Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Candidates oppose code changes that could allow smaller, denser homes in historic neighborhoods
Summary
Forum candidates uniformly opposed proposed clarifications to the land development code that opponents say would enable subdividing developed parcels and risk replacing historic homes with denser 'skinny minis.' Several candidates called for better planning staff and enforcement.
During the forum candidates were asked whether they support amending the city's land development code to allow developed parcels to be subdivided into additional lots.
Bradley Bean, the incumbent mayor, said he does not support changing the code and described a 2006 provision designed to prevent tearing down large historic homes and replacing them with smaller, denser structures. Bean said recent local coverage ‘‘vindicates what happened last February’’ in a dispute over a nearby lot and referenced a local project and the Live Local policy as context.
Denise Mitchell and other candidates likewise said ‘‘no’’ to changing LDC section 1.03.05 and emphasized that the code is clear. Mitchell said the planning department needs adequate staffing and training to apply the code fairly. Joyce Tooten warned that clarifying the code to treat certain unconditioned spaces as buildable could enable substantial density increases across more than 200 parcels and change neighborhood character.
Tim Poynter and Christy Kelly said they opposed amending the code; Poynter emphasized property‑rights protections but warned that buying property to increase density and exploit loopholes should be limited. Several candidates cited the Tringale lot as a recent flashpoint and said stormwater placement and zoning constraints will limit development as proposed.
Why it matters: Candidates’ unified resistance to code changes signals that preserving existing lot and historic protections is likely to remain a priority on the next commission; competing proposals focus on enforcement capacity and staff expertise rather than rewriting the code.
No formal code amendments or votes were taken at the forum.
