amendments so the record would show the exact form being adopted at second reading. Another councilmember asked whether the amended document had been publicly posted before the meeting; staff said the amended UDO was placed on the city website shortly before the meeting (the presentation said "as of a few hours" or "yesterday"), but at least one councilmember said they had not seen it earlier that day.

Council debate explored whether the planning commission had exceeded its advisory role; staff said the planning commission's role is advisory and that it had reviewed the changes the council requested. Council members pushed back on adopting text they had not reviewed in full; one councilmember said they had not reviewed "the UDO ordinance or the amendments" in their entirety and asked whether the package in the packet represented the form that would be adopted.

Legal staff advised that amendments between readings are permissible and that the council could proceed if it wished; staff also offered to mark the amended text as an exhibit (e.g., "Exhibit A") so the record and public could see exactly what the council voted on. There was no recorded final vote during the transcript segment; the exchange in the work session focused on process, public notice and whether the itemized amendments should be incorporated into the record when the council votes at second reading.

Council members asked for clarity on specific substantive edits cited in the amended document, including accessory building height and accessory dwelling unit language; staff acknowledged some changes might reflect stylistic edits or planning-commission-suggested language rather than specific council directives. One councilmember asked if the public notice had included the amended document; staff said the agenda had been posted 24 hours prior, but the amended text had been uploaded more recently.

No final legislative outcome (final adoption or rejection) appears in the transcript segment examined; the discussion closed with staff offering a clear, itemized amendment list and a recommendation that the council motion to include those amendments in the record if the council intended to adopt the planning-commission-amended text.