Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Advocates, staff back stronger protections for Paris Mountain in ESDPM zoning text amendment

July 14, 2025 | Greenville County, South Carolina


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Advocates, staff back stronger protections for Paris Mountain in ESDPM zoning text amendment
Several speakers, including environmental attorneys and Paris Mountain residents, urged Greenville County to adopt robust changes to the ESDPM (Environmentally Sensitive District — Paris Mountain) zoning provisions to better protect the mountain's habitats, water and character.

Emily Poole, Upstate staff attorney at the South Carolina Environmental Law Project, told the council the amendments offer a comprehensive way to protect Paris Mountain from habitat disruption and water-quality impacts. “Strengthening the provisions of the ESDPM Zoning District is one of the most comprehensive ways that we can preserve this unique landscape and ecosystem from harm,” Poole said.

Tommy Reese, a Paris Mountain resident, summarized a multi-year community effort to refine the ESDPM and said the proposed amendments are the product of two years of work with staff and outside stakeholders. He urged council to support the more robust changes on the agenda and to remain open to additional technical edits as staff and advocates reconcile two versions moving through separate council processes.

Staff described the package as amendments to Article 4 (definitions), Article 6 (uses), and Article 8 (ESDPM), including new dimensional standards, a limit of one unit per acre (removing density via transfer-of-development-rights), new tree-save/tree-preservation requirements, lighting rules, and new restrictions on short-term rentals and guest parking. Staff and speakers noted two different amendment drafts are circulating and said they expect to reconcile and possibly merge the versions before final action.

Council members asked clarifying questions about permitted uses and whether some uses (for example, temporary storage pods versus commercial storage) are intended to remain; staff said they would meet with stakeholders to clarify language and would return with consolidated language if needed. No vote was taken; the item will proceed through the Planning Commission and committee process.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee