Skip to content
The Archive of The Carrboro Citizen
Menu
  • Home
  • News
  • Community
  • Schools
  • Business
  • Opinion
  • Obituaries
  • Sports
  • Mill
  • Flora
  • Print Archive
  • About
Menu

Unified Development Ordinance reviewed

Posted on January 20, 2011January 20, 2011 by Susan Dickson

By Susan Dickson
Staff Writer

CARRBORO — The Carrboro Board of Aldermen heard a presentation on the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) on Tuesday, and raised questions regarding changes to zoning regulations, stream-buffer regulations and the rural buffer.

Perdita Holtz, planning system coordinator with the county, explained that the UDO combines all county regulations related to land development into one document. County planning staff released the first draft of Phase 1 of the UDO in August and has collected feedback and revised the draft over the past few months. Phase 1 focuses on an organizational framework effort, rather than regulatory changes.

Board member Randee Haven-O’Donnell questioned how the UDO could affect stream buffers and greenways, and Holtz explained that the UDO includes some uses in stream buffers that weren’t previously allowed, like boat docks.

“We have gone through the state’s fairly extensive list of what they allow and picked out a few things … to either allow outright or allow with mitigation,” Holtz said.

Haven-O’Donnell also questioned how residents in the rural buffer would be affected by the UDO, since that area falls under county jurisdiction. Holtz said there is virtually no change to zoning regulations in the rural buffer in the UDO.

Some county residents have expressed concern that the document changes the development process so that certain developments would go through without the special-use permits that are required under current law.

The confusion appears to stem from the replacement of Planned Development zoning districts with Conditional Zoning Districts and the Conditional Use District. In 2005, state statutes were changed to allow local governments to adopt conditional zoning. The changes allow the county to apply conditions to address off-site impacts, such as having a developer provide a turn lane into a development to improve traffic conditions.

In conditional zoning districts, developers can request a rezoning of a mixed-use development, like a mobile home park, by providing a list of proposed uses within the district as well as land-development parameters, without having to apply for a special-use permit, which would require an exact site plan.

Mayor Mark Chilton asked about excluded uses for Conditional Use Districts, which Holtz explained were heavy-use projects, such as airports, hospitals and landfills.

The county asked the board to submit written comments on the draft by Feb. 2. The county has continued a public hearing on the UDO until Feb. 28 and is scheduled to adopt Phase 1 on April 5.

In other action, the board voted 4-1 to authorize the town to award a construction contract for the Weaver Street reconstruction project. Bidding for the project, which is estimated to cost $1.8 million, will open on Tuesday.

Board member Sammy Slade voted against the measure, saying that he couldn’t support the project given the work needed to mitigate climate change and CO2 emissions.

“I feel that we are in times where we have to reconsider and reprioritize things that we put our money towards,” he said. “I’d hope that we could really reassess our priorities when we allocate money – and this is going to cost a million-plus dollars – that we really consider things within the context of what some scientists are saying.”

Chilton said while he understood Slade’s sentiment, he felt that the project was necessary, adding that it included sustainability features.

“Where a huge part of the wear and tear on Weaver Street comes from is in fact our public transportation system,” he said. “This reconstruction project will also be reconstructing bike lanes.”

In addition, this is an opportune time for the project, given relatively low construction costs, he said.

Web Archive

© 2025 The Archive of The Carrboro Citizen | Powered by Minimalist Blog WordPress Theme