Easly City council discusses rezoning at 213 Pelser Highway and whether to extend UDO moratorium

At a May work session, the Easly City Council introduced the second reading of Ordinance 20 25 04 to rezone about 0.34 acres at 213 Pelser Highway from General Residential (GR2) to Office/Institutional, and held an extended discussion about Ordinance 20 25 05, a proposed moratorium to pause acceptance, review and action on zoning, development and construction permits while a new Unified Development Ordinance is finalized.

Council members and staff debated whether the moratorium period should be three months as written in the ordinance or extended to six months to allow more time for the planning commission and staff to complete edits. One council member said, “I think 3 months is probably too tight,” while another urged caution about rushing and recommended a six-month extension with the option to end it earlier if the UDO work finishes sooner.

The council discussed a piecemeal process proposed by the planning commission: sending sections of the UDO to council as they are completed rather than waiting for the entire document. Staff advised that state law allows piecemeal consideration but cautioned council that accepting parts of the document could trigger additional public hearings for those sections. One staff member said the planning commission would send whatever sections are completed at the next meeting for council review; council members asked whether those partial approvals would require new public hearings and were told not necessarily if the public hearing for the whole UDO had already occurred.

Council members also flagged inconsistencies between the draft UDO and the existing city code. The discussion named Easly City Code Title 13, Chapter 134 for “moral offenses” language that appears both in the UDO and current ordinances, and Title 15, Chapter 159 for building permit fee values that differ between the online code and the budget ordinance. Staff recommended highlighting sections that conflict so the UDO can explicitly repeal or reference the existing provisions to avoid contradictory rules.

Planning commission work and staff coordination were central to the discussion. Councilmembers thanked Planning Commission members (among them Mister Feder) and staff (named in discussion as Rico and Mario) for extensive work on the UDO, with one council member characterizing the process as “the unglamorous sausage being made” that nonetheless is important to get right.

No final vote on the moratorium extension or the rezoning ordinance was recorded during the session; council took the items up for first or second-reading discussion with direction to continue review. City Attorney Mister Hughes was present later in the meeting to clarify the mayor–council form and procedural questions when asked.

What happens next: council indicated it will accept the planning commission’s completed sections for review, expect staff to call out and resolve conflicts between the UDO and existing ordinances, and return the moratorium item to a future meeting for a formal vote. The timing depends on how quickly the commission finishes its revisions; some council members support extending the moratorium to six months as a precaution, while others signaled reluctance to extend repeatedly.