Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the UDO Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Greer council reviews broad UDO amendments; members debate 90‑day planning timeline and nonconforming uses
Summary
Council heard a detailed first reading of third‑round Unified Development Ordinance amendments affecting planning commission timelines, sidewalk and signage standards, mobile‑home rules, nonconforming uses and traffic impact analysis; members asked staff and the city attorney to refine language on a 90‑day default approval and the treatment of rebuilt nonconforming structures.
The Greer City Council received the first reading of ordinance 22‑2025 on Aug. 26, a package of third‑round amendments to the city’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
Planning staffer Miss Cotte walked council through a long list of changes, saying staff and the city attorney had reviewed the proposed language. Amendments include new criteria for the board of zoning appeals, a planning commission review timeline with a suggested 90‑day maximum extension, reduced regional center sidewalk widths (from 10 to 8 feet), a reduction in maximum wall sign percentage in overlays (from 10% to 8%), and clarified rules for mobile homes and mobile home parks.
On the planning commission timeline, several council members warned that a 90‑day default could have the unintended effect of producing an automatic approval if the commission repeatedly tables an item while an applicant does not appear. Councilman Jay Arrowood and others asked the city attorney to review the provision; staff said they would return with clarified language before second reading.
Council also discussed nonconforming uses and rebuilding after a structure is damaged. Staff noted the UDO distinguishes nonconforming use from nonconforming structure and that the ordinance generally prevents reestablishing a removed nonconforming sign or use without meeting current standards. Several councilors said they were concerned that long‑standing businesses (for example, older automotive service sites) could be disadvantaged if a building is destroyed or the business closes for more than 90 days; staff said variances and case‑by‑case review are possible under current provisions.
Other notable amendments include a clarification on traffic impact analysis timing and an explicit mechanism to require updated TIAs for projects approved in prior years if grading permits are not pulled in a specified period; new steep‑slope and retaining wall language to require HOA maintenance of very steep areas; and tweaks to landscaping, parking median frequency and regional retail allowances.
Miss Cotte said staff will consult further with the city attorney and return recommended edits in advance of second reading. Council did not vote on the ordinance’s substance on first reading; members voted to receive the item for further discussion.
