Southern Pines Council Debate Heats Up

As of Wednesday, October 27, 2010

The Southern Pines Town Council continues to consider a Planned Development zoning text amendment, but discussion on the topic has been anything but agreeable.

At the council’s work session Monday, council member David McNeill opened the discussion on the PD text amendment by asking fellow member Chris Smithson to apologize to the council for writing an “inflammatory” letter that criticized other council members and sending it to “select individuals.”

Smithson wrote the letter last week after the council chose to delay a vote on the proposed amendment until its next meeting Nov. 9.

The amendment, submitted by Robert Koontz, director of land planning for Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, seeks to add language on commercial use that was present in the ordinance before 2004 and also clarify language on residential development in the district.

Koontz has said that the amendment would make language in the town’s unified development ordinance (UDO) congruent with language defining the PD district as an area for “traditional mixed-use” in the comprehensive long-range plan (CLRP).

The amendment was submitted on behalf of the Bell family, which owns the 550-acre Pine Needles property on Camp Easter Road, which is zoned PD.

McNeill said the letter disrupts the council’s ability to discuss topics without criticizing or targeting members of the council.

“I think that letter violated our spirit of decorum,” he said.

When asked to apologize, Smithson quickly responded and defended his actions.

“It’s not going to happen,” he said. “I felt it was completely merited.”

Smithson said he felt compelled “to let people know what was going on” after some members of the council were willing to vote on the amendment with little to no discussion after a public hearing held at its meeting Oct. 12.

In the letter dated Oct. 22, Smithson wrote: “I believe there may be a majority of your Southern Pines Town Council who, faced with the first significant vote in which we have a chance to use our new plan for guidance, seemingly wish to fast track a major land-use decision with almost no analysis of the implications of the amendment or discussion of how it relates to the comprehensive long-range plan.”

Smithson said he was surprised to see council members ready to vote despite the fact that several residents voiced concerns over the amendment and the process.

He added that he thought the amendment should be considered carefully given that the PD zone and the Pine Needles property have seen so much controversy over the years.

No Immediate Plans

A few years ago, the Bell family submitted plans for a mixed-use development on the Pine Needles property. The Town Council ultimately voted down the proposal, but the nature of the project was the impetus for the development of the town’s new comprehensive long-range plan.

The plan outlines future development in Southern Pines and specifies that the Pine Needles property should be developed as “traditional mixed-use.” The process also created the Planned Urban Development (PUD) zoning district, which addresses the potential for proposed mixed-use developments similar to the Pine Needles project.

Though the amendment seeks to ensure mixed-use development based on acreage in all PD districts, Koontz has told the council repeatedly that the Bell family has no intention of submitting plans for a project on the Pine Needles property anytime soon.

Address Inconsistencies

During the council’s public hearing, citizens voiced concerns over how the amendment process seems to be a “dishonest” attempt to allow development on the Pine Needles property by adding uses to a zoning district rather than going through a traditional rezoning process.

At the work session, Smithson reiterated that the council does not owe anything to a property owner and said the council’s main responsibility should be to evaluate proposals based on how they will best serve the town.

Council member Mike Fields said he was disappointed to learn of Smithson’s letter through a neighbor who e-mailed him a copy sent to members of the Moore County Wildlife Club. Fields countered Smithson’s claims that other council members have not carefully considered the impact of the amendment.

Fields said he believes this amendment will address some of the apparent inconsistencies between the UDO and the CLRP. He admitted that he was one of the members ready to vote after the hearing, but he said he respected Smithson’s desire to consider the issue further before making a decision.

Smithson asked repeatedly why mixed-use zoning (MU) wouldn’t be a better fit for the applicant instead of amending the PD zoning ordinance to allow uses already permitted in MU.

Fields countered that MU does not allow everything that the amendment seeks to add to the PD district, including recreational uses, saying that the point of the amendment is to bring all of those uses into one district.

Smithson asked why the council should essentially allow the duplication of the MU district by adding uses to PD.

“We’re modifying the parameters,” he said. “Is that the way to achieve our goal?”

Smithson questioned the reasoning behind putting all uses into one district.

“Is that planning when you can do just about anything?” Smithson asked.

‘It’s Frustrating’

Town Manager Reagan Parsons stressed that this amendment signifies a greater need for the council to evaluate inconsistencies found in the PD ordinance between the UDO and the CLRP.

“Pine Needles aside for a moment, there needs to be some major change to the PD that addresses underlying density, or we need to just get rid of PD and rezone all the properties,” he said.

Parsons described the frustration found among town staff when the UDO does not completely state what is and is not permissible.

“It’s frustrating to have landowner after landowner come in with a conceptual plan and ask if it fits within the ordinance,” Parsons said. “It’s just extremely difficult.”

Parsons said that town staff has worked with Koontz to develop an amendment that will make the PD district usable.

Smithson asked the council to consider holding another public hearing on the amendment before voting on it.

Most members felt that another public hearing would not be necessary, given that there have already been three hearings on the issue, two with the Planning Board and one with the Town Council.

The council is expected to vote on the amendment Nov. 9 at 7 p.m. at the Douglass Community Center.

Contact Hannah Sharpe at hannah@thepilot.com.

More like this story

CSmithson 2 years, 6 months ago

The full text of the letter mentioned in the article can be found here: http://www.chrissmithson.com/Library/PD%20alert%20letter.pdf

Far from being sent to some little secret list of "select individuals" it was posted on my website and sent to anyone who I thought might care. This included reporters and editors at the Pilot, members of the Comprehensive Long Range Plan committee, and almost everyone who has ever sent me an e-mail on Council matters over the years.

Matt_Woodruff 2 years, 6 months ago

The town just spent a lot of time, money and effort developing a comprehensive long range plan which this change seemingly ignores. There are some far reaching implications to making these changes. Why the fast track on this?

Poundman 2 years, 6 months ago

Chris Smithson for Mayor, the rest of the town council needs to take a hike.

CSmithson 2 years, 6 months ago

I have been notified that the link I posted above does not work even though I just copied and pasted it from my browser. Perhaps something was lost in translation.

For a slightly less direct method, visit my website www.ChrisSmithson.com Click on "Local Issues" on the left then "Southern Pines Council Alert October 2010"

Chris

rp2 2 years, 6 months ago

Keep fighting the good fight Chris. It's refreshing to see that gov't can work for the people and not for the money even if it is at the local level!

Thistle 2 years, 6 months ago

While I don't always agree with Mr. Smithson, I have no doubt that he is committed to identifying what is in the best interest of the town and the community over the long haul. Too often, certain members of The Town Council can be found at Pine Needles in the company of one individual. Their simple presence suggests that at the very minimum they don't consider what that might suggest. Are they truly more concerned about their golf game and assuring tee times than they are in the best interest of their community? Are they truly so unsophisticated that they don't understand the importance of appearances? Sadly, I believe they either lack integrity, suffer extreme hubris or are simply stupid for not having learned their lesson two years ago. Either way, I am grateful that the community has Chris Smithson on The Town Council to ask the tough questions, demand answers and ultimately be a steward for our community and not just his own self-interest. Thank you Mr. Smithson for your rigor and integrity!

melzabeth 2 years, 6 months ago

thank you to chris smithson for keeping us informed and fighting for us and not pine needles. I understand growth will happen but they have really gone crazy.

developers only goal is money and that means density.... how many people can I squeeze into one area. why sell five half million dollar homes when you could sell twenty condos for a third of a million a piece right?

If we start letting the developers set the rules then we are screwed. the council's job is to direct growth not take money from the jerks at pine needles.

SuzColeman 2 years, 6 months ago

Hannah Sharpe is to be congratulated for providing a clear, concise and comprehensive report that everyone can understand. This is a complex issue, not easily understood, but critical to the future of Southern Pines. Hannah's story is fair and balanced. I urge all Southern Pines residents, regardless of which side of this issue you are on, to contact our Council members and let your voice be heard. This is the first test of our new Comprehensive Plan. This vote will set the tone and a precedent for its implementation. Please call or email before the Nov. 9th vote.

Mayor Mike Haney, cmhaney@earthlink.net, 692.1050 (w) Mike Fields, mfields117@earthlink.net, 692.3568 (w) David McNeill, dmcneill1@nc.rr.com, 690.6520 (h) Fred Walden, fredwalden@hotmail.com, 692.5052 (h) Chris Smithson, chris@chrissmithson.com, 692.2571 (w)

MonkeyJunction 2 years, 6 months ago

Although I don't agree with making an amendment change and I sent emails to the council expressing my opinion. Mike Fields did call me to try and address my concerns. I still don't believe it is the proper way to address these zoning issues as well as I don't believe the Bell family has no plans for development as stated in the article by their representative and this is just an end around for future plans

JoeGarrison 2 years, 6 months ago

Chis Smithson I know you love to stir up controversy as well as developing plans and zoning than stifle growth and limit the possibilities of future development. The staff and some on the council are trying to help Southern Pines grow and also provide more clarity between the plans. I hope the council will approve the ammendment. Chris I hope you will learn to voice your concerns and positions boldy through public debate and refrain from using cloak and dagger politics. Mike Fields, Dave McNeill are good men and I am sure they carefully measure their votes and positions. Shame on you for questioning their decision making. If the vote goes your way then so be it, if not then take heart that you voted your convictions and move on. This is the problem in this county. Too many times planning and zoning ammendments are used by liberals to stifle growth and innovation. We see it in the Pinehurst town council's vote to prohibit a resident of Pinehurst from using his own money to open a Bed and Breakfast. We see it when the Planning board of Moore County gives a funeral home a fit over a brick sign outside of their business. Local Government needs to realize that growth and good use of private property can lead to wider and more stable tax base as well as providing opportuinities and jobs. We should be encouraging responsible development not discouraging it. I hope the citizens of Southern Pines will support the ammendment as well as the council.

JoeGarrison 2 years, 6 months ago

Responsible development and individuals using their property responsibly is a good thing. All government should govern in the interest of the people. It is in the best interest of the people of Moore County when we allow Moore County citizens to use their land in a legal,responsible manner.

CSmithson 2 years, 6 months ago

@JoeGarrison "I know you love... developing plans and zoning than stifle growth and limit the possibilities of future development. "

Interestingly, I am the only current Councilmember who has gone on the record (several times actually) and said they would probably vote in favor of the Pine Needles Village proposal again if it came through. Being in favor of a project that would have somewhere near 1,000 homes and several hundred thousand square feet of commercial hardly seems like an effort to "stifle growth."

"I hope you will learn to voice your concerns and positions boldy through public debate "

The lack of actual Council debate and discussion on this massive amendment was what concerned me in the first place and led me to do what I did.

"We should be encouraging responsible development not discouraging it."

The amended ordinance, as it stands now, does not encourage or discourage "responsible development." For the most part, it simply allows a huge swath of uses, from horse farms to hospitals to hotels to hamburger joints on a number of large parcels at the edges of our town. If we want "responsible development" we need to have ordinances and plans that ensure it. The current proposed ordinance would mostly require we cross our fingers and hope for the best.

My actions, especially my widely distributed letter, came out of concerns over process and Councilmembers' approach to the issue, not whether or not I got what I wanted on the fate of the actual amendment. If I had felt the whole process had been open, transparent, and had been approached with the due dilligence required on an amendment like this, I would not have felt compelled to do what I did.

Finally, I am always happy to hear from Eastwood residents on Southern Pines zoning matters.

Chris

Matt_Woodruff 2 years, 6 months ago

Joe Garrison, you are clueless. Your second post completely contradicts your first. Which is it? Allow unfettered development at the whim of the property owner or responsible development as directed by local zoning laws?

BTW there is no such thing as a "stable" tax base. Just look at what has happened to real estate in the last couple of years.

coffecreme 2 years, 6 months ago

"are used by liberals to stifle growth"

What liberals? There are no liberals on any of these councils. Get a grip and keep to the subject at hand without the snarky adjectives.

CSmithson 2 years, 6 months ago

Final word from me on this article on this website:

The letter I linked to above speaks for itself and lays out my concerns. The article does a very good job at laying out the circumstances and issues in an easy-to-understand manner.

I am about the most accessible elected official in this county and provide for communication through a website, e-mail, work and home telephone numbers, and face-to-face conversations.

Should anyone have any further questions or concerns regarding this matter, please contact me through any of those methods and I will do my best to address them.

Thanks, Chris Smithson

JoeGarrison 2 years, 6 months ago

Mr Woodruff there is no contradiction. See only liberals assume or make polar opposites between responsiblity and growth. I believe it is possible to have both. What I don't like is when a town council or a planning department comes up with every regulation under the sun to stop development. I believe that if you stifle growth then bad things will happen. Again that is why the voters voted in Mr. McNeill and Mr. Fields, they wanted leadership that respects growth and prosperity and promotes it. Chris, you say one thng but do another. You want development but when it is going forward then you want to dither. I just believe you need to say your peace in a meeting when the debate or topic is brought up instead of writing letters about it in a behind the back move.When the topic is brought up debate it then vote for or against it. Again I think this speaks to the problem with planning and zoning to begin with. I want to have safety and responsibility but some if not many of the zoning and planning ordinances around are excessive and pointless. They constrict our builders, developers and property owners. Property rights are important and our elected officials need to uphold that right. If someone owns property and is not cheating or robbing anyone, and is within their property lines and is not a danger to the safety of anyone then they should be able to do what they wish without worry of government coming with an ordinance or stupid regulation.

JoeGarrison 2 years, 6 months ago

"For now, I am not writing to you to give my position on the merits of the proposed ammendment. That is an e-mail or discussion for another day"

What is your position then Chris? You list in the letter a total of six implications that would result if the proposed ammendment is approved as it stands now. You mention these in a negative way but let me quote you again from a previous post. "Interestingly, I am the only current Councilmember who has gone on the record (several times actually) and said they would probably vote in favor of the Pine Needles Village proposal again if it came through. Being in favor of a project that would have somewhere near 1,000 homes and several hundred thousand square feet of commercial hardly seems like an effort to "stifle growth." So if we are to take your position. You would probably vote for the proposal if it came through, yet you say in your letter you have not taken a position. Hmmm. So without any "discussion or analysis" you would probably vote for it yet you criticize two of the Council members for "strongly in favor of voting on and in favor of the ammendment" So from your above post you mention the development of homes and retail space which you would probably vote for, yet you mention the following in a negative way at least the tone is perceived to be negative: "Significant highway oriented retail(US-1 south and 15-501 south in Southern Pines and Aberdeen) along US 1 on the north side of town." "Significant highway oriented retail along NC 22 near Southern Pines Reservoir Park and adjacent to the Sandhills Community College Horticultural Gardens." etc., etc., etc., And lastly you mention as if aghast that a councilman would be in favor of property rights. "He essentially went on to say we have to allow them to whatever they want on THEIR property, so we should pass the ammendment and give them what they asked for." Now this is not an actual quote from a person because you did not note it as such in your letter from which I just quoted. So again Chris you are writing letter which seems to condemn or at least to say STOP to the voting of an ammendment that the planning board approved and recommended, yet you take no position on the matter. Even though you just said again "Interestingly, I am the only current Councilmember who has gone on the record (several times actually) and said they would probably vote in favor of the Pine Needles Village proposal again if it came through. Being in favor of a project that would have somewhere near 1,000 homes and several hundred thousand square feet of commercial hardly seems like an effort to "stifle growth." So Chris I hope you are clear or are sure of your position because from what I read and hear you don't sound sure of anything.

Bflat 2 years, 6 months ago

To preserve our community so as not to have a hamburger joint next door to a residential development, there must be zoning ordinances that specifies what can be done on a property. Private property ownership rights do carry with it certain responsibilities. To allow some to do whatever they want to will lead to low appraisals and valuations in neighborhoods. Zoning ordinances actually do define what is allowed and what is not, making way for those to choose where they want to live or work.

JoeGarrison 2 years, 6 months ago

@Bflat true I agree that you don't want places of ill repute or allow something illegal like drug use or other crimes. But I still say that property rights mean something and as long as you own the property and are doing nothing illegal then why would you restrict their usage of it within reason of course? If you start getting into what kind of exterior you must have or what color paint or stuff like that then you are simply trying to control what isn't yours to control and it shouldn't be allowed or tolerated.

theonewithsense 2 years, 6 months ago

Nobody is restricting anybody's right to use their property as zoned. What this amendment does is expand their right to add additional uses above and beyond what the current zoning allows.

I'm sure the Bell's have no intention of developing the property anytime soon, because the article stated that Mr. Koontz repeatedly told the council that. Like he said, Mr. Koontz is just clearing up inconsistencies in the ordinance.

babiehop 2 years, 6 months ago

One should always consider allowed use when purchasing a property. Some people actually choose to move into an area because things like exterior appearance are dictated by ordinance. One should never chide another for questioning decision making. This is how poor decisions are weeded out. One should always consider intended use of a property before voting to purchase a parcel that will not serve as needed due to wetlands.

melzabeth 2 years, 6 months ago

trust me as soon as the bell's get the ordinance how they like it and the economy is such they believe they can sell houses, they are on it like white on rice.

Bflat 2 years, 6 months ago

Quoted from JG above: "If someone owns property and is not cheating or robbing anyone, and is within their property lines and is not a danger to the safety of anyone then they should be able to do what they wish without worry of government coming with an ordinance or stupid regulation."

That's the reason we do have zoning, so we have defined guidelines on what is acceptable for a given area. Those who do not like restrictions can choose areas with RA zoning for a wide variety of purposes. There will still be setbacks, permitting and other factors involved even in those areas. Many developers add covenants and restrictions that further clarify what is allowed in the development, and the C&R carry with the land forever in most cases.

The article is about an amendment to current zoning that would allow a greater variety of mixed use. Thanks you Mr Smithson for standing up for what you believe in and for insisting that the issue be carefully studied without a rush to judgment.

MooreNorth 2 years, 6 months ago

How long must an issue be analyzed, and discussed, before it's considered carefully studied without a rush to judgment? Not a loaded question. I would really like to hear a clear answer. Well, kind of clear.

Bflat 2 years, 6 months ago

Quoted from article: "some members of the council were willing to vote on the amendment with little to no discussion after a public hearing held at its meeting Oct. 12."

It would seem that there would be some discussion on a matter as important as this to consider the long range implications. Uses are being proposed that are not currently allowed, and it's being based on an "applicant." A vote in favor without any discussion would be like sending a message of favoritism and impropriety. Just saying....

None 2 years, 6 months ago

"See only liberals assume or make polar opposites between responsiblity and growth. I believe it is possible to have both."

That is apparent in how Poorer County's TPo3 conducts county business. No plans, borrowed money, excessive spending, poor judgement, conflicts of interest, ethical standards avoided, and Melton running as a conservative...nice label, but in reality, voters can see through the demented political tumid rhetoric coming from Ultra-Liberism at its best.

Do you really think in your juvenile mind that David McNeil or Mike Fields wants your support Joe? Your immaturity has exacerbated many in your own party.

Chris Smithson is very well respected, the only political figure not to have a juvenile mouthpiece speaking for him, and speaks to questions posed by those you ask. As opposed to ignoring those who elected him to office or who contends they are above and better than those they represent. Eventhough I live in Aberdeen, Chris has never failed to answer my telephone calls. We don't always agree on matters of mutual concern, but he listens - and responds based on understanding, clear thought, and supports his comments with documentation.

Hopefully - he will consider serving the people of Moore County as an Elected County Commissioner next time around. He has my support and vote.

None 2 years, 6 months ago

MooreNorth says..."How long must an issue be analyzed, and discussed, before it's considered carefully studied without a rush to judgment?"

Three to ten years and then when the people finally are given a cost estimation [June 21, 2010], vote on approving the bid that same meeting!

Then wait until October 2010 to provide us with all of the costs including the LL bond costs as well. Yes. I can see where there was a rush to judgment on spending on a Facility that really could be scaled down to meet the needs of criminals. Or is for the staff? Just wondering.

Hummmm..." I would really like to hear a clear answer. Well, kind of clear." Like the rest of Poorer County....

Bflat 2 years, 6 months ago

The magnitude of a change in zoning, even to clarify something, will forever impact an area. The long range implications do warrant further discussions with council members. Those being influenced by the "applicant" should not be swayed in their thinking in order to bring about an impartial decision. Is it right? Is is proper? Is it for the greater good of the community and the town? The issue should not be about increasing the (unreliable) tax base in the future.