Council debates rezoning of 0.56-acre parcel at 300 Pokeville Road after neighbor objections

Easley City Council spent the bulk of its work session debating a proposed rezoning that would change about 0.56 acres at 300 Pokeville Road (parcel ID 501812979461) from General Residential 2 (GR2) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC).

The matter came before council as the second reading of ordinance 202613. Council members paused early to request time to read a newly handed letter during the meeting and to hear staff and counsel explain legal questions raised by neighbors.

Attorney for the applicant Mr. Mass, identified himself as representing the landowner and clarified a provision in the property covenant: "That's correct. It's not an agreement with the city, but the city is a beneficiary of that agreement," he said, explaining that naming the city a third‑party beneficiary gives the city a right to enforce restrictions in addition to its regular enforcement authority.

Planning staff (Cy) showed an internal GIS map and said the parcel sits amid areas with existing commercial uses; Cy said the map layer used road names over which staff have no control but that the parcel is adjacent to lighter‑red neighborhood commercial zones and darker‑red general commercial corridors. Council members raised cross‑questions about the map labels and the city's comprehensive plan, and staff said a 2022 copy of the plan would be provided before the next meeting.

Neighbors and their representative urged caution. "My name is Luke; I represent the folks across the street," one neighbor said, noting zoning is effectively permanent unless revisited and arguing the parcel is in an established residential area. A council member who read the UDO's definition of the Neighborhood Commercial district said the zoning calls for locations "at or near major intersections" and cited assessor measurements that show the parcel about 996 feet from Highway 8 compared with an existing salon at 294 feet, arguing the site is not sufficiently proximate to be consistent with the NC intent.

The applicant addressed traffic concerns: counsel and an applicant identified as Joyce said the proposed flower shop would largely fulfill online and phone orders and dispatch deliveries via a single van, so they did not expect a meaningful increase in traffic compared with higher‑traffic commercial uses.

To respond to neighbors' objections, counsel listed a set of proposed use restrictions to be added to the covenant, including prohibitions on convenience stores, laundromats, bars/taverns/nightclubs, massage businesses, tobacco/vape shops and other specified noxious activities.

Council members and speakers acknowledged that differing attorney opinions are common; staff and counsel advised the council to evaluate whether the rezoning proposal satisfies the comprehensive plan and UDO standards. No final vote on ordinance 202613 is recorded in the transcript.

The council moved on after extended discussion and the applicant's counsel said the restrictions were intended to address the specific objections raised by neighbors.