Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Space Residential Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Greenville County staff propose 30% open-space minimum, 100-foot road setback in revisions to cluster/"open space" housing rules
Summary
County staff presented proposed revisions to open-space residential development rules that would require a minimum of 30% preserved open space, eliminate a previous two-option cluster approach, reduce density calculations by 10%, and add a 100-foot setback from public roads; an example showed lot counts falling from 83 to 64. Public and council members raised questions about HOA access to sensitive areas and comp-plan alignment.
Chair opened the Greenville County meeting and turned the presentation over to council staff to review proposed revisions to the countyopen-space residential development ordinances. The staff presentation said the overhaul would rename the ruleset to emphasize open space, require a minimum of 30% preserved open space in qualifying developments, and clarify that such developments must comply with the underlying zoning districtdensity and use limits.
The staff presenter, identified in the meeting as Josh, described several zoning edits to Articles 7.1 and 7.2 that modernize townhouse and duplex standards, remove the prior Option 2 cluster pathway (leaving a single approach for cluster-style development), and update density tables. "We've reduced [the density by] 10%" under the revised table calculations, Josh said, and the ordinance retains a 25-foot exterior setback while adding a 100-foot setback from existing public roads plus a 20-foot roadside buffer within that zone.
The chair emphasized accessibility and ownership standards for required open space: the draft clarifies what counts as open space, requires that required open space be accessible to residents through connectivity (trails, common property lines, or similar means), and expands options for ownership, including homeowners associations, conservation organizations or public entities. The draft also includes new final-plat requirements, phased-development proportional calculations for open space, and mandatory project-preview meetings so stakeholders can see proposals before they reach planning commission review.
An engineer who prepared example drawings, Paul Harrison, walked the council through an applied example using a previously approved preliminary plan for Brookhaven Subdivision on Woodruff Road. Under the earlier rules that used a 15% open-space requirement and cluster Option 1, the example had 83 lots. "Applying the new ordinance to the same site" with a 30% open-space requirement and the 100-foot road setback reduced that example to 64 lots, Harrison said, a decrease of 19 lots in the illustration.
Committee members and attendees discussed likely market responses: staff and members said developers could respond by reducing individual lot sizes to recover unit counts, or by rethinking purchase offers and up-front site planning. One committee member said the ordinance could reduce what developers pay for land because the required open space and setbacks affect potential density and revenue.
Council members raised procedural and substantive questions. A remote council member asked whether the new approach could function as an "as-of-right" rezoning allowing higher-density townhomes without a separate public hearing; staff answered that under the current comprehensive-plan categories that could be the effect and noted the county is conducting a 10-year comprehensive plan update to better align future land-use categories with zoning. Another councilor asked about an apparent conflict between section 11.1(e) (which limits resident access to HOA-owned sensitive areas, allowing limited cemetery access for visitation and maintenance) and section 11.4 (which requires required open space to be accessible to lots within the development); staff replied that 11.1 addresses sensitive lands generally and is not specific to required open space and offered to follow up with the exact citations.
Other technical questions included how riparian buffers should be treated (staff noted required riparian buffers of roughly 50 feet each side of a stream can be dry and usable much of the time and that the ordinance aims to make such areas useful rather than idle land) and whether the 100-foot setback should be flexible on smaller roads; staff said flexibility could be considered depending on the road type and that buffers can count toward required open space in many situations.
The staff presentation noted other changes and process steps: updates to density tables (article references), modernization of design and setback standards, a new tree ordinance prepared by staff, and a commitment to a six-month review after implementation to address unforeseen issues. Staff said draft ordinance language and exhibits will be posted on the county website for public review and feedback.
The meeting concluded with staff thanking the stakeholder committee and urging anyone with further questions to submit them by email before the next stages of the adoption process.
