Why the Easley UDO Review Matters (And What It Means for Our Future)
Last night, I finally watched the Easley Planning Commission’s review of our Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and what I witnessed was a community genuinely wrestling with how it wants to grow. If you’re wondering why any of this matters, let me explain.
The UDO is essentially the rulebook for how Easley develops—what gets built where, who gets to decide, and under what conditions. It’s about the neighborhoods we live in, the businesses we visit, and the green spaces we hope to preserve. It governs everything from whether you can build a garage in your backyard to how a developer designs a new strip mall. It’s dense, yes, but also foundational.
Repealing the Old
The first point of clarity last night was that this UDO is set to replace our current zoning ordinance and land development regulations. It doesn’t just modify a few lines; it replaces the entire foundation. The language is intended to be clearer, more comprehensive, and aligned with South Carolina state law. For example, the Commission discussed how the new ordinance would repeal any prior conflicting ordinances upon adoption. This is big because it sets the stage for consistency moving forward.
There was also an interesting conversation about how frequently we should update the Comprehensive Plan, which guides the UDO. State law requires every ten years, but Easley aims to do it every five. That tells me the city wants to be proactive, not reactive.
Administrative Structure and Accountability
The Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), and Architectural Review Board (ARB) were all under discussion. One point that resonated was the call for consistency across these boards, particularly in how terms, removals, and vacancies are handled. One speaker noted that the wording for removing a board member “for cause” varied slightly between the ARB and Planning Commission. That might seem trivial, but when you’re enforcing the law, words matter.
There was debate about whether members of these boards should be required to live within city limits. One person made a compelling point: If you’re going to be making zoning decisions for Easley, you ought to live in Easley. Others offered a counterpoint: What about people who own businesses in town and pay taxes but live just outside the city? Shouldn’t they have a voice too? The conversation reflected broader tensions in many American towns between inclusivity and accountability.
Eventually, there was broad consensus that residency within city limits should be required for these decision-makers, especially given the impact their choices have on the community.
A Balancing Act
This part really got into the weeds but was surprisingly relevant. Let’s say you own an older building that doesn’t meet current zoning standards. Maybe it lacks proper landscaping or has an outdated facade. The UDO sets a threshold: if your renovations cost more than 150% of the building’s appraised value, you have to bring parts of it into compliance (at least 5% of your total renovation budget must go toward updating things like landscaping, lighting, or access).
This sparked deep conversation. Is 150% too arbitrary? Should it be lower for commercial properties and higher for residential ones? What about a business like Lowe’s that wants to renovate but would be penalized for not meeting current landscaping requirements? Could this discourage revitalization?
A few commissioners advocated for distinguishing between commercial and residential thresholds. Others pointed out that the line between the two isn’t always clear, especially in mixed-use or transitional areas. Ultimately, they agreed to revisit the threshold value and provide clearer language about its applicability.
Transparency and Notification
One of the more tangible topics was about how far public notices should reach. Right now, only those living within 200 feet of a proposed development are notified. A few commissioners noted that in rural or sparsely populated areas, that could be just a handful of people. They proposed increasing the radius to 500 feet.
Nobody complained about receiving too much information. Everyone agreed: more notice is better.
Administrative Adjustments: Gone for Now
The original draft included a provision for “administrative adjustments” that would let city staff make minor zoning changes without going through a full public process. Think 10% flexibility on setbacks. While common in larger municipalities, it was deemed a poor fit for Easley. The language was removed.
Rear-Loaded Garages and Private Alleys
This was an interesting practical concern. Rear-loaded garages are encouraged to improve streetscapes. But how are they accessed? Through alleys. And here’s the rub: who maintains the alleys? One long-time resident warned against the city taking on maintenance responsibilities for alleys. These should be private, and developers should know that up front. This kind of insight from experienced residents makes a real difference.
Vested Rights and Long-Term Certainty
The UDO includes state-mandated language on “vested rights” that allow developers to rely on current zoning rules for two years after approval. Cities can allow extensions, and Easley has chosen to mirror the state’s default of five one-year extensions. Commissioners noted that this could be tweaked in the future depending on how projects evolve.
More Than Just a Map
Design standards in overlay districts brought up a lot of nuance. Some parts of the ordinance seemed to treat these areas uniformly, while others implied flexibility. Commissioners debated whether standards like roof pitch, garage orientation, and building form should be different for residential versus commercial structures.
One good question asked: should we really hold a new residential garage to the same design standard as a civic building? Probably not. There’s room to separate and clarify these expectations.
Should, Shall, and May - Words Matter
This became a running theme. Legal language often uses “shall” to indicate mandatory actions, “should” for recommendations, and “may” for discretionary actions. The document had inconsistencies. One commissioner noted, rightly, that if we don’t mean to enforce something, we shouldn’t say “shall.” They proposed standardizing the language across the entire UDO. It’s a tedious task, but one that will prevent future disputes.
Wrap Up
The meeting wrapped after over two hours, with a general consensus: there’s no rush to push this to Council. The Commissioners want to get it right.
And that’s the big takeaway. Zoning isn’t glamorous. But it shapes the Easley of tomorrow. It determines whether we’ll be a walkable, tree-lined town or a chaotic patchwork of development. Whether residents feel heard or left out. Whether our city grows thoughtfully or haphazardly.
Stay tuned, Easley. This isn’t just paperwork. It’s your neighborhood.
Want to get involved? Planning Commission meetings are open to the public. Your voice matters. Check the city’s website for upcoming dates.
