integrates new state law into the UDO which allows City Council to adopt zoning regulations on the date of introduction by simple majority vote; clarify language in Sec. 10.2.4., and streamlining the Planning Commission’s review of applications, by creating a higher expectation that rezoning applicants will have fully engaged with residents in advance of Planning Commission review and recommendation to City Council on applications.
Looks like there are lots of procedural differences. Some random examples of them makes things easier or more intuitive to do like:
allowing rezoning requests that don’t perfectly match up with parcel boundaries
automatically withdrawing applications without developer replies in 6mo.
letting developers submit site plans as a part of the rezoning application (even though they’re not asking for a construction permit yet)
…while others clarify or reorganize requirements that are a pain in the ass to do, such as:
at what point are developers supposed to hold public meetings, meetings with city planners, etc.
requiring the planning director to write a report saying that they checked over development plans with other city departments (e.g. the fire marshal) for meeting technical requirements. (this apparently used to just be an informal process.)
…but unless you actually care about how bureaucratic procedures are managed, I don’t think this means that much for most people here. Maybe with the exception of seeing pretty renderings a few months earlier than how things work now.
This is a change required under state law. The planning enabling legislation for municipalities (G.S. 160A) and counties (G.S. 153A) have been updated and combined into a new piece of legislation, G.S. 160D, and local governments have until July 1 of this year to bring ordinances (including UDOs) into compliance. Another implication is that local governments with zoning ordinances need to have an updated comprehensive land use plan by July 1, 2022. (More info here: Chapter 160D: A New Land Use Law for North Carolina | UNC School of Government)
There has been plenty of notice for the changes to take place, but I’m sure we’ll be seeing a few more updates passing through Council, in Raleigh and elsewhere.
Is there anything big that we should expect from this new law? A lot of the required changes sound like they’re procedural or minor jurisdictional changes. I couldn’t find anything that screamed “I’m not red tape reform; I’m fundamentally new!!”, but I admit my eyes also started glazing over like 1/3 of the way through the checklist for compliant statutes.
Not as far as I’m aware; it’s mostly streamlining things and changing the language to be clearer. The scope of local government planning activities isn’t expected to change.
Raleigh seems to be building more and more of this type of housing with all of the smaller row house projects popping up along the downtown’s edges, but we don’t really see them popping up so much in the middle of single family neighborhoods. Unfortunately, the opposite has been been true. The few small multifamily options that are in the older neighborhoods tend to be torn down for a new mega house.
What is this from? That way I can determine if the people who own the nearby SFH are actually “wealthy.” Interesting to see some negative reaction to this, yet it’s acceptable for people who live downtown in the Paramount to be upset over a potential view-blocking, loud development.
(Since we have a thread for North Hills and its relationship with downtown, I’m surprised we don’t have. a similar one for Crabtree or Blue Ridge…)
It looks like the Planning Commission discussed this project today. A lot of the conditions on your screenshot are kept, but at least we’re getting some new, denser housing near Crabtree.
I still wish it’s more acceptable to call people out complaining that they “don’t want densityyyyy” or how a proposed development “iS jUsT tOo TaLL” for what they are: pearl-clutchers who are holding back opportunities for increasing housing in bad faith. (Like, why don’t NIMBYs save that crap for more appropriate spaces like FLUM rewrites?). But with the procedural status quo we have now, I guess this is fine.
It appears the plan was changed from 7 stories to 4 after the February meeting. The “Stop Lead Mine Tower” site indicated this was still going to be a 7 story area.
New Max units are 205 apartments or 250 care apartments. 3,000 feet eating establishment.
1:02:27 They would have to help Philcrest Dr.
Passed 4-3
S.B. 349 was introduced to the NC senate a few days ago. I haven’t had a chance to read the full text of the bill, but here are the major takeaways, as written up by Building Bull City:
It’s a preemptive bill, which means that it would limit what cities and towns can do with their zoning laws.
Quadplexes (up to four units) would be allowed anywhere that residential is allowed (in other words, no more single family zoning)
I feel compelled to note that this DOESN’T mean that there will be no single family neighborhoods anymore, just that duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes will be ALLOWED to be built)
Townhomes would be allowed anywhere that residential is allowed
All uses, including residential would be allowed everywhere (in all zones). Cities/towns may only ban uses in certain zones that are deemed “an industrial use, a nuisance per se, or that does not otherwise pose a serious threat to the public health, safety, or welfare”
History tells us that “welfare” can have a broad interpretation, though.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) would be allowed anywhere that has a single family home.
There can’t be rules that are more strict in terms of setbacks for ADUs than for the main house.
Cities/towns have to allow for utility hookup to these ADUs
Cities/towns can’t require additional parking for these ADUs
Require owner-occupancy of these ADUs
These new rules do NOT apply to historic districts, which can continue to make their own rules with regard to single family zoning.
I’m not sure if this has any chance of passing, but it seems to have at least some bipartisan support. The bill’s sponsors include two Republican and two Democrat senators.
Queue people saying their neighborhoods are going to be ruined. Doubt it’ll pass because many many would hate it out of “fear” but would be cool to see. Thanks for posting
Sounds like good news to me .
I feel the per parcel zoning we have currently doesn’t make sense, especially when it can be changed by the land owner. This is not what that bill addresses but it goes in the right direction of making things more flexible.
not just in Francisco’s post, but in general.)
.