4 options to fight urban sprawl around Greenville County have emerged. Here's what to know

Four competing options have emerged for overhauling the land-development rule that has sparked court battles over protecting the farms and forests of northern and southern Greenville County from urban sprawl.

While the details differ, environmental groups, citizen activists and Greenville County Councilman Chris Harrison want to impose specific limits on residential development in unzoned areas that cover more than half of the county. 

They say that establishing minimum lot sizes of between a half-acre and two acres in rural settings would correct a key shortcoming in the land-development rule known as Article 3.1.

As currently written, Article 3.1 says new subdivisions must be "compatible" with surrounding land-use density and environmental conditions. Critics say those provisions are overly vague.

The Homebuilders Association of Greenville favors a different approach — revamping Article 3.1 so that it won't stand as a "roadblock to development."

ARTICLE 3 GENERAL SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS
3.1 Review Criteria: Submitted subdivisions may be approved if they meet all of the following criteria:
• Adequate existing infrastructure and transportation systems exist to support the project;
• The project is compatible with the surrounding land use density;
• The project is compatible with the site’s environmental conditions, such as but not limited to, wetlands, flooding, endangered species and/or habitat, and historic sites and/or cemeteries.

Greenville County Council Chairman Willis Meadows introduced a proposal to repeal Article 3.1 on March 16, hours after the council instructed its attorney to settle a lawsuit related to the rule. Six other cases involving Article 3.1 are moving through the courts.

Article 3.1 fight:Developer gets $100,000 and green light for project that Greenville County had blocked

Council members voted to put the brakes on Meadows' proposal last month while they search for an acceptable way to revise the measure.

"We're putting the heat on ourselves to come up with a solution," Councilman Steve Shaw said.

Here is a closer look at the four top options for fixing Article 3.1:

Citizen activists favor a formula that equals two-acre lots

Citizen activist Jim Moore, who lives in southern Greenville County, wants the county to use a mathematical formula that would allow subdivisions in rural areas to have 10 times the density of the surrounding properties.

"That sounds like a lot," Moore said, but he pointed out that many rural properties range in size from 10 acres up to 100 acres.

"So if you go 10 times the density, you're still looking at lots that are one house per two acres," Moore said during a Zoom video conference in which he was joined by citizen activists Tom Stitt and Julie Turner. Still lives in southern Greenville County and Turner owns a small horse farm in northern Greenville County.

A previous proposal to require a minimum two-acre lot size in rural areas went nowhere last year. Detractors said such a move could cause landowners to lose thousands of dollars in property values.

Moore also wants the county to strengthen a section of Article 3.1 dealing with roads. He said traffic studies should be conducted for more proposed subdivisions and that county roads near new developments ought to be improved to meet state standards.

Conservation subdivisions touted by environmental groups

The South Carolina Environmental Law Project and Upstate Forever are promoting what's known as conservation subdivisions as a tool to manage urban sprawl.

This strategy encourages developers to set aside half of their property in rural subdivisions for habitat preservation, passive recreation, buffering or agriculture. In return, they would get to build homes in more density on the remaining land.

For example, a developer who preserved half of a 100-acre site would be permitted to build 75 homes on the other 50 acres.

Michael Martinez, an attorney with the South Carolina Environmental Law Project, said conservation subdivisions are "mutually beneficial."

"It preserves the most environmentally sensitive parts of a parcel, but it also allows developers to build basically 50% more lots," he said.

Greenville County councilman proposes subdivision jurisdictions

Harrison said the "most practical and most efficient and simplest solution" is adding "quantifiable measurements" to Article 3.1. 

He recently distributed a proposal to County Council members that calls for creating six subdivision jurisdictions with varying densities in the county's unzoned areas.

Under his plan, one-acre lots would be required in the most rural of settings. Half-acre lots could be allowed in some other rural areas. Up to three lots per acre would be permitted in suburban neighborhoods.

Developers could exceed these density limits by conducting traffic studies and agreeing to pay for needed road improvements.

Council members Lynn Ballard and Joe Dill, whose districts account for much of the unzoned property in the southern and northern parts of the county, praised Harrison's proposal.

"Of all the plans that I've seen, his made the most sense," Ballard said.

"I think he has done a good job with that," Dill said.

Homebuilders seek 'clarity' in land-development rules

The Homebuilders Association has prepared a draft ordinance that would eliminate density considerations for subdivisions in unzoned areas.

Michel Dey, the association's vice president, contends that it is improper to use a land-development rule like Article 3.1 to limit the density of housing developments.

"Zoning is the exclusive regulator of density," Dey said.

Martinez, the South Carolina Environmental Law Project attorney, disagrees. He said it is "perfectly acceptable" to use a land-development regulation to impose some restrictions on builders.

"It's not preventing you from building a subdivision," Martinez said.

In an effort to bring "clarity" to the process, Dey's association would restore provisions in the county's land-development regulations that were replaced by Article 3.1.

Under its proposal, new subdivisions would be evaluated to determine their effect on existing water and sewer systems, transportation facilities, fire protection, wetlands, flood plain, endangered species and historic sites.

After a review by staff and a panel with members from 12 agencies, the Greenville County Planning Commission would be required to approve subdivisions that are found to comply with the county's land-development rules.

Greenville population stands to soar

In the past 18 months, the Planning Commission has approved 11 subdivisions consisting of 859 residential lots on 463 acres of unzoned land.

Residents have filed court appeals seeking to block five of those developments on grounds that the commission did not follow Article 3.1's requirements. 

Last month, a landowner filed an appeal contending that the commission improperly used Article 3.1 as the reason to deny plans for the Roberts Farm subdivision on 42 acres of zoned property near Pebble Creek Country Club.

The county is using an outside law firm to handle these cases. County Attorney Mark Tollison said the county has already spent about $25,000 in legal fees on two of the planning commission appeals filed by residents last year.

Home sales across the Upstate, meanwhile, are booming. That trend — coupled with projections in county officials' comprehensive plan showing Greenville County's population will grow by more than 200,000 residents by 2040 — will almost certainly lead to more construction in rural places where there are fewer regulations and lower land prices than urban areas.

The average price of a newly constructed home in the Upstate is currently $325,000, Dey said. He said Greenville County's rural areas are the place where builders have the best chance to create subdivisions that will meet the pent-up demand for homes in the $200,000 price range.

"What they're trying to do is get the house price down to a level that a group of buyers that they want to serve can afford," he said.

It was against that backdrop that Meadows called for repealing Article 3.1

"They have identified the cancer as 3.1," said Stitt, the citizen activist from southern Greenville County. 

But Stitt said repealing the rule would be akin to saying, "We'll take the heart out and let the body live."

Lisa Scott Hallo, Upstate Forever's land policy director, expressed similar sentiments in an email.

"Article 3.1 is not perfect, but it is the only meaningful barrier to uncontrolled sprawl into rural, mostly undeveloped and unzoned areas in the county," she said. "In the last several years, development pressure has substantially increased in these areas.

"Repealing 3.1 with no replacement would leave planning commissioners little legal foundation to deny proposals threatening sensitive natural resources and/or proposals in areas where infrastructure simply can't support the levels of intensity being proposed."

Public hearing may be held May 18

Council members have not formally debated or voted on any potential revisions to Article 3.1. 

They held a meeting May 1 where more than 20 residents urged them to "replace not repeal" the rule. A public hearing on the issue is tentatively set for May 18.

Dill said he hopes that a compromise can be reached on revising Article 3.1 "that everybody can agree to."

Harrison, a former land planner who also served on the Planning Commission, said devising an effective strategy to control urban sprawl is a high-stakes proposition.

"It is important for the whole county, and I think it affects everybody," he said. "It affects the quality of life."

– The Greenville News is committed to providing comprehensive coverage of development in Greenville County. Keep up with how the community is growing by becoming a subscriber. Please visit greenvillenews.com/subscribe.