Selma work session reopens off‑street parking rules after resident complaints about enforcement

At a July 21 work session, Town of Selma officials and residents opened an intensive review of the town's off‑street parking ordinance after months of enforcement notices prompted complaints and questions about how the code is applied.

The meeting focused on the ordinance's requirement that off‑street parking be paved and on local consequences such as erosion into storm drains and the Moccasin Creek system. "Our ordinance says, off street parking must be paved, period," the chair said, summarizing the code language the town is reviewing.

Residents pushed back on strict paving rules for established properties, saying cost and local character matter. One resident asked the council to consider a 90‑day moratorium on enforcement so the town and citizens could "come together to be educated" before fines resume. The chair told the room staff had already been told to hold off on aggressive enforcement and that the town likely will take longer than 90 days to give people time to adjust.

Erosion and drainage framed much of the council's rationale: the chair pointed to sediment washing from yards into gutters and into ditches that feed Moccasin Creek, and said blocked pipes and filled ditches have caused localized flooding. Officials said the town has cleared tributaries over the past four years, coordinated with the Moccasin Creek District Board and applied for further grant money (HMGP) to address remaining problems.

Technical tradeoffs — gravel, heavy gravel or pavers versus concrete or asphalt — drew detailed debate. Council members and residents asked how different surfaces affect impervious‑surface limits and stormwater rules. A resident asked whether gravel or "crush and run" would increase impervious coverage; the chair replied that the town already enforces limits on total impervious surface and that a permit reviewer will confirm whether a proposed upgrade complies.

Several residents described problems with how violations were communicated: photographs that did not match a cited address and letters sent to parcel mailing addresses that residents say were incorrect. The chair said the town uses Johnston County GIS parcel data for mailings and advised residents to verify their county records and, where they believe a mistake was made, to escalate the matter to customer service or planning staff so code enforcement can correct errors.

Questions about enforcement procedure echoed through the meeting. Residents asked whether the typical correction window is 10 days; the chair confirmed that many notices allow a 10‑day correction period. Appeals that reach the Board of Adjustment can require a filing fee (participants said $500) and the board meets quarterly; the chair said the town works to resolve clear errors at staff level before the board process is needed.

Several people urged clearer upfront public notice and education rather than surprise fines. The chair said the town plans to route proposed code changes through the planning board in August and to hold public hearings on the rewrites in September or October, and reminded residents of an open forum on August 8 at 1 p.m. "We're not going to rush through the conversation," the chair said.

What happens next: staff will refine ordinance language on acceptable parking surfaces, standing water and erosion language; the planning board will review chapter 17 changes; and the council plans public hearings later this fall. Residents who believe they received an incorrect violation were repeatedly told to bring the notice to the customer service window so staff can correct mistakes before enforcement proceeds.

Ending: The work session closed with a motion to adjourn; formal code changes were not adopted at the meeting and were scheduled for further review at the planning board and at future public hearings.