Planning Board Regular

Good evening. All right, call to order our town of Pittsburgh playing board regular meeting for Monday, April 20th, 2026. Um, go ahead and certify we do have a quorum. No, Miss Frida said that she would not be here. Um, and Christina is not here as of yet. Um, but we do have a quorum. So, does anybody have any modifications they need to make to the agenda? And if not, please make a motion to approve the agenda. I should do approve the agenda. Motion by Connie. I'll second. Seconded by Alan. All in favor, say I. I. I. All right. Agenda is approved. Now, the minutes from our March meeting, has any Has everyone had an opportunity to look over those and we have any modifications need to be made? All right, I'll take a motion.

I have a spelling correction. Um, down at the bottom where it talks about Charity making a motion about the Cooper property, it's spelled copper property. Okay. All right, and uh make a motion to approve the March 16th minutes with the spelling correction. So moved. All right, motion by Alan. Second. Seconded by James. All in favor, say I. I.

I. Minutes are approved. Okay, so we do not have anyone for public comment tonight, so we can move on past that and we'll get to our action items.

And we have four UDO text amendments and Miss

[clears throat]

May, I believe, is going to present them all for us. So, first item being ZTA 2026-05. Anything to the board and staff? All right. Staff report. All right. The first section I just want to bring to your attention there is one um update from the on the staff report. You'll see that on your desk for the number five, which is the terms and uses defined. We added one definition and amended one of those in that list for a comment that came in this morning. All right. So, the background on this section is we're still doing updates. We tried to split them in four for four quarters, but this is the second set and they specifically go with items that are ongoing right now or coming next. Um the first piece I would like to note is that isolated wetland under the definition update was to remove number three to get rid of the nexus from the the federal language to make it fall in line for the actual session law from 2023-63 the farm act for 2023. And that makes it or as well for one and two, not just the and. We're trying to make it so it's it has to be one of the two requirements um which are consistent with each other The second piece is to add the wetland if there's continuous um contiguous surface connection and this actually references that session law and how we include it in the determinations in the

field because it is even in their language it was really really rough, but we tried to pull as detailed and as consistent as possible. So, that is from what is actually in the list. And then the third going through the definitions themselves all of the definitions listed are new with the exception of very few. For example, the built-upon area last um update actually went to do just the impervious. This is a built-upon area with that impervious piece embedded in it, so it actually gives the full view as how we would use that for built-upon area. The others is the current UDO has cluster or cluster development and then it refers to conservation subdivision. Those two items are not the same. So, they needed to be split out. One says cluster conservation subdivision's clustering and the other is non-conservation subdivision's clustering so that they have the ability to do both styles. They're not the exact same thing. And all the definitions that we pull are items that are in the UDO that do not have an actual vocabulary meaning they can mean two or three different things, but we want it to refer to what's in the UDO specifically and give it an outline so there's no ambiguity. Um there are technically two definitions for dwelling unit or accessory dwelling units. We've stripped one of them out and left the one that is accurate in there. Um added the encroachment, which actually should say flood plain or floodway, not just encroachment cuz there are different types of encroachments and if it's going to mention that it has to be explicit to the flood. flood plain. Um currently there is no level of service definitions in with the transportation section that will come in conservation subdivisions in the next set. They actually needed to have all those items in there as well. But we're not being explicit to the

minimums in here. That will be referred to in that section. Um level of service, what is different between NCDOT and the privately maintained the minimum for the privately maintained should be what NCDOT will allow as well because we already meet that standard in our specs to ensure that if they needed to take an Uber and it is done with a standard so we don't have 2 in of asphalt, 2 in of um gravel underneath instead of the actual full base. Um net tract area has been updated in here and then we will have a gross in the next one as well. It is not yet in either. That is to follow with the Actually it isn't here. I'm sorry. We up we already updated it. I was just going to wait. I think I pulled it. So, that is on page four of the definitions. Gross land area. And then the open space conservation is in here as well because there we have open space, but we don't have one that specifically outlines conservation. So, that is in here as what would be held from the state image. Ordinary high water level that is part of how we do streams and what would also affect the wetlands, so that covers both. It is called out some of the sections and we need to make sure it's in there. Um the difference the different uh transportation analysis are outlined in here so there's definition to what those look like as well as they'll be in the specs for checklists. So, this gives that outline as well. Um the subdivision has also been updated. It still refers to those sections, but it actually outlines what it is from the standpoint of how we look at it. And anything that had a state statute or

in North Carolina all of them in the NCAC, we have that in there as well. Anything that had any direct regulations, we added those in. Um removed the thoroughfare, street, and any highway, street, road those pieces updated for all the different definitions of different types of thoroughfares cuz right now they're all vague and they overlap. So, you have the aerial versus thoroughfare, so that language has been cleaned up so it actually gives a full definition of which one is which. Um And then unconstrained lands, this is where we have some easements that don't allow us to actually use those items for the community and they cannot use that in certain conditions to create an actual open space unless they can give us the language in the agreements as well. So, that would be something that will be seen in the future. But the definition's already there. And that's all I have in that section. All right. Does anybody have any questions over that one? Yes. All right. Okay. Um We'll start For first, thank you for doing this. I think this is very helpful to have actual definitions for a lot of

your time looking at them because it makes our life quite a bit easier as well. Well, it's better to look at them now than when we have questions about them in the middle of a rezoning. And so, in the clustering conservation subdivision definition, what does significant portion mean? It it has to be the um percent that will be outlined in the UDO. We haven't gotten to that full outline, but that will refer to that section. It would have that significant section

Okay. and that percentage. So, it will be established. It's just not part of the definition. Okay. Um and is that the same for the maintaining overall density limits? Does that refer to is that based on the

zoning? It is based on the zoning, either the base zoning or if it's conservation or watershed district overlay. Okay. Um Then in the This is sort of a similar question and so the answer is probably the same. In the conservation subdivision design standards, it refers to A percent. So, will that also be set? Yes, that will be set in that section that's coming. Okay. We're just giving a definition of what that is defined as, not the percentages. That would need to actually be in the section so if it ever changes you won't change it in one spot. This is just to the base and build off of it in sections. Okay. Um In the the critical root zone definition is this a one-time thing or does the the root zone change as the tree grows? It does change as the tree grows. Okay. But it just gave it gives an example for the minute that they're out there. So, the example is if it's a 12 in then you have a radius of 12 ft. And it it changes as it grows. So, every time they would go out there and do any kind of a survey they would base it on that. Okay. Um and you explained why you were deleting the dwelling unit. Um the exterior lighting, does that also include temporary or decorative lighting? That will need to be updated in the section when we do update the section. Right now it is just the overall definition. Okay. Um And I have a question about the the ETJ definition. Well, I'm not I don't understand what it means where it says which is incorporated herein by reference. Is that saying that the ETJ is part of the incorporated? Yes, so we incorporate it by as a reference into this the in the definition for the entire

um UDO. So, that whenever we say the ETJ, we're saying that we don't have to actually define the section every single time in that UDO. Okay. It's an extension of the town but it also goes out on what we can and can't do. But it's not saying that the ETJ is part of the incorporated town land. Okay. I think there's just one more thing. Oh, in in the steep slope definition, there seems to be a typo. Either that or or I can't Are you you're It doesn't make sense to me. It says six present over 12%. I think they're both supposed to say percent. Yes. We'll make that modification. Okay, that's all I have. Okay. Okay. I think This is what I would like to do with this. Yeah, but so here. Are there additional items That's all I have. I appreciate it greatly. Anybody else? Yes, yeah. Just a few things. Uh question under access safety where it says where traffic from a proposed development will impact any location where an incident of high accident frequency, etc. So, when it says any location, what is the scope of that? Would that be any location within the town boundaries as long as there would be construction and uh traffic That should say any location with I mean like the right we have a

radius table but it's not in this. So, within these feet. So, 200 ft. I need to send a modification for that and double check the table. There's a actual reference that we're going to be using. I need to make sure that it all falls out correctly. I think it's in within the zone of effect. Meaning that we don't want to use the words adjacent but each type of trip would say if it's, you know, within 500 ft or 1,000 ft. It depends on how big the development is and how many trips are out there. I'd figure how far away it would go to actually do that. So, it should be within the zone of effect. Any location within the zone of effect. Okay, so this is this a a DOT table or where what's It'll be ours. We have a transportation section that is coming is the next quarterly set as well as conservation subdivision. So, there'll be actual reference to that section. Because we don't want to give them a number and it be inaccurate versus the number of trips that are there. So, we can't really use adjacent cuz there's no full definition that would affect like how far is adjacent. So, we'll be careful with that. Or is there a different version of that label that you would suggest besides that table? Well, without seeing the table really can't say but Then I'm going to ask that I remove that specific definition till then so that you can actually see it cuz I would like I said I would prefer that you have enough information to actually say yes or no. All right. Okay. So, I'll submit that one with the transportation section when it comes in. Um

All right. Um significant historic site. Uh it looks like or at least if I'm reading this correctly, basically the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office or the Office of State Archaeology is in the driver's seat as far as determining what is a significant historic site. Uh I'm just from my perspective, uh I'm concerned that, you know, there's no mechanism for any local input other than applying for uh that designation. I believe right now we do not have a full bench on the historic section cuz that was still something that we needed to update. We don't have that in there yet. So, that would need to come from that section. And we would need that in to be an overlay in the maps before we could trigger ours cuz we don't have anything significant on our section yet to do that. It is actually right now at that level of well above us. And we do have Sai who sits in there and goes through all these historic items. So, right now that's only trigger we really have and we don't have anything to base it on. So, till we make that change and modify that and add that in, we don't have it. So, that is something that I appreciate you pointing out and that's something we will add to our list as well to make sure that we approach approach that. Yeah, you already taken care of number three on the wetlands. Yeah, that's all I have. Any other concerns, questions, comments? Charity, James. Appreciate the redlining. It's nice to follow along as you go.

Yes, yeah. I I tried to I don't want you guys to miss. I don't want you guys to help cuz it's, you know, a different perspective than just staff, just lawyers, and just our development community. So, this gives it an overall. We appreciate it. If there's nothing else, then I'll accept a motion. I make a motion to approve with the adjustments. Second. All right.

[clears throat]

Motion by Connie, second by Charity. Um all in favor, aye. Aye. Um Item 6.2 ZTA 2026-06 Again, um for the record, we have an additional update as well for to make a modification trying to keep with the um farmer's act for the 2023. And I will go through that change. So, if you look at 4.5.3 in that additional handout basically I'm removing the actual what the width from how far from the wetland because it is actually more complicated which is why I did the definition so it can be done as part of the determination is what they recommend now and that it meet all of those requirements accordingly. And then the 50 ft to follow the riparian outline of what's allowed in there but like I said it goes back to the the federal and state permitting and we don't want to exceed that. So, according to the the second versus EPA, um the interpretation was that adjacent to a relatively permanent water stream, river, and lake and contiguous to a surface connection of the water.

Um that can mean anything from making sure that there's no change in elevation. So, if there's not a vertical upland right directly beside the the stream and it has a a flood plain and if it's all wet that you can see it, there's no change in that. If it is not there and you go to a dry area right outside the stream and then a wetland, that is not considered an actual buffered wetland. It is not contiguous. So, that is what we're aiming for and I removed B cuz it can be considered an either or even if the state actually owns that property and that wetland in the state maps. We There's even the state has pulled back some of that language. So, I'll go ahead and take that down cuz it's dependent on the situation. Um And then the only other items is there's we included the language for the the overlap for the flood plains cuz you have to look at the soils in consideration of some of those wetlands during the time of the year. And we'll do the same thing with the streams and the flood plains. So, we made it across the board and that's another language item that's in that federal language. So, everything follows federal and sub current state and not to exceed the watersheds. So, they should all line up with that 50 ft. So, if it's buffered in that zone, it'll be buffered. You said this but I'm still processing. So, if there's a wetland that's not contiguous to a stream or something else, it does not have to be buffered. It's the termination of the one jurisdictional, not ours. It's it would be the jurisdictional to determine if it is and usually it is not. Um the only items that exist is there's one that's already regulated and protected. And most of them are have not been mapped or taken out of the way. So, I think there's like two or three here and that would be it. Are there any questions or concerns?

When no one has anything, we'll accept a motion. I'll move to approve um ZTA 2026-06 as presented. All right, motion by Charity. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Alan. Uh all in favor, say aye. Aye.

[clears throat]

It was approved 6-3. Text amendment request for ZTA 2026-08. This is a simple swap out. Right now, it currently says annexation review procedure as placeholder. And we are just adding in the voluntary because all annexation is now voluntary. And the actual statutes that it goes by. And then I will note as well that um this section 10.4.17 is the setup, this first step, but there is a second step that will come in the future and that will be the vested rights 10.4.18. That we do not have anything about vested rights in there and that will be added. So, that will be defined at a later date. Similar municipalities, Apex, Sanford, Wake County, they're just examples. It's standard language across the board. Simple to follow state statutes. Any questions or concerns? I know we talked about this a few weeks ago, but the voluntary annexation, could you just for the meeting explain what that is versus the um I guess involuntary or other. Can't make someone actually annex unless they want utilities or they need some access to a portion be included for roadways, that type of infrastructure that town would maintain. They won't take those items on. So, the voluntary they have to say they want to do it.

Can't go just grab land. Okay. So, thank you. But if it is But if you're talking about a say a subcommunity or a subdivision and it's not within town jurisdiction right now, uh would every landowner have to agree to that or is there a Yes. But if the developer doesn't or it's built. Right. Oh, yeah. Yes. A new subdivision, absolutely. I mean, they would always have to do that, right? I mean, they would be wouldn't pass this board, I would hope, or you or anybody else for a new subdivision, right? Well, they have to annex to get water and sewer. Yeah. But if they want to use well and septic, they don't need the ETJ. Technically, they can still do that. Mhm. They [clears throat] have to have minimum lot sizes and that's harder to do. They want the density, so they're likely to annex instead. Thank you. Any additional questions or concerns? Nothing else and we'll accept a motion on that. Item 6-3. Motion to approve. Uh the attached consistency statement recommend Sorry, recommends approval and it supports consideration of the Nope. Suggest motion. Motion to approve the attached consistency statement and to recommend approval of ZTA 2026-08 as presented. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Alan. Uh all in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Motion passes and we'll go to 6-4 ZTA 2026-09. This is for um the addition to the table, the accessory use and structures

table that exists. There are two areas that include residential items without the ability to use accessory um dwelling and structures. So, that has been added to NMUC and CMUC. So, NMUC is the neighborhood mixed use center district, which includes lands for low and moderate density. And then the CMUMUC is community mixed use center district, which includes the lands for moderate and high density. Both have the ability for mixed residential uses such as duplex, single family attached and detached, multi-family and live-work dwellings. So, the the primary difference is a net neighborhood would actually have the ability more for the walking and biking. It's more designed for that. And then the community is more designed for vehicular and higher route living. But it across the board residential allows. This was some reason just left out and we cannot find a reason why it all meets that. Just for the residential side, it should follow that language. And that's in the definition as well. It falls in the UDO. Are there any questions or concerns for this one? Is this something that you would find in municipalities, other municipalities in the area? Yes. And any residential should have the ability to use an accessory dwelling unit. We have them in every other residential piece. If you're allowed residential, they should have the use of that. Cuz it's like having a space over the garage. That would be an example of it. For grandparents or someone that have multiple families on the property. They could do it. And live and work. Some would work above their garage and or live over there and work in the garage. Different uses for that same structure. So, this would allow those structures to be put say behind a duplex or townhouse? Yes, that's residential.

Mhm. In some some ways there's a way to kind of attach them through a walkway or over a garage. If you had a garage, that would be an example of that. Just have a usable space that they could live in or work and play in. Why is it not also permitted for R 12M? Question. No. Mobile home park district. Is that what that is? Is that mobile home park? It's kind of I just Googled it. Kind of Pittsburgh. Google so not very trustworthy. Residential medium density residential and mobile home park district. If that's what that is, I think that that one should be added as well because one of the ways that they will upgrade from having them a home is to use that as a kind of shift living there to building a larger house. So, I would agree that we should definitely add it to that. If you agree, I'll put it on there. I think if we're saying all residential should have it, it should be included. I wonder if that one might check cuz there aren't a lot of mobile home parks just rental and property ownership of the actual Okay. Just maybe check on that cuz it might have some conflict with the owner of the mobile home park land itself. Okay. Until it's Typically, they just rent and stay. Right. You can make your little ADU and stay on the home.

Right. Correct. That's why I was saying check on it. Okay. That makes sense. I think maybe we wait to add that one until we add the definition where it has the mobile home piece to it. I'm going to Right now, I'm not going to add it. I'm going to wait till we bring that as well. Yeah. Yeah, we could approve this right here as a cabinet add

that difficulty. Perfect. Does anybody else anything else? I just Good. Is it just question that um the debt So, we took that kind of quasi definition out of the definition. There's another table that's not here that is going to be added, right? For what the actual definition of what dwelling unit accessory ADU is. It is actually already in the UDO. It's just two of them and this was the one that we're

Perfect. Okay. I just didn't see it in the other parts, so I just missed it. Next time I do that, I'll make sure I include the one that's already in there. Say this is what's already in there to make that easier to avoid confusion. I find it funny, too. Just keep up the redlining and I like that.

[laughter]

Any addition questions or concerns? No, I have one more thing I want to note just so you know. Okay. Absolutely. There is that has the downtown advisory board called out in this section. It's supposed to have the planning board in all the consistency statements. So, I I need to fix that and send the consistency statement for everything updated. Yeah. We don't want to Don't want you named Like that. Maybe, but not that much. Taken out. Okay. So, um add that to motion to remove that. That's just for consistency statements anyway. The top there.

Okay. Thank you. Catching that. Additional items if you do not.

Okay. I will accept the motion then. I'll move to approve text amendment ZTA 2026-09. You keep going. Yeah, I get well so with

Section 3.3

modifications with modification with It's a consistency statement but no modifications. Okay. to the table Okay. table as is wait as is okay. All right. Perfect. Um Motion by Charity. So second on that. Second by James. Uh all in favor say I. I. I. I. Motion [clears throat] passes. Thank you May. Thank you so much for all the hard work. And Lauren. Are you guys

[laughter]

full team Thank you everyone. All right. So do we have any department updates that you'd like to share? No. All right. Um I guess the only comment I have is again thank you guys. Uh for all the hard work. I know there's a a lot of a lot of time put into all of this and it's a it is making our UDO better. So we appreciate it. Thank you to the rest of the board for being here and asking great questions. So um with that then if nobody else has anything they'd like to add I have something I'd like to bring up.

Yeah. I was reading some news about ICE facilities expanding down here and how Greensboro has amended their land development ordinance um to impose this is from an article I read to impose strict zoning limitations on secure detention and custodial facilities essentially creating barriers for that

kind of a detention center to move into town. And I just wanted to bring that up if that's something that's being discussed um or that we should be discussing to get ahead of that kind of thing coming to town or um [clears throat] I know Carey got behind and something moved in that they were really unhappy with but it was too late at that point. So I think that's a town council thing but I did want to bring that up. I agree and and I think data centers should also be a lot of our concern. Let me ask this of the staff. I mean since the county has a moratorium on data centers and would we if we wanted to do the same thing would we have to have our own moratorium? Yeah, I think legal receiving the moratorium the county did is not affecting this town. Okay. That's something I wanted to make sure. Okay. The staff would have to look at the permitted uses. I would have to look at the table of uses to see if any of those is a permitted use or not. Is it a permitted use? If they are they would be allowed. If they're not but I think there is a first Mhm. But if they are intended any of them allowed would probably be down zoning which would be a slow up. Mhm. Yeah, I I think what they did is they um it sounds like they did not take it out of their permitted uses. They just added a lot of strict Yeah. proximity limits, buffer zones They need a high amount of water. So So we have a lot of a lot of permitted processes and that and that. We haven't allocated that and that and that.

We haven't had that conversation yet but that is all governed to look at all the different permitted uses and all that. And where exactly they're located. How to find them. You have to start with that first. If you take a look at both and get back to me. Yes. Thank you. I guess just I think I guess if who what was the municipality that Greensboro

Greensboro. I guess if they did it then I I wouldn't want to assume but if they did it then it was legal but I feel like wouldn't the the I would [laughter] hope so. Changing changing the like changing the buffer zones and things like that if you made them more restrictive that wouldn't fall into the down zoning. Correct. And that's kind of how they and it was in response to a building that that they were interested in turning into a detention facility and they were able to change the zoning.

Okay. um to deter that use. I mean they just made it very difficult right down they didn't remove it completely. I thought that was interesting and maybe a good thing to think about. Great. Um I think we're good.

[clears throat]

But broadly speaking Mhm. I think we need to look at some places are more apt to do things and not be concerned of the legal issues. That's why I said want to assume. I just like you would think that it was legal if they did it but I don't want to always assume that. Yeah, some places just take calculated risks. Okay. And that sort of I would review and see if I could find the article and just do an investigation on on what what they did see if that's something that could be what works for Yeah, cuz didn't didn't Tarboro do the same thing and now they're facing a lawsuit. data for data Yeah.

Okay, where was the data center located and if they [clears throat] went under the data center. Okay. Interesting. All right. Any more discussion? That was Thank you for bringing that up. That was Mhm. Yeah, I was like

Good to know. Yes. All right. Um then I'll take a motion to adjourn. I move. Motion by Alan. Second? Second. Second by James. All in favor to adjourn say I. I.

I.