ROCKINGHAM — The Richmond County Board of Commissioners approved a text amendment during its July meeting that reorganizes the county’s development regulations into a unified development ordinance [UDO] and adds new tools for reviewing future development proposals.
Planning Director Tracy Parris told commissioners the update was intended to bring the county’s regulations in line with state law while making the ordinance easier for residents, developers and county staff to use.
“Our ordinance is a living document, and just like a home, requires regular maintenance and occasional updates—our development regulations require the same attention,” Parris said.
Parris said the county took the opportunity to do more than address required legislative changes.
“Laws change, our community changes and the way we plan for growth has to evolve as well. Last year provided the right opportunity to take a more comprehensive look at our ordinance, and not just making the required updates, but taking time to clean things up, reorganize, and modernize the document so it’s easy for everybody to follow,” Parris said.
According to Parris, across North Carolina, more than 70 of the 100 counties have moved to what is called a unified development ordinance.
A unified development ordinance, or UDO, combines regulations that were previously spread across multiple ordinances into a single document.
“In simple terms, a UDO brings different development regulations that were previously found in separate ordinances into one document, instead of property owners, developers, staff and decision makers having to look in multiple places— everything is organized together in one location,” Parris explained.
Parris said the transition also reflects changes made under Chapter 160D of the North Carolina General Statutes, which standardized many local development regulations across the state.
“The move towards a UDO became especially important after the state adopted Chapter 160D of the North Carolina General Statutes, which created more consistency in how local governments regulate development. Many counties use this opportunity not only to meet those state requirements, but also to take a fresh look at their ordinances and make them clear, more efficient, and easier to understand,” said Parris.
In addition to state law changes, the update incorporates revised roadway standards, development agreement requirements and regulations affecting family care homes, temporary care structures and agritourism.
“When we began this process, I knew there were several state requirements, as well as NCDOT updates that needed to be addressed,” Parris said. “We needed to update roadway standards, make our requirements more consistent with DOT, and incorporate legislative changes related to development agreements. Family care homes, temporary care structures and bona fide farms (agritourism).”
Parris said the overhaul also reorganized multiple sections of the county’s code into one document and revised development standards and definitions that had become outdated.
“This project was more than simply checking the boxes for compliance. It was also about improving the overall organization and usability of the ordinance. Several chapters were combined, including chapters one, two, five, 14, 20 and 32, along with the table of uses, the zoning ordinance, and appendices.
“This allowed us to bring subdivision regulations, flood damage, prevention regulations, watershed regulations, telecommunications, business regulations, administration, and general provisions into one unified document. We also took a hard look at our definitions and our development standards.”
Parris said some standards required only minor revisions while others were rewritten or added to provide clearer guidance. The changes include standards for RV parks, homeless shelters, manufactured home parks, temporary emergency shelters, group care homes, adult establishments, portable storage containers, temporary construction offices and bed-and-breakfast homes and inns.
She added that county departments participated in the review process and public input was considered where appropriate.
“Through this process, I work with multiple county departments and consider public input where appropriate. The goal was to create clear expectations, not only for those looking to develop property, but also for our staff, our decision-makers, and our citizens. We also added standards for new and unlisted uses, so that future development can be evaluated consistently using the latest version of the North American Industry Classification System.
“Ultimately, the goal is simple: Create a document that’s easy to understand, easy to administer, and better prepared to guide responsible growth in Richmond County,” Parris said.
One of the ordinance’s additions is conditional zoning, which Parris said gives commissioners another option when considering development proposals.
“One of the more significant additions I want to mention is the incorporation of conditional zoning. The city of Rockingham recently added this approach as well. Unlike a conventional rezoning request, where you, the board, must consider all of the uses allowed within the requested zoning district, conditional zoning is based on a specific project and a specific development plan,” Parris said. “This allows the board of commissioners to evaluate the actual project being proposed, along with any agreed-upon conditions. Ultimately, conditional zoning is another option in our land use toolbox.”
“It gives the board of commissioners an additional tool to evaluate development proposals, in a more project-specific way, while providing greater clarity and predictability for both the applicants and the community,” said Parris.
Parris said conditional zoning follows the same statutory process as conventional zoning, requiring a development narrative and site plan from the applicant before the proposal goes through Planning Board review, public notice, notification of adjacent property owners, a public hearing and final action by commissioners.
“All General Statutes are followed for both conventional and conditional zoning. The request is first presented to the planning board for recommendation and consistency. Public notices are provided, adjacent property owners are notified, postings are placed on site, a public hearing is held, and the board of commissioners makes the final decision on reasonableness and consistency,” Parris said.
Parris said the ordinance was developed with assistance from a North Carolina consulting firm specializing in development ordinances and underwent more than 10 revisions before reaching the board.
“This project was a significant undertaking, and it would not have been possible for one person’s efforts alone. Last year, I brought in a respected North Carolina consulting firm that specializes in development ordinances. They also work with David Owens, a recently retired professor from the UNC School of Government,” Parris said.
“The draft went through more than 10 revisions as we work through department comments, legal review, and practice considerations to make sure that the final product was something that works in the real world,” Parris said. “… I want to emphasize this is not a document that will simply sit on the shelf. Ordinances are living documents. As laws change, and as we identify opportunities for improvement, we will continue to update and refine it.”
Parris also highlighted revisions to Chapter 17, fire prevention, to better align with state fire protection initiatives.
“These updates may provide our fire departments additional opportunities when seeking certain grant funding,” Parris said.
During board discussion, Commissioner Andy Grooms asked how conditional zoning would apply if property approved for a heavy industrial use under a conditional zoning request later changed occupants after the original company closed or left. Specifically, he asked whether a future business would have to return to the board if it proposed a different use while the property’s underlying zoning remained the same.
Parris said conditional zoning is tied to a specific project and development plan, and that if the property’s use changed, the new business or entity would need to come before the board.
Commissioner Jamie Gathings also asked about changes affecting RV parks. Parris said the guidelines became “a little more strict,” citing wider roads, larger lot sizes, aesthetic changes such as buffers and lighting, and the elimination of standalone tent camping unless it is associated with an RV park.
Commissioner Jason Gainey thanked Parris for her work but said he had not finished reviewing the lengthy document.
“This is one of our longer packets, Tracy. Thank you for that. I managed about 75 pages of it. I like what I see so far. I noticed you guys have struck through quite a few things and rewritten a lot to make it, I guess, more legible,” said Gainey.
After Parris reminded commissioners that approval of the amendment required a finding that it was consistent with the county’s strategic land use plan, Gainey asked whether the vote could be postponed until the next meeting so commissioners would have additional time to review the document.
“Remember, that in your approval, we have to note that you have found it consistent with the strategic land use plan, similar to what the planning board had approved back when they reviewed it,” Parris said.
“I would just like the opportunity to finish reading it,” said Gainey. “Would the commissioners mind us tabling the vote for three weeks until the next meeting? Would that be appropriate?”
Chairman Jeff Smart asked Parris whether she needed the amendment approved that evening.
“I would like it tonight. I think we’re at the point where we are kind of midstream with certain items and other items, and it’s been publicly advertised at this point… Commissioner Gainey, if you feel the need to go back and revisit something else or make adjustments to the text amendment, we can surely come back in at another day and look at that,” Parris said.
County Attorney S. Mujeeb Shah-Khan told the board it had the authority to postpone action if it chose.
“I think it’s an inconvenience as far as what the planning director’s noted, but you do of course always have that right. I just wanted to make that perfectly clear so no one confuses that you have that absolute right,” said Shah-Khan.
Gainey made a motion to table the amendment to allow commissioners more time to review the proposal, but no commissioners voted in favor of the motion.
Commissioner Grooms then made a motion to approve the text amendment. Chairman Jeff Smart and commissioners Jamie Gathings, Justin Dawkins, Dr. Rick Watkins and Robin Roberts voted in favor, with Gainey voting against the motion. The amendment was approved.