By Richard Sullins | richard@rantnc.com

On its face, it looks like a no-brainer. Sanford’s City Council and its planning staff have been working for years on changes to its Uniform Development Ordinance in order to modernize it and make adaptations that are more consistent with how construction and development are done today, and those proposed amendments got a warm reception when they were first presented to the council at a July 16 meeting.

But a necessary follow-up plan to change the naming and nomenclature on city zoning maps to make them consistent with the new changes the council had just approved ran into a buzz last week saw over language that would have exempted smaller developments from having to go through the process of public hearings.

The opponents on the council to this amendment saw it as a means of taking away the rights of some individuals to have a say in what kinds of developments are built in their communities, fearing it would have its greatest impact in minority communities and strip those who may have lived there for decades of their First Amendment rights to voice their thoughts and opinions.

What gets passed by any governing body, or doesn’t get passed, can sometimes come down to the most mundane of circumstances, like who is present present at a particular meeting and who is absent. For the council’s meeting on August 6, Councilman Mark Akinosho was absent, creating an even number of six council members when it came time to vote on the measure.

And when that vote was called for, and on two other successive votes, the result was the same. Three members of the council voted to approve the changes to the zoning maps, which included provisions for abolishing requirements to hold public hearings for smaller residential development projects: Charles Taylor, James Williams, and Jean Dabbs voted to approve the changes to the maps and its new processes. Three other council members stood resolute in their opposition: Walter Ferguson, Linda Rhodes, and Byron Buckels.

The council’s bylaws stipulate the mayor can vote only when there is a tie, and Mayor Rebecca Wyhof Salmon was called upon to break ties regarding the measure three times. On each of those occasions, the Mayor voted to support changing the maps and follow the recommendations made by the city staff, meaning that the changes in the text amendments are now to be included in the city’s zoning maps as well.

Salmon was upbeat about the passage of the amendments to the UDO, saying “this process has been long, but it has been good. And if we really want to set some clear standards and set the path before us and make it clear, then I think this is the way we must walk and the path we must travel.”

Salmon is presiding over a council that has begun recently to show cracks in the unity it had when she took office two years ago, and that could be heard in remarks made by three council members as the public session of the meeting closed and the council moved into closed session to consult with its attorney.

The sticking point was over a seemingly minor point in the changes recommended by the planning staff that would remove a requirement for every proposed development project to be heard in public hearings held by the city council, where any person would have the right to stand up and speak their mind about what was being planned for the neighborhood.

Planning and Development Director Marshall Downey explained to the council that staff had recommended doing away with that requirement for smaller projects, giving approval authority to the staff itself, as a means of unburdening the council with so many public hearings to hold.

But some members of the council saw it differently. It was the proposed abolition of the right to have their grievances heard in the city council’s chambers that had raised the ire of three of the six attending members of the council as it prepared to take final action on the measure.

Councilman Charles Taylor, who chaired the Joint Planning Commission, gave credit for the resulting changes in the UDO to the involvement of local developers who had a stake and great interest in the final outcome, and in the involvement of the public and community at-large, whom Taylor said were of tremendous help in crafting the final result.

Others, though, were concerned by the majority’s seeming unwillingness to consider the prospect that these changes could potentially steamroll the rights of some citizens who are often excluded from having their voices heard. Council Member Linda Rhodes said “the way to ensure the input of our citizens is not to adopt policies that prohibit them from being involved.”

Councilman Byron Buckels, who had led the opposition to the provision in late July when the public hearing was held, expressed his sorrow over its passage and lamented its potential impact in years to come.

“This council has always tried to create ‘win-win’ situations, but tonight, it’s a ‘win-lose’ situation,” he said. “It’s a loss to the public, it’s a loss to this council because it has made a decision that is not one that the people elected them for. I respect the opinions of others, and I respect their votes. But at the same time, I am disappointed that the people are no longer involved in the process of small projects, and when you see 125 units with 200 plus people come in to their neighborhood without (residents) having their say-so, and without the council’s input as well, and for that reason, I am saying that I regret that we didn’t take more time with this very important issue that is going to impact this city for a very long time.”

Councilman Walter Ferguson said he liked some of the changes and disagreed with others, saying, “it took some of the voice away from the public, but it is what it is.”

Ferguson expressed his views on the measure when the public hearings were held on July 17, saying then, “If this passes, it will be open season on the public.”

Other actions

The city council also acted on other important issues. It terminated the developers’ agreement for Central Carolina Enterprise Park, a document that outlined the processes of how each plot of land at the county’s first industrial park would be developed and what the city’s roles and responsibilities would be as shell buildings were constructed there on several plots.

Among the city’s greatest contributions to the now nearly completed park is the running of water and sewer lines to CCEP from the northern edges of Sanford two miles away. With the Park almost full now, the city’s role has lessened significantly, and the developers’ agreement was determined to be no longer necessary.

Salmon paid tribute to all that has been accomplished through the developers’ agreement and how it helped to facilitate the economic development that has changed the faces of Sanford and Lee County over the past two decades.

“This has been a true community partnership, showing what we can do when we come together in a common purpose,” she said. “It jumpstarted much of the economic development that the city and county we have seen.”

In another action that was quite similar, the city council voted to terminate a franchise agreement it had signed 30 years ago with an ancestor of Duke Energy, Carolina Power and Light, giving the company exclusive rights for providing electric services to the City of Sanford and surrounding areas. The new agreement, which must be finalized when the council meets again on August 20, gives Duke Energy rights to carry on with the provision of services until 2054, another 30-year term.

The council, in still yet another act, approved for the initial steps to begin on another project that will have implications far into the future. It approved an agreement for professional services with the Raleigh firm of Hazen and Sawyer, a team that specializes in providing engineering for ground and surface water supplies, to design the plans for expanding the city’s wastewater treatment capacity from its current 12 million gallons a day to 30 million gallons per day. and one that the city has used many times over the past decade.

The wastewater expansion project has been one that the city’s engineers and planners have been hoping to see for years, and it’s one that will be central to Sanford’s plans for its own future growth, as well as its continuing evolution into the major player in the coming growth of central North Carolina.

These 18 million gallons (or a 150 percent) of increase per day in capacity will be essential as the city adds on future partners in its build-out of a regional water system the state is promoting, and one that is almost entirely funded by proceeds from grants and the sale of bonds. Salmon described the plan as “truly a model for how to do things regionally.”