City of Salisbury Planning Office--Current Projects and Issues

Dear N.C. Planners:

In the wee hours this morning, S.518 and S.814 passed the House and were concurred in the Senate, bringing to a close two days of last minute negotiations, legislator education, and a final race against the clock to pass the most comprehensive update to the North Carolina planning statutes since they were first enacted in 1923!

In the end, the bills were supported by the N.C. League of Municipalities, the N.C. Assoc. of County Commissioners, the N.C. Homebuilders Association, the N.C. Association of Realtors, and the National Association of Office and Industrial Parks, as well as NCAPA. Special thanks go to Sen. Dan Clodfelter from Charlotte for his tremendous work conducting the negotiations on the bills, and to Rep. Lucy Allen from Louisburg for her timely efforts, which included sponsoring the bills in the House.

Thanks also to everyone in the Chapter who helped with this effort. Special thanks to Dave Owens for his outstanding technical assistance on the bills, to Chapter Legislative Liaison, Randolph Cloud, for his mastery of the legislative process, and to the NCAPA Executive Committee for their support. It was truly an outstanding team effort!

During the course of the legislative session, and over the past two days in particular, the Chapter built a lot of good will for our profession and our work. It was thrilling to walk the halls of the legislature and have so many people talking about planning and the bills that were now before the legislature.

Congratulations again to everyone on a job well done!

Below is a quick summary of the bills.

A key item of note is that any communities who are currently considering adopting a new moratorium on development approvals or extending an existing moratorium will have to do so under the provisions of S.814 (for cities, see G.S. 160A-381(e) as enacted in Section 5(a) of S.814; for counties, see G.S. 153A-340(h) as enacted in Section 5(b) of S.814). All moratoria adopted as of Sept. 1st of this year are grandfathered and subject to the pre-existing legal framework as established through case law. For technical assistance on this issue, please contact David Owens at the Institute of Government. The effective date of all other provisions in the bills is Jan. 1st, 2006. IOG, NCAPA, and others will be developing technical guidance and education on this in the weeks and months ahead.

The other provisions of the bills include the following.

S.B. 518 consists of technical clarifications. Among other things, it:

*         Provides explicit authorization for Unified Development Ordinances;

*         Clarifies the process regarding protest petitions;

*         Simplifies the public notice provisions;

*         Codifies existing case law that no change in permitted uses may be authorized through a variance; and

*         Clarifies procedures for planning boards and boards of adjustment.

S.B. 814 includes a number of technical clarifications, along with some policy updates to reflect changing issues at the local level. Among other things, it:

*         Clarifies performance guarantees to allow developers to select from options provided by local governments;

*         Allows developers to enter into pre-sale agreements with prospective buyers after preliminary plat approval, with certain caveats to provide consumer protection;

*         Extends the same routine enforcement options for zoning to subdivision regulations;

*         Explicitly allows local governments to provide expedited review of specified classes of subdivisions;

*         Codifies existing case law prohibiting financial conflicts of interest by elected boards;

*         Lays out clear ground rules for the use of temporary development moratoria;

*         Clarifies spot zoning analysis;

*         Provides clear authorization for conditional zoning;

*         Requires an explanation of zoning decisions that are inconsistent with adopted local plans; and

*         Authorizes infrastructure and development agreements between local governments and developers.

Ben Hitchings, AICP
NCAPA Legislative Chair

New regulations for child daycare homes and facilities were approved by City Council on May 19, 1998. The ordinance was the result of a study by Planning Board Committee #4 which looked at the broader issue of the child day care industry, how it was addressed in the zoning ordinance, and how new definitions and regulations should be incorporated into the zoning ordinance.

Finally, while outlining the special use permit process, section 7.01, subsection (5) part (c), also grandfathers the existence of both child day care homes and facilities as well as allowing the future expansion of facilities which existed at the time of the ordinance.

Based on the increasing medical needs of Rowan County whose population now exceeds 120,000, along with the fact that health care is such a rapidly evolving industry, the Rowan Regional Medical Center is a point where it must consider expansion. Given its location within the city in addition to its being surrounded on three sides by well-established, single-family neighborhoods, the Hospital is forced to focus its expansion upwards rather than outwards. Currently, the Hospital lies within a B-1 zoning district which has building height and setback requirements based on typical office/institutional development. Thus, the 35-foot height limit in the B-1 district was too restrictive for a use such as a hospital. Officials from the Rowan Regional Medical Center, realizing the conflict between their expansion plans and the ordinance height limitations, recently approached the Planning Office with a request to study this situation. In response to this request, the Planning Board and City Council approved a text amendment to the Ordinance setting a 75-foot height limit for hospitals.