Council Oks Rules to Prohibit Mass Grading by Developers

Greg Wilson/Anderson Observer

In the Historic Courthouse on South Main Street, where the architecture insists on a certain antebellum permanence, the Anderson County Council met on Tuesday evening to decide the future of the very ground on which much of the county rests. The matter at hand was not merely administrative but geological. For years, the rapid expansion of the New South has been characterized by the violent terraforming of the Piedmont—the practice of "mass grading," where bulldozers scrape away acres of the rolling hills to create vast, unnatural tabletops for subdivision. On this Tuesday night, however, the Council effectively declared that the topography must stay, slowing the path for developers who seek the cheapest solutions.

Council voted unanimously to approve Ordinance 2025-057, a sweeping revision of land development standards that reads less like a zoning code and more like a peace treaty with the local flora. The new law introduces a prohibition on "Lot Mass Grading," forcing developers to abandon the practice of clearing more than 15 lots at a time to create flat homesites. From now on, builders must engage in "site fingerprinting," a forensic-sounding requirement that mandates roads and structures conform to the land’s natural contours rather than beating the earth into submission.

Under the leadership of Chairman Tommy Dunn, the Council codified a new respect for the "Critical Root Zone." The ordinance requires a Tree Preservation Plan before a single machine touches the dirt. It establishes a currency of "density units," awarding double credits for the preservation of "Specimen Trees"—broad-leaved matriarchs with a diameter of at least twelve inches. The days of clear-cutting twenty acres in a single afternoon are over; disturbances are now capped at twenty acres per phase, requiring seventy percent stabilization before the next phase can begin.

Council members thanked county staff, other council members and citizens' comments for helping craft the new rules.

“We have been working on this ordinance for three or four years and I thank Chairman Dunn for getting it across the finish line,” said Councilwoman Cindy Wilson. 

Wilson said the new rules also will have a positive environmental impact, including reducing runoff into streams, creeks and rivers, adding that this might not bode well for developers who are not currently sensitive to such issues.

“This ordinance is a good example of everyone working together and was handled well,” said Councilman Chris Sullivan. “I am proud we found some resolution on this to force developers to take better care of our environment.”

Council also offered a carrot alongside the stick: the "Superior Environmental Design" (SED) incentive. Developers willing to preserve 30percent of their land as open space and utilize low-impact stormwater techniques may now cluster their units more tightly and shave ten feet off their setbacks, trading sprawl for density.

Council Vice Chairman Brett Sanders called the new regulations “a huge step forward for Anderson County.”

“This is a great night for Anderson County, one of the most important things I have ever voted on as a councilman,” said Councilman Jimmy Davis, adding he will continue to support both the resolution and new traffic intensity rules.

County Council Chairman Tommy Dunn echoed praise for the cooperative effort on the new ordinance.

“We do listen to citizen input,” said Dunn, adding that he is “out there every day” talking to citizens about concerns. “This is not perfect, we’ll make some tweaks like in a lot of ordinances, but this will go a long way for a better product  for Anderson County.”

Later in the meeting, the Council turned its attention to the friction of motion, approving the second reading of Ordinance 2025-066 regarding traffic intensity. This measure attempts to harmonize the county’s asphalt with its ambition. It classifies roads by their "carrying capacity," setting hard limits on Average Daily Trips—five hundred for a minor local road, for instance. If a new development threatens to clog these arteries, the developer faces a stark choice: scale back the project, petition the county, or pay to upgrade the road themselves.