By Richard Sullins | richard@rantnc.com

It’s not uncommon for members of a governing body to disagree and take differing sides on any given issue, but to see that same governing body take issue with recommendations made by its own staff is rare. But it happened Tuesday at a regular meeting of the Sanford City Council.

About 75 members of the public had come to the council’s chambers to listen as two public hearings were held on updating the city’s Unified Development Ordinance, the document that governs the development of residential and commercial properties in Sanford, Broadway, and Lee County.

The city’s Planning and Development staff brought recommendations for updating the UDO to the council two years ago, but the council asked them to make several revisions to address concerns they’d identified. The draft changes to the UDO presented to the council Tuesday were the result of those revisions.

At the first of the two public hearings on the issue, Zoning Administrator Thomas Mierisch explained the reasoning behind each of the proposed changes, almost all of which were received by the council and members of the public who had come to the meeting with enthusiastic approval. Mierisch explained “the aim of these changes is to encourage more development within already-existing developed areas so that urban sprawl might be slowed down.”

The modifications would also make a number of changes for townhome developments intended to make them more self-contained communities that take on characteristics similar to those found in subdivisions. Parking lots would be limited to no more than 14 vehicles, and they must be interconnected with others, curbed and side walked, and screened from the view of existing streets by landscape buffers. Developers will be happy with the continuation of having latitude within their own projects, known as conditional zoning, an allowance that will be renamed as “village neighborhood districts.”

But what may become the most popular addition to the ordinance is the proposed allowance of guest houses (sometimes called “granny flats” or “mother-in-law houses”) as long as they are located on the side or in the rear of an existing principal home. These would become known as “accessory dwelling units,” and would be permitted in all zoning districts.

These changes were received positively by the crowd and the council. But there was a definite change in the atmosphere when the second public hearing began.

This second hearing should have been a cut-and-dried affair. It was called to consider a proposed action that would have updated the city’s zoning maps to reflect the new zoning designations contained in the draft version of the UDO changes discussed in the first hearing, something that typically would have taken no more than just a few minutes. Instead, the hearing took almost an hour.

Senior Planner David Montgomery explained that if the new zoning classifications are adopted, the zoning maps must also be updated to reflect the changes, making one consistent with the other. But Montgomery also explained the two proposed actions are more important than just changing a few designations.

“What we have brought to the council tonight is about more than just cosmetic changes to an ordinance. What we are suggesting is a hybrid approach that encourages growth in the urban core,” he said, and continued that this approach, known as “upzoning,” encourages infill development of existing empty spaces within the city instead of expanding every time through annexation. It takes advantage of existing infrastructure, increases affordable workforce housing in and near the urban center, and decreases urban sprawl in ways that preserve agriculture and environmentally sensitive areas.

But discussion about the merits of making changes to zoning maps for consistency stopped when councilman Byron Buckels brought up a provision in the proposed changes that hadn’t previously been discussed. That section would remove the requirement for public hearings on smaller proposed developments. The staff recommended doing away with that requirement for small projects, saying the staff could handle those in-house, and that it would be a means of reducing the number of public hearings that the city council is required to hold now for proposed development projects.

Buckels said he wouldn’t go along with any provision that does away with the public hearing process because it “denies the public a chance to speak on how a development will impact their community.”

Planning Director Marshall Downey said the intent was never to take away anyone’s right to speak, but to keep the process “as open and transparent as possible.”

Councilman Walter Ferguson saw things differently.

“If this passes, it will be open season on the public,” he said.

Mayor Rebecca Wyhof Salmon stepped into the fray to keep the discussion focused on its ultimate goal.

“This has been talked about for a long time,” she said. “And it’s about building the kind of city that all of us want. We are raising the bar on what we want our expectations to look like.”

Buckels refused to give in, responding that “if we don’t allow public hearings, we are shooting the very same bar down that we are supposed to be trying to raise. We want the people to have a right to say what they want when it comes to development, too.”

Mayor Pro Tempore Mark Akinosho said “what we see tonight is the first taste of what the public thinks. We don’t want to discount the public.”

Councilwoman Linda Rhodes went even further, saying “this is a breaking point for me, to eliminate public input.”

In all, five of the seven members of the council spoke on the issue. Two others remained silent during the deliberations: Councilwoman Jean Dabbs and Councilman Charles Taylor.

What happens next

The council’s positive response to the changes proposed to the UDO make it likely they will receive approval soon. But that could be delayed until the issue of public hearings is resolved.

That matter could come up again at the council’s next scheduled regular meeting, now set for August 6. If it’s placed on the agenda then, the council has several options to choose from. A motion could be made to change or even delete the wording that proposes removing the requirement for a public hearing to be held on smaller residential and commercial projects. Another option would be to send the draft back to the staff and ask them to come back with a change, along with potentially others that might have been identified. And there’s always the potential choice of just scrapping the proposal entirely.

By the end of the public hearing, Downey expressed an understanding of the council’s point of view and that the choice was ultimately theirs to make.

“This is purely a political decision that you have to make, and we will support whatever you decide to do,” he said, as the discussion came to an end.