Southern Pines staff lays out five pathways to gently boost housing supply; council asks for priorities

At the Southern Pines Town Council March work session, planning staff asked elected officials to steer a multi‑pathway effort aimed at expanding housing types and prices the town currently lacks.

Staff said the project grew from a December directive to implement portions of the town’s comprehensive plan and that a focus group of builders, realtors, Habitat for Humanity representatives, lenders and local developers helped shape five possible “pathways” the town could pursue. Elena, a member of the project team, said the group included local stakeholders such as Kelly Adams (MCRA), Colin Webster and Seth Nudas of the Moore County Home Builders Association.

The pathways include regulatory reforms to allow more duplexes, triplexes and townhomes; adjustments to accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules; pre‑approved design options and administrative review to speed approvals; partnership with nonprofits and land trusts; and a regional housing action plan. Staff emphasized that the town is focusing on options it can implement without creating a long‑term administrative obligation such as a housing authority.

“We were asked by the working group to set up some pathways for the town council to consider,” a planning team member told council. Planning staff said the recommended first steps involve identifying ‘clunky’ parts of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) — minimum lot sizes, setback rules and subdivision processes — that can be amended to remove barriers to smaller, lower‑cost housing types.

Council members pressed staff on enforceability and whether the town could ensure units remain affordable over time. Director Grieve, who led much of the technical discussion, said the town is not proposing long‑term monitoring or deed‑restricted programs at this stage because a housing administrator or housing authority would be costly for a town of this size. Instead, staff recommended using market‑friendly regulatory changes and incentives to test delivery.

On measurable targets, Director Grieve raised an initial benchmark: “the goal would be 30 units.” He and other staff described that target as a one‑year test: if regulatory reforms and incentives do not yield the target, the town will analyze results and adjust approaches.

Councilmembers generally supported pursuing pathways 1–3 first (regulatory reforms, ADU adjustments and pre‑approved designs) while acknowledging those measures alone may not overcome land and materials cost pressures that keep many units at higher price points. Several members urged staff to produce a prioritized list of specific UDO changes and an estimated timeline and community outreach plan for any contentious text amendments.

The council directed staff to bring back a clearer list of proposed text amendments and examples of “clunky” code elements so council can deliberate next steps at the upcoming planning and budget meetings.