Council sends zoning-text amendment on special-use permits for certain residential projects to planning commission

The Garner Town Council voted unanimously to forward Zoning Text Amendment ZTA 25-0001 to the planning commission for further review. Planning Director Jeff Kriesenberg presented the amendment, which the planning department prepared for the council. The draft would exempt certain residential developments and major subdivisions located in Tier 2 conditional-zoning districts from the special-use permit (SUP) requirement in Article 4 of the UDO, and it would reduce the threshold for design modifications that trigger council review from a 10% change to a 5% change.

Kriesenberg said staff surveyed peer jurisdictions and found wide variation in how other jurisdictions handle SUP requirements for residential subdivisions; he noted the change is more typical for townhomes and multifamily than single-family detached products.

Several councilmembers debated the policy tradeoffs before the vote. Councilmember Dellinger warned the council against eliminating an “impartial quasi-judicial” step, saying the SUP process allows impartial, fact-based mitigation of adverse impacts and provides legal recourse and accountability; he said removing it could constrain the town’s ability to require mitigations for impacts and to secure remedies when timelines are breached. Dellinger said a recent example involving an Amazon project demonstrated the town’s ability to secure about $600,000 in liquidated damages when performance deadlines were not met and that the SUP provided avenues of recourse.

Councilmember Vance and others said the referral to the planning commission is intended to balance streamlining and retaining appropriate safeguards and that the planning commission should consider coupling process changes or other modifications to preserve the council’s ability to mitigate impacts while reducing duplication.

After discussion, the council passed a motion to refer the draft ZTA to the planning commission for review and return to council at a later date; the motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. No final change to the UDO was adopted at the meeting; the action was to forward the proposal for additional review.