Ordinance 2026-13 (Rezoning – 300 Pope Field Rd, GR2 to NC)
Vote: No
The Neighborhood Commercial (NC) district is intended to serve nearby residential areas, but the ordinance also clearly states it should be located at or near major intersections. This property sits in the middle of a residential area and is not near a major intersection such as Hwy 8. Approving this rezoning is inconsistent with the ordinance. While a flower shop could benefit the community, this is not an appropriate location. The ordinance passed by majority vote.
Ordinance 2026-14 (UDO Amendment – Flexible Review District)
Vote: No
The Flexible Review District (FRD) was previously removed from the UDO due to its history of enabling high-density development. I initially understood the intent of reinstating FRD was to allow property owners to rebuild homes after catastrophic events. However, the revised ordinance expands its use to allow additional development. While staff indicated the prior version was “misused,” there is no assurance this would not happen again in the future. This creates risk for inconsistent application. The ordinance passed by majority vote.
Resolution 2026-10 (ECU State Revolving Fund Application)
Vote: Yes
This resolution supports Easley Combined Utilities in securing funding to replace aging sewer infrastructure. Much of the system has exceeded its expected lifespan, and this is a proactive step to prevent failures. It was also confirmed that current rates already account for these improvements, so no rate increase is anticipated. This passed by majority vote.
Resolution 2026-11 (Acceptance of Roads – Lenhardt Development, LLC)
Vote: No
The city already faces significant challenges maintaining its existing road inventory, which totals approximately 110 miles, many in poor condition. Adding more roads increases long-term maintenance obligations without a clear funding plan. While proceeds from the sale of West End Hall are expected to support road improvements, those funds will address only a very small portion of current needs. This passed by majority vote.
Agenda Control
There has been significant discussion on social media regarding the current ordinance that allows two council members to block an item from being placed on the agenda. South Carolina law generally operates on majority rule, which raises questions about whether this provision is consistent with state law. The city attorney is expected to provide a legal opinion to council in the near future.
In addition, the draft ordinance council is seeking to place on the agenda includes revisions unrelated to any change in the form of government, which conflicts with statements made by the mayor on social media.