Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mills River council to weigh consultant or in‑house fixes after state nullifies UDO
Summary
After the General Assembly approved SB 1074, town staff told the council the Unified Development Ordinance adopted June 11 is "null and void." Staff outlined a consultant estimate just under $37,000 and a five‑month timeline to produce a down‑zoning‑compliant version; the council agreed to study options and revisit in August.
The Mills River Town Council spent its regular meeting on a damage‑control discussion about the town's recently adopted Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) after staff said state legislation had nullified the document.
A staff presentation said SB 1074 (referred to in the meeting transcript as "SB 10 74") moved through the finance and rules committees and ultimately removed the town's exemption that had allowed the UDO to include down‑zoning provisions. "The UDO that was adopted on June 11 is hereby nullified and void," a staff member told the council, adding the town is now evaluating next steps.
Public commenter Jim Young criticized the process in blunt terms: "As we sit here tonight, I personally am mystified by how we spent 18 months, hundreds of thousands of dollars in total hours of staff time. We got nothing," he said, urging accountability and an explanation of how the town spent funds on the project.
Town staff offered two main paths: (1) hire a consultant to revise the UDO into a down‑zoning‑compliant document that preserves usability (tables, charts, images and linked standards), or (2) undertake a piecemeal approach of text amendments using in‑house staff. "The pared down version... would be just under $37,000, and it would be approximately five months," the staff member said, later citing figures around $36,200–$36,800 in the discussion.
Several councilmembers questioned whether the town could accomplish the work internally. One councilmember said the town "owns the document" and could remove the down‑zoning elements itself, though others warned that doing so would consume significant staff hours and multiple public meetings. "It would take time, staff time, meetings... We would probably end up spending or at least losing the opportunity costs of that much, if not more," a councilmember said in favor of using consultants.
The body also debated who had requested or authorized the removal of the exemption that permitted the earlier UDO language. Council members cited a letter from Jennifer Balcom and differing recollections about whether the council had directed staff or the delegation to seek changes. A councilmember raised statutory language cited in the meeting (referenced as "160D 601"), arguing the exemption and session law language were the core issues.
Rather than decide on a path tonight, councilmembers gave staff direction to develop options and return in August with more detailed proposals, including a written contract if a consultant is recommended. The council asked staff to outline the costs, a schedule, and what elements of the current UDO could be salvaged or adopted as individual text amendments.
What's next: staff will prepare comparative options for council consideration in August, including a consultant scope and a proposed schedule; no formal contract or motion to pay a consultant was approved at this meeting.
