Two developers with long local experience told the Greenville County Planning and Development Committee on Oct. 6, 2025, that the county’s cluster development rules (discussed as Article 24 and Article 11 in the record) have become overly complex and are reducing viable lot yields and raising costs. The committee asked planning staff to review earlier ordinance versions and consider options to clarify administration.

Coleman Shouse (119 Jones Avenue, Greenville) explained he applied the proposed Article 24 standards to a 36-acre property and found the draft rules would reduce a subdivision he previously could develop as 88 lots down to 33 lots under the proposed language. He said the proposed standards appeared copied from another county and would not work in the local marketplace. Jeff Randolph (607 Pendleton Street, Greenville), who identified himself as a developer and member of local planning bodies, said he has not used cluster to increase density and has employed cluster to preserve open space and reduce infrastructure costs. Randolph said cluster can reduce per-household infrastructure (roads, stormwater) and therefore reduce costs, but acknowledged that clustering alone does not make a home affordable if higher-end homes are built.

Both offered to work with county staff and the Planning Commission to craft a simpler, more effective ordinance. Committee members praised citizen involvement and asked staff to locate earlier ordinance versions (staff indicated versions prior to LDR 3.1 may be relevant). The transcript records no formal change to the code at this meeting; staff said they would review old ordinance files and return with findings.

Key points raised by presenters:
- Applying the proposed Article 24 standards to an existing 36-acre project would reduce lot yield substantially (from 88 to 33 lots in the presenter’s example). (Coleman Shouse)
- Cluster should be a tool for flexibility and reduced infrastructure, not a vehicle to increase density. (Jeff Randolph)
- Simplifying the ordinance and clarifying administration would reduce subjectivity and controversy at the Planning Commission and staff review stages.

Committee direction: planning staff to research earlier ordinance versions and report back to the committee; no code changes were adopted at the Oct. 6 meeting.