https://scdhec.gov/sites/default/files/docs/HomeAndEnvironment/Docs/OCRM_PUD.pdf
EXCERPTS
While PUDs can be an excellent tool for managing the development of large tracts of land, there can also be drawbacks to their use. For example, inexperienced municipalities may be misled by presentations of plans or may simply be eager to build up the tax base and haphazardly approve development (Dover, 1996). Developers sometimes criticize the PUD approval process because of its length and complexity, the lack of expertise of local officials who must approve the PUDs, and community opposition during the planning process (Mandelker, et al, 2001). Another criticism is that PUDs can create elitist, “walled” subdivisions or private enclaves that may have negative social ramifications (Dover, 1996). Additionally, the consistency of environmental practices across PUDs is unknown.
Generally, PUD ordinances typically require between 15% and 25% of a project site to be kept as “open space.” Open space was typically intended for recreational use by residents and property owners of the PUD.