Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

This is the “third chapter” of what could be called “The Jalopy Chronicles”. What initially appeared to be a plan to bypass county regulations appears to be either a case of miscommunication or an attempt to gain positive publicity. The “plot” has more twists and turns than a daytime soap opera.

Part 1, The Wheels Have Come off the UHG Jalopy, detailed the resignations of the United Homes Group (UHG) board of directors and the resulting nosedive of the company’s stock, which dropped approximately over 50%, from $4.69 to $1.74 per share following the announcement of the resignations. By November 21^st, the stock price had dropped to $1.01 per share.

Much of the price drop was attributed to the board of directors resignations which in turn were ascribed to the negative publicity created by claims that Clemson University was involved in a plan proposed by UHG and/or it’s sister company, East Shore South LLC, to build a 5,200-home development near Newry in Oconee County. But it seems that’s not the real story.

Clemson’s connection to the development is based largely on Clemson’s president and former governor Nikki Haley (a Clemson trustee) serving on the UHG board of directors. They have since resigned. Most, if not all of the directors who resigned had been pushing for some time for Michael Nieri’s resignation as chairman of UHG.

The relevance of the UHG director resignations is that Nieri owns East Shore South LLC. Although the two corporations are separate entities, they are obviously connected because they share the same physical address and the personnel lists of both companies include many of the same names. Additionally, at least one application for infrastructure connection was filed by UHG, not East Shore South.

Claims and Counter Claims

After details of the development became public, claims and counterclaims were fired back and forth between Clemson University and Oconee County council chairman Matthew Durham.

Durham announced that the East South Shore plan called for 5,200 homes to be built. According to East South Shore’s Mark Hart, it never did. Durham even mentioned in his substack post that the 5,200-home development plan had been created by the previous property owner- “The plans were attributed to West Clemson LLC, the previous property owner before the sale to East Shore South LLC — which operates out of the same address as United Homes Group (UHG), the successor to Great Southern Homes.“

Durham also lamented that the plans for a 5,200 home development had never been shown to the county council. While that seems like a legitimate claim, it begs the question: why would a property owner submit plans for a project that he/she/they had no intention of building? Durham stated, “From everything we can tell, these Clemson-connected designs were used to market the sale to United Homes Group”. County records indicate the property is owned by East Shore South, which raises additional questions about whether UHG and East Shore South are functioning as the same company.

If the designs were part of a marketing effort to sell the property, it’s possible, but highly unlikely, that they would have been submitted to the council for review. It doesn’t make sense for a property owner to waste the time and incur the expense of submitting a plan for a project that he/she/they never intended to be built.

Durham received a lot of praise from Oconee County residents for fighting against the 5,200-home development…as he should have. But in railing against a plan that was never submitted to the county council, because the property owner never intended to build it, wasn’t he just chasing a ghost?

First Step Versus Misstep

The normal first step in the process of seeking approval for development plans is to submit them to the county planning department. East Shore South never did that. Instead, they met with the county council in executive sessions. (Executive sessions are closed to the public and are typically reserved for dealing with matters in which confidentiality is necessary, such as personnel matters or lawsuits. Participants in executive session meetings are not supposed to talk about the matters discussed.)

Initially, it seemed as if the East Shore South group was trying to pull a fast one by skirting the normal process and going directly to council. However, according to Mark Hart of East Shore South, he was told by two Oconee County employees to bypass the Planning Department and take his proposal directly to the council. Why the county council agreed to hold private executive session meetings with a developer is a mystery (although I can think of at least one reason that the county council selected that option.)

The county’s code of ordinances states, under Sec. 32-5. – Zoning board of appeals, “All meetings of the board shall be open to the public, unless an executive session is declared to receive advice from legal counsel.” However, under Sec. 2-62. – Regular meetings, (which pertains to the county council) there is no mention of executive sessions. Apparently, the council can hold an executive section on a whim, with no requirement as to the subject matter.

More Claims and Counterclaims

After the last executive session meeting, developer Mark Hart was advised that the county would not approve his proposed development near Newry. In response, Hart threatened a “robust publicity campaign” and indicated he would take legal action. Somewhere in the conversation is a truth gap. Durham stated, “From the start, we made it clear that 5,200 units on this site was unacceptable and out of line with Oconee County standards.” Hart claims he never indicated he intended to build the 5,200 home development referenced by Durham.

Another point in question is Durham’s assertion that county administrator Amanda Brock flew on a private jet owned by United Homes Group to view a site near Purdue University in Indiana. The purpose of that trip appears to be to gather ideas that would be applicable to the East South Shore development. Also on that flight were members of the developer’s team, representatives of Clemson University, South Carolina’s Director of Governmental Affairs and three owners/partners of Jocassee Real Estate.

In fact, although she was listed on the flight manifest, Brock was not on that flight. According to several sources, the county representative who went in her place was Economic Development Director Jamie Gilbert.

It seems Brock was fired because she failed to inform the council that she had prior contact with East South Shores personnel and knew of the flight to Indiana. Considering the amount of research Durham and associates did, you have to wonder why he never revealed that Gilbert, not Brock, had been a passenger on the flight.

Amidst the controversies, claims and counterclaims, a number of considerations stand out:

• Sooner or later, the East South Shores property, which the company purchased for $12 million, will be developed. It is currently zoned Control Free which allows four homes per acre (if served by sewer) and any number of commercial establishments.

• Threatening to file a lawsuit is never an advisable tactic for building a smooth, mutually beneficial relationship. Mark Hart would be wise to make amends.

• Clemson University’s public relations decision makers should heed the advice attributed to Abraham Lincoln, “You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time.” Clemson stated, “Clemson University has not been involved in the proposed 5,200 housing development project in Oconee County. At no point has the University provided funding for, partnered on or endorsed the planning or construction of any residential development related to this proposal,” the university said Wednesday. “Assertions of Clemson’s involvement in the Oconee housing development are false and misrepresent Clemson’s role.”

That may all be true. Clemson was most likely not involved in the 5,200 home project because it did not meet Planned Development zoning requirements which lends credence to Hart’s claim that East Shore South never intended to build according to that plan. But if Clemson had no involvement or intended involvement in any East South Shore development of the Oconee County property, why did Rick Petillo, Chief Financial Officer, and Laura Stoner, Director of Land and Capital Asset Stewardship go on the trip to Indiana? Such a trip would seem to be totally inappropriate for a chief financial officer, who deals with finances and a director of land and capital asset stewardship, who deals with assets, not concepts–unless the university was considering an investment.

Clemson further stated, “The Newry Project was proposed to the University in November 2023. As is standard practice, an administrative team conducted a preliminary review to assess the multi-use concept’s potential economic and community impact. This review included a site visit to Purdue University’s Discovery Park with other project representatives from Oconee County and the South Carolina Department of Commerce“

That sounds reasonable, but the explanation is like a piece of Swiss cheese–it has a few holes in it. As previously noted, why would the university send a chief financial officer and a director of land and capital asset stewardship on a preliminary review. A much more reasonable approach would be to first send a team with planning and community interaction expertise to determine whether the Purdue site had any relevance to Clemson’s desired goals for a project on the Newry site. Only if they determined that it did, and that Clemson would have financial involvement, would it have been appropriate for the chief financial officer and land and asset stewardship director to get involved.

Another hole in Clemson’s cheese–the university stated that it was approached about the project in November 2023, yet according to Oconee County records, East Shore South did not purchase the property until April 24, 2024. (See property record above.)The trip to the Purdue site took place on January 18, 2024–three months before East South Shore competed the purchase of the property. One can only speculate…but the timing raises questions:

Why would Clemson personnel get so deeply involved in a project being proposed by a developer who did not yet own the land in question? (Real estate transactions are known to fall apart prior to closure.)

Did the university in fact have plans to become financially involved?

Was East Shore South’s purchase of the land based on an assumption that Clemson would be financially involved?

When did Clemson advise East Shore South that it had decided “not to pursue the economic development initiative”?

Finally, if Clemson had no intention of becoming financially involved, why did it state that it had decided, “not to pursue the economic development initiative”?

When the same person represents one corporation that has the same owners or officers as another, without specifically delineating the role played by each, it smacks of an attempt to hide who is who, and what is what. UHG is in fact a separate company from East Shore South but the role of each company was never made clear. Both companies seem to have involvement in the preparatory work for the project. There is nothing inherently wrong with the same personnel holding positions in two different companies, provided each company’s involvement in a project is clearly stated. In this case, it appears that UHG was using its relationship with Clemson University to encourage the university to become financially involved, leaving East Shore South free to deny any involvement with the university. That may be absolutely untrue, but it has that appearance.

The bottom line, at the end of the day, what it all comes down to, where we go from here (pick your favorite overused phrase) is that the proposal from East Shore South is for the property to be rezoned as a Planned Development District, which allows a higher density than four homes per acre, a required minimum of 15% open space, and a commercial section. It can also be specified that the total number of homes cannot be more than the total number permitted under Control Free zoning (4 per acre). That would result in a planned community that would be built to specifications agreed upon by the county council and the present or any future developer.

The alternative is anybody’s guess.