Lee County Planning calls for special meeting after bypassing state law for ? years

Sandhills News seeks records to identify affected amendments and review past land-use decisions.

Lee County acknowledged its failure to comply with state-required protocols and the county’s Unified Development Ordinances (UDO) in adopting zoning amendments. This questions the scope of affected past land-use decisions.

On page three of the Nov. planning board agenda, the county states:

“It has been determined that staff has not completely followed the prescribed review and approval methods required by state statute and the Unified Development Ordinance.”

North Carolina General Statute 160D-605 was not properly followed. According to the statute, the governing board is required to approve a statement reflecting whether its action on a zoning text or map amendment is consistent with the adopted comprehensive land-use plan.

In the agenda, staff admitted to procedural flaws connected to Plan SanLee, which was established back in 2018, but does not clarify when they began or even attempt to guess at how long the county has bypassed the procedures.

The county has not admitted that previous zoning amendments were invalid, or that previously approved developments were unlawful.

Sandhills News has submitted public information requests to determine how many zoning text amendments have been “approved” without including the required consistency statements. The request asks the county to identify what went wrong, when it happened, who is responsible, which amendments were affected and what legal consequences, if any, follow.

Lee County Development’s mission statement reads, “Lee County Development Services processes both current and long-range capital projects and plans. We hold ourselves, and our applicants, responsible for projects that enhance the quality of life in our community.”

North Carolina General Statute 160D-601reads:

“Before adopting, amending, or repealing any ordinance or development regulation authorized by this Chapter, the governing board shall hold a legislative hearing.”

The Nov. 9 planning board notice identifies the Lee County Planning Board as the body holding the public hearing. The planning board’s recommendation will be presented to the commissioners on Nov. 16.

Under G.S. 160D-601, the commissioners must hold the required legislative hearing before adopting or amending the planning board regulation.

The planning board’s agenda shares a wording flaw in stating state law on page two with the county attorney’s conflict-of-interest policy, dated April 18, 2022. Attorney Whitney Parrish was unanimously appointed by the Lee County Board of Commissioners in 2016.

The agenda states that a commissioner must not vote when a matter has a:

“direct, substantial, and reading identifiable financial impact.”

The same wording appears in the section addressing appointed board members.

The applicable state statute, G.S. 160D-109, actually says:

“direct, substantial, and readily identifiable financial impact.”

Sandhills News asked about the legal impact of Lee County’s proposed UDO readoption on past zoning amendments in its public information request.

Because a new adoption does not confirm proper adoption of earlier amendments or retroactively amend procedural flaws.

The county was requested to identify amendments affected and verify if prior actions were taken without necessary recommendations, statements, hearings, notices, or approval. The request questions if deficient amendments were used afterward to approve projects or permits. Sandhills News seeks to clarify whether the readoption corrects only future procedural flaws or also past enactment defects. These questions are not covered in the planning board agenda packet.

G.S. 160D-1405 addresses deadline limitations in challenging zoning and text amendments.

Questions remain, and answers to the public information requests will be published when they are provided.

The following images are the planning board agenda for the meeting on Nov. 9.

To the Members of the Sanford Planning Board, the Sanford City Council, and the Lee County Board of Commissioners:

I respectfully ask that this written comment be distributed to each member before the November 9 public hearing on PB ITEM 2026-1101 and before any vote by the City Council or the Board of Commissioners. I am unable to attend in person because of a family medical emergency.

I oppose the blanket re-adoption of the Unified Development Ordinance with no changes, and I ask that the item be tabled or that specific amendments be separated for individual review.

The staff report explains that this re-adoption is a corrective measure: the consistency vote required by G.S. 160D-605(a) was not properly taken on earlier UDO amendments. I appreciate staff identifying that problem. But the solution should be to actually review those amendments against Plan SanLee, not to approve all of them at once with a single general statement that they are consistent.

A consistency statement is supposed to explain why a regulation fits the comprehensive plan and why it is reasonable and in the public interest. A statement covering the entire ordinance, adopted in one vote with no changes, cannot meaningfully do that.

The data center standards in UDO Section 5.52 are a clear example of why separate review matters:

– Plan SanLee designates most of the developable land at the Lower Moncure Road site as “countryside.” In 2025, the Lee County Planning Board voted to recommend denial of that rezoning, citing concerns including the character of the area and environmental impacts. The commissioners approved it anyway.

– The current noise standard is measured building by building. The developer’s noise study addressed one building, while the site plan shows 11. The ordinance does not address the combined noise of a multi-building campus operating 24 hours a day.

– The ordinance contains no limits on water use and no decommissioning or abandonment bond if a facility is closed or left vacant.

These are exactly the kinds of questions a consistency review is meant to ask. Re-adopting Section 5.52 without examining them would treat a procedural correction as if it were a substantive review.

I ask the Planning Board and the elected boards to:

1. Table PB ITEM 2026-1101, or separate out the amendments that were adopted without a proper consistency vote, including Section 5.52, for individual review against Plan SanLee.

2. Ensure that any consistency statement cites the specific Plan SanLee goals involved, such as rural character and environmental stewardship, rather than a general finding.

3. Coordinate this process with the UDO workshop the Lee County Board of Commissioners voted in October to hold, so that needed improvements, including cumulative noise limits, water-use limits, stronger setbacks, and decommissioning bonds, are considered rather than locked in by re-adoption.

Thank you for your time and for your service to our community.

Respectfully,
Shauna Johnstone
958 Breezewood Road,

Sanford, NC  27330
240-285-1716
charisnshalom@gmail.com

On November 9, the Lee County Planning Board will hold a special hearing to re-adopt our entire Unified Development Ordinance. The reason, in the county’s own notice: past zoning amendments “did not completely follow the prescribed review and approval methods required by state statute.” North Carolina law requires every zoning change to come with a written statement of consistency with the county’s plan and of why it serves the public interest. Ours skipped it.

The proposed cure is to re-adopt everything “with no changes to the current text.” That phrase deserves attention from every Sandhills reader, because it is the part of the story that repeats elsewhere. When a county corrects its paperwork but leaves every weakness in its rules untouched the lesson is clear: the process can be fixed after the fact, but the rules your county negotiates under are what you live with for generations. These weaknesses still stand: a noise standard looser than Loudoun County, Virginia’s, which is now tightening its limits after years of resident complaints; no independent valuation of an unprecedented billion-dollar facility; no public hearing required for ten future buildings at the largest project ever zoned here.

The good news is that this story has a next chapter, and it’s public. Lee County residents can speak on the record this Monday, November 9 at 6 p.m. at the Sanford Municipal Center, and again November 16 at 6 p.m. before the Board of Commissioners at the Main Library. Wherever you live in the Sandhills, watch what happens here. Ask whether your county’s zoning decisions carried the consistency statements that state law requires.

It’s our government’s own paperwork. We’re entitled to check it!

Thank you for your consideration,

Jennifer Garner

Concerned Lee County Resident & Small Business Owner

Review the petition. https://c.org/wWnpfDKgMj

Nov. 9, 2026

Stephanie M. Sellers and provided letters.

Subscribe to Sandhills News and support this conservative journalism with advertising.

Submit news tips, events and interview requests to editor@sandhills.news.

Sandhills News is plain-English local government reporting that explains how decisions affect your land, taxes, schools and rights.