Oviedo blocks townhomes in effort to prevent piecemeal development

What was described as a “glitch ordinance” prompted an unexpected decision by the Oviedo City Council Monday night to prevent piecemeal townhome development in certain existing Oviedo neighborhoods.

Teresa Correa, Oviedo’s development services director, said the “glitch ordinance,” part of a presentation on city’s Land Development Code amendments, was meant to correct and update the Land Development Code, including typographical corrections and map amendments to adjust zoning districts that conflicted with how certain parcels of land were designated to be used in the future. Within those future land use designations, the talk turned into a debate on whether or not to allow townhomes in medium density residential (MDR) zones.

Deputy mayor Natalie Teuchert said she was in favor of taking out the townhome option, so the lots would be used for single homes instead of adding multiple units.

“I would be in favor of doing that without adding more uses than what currently sits there, and we still can make them compliant without potentially putting their neighborhood at risk,” Teuchert said.

MDR zones support about eight housing units per acre, according to city code. The classification allows the city to be adjustable with accommodating population growth by avoiding either high-density apartments and low-density single-family subdivisions, and is used in areas with a “missing middle” housing situation. 

The proposed mapping of multiple small-lot, single-family areas to zone R-1B would be consistent with MDR future land use and “bring these lots into conformity,” said City Manager Bryan Cobb. In the proposed R-1B zone, duplexes were not permitted, however single homes and townhomes, which are defined as at least three connected units or more, are.

“So it would be either [a] single family home or three or more attached. That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me to skip the middle,” Mayor Megan Sladek said.

Sladek said she wanted to leave the townhomes in the zone, and allow duplexes as well. She said she thinks that people will want to stay in their neighborhoods and not have to move across town when looking to downsize.

“If you keep the look the same, but you change the number of families that can live there, I think that is exactly what people are hoping to do, is stay in their neighborhoods and not have to [move] … They don’t really want to move, but they would like to not have a yard someday.”

Some council members expressed concern over leaving the townhome-building option in the code since it could lead to piecemeal redevelopment, when an area is gradually rebuilt and can be inconsistent with its surrounding areas.

City attorney Wade Vose explained the hypothetical concept of a developer buying three or four connected single family home lots to build townhomes in a single family home neighborhood. 

Teuchert agreed.

“… [that scenario] is what I’m worried about, someone buying up three houses and then throwing a townhome in the middle of your neighborhood,” Teuchert said. “People are not going to be happy.” 

The council spoke in favor by a 3-2 margin of removing the potential for townhomes development in that situation, with Teuchert, Councilmember Keith Britton and Councilmember Alan Ott in the majority.

“I would like to take it out, because I think the residents who live there already almost certainly don’t want that in,” Ott said.

The council’s decision does not prevent townhomes in the area forever. Sladek said that the possibility of townhomes in the area still remains since the zone is MDR. Future developers could apply to rezone the larger area to accomplish this, while preventing smaller piecemeal redevelopment.

Want to contact your elected leaders and weigh in on this topic? Find their contact information here. Have a news tip or opinion to share with OCN? Do that here.

CORRECTION: A previous version of this article referred to the group Council decision, which was conducted by City Attorney Wade Vose, as a “vote.” According to Mayor Megan Sladek the decision did not constitute a formal vote.