Lee County, Sanford and Broadway planning paper over 25 years of procedural omissions

In a sweeping procedural reset, Sanford, Lee County and Broadway’s planning boards recommended re-adopting their existing Uniform Development Ordinances (UDO), unchanged, while attaching a broad declaration of consistency with Plan SanLee in a special-called meeting Nov. 9. The remedial step raises a significant issue: whether a general vote of consistency can effectively reconcile 25 years of land-use decisions carried out without compliance with the state-mandated process for associating zoning amendments with an adopted comprehensive plan.

The remedial step also questions how planning boards can make decisions that are “consistent” with Plan SanLee when decision makers are not provided insight into consistency conflicts and if planning boards ignore Plan SanLee when making recommendations. These land-use decisions impact generations for decades.

The three boards’ recommendations include consistency with Plan SanLee for all UDO text amendments, the data center UDO rules in 5.52 and all previous zoning decisions to comply with state legislation: North Carolina General Statutes 160D-605 and UDO 3.3.6.2.

The decision to accept the remedial reconciliation of over 25 years of omissions is now in the hands of the Lee County Board of Commissioners, who meet on Nov. 16, to decide whether to accept their recommendations.

Lee County Planning Board members Chanel Simpson and Kristen Mellette voted against the broad consistency statement, against the statement to accept the current UDO standards in Section 5.52 on data centers and the broad zoning consistency statement. Brad Kelly voted against the zoning statement.

The City of Sanford Planning Board unanimously approved all three consistency statements.

The Broadway Planning Board had one opposition to each of the three consistency statements.

After the meeting, Lee County Zoning Administrator Thomas Mierisch said the boards had not used consistency statements for text amendments “since Ive been here or Amy [McNeil, Senior Planner] and she’s been here 25 years.”

When asked why the leader of the public hearing, Attorney Dwight “Mack” McCarly said at the opening of the meeting, “We are here to correct oversight in the last three years,” Mierisch explained the time difference.

“Statute of limitations,” Mierisch said.

“Boards must decide if previous amendments made are consistent with Plan SanLee,” McCarly said during a conversation with Sanford Planning Board Member Bill Murphy when he asked if they did not approve the consistency statements, would the UDO standards on data centers dissolve.

“The list of legal issues is complex,” McCarly said in reference to the idea of not recommending consistency with Plan SanLee. “If not ratified there is potential Section 5.52 could be attacked. A new data center [proposal] would not have the [5.52 UDO] rules. The corrective action is to adopt [consistency statements.]”

McCarly said if a data center applicant walked in tomorrow and the boards had not approved the consistency statements that the data center would fall under standards for all light industry without the regulations listed in the UDO in 5.52.

Lee County Planning Board Member Eric Farmer asked how many text amendments were affected by the lack of following state laws.

McCarly said there were about 15 for the City of Sanford, less for Lee County, and less for Broadway. (This is under the three-year statute of limitations, not the actual 25-years of noncompliance.)

In a discussion with citizen Attorney Eric Evenson, McCarly said they were there to only make “corrective action to fix a procedural error.”

The “procedural error” has blinded county and city officials for over 25 years to conflicts with project proposals because they were not written (and provided to decision makers) with the 10 specific consistency questions which proposals must be evaluated.

Evenson asked for a moratorium on data centers to give the county and municipalities 60 to 90 days to strengthen the data center regulations after the Lee County Commissioners had declared it insufficient two weeks prior.

McCarly said he had not read any of the three citizen petitions offering research and UDO suggestions on data centers.

On rezoning, McCarly said the state law on downzoning prevented them from redacting any zoning decisions. “It can’t be changed.”

During public comments, citizens expressed concerns from noise to reckless decision-making.

In respect to the data center on Lower Moncure Road, an agricultural district, Kate Annett-Hitchcock pointed out that on page six of the Nov. 9 agenda, which reads: It is consistent with Objective 6: Promote the long-term sustainability of Lee County’s rich rural and agricultural heritage by directing growth away from productive farming areas and concentrating development in the urbanized portions of the county by maintaining standards for lower density lot sizes in Residential Agricultural districts and by providing additional standards for a Special Use Permit or enhanced standards for certain uses in Residential Agricultural districts.

Still, the three boards passed the consistency statements.

Jennifer Garner requested the boards provide public statements on the boards failed to comply with state laws. “Plan SanLee does not protect the public.”

Still, the three boards passed the consistency statements.

Nathan Herman cited his Christian faith and said the failed state compliance coming to light at this moment was an act of grace from the Lord as a “chance to pause, reflect and correct.”

Still, the three boards passed the consistency statements.

Lanier Hannah asked for a moratorium to update the data center regulations.

Linda Hoover said the rules were never properly enacted. “It is a blank canvas now. The time to do it right is now.” She asked the boards to strengthen noise regulations for data centers.

Still, the three boards passed the consistency statements.

Mark Mansfield expressed his exhaustion. “This has put us all through hell for a year. We have paid consequences for this. Now, we have a chance. God gave us this chance. It was a rush job to begin with. Ain’t got to make a rich man richer. Let us, citizens help. Don’t leave us out. The commissioners ignored us.”

Still, the three boards passed the consistency statements.

However, Sanford Planning Board’s Vice-Chairman Jeff Foster helped clarify that anyone, staff or citizen, may submit well-drafted data center regulation ideas to the planning boards.

Jonathan Boyce questioned how the data center was projected to bring $1 million each year in property taxes with a property worth $900 million, which under current property tax rate of .65 cents per $100 would normally generate $6 million.

Keely Puricz and Cindy O’Quinn asked the boards to table the decision and to strengthen data center regulations and increase fines.

Debbie Hall asked for a moratorium and said the boards had skipped past Plan SanLee, so she read it in entirety. Read it here on page six.

Still, the three boards passed the consistency statements.

Sanford’s Assistant City Manager Marshall Downey read Laura Young’s statement. She asked for no increase in utilities, no tax breaks for commercial businesses and no industries in rural agriculture districts.

Ms. Eves said the agenda did not properly identify the impacted regulations or who was responsible. She asked them to make the information public and to forward her statement to the commissioners and have it recorded in the minutes.

Still, the three boards passed the consistency statements.

Lee County Commissioners meet on Nov. 16 at 6 p.m. to weigh the planning boards’ recommendations as they discern whether deficient amendments were used to approve projects or permits.

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

Nov. 10, 2026

Stephanie M. Sellers

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.