By Arie Kirk

January 25, 2007 | SMITHFIELD -- During a meeting Wednesday night, the City Council discussed possible amendments to existing ordinances in order to adequately handle and control impending growth.

"Growth is something we really need to address," said Councilman William Wood. "Are we going to be a rural community or an urban community?"

The council reviewed two ordinances, which control intrablock development and building in the Central Business District.

With the increase in building intrablocks, the council has seen a growing concern regarding the use of land and its appearance. Many Smithfield residents have complained about losing their view and the feel of the town as a result of houses being built in tighter quarters.

Councilman Brent Buttars proposed an amendment requiring the lots located in the block to have 125 percent of the zone block around it. For example, if one were to build on a residential zone that is 10,000 square feet, the new amendment would require the lot to be 12,500 square feet.

Buttars also suggested a height constraint of 25 feet, helping to ease the tension between older residents and new homeowners.

This proposal raises the conflicting issue of preserving land. Councilman Deon Hunsaker said many people believe the land should remain undisturbed, not allotted for new homes.

"There needs to be more intrablocks, more density to preserve the agriculture," Hunsaker said. "There are going to be some people who say, "Don't build in the agriculture. Build in the city with higher density.'"

However, places like these are good options for young couples or those of a lower financial class, Buttars said.

Kris Monson, also a member of the council, said the homes are smaller and because of that, people move as their family grows, increasing turn around and giving the area the feeling of being an apartment complex. Monson, who conducted a survey of Smithfield residents living in the effected areas, said this was a frequent complaint.

Smithfield resident David Lillywhite argued about the idea that the homes were too small to accommodate a larger family. He said he was tired of people speaking up when they don't know the facts.

"These are not tiny houses," Lillywhite said. "Are we trying to decide what's popular with the people or what is right?"

In her survey, Monson said she found many differing opinions. However, she said they must reach a compromise. Monson, who supports the idea of making lots bigger, said she believes something better can be done to lessen the fight.

Buttars said, "People are not going to be happy no matter what we do. Damned if we do, and damned if we don't."

Mayor Chad Downs said it will be sometime before anything is set in stone and put before the public.

"I don't see a public hearing in two weeks. There are too many questions," Downs said. "We'll send it back to the planning committee. There is no hearing set. We are a ways away from that."

The city council also reviewed an ordinance that details the construction of commercial and residential in the Central Business District.

It was proposed that business owners be allowed more flexibility when building a residence on the same plot of land as their area of business. Currently, owners are allowed to live above and below their business. Buttars said if they were able to have a place of residence behind the commercial area, the business would again be the dominant focus.

Smithfield's Deputy Recorder Char Izatt agreed, saying they want to avoid saturating the business district with apartments. With this amendment, businesses will remain the dominant feature downtown.

Aside from developing downtown Smithfield, it would also attract potential residents. This would encourage multiple families to live in the area, Buttars said.

Members of the council supported the idea, believing it would revitalize the business district and provide more appropriate housing. Downs said a public hearing will be set after the plan is sent back to the planning committee and fine-tuned.

"This can be added fairly easily," Downs said. "I think we're ready to see some action on this one."

Further discussion of these issues can be expected at the next town meeting at 6:30 p.m. Feb. 14. Meetings are at 69 N. Main Street in Smithfield.

RB
RB