Confusion In Kannapolis Kills Ban On Development

BY MATTHEW WINTER
SALISBURY POST

KANNAPOLIS - An admittedly ''confused'' City Council member on Tuesday derailed a moratorium on high density housing, just minutes after he lambasted the city for ''stacking people on top of people.''

During the board's regular meeting, Phil Meacham chided himself and fellow council members for tolerating minimum lot sizes so small that children have nowhere safe to play.

''We are at fault every time a young'un gets hurt out in the street,'' Meacham said. ''We are the ones who should not have let them put a house on so small a lot.''

Meacham, 75, went on to describe residential growth as a way for developers to make a quick buck, and compared the problem to ''a kudzu vine, strangling us to death.''

Then he voted against the moratorium.

''I was confused,'' Meacham explained after the meeting. ''I have problems with my head, and this is just one of them.

''No big deal. We'll bring it up again and just pass it.''

Jennie Wyrick voted with Meacham against the moratorium, which would have temporarily banned new residential developments in three zoning districts making up about 12 percent of the city's land.

Wyrick apparently will not change her vote, which was the first time since her appointment to the board in October 1998 that she's cast a vote against the majority.

''Moratorium is just such a scary word,'' Wyrick said after the meeting.

The two votes were enough to kill the development ban - temporarily, it seems - because ordinances that alter zoning require a two-thirds majority vote, city attorney William Safrit said.

City planner Michael Legg said the moratorium would give the Planning Department time to draft a number of new housing regulations, including requirements for more than one entrance to apartment complexes and larger minimum lot sizes for houses.

The moratorium also would give the city time to work on a unified development ordinance - referred to by city officials as a ''UDO.'' The UDO being drafted now will provide the same land use regulations for Kannapolis, Concord, Harrisburg, Mount Pleasant and unincorporated areas of Cabarrus County.

A final draft could be ready for public hearings in these cities by the end of summer, and the finished ordinance could be in place by the end of the year, Legg said.

Without the moratorium and the new city housing regulations to follow, Kannapolis could lose whatever land is still available in these three zoning districts, Legg said. Few new neighborhoods sprang up in Kannapolis in the past eight years, but in 1998 residential builders developed about 250 acres, he pointed out.

Some of these builders brought an attorney to the council meeting to argue against a moratorium against high density development.

Everette Gilliam, president of the Cabarrus County Building Industry Association, claimed a moratorium would bring unwanted urban sprawl and signal to companies considering moving to Kannapolis that the city doesn't want to supply housing for their workers.

''The reality is a moratorium will never produce the result that is claimed to be needed and will likely create more pent-up demand in the future rather than smoothing the demand as we go,'' Gilliam said.

James Scarbrough, an attorney for the builder's association, warned council that a moratorium could be challenged in court. Scarbrough claimed such a measure may be unconstitutional.

Safrit, county attorney, told council there are no ''black-and-white laws'' concerning moratoriums, but various government advisory groups have indicated the Kannapolis measure would be at least ''academically permissible.''

After the moratorium vote failed, Gilliam, Scarbrough and the rest of the builders left the meeting. Why Meacham voted against the measure remained a mystery to them, Gilliam said.

''We were all outside scratching our heads, trying to figure out what happened,'' he said. ''But that's their right to bring it up again, and we just hope we can make our case to them to wait until this unified development ordinance comes out, to see what kind of criteria they may have in there to better control growth.''

As part of an ongoing strategic planning process, City Council hopes to increase housing values while easing the pressure apartment complexes and high density neighborhoods put on city services such as fire and police protection.

Council already has another moratorium in place banning new mobile home parks.

The three districts that will fall under a development ban if council calls another moratorium vote are O&I, RM-1 and RM-2. All three districts allow multi-family developments such as apartment complexes, and O&I also allows limited office and commercial use.

These three districts allow the smallest minimum lot sizes and highest density of all city zoning districts: 6,000 square feet and 13 units per acre in O&I; 5,000 square feet and 16 units per acre in RM-1; and 3,000 square feet and 28 units per acre in RM-2.

The Planning Department believes these districts allow too many people in too little space. Legg hinted that the looming ordinance will increase minimum lot sizes while lowering the maximum number of units allowed per acre.

Short-term housing regulations developed by the city and the permanent UDO also will provide higher standards for residential development, Legg predicted. These measures could include requirements for sidewalks, better landscaping and community design.

Barring a special-call meeting, council meets again on Feb. 8.