For two years, a group of planners has struggled to write a standard book of rules for those who build new shopping centers and subdivisions.

Cabarrus County and its four cities and towns — Kannapolis, Concord, Mount Pleasant and Harrisburg — already have their own zoning. The so-called Unified Development Ordinance would replace all of them.

Earlier this month, the group published what it hopes will become a final draft of the new ordinance. Three inches thick and nearly 600 pages long, it would control every aspect of development — from how far buildings must sit from roads to how many parking spaces and trees new projects must include.

“Hopefully, the big stuff is behind us,” Concord Planner Jeff Young said. “As you know, there are folks who wish it was already adopted, and there are folks who wish it was never even out there, who are opposed to county-wide zoning. But the philosophical issues, I think, are water over the dam now.”

Already, a business group is questioning the massive manuscript. Written largely by Kansas City consulting firm Freilich, Leitner and Carlisle, it doesn’t address local needs, some say.

Jim E. Scarbrough, an attorney for the Cabarrus County Building Industry Association, has suggested dropping the proposed ordinance altogether and sticking to what’s in place.

“You can’t take your entire zoning ordinance and throw it out the window and replace it with something that someone from Kansas City wrote,” Scarbrough said. “You flat out can’t do it. It’s like the state of North Carolina cancelling all the laws on its books and implementing all the laws from another state.”

Elected boards expect to adopt some version of the ordinance in April and make it effective in July. Earlier this month, copies went out to state agencies, environmental groups, builders and agricultural and developers’ groups.

Scarbrough said the proposed ordinance is too rigid, too detailed and suitable for a more urban area.

“I think it creates more problems than it solves,” Scarbrough said. “When a law has so many problems with it, it’s a sinking ship. You just have to let it go.”

Ted Kluttz, president of the Building Industry Association, said the ordinance still has a long way to go before it will please developers his group represents.

“We find several unusual things in it,” Kluttz said. “There’s a lot that’s burdensome, time consuming and very tiring.”

The recently published version prohibits chain-link fences in back yards — a restriction usually left to homeowner associations, Kluttz said.

It refers to a table defining minimum and maximum parking space, but no such table exists. It forces developers to pay local governments in land or cash proportional to the amount of parking space they pave. And, it requires three-foot-high fencing to hide cars in parking lots for duplexes and some other residential developments.

“We feel this is just too much of a burden and quite frankly difficult to enforce,” Kluttz said. “Where does it stop? How will this affect the cost of affordable homes?” he asked. “The rules that apply to that $87,900 home, the same ones apply to that $879,000 home.

“These are just some of the issues and we’re kind of saying, ‘Hey, let’s look at this.’”

Concord developer Mike Quickel, who builds 10 to 12 starter homes a year and occasional multi-family projects, also worries about having to pass on additional costs to buyers.

A subdivision with as few as eight lots would require the developer to do a traffic impact study that typically costs $5,000, Quickel said. One-car garages and carports — common with lower priced houses — would have to sit back four feet from the front outside walls of houses. Apartment complexes with 22 or more units would sometimes require additional turn lanes.

“This person (from Kansas City) has come in and created a huge amount of work, and a lot of it, really, is not to the advantage of our county,” Quickel said. “It’s a little bit of an overkill. It could price people out of the marketplace.”

Still, Kluttz, Quickel and others who make money dealing in real estate say they still like the concept of a single set of rules.

“There needs to be uniformity,” Kluttz said. “We need to be able to make our properties more uniform, more aesthetically pleasing, but not put an excessive burden on the homeowner.

“ ... We concur that we need a master plan. Our concern is who designs it, who has input and who actually enforces and regulates it.”

David Mayfield, developer of Afton Village near Interstate 85 in Concord, is chairman of the committee now studying the ordinance. Mayfield said a lot of the document doesn’t address Cabarrus County’s needs. The ordinance needs to be “less prescriptive and more performance-based,” he said.

But he hopes his committee can keep some version of the new ordinance.

The current version gives developers a complex choice of clock towers, benches, kiosks, water fountains and other landscaping — rather than letting them be creative on their own, Mayfield said.

“There’s just stuff that misses the mark of what we’re trying to accomplish,” he said. “We’d rather leave it up to the landowner.

“A lot will be omitted. It needs to be simplified. It needs to be reformatted in many ways ... Some of this stuff is very detailed and may not fit anything we have in the county.”

The steering committee studying Cabarrus’ Unified Development Ordinance meets again on Feb. 7.

So far, few residents have shown an interest in the ordinance. The only group to question it publicly since it was mailed out this month is the Building Industry Association.

Scarbrough said that’s typical.