Zoning and Land Development Rewrite in Easley: A $78,607 Process That Raises More Questions Than Answers
During the campaign, Easley’s mayor made strong statements against overdevelopment; a message that resonated with many of us. Following the election, she began to talk about the need to ‘regroup’ and unify the zoning and land use ordinance, and hiring a consultant to review development standards.
In a Fox News interview, the reporter said the mayor was looking for “a new vision for growth” and exploring how to reshape regulations to attract the kind of development Easley wants. The mayor also posted on social media that she was overwhelmed by messages of support for taking a pause and creating a growth plan that reflects the Easley we all love.
But what happened next was anything but transparent and not according to SC state law.
Bypassing Legal Process?
A consultant was hired, without getting bids at a cost of $75,000. However, rather than following South Carolina state law (Section 6-29-340), which clearly states that it is the duty of the planning commission to oversee and revise development plans, the work was done directly between a city employee and the consultant and then presented after the fact to the planning commission.
State law is clear: the planning commission has both the power and responsibility to lead ongoing planning efforts for the physical preparing, revising, and facilitating the development of planning policies. It is not a ceremonial role; it is a legal obligation. Yet the commission was brought in late and was told that certain topics, like affordable housing, were “out of scope” despite being central to Easley’s Comprehensive Plan. The planning commission did a great job on the UDO even though they did not review line by line.
FOIA Violation and No Transparency
I do not recall any clear scope was provided to council or the planning commission. When council members finally received the ‘final draft’ ordinance, they were asked to prepare questions and send them to the city employee who would with the consultant for the answers. On July 17, the mayor emailed the council members about a 2-to-3-hour workshop she would schedule in the near future. Then, on July 22, she sent a follow-up email stating a workshop would take place on July 28 from 2–4 p.m., and said the meeting was to be advertised due to the possibility of a quorum but with no public input allowed. On the city calendar it was advertised as a planning commission meeting, but commission members were not invited. The meeting was not advertised to the public.
This is a clear violation of FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) laws.
Lack of Legal Review
I submitted 145 of the items out of a total of 174 items of feedback, in which I included legal concerns, grammar, punctation, and key questions.
Only about half the items were discussed during the workshop on the 28th. The rest were deferred. Twenty items were marked “Council Question,” yet none of them were discussed by the council as no additional meeting was scheduled. For the work session on Sept 8, we were given five of those for discussion.
And when I asked if the city attorney was reviewing the ordinance as required by city ordinance 30.26, I was told no. That is unacceptable, especially given legal concerns like the minimum distance for liquor stores from schools and churches. The ordinance says 250 feet. State law requires 300 feet in municipalities.
What Did We Get for $78,607.21 (expenditure as of mid-May)?
Some of the new features of the rewrite:
- A requirement for convenience stores to have 500 sq ft of fresh produce which is the same as grocery stores
- Provisions for cigar bars and beekeeping
- Slight increase in green space and a tree ordinance
- Introduction of RV parks, campgrounds, and auxiliary dwelling units (ADUs) (council requested to remove the RV parks/campground)
Many of these were not even thoroughly discussed. Worse, the draft version posted on the city’s website includes items the council reportedly agreed to have removed. Furthermore, the city employee stated in the work session last week more revisions were coming. How does the council vote on something that is not a final draft? Mrs. Davidson had issue with this in 2023 but not now. Why? Not having a FINAL document for council vote is WRONG. Why are we even voting on this? Is there a political agenda as there is an election in November? The mayor stated “the moratorium will end in November and if we do not vote, it reverts to the current document.” The moratorium CAN BE EXTENDED! There is no new vision for growth and it will not deter the "big box developers".
The Bottom Line
This process has not been transparent, collaborative, or legally sound. For nearly $80,000 of taxpayer money, Easley residents deserve better. No final draft, council not able to thoroughly discuss, missing oversight, and questionable compliance with state law.
This is not just about a Unified Development Ordinance. It is about trust, accountability, and ensuring our city's growth reflects the values of the people who call Easley home.