2026-09-28 - City Council Formal Meeting

00:00We lost uh two great Greenville villians

00:03uh just a few weeks ago and both of whom

00:06had a close relationship to the city of

00:08Greenville. So that reason I want to pay

00:10tribute in a moment of silence for Judy

00:12Cromwell and Judy Bainbridge two judies.

00:17Judy Cromwell was a well-known

00:18environmentalist conservationist though

00:21if you ask her about those kind of

00:22things she said I'm just a nature lover

00:25always reminded us about the value of

00:26trees. She was a member of the nature

00:29nature land trust for a she was on the

00:31nature land trust for I think it was 50

00:34years that was 50 years I knew she was

00:36on there a long time I didn't know she

00:37was there that long been involved in

00:40multiples everything I can think of in

00:41the last several years and falls park

00:43her membership in the Carolina Foothills

00:44garden club but so many other things she

00:46was also a driving force behind Connist

00:48Park an active member of that board as

00:51well and also great love of the arts a

00:55founding member of the center for

00:56creative arts

00:57So that's Judy Cromwell. Judy Bambridge,

01:00Burman University professor of English,

01:02well known to lots of us, too. She truly

01:05was for 40, 50 years, the preeminent

01:08historian of all things Greenville and

01:10Greenville history.

01:12Great researcher. One of her powerful

01:15aspects I think because she was an

01:16English professor, she wrote really

01:18well. She knew how to explain things to

01:20people. Uh she truly in her speeches, in

01:24her writings, her books, her articles,

01:27she she knew how to make history come

01:28alive. Really helped connect the dots.

01:30To be frank, she knew how to make

01:32history fun and enjoyable people to

01:34learn. And that's the history of our

01:36community, Greenville, South Carolina.

01:38So behalf of both Judy Bainbridge and

01:41Judy Clownwell, we could have a moment

01:42of silence.

02:01We'll miss both duties. Thank you.

02:04Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge

02:06allegiance to the flag of the United

02:09States of America and to the republic

02:11for which it stands, one nation under

02:14God, indivisible, with liberty and

02:17justice for all.

02:20>> Thank you.

02:23>> Clerk will call the role.

02:26>> Council member John Dewerin

02:28>> here.

02:28>> Council member Lillian Fleming

02:30>> here.

02:30>> Council member Ken Gibson

02:32>> here.

02:32>> Council member Will Brazington here.

02:34Council member Tina Belgi

02:36>> here. Council member Dorothy Dao

02:38>> here.

02:39>> Mayor Knox White

02:40>> here. You have the minutes of September

02:4214th. We'll stand approved as a submit.

02:43Is there any objections? Seeing none.

02:46Okay, they are so approved. We have a

02:48number of folks who signed up to speak

02:50to us tonight. Uh beware, we have a

02:52threeminut clock on the wall there. So,

02:53please observe the three-minute rule.

02:55And with that, I'll just start with the

02:57list. Here we have Caroline Dover.

03:01Yeah, you you're right up here. I'm

03:03sorry. [laughter]

03:06You give your name and name and address

03:07for the clerk.

03:09>> My name is Caroline Dober, 6 South Meer.

03:13Mayor White and members of council, if

03:16you've ever taken a child to the grocery

03:18store, you know the checkout aisle. You

03:21walk in with a plan, then comes a

03:23heartfelt request for candy. And of

03:25course, saying yes would make the moment

03:27easier. But you haven't suddenly

03:29discovered that candy is healthy just

03:31because that request gets louder.

03:34Council is in that checkout aisle

03:36tonight. The pressure to say yes is

03:39real. Before voting, council owes the

03:42public the evidence that this rule is

03:44the right answer.

03:46Aenddale residents have every right to

03:48raise concerns. I've organized petitions

03:51myself and their concerns deserve a

03:54serious response. More than 800

03:56signatures show that people care deeply

03:58about this project, but a petition

04:01cannot tell you what all of Greenville

04:03thinks. Some residents may not even know

04:05this citywide change is being

04:07considered. Others who would be affected

04:09may be reluctant to speak publicly. At

04:11the planning commission meeting,

04:13commissioners asked what this change

04:15would do, and staff did not have the

04:16data to answer. How many infill lots and

04:19potential homes would we lose? Would

04:22wider lots produce houses that fit

04:24better or simply fewer larger homes? We

04:27do not know. Greenville says attainable

04:29housing is a priority. The existing code

04:32allows 40 foot lots in RHC. Smaller lots

04:36can spread land across more homes. They

04:39do not guarantee affordability, but

04:41requiring wider lots may increase the

04:44land costs carried by each home. This

04:46trade-off must be measured. Council

04:49spent years and considerable public

04:51resources developing this code, adopted

04:54it unanimously, calling it the north

04:56star. Experience may reveal a need to

05:00change it, but a petition should not

05:02prompt I should prompt careful

05:04investigation, not a citywide amendment

05:07whose effects have not been shown.

05:10Otherwise, council sets the standard for

05:12the next dispute over a permitted

05:14project. There is time to investigate.

05:17This amendment will not change the

05:19Aenddale project. Please remove the lot

05:22wheel provision from the update. Direct

05:24staff to test the current and proposed

05:26rules on representative properties

05:28across RHA, B, and C. Publish the

05:31results, including potential home

05:33counts, building sizes, and likely

05:36effects on attainable housing in time

05:38for residents and council members to

05:41examine them and ask questions. Only

05:44then should council decide whether this

05:46provision belongs in Greenville's code.

05:49A concern deserves an answer. A citywide

05:52rule deserves an analysis before

05:56Greenbull changes the rules for

05:58everyone. Council should prove that the

06:01change will make Greenville better, not

06:04simply make one difficult decision

06:06easier tonight. Thanks.

06:10>> Okay. Thank you, Chris Fay. Where's Fry?

06:13I'm sorry.

06:23>> Good evening. Uh Chris Fry. I live at

06:26501 Hampton Avenue. Uh I'm respectfully

06:29asking the city council tonight to

06:31reject the proposed change to

06:33development code that would make lots of

06:35divisions more challenging RHA, B, and C

06:37zoning districts. This code change would

06:40have a direct impact on me and my

06:42community. I currently rent one side of

06:44a duplex in the Hampton Painting

06:46neighborhood. It's zoned RHC. My block

06:49is filled with beautiful historic single

06:51family homes, many of which are zoned

06:53RHA. But directly across from my home

06:56are narrow single family detached houses

06:59that only exist because a larger lot was

07:01subdivided into five smaller lots. This

07:04code change could make these types of

07:06homes illegal to build in my

07:07neighborhood and in many of the city's

07:09most desirable communities. At a time of

07:11continued growth and rising home prices,

07:14this change will make the city even more

07:16unaffordable for young families in the

07:18middle class. Due to the work of this

07:20council and generations of leaders

07:22before them, Greenville has become one

07:24of the most desirable places to live in

07:26the United States. As more and more

07:28people discover Greenville and decide to

07:29live here, it's important that the city

07:32ensures that many different types of

07:34housing are allowed and encouraged.

07:36Other high growth southern cities facing

07:38similar housing challenges have

07:40responded by making their land use and

07:42development codes more flexible. Durham,

07:45North Carolina has a small lot provision

07:47that allows new homes to be built on

07:49lots as small as 2,000 square feet.

07:52Gainesville, Florida, consolidated all

07:53their single family zoning districts

07:55into one category. and so that they

07:57could reduce single lot uh size

07:59requirements across the city. And after

08:01Houston, Texas reduced its minimum lot

08:03size requirements by 70%. The city saw a

08:06huge increase in the construction of new

08:08starter homes. All of these cities

08:11understand that more flexibility, not

08:13less, is needed to preserve housing

08:15affordability without jeopardizing

08:17neighborhood character. Uh I appreciate

08:20the hard work that the city planning

08:21staff have put into this change

08:23specifically. Uh it's clear that they

08:25care a lot about affordability and

08:27community voice. I think the best thing

08:29to do is just to scrap this specific

08:31recommendation entirely. A highly

08:33complicated and technical code change

08:35will send a signal that certain kinds of

08:38entry- level homes are not welcome in

08:39many parts of Greenville. Uh our

08:41communities are not made weaker when we

08:43allow town homes, duplexes, and large

08:45lot homes to sit side by side on the

08:47same street. They're stronger. My street

08:50shows that small lot, subdivisions, and

08:53historic homes can comfortably coexist.

08:55This code change will make a growing

08:57housing affordability problem even

08:59worse, and I ask the city council to

09:01remove it from the list of proposed

09:03considerations. Thank you for your time.

09:04>> Thank you, Tim Sers.

09:11>> Good evening. Good evening, Mayor White,

09:13uh members of city council and city

09:15staff. I'm Tim Sers at 31 Windsor Drive.

09:18And before I begin, I'd like to ask

09:20everyone here that supports One

09:21Community, One Voice to please stand.

09:26>> Thank you very much. This is a small

09:28representation of the 800 signatures we

09:31had on the petition to address the

09:32Aenddale project and the hundreds of

09:34neighbors that are around this Aendale

09:36project that are interested in what

09:38we're doing here.

09:40Okay. So, this is the second time we've

09:42appeared before this council regarding

09:44the proposed 7-U Aendale project. In

09:46July, we asked for your assistance in

09:48helping facilitate a lower density

09:50solution that better balanced

09:52neighborhood concerns with the proposed

09:53development. And tonight, I want to

09:55begin by saying thank you. This council

09:58heard us, you engaged, and you

10:01responded. Councilman John Dewerin, he's

10:04been our strongest uh advocate from the

10:06very beginning. He provided steadfast,

10:09responsive, and unwavering leadership

10:11throughout this entire process.

10:13Councilman Dorothy Dao took the time to

10:15listen to residents, understand our

10:17concerns, and support a constructive

10:19path forward, and her engagement has

10:21been invaluable to the progress we've

10:23made. Councilwoman Tina Belge has

10:26remained engaged throughout the

10:28discussion, and we appreciate her

10:30participation and support as these

10:32conversations have continued. Also want

10:35to thank the council for reviewing the

10:37zoning and development rules that

10:39allowed this situation to occur and I

10:42believe we're doing the first reading of

10:44those rules tonight. Now I understand

10:46that those rules will not affect the

10:48current Aendale project, but they do do

10:51everything that they can to address the

10:53root cause of why we're here in the

10:55first place. And we still believe in

10:57that uh that that subject or that that

11:00cause. The reforms under consideration

11:03will help prevent future neighborhoods

11:05from facing the same challenges that we

11:07did. You're not just addressing this

11:09project. You're addressing the

11:11underlying issues that made it possible.

11:14If we get this right, the lasting legacy

11:16of the Aenddale discussion will not be

11:18controversy. It will be a stronger

11:20process, better rules, and a better

11:22Greenville. Indeed, we have much to

11:26celebrate. But unfortunately tonight we

11:29also have cause for great concern. While

11:32negotiations continue for a lower

11:34density alternative on Aenddale, there

11:36is currently an active site permit

11:38request based on the original 7-unit

11:41proposal making its way through the

11:43city's approval process with an

11:45anticipated decision date of October

11:486th. Although the developers state that

11:51they only filed to meet a deadline and

11:53are continuing to negotiate in good

11:55faith, the fact remains that approval of

11:58this permit as is would allow them to

12:01begin construction immediately. As a

12:03result, our group strongly believes that

12:06we must hope for the best but prepare

12:08for the worst. To that end, we've

12:10established a legal entity to facilitate

12:12fundraising, submitted Freedom of

12:14Information Act requests. Sorry, is that

12:17three minutes? Wow.

12:19>> Three minutes. It was a good three

12:20minutes.

12:20>> Our request tonight is simple. Please

12:22continue doing what you've been doing.

12:24Please continue to support us and thank

12:25you for the support you've given us so

12:27far.

12:27>> Okay. Thank you, Mia Muller. Mayor

12:32Muller. Yeah.

12:42>> Hi, I'm Amelia Mueller. I live at 501

12:44Hampton Avenue.

12:46Good evening, city councilors and fellow

12:48residents. I'm here this evening to

12:50speak about the proposed amendment to

12:52the Greenville development code related

12:53to infill lot. I'm here as a Greenville

12:56native, a housing advocate, and as a

12:59young professional hoping to start a

13:01family here. I grew up in Greenville,

13:04riding bikes in Cleveland Park,

13:06attending Greenville public schools,

13:08volunteering in my community. Between

13:10college, graduate school, and building a

13:12career in urban planning and affordable

13:14housing, I spent nearly 20 years away

13:16from Greenville trying on other cities

13:18for size. When my husband and I were

13:20deciding where we wanted to live long

13:22term, Greenbull started to make a lot of

13:24sense. We could live downtown, remain a

13:27one-car household, run, walk, and bike

13:30on the Swamp Rabbit Trail with ease,

13:33access a growing culinary scene, and

13:35contribute our talents to the community

13:37more readily than in a big city. Here's

13:39the rub. We want to buy a house, plant

13:42our feet, grow deep friendships with our

13:44neighbors, but that's getting harder to

13:47do in Greenville for a two-income

13:48household, even before kids. One of

13:51Greenville's greatest strengths is its

13:53ability to adapt and change to meet the

13:55moment. The process of drafting the 2040

13:58development code took a good hard look

14:00at the development dynamics playing out

14:02in Greenville, including increasing

14:04housing pressures and sought to create a

14:07wider range of housing types to make

14:08quality, attainable housing available to

14:11more people.

14:13I fear that this subdivision ordinance

14:15backslides from the ambitions that this

14:18council set out to achieve, allowing one

14:21use case to drive outcomes for the

14:24entire city.

14:26To retain and attract young

14:27professionals like my husband and me,

14:29and to make home ownership more

14:31attainable for longtime renters priced

14:33out of the market, we need to be

14:35thinking about how to create more

14:37starter homes that give people a

14:39foothold for building long-term equity.

14:42As land prices, construction costs, and

14:44mortgage rates continue to climb,

14:46building more homes on smaller lots is a

14:49critical pathway to reducing the cost of

14:51new homes. This rule change takes a

14:53blunt instrument of a percentage-based

14:55calculation and applies it across the

14:57city without sufficient consideration

15:00for its impacts across Greenville's many

15:02diverse neighborhoods. If we want to

15:04fine-tune our urban infill code, which I

15:06am happy for us to do, let's have a real

15:09conversation about all the dials we

15:12might adjust, not just this one. And

15:14let's take time to give out all our

15:17neighbors a chance to consider what this

15:19means for their future. I urge the

15:21council to strike this item from the

15:22proposed amendments and pursue further

15:24study. Thank you very much.

15:27>> Thank you, Samantha Mahoney.

15:37>> Good evening, members of city council.

15:38Thank you for your continued leadership

15:40and service to our city. My name is

15:42Samantha Mahoney. I live at 219 East

15:45Aenddale Drive, and I'm back before you

15:47tonight because school is now in full

15:49swing. And every morning and afternoon,

15:52reality is playing out on our street in

15:54real time. North Maine is an active,

15:57vibrant neighborhood where our streets

15:59are extensions of our homes. Every

16:01single day, our children walk, ride

16:03bikes, and ride their scooters to and

16:06from schools and friends houses. Our

16:08neighbors are out walking dogs and

16:10pushing strollers.

16:12In the photos, I've had photos. I forgot

16:14the my printer. I'm sorry, but I'll

16:15email them to you all tonight. Um, in

16:17the photos I will provide to you, you

16:19can see the reality of where East

16:21Aendale and North Aenddale merge. It's

16:23already exceptionally narrow. So, um,

16:27I'll show you the pictures anyway. Um,

16:28leading into a blind curve on East

16:30Aendale. In these photos from just the

16:32other day, you see a lawn maintenance

16:33trailer occupying the road on North

16:36Aendale right in front of the

16:38development.

16:40um their trail occupying the road and

16:42just beyond it blind to coming traffic

16:44at the top of Pinehurst there's a heavy

16:46work truck and a skid steer actively

16:48digging up the road right as elementary

16:51school children are trying to make their

16:52way home.

16:54There is virtually zero room to spare.

16:57We are asking small children to thread

16:58the needle between heavy equipment, line

17:01curves, and distracted drivers, praying

17:04that the heavy vehicle operators see a

17:06children on a bicycle in time. Within

17:09just a single block right now, there are

17:11multiple active construction projects

17:13taking place between ongoing remodeling,

17:17everyday service vehicles, recurrent

17:19residents, and drivers using our quiet

17:22road as a cut cut through using high

17:25speeds. Our narrow street is already

17:27pushed to its absolute limit.

17:30Now I ask you to imagine what this looks

17:32like when the sheer manpower, staging,

17:36concrete mixers, dumpsters, constant

17:39commercial traffic required to build

17:41seven dense homes on this single site.

17:44If our street is already pushed to the

17:46breaking point today

17:48with our existing neighborhood rhythm,

17:50what happens when that traffic

17:52multiplies?

17:55I want to state once more, our

17:57neighborhood is not anti-growth. We

17:59welcome thoughtful improvement, but

18:01growth must respect the physical

18:03constraints of the land and the safety

18:06of human beings. Seven houses in this

18:09narrow, blind corridor is simply too

18:12many. How do we protect our most

18:14vulnerable? How do we ensure that a

18:16child riding home from school makes it

18:18to their front door safely? Please

18:20protect the very things that make our

18:22street in Greenville special. Our

18:24safety, our treeline streets, and our

18:27children who call this neighborhood

18:28home. Thank you for your time.

18:31>> Thank you very much.

18:33>> Righty. With that, council, we have a

18:36consent agenda in front of you.

18:40>> Motion.

18:41>> Second.

18:41>> Motion and second on the consent agenda.

18:43Clerk, call the role.

18:45>> Council member Darkin.

18:46>> Hi.

18:47>> Council member Fleming.

18:48>> Hi. Council member Gibson.

18:50>> Council member Brazington.

18:52>> Hi.

18:52>> Council member Belgi.

18:54>> Hi.

18:54>> Council member Dao.

18:55>> Hi.

18:56>> Mayor White.

18:57>> I.

18:58>> Proceeding to the regular agenda. 15A.

19:02>> An ordinance to annex approximately 3.79

19:04acres of real property at 607 Furman

19:08Road and 1521et

19:11Highway and 0.19 acre of adjacent

19:14rightway. and to provide the zoning

19:16designation of IIX district.

19:20>> So moved.

19:21>> Second.

19:21>> Motion second. Any questions? Let's take

19:23a look at that.

19:25>> That's off on point set. Okay. All

19:27right. Clerk will call the role.

19:30>> Council member Dwarkin.

19:31>> Hi.

19:31>> Council member Fleming.

19:32>> Hi.

19:33>> Council member Gibson.

19:34>> Hi.

19:35>> Council member Brazington.

19:36>> Hi.

19:36>> Council member Belgi.

19:38>> Hi.

19:38>> Council member Dao.

19:40>> I.

19:41>> Mayor White. I

19:45Okay. 11B,

19:47excuse me, 15,

19:48>> an ordinance to annex approximately

19:500.004

19:52acre of real property at 125 Sumar

19:55Street and 0.06 acre of adjacent

19:58rightway and to provide the zoning

20:00designation of RNA district.

20:04>> So move second.

20:05>> Motion in a second. Clerk will call the

20:07role.

20:09>> Council member Deworin.

20:10>> I. Council member Fleming.

20:12>> Hi.

20:12>> Council member Gibson.

20:13>> Hi.

20:14>> Council member Brazington.

20:15>> Hi.

20:16>> Council member Belgi.

20:17>> Hi.

20:18>> Council member Dao.

20:19>> I.

20:19>> Mayor White.

20:20>> I.

20:22>> 15C.

20:24>> An ordinance to annex approximately 0.73

20:27acre of real property at 207 Butler

20:30Springs Road and 0.18 acre of adjacent

20:34rightway and to provide the zoning

20:36designation of RHB district.

20:39>> So move. Second.

20:40>> Motion second. Any discussion?

20:44>> Clerk will call the role.

20:46>> Council member Dewarkin.

20:47>> I.

20:48>> Council member Fleming.

20:49>> Hi.

20:49>> Council member Gibson.

20:51>> Hi.

20:51>> Council member Brazington.

20:53>> Hi.

20:53>> Council member Belgi.

20:55>> I.

20:55>> Council member Dao.

20:56>> I.

20:57>> Mayor White.

20:58>> I

21:0015D.

21:02>> An ordinance to annex approximately 1.26

21:0526 acres of real property generally

21:07located on Anderson Road, Martin Row,

21:10and Conwell Street and 0.08 acre of

21:14adjacent right of way and to provide the

21:16zoning designation of RNC district.

21:19>> So moved.

21:20>> Second.

21:21>> Motion second.

21:22>> I do want to see

21:23>> Let's look at that.

21:24>> Okay. So, Council Member D. Um, can

21:29y'all scroll to the last slide on this?

21:33And is Oh, good. He's there.

21:37You're sitting so low in the back. I

21:39couldn't even see you back there. Come

21:42to the front. Keep um keep going. Next

21:45slide. Thank you, James. Isn't there

21:47another one there? Maybe I missed it.

21:48Where's the one that shows our

21:49priorities? There you go.

21:52>> Okay. So, I asked this question of

21:56Austin and I appreciate you conveying it

21:58to me, but I just want to recap and we

22:00may need to go back up to look at the

22:01property. So, this is checking um of our

22:05goals, transportation and mobility as

22:08one of our um GVL 2040 goals affirmed

22:11with this annexation. So, now can we go

22:14back up whoever's driving in the back?

22:17Okay, right there. Um, tell me how this

22:21is addressing our transportation and

22:23mobility goals, please.

22:25>> Yes, ma'am. So, Route 506 Woodside um,

22:28serves this area um,

22:30>> already.

22:31>> Excuse me. Route 504 Anderson. Forgive

22:34me. Glad somebody's beside me. 506 is

22:36the other one that you annexed. So, um,

22:38there is um, service that's already

22:40provided here. Um, and really not out

22:43yet, but the TDP's actually got service

22:45enhancements in this area as well. So

22:49from the technical perspective, yes, it

22:51is served by public transit. There's bus

22:53infrastructure in the area. Um and

22:55hopefully it'll be improved over the

22:56coming years as we need to grow.

22:59>> And the developer was required to put in

23:02the pad.

23:03>> Yes. Because um the zoning is required

23:07there. We do have the ability to require

23:08bus stop infrastructure to go in. So

23:10they are required to put in additional

23:12infrastructure and there will actually

23:13be a stop that'll be serving that

23:15directly.

23:16>> Great.

23:18I get it. It does check the box. Thank

23:20you. Yes, ma'am. Clerk, call roll.

23:23>> Council member Dwarkin. Hi.

23:24>> Council member Fleming.

23:26>> Hi.

23:26>> Council member Gibson.

23:27>> Hi.

23:28>> Council member Braington.

23:29>> Hi.

23:30>> Council member Belgi.

23:31>> Hi.

23:31>> Council member Dao.

23:33>> Hi.

23:33>> Mayor White.

23:34>> I. 15D. Okay. 15e.

23:38>> An ordinance to annex approximately

23:3912.85 85 acres of real property

23:42generally located on Bunkham Road, A

23:45Street, 1st Avenue, 2nd Avenue, 3rd

23:48Avenue, and Hammet Street and 2.43 acres

23:51of adjacent rightway and to provide the

23:53zoning designation of RC5 district.

23:58>> So moved to second motion and a second,

24:01let's look at this one. Good. Okay,

24:04clerk will call the role. Good evening

24:06of annexations. Thank you, Austin.

24:08[laughter] Council [clears throat]

24:10member Dwerin.

24:11>> Hi.

24:11>> Council member Fleming.

24:12>> Hi.

24:13>> Council member Gibson.

24:14>> Hi.

24:15>> Council member Brazington.

24:16>> Hi.

24:16>> Council member Belgi.

24:18>> Hi.

24:18>> Council member Dao.

24:19>> Hi.

24:20>> Mayor White.

24:20>> Hi.

24:21>> I'd like to make a comment before we

24:25finalize. I met with the uh about five

24:29or six of the neighbors in Austin and um

24:32it was uh excellent because you know he

24:36answered questions explained the whole

24:38process about annexation.

24:40They didn't come being against it. They

24:44just wanted to know what was going on.

24:46When he said and your taxes will be a

24:49little bit lower, everybody in the room

24:51was like say what? So, I'm just saying

24:54he did an excellent job and I thank the

24:57people for coming and for listening and

25:00for wanting to be a part of the city of

25:02Greenville. It was great.

25:05>> Since we have a number of citizens here

25:07tonight, that is true. In West

25:08Greenville, the taxes are higher,

25:10property taxes are higher than in the

25:11city of Greenville.

25:13>> Uh big difference in service provided.

25:15So, it's a it's a good argument to make

25:17among many other good things we can say.

25:2015F,

25:22>> an ordinance to amend chapter 19 of the

25:24code of ordinances of the city of

25:26Greenville and to incorporate text

25:28updates into the Greenville development

25:30code recommended during the 36-month

25:33code review process.

25:35>> So second

25:36>> I have a motion.

25:39>> So move. We got a motion.

25:41>> Yes, sir.

25:42>> Got a motion and a second.

25:44>> Yeah.

25:45>> Second.

25:46>> Second motion.

25:47>> Motion second. We have discussion. Go

25:48ahead.

25:49>> Okay. Do you want to let him speak first

25:50then?

25:51>> Absolutely. Go Barrett.

25:53>> I would love to hear what you got to

25:54say, but I'll go for it.

25:57Right. So, uh, good evening, Mayor and

25:59Council. Thank you for the opportunity

26:01to share our latest development code

26:03updates with you. As you know, we've

26:05been working to update the code on a

26:06bannual basis since its adoption over

26:09three years ago. Uh, the proposed

26:11amendments to the document have come

26:12from the community, from council, and

26:14from city staff as we work together to

26:16make this document the best it can be

26:17for our community.

26:21slide. So, this round of code updates

26:24began immediately following adoption of

26:26the 30-month updates earlier this year.

26:28After extensive staff effort to develop

26:30the recommendations, the amendments were

26:32made public in August, at which point we

26:35began gathering public feedback. Staff

26:37presented the proposed update to you all

26:39at a work session on o August 10th,

26:41planning commission on August 14th, and

26:43then had two rounds of openhouse style

26:45meetings toward the end of August. At

26:48its September 3rd meeting, the planning

26:49commission voted unanimously to

26:51recommend approval of these amendments

26:53with one suggested revision to the

26:54infill lot width standards.

26:58While our amendment document has been

27:00increasingly shorter with the last

27:01couple of update cycles, I'm only going

27:03to review the more impactful changes to

27:05the code at this presentation. If there

27:07are any questions about any of the

27:08smaller changes, I do have the full

27:09amendment document with me and be would

27:12be happy to address any of those

27:13questions as well.

27:16So, specifically relating to tattoo

27:18studios in MXS2, tattoo facilities are

27:21identified as a separate use under our

27:23personal service definitions and are

27:25currently allowed in BG, BH, and EIX

27:28with applicable use standards in each of

27:30those districts. After some conversation

27:33with advocates in the community, a

27:34recommendation has put been put forth to

27:36allow part tattoo parlors in the MXS2

27:39district, which is located primarily

27:41within the village of West Greenville

27:43and on three parcels on the north, west,

27:46and southern sides of Church Street,

27:48Mills Avenue, and Augusta Street

27:50intersection. The use standards would

27:52still apply under the MXS2 zoning, as

27:55would all state department of public

27:57health requirements applicable to this

27:59use, i.e. the 1,00 ft spacing from

28:02churches, schools, or playgrounds.

28:06Regarding infill lot width, uh recent

28:08projects have underscored the

28:09community's desire for greater oversight

28:11over subdivisions which go beyond the

28:14current code allowances for a simple

28:15minimum lot width. After extensive

28:17discussion and research of peer city

28:19ordinances, the recommended update

28:21includes a contextual approach that

28:23would require all new subdivisions to be

28:25limited relative to the average of those

28:27in the immediate vicinity. This

28:29recommendation is specific to RHA, RHB,

28:33and RHC whose lots tend to be on the

28:36larger end of the spectrum. Limitations

28:38are established in three ways. Lots

28:40comply with each of the following lots

28:42must comply with each of the following

28:44standards. 70% of the average lot width

28:47of surrounding parcels, not less than

28:49the narrowest surrounding parcel, and

28:51not less than the zoning district

28:53minimum. The largest of any of these

28:55dimensions would set the minimum lot

28:57width for the subdivision.

29:01[clears throat] As you can see in the

29:02graphic, sorry, go back if you don't

29:05mind. Uh, as you can see in the graphic

29:07on this slide, we have also established

29:09definitions to determine the surrounding

29:11parcels. One additional planning

29:13commission request was to eliminate from

29:14the average calculation any outlier

29:17parcels that are much wider than the

29:19others in the vicinity. These parcels

29:21that were likely rec these are parcels

29:23that were likely recombined in the past

29:25and could dramatically skew the average

29:27lot width. The recommendation is to

29:29eliminate those parcels that are greater

29:31than twice the width of the lots in

29:33consideration.

29:37Per Commissioner Eldridge's request of

29:39planning commission staff has also

29:41developed some visuals to help

29:42illustrate the impacts of the proposed

29:44amendment. These are some examples of

29:46subdivision projects that would have

29:47been affected by the amendment. The top

29:50image shows the existing conditions

29:51before a site developed or a site is

29:53subdivided and developed. The middle

29:56shows a potential subdivision in massing

29:58under the development code standards.

30:00And the bottom image shows the allowable

30:02subdivision under the proposed

30:03amendment. These images were also

30:06intended to illustrate how the allowable

30:07lot width would impact the width of the

30:09potential buildings. As you're aware,

30:11our development code also establishes

30:13maximum building widths based on zoning.

30:16In this example, the allowable

30:17subdivision could result in four 33-

30:20foot wide homes, while the amendment

30:22would allow for three 47 foot wide homes

30:25given the wider lot and setback

30:27requirements.

30:31This example comes from one of our RHA

30:33districts where the lots and homes tend

30:35to be much larger. In this example, the

30:37proposed amendment would have

30:38effectively killed a subdivision based

30:40on the average width of the surrounding

30:42parcels. What was allowed under the

30:45current code could result in two 94 foot

30:48wide homes based on the lot widths and

30:50setbacks. However, without the

30:52opportunity of a subdivision, the

30:54existing home could have been demolished

30:55in a new home constructed that is up to

30:58150 ft in width if it incorporated a

31:01building break to reduce the appearance

31:02of the building's mass.

31:07Moving on to entry spacing. This update

31:10came through collaboration with the

31:11development community as we work to

31:13identify a solution for some of our

31:15larger single tenant buildings. Uh most

31:17of our thorough affairs throughout the

31:19city are zoned MX2 BG or BH which tends

31:22to be the most attractive locations for

31:24big box retailers, grocerers and other

31:27large format buildings. The code

31:29currently requires larger buildings to

31:30provide multiple entrances in order to

31:33create some activation for the

31:35pedestrian. However, the recommended

31:37update would enable architects to

31:39combine those entrances entrances,

31:41excuse me, into a single monumental

31:43entrance while following the

31:44architectural requirements for entry

31:46features.

31:50Regarding downtown development

31:51flexibility, um over the last several

31:54years, there have been a number of

31:55projects coming through the design

31:56review board that identified unique

31:58challenges posed by the juxaposition of

32:00the development code and the design

32:02guidelines. While the general formbbased

32:04standards established in the code are

32:06very prescriptive and intended to

32:07activate the pedestrian realm, they can

32:10sometimes pose unintentional challenges

32:12for projects downtown that have limited

32:14space or those that are trying to bring

32:16unique uses or creative architecture to

32:18Greenville. Given the oversight by a

32:21group of qualified architects and

32:22designers in addition to the city's

32:24professional staff, this recommendation

32:26is to enable limited flexibility for

32:28projects coming before the board for

32:30certain code requirements. An allowable

32:32deviation would require consistency with

32:34the design guidelines, positive

32:37recommendation from staff, and approval

32:38by the DRB. Examples of this application

32:41would be buildings that are attempting

32:43to replicate historic architecture,

32:45buildings providing parking structures

32:47on a limited site or larger civic or

32:50entertainment uses that require blank

32:52walls that exceed the code allowance.

32:54Just a few examples.

32:57With regard to the sign ordinance, uh,

32:58greater creativity and flexibility is

33:00afforded under the alternative sign

33:02allowance in the development code, which

33:04currently only applies to MX and MXS

33:07districts. This update would extend that

33:09flexibility to all properties within the

33:11DRB boundary, as well as to the EX

33:14district, which is envisioned as a

33:15district that encourages creative

33:17adaptive reuse of warehouses or

33:19industrial structures. Additional

33:21provisions have been added to enable

33:24illuminated wall signs in our

33:25neighborhood flex districts as long as

33:27they are not directed toward a

33:28residential district.

33:30And additional definitions and standards

33:32have been added for fueling canopy signs

33:34and cabinet signs. String lights are

33:36also unnecessarily limited under the

33:38current code which would be removed

33:40under these amendments.

33:43Moving on to long-term bike storage.

33:45Long-term bike bicycle parking has

33:47continued to be a challenge for certain

33:49development types and recently staff has

33:51identified an unnecessary hardship for

33:53general lodging uses where one long-term

33:56space is required for every four guest

33:57rooms. Long-term bike parking is

34:00required to be in a secure covered

34:01location and intended for use by

34:03residents or employees who may be

34:06storing bikes on a frequent or extended

34:08basis. A recent example would have

34:10required a 130 room hotel to provide 33

34:14long-term spaces somewhere inside the

34:16building. All short-term requirements

34:19will remain and those hotels or bed and

34:21breakfast that would benefit from

34:22additional bike facilities are still

34:24free to incorporate them.

34:27The next one may seem minor, but it is

34:29actually one that we run into quite a

34:32good bit. Um it's been a constant

34:35coordination challenge for our zoning

34:36inspectors and contractors in the field.

34:39Um where the encroachment allowance for

34:40mechanical and electrical equipment um

34:43really poses some difficult challenges.

34:46Uh the exact location of this equipment

34:48is often not identified before a site

34:49permit is issued. Homes are built

34:52according to the allowable setbacks, but

34:54when the equipment is installed with

34:55proper clearances from the home, it

34:57often creates an issue. This

34:59encroachment allowance accounts for

35:00meters with minimal impact and also

35:02aligns with our building break standards

35:04to allow a mechanical unit to be placed

35:06on the side of a home.

35:10Next, BG BG zoning changes. U as

35:13previously mentioned, most of the

35:15properties along the city's thorough

35:16affairs are zoned MX2 BG or BH. A

35:20constant conversation we've had with the

35:21development community is the reality of

35:23the BG zoning and where it has been

35:25applied. As currently written, the BG

35:27district is intended for more walkable

35:30places with smaller lots and more urban

35:32building configurations. However, this

35:34typically is not aligned with the

35:36projects that have been proposed for

35:38those sites. Staff is recommending this

35:40correction of the intent of the BG

35:42district to enable autooriented

35:44developments with a greater setback

35:45range and more flexible active depth

35:48requirements. All other requirements

35:50with regard to pedestrian infrastructure

35:52will remain. BGz zoning is currently

35:54primarily applied to Pleasantberg Drive,

35:56Cherryale, Woodruff Road, and the

35:58Haywood Mall.

36:01The largest section of the amendment

36:03document is dedicated to clarifications

36:05regarding appeals to administrators

36:07decisions. While these processes are not

36:09new, they are not clearly spelled out in

36:11the code. With assistance from our legal

36:13team, we've identified a proper path

36:14forward for appeals to each

36:17administrative decision.

36:20Also, minor adjustments have been made

36:22in coordination with the engineering

36:23department, including the removal of the

36:25street requirements for additions. These

36:27projects tend to be smaller in nature

36:29and are not required to rebuild the

36:31street frontage, including curb and

36:32gutters, sidewalks, and tree lawns.

36:35Those projects that cross a threshold to

36:36be considered new construction or site

36:38modifications will still be required to

36:40improve all non-conforming street

36:42elements. And then also minor

36:44corrections have been included in the

36:45site lighting standards to prohibit

36:46unnecessary light intrusion on adjacent

36:48properties. And a minor clarification

36:50has been added for fixture

36:52specifications within hospital campuses.

36:55Now that was a lot of material to cover

36:57and a lot of it was probably redundant

36:59from previous presentations. Um so at

37:01this point I'll pause and see if you

37:03have any questions or discussion.

37:04>> I have a question

37:07>> uh on the infield part. Um, yes ma'am.

37:10>> That covers all three sections of RHA,

37:14RHB, RAC.

37:18>> Yes, ma'am.

37:19>> I'm concerned. I'm very concerned about

37:20that. And three three members of of the

37:24community from my district who were

37:25opposed to uh the infield. So, we need

37:30to have a little bit more clarity on

37:31that. I just I I [clears throat] didn't

37:34like the way the way it read when I

37:35first read it. It look like every how

37:38can RHA and RHB and RHC

37:42receive the exact same changes?

37:46I I'm I'm a little bit confused with

37:48that cuz and then I didn't see any place

37:50for the middle houses and smaller

37:53houses.

37:54>> Yes, ma'am. So, the the standard as it's

37:58written is intended to en encapsulate

38:01kind of the the lots that are

38:02immediately adjacent to a property. And

38:05so, um, that's how it can be applied to

38:07each of the zoning districts because it

38:09will be location specific and relative

38:12to the the properties that are adjacent

38:14to the property that's being subdivided.

38:16So, there's not a a hard and set

38:18dimension that's prescribed. Um, it's

38:21actually looking at a calculation. And

38:23actually, this recommendation came, if

38:25you remember, there was a a committee of

38:27folks that looked at infill before we

38:30adopted the development code. And this

38:32was one of the things that was looked at

38:34during that process. So it it's um a

38:37little more of a a a calculation on the

38:40developer and staff to make sure that

38:42it's appropriate, but it it looks at

38:44context a little more than just a

38:46standard lot width minimum.

38:48>> Well, if I've got I got people that's

38:50calling and writing and I'm saying and

38:52then at three people from if people are

38:54still concerned about it, etc. I'm not

38:57sure if that part needs to go forward,

38:59but anyway. Okay, let me get Ken out.

39:03>> Go again.

39:04>> Um, so when you guys put it together,

39:06did you guys consider the effect on

39:09>> Can put your microphone um together? I'm

39:11sorry. Yeah,

39:12>> I'm generally pretty loud.

39:15>> I know you are, but talking to this

39:17thing.

39:19So when you guys put this together, did

39:21you consider the effect that it may have

39:23on affordable housing and and the desire

39:26for in some communities to actually

39:30subdivide these lots greater so that you

39:32could do town homes, mixed middle

39:34housing, those kinds of things?

39:35>> Sure. So we don't have the the back of

39:38the envelope development costs at our

39:40disposal for developers that are coming

39:42through and building homes. Um, but that

39:44certainly is a a consideration is how

39:47many lots we would have lost. And so the

39:50information that we did have available,

39:51we looked at all of the subdivisions

39:53from the last year to understand how

39:56this amendment would have impacted that.

39:58Um, and so of all subdivisions that

40:01would have fallen under RHA, B or C in

40:04the last year, um, there were 20

40:07subdivisions that we would have been

40:09looking at. And under those

40:12requirements, um, basically only 13

40:14would have been considered because we

40:16also have some language that excludes

40:18lots that are three acres or larger from

40:20this provision as well. So there were 13

40:23subdivisions. Um, and ultimately it was

40:26a a grand total of 10 fewer homes or 10

40:30fewer lots because they haven't been

40:32built yet, but 10 fewer homes that that

40:35could have been built um if this

40:37amendment were to go through. So

40:39>> when you say 13 were considered, what

40:41does that mean?

40:42>> So 13 of the the subdivision projects

40:45that were studied um were actually

40:48applicable under this proposed

40:50amendment. So there's some language in

40:52the amendment that excludes lots that

40:54are three acres or larger, things like

40:56that. So of those 20 subdivisions that

40:59went through in the last year, seven of

41:02them wouldn't have even fallen under

41:03this provision. So the the minimum lot

41:05widths would have applied still. And so

41:08this change would have affected 13 of

41:10those subdivision projects.

41:12>> Okay. So of those 20 subdivisions, how

41:15many houses total was that?

41:17>> Um I would have to look back at that

41:20study. We do have that number. Um and I

41:23think we shared it with a with a handout

41:25to you guys previously. Um

41:28I don't have that.

41:29>> It's really because the 13 are the Well,

41:32the 13 subdivisions are the ones that

41:34would apply under this. So, are you

41:36trying to ask how many houses were in

41:38that 13?

41:40>> I'm I'm trying to ask how many what

41:43percentage of the 10 that would have

41:45been prohibited was that of the total

41:48number of houses that were actually

41:50built.

41:52>> We were just looking at subdivisions,

41:54not actually like building permits

41:56because

41:57>> I with the 26 subdivisions, how what was

41:59the total number of houses that were

42:01built? Council member Gibson, of the 20

42:04subdivisions, 13 would have been

42:06impacted by the change. Of those 13,

42:08they would have resulted in potential of

42:1132 lots. There were actually only 28 or

42:1429 lots that were resulted, but they

42:15could have had a potential of 32. Under

42:18the new amendment, it would have

42:19resulted in 22. Five of those 13

42:22subdivisions would not have I think it

42:23was five, but five of the 13

42:25subdivisions would not have been allowed

42:27to happen because of the change to the

42:30code. you and that's probably because

42:31they were going from one lot to two

42:33lots.

42:33>> So, so just so I'm clear, 10 out of 32

42:37would have been prohibited and we would

42:38have lost 33% of our potential housing

42:42stock. Is that correct?

42:44>> Correct. Over the over the

42:46>> of those subdivisions. Yes. For those

42:47subdivisions.

42:48>> That's correct. Now that

42:50>> I wouldn't say of housing stock

42:52necessarily. I would say of lots.

42:54>> Um and then increase housing stock from

42:56the

42:56>> That's right. So we would have had 10

42:57less lots within the RHA, RHB, and RHC

43:01zoning classifications throughout the

43:03city.

43:03>> And that would have been 33% of the

43:05houses that were being proposed

43:07>> of the subdivisions that were being

43:09proposed. We would have we had they were

43:11what we ended up approving were 29 lots.

43:14If the potential would have been a

43:15maximum of 32 lots under the code

43:18change, it would have resulted in 22

43:20lots. So actually the the delta is

43:22seven, but the potential could have been

43:2410.

43:25>> Yeah. Right. Of the 32

43:27that were potential that were potential

43:30>> if we applied this

43:32>> yes the answer is yes

43:33>> we would have lost 10 10 of 32 is

43:36roughly actually for a third

43:38>> 33

43:39>> right about a third so we'd have lost

43:41roughly 33% of our proposed houses

43:43correct

43:45>> proposed lots because we don't know that

43:46they'll be that there'll be houses on

43:48there yes sir

43:49>> all right

43:51I mean I I don't want to dominate this

43:53but but there just a lot a lot of

43:54questions questions about the effect of

43:56this and it and it doesn't seem like

43:59we've really explored all that. I have

44:02concerns particularly and for everybody

44:04who's from Aenddale. I I understand what

44:06your pl I understand what your situation

44:08is,

44:11but I think the circumstances of your

44:13situation doesn't necessarily apply to

44:15the neighborhoods that are in my

44:16district. I've got a number of districts

44:18who are struggling to try to increase

44:20their numbers of affordable housing as

44:22much as they can. We're looking at

44:24trying to actually decrease lots to the

44:26point we can put town homes and and

44:28mixed middle housing and all different

44:30kinds of things. I appreciate that the

44:33effort of this was to was to try to

44:35solve this problem for the entire city.

44:37I just don't believe that my particular

44:39district is a district that falls under

44:42that should be subject to this

44:44particular fix.

44:45>> Sure.

44:46>> Yeah. My concern is the same because I

44:48just can't see all of them

44:51>> Yeah. being judged the exact same way.

44:54Um because I just looked at a project

44:57for smaller houses and I don't know and

45:01I mean it it's a subdivision

45:04and I don't know how that that would fit

45:08uh because I don't think they would be

45:10successful if we do it all of them just

45:12the same way and I'm concerned about

45:14that. Okay.

45:16>> Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. Um, can we go

45:18back to the the visuals that y'all had

45:21under the previous existing and then

45:25proposed?

45:26>> Was this for infill

45:28>> for infill? I'm sorry. Yeah.

45:30>> Yes. Oh. Oh, go back. You had it. There

45:33we go. Thank you. Thank you slide

45:35people. Okay. This is the first time

45:37seeing this because I we've been in work

45:38session since three. So, thank you.

45:40Thank you first. Thank you Barrett and

45:42you and your team for doing the

45:44analysis. Um we got that that um

45:47worksheet about the subdivisions about

45:48the those in 2025. So you pulled those

45:51but yeah I I agree. I think a lot of

45:52questions still are out there. um you

45:56know how many lots in RHA, B and C have

46:00the potential to be subdivided period is

46:03a good question like what's the further

46:05implication beyond this one year looking

46:07back in the third which is a is still a

46:09big amount but like this form this um

46:13visualization here I think says a lot

46:15under RHC right and I will say Aenddale

46:18is a weird one right it it lies between

46:20RHB and RHC kind of in the sizing of it

46:23so it's not like your run-of-the-mill

46:25RHC. This is where, you know, as a

46:27planner, I think about like, okay, is

46:30there something that needs to exist

46:31between RHB and C? Are there different

46:33things? And and I know that you all done

46:35some analysis since this has come up.

46:38And um I want to thank you for that. For

46:40me, there's just a lot more questions

46:41because looking at it, I'm like, okay,

46:44from going to the neighborhood meetings,

46:46concerns about trees, concern, concerns

46:49about storm water. Thing

46:52for all of those, you got four parcels

46:55at 33 wide now. You've got three homes

46:58at 47. I mean, they're producing bigger,

47:02wider, but it's not saving the trees.

47:04It's not

47:05>> dealing handling storm water in a way.

47:07So I just think about I think to

47:09Amelia's point when she spoke are there

47:11other alternatives out there to exhaust

47:14because also to Ken's point like what

47:17RHC is one place is different than RHC

47:20in another part of the city. Um and so

47:23for me like a lot of the questions I

47:24think we need a further analysis. I know

47:27I watched the planning commission

47:28meeting so thank you for that. Um and I

47:30know some of the same speakers from that

47:32same meeting so thank you for being here

47:34today. Thank you for Aendale for being

47:36here. the the big thing I think is, you

47:40know, figuring out how do we balance

47:44that growth, right? I mean, our code

47:46itself was developed because we're

47:49protecting neighborhoods

47:52>> and we're also having to manage the

47:54housing need, right? And so that's what

47:56reszoning this area was attempting to

47:59do. We're still seeing that there's an

48:01issue. So, we're supposed to

48:02investigate. we're supposed to look at

48:04that closer and have a deeper analysis.

48:06But at the same time, when I see the

48:08visual like this, I'm like, man, that's

48:09not like a great improvement either.

48:12Like, how do we can we look at open

48:14space requirements? Can we look at other

48:17things that maybe will potentially

48:19produce a different yield, a slightly

48:22smaller yield, but still feasible

48:23financially for housing? Um,

48:27I feel like there's a lot of unanswered

48:28questions. So, I mean, I I would think

48:30to defer and have a have a further

48:32analysis of this along with our 42-month

48:34code update. Um, I think that would be

48:37more appropriate.

48:39I think also um there are just questions

48:42about where it lies, you know, how this

48:45impacts not just 2025 year, but the

48:48those future implications for for the

48:51city.

48:51>> You make a motion to defer. I Yeah, I

48:54make a Well, do we have to I would like

48:56to remove the infill separately from the

48:5836month code update first. Right.

49:00>> It would be a motion to divide the

49:02question.

49:03>> Oh, that's right, Lee. Motion to divide

49:05the question for the proposed ordinance.

49:09>> In 30 years, I've never had a motion to

49:11divide the question before.

49:15>> You I get to read this. It was made for

49:17this moment.

49:18>> That's a good one. I tell you what. And

49:20what vote does it take? Is it two/3 or

49:23>> parliamentary question?

49:24>> Well, you may have to ask her in

49:25parliament.

49:26>> There's there's another

49:27>> we have time for comment.

49:28>> Yeah. Okay.

49:29>> Yeah. Okay.

49:30>> For sure.

49:30>> Okay. So,

49:32>> this is a motion to amend the current

49:34they they voted to approve

49:37to put this on the agenda. Correct. So,

49:39>> just to break it apart.

49:40>> And so, this is

49:41>> to break it apart.

49:42>> Yeah. To amend the motion to break it

49:44apart. Okay.

49:44>> Yes.

49:45>> Oh, okay. That's a different way.

49:47>> Divide the question.

49:48>> It' be a motion to divide the question.

49:50Yes. To section 19-2.11.2

49:54is there.B5Z

49:56info lot with separating from the 36.

49:59>> Okay. Is there a second to that?

50:01>> Second.

50:02>> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Now, further

50:04discussion. Yeah. On that

50:06>> but I have to I have to

50:07>> it's not debatable. We need to vote on

50:09the motion.

50:09>> It's not debatable.

50:12>> All we're voting on though.

50:13>> Well, I wanted to talk about it too, but

50:15you know I can't

50:16>> but then there can be more discussion on

50:18it when it's proposed. Yes. Okay. That's

50:20right.

50:20>> All righty. Okay. Okay. We'll have a

50:22vote.

50:24>> So, you want to voice vote for that?

50:26>> I'd like to roll. Yes.

50:29>> Council member Darkin.

50:30>> No.

50:33>> Council member Fleming.

50:34>> Hi.

50:37>> Council member Gibson.

50:38>> Hi.

50:41>> Council member Brazington.

50:42>> Hi.

50:45>> Council member Belgi.

50:46>> Hi.

50:48Council member Dao.

50:49>> I.

50:51>> Mayor White.

50:52>> I

50:56disapproved.

50:57>> Okay. All right.

50:59>> We need a motion to start approve the

51:0136-month update and then go

51:05>> on to that.

51:06>> I have some comments. So whenever that's

51:09Mayor comments.

51:10>> So now we have two separate things. We

51:13have the 30.

51:14>> All right. We back we back to the

51:15original.

51:16>> Correct. that the infill amendments are

51:18a separate question and then the rest of

51:20the amendments.

51:20>> Okay, good. Separate question. Okay,

51:22good. All right.

51:23>> I make a motion to approve everything

51:24but the infill amendments.

51:26>> Second.

51:28[laughter]

51:29>> Thank you.

51:29>> All in favor say I.

51:30>> I.

51:31>> No, that's a Is that

51:32>> I would call the roll on.

51:33>> Let's do Let's do a Let's do a roll

51:35call.

51:35>> Roll call.

51:36>> Okay.

51:37>> Council member Dwarin.

51:38>> Hi.

51:39>> Council member Fleming.

51:40>> Hi.

51:40>> Council member Gibson.

51:41>> Hi.

51:42>> Council member Brazington.

51:43>> Council member Belgi.

51:45>> Hi. Council member D.

51:46>> Hi,

51:47>> Mayor Wise.

51:47>> I Okay, swings back around to the

51:50original question.

51:53>> Mr. Mayor, I have some comments that I'd

51:55like to

51:57>> May I proceed? Y Thank you, Mr. Thank

51:59you, Mr. Thank you. Um, first of all, I

52:02want to u thank Councilman Gibson

52:04because when you're district

52:06representatives, you have different

52:07perspectives.

52:08>> Yes.

52:09>> So, when I was elected, they my district

52:12expects me to have that perspective. So

52:14that is that I am confident in saying.

52:18Um when I talk to neighbors,

52:21their number one concern is growth.

52:26As everyone knows, South Carolina is the

52:28fastest growing state in the nation. Two

52:29years in a row per capita, but still.

52:32And they're not going to Union County

52:34and they're not going to Barnwell

52:35County. They're going to Rock Hill.

52:37They're going to Charleston. They're

52:38coming here to Greenville. And so we are

52:40seeing an influx that we've never seen

52:42before.

52:44And so when I hear from neighbors, they

52:47don't say, "Hey, clo," some do, but most

52:50don't say, "Hey, close the gate, shut

52:51the lid." It's, "Please don't let us

52:54become an Atlanta. Please do something

52:57about this growth so that we don't end

53:00up suffocating ourselves." Now, Mr. Mr.

53:03Mayor and Council, I don't read read

53:04readily admit this, but I'm going to.

53:06Um, but I went to middle school and high

53:09school in Northern New Jersey,

53:11>> and that is a case example of Can you

53:15believe I admitted that? That is that

53:18>> that is a that is an example of

53:20unmitigated growth.

53:23>> That I that is planning gone arai. So, I

53:26lived it and now I have family in

53:29Atlanta and you can see it. takes me an

53:31hour to go from Roswell to a Braves game

53:33if you can if you can imagine that.

53:35>> And so what this ordinance really says

53:38to me is a response to neighbors.

53:41Aenddale is the victim here, right? But

53:44it's a response to neighbors that have

53:46said, "Please do something about this

53:49growth so we do not end up suffocating

53:52ourselves with traffic and people and

53:55and overgrowth."

53:57So the what the ordinance says to me is

53:59we stand with the neighbors in terms of

54:01trying to address address that. Um, I

54:05will I will say that this ordinance also

54:09in my mind ensures that we don't have

54:12any more Aendales. And I can't speak of

54:15other parts of the of the city, but when

54:17I look at my community, my North Main or

54:19Heritage, or I or I look at Delwood and

54:22Stone Lake, um, I look at homes that

54:26are, you know, $350, $400 per square

54:29foot. So when we talk about infill and

54:32development, let me say it this way.

54:34When we subdivide lots, in my mind, it

54:38does nothing for affordability because

54:41these lots are these homes are going for

54:43$1.3 million, right? They're expensive

54:46>> in my district. And so, and let me just

54:49kind of say talk about this as well.

54:53If what the ordinance really does in

54:55practicality is if you've got an average

54:58of your surrounding lots are 80 feet

55:01wide, what the 70% provision says

55:05instead of allowing 40 foot wide lots is

55:07what we've what we've got in Aendale or

55:10other parts of the comm uh other parts

55:12of the city potentially. Instead of 40

55:14foot wide lots, we're going to do a

55:16minimum of 56 foot wide lots. or if

55:18you've got an average of 70 foot wide

55:21lots around that new subdivision, we're

55:24gonna say, "Hey, you can't go any

55:25narrower than 49 feet." So, we're not

55:28talking about anything draconian here,

55:30but we are talking about protecting

55:33neighborhoods. And when I ran in 2017,

55:36I'm successfully ran ran in 2019. I know

55:39I'm just so forthcoming today. New

55:41Jersey and I lost an election. So when I

55:44ran in 17 and 19 and 23, I said my

55:47number one issue is to protect

55:49neighborhoods. And in my mind, this

55:52ordinance that I'm ready to vote on does

55:56it's a tool by which we can say to our

55:59neighborhoods, yes, we are going to

56:01promote infill. Taking two lots and

56:04making four is perfectly reasonable. But

56:07what we're also saying is to jam a bunch

56:10of homes with 40 foot wide lots that is

56:15going to literally change the makeup of

56:18that surrounding neighborhood goes

56:21against what we have decided is

56:23important in Greenville 2040 where it

56:25says we shall protect the character of

56:28our neighborhoods. Now it also says

56:31we're going to promote infill. So, I

56:33believe that this amendment that has

56:36been put forth reconciles both of those.

56:39We're still going to promote infill, but

56:42we're also going to better protect our

56:45neighborhoods from from over infill. So,

56:48with that, Mr. Mayor, thank you for for

56:51indulging.

56:51>> I have a I'd like you almost convinced

56:53me. [laughter]

56:54>> Um Um Let's see.

56:57>> For those who haven't spoken yet,

56:58>> like speak to Yeah, she wants to go

56:59both.

57:00>> My my job is to represent the whole

57:01city. And we are a diverse city.

57:04>> Yes.

57:05>> Um

57:07and this infill issue has been discussed

57:12and discussed and discussed to Barrett's

57:14point. Uh Will championed an infill

57:18committee. We were gyating on that for a

57:21couple of few years and then you know

57:25had the new development code and built

57:27into the development code does discern

57:30>> the differences in lot size throughout

57:32the city. RHA, RHB, RHC, RHD.

57:38>> To Miss Dover's point, GVL 2040 is our

57:43northstar.

57:45The code is not our northstar. GVL 240

57:48is our northstar. The code is the tool

57:52that that is codified to implement the

57:57priorities that were set in GVL 2040.

58:01It of all the things we've dealt with on

58:04council infill is is one of the most

58:08complex. But to be honest,

58:11we stopped dealing with it. We had a

58:13committee spent a couple of years. We

58:16had major neighborhood association

58:17presidents. We gathered a tremendous

58:19amount of data and then it stopped and

58:22then we wrote a code and here we are

58:24again.

58:25>> And the Aendale case, you know, bam, it

58:29happened again.

58:31>> And my experience, my perspective comes

58:33from being the neighborhood association

58:35president where a very similar case

58:37happened. Large lot subdivided with one

58:41house gone, proposing eight houses on a

58:44street. the neighborhood, all all of

58:46which would look very different in terms

58:48of frontage compared to their

58:50surrounding

58:51street frontage of the houses. And it

58:54was a question of character of the

58:56neighborhood. And every neighborhood in

58:58Greenville has different character. And

58:59part of that character is the frontage

59:02on the road and the house that is built

59:04on it. Um, you know, I think that the

59:09overarching

59:10premise that guides me is protecting

59:13quality of life for those who live here

59:15as we manage growth. And part of that is

59:19protecting the character of

59:20neighborhoods. And while I appreciate

59:24everybody wants to spend more time on

59:25it, I was under the understanding that

59:29all questions and there were many

59:31council member Belgi had many many many

59:33questions that they were answered before

59:35this and this slide with the massing

59:37might be new. But I would I would say

59:38this if there are more questions and we

59:42you know Tina hadn't been privy to it

59:43but again we did we were talking infill

59:46for the first three years of most of us

59:47on council.

59:49If you can get your questions answered,

59:52I think the data is there and it was

59:54deployed in creating this that was

59:56recommended to us by planning. This

59:59recommendation, you know, was brought to

1:00:02us by planning and was passed

1:00:03unanimously by our planning commission.

1:00:05There was some followup that council

1:00:06member uh excuse me, Commissioner

1:00:08Eldridge asked for, but passed by our

1:00:10planning commission unanimously. So, I

1:00:12don't really have a re I'm not a

1:00:14planner. It's not my area of expertise,

1:00:17but I know we have a premier planning

1:00:19department,

1:00:21one of whom is standing at the podium,

1:00:23that has told me, counselor, you have a

1:00:26concern about infill. Still, eight years

1:00:29on council, still got it. Here is our

1:00:31recommendation of a solution. And we

1:00:33compromised, you know, we we we've had

1:00:35some compromise on whether it was 75%,

1:00:3865%, we had an agreement to compromise

1:00:41to 70. So, I'm going to support moving

1:00:43it forward and I would ask and I I know

1:00:46I can't do this city manager, but of

1:00:49remaining questions.

1:00:51If we can get those addressed before

1:00:53second reading and some tweaking is

1:00:55needed, then that's what second reading

1:00:58is for. But for now, I don't have a

1:01:00compelling reason to hold it up. And I

1:01:03am very concerned. I had a call from a

1:01:06constituent today, a district two

1:01:08constituent. This question we haven't

1:01:10brought up. Her concern was, I have a

1:01:12house across the street from me for sale

1:01:14on a corner. I have a house also across

1:01:16the street next to it that's for sale.

1:01:18What if a developer buys both,

1:01:21subdivides it, and smacks eight houses

1:01:23on there? Right now, there's two bought

1:01:26it, subdivides it eight, that would be

1:01:28plausible. And I just I just I don't

1:01:32know how much more we can dissect it.

1:01:34There is no silver bullet. I do know

1:01:36that much. But I do know where I have to

1:01:38stand on is protecting the character of

1:01:40neighborhoods. And in the absence of a

1:01:43better idea, I haven't heard one. And to

1:01:46your point, John, these are Aenddale's

1:01:50million-dollar homes. I expect the one I

1:01:53don't see. I understand and I appreciate

1:01:55obviously the point on affordability.

1:01:58That is not what I see happening. I see

1:02:01subdivisions and not affordable housing

1:02:03going there, but high enough housing at

1:02:05all rates helps our situation. Market

1:02:09rate housing helps

1:02:11alleviate the the downward pressure on

1:02:13housing, but I just can't get behind

1:02:16kicking the can down the road. It's been

1:02:18public since the beginning of August,

1:02:20and I support moving forward.

1:02:25>> I I'll follow Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll

1:02:26follow Mr. Gibson on the next question.

1:02:28>> Okay. Um, so, so first off, I I um

1:02:34I believe that everybody up here is

1:02:36trying to do what they think is best for

1:02:38the city,

1:02:39>> right?

1:02:39>> I think the perspectives of the people

1:02:42up here, though, are colored by the

1:02:46districts in which they represent and

1:02:48the neighborhoods in which they live. I

1:02:51do not live in a neighborhood with

1:02:53million-dollar homes. My constituents,

1:02:55for the most part, don't live in

1:02:56neighborhoods with million-dollar homes.

1:02:59I live in neighborhood I live in a

1:03:01neighborhood where I have

1:03:05countless people who have been

1:03:08forced out of that neighborhood and who

1:03:10would love to move back but can't

1:03:12because they can't afford a house there.

1:03:14And the only way they are going to be

1:03:16able to afford a house there is for

1:03:19something smaller, more efficient,

1:03:22narrower to be built.

1:03:26Town homes,

1:03:29you know, narrow the shotgun, you know,

1:03:32homes like shotgun shack homes, which

1:03:33they talk about in in Charleston. Those

1:03:36kinds of things. Those are the things

1:03:37that will allow those people to be able

1:03:40to move back into those homes. Now, I

1:03:42don't dispute that this is probably a

1:03:45great plan for Aendale. I don't dispute

1:03:48that it's probably a great plan for for

1:03:50your district and the things that you

1:03:52are trying to to to to look out for for

1:03:54your district and and for you as far as

1:03:56the city and and trying to get this

1:03:58thing moved.

1:04:00But to take this

1:04:03and use it as a blanket restriction on

1:04:06everywhere in the city

1:04:10>> is not looking out for the people in my

1:04:11district.

1:04:12>> It's not looking out for the people who

1:04:14live in my neighborhood. So I can't

1:04:16support that.

1:04:19As far as whether or not something

1:04:20better can be done, I believe that it

1:04:23can. I believe there's got to be a way

1:04:26that we can fashion a a a a an infill

1:04:29ordinance that protects the people in

1:04:32your neighborhood, but also gives the

1:04:34people who live around me and my

1:04:37neighborhood

1:04:38>> the right to build homes at a size that

1:04:40they can afford

1:04:42>> that they can live in.

1:04:44>> I believe that the strength of this city

1:04:46is just like the strength of this

1:04:48council.

1:04:49>> It is the diversity of it. It is the

1:04:51fact that everyone has a table place at

1:04:53the table. is the fact that that

1:04:55everyone has a place in this city. And

1:04:57when we get to a point where

1:05:02we're not trying to make certain that

1:05:04everyone can afford to be there and

1:05:06we're only thinking about our situation,

1:05:11then we are weakened as a community.

1:05:14>> We are weakened as a city. We are not

1:05:17the same Greenville that I grew up in

1:05:19and and love and move back to.

1:05:23There has got to be a way that we can

1:05:25figure out a some sort of ordinance that

1:05:28protects the people in your community,

1:05:30but also gives people in my community

1:05:33the right to subdivise lots in a way,

1:05:36particularly when we're talking about

1:05:37affordable housing. But this blanket

1:05:39restriction with no exception, with no

1:05:42ability to to to opt out of it, cannot

1:05:45be the way that we go forward on this

1:05:48particular issue. I appreciate all the

1:05:50work that has been involved in this. I

1:05:52appreciate all the conversations that

1:05:54have taken place prior to this meeting

1:05:56and and and the efforts of everyone to

1:05:58try to solve this. But just because

1:06:00we've had those efforts and just because

1:06:02we've had those conversations does not

1:06:04mean that we are required to pass

1:06:07something that does not look out for all

1:06:10of the citizens of this community. And

1:06:13that's where we are right now. That's

1:06:14where we are today.

1:06:16>> That's right. And that's what we have to

1:06:17figure out a way to get past and figure

1:06:20out a way to fashion a result and an

1:06:23ordinance that protects everyone. So I

1:06:26believe that it needs to be deferred.

1:06:27And I believe that we need to try to

1:06:29figure out a way where we create an

1:06:30ordinance which like I say which

1:06:32protects the people in your

1:06:33neighborhoods and and and the types and

1:06:34the character of their houses, but also

1:06:37has exceptions and other abilities for

1:06:39people particularly who are doing

1:06:41affordable housing to be able to

1:06:43subdivide lots in a way where it makes

1:06:45it affordable for other people to live

1:06:47in this city as well.

1:06:49>> Okay. All right. Yeah. beautiful good

1:06:53dialogue sincerely because I came into

1:06:55this conversation with a certain mindset

1:06:56and through discussion imagine that you

1:06:59find myself thinking about a bunch of

1:07:00different things. I'll just offer this

1:07:02uh in the spirit of transparency what's

1:07:04going on in my mind. So um somebody said

1:07:07it earlier right growth and then things

1:07:10tied to growth are complex growth will

1:07:12not change. We don't predict and it's

1:07:14our job to constantly and capably try to

1:07:17manage the issues tied to growth

1:07:19including infill. And you know as coun

1:07:22council member Dao referenced I think

1:07:24I'm in my

1:07:2612th going on 13 years representing the

1:07:28city in one fashion or another trying to

1:07:30find the perfect solution to infill. I'm

1:07:33not sure it's there but the quest

1:07:34continues. Right.

1:07:36To me, I think what I've come to feel is

1:07:39that there are many residents

1:07:42in many neighborhoods throughout the

1:07:44city who feel truly under duress. I

1:07:48mean, under stress and strain and

1:07:49pressure because they are really worried

1:07:52because of what's unfolding in front of

1:07:53their eyes in recent months that the

1:07:55character of their neighborhood is going

1:07:56to change. And like many colleagues of

1:07:59mine, it's true I have been and will

1:08:00remain among other things first and

1:08:02foremost a protector of neighborhoods

1:08:04and working to maintain that which

1:08:06provides the quality of life in our in

1:08:08our city. So um I feel compelled to act

1:08:11to do something unless we have nothing

1:08:13and have a portion of our citizenry and

1:08:15many of our neighborhoods feel under

1:08:16duress. I think the other thing that

1:08:18occurs to me is um we don't show up here

1:08:21just to pass ordinances and enact laws

1:08:23for the sake of numbers or to say we did

1:08:25it. try to do quality perfectly fitting.

1:08:28Many times we're challenged to do that

1:08:30because like growth, life is complex.

1:08:33And so it just occurs to me that we can

1:08:37either wait for some undetermined period

1:08:39of time in the hope for the quest of the

1:08:42perfect thing or we can do the best

1:08:45available thing to the point some have

1:08:48presented today and that is enact

1:08:50something that is different and superior

1:08:52if the eyes have it. if the majority

1:08:54feels it than what is already on the

1:08:56books. It just occurs to me two

1:08:58additional things. If

1:09:01in two weeks time before the second

1:09:03reading any of us in the community or on

1:09:05council come up with ways to fine-tune

1:09:07the matter before us now and make it

1:09:09better, voila, we will have found that

1:09:11in October.

1:09:12>> That's right.

1:09:13>> If alternatively it takes more than two

1:09:15weeks and this is not unlike many things

1:09:18that we're continuing to think through

1:09:20on council.

1:09:22If we find over months working with our

1:09:24citizens and constituents that we can

1:09:25refine whatever might be passed tonight,

1:09:28can't wait because anytime the superior

1:09:30law or idea comes before us, I think

1:09:32it's imperative that we recognize it

1:09:33such and put into motion. But in

1:09:35summary, having said all that, I arrived

1:09:37a proponent of that which passed the

1:09:40planning commission. I'm still a

1:09:42proponent of it, but I'm super sensitive

1:09:44to what's being discussed here tonight.

1:09:45I just would rather make sure we have

1:09:47the best available protections in place

1:09:50while we continue vigorously and in

1:09:51earnest looking for ways to, you know,

1:09:53make it only stronger and better it

1:09:55being whatever modified version of this

1:09:57may come.

1:10:00>> May I add one more?

1:10:01>> Okay.

1:10:02>> Um I I think it's a great point about

1:10:05the character, right? And that's what

1:10:06those those massings are for. Like

1:10:09you've got four homes at 33 33 feet

1:10:12wide, right? as a under the current and

1:10:15then it would jump. Those are actually

1:10:17be taking up more space, more green

1:10:19space under the se like the 70% is not

1:10:21the issue largely. It's the narrowest

1:10:24lot width. See, this is not less than

1:10:25the narrowest. That's what the that's

1:10:27the thing that's throwing out most of

1:10:28those 10 out of the 32. Right? So I

1:10:32don't think it's it's not the percentage

1:10:33as much as the issue, but even looking

1:10:36at things like open space where we can

1:10:37say, hey, let's let's provide

1:10:40protections for trees for for pvious

1:10:44surfaces, right? That's part of n that's

1:10:47part of neighborhood character, too. So

1:10:48we can't just say unit count is the only

1:10:51thing that's near as character. We

1:10:53looked at y'all sent us an analysis that

1:10:55had Wedgwood, it had Monteth. Those

1:10:57homes went wider, right? that's not

1:11:00necessarily preserving neighborhood

1:11:02character either. So we have to look at

1:11:04what the entirety of a character of a

1:11:06neighborhood is and I don't disagree

1:11:08that you know the the percentage is the

1:11:10thing but not the narrowest lot with and

1:11:13I think there are other alternatives

1:11:14right whether that is open space whether

1:11:16we are looking at um you know an

1:11:20affordability amendment that's something

1:11:21we talked about well we just have to get

1:11:23to a point with legal where I could even

1:11:25make an amendment to say let's do

1:11:27something about hey if there's some

1:11:28affordability or if there's something we

1:11:31could change that but if we don't do

1:11:32that I just think we still have a lot of

1:11:34unanswered questions in order to make

1:11:36this sit right citywide because it's not

1:11:39just affecting one neighborhood.

1:11:44>> Do you mind? Very short.

1:11:45>> You get one other comment. Yeah.

1:11:47>> Go ahead. [laughter]

1:11:50>> Call for the question.

1:11:54>> Yes. [laughter]

1:11:55>> So, I'm gonna echo what Council

1:11:58Brazington said. Now, I'm going to vote

1:12:00for this.

1:12:01I don't know if it will pass or not,

1:12:04>> but if it does pass, then I am committed

1:12:07to working with you on a follow up on

1:12:11how we can make sure that we address

1:12:14what what you're talking about may not

1:12:17pass. It might be a moot point anyway,

1:12:19but but he let me say it this way. I

1:12:22said it'd be short.

1:12:26>> Regardless of the outcome, I look

1:12:28forward to working with you. Same here.

1:12:29Okay, there we go.

1:12:30>> Can I call a vote?

1:12:33>> We can have a vote. Yeah, but in the in

1:12:34the question before it's about

1:12:35deferring. Was that your

1:12:37>> I was going to make a motion to defer.

1:12:39Yeah, that's what

1:12:40>> month code.

1:12:41>> That's what I thought you had done.

1:12:43Yeah, we were having discussion.

1:12:46>> Okay.

1:12:46>> We we dissected it. We removed this from

1:12:48the 30.

1:12:50>> Oh, yeah.

1:12:52>> But that but that's what's on the table

1:12:53and I'd like to call that motion to

1:12:55vote.

1:12:55>> What? What's on the table? She called

1:12:57for the question for the in for the

1:12:59infill to be voted on

1:13:00>> the part that we haven't voted on yet.

1:13:02>> No, she filed a she she made a motion to

1:13:04defer.

1:13:06>> No, I called it. No, no, I haven't

1:13:07moved. I called you. What do you think?

1:13:10Did she motion defer?

1:13:12>> There's not been a motion to postpone

1:13:16vote on the infill

1:13:19either definitely or indefinitely. That

1:13:21there has not been a motion,

1:13:23>> but I just made a motion to call it to a

1:13:24vote.

1:13:25>> Gotcha. But I'm not

1:13:26>> clarify what that is. It's a standalone

1:13:28divided question.

1:13:29>> Standalone infill thing. We've been

1:13:31>> second that.

1:13:32>> Yeah.

1:13:32>> You agree with that? Wait.

1:13:35>> Huh?

1:13:36>> Motion. Second.

1:13:38>> Okay. All right.

1:13:39>> Question.

1:13:40>> Okay. All right. Okay. Well, my my

1:13:42position is I I was told several we very

1:13:45sympathetic with the folks in Aendale

1:13:47because I think the parcel originally

1:13:48was five and they should have stuck to

1:13:49five. So, it raised a really good

1:13:51question. So, but that was kind of an

1:13:52easy case, but harder cases are out

1:13:54there in the city and I certainly had a

1:13:56lot of participation in in many good

1:13:58projects the last couple years where

1:14:00people relied on our existing ordinance

1:14:02and did a very good job and everybody

1:14:04likes the results. So, I'm also aware

1:14:05that been a lot of good things that have

1:14:07come from that.

1:14:09uh beginning of this whole process sort

1:14:11of told been told that uh well we can't

1:14:13really make changes etc etc but through

1:14:15the good work of a lot of people in this

1:14:16council and working with the staff they

1:14:18were able to find a way at least to make

1:14:20for a a way to kind of address this

1:14:23issue in a in a reasonable way and

1:14:24that's what the planning commission

1:14:25approved but really that kind of told me

1:14:28that there was a way to do that we got

1:14:30where we are today and I was very happy

1:14:32to see that but I've been convinced from

1:14:34the beginning of this thing that there's

1:14:35there are other ways out there to take

1:14:37care of this issue because we have too

1:14:39much good here, too much baby with the

1:14:41bath water, if you will, uh, to turn our

1:14:43backs on it. So, I do think these issues

1:14:45can be further refined and a better

1:14:47solution can be found. I understand some

1:14:49sense of I I haven't seen any real

1:14:52urgency out there in all due respect

1:14:53about it, about the issue. It comes

1:14:55around from time to time, but we've had

1:14:57some good things that have occurred also

1:14:59under this new under this new provision.

1:15:00So, I've been very reluctant to make a

1:15:03change in that until we spend a lot more

1:15:04time addressing issues like the

1:15:06affordable housing issue. It's a very

1:15:07legitimate issue. Neighborhoods are

1:15:09different. One size doesn't easily fit

1:15:11all. And I'm always very lery when we

1:15:14have these rules that it fits citywide.

1:15:16I just think it we get ourselves in

1:15:17trouble in that all the time. And there

1:15:19ought to be something out there to

1:15:20provide that le level of of uh

1:15:23protection that people want at the same

1:15:26time uh make this allow these changes

1:15:29that I've seen the last few years

1:15:30because I've seen some really good

1:15:31projects and really things people in the

1:15:33neighborhoods are very appreciative of

1:15:34like they like what they saw. Uh that

1:15:37those are also out there. So if we can

1:15:40keep pushing on this issue, I think we

1:15:42can find a better way. Councilman Dorkin

1:15:44himself said we if we had time to uh

1:15:47keep working on it to find something. I

1:15:49think that's kind of how I feel about

1:15:50it. I'd rather have some time to

1:15:51continue to work on it.

1:15:53>> And Mr. Mayor, if I may, just for for

1:15:55clarity, y'all the the question has been

1:15:58called on the main motion.

1:15:59>> I know.

1:16:00>> Um and so and I know there's lots of

1:16:02discussion about um about continuing to

1:16:05study the issue. Um any potential

1:16:08further amendments would have to go back

1:16:10to planning commission review and

1:16:11recommend where I think it really ought

1:16:13to. I mean the planning commission is

1:16:15supposed to do this kind of work, not

1:16:17something we do on the 10th floor of

1:16:18city hall at close to 7 o'clock at

1:16:20night. That's not how we make good

1:16:22ordinances in my opinion.

1:16:24>> Okay.

1:16:26>> Okay. Vote

1:16:30a roll

1:16:31>> on on the infill

1:16:33portion as a standalone. That's what's

1:16:36on the table for a vote.

1:16:37>> Okay. Thank you.

1:16:38>> So, we'll vote

1:16:39>> as approved and presented tonight.

1:16:40>> Yes.

1:16:41>> By the plans.

1:16:43>> Council member Darkin.

1:16:45>> I.

1:16:46>> Council member Fleming.

1:16:47>> No.

1:16:49>> Council member um I'm sorry, Gibson.

1:16:52>> No.

1:16:54>> Council member Razington.

1:16:55>> Hi.

1:16:57>> Council member Belgi.

1:16:58>> No.

1:17:00>> Council member D. Hi.

1:17:03>> Mayor White.

1:17:04>> No.

1:17:05We shall continue the effort

1:17:08and appreciate it. So

1:17:09>> it did not pass three to four.

1:17:11>> Okay.

1:17:13>> Thank you Barrett.

1:17:14>> All righty. We'll be back with you guys

1:17:17on further refinement.

1:17:20Do have some ideas on that. Thank you.

1:17:23Okay. Do y'all need a break or anything?

1:17:25Can we run right through it?

1:17:27>> We're on.

1:17:28>> Huh?

1:17:28>> We're on Fs, right? 15 F.

1:17:30>> Can we run right through?

1:17:32>> Yeah. Let's No, we don't want to break.

1:17:34Keep going.

1:17:34>> Okay, go. Go. Okay. 15.

1:17:36>> We are on G of G.

1:17:38>> Yeah.

1:17:39>> An ordinance to amend the official

1:17:41zoning map of the city of Greenville for

1:17:43the 36 month zoning map review process.

1:17:46>> So moved.

1:17:47>> Second.

1:17:48>> Cler. Okay. Cler call. Clerk will call

1:17:50the role.

1:17:51>> Council member Deerin.

1:17:53>> Council member Fleming.

1:17:54>> Council member Gibson.

1:17:56>> Hi.

1:17:56>> Council member Brazington. Hi.

1:17:58>> Council member Belgie.

1:17:59>> Hi.

1:18:00>> Council member Dao.

1:18:01>> Hi.

1:18:01>> Mayor White. I H

1:18:04>> an ordinance to approve the FY2026

1:18:07amended operating budget and FY2027

1:18:09operating budget for the South Carolina

1:18:11Technology and Aviation Center Board of

1:18:14Directors and to accept the FY2025

1:18:17annual auditor's report.

1:18:18>> So move second.

1:18:20>> Motion to second. Clerk call the RO.

1:18:22>> Council member DeWin. Council member

1:18:24Fleming.

1:18:25>> Hi.

1:18:25>> Council member Gibson.

1:18:27>> Hi.

1:18:27>> Council member Brazington.

1:18:29>> Hi.

1:18:29>> Council member Belgi.

1:18:31>> Hi. Council member Dao.

1:18:33>> I.

1:18:33>> Mayor White.

1:18:34>> I

1:18:36I I Okay. An ordinance to amend chapter

1:18:4114, article one of the code of

1:18:43ordinances of the city of Greenville,

1:18:44South Carolina, relating to elections so

1:18:47as to adopt nonpartisan municipal

1:18:49elections utilizing the nonpartisan

1:18:52primary election and general election

1:18:54method authorized by South Carolina code

1:18:571976 section 5-1563

1:19:02and 51563

1:19:04as amended to conform the nomination and

1:19:07election schedule and related provisions

1:19:09accordingly to make related conforming

1:19:12updates to the election contest and

1:19:14vacancy provisions of that article and

1:19:16to provide for an effective date.

1:19:20>> So move second.

1:19:21>> Motion second. Um

1:19:23>> yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. As a member

1:19:25of this body who has already publicly

1:19:27announced my intention to participate in

1:19:29the 2027 municipal elections that we're

1:19:31seeking to establish a framework for,

1:19:34I'm going to recuse myself from this

1:19:35vote so as to intentionally avoid any

1:19:38question of uh conflict of interest, be

1:19:40it real or perceived.

1:19:42>> Okay. If you if you choose to do that.

1:19:44All right. [laughter]

1:19:47>> Wait a minute. Are you ready for

1:19:51>> um

1:19:53>> call call the role? Yeah.

1:19:56>> Council member Darkerin.

1:19:57>> Hi.

1:19:58>> Council member Fleming.

1:19:59>> No.

1:20:00>> Council member Gibson.

1:20:01>> I.

1:20:02>> Council member Brazington.

1:20:04>> Abstain.

1:20:04>> Council member Belgi.

1:20:06>> Hi.

1:20:06>> Council member Dao.

1:20:08>> Hi.

1:20:08>> Mayor White.

1:20:09>> I.

1:20:10>> I have a comment. No,

1:20:12>> I voted no because for 44 years I've

1:20:15been on Greenville City Council and it's

1:20:17been longer than that. 1972 I think the

1:20:20city of Greenville changed to um uh the

1:20:24the type of of election and now we have

1:20:27a group of people in Colombia.

1:20:29>> That's right.

1:20:30>> Who don't represent cities directly per

1:20:34se and they made a decision for us and I

1:20:37think it's against home rule. I'm not an

1:20:39attorney, but if I was and I had time,

1:20:42oh my god, they would be in court. So, I

1:20:44just wanted you to understand I just I

1:20:47know we have we have to do it because

1:20:48they've already passed this law, but I

1:20:50don't have to like it and I don't like

1:20:52it. So, that's why I voted no and you

1:20:55can tell anybody you want to and I'll be

1:20:56happy to write a paper for it myself

1:20:58because it's the dumbest thing I've ever

1:21:00seen of people trying to tell people how

1:21:03to vote.

1:21:03>> That's right.

1:21:05>> Deadp.

1:21:07How do you really feel?

1:21:09Tell us. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh

1:21:1116A resolution.

1:21:13>> Yes, sir. A resolution to a uh to

1:21:16document the required governing body

1:21:19review of the city of Greenville

1:21:21submission of a grant application to the

1:21:23Bureau of Justice Assistance.

1:21:24>> So moved.

1:21:25>> Second.

1:21:25>> Motion. All in favor say I.

1:21:27>> Opposed. Eyes have it. B 16B. resolution

1:21:30to approve a settlement agreement

1:21:32resolving pending appeal litigation and

1:21:34to authorize the city manager to execute

1:21:36the agreement and related documents.

1:21:38>> So move second.

1:21:40>> All in favor say I.

1:21:41>> Opposed? Eyes have it. 16 C. a

1:21:44resolution to approve the municipal

1:21:46state highway agreement consenting and

1:21:47agreeing to allow SED dot to perform uh

1:21:51the S149

1:21:53which is known as West Ferris Road

1:21:55bridge replacement over Brushy Creek

1:21:58within the municipal limits of the city.

1:22:00>> So moved.

1:22:00>> Second.

1:22:01>> I favor say I

1:22:03>> I

1:22:05>> All right.

1:22:08>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

1:22:09>> You got dinner for us afterwards?

1:22:13I got six minutes till seven, so I'm

1:22:15going to say no on that one. Um, just

1:22:17really quick, I do want to take a moment

1:22:19to um thank the planning staff for all

1:22:22of their work on the 36-month code

1:22:24update. And that's really important in

1:22:26in in my mind, and here's why. When we

1:22:28adopted this code, we promised the

1:22:31community that regardless of what

1:22:32conversations or anything that happened

1:22:34tonight, we we promised the community

1:22:37that we would be in front of them at

1:22:38least once a year to have conversation

1:22:41about the code and make changes as

1:22:43needed. And not only have we met that

1:22:45promise, we've exceeded it by being in

1:22:47front of this body every six months

1:22:49since the code was adopted in June of 23

1:22:52with code updates. We have not missed a

1:22:54six-month code update, which is beyond

1:22:56what we had promised. Thank

1:22:58>> and

1:23:00>> and I want to publicly thank

1:23:02>> done great work.

1:23:03>> Thank you. And I want to publicly thank

1:23:04my staff for that because that's a

1:23:06significant workload that they carry and

1:23:09we do it because we want to be

1:23:10transparent. We want to be responsive.

1:23:13We want to be able to do the right work

1:23:15for the community, whatever that is. And

1:23:18um I'm, you know, they're they're in

1:23:20that with me in the trenches dayto day

1:23:22on this work. And they never push back.

1:23:25They always say, "Let's do it." And you

1:23:26saw we had a lot of great code

1:23:28amendments tonight that were adopted.

1:23:30And and those came from our development

1:23:32community. They came from our business

1:23:34community. They came from our

1:23:35neighborhoods. And I just think that

1:23:37that just shows the spirit of our

1:23:40community and and what our staff does,

1:23:42what you all do, but the work that goes

1:23:44into making sure that we continue to

1:23:46make to be the kind of responsive

1:23:48community that our community expects us

1:23:50to be.

1:23:51>> So, thank you to my staff for all of

1:23:54those great

1:23:59And on on a fun note, fall for

1:24:02Greenville is only two weekends away.

1:24:05It's our largest event that we do every

1:24:07year, October 9th through 11th. I hope

1:24:10to see all of you all there. I know I

1:24:12will be there all weekend. probably most

1:24:14of my staff in this room will be there

1:24:16all weekend, including um our GPD, our

1:24:19PRT team, our public works, um GCFD, I'm

1:24:24probably forget communications. I'm

1:24:26going to forget a department and I'm

1:24:27going to get in trouble tomorrow, but

1:24:28just know that it is a citywide effort

1:24:31and it's an it's amazing. It's amazing

1:24:33weekend. I hope we have weather like we

1:24:35had this past weekend. It was beautiful

1:24:37and gorgeous and um it's just a great um

1:24:41celebration and and event for us for

1:24:43fall for rainbow weekend. So I hope that

1:24:45everybody will come out and en join us.

1:24:48It's free. It's free to attend and um

1:24:51and of course if you do want to spend a

1:24:53little money, we will gladly take it.

1:24:55But um no, we are very happy that we can

1:24:57continue to offer these types of events

1:24:59for our community as we talk about

1:25:01quality of life tonight that we have

1:25:02these types of events for our community

1:25:04that everybody can participate in and be

1:25:06a part of. So I would encourage everyone

1:25:08to come to Fall for Greenville and mayor

1:25:10at 6:57. I still have three minutes and

1:25:12I'm completed with my staff reports.

1:25:16>> 6:57 p.m.