Committee presses staff for documents and timeline on Unified Development Ordinance project

Greenville County planning staff briefed the oversight committee Wednesday on the county’s multi-year project to create a Unified Development Ordinance and answered questions about procurement, public engagement and the project’s timeline.

Planning staff said the idea to replace the existing zoning ordinance and land development regulations originated in the county’s 2019 comprehensive plan because repeated edits to two separate documents had created conflicts. “The actual idea came about from the comprehensive plan in 02/2019,” a staff presenter said, and an evaluation of repeated text amendments showed the ordinances created conflicting provisions.

Procurement and contract terms. Staff said the county conducted an RFP-based procurement and received two responses: White and Smith LLC and Calfee Strategic Solutions (doing business as Calfee Zoning). An evaluation team — identified in the meeting as including the planning director, long-range planning manager, representatives from GPATS, procurement and county attorneys — selected White and Smith. “The original amount, the original contract value was 315,700. The final amended total was 372,450,” a staff member said.

Scope and process. Staff said the UDO work was organized in modules: Module 1 (zoning), Module 2 (development standards and LDRs, later split into 2a and 2b) and Module 3 (administration and procedures). Staff described numerous checkpoints and public engagement steps, including stakeholder meetings, council and planning commission workshops, public workshops and open houses, public comment spreadsheets and Zoom recordings for early COVID-era outreach. Staff said they have a repository of presentations, sign-in sheets, comment spreadsheets and recordings and offered to place engagement materials on the project webpage.

Timing and delays. Staff said the project was driven by council direction with an expressed goal to complete the UDO by the end of 2024, but that splitting Module 2 to accommodate meaningful public input extended the timeline. “We separated the project in the 3 modules… As we got deeper into the process, it became clear that module 2 had to be split into 2 a and 2 b,” a staff member said. The staff presenter also said the project began in 2020 and that adjustments were made as the work progressed.

Litigation concerns. County attorneys warned the committee that the county is currently involved in litigation concerning the UDO and advised that certain topics might be more appropriate for executive session. “I want to remind this committee that we are currently involved in a lawsuit concerning the Unified Development Ordinance right now,” a county attorney said. The attorney suggested executive-session discussion where appropriate given active litigation.

Document requests. Committee members asked for copies of presentations, the engagement summary, spreadsheets of public comments and a pro forma financial analysis for the UDO procurement. Staff said they had compiled those materials and could provide copies. Staff identified a detailed engagement summary, PowerPoint presentations, sign-in sheets and Zoom recordings covering the outreach performed for the UDO process.

What the committee asked staff to provide: copies of the RFP and responses, the contract and amendments, the engagement summary and public comment spreadsheets, modular timelines and the financial rationale used to justify the procurement and schedule. Staff said they would make those documents available to the committee and suggested posting key materials to the project webpage.

No vote was taken. The meeting was an informational briefing and Q&A; committee members were told that some questions touching on active litigation should be deferred to executive session or to counsel.

Public comment. A public commenter later told the committee she believed some procedural errors contributed to lawsuits against the county and urged the county attorney to provide more proactive legal counsel to avoid future litigation. Staff acknowledged the point and reiterated that documents and records exist and will be provided.