Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Archer Lodge council directs removal of multifamily references, pushes revised land‑use plan to August
Summary
After a presentation by consultant Chad Meadows, the Archer Lodge Town Council instructed staff to remove references to multifamily/high‑density language and the village‑center map from the draft comprehensive land use plan and to return a revised document for consideration in August; motion to advance amendments carried 3‑1.
The Archer Lodge Town Council on Monday told staff to strip several references to multifamily development and to remove the village‑center map from the town's draft comprehensive land use plan, a move councilmembers said would better reflect local preferences and avoid conflicting zoning guidance.
Chad Meadows of Code Right, the consultant on the update, told the council the document had been revised to soften or remove references to sewer extension and multifamily development after public input. "We changed language on page 36. Goal 1, preserving rural character, to remove any references to multi family development," Meadows said, adding that he would "strike" remaining phrasing that suggested high‑density growth would be allowed.
Council members raised remaining text on pages 39 and 49 that still referenced limitations on high‑density growth, questioned the proposed village‑center circle on the future‑land‑use map (page 40) and asked for edits to table 4.2 (page 41). One councilmember said the village‑center concept should be discussed with property owners before being mapped. Meadows repeatedly emphasized that the plan is advisory: "This document is advisory. It does not carry the force of law," he said, noting any UDO (zoning) changes would be a separate process.
Council agreed on a set of targeted edits — removing multifamily/high‑density references on pages 39 and 49, deleting the village‑center designation on page 40, amending table 4.2 on page 41, and striking language about private street maintenance on page 23 — and directed staff and the consultant to return the revised plan for the council's August meeting. The motion to approve those amendments and bring the plan back as an action item passed 3‑1.
Meadows also reviewed the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) mapping the consultant had proposed and cautioned that ETJ approval is a separate process requiring county review and outreach to affected landowners. He said the plan update would position the town to discuss ETJ with the Johnston County Board of Commissioners if the council chose to pursue it.
The council's action sets staff to prepare a red‑line and final version reflecting the edits discussed; Meadows recommended that the town adopt the plan so related UDO (Unified Development Ordinance) amendments can proceed in August.
