Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mills River council advances 593‑page UDO amid threat of state repeal; motion to adopt moved
Summary
At a June 11 legislative hearing, Mills River staff and consultants presented a 593‑page Unified Development Ordinance that would cap density, grandfather existing development and introduce new zoning districts; dozens of residents spoke both for and against adoption. Councilors debated timing after staff warned of pending state legislation that could void locally adopted UDOs; a motion to adopt with a Sept. 1, 2026 effective date was made and seconded but no recorded roll‑call vote appears in the transcript.
MILLS RIVER — Town staff and consultant Chad Meadows presented a proposed 593‑page Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) at a June 11 legislative public hearing, and the Town Council moved toward adoption even as staff warned of state legislation that could nullify locally adopted UDOs.
The draft UDO — produced over about 20 months with public forums and planning‑board review — would replace the town’s current development regulations and zoning map. Key features explained by Meadows include a maximum residential density of four units per acre, a two‑story building height cap (with farm exemptions), no by‑right multifamily or townhouses (those would require conditional rezoning), an amnesty clause that allows existing development to remain conforming, expanded definitions and illustrations, and a one‑year map‑correction period to allow free rezoning requests by property owners.
Town attorney and staff walked council members through a complicating timeline: Mills River earlier secured a local exemption (session law language enacted in 2025) allowing the town to adopt the UDO by July 1, 2026. But staff read language reported in a recently filed Senate bill that would repeal that exemption and declare null and void any UDOs adopted between June 30, 2025 and July 1, 2026 if the bill becomes law. Staff said the legislature could take action quickly and urged councilors to weigh the procedural and legal risks in deciding whether to adopt now or to delay and rework the draft to ensure full compliance with the state downzoning rules.
Because of that timing risk, council members debated whether to adopt immediately — which would give the town an enforceable local code while the bill is pending but carry the prospect the ordinance could later be invalidated — or to delay and produce a version expressly tailored to the state’s downzoning limits. Staff told council that certain protections can be retained or reintroduced if the state bars parts of the draft, but that doing so would require additional mapping and textual work with the consultant and planning board.
The public comment period ran more than two hours. Supporters said the UDO is needed to preserve Mills River’s rural character, protect farms and the French Broad corridor, and to prevent large industrial uses or unchecked mixed‑use development. Opponents — including long‑time landowners and farm families — described the draft as overly prescriptive, argued it could injure property values or restrict owners’ ability to sell and use land, and urged councilors to protect private property rights. Several residents specifically urged the council to contact state legislators about the reported repeal language.
Councilors also drilled into technical topics: how the amnesty rule would operate if a building burns or is replaced; procedures for variances, conditional rezonings and the new non‑conforming authorization (which must be recorded in the register of deeds to be valid); how data centers and other potentially controversial uses would be treated (staff said data centers are listed as prohibited in the draft, but mixed‑use map areas and existing noise rules could affect enforcement); and tree‑protection and landscaping standards (councilors asked staff to lower a proposed post‑removal reforestation target from 25% canopy to 15%).
After a period of council deliberation and discussion of an errata sheet to capture agreed edits (moving flood‑overlay rules to the town code, clarifying outdoor repair and noise language, routing fee‑in‑lieu approvals to council, and other targeted text changes), a council member moved to adopt Ordinance 2026‑09 (the UDO) with an effective date of Sept. 1, 2026; another member seconded the motion and asked for a roll‑call vote. The provided transcript records the motion and the second but does not contain the roll‑call or final vote.
Next steps recorded in the hearing: council captured a list of targeted edits to be added as errata if they choose to adopt; staff said they can revise and reissue text and the zoning map if the legislature alters the town’s authority. If the state repeals the local exemption after the town adopts, staff said the town can rework the draft to remove elements that would constitute prohibited ‘‘downzoning’’ under state law, but that will require additional time and likely planning‑board review.
Council members asked staff to continue monitoring the bill and advised citizens to contact their state delegation. The record of the hearing and the list of errata are part of the council packet; the motion to adopt remains the central procedural action reflected in the transcript.
