2010-086
Table of Permitted Uses - Administrative Approval
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Version #2
Update Dates: 11/28/10
01/31/11
02/16/11
03/01/11
Briefing Sheet
Lead Department:
Planning
Subject:
Table of Permitted Uses – Administrative Approval of Selected Uses Zoning
Ordinance Text Amendment (AMN 10-02)
Action Requested:
1) Act on Resolution to Approve Consistency Statement for the Administrative
Approval of Selected Uses in the Zoning Ordinance; and
2) Act on Ordinance to amend the Zoning Ordinance to Allow Administrative
Approval of Selected Uses (AMN 10-02)
Briefing:
12/14/2010
Action Officer:
Public Hearing:
Public Comment:
Item Schedule
Schedule 1: Brief twice – vote once (six weeks)
Schedule 2: Brief once – vote once (two weeks)
Schedule 3: No briefing required (one week)
Courtney Tanner, Planner II
12/14/2010
02/22/2011
Action:
03/22/2011
Select One
Updates/History of Briefing:
An additional public comment session has been added on 2/22/2011, and a new action date is
scheduled for 3/22/11. Staff is also committed to encouraging the joint site plan and construction
drawing submittal to further improve the overall time it takes to review development proposals.
ATTH 02, allowable uses in the Town Center, has been added. The highlighted uses in the left column
are the same uses proposed to be reviewed administratively as part of this Zoning Ordinance text
amendment. The highlighted columns on the right are for the Corridor Commercial (CC) and Office and
Institutional – Town Center (O&I - TC) Districts. A community center, which is defined as a place,
building, area, or other facility used for providing social and recreational programs that can either be
public or private, is the only use in these two Town Center Districts that is not approved
administratively.
Staff also identified a clerical error in the Table of Permitted Uses that must be formally corrected.
During the Town Center Code adoption, all uses listed as “SUP-C” where changed to “SUP-T”. Staff
incorrectly listed the convenience store use in neighborhood business as “SUP-C”. It should have been
listed as “SUP-A”. As a result of this clerical error, this use is now approved by both the Town Council
“SUP-T” and the Board of Adjustment “SUP-A”. Adopting this text amendment will correct this clerical
error.
The following attachments have been added:
· ATTH 03 – Public comments received
1 of 11
2010-086
Table of Permitted Uses - Administrative Approval
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
·
ATTH 04 – Information regarding the Town of Cary’s approval process as requested by Mayor
Pro Tem Martin.
Executive Summary and Background Information:
Currently, most site plans in the Town of Morrisville are approved by Town Council. The current
review/approval period for a site plan is approximately 6 to 8 months. Once the site plan is approved,
the construction drawing review/approval period takes approximately another 3 months. As a result,
the overall review/approval period for project is approximately 1 year, regardless of use, building
square footage or site acreage, to receive approval in the Town of Morrisville.
Permitting some uses to be approved administratively, will allow the review/approval period to be
shortened since:
· Not requiring a project to be reviewed by both Planning and Zoning Board and Town Council
will reduce the overall review and approval period by 3 months or as much as 25%.
· The development community has expressed that they are more willing to submit combined site
plan and construction drawings if a project can be approved at the staff level. This combined
review approved administratively will reduce the overall review and approval period by
approximately 40%.
Administrative approval is not proposed for all uses in the Town of Morrisville. It is proposed for the
following less intense uses:
· Day Care Center (e.g. Kids R’ Kids Daycare)
· Emergency Services (e.g. Fire Station)
· Government Services (e.g. Post Office)
· Community Center (e.g. Cedar Fork Community Center)
· Public Cultural Facility (e.g. library)
· Public Park or Public Recreation Facility (e.g. Indian Creek Trailhead)
· Urgent Care (e.g NextCare)
· Office, Medical/Dental (e.g. Duke Medical Office Building)
· Office Building (e.g. Time Warner Cable)
· Service Establishment (e.g. Wachovia Bank)
· Retail Store < 20,000 sf (e.g. Goodwill Community Foundation)
o This is a new category of retail. The current category’s maximum is 50,000 sf.
· Restaurant, Walk-In (e.g. Cracker Barrel)
· Restaurant, Convenience (e.g. Wendy’s)
· Restaurant, Delivery (e.g. Domino’s Pizza)
· Veterinary Clinic/Hospital (e.g. Preston Animal Hospital)
The following modifications are also proposed as part of this text amendment.
· Staff is recommending adding “office building” as a permitted use. Currently, an “office park”,
which includes multiple office buildings, is permitted. There may be an instance where a single
office building, not multiple office buildings, is proposed. This amendment clarifies that a
property owner can develop one or more office buildings. The proposed amendment also
includes a definition of an office building.
· Staff is proposing to remove “clinic” as a permitted use since by definition it is the same as
“urgent care”. The proposed amendment also removes the definition of a clinic.
· Staff is proposing to modify the site plan approval procedures to clarify how the administrative
2 of 11
2010-086
Table of Permitted Uses - Administrative Approval
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
review process is administered.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment for the following
reasons:
·
·
·
Administrative review:
o Improves the development review process by reducing the review period. Reducing
the review time of project reduces the cost of the project, which in turn provides an
economic incentive to develop in Morrisville.
o Encourages a site plan/construction drawing combined submittal which reduces the
review time and resolves plan consistency issues.
o Allows Morrisville’s review and approval process to be more in line with neighboring
jurisdictions.
o Reduces the amount of staff time associated with the preparation of briefing sheets.
Established development requirements, such as building façade and parking design standards,
have already been adopted by the Town Council. Staff is legally required to uphold all
requirements that have been codified by Town Council.
The proposed revisions are consistent with adopted Plans.
Attachments:
· ATTH 01 – Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Petition
· ATTH 02 – Allowable Uses in the Town Center
· ATTH 03 – Written Public Comments
· ATTH 04 – Town of Cary Approval Overview
Advisory Board/Committee Review:
Planning and Zoning Board
Board/Committee Recommendation:
The Planning and Zoning Board forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Town Council on the
proposed text amendment that is consistent with adopted plans subject to the following:
1. Consider changing the term “uses” to “site plans” in Part D, Article II, Subsection 1.4,
(Note : The suggested text change is reflected in ORD 2011-006)
Advisory Board/Committee Meeting Date and Minutes:
November 8, 2010 (draft):
Courtney Tanner, Planner II explained that currently, most site plans in the Town of Morrisville are
approved by Town Council. The current review/approval period for a site plan is approximately 6 to 8
months. She said once the site plan is approved, the construction drawing review/approval period
takes approximately another 3 months. She explained that as a result, the overall review/approval
period for projects is approximately 1 year, regardless of use, building square footage or site acreage.
She said that permitting some uses to review administratively will allow the review and approval
period to be shortened. She said that not requiring a project to be reviewed by both Planning and
Zoning Board and Town Council will reduce the overall review and approval period by three months or
as much as 25 percent. She said that the development community has expressed that they are more
3 of 11
2010-086
Table of Permitted Uses - Administrative Approval
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
willing to submit combined site plan and construction drawings if a project can be approved at the staff
level. She said that the combined review approved administratively will reduce the overall review and
approval period by approximately 40 percent. She said that the selected uses proposed are less intense
uses such as daycares, emergency services, government services, community centers, public cultural
facilities, public parks or public recreational facilities, urgent care facilities, medical/dental office
facilities, office buildings, service establishments, retail stores less than 20,000 sq. feet, walk-in
restaurants, convenience restaurants, delivery restaurants and veterinary clinics.
She said some other amendments that were proposed as part of the text amendment were to clarify
that “office building” is a permitted use. She said that currently it’s “office park” and an office building
is really a component of that. She said there could be just a single office building and not multiple
office buildings proposed. She said another amendment was the definition of “clinic.” She said the
definitions of “clinic” and “urgent care” were practically the same thing. She said to remove the
duplication, it was being proposed that “clinic” be stricken from the ordinance. She said that Town staff
has also created some clarity on how the administrative review process is administered.
She said that staff does recommend approval of the amendment as proposed. She said that she would
answer any questions and that there was a public comment session associated with this amendment.
Chairperson Prichard asked if there were any specific questions for Ms. Tanner.
Member Willis asked if this text amendment had the formal request.
Ms. Tanner said yes.
Member Willis asked if Priest Craven & Associates have projects that they are trying to, in the current
time, get through.
Ms. Tanner said that they have not officially submitted anything. She said it would impact the
development of things like Shiloh Crossing outparcels by allowing a more timely review of all the
outparcels. She said that there was not any functional difference between staff approval and Town
Council approval. Ms. Tanner said that not having this amendment would put the Town of Morrisville
at an economic disadvantage in this climate.
Member Willis said there was a lot of discussion about Shiloh Crossing outparcels. She said specifically
it concerned the desire for the outparcels to go through full approval.
Ms. Tanner said that at the time the project came through, the SUP (Special Use Permit) was originally
drafted so that there would be administrative approval of the outparcels. She said the attorney for
Wal-Mart recommended that it be pulled because there was no specific authority within the Zoning
Ordinance that allowed it. She said there was a concern that if it was included in there, that it could
provide an opportunity for the SUP decision to be appealed. She said that might have led to the SUP
being overturned in court. She said their attorney made the active decision to remove that. She said
that all outparcels in McCrimmon Corners are staff-level approval. She said if you look at Grace Park, all
of those outparcels are at a staff-level approval. She said that full board review was necessary at one
point in time when the Town had minimal or very few standards. Over the past several years several
text amendments have occurred, such as the architectural standards, to address this issue. She said she
thinks there is a clear expectation, through adopted code, of what can and cannot be constructed in
the Town of Morrisville.
Member Willis stated that Grace Park has pretty strict architectural guidelines. She asked if a parcel
that would come through now would be subject to new architectural standards.
Ms. Tanner said that back in 2009, when the Town of Morrisville had the omnibus text amendments,
4 of 11
2010-086
Table of Permitted Uses - Administrative Approval
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
any standards that were currently in place, that were less restrictive than the architectural standards
today, were no longer applicable.
Member Willis noted a typographical error under the office use classification and the missing asterisk
for some restaurant uses.
Ms. Tanner said she would correct.
Chairperson Prichard asked if there were any other questions for Ms. Tanner.
Member Clew asked what the catalyst behind the amendment was.
Ms. Tanner said that part of it was due to economic competitiveness. She said that it allows a project to
go through the process more quickly, which helps reduce the cost of the project.
Member Clew asked what happens a few years from now if things were to get better.
Ms. Tanner said that it would still be in place. She said that all the other jurisdictions in this area have
it. She said that what was being proposed here still would likely not be equivalent to what most
jurisdictions have. She said that more intensive uses like big shopping centers would still go to council.
She said items that are more contentious or involve rezoning would go to Town Council.
Member Chander asked if the Planning & Zoning Board (PZB) would receive notice about projects
under administrative review.
Ms. Tanner said all new projects are posted on the website.
Member Chander asked if a list of uses from the Town of Cary could be provided to give a better idea of
what’s covered and what’s not.
Ms. Tanner said that she could provide a list.
Member Gardner asked what the reason was for this amendment.
Ms. Tanner said that it was requested by the applicant to allow the development of smaller parcels to
be competitive with our neighboring jurisdictions. She stated that Morrisville is not a small town with
development desires that are not codified. Those desires are now code. As a result, this is another step
in the improving the development process.
Member Gardner asked if there was any site plan that Ms. Tanner could recall that would warrant
review from the PZB and Town Council as if deemed necessary by the Planning Director as proposed in
the text amendment.
Ms. Tanner stated she could not recollect a smaller project where this would have been necessary.
Mr. Hitchings said that on occasion that the Town gets projects with a lot of community interest. He
said that often times, there is an opportunity to work with the applicant to address issues of concern.
He said that sometimes having the extended review helps in getting resolution on those issues.
However, it’s probably not going to happen too often.
Member Gardner asked if the term “site plan” should be used in lieu of the word “use.”
Ms. Tanner said she would review it again to see if “site plan” would be more appropriate, but she felt
that that it would be fine.
Member Goel stated that he does support the administrative approval idea. He asked if the Planning
and Zoning Board could still be notified about projects or at least be sent the plans. He said that they
don’t have to go through Planning and Zoning Board meetings for approval, but if members had any
5 of 11
2010-086
Table of Permitted Uses - Administrative Approval
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
comments or questions, they could deal with staff directly.
Mr. Hitchings said doing that would start to erode the benefit of administrative review if staff
systematically had to give Planning and Zoning Board members a set of plans for each project. He said
that another possibility would be to notify the board that there is a project and if they wanted to learn
more about it, they could approach staff. He said if the Planning and Zoning Board feels okay with the
categories listed in the amendment, then they could go ahead and recommend them to Town Council.
Chairperson Prichard asked if there was anyone from the public who wanted to comment.
Public Comment Session
Tommy Craven, Priest Craven & Associates- He said that he supports the proposal. He said that
this proposal gives the Town of Morrisville the opportunity to speed up the process while
maintaining standards and quality. He said that the current code puts the Town of Morrisville
at a disadvantage. He said a question to consider would be how projects can be identified for a
full board review process. He said an ability to appeal the review may be included simply on
the basis of whether or not staff enforced Town of Morrisville codes.
Richard Brown, Kimley Horn- He said that he supports the proposal. He said that this proposal
presents an opportunity to improve process efficiency. He said that he thinks there could be
potential problems identifying what projects require full review and what require staff review,
and that the proposed text should be further clarified. He said there needs to be a clear
definition of appropriate levels of review.
Sai Sudhini, RVRV, LLC - He said that the process takes too long. He said there is a definite need
to streamline the process. He said that the Town of Morrisville has to try and work with
developers and make the process faster.
Chairperson Prichard asked if anybody else wanted to comment. Nobody else wanted to comment and
the public comment session was closed.
Member Gardner wanted to know at what point a project became so controversial and so large that
the Town Council had to review it. He asked if there was a way to codify that in the ordinance.
Ms. Tanner said that certain thresholds could be developed.
Mr. Hitchings said that there could be problems applying this ordinance evenly over time and that
Town of Morrisville staff would appreciate more clarity at a staff level on the issue.
Member Clew asked how a decision made on the staff level has an opportunity to be challenged.
Mr. Hitchings said that you could challenge a decision and bring the case to the Board of Adjustments.
Member Clew asked why the Town Council, the elected body who has to make decision for the Town, is
being taken out of the process
Mr. Hitchings said that Town Council uses their decision making ability to delegate certain
responsibilities. He said that there are certain responsibilities like zoning can statutorily be delegated.
Member Clew asked what an elected official, board member or even Town Councilman would do if
they had a problem with a particular project being approved at staff level. He asked if there was any
ability to challenge that.
Ms. Tanner said legally whether a project is assigned to full review or staff approval, if it meets the
minimal standards set forth in the zoning ordinance, it has to be approved.
6 of 11
2010-086
Table of Permitted Uses - Administrative Approval
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Member Clew stated that is sounded like there was no way to bring controversial project into a public
forum.
Mr. Hitchings said if a Planning and Zoning Board member were to see something that they were
concerned about with a project, they could mention it to staff. However, he said that any changes that
exceeded the minimum standards would be made on a voluntary basis by the applicant. He said that if
Town Council feels that certain issues are not getting addressed, with the recommendation of the
Planning and Zoning Board, they could change the standards that are in the ordinance.
Member Clew said that he didn’t have any problem with staff approving projects. He said that if he was
a Town Council member, he would be concerned about his possible loss of control about what goes on
in the Town.
Mr. Hitchings said that sometimes Town Council is put in an awkward position because they do not
want to approve a project even if it meets or exceeds the standards. He said the Town of Morrisville
had a previous case with Cruizers Gas Station. The Town Council denied it; the applicant challenged it
in court and the Town lost. The Town then had to go back and approve that project because the court
felt that the Town had exceeded its requirements in the ordinance.
Member Clew said that he understands, but that he thinks the Town Council is relinquishing a lot of
responsibility.
Chairperson Prichard said that the Planning and Zoning Board should spend time looking at the
standards and the overall basis on which these projects are approved. He said in the old days the
Planning and Zoning Board would have to look at each site plan and try to make up the standards as
they looked through each site plan. He said that these days, the Planning and Zoning Board’s job was to
make sure the architectural standards, engineering standards, etc. are what the Town of Morrisville
wants.
Member Clew said that he agreed. He asked how the Planning and Zoning Board could make a
judgment without knowing about a project.
Tim Gauss, Director of Development Services said that one of the things that zoning provided is
predictability to a property owner. He said that if every single land use decision is made by somebody
in local government, it removes that predictability. He said that having items in a project that meet
minimum standards being called up for review could be considered an arbitrary and capricious review.
Member Clew said he still didn’t see where the level of review was. He said if he sees a project that
should be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board he can’t do that if it is approved by staff.
Member Gardner asked Member Clew why he would do that. He said that if the requirements are met,
regardless of the impact, the Planning and Zoning Board would recommend approval of the project and
the Town Council would have to approve the project anyway.
Ms. Tanner said that the Planning and Zoning Board is just taking time to look at something that legally
the Town of Morrisville would have to approve anyway. She said that staff time could be better spent
by researching ways to improve standards and drafting new standards. She stated a perfect example
of this was the street lighting issue raised by Member Goel at the last meeting. Member Goel felt that
the streets on the Town Hall Commons development may be adequate. Instead of spending eight
hours preparing a briefing sheet, staff can invest that time into researching the lighting standards since
the lighting for that project complied with Code.
Mr. Hitchings said that if the Planning and Zoning Board feels that certain uses rise to the level of
medium impact or that the PZB is worried about staff reviewing certain uses in a given district, the
7 of 11
2010-086
Table of Permitted Uses - Administrative Approval
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Board could recommend those be removed and still go through the full process.
Member Clew said that he is just concerned about Town Council, but if they are happy with it, then
that’s fine. He said he isn’t opposed to the idea. He said that he has gone through the list pretty
thoroughly and each one seems to be low impact.
Chairperson Prichard suggested that the Planning and Zoning Board go through each use and discuss
them individually.
The Planning and Zoning Board then proceeded to carefully review each category of uses in the
proposed text amendment.
MOTION:
Member Gardner made the motion to forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council
with the caveat of the staff consider changing the term “uses” to “site plans” in Part D, Article II,
Subsection 1.4, and that the proposed text amendment was consistent with Town Plans.
Member Willis seconded the motion.
Chairperson Prichard called for a vote and the motion passed unanimously.
Meeting Goals and Initiatives Adopted by the Council:
(Select by checking the box for all Initiatives that are met by this briefing sheet’s proposal. Area for
additional comments under table. )
Goals
Initiatives
1. A mix of land uses that is
1.1 Implement Updated Land Use Plan
environmentally sensitive
1.2 Continue Implementation of adopted Town Center Plan
and sustains livability in a
1.3 Maintain a formal acquisition and implementation strategy
changing community
for parks, greenways, and open space
1.4 Evaluate ordinances and policies that contribute to a
sustainable and well planned community.
2.
A strong and stable financial
position that fully utilizes all
resources in a responsible,
efficient and effective
manner
3.
Community services that
sustain or enhance the
quality of life
2.1. Maintain a strategic financial plan
2.2. Ensure proper use of resources by enhancing internal
controls
2.3. Identify potential new funding opportunities for specific
town projects and services
2.4. Continue developing town infrastructure evaluation
programs to analyze costs, prioritize maintenance, and
secure funding
3.1. Provide a safe community
3.2. Continually evaluate emergency response needs and
capabilities
3.3. Provide and promote healthy community activities and
programs
3.4. Provide accessible and safe public parks, recreational
programs, cultural resources and facilities
3.5. Continue developing and implementing strategies to
8 of 11
2010-086
Table of Permitted Uses - Administrative Approval
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
4.
Plan transportation and other
public infrastructure to
address community needs
5.
A town image with a strong,
positive identity valued by
residents, businesses and
visitors
6.
Regional partnerships to
grow and develop new
resources and opportunities
7.
Environmentally responsible
and energy efficient
community
8.
A healthy and rewarding
work culture where
employees are our primary
asset in delivering high
quality services to the
community
enhance customer service
3.6. Refine and implement a performance measurement process
to provide better information for budgetary decision-making
and create a stronger link between allocation of resources
and desired results.
3.7. Continually review and identify internal processes and
community services to improve their efficiency and
effectiveness
4.1. Implement and maintain updated Transportation Plan
4.2. Continue developing a reimbursement policy, developer
requirements and regional partnerships for transportation
and public infrastructure
4.3. Develop and implement a Stormwater Management Plan,
including creating a self-sustaining funding mechanism
4.4. Identify critical areas of traffic congestion and appropriate
strategies to resolve transportation problems, drawing on
NCDOT and regional partners.
4.5. Continue developing a capital fund strategy for
infrastructure needs, including the Town Center
4.6. Continue evaluating the costs and benefits of in-house vs.
contract engineering services
4.7. Work to promote installation of infrastructure in a timely
manner to support private development
5.1. Develop and maintain liaison with other elected officials,
agencies, jurisdictions, and stakeholders
5.2. Promote transparency in town government programs and
processes
5.3 Promote high quality development and attractive
community appearance
5.4 Continue to require professionalism and friendliness of staff
5.5 Cultivate a responsive environment encouraging community
comments and feedback.
6.1. Develop and maintain liaison with other elected officials,
agencies, jurisdictions, and stakeholders
6.2. Provide educational training for Committee/Board members
and Council members
6.3. Continue active participation in forums for regional
cooperation
7.1. Evaluate and implement changes to town operations
7.2. Evaluate and implement changes to Town Ordinances, plans
and policies
8.1. Recruit and retain competent committed staff
8.2. Create a healthy work environment that promotes high
morale
8.3. Foster career development and growth opportunities
8.4. Encourage employees to identify opportunities to improve
efficiencies and effectiveness
9 of 11
2010-086
Table of Permitted Uses - Administrative Approval
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
9.
Citizen Involved government
9.1. Encourage citizens to volunteer within the community
9.2. Diversify the methods of communicating with citizens to
provide information on town news and issues
9.3. Increase contact with the business community about town
news and issues
9.4. Develop and advance opportunities for partnership with
local schools and non-profit groups
9.5. Increase public involvement in town government programs
and processes
Goals and Initiatives Additional Comments:
NONE
Resource Impact:
Staff time required if item is approved:
No Additional
Other Potential Impacts:
Approving this amendment will actually reduce the amount of staff time required to review site plan.
Staff Coordination:
Check the box for those required to comment on left. To comment-click in the box and select.
(2nd Briefing is used when information has significantly changed from the first briefing.)
Required
Staff Member
1st Briefing
2nd Briefing
Town Manager
Agree
Reviewed
Reviewed
Agree
Reviewed
Reviewed
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
Town Clerk
Senior Director Business Management
Budget and Analysis Manager
Internal Auditor
Senior Accountant
Information Technology Director
Contracting and Purchasing Manager
Senior Director Development Services
Planning Director
Town Engineer
Building Codes Administrator
Economic Development
Senior Director Community Services
Risk Manager/Safety Officer
Police Chief
Fire Chief
Parks & Recreation Director
Public Works Director
Public Information Officer
Town Attorney
Agree
Agree
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
10 of 11
2010-086
Table of Permitted Uses - Administrative Approval
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Human Resources Manager
Disagree or comment, explain:
No Comment
No Comment
Public Information Plan: What will be used to notify residents or gain public involvement during the
briefing process (prior to adoption)?
Public Hearing (Required by GS)
Public Hearing (Not Required by GS)
Newspaper Notice (Required by GS)
Newspaper Notice (Not Required by GS)
Public Forum/Input Session
Press Release
Morrisville Connection
E-News Distribution
Social Media (Twitter, Facebook, etc.)
Website Notice
Special Mailing
Survey
Flyers Posted
None Required
Other:
Town Council Approved Minutes:
(Staff Member/Action Officer Insert Minutes here after Council Adoption)
11 of 11
TOWN OF MORRISVILLE
*
PO BOX 166
*
MORRISVILLE, NC 27560
RESOLUTION 2011-006 OF THE MORRISVILLE TOWN COUNCIL TO THE
ADOPTION OF THE PLAN CONSISTENCY REVIEW STATEMENT FOR A ZONING
ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT TO EXPAND THE NUMBER OF USES
APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY (AMN 10-02)
WHEREAS, effective January 1st, 2006, North Carolina General Statute 160A-383 requires that “when
adopting or rejecting any zoning amendment” each local governing board “shall adopt a statement
describing whether its action is consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan and any other
officially adopted plan that is applicable, and briefly explaining why the board considers the action
taken to be reasonable and in the public interest”; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment was considered by the Planning and
Zoning Board of the Town of Morrisville and was the subject of a public comment session on
November 8, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board forwarded a recommendation of approval subject to minor
suggested text revision as outlined in the minutes ; and
WHEREAS, this Zoning Ordinance text amendment request was duly advertised and was the subject of
a public hearing by the Morrisville Town Council on December 14, 2010; and
WHEREAS, Town Council deferred the request to the February 22, 2011 Town Council meeting for an
additional public comment session, and the March 22, 2011 Town Council meeting for action.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE MORRISVILLE TOWN COUNCIL hereby adopts the
following plan consistency review statement:
Plan Consistency Review Statement for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (AMN10-02)
This text amendment supports the Town’s adopted Land Use Plan, which includes the following policy:
Policy 2D: Clearly communicate the character of development that is encouraged in the
Town, including land use, design and development standards, utility extensions, and
transportation needs/design.
As a result, this text amendment is consistent with the Town of Morrisville’s adopted Land Use Plan,
and the Town Council’s action to approve it is reasonable and in the public interest.
Adopted this the 22nd day of March 2011.
ATTEST:
______________________________
J. S. Holcombe, Mayor
_____________________________
Diana R. Davis, Town Clerk
Page 1 of 1
TOWN OF MORRISVILLE
*
PO BOX 166
*
MORRISVILLE, NC 27560
ORDINANCE 2011-006 OF THE MORRISVILLE TOWN COUNCIL PERTAINING TO
THE ADOPTION OF A ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT TO EXPAND THE
NUMBER OF USES APPROVED ADMINSTRATIVELY (AMN 10-02)
WHEREAS, the Town of Morrisville has received a request to allow administrative approval of some
retail, office, and service related uses; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Morrisville already permits administrative approval for some uses; and
WHEREAS, administrative approval reduces the plan review period which in turn provides an economic
incentive to develop in Morrisville and improves the development review process; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment was considered by the Planning and Zoning
Board of the Town of Morrisville and was the subject of a public comment session on November 8, 2010;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board forwarded a recommendation of approval subject to a
suggested minor modification in the text as noted in the minutes; and
WHEREAS, this Zoning Ordinance text amendment request was duly advertised and was the subject of a
public hearing by the Morrisville Town Council on December 14, 2010; and
WHEREAS, Town Council deferred the request to the February 22, 2011 Town Council meeting for an
additional public comment session, and the March 22, 2011 Town Council meeting for action.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED THAT THE MORRISVILLE TOWN COUNCIL hereby amends the Town
of Morrisville Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Left Blank Intentionally
TOWN OF MORRISVILLE
•
*
PO BOX 166
*
MORRISVILLE, NC 27560
Amend Part C, Article IV – Table of Permitted Uses of the Zoning Ordinance as follows (Crossed-out text is deleted, and underlined text is added):
ZONING DISTRICTS1
Use Classification
Buffer
AD
R12
R10
R8
R6
R-MF
CB
OI
NB
GB
IM
MU
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
AGRICULTURE-RELATED
Community Garden
n/a
S*
Farm, Bona Fide
L
S
S
S
S
S
Greenhouse/Nursery
M
T
T
T
T
T
Greenhouse/Nursery, Large or Wholesale
H
SUP-T
SUP- T
T
HOUSING-RELATED
Dwelling, detached
LR, MR, HR
S
Dwelling, duplex
LR, MR, HR
S
Dwelling, attached
LR, MR, HR
Dwelling, multi-family
HR
Dwelling, manufactured home
LR
Dwelling, replacement manufactured home
LR
Dwelling, replacement detached
LR
Accessory Apartment
L
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
Family Child Care Home
L
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
Day Care Center
L
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
T
T*
T**
SUP-T
S
S*
SUP-A
1
S
S
S
S
S
S*
T **
S
S
S
S
T **
T
T
T **
SUP-T
S*
S*
SUP-T
S*
S*
T**
S*
S*
Requires Site Plan Approval by Town Board
Requires Site Plan Approval by Town Board, and subject to “Additional
Requirements Applicable to Certain Permitted Uses”
Required Site Plan Approval by Town Board, and subject to the Requirements of
Part C, Art. XIII: Mixed Use District
Requires Issuance of Special Use Permit by Town Board
Requires Staff Approval Only
Requires Staff Approval, and subject to “Additional Requirements Applicable to
Certain Permitted Uses”
Requires Issuance of Special Use Permit by Board of Adjustment
Changes of use in existing structures may be approved administratively subject to
additional requirements (See Part C - Article II – Section 13: Change of Use)
SUP-A
H
M
L
LR
MR
HR
SUP-A
T **
TS
TS
TS
T **
High Impact Use Buffer Classification (see Table 1.8.4 of the Landscape Ordinance)
Medium Impact Use Buffer Classification (see Table 1.8.4 of the Landscape
Ordinance)
Low Impact Use Buffer Classification (see Table 1.8.4 of the Landscape Ordinance)
Low Density Residential Classification, Less than 4 units/acre (see Table 1.8.4 of the
Landscape Ordinance)
Medium Density Residential Classification, 4-6 units/acre (see Table 1.8.4 of the
Landscape Ordinance)
High Density Residential Classification, 6-8 units/acre, apartment, or condominium
(see Table 1.8.4 of the Landscape Ordinance)
TOWN OF MORRISVILLE
*
PO BOX 166
*
MORRISVILLE, NC 27560
ZONING DISTRICTS1
Use Classification
Buffer
AD
R12
R10
R8
R6
R-MF
CB
OI
NB
GB
SUP-T
SUP-T
T
IM
MU
HOUSING-RELATED CONTINUED
Rooming House
M
SUP-T
Hotel/Motel
M
House, Fraternity/Sorority
L
SUP-A
Congregate Living Facility
L
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-T
SUP-T
SUP-T
Nursing Home
L
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-T
SUP-T
SUP-T
Home Occupation
L
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
L
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
T**
T**
SUP-T
T
T
T**
USES, TEMPORARY
Special Events
Outdoor Sales, Seasonal
L
S*
S*
S*
Family Care Manufactured Home
L
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
Mobile Classrooms
L
SUP-A
SUP-A
Construction Trailer
L
S*
Real Estate Sales Office, Temporary
L
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
T**
S*
EDUCATIONAL/CIVIC/RELIGIOUS
School, Public or private
L
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Place of Worship
L
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Club or Lodge
L
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
T
T
T
T
T**
Non-profit professional association
L
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
T
T
T
T
T**
T
T*
T**
SUP-T
S
S*
SUP-A
Requires Site Plan Approval by Town Board
Requires Site Plan Approval by Town Board, and subject to “Additional
Requirements Applicable to Certain Permitted Uses”
Required Site Plan Approval by Town Board, and subject to the Requirements of
Part C, Art. XIII: Mixed Use District
Requires Issuance of Special Use Permit by Town Board
Requires Staff Approval Only
Requires Staff Approval, and subject to “Additional Requirements Applicable to
Certain Permitted Uses”
Requires Issuance of Special Use Permit by Board of Adjustment
1
H
M
L
LR
MR
HR
Changes of use in existing structures may be approved administratively subject to
additional requirements (See Part C - Article II – Section 13: Change of Use)
High Impact Use Buffer Classification (see Table 1.8.4 of the Landscape Ordinance)
Medium Impact Use Buffer Classification (see Table 1.8.4 of the Landscape
Ordinance)
Low Impact Use Buffer Classification (see Table 1.8.4 of the Landscape Ordinance)
Low Density Residential Classification, Less than 4 units/acre (see Table 1.8.4 of the
Landscape Ordinance)
Medium Density Residential Classification, 4-6 units/acre (see Table 1.8.4 of the
Landscape Ordinance)
High Density Residential Classification, 6-8 units/acre, apartment, or condominium
(see Table 1.8.4 of the Landscape Ordinance)
TOWN OF MORRISVILLE
*
PO BOX 166
*
MORRISVILLE, NC 27560
ZONING DISTRICTS1
Use Classification
Buffer
AD
R12
R10
R8
R6
R-MF
CB
OI
NB
GB
IM
MU
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Emergency Services
L
T
T
T
T
T
T
TS
TS
TS
TS
C**
Government Services
L
T
T
T
T
T
T
TS
TS
TS
TS
T**
Community Center
L
T
T
T
T
T
T
TS
TS
TS
TS
T**
Public Cultural Facility
L
SUP-T
SUP-T
SUP-T
SUP-T
SUP-T
SUP-T
TS
TS
TS
Public Park or Public Recreation Facility
L
T
T
T
T
T
T
TS
TS
TS
TS
T**
SUP-T
SUP-T
T
T
T**
SUP-T
T
T
T
T**
T*
T**
RECREATION & ENTERTAINMENT
Private Recreation Facility, Outdoor
L
Private Recreation Facility, Indoor
M
Golf Course
L
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
Club, Country
L
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
Recreation, Residential Support
L
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
T*
T**
MEDICAL FACILITIES
Hospital
M
T*
T*
T
T**
Clinic
L
T
T
T
T**
Urgent Care
L
TS
TS
TS
TS
T**
Office, Medical/Dental
L
TS
TS
TS
TS
T**
Office Park, Medical/Dental
M
T
T
T**
T
T*
T**
SUP-T
S
S*
SUP-A
1
Requires Site Plan Approval by Town Board
Requires Site Plan Approval by Town Board, and subject to “Additional
Requirements Applicable to Certain Permitted Uses”
Required Site Plan Approval by Town Board, and subject to the Requirements of
Part C, Art. XIII: Mixed Use District
Requires Issuance of Special Use Permit by Town Board
Requires Staff Approval Only
Requires Staff Approval, and subject to “Additional Requirements Applicable to
Certain Permitted Uses”
Requires Issuance of Special Use Permit by Board of Adjustment
Changes of use in existing structures may be approved administratively subject to
additional requirements (See Part C - Article II – Section 13: Change of Use)
H
M
L
LR
MR
HR
High Impact Use Buffer Classification (see Table 1.8.4 of the Landscape Ordinance)
Medium Impact Use Buffer Classification (see Table 1.8.4 of the Landscape
Ordinance)
Low Impact Use Buffer Classification (see Table 1.8.4 of the Landscape Ordinance)
Low Density Residential Classification, Less than 4 units/acre (see Table 1.8.4 of the
Landscape Ordinance)
Medium Density Residential Classification, 4-6 units/acre (see Table 1.8.4 of the
Landscape Ordinance)
High Density Residential Classification, 6-8 units/acre, apartment, or condominium
(see Table 1.8.4 of the Landscape Ordinance)
TOWN OF MORRISVILLE
*
PO BOX 166
*
MORRISVILLE, NC 27560
ZONING DISTRICTS1
Use Classification
Buffer
AD
R12
R10
R8
R6
R-MF
CB
OI
NB
GB
IM
MU
S
S
T**
TS
TS
T**
T
T
T**
T
T**
S*
S*
T
T**
OFFICES
Office Building
M
S
Service Establishment
L
TS
Office Park
M
T
Research Laboratory
M
T
Temporary Office Structure
M
S*
L
TS
Service Establishment, Personal
L
TS
TS
TS
TS
T**
Retail Store < 20,000 sf
M
S
S
S
S
T**
Retail Store 20,000 sf to < 50,000 sf
M
T
T
T
T
T**
Retail Store 50,000 sf to 75,000 sf
H
T
T**
Retail Store > 75,000 sf
H
SUP-T
T**
Shopping Center, Neighborhood
M
T
T**
Shopping Center
H
SUP-T
T**
TS
S*
S*
RETAIL GOODS AND SERVICES
Office Retail
T
T
SUP-T
SUP-A
T*
Convenience Store
M
Adult Establishment
H
Restaurant, Walk-In
M
TS*
TS*
TS*
TS*
T**
Restaurant, Convenience
M
TS*
TS*
TS*
TS*
T**
Restaurant, Delivery
M
TS*
TS*
TS*
TS*
T**
T
T
SUP-T
FOOD SERVICE (WHOLESALE)
Wholesale Food Preparation
T
T*
T**
SUP-T
S
S*
SUP-A
1
H
Requires Site Plan Approval by Town Board
Requires Site Plan Approval by Town Board, and subject to “Additional
Requirements Applicable to Certain Permitted Uses”
Required Site Plan Approval by Town Board, and subject to the Requirements of
Part C, Art. XIII: Mixed Use District
Requires Issuance of Special Use Permit by Town Board
Requires Staff Approval Only
Requires Staff Approval, and subject to “Additional Requirements Applicable to
Certain Permitted Uses”
Requires Issuance of Special Use Permit by Board of Adjustment
Changes of use in existing structures may be approved administratively subject to
additional requirements (See Part C - Article II – Section 13: Change of Use)
H
M
L
LR
MR
HR
High Impact Use Buffer Classification (see Table 1.8.4 of the Landscape Ordinance)
Medium Impact Use Buffer Classification (see Table 1.8.4 of the Landscape
Ordinance)
Low Impact Use Buffer Classification (see Table 1.8.4 of the Landscape Ordinance)
Low Density Residential Classification, Less than 4 units/acre (see Table 1.8.4 of the
Landscape Ordinance)
Medium Density Residential Classification, 4-6 units/acre (see Table 1.8.4 of the
Landscape Ordinance)
High Density Residential Classification, 6-8 units/acre, apartment, or condominium
(see Table 1.8.4 of the Landscape Ordinance)
TOWN OF MORRISVILLE
*
PO BOX 166
*
MORRISVILLE, NC 27560
ZONING DISTRICTS1
Use Classification
Buffer
AD
R12
R10
R8
R6
R-MF
CB
OI
NB
T*
T*
T
T
GB
IM
TS*
TS*
T*
T*
T
T
MU
ANIMAL - RELATED
Veterinary Clinic/Hospital
M
Kennel
H
SUP-A
Stables
M
SUP-A
Funeral Home
M
SUP-A
Crematorium
H
Cemetery
L
Stonecutting/Monument Sales
M
FUNERAL RELATED USES
T
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-T
VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT
Automobile Sales and Rental Equipment
H
T
T
Automobile Repair, Major
H
Automobile Repair, Minor
H
SUP-A
T*
T*
T*
T
T
Automobile Service Station
H
T*
T*
Car Wash/Detailing
H
T
T
T
Tire Capping and Retreading
H
T
T
Recreational Vehicle Rental and Service
H
T
Fuel Storage Tanks
H
SUP-T
T
T*
T**
SUP-T
S
S*
SUP-A
1
Requires Site Plan Approval by Town Board
Requires Site Plan Approval by Town Board, and subject to “Additional
Requirements Applicable to Certain Permitted Uses”
Required Site Plan Approval by Town Board, and subject to the Requirements of
Part C, Art. XIII: Mixed Use District
Requires Issuance of Special Use Permit by Town Board
Requires Staff Approval Only
Requires Staff Approval, and subject to “Additional Requirements Applicable to
Certain Permitted Uses”
Requires Issuance of Special Use Permit by Board of Adjustment
Changes of use in existing structures may be approved administratively subject to
additional requirements (See Part C - Article II – Section 13: Change of Use)
H
M
L
LR
MR
HR
T**
T**
T**
High Impact Use Buffer Classification (see Table 1.8.4 of the Landscape Ordinance)
Medium Impact Use Buffer Classification (see Table 1.8.4 of the Landscape
Ordinance)
Low Impact Use Buffer Classification (see Table 1.8.4 of the Landscape Ordinance)
Low Density Residential Classification, Less than 4 units/acre (see Table 1.8.4 of the
Landscape Ordinance)
Medium Density Residential Classification, 4-6 units/acre (see Table 1.8.4 of the
Landscape Ordinance)
High Density Residential Classification, 6-8 units/acre, apartment, or condominium
(see Table 1.8.4 of the Landscape Ordinance)
TOWN OF MORRISVILLE
*
PO BOX 166
*
MORRISVILLE, NC 27560
ZONING DISTRICTS1
Use Classification
Buffer
AD
R12
R10
R8
R6
R-MF
CB
OI
NB
GB
IM
T*
T*
MU
INDUSTRIAL - CONSTRUCTION, OUTDOOR STORAGE, WAREHOUSING
Construction-Related Activities
H
Wholesale Jobbing Establishment
H
Industrial Equipment Sales and Rental
H
T*
T*
Mini-Storage
H
T
T
Motor Freight Terminal, Small
H
T
Motor Freight Terminal
H
SUP-T
Warehousing/Distribution
H
T*
Storage of Petroleum Products
H
Outdoor Storage
H
T*
T*
T*
Manufacturing, custom
H
T*
T*
T
Manufacturing, light
H
T
Manufacturing, medium
H
T
Manufacturing, heavy
H
SUP-T
T
SUP-T
INDUSTRIAL - MANUFACTURING/PROCESSING
MISCELLANEOUS USES
Canopies
T
T*
T**
SUP-T
S
S*
SUP-A
1
NA
Requires Site Plan Approval by Town Board
Requires Site Plan Approval by Town Board, and subject to “Additional
Requirements Applicable to Certain Permitted Uses”
Required Site Plan Approval by Town Board, and subject to the Requirements of
Part C, Art. XIII: Mixed Use District
Requires Issuance of Special Use Permit by Town Board
Requires Staff Approval Only
Requires Staff Approval, and subject to “Additional Requirements Applicable to
Certain Permitted Uses”
Requires Issuance of Special Use Permit by Board of Adjustment
Changes of use in existing structures may be approved administratively subject to
additional requirements (See Part C - Article II – Section 13: Change of Use)
T*
H
M
L
LR
MR
HR
T*
T*
T*
T**
High Impact Use Buffer Classification (see Table 1.8.4 of the Landscape Ordinance)
Medium Impact Use Buffer Classification (see Table 1.8.4 of the Landscape
Ordinance)
Low Impact Use Buffer Classification (see Table 1.8.4 of the Landscape Ordinance)
Low Density Residential Classification, Less than 4 units/acre (see Table 1.8.4 of the
Landscape Ordinance)
Medium Density Residential Classification, 4-6 units/acre (see Table 1.8.4 of the
Landscape Ordinance)
High Density Residential Classification, 6-8 units/acre, apartment, or condominium
(see Table 1.8.4 of the Landscape Ordinance)
TOWN OF MORRISVILLE
*
PO BOX 166
*
MORRISVILLE, NC 27560
ZONING DISTRICTS1
Use Classification
Buffer
AD
R12
R10
R8
R6
R-MF
CB
OI
NB
GB
IM
MU
OTHER INDUSTRIAL USES
Flex Space
H
T
Extraction of Earth Products
H
SUP-T
Landfill Reclamation
H
T
Landfill, Sanitary
H
SUP-T
Landfill, Debris
H
Landfill, On-site Debris
H
Junkyard or Recycling Facility
H
Flex Space
H
T
Extraction of Earth Products
H
SUP-T
SUP-T
SUP-T
T
T
T
T
SUP-T
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION, UTILITIES
Offices, Utility
M
Utility Facility, Community
M
Utility Facility, Major
Railroad Yards
H
Part C Art. VII
Sec. 2
H
Parking Deck or Lot
H
Park and Ride Terminal
M
Transit Station
H
Telecommunication Towers
T
T*
T**
SUP-T
S
S*
SUP-A
1
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
SUP
T
SUP
T
SUP-T
SUP-T
T*
SUP-A
Requires Site Plan Approval by Town Board
Requires Site Plan Approval by Town Board, and subject to “Additional
Requirements Applicable to Certain Permitted Uses”
Required Site Plan Approval by Town Board, and subject to the Requirements of
Part C, Art. XIII: Mixed Use District
Requires Issuance of Special Use Permit by Town Board
Requires Staff Approval Only
Requires Staff Approval, and subject to “Additional Requirements Applicable to
Certain Permitted Uses”
Requires Issuance of Special Use Permit by Board of Adjustment
Changes of use in existing structures may be approved administratively subject to
additional requirements (See Part C - Article II – Section 13: Change of Use)
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
H
M
L
LR
MR
HR
SUP-A
T*
T*
T*
T*
T**
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
SUP-A
T**
T
T
T
T
T
High Impact Use Buffer Classification (see Table 1.8.4 of the Landscape Ordinance)
Medium Impact Use Buffer Classification (see Table 1.8.4 of the Landscape
Ordinance)
Low Impact Use Buffer Classification (see Table 1.8.4 of the Landscape Ordinance)
Low Density Residential Classification, Less than 4 units/acre (see Table 1.8.4 of the
Landscape Ordinance)
Medium Density Residential Classification, 4-6 units/acre (see Table 1.8.4 of the
Landscape Ordinance)
High Density Residential Classification, 6-8 units/acre, apartment, or condominium
(see Table 1.8.4 of the Landscape Ordinance)
TOWN OF MORRISVILLE
•
*
PO BOX 166
*
MORRISVILLE, NC 27560
Amend Part D, Article II, Section 1 – Site Plan Approval Procedures of the Zoning Ordinance as
follows (Crossed-out text is deleted, and underlined text is added):
Section 1.
SITE PLAN
1.1 Site Plan Submittal Requirements
All site plans shall comply with the current published Morrisville Planning Department Site Plan
Requirements and Check List (Submittal Procedure) on the Planning Department website, which is
incorporated herein by reference.
1.2 Accepted for Review
The Planning Department shall make a formal determination as to whether each application for a
proposed site plan is complete and eligible to begin the required review process.
1.3 Review of Site Plan by Staff
The planning department, engineering department, fire department, inspections department, and other
entities or agencies as deemed appropriate shall review the site plan. The review shall be based on
compliance with the provisions of this ordinance and any other applicable local, state, or federal law.
The staff shall prepare a written analysis of the site plan based on review by planningand
engineering, fire department, inspections department, and other entities or agencies as deemed
appropriate. The review shall be based on compliance with the provisions of this ordinance and any
other applicable local or state law. A recommendation shall be forwarded to the Planning Board for
consideration at a regular meeting.
1.4 Staff Action
A. Administrative Approval
For sites plans that can be approved administratively, the Planning Director may approve the site
plan based on full compliance with all applicable requirements of this ordinance. If the Planning
Director determines that a proposed site plan warrants a full Board review in order to address
community concerns or potential project impacts, he/she may require the request to go through the
full site plan review process as outlined in this subsection.
B. Town Board Approval
For site plans that must be approved by the Town Council or warrant a full Board review per this
subsection, staff shall prepare a written analysis of the site plan and forward a recommendation
to the Planning Board for consideration at a regular meeting.
1.5 Planning Board Recommendation
The planning board, after receiving the recommendation from the town staff shall review the site plan
and forward a recommendation to the Town Board. The planning board recommendation may be to
approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request. The board recommendation shall be based on
full compliance with any specific requirement of this ordinance and the provision of safe conditions for
pedestrians and motorists.
TOWN OF MORRISVILLE
*
PO BOX 166
*
MORRISVILLE, NC 27560
1.6 Town Board Decision
The Town Board shall approve, approve with conditions, deny or take any other appropriate action on
the site plan. Actions shall be based on conformity with this ordinance, the Morrisville Land Use Plan,
and any other adopted plans, standards or applicable law, and the provision of safe conditions for
pedestrians and motorists.
1.7 Grounds for Refusal to Approve Site Plan
The Town Board may refuse to approve a site plan on the grounds that it fails to fully comply with any
specific requirement of this ordinance, that it fails to provide safe conditions for pedestrians and
motorists, or if the Town Board feels that denial of the site plan will preserve the public’s health, safety
and welfare or will otherwise serve the public interest of the citizens of the Town of Morrisville.
1.8 Time Limit of Site Plan Approval
The approval of the site plan shall be effective for a maximum period of twenty-four (24) months and
shall guarantee that the terms and conditions under which the approval was granted will not be
affected by changes and/or amendments to these regulations. The approved site plan shall become
null and void if no significant work is done or development is made on the site within twenty-four (24)
months after approval by the Town Board.
TOWN OF MORRISVILLE
•
*
PO BOX 166
*
MORRISVILLE, NC 27560
Amend Part E, Article III, Section 2, Table 2 –Allowable Uses in the Town Center Districts of the
Zoning Ordinance as follows (Crossed-out text is deleted, and underlined text is added):
Use Classification
HCV
MS
TCR
RNP
RT
CC
CB (TC) O&I (TC)
EDUCATIONAL/RECREATIONAL/PUBLIC FACILITIES
Public Cultural Facility
Public Park or Public
Recreation Facility
School, Public or Private
S
S
C
C
S
C
S
S
S
S
S
S
C
S
S
C
C
C
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
MEDICAL FACILITIES
Clinic/Urgent Care
Hospital
Office, Medical/Dental
S
S
S
TOWN OF MORRISVILLE
•
*
PO BOX 166
*
MORRISVILLE, NC 27560
Amend Part F – Definitions of the Zoning Ordinance as follows (Crossed-out text is deleted, and
underlined text is added):
Office Building: A building used primarily for offices that may include ancillary services for office workers,
such as a restaurant, coffee shop, newspaper, or candy stand.
Clinic: A facility for examining and treating human patients with medical problems on an outpatient basis,
including treatment, diagnostic services, training, and administration.
Adopted this the 22nd day of March 2011.
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Diana R. Davis, Town Clerk
______________________________
J. S. Holcombe, Mayor
ATTH 01
ATTH 02
Town Center Districts
Allowed Uses
Subsection 2.2. Classification of New and Unlisted Uses
Table 2: Allowable Uses in the Town Center Districts
Use Classification
HCV
MS
TCR
RNP
RT
CC
S*
S*
S*
S*
CB (TC) O&I (TC)
AGRICULTURE AND ANIMAL-RELATED USES
Community Garden
S*
S*
Farm, Bona Fide
S*
S*
S*
Greenhouse/Nursery
Greenhouse/Nursery, Large
or Wholesale
Kennel
C
Stables
Veterinary Clinic/Hospital
S
RESIDENTIAL USES
Congregate Living Facility
Day Care Center
Dwelling, Duplex
Dwelling, Live/Work
Dwelling, Manufactured
Home
Dwelling, Multi-Family
S
S
Family Child Care Home
Family Care Home
Home Occupation
House, Fraternity/Sorority
Nursing Home
Rooming House
C
C
C
C
S
C
S
C
S
C
S
C
S
C
S
S*
C
Dwelling, Replacement
Manufactured Home
Dwelling, Attached
Dwelling, Detached
C
C
S*
C
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
C
S
S*
C
S*
C
C
CIVIC AND INSTITUTIONAL USES
Cemetery
Club or Lodge
Community Center
Place of Worship
C
S*
C
C
C
C
C
C
S*
C
S*
C
S*
C
S*
C
C
S
S
S
S
S
C
S
C
S
C
C
C
C
EDUCATIONAL/RECREATIONAL/PUBLIC FACILITIES
Club, Country
Emergency Services
Golf Course
Government Services
Private Recreation Facility,
Indoor
Private Recreation Facility,
Outdoor
S
C
190
ATTH 02
Town Center Districts
Allowed Uses
Subsection 2.2. Classification of New and Unlisted Uses
Use Classification
HCV
MS
TCR
RNP
RT
CC
CB (TC) O&I (TC)
EDUCATIONAL/RECREATIONAL/PUBLIC FACILITIES
Public Cultural Facility
Public Park or Public
Recreation Facility
School, Public or Private
S
S
C
C
S
C
S
S
S
S
S
S
C
S
S
C
C
C
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S*
S
S
S
S
S*
S
S
S
S
S*
MEDICAL FACILITIES
Clinic/Urgent Care
Hospital
Office, Medical/Dental
S
S
OFFICE USES
Office Park
Office Retail
Research Laboratory
Service Establishment
Temporary Office Structure
S
COMMERCIAL USES
Adult Establishment
Bed and Breakfast
Convenience Store
Funeral Home
Garden Center
Hotel/Motel
Outdoor Storage
Restaurant, Convenience
Restaurant, Delivery
Restaurant, Walk-In
Retail Store < 3,000 sf
Retail Store 3,000sf to
<20,000 sf
Retail Store 20,000sf to
<50,000 sf
Retail Store 50,000 sf to
<75,000 sf
Retail Store ≥75,000 sf
Service Establishment,
Personal
Shopping Center
Shopping Center,
Neighborhood
Stonecutting/Monument
Sales
Wholesale Food
Preparation
S
S
C
S
S
S
C
S
C
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
C
S
S
C
C
C
S
S*
S*
S*
S*
S
S
S
C
C
191
S
ATTH 02
Town Center Districts
Allowed Uses
Subsection 2.2. Classification of New and Unlisted Uses
Use Classification
HCV
MS
TCR
RNP
RT
CC
CB (TC) O&I (TC)
VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT USES
Automobile Repair, Major
Automobile Repair, Minor
Automobile Sales and Rental
Automobile Service Station
Car Wash/Detailing
S
S*
Fuel Storage Tanks
Recreational Vehicle Rental
and Service
Tire Capping and
Retreading
INDUSTRIAL USES
Construction-Related
Activities
Crematorium
Extraction of Earth Products
Flex Space
Industrial Equipment Sales
and Rental
Junkyard or Recycling
Facility
Landfill, Debris
Landfill, On-site Debris
Landfill Reclamation
Landfill, Sanitary
Manufacturing, Custom
Manufacturing, Heavy
Manufacturing, Light
Manufacturing, Medium
Mini-Storage
Motor Freight Terminal
Motor Freight Terminal,
Small
Storage of Petroleum
Products
Warehousing/Distribution
Wholesale Jobbing
Establishment
TRANSPORTATION/COMMUNICATION/UTILITY USES
Broadcasting Station
Broadcast Studio
Bus Station
Offices, Utility
S
S
C
S
S
192
S
ATTH 02
Town Center Districts
Allowed Uses
Subsection 2.2. Classification of New and Unlisted Uses
Use Classification
HCV
MS
TCR
RNP
RT
CC
CB (TC) O&I (TC)
TRANSPORTATION/COMMUNICATION/UTILITY USES
Park and Ride Terminal
Parking Lot
Parking Deck
Railroad Yards
Telecommunication Towers
Transit Station
Utility Facility, Community
Utility Facility, Major
C
C
C
S
S
C
S
S
S
S
S
ACCESSORY USES
Accessory Apartment
Recreation, Residential
Support
Wireless Communication
Antenna
C
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
TEMPORARY/MISCELLANEOUS USES
Canopies
S*
S*
Construction Trailer
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
Family Care Manufactured
Home
Mobile Classrooms
C
C
C
C
C
C
Outdoor Sales, Seasonal
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
Real Estate Sales Office,
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
Temporary
Street Vendor
S*
S*
S*
Special Events
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
S*
ABBREVIATIONS
Districts Established in this ordinance: HCV: Historic Crossroads Village; MS: Main Street; TCR: Town
Center Residential; RNP: Residential Neighborhood Preservation; RT: Residential Transition; and CC:
Corridor Commercial; CB (TC): Conservation Buffer (Town Center); O&I (TC): Office and Institutional
(Town Center).
193
ATTH 03
ATTH 03
Attn: Tim Gauss
Director of Development Services
Town of Morrisville
100 Town Hall Drive
Morrisville, NC 27560
February 22, 2010
Dear Town Council Members:
staff,
f, I regret that I am unable to attend tonight’s
Due to a previous planned retreat with our local staf
meeting.. Nevertheless, on behalf of Duke Realty, I strongly support the text amendment that is before
you this evening. I believe this is a smart move for the Town of Morrisville to take as it will allow
Morrisville to compete favorably for major office prospects who are looking in the Raleigh and Cary
area, and it will allow the tax value of the developed properties to be more quickly realized by the Town.
I applaud staff efforts in bringing this vvery important issue before the Council.
ouncil. Again, I sincerely wish I
could be there in person to support this effort. Best of luck with the decision.
Sincerely,
Jeff Sheehan
Senior Vice President, Raleigh
Duke Realty Corporation
ATTH 03
From: Robert Crawford [rcrawford1@nc.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 4:44 PM
To: Steve Diehl
Subject: 2011-006
I am writing to provide input regarding item 2011-006, "Administrative Approval of Selected Uses (AMN
10-02): Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance."
On first blush, 2011-006 seems a trivial decision, that may easily prove the most important choice you
make this year. It is, certainly, the one that stands the greatest chance of producing unintended
consequences.
On the one hand, as those supporting 2011-006 legitimately note, the Council is largely precluded from
reversing building requests that meet established ordinances. The U.S. Constitution defines this when
declaring ex post facto laws cannot be enacted. Further, supporters maintain approval of building
requests take inordinate time (averaging a year), and obliges staff to prepare time-consuming briefing
papers and PowerPoint presentations for decisions you are compelled to approve.
What the supporters are not considering, however, is your strategic management role for the town, the
intelligent-feedback mechanism accompanying the approval process, and the importance your review of
such requests is for those you represent. Let's consider each in turn.
Strategic Management Role. The Town Council provides the strategic management and decision-making
function for Morrisville, in the same way that the senior leadership of any corporation serves that
purpose. The Mayor is the chief executive officer, the members of the Council serve as the Board of
Directors, the Comptroller is your chief financial officer, the town manager is your chief operations
officer, and the department directors are the vice presidents of operations. As with similarly configured
corporations, the chief executive officer and the Board of Directors oversee the strategic vision. You
determine the vision of what the town will become in the future, and every subsequent decision is in
the service of that vision, as you allocate capital, monitor operations and the purchase of supporting
equipment, and configure staffing.
Consequently, to the extent that planning, zoning, and building requests influence achievement of your
vision, they either enhance or detracts-from the realization that vision. 2011-006 asks that you offload
this responsibility to the town staff, rather than retaining oversight. If, however, you view your role as
the principal strategic management for the town, this represents an abdication of your responsibilities.
ATTH 03
It is certainly the case that, as the senior leadership of the town, a nearly overwhelming number of
issues come before you in any given year, and your natural inclination may be to better manage your
time, focus, and attention by prioritizing the issues you address. Consequently, it may seem abundantly
reasonable to delegate that which appears beyond your control. As this and prior councils have
discovered, however, identification of problems during the approval process can lead to negotiated
outcomes, working with builders and the citizenry to identify and craft win-win solutions. This positive,
which has occurred countless times over the last five years, would lose its currency and effectiveness if
building permit decisions were left entirely to staff.
Unquestionably, management theory and practice doctrine outline which decisions warrant delegation
and which should be retained by those in your position. No less than Colin Powell argued that military
units do best that which the commander reliably inspects – under the view that, if it is worth the
commanders time to inspect it, it's importance becomes evident to every subordinate. General Powell's
number two for the better part of 10 years was my former boss, Col. William "Corky" Bruce. Col. Bruce's
approach with his staff officers (of which I was one) was to require weekly briefings on a selected
complement of measures he believed best demonstrated operational trends predicting future success or
failure. The current building approval process serves that same purpose of inspection.
Powell's concept, however, did not originate with him, but, rather, with a small collective of generals
who learned from the fiasco of Vietnam. Powell, Carl Vono, and Walt Ulmer rejected the "zero defects"
doctrine of Vietnam in favor of two Ulmer concepts -- "the Freedom to Fail" (and the freedom to learn
from errors) and "Power down, Not Power off". The first was consistent with Total Quality Management
and Edwards Deming's 14-Points, while the second dated back to the aftermath of World War II, when
the military undertook its first in-depth study of leadership. Interestingly, it was that military's study of
leadership in the 1950s which led to research into the qualitative side of private-sector management in
the 1960s – i.e., leadership, performance psychology, and team dynamics. But, in the military, this
shows up most prominently in the Ninth Leadership Principle – "ensure the task is understood,
supervised, and accomplished," where understanding is a function of communications, supervision is a
function of leadership and direct operational oversight, and achievement is a function of inspection
(ensuring the finished result meets standards for excellence, precision, and quality).
In short, all this is logically consistent, as a "philosophy" of management (Deming's term). Those in
positions of strategic leadership inspect and review that which is pivotal to strategic success.
ATTH 03
So, is planning, zoning, and building pivotal to the success of your strategic vision? If so, it can't be
offloaded as a responsibility, because, while "a commander can delegate duties, a commander cannot
delegate responsibility." And, in public service, whether you delegate this to staff or not, the electorate
will still hold you accountable for the Morrisville your decisions create – unless expecting them to target
their displeasure at staff when they enter the ballot booth.
Intelligent Feedback Loop. The second item is the intelligent feedback loop, referenced earlier. While it
is certainly the case that the town may be compelled to abide by existing ordinances, review of building
requests provides the Council with prompt identification of real and potential problems. This type of
efficient feedback allows you to maintain the pulse of the community, sufficient to quickly update
ordinances. Allow me to provide an example from Morrisville's recent history.
The community of Breckenridge (off Davis Drive) was the first planned community built in Morrisville.
The builder, Pulte, created it in accordance with existing building codes, which had serve the town well
for years. Portions of the standards, however, had become outdated, and, before the town's staff
recognized the problems, homeowners in the community raised several issues with members of the
town Council – raising concerns about the space between sidewalk expansion joints at the ends of
driveways and the inadequate size of parking pads in two Breckenridge subdivisions (among other
items).
The first problem was resolved when councilmembers finessed the builder to replace the sidewalks at
the end of driveways – which was achieved before turnover of Breckenridge by the builder and while a
second Pulte-community request was before the Council. The parking pad insufficiency problem was
never adequately addressed – creating an ease-of-access problem for public safety vehicles. The building
ordinances, however, were quickly updated, such that subsequent communities never experienced
these problems. Consequently, neither is a problem at Town Hall Commons, Kits Creek, etc. As one town
employee noted, "Breckenridge was the first – where we made and learned from our mistakes." Well,
the town learned from them because a number of us lobbied the council directly, and the council (not
staff) drove the standards reform effort.
Offloading review of building requests to staff would lengthen the time between problem identification
and problem resolution, by bureaucratically placing staff between the Council and the citizenry. In other
words, the Council cannot help but be less quickly reactive.
ATTH 03
Electorate Access and Council Responsiveness. And this raises the third concern – electorate access to
councilmembers. Already, you have reduced the amount of podium time available for public comments
– a decision which sends an indelible message that cannot be misinterpreted. Moreover, Morrisville
remains a small town, with all the benefits and detractions accompanying communities of our size. The
detractions, of course, have to do with financial strength and infrastructure capacity, but these are well
understood by anyone desiring to live in a small town. The benefits of small size have to do with
community, where each citizen can expect a knock on the door by candidates seeking local elective
office. As councilmembers, you know us and have met us, and, more importantly, we know and have
met you. Live in Raleigh or Atlanta, and you are unlikely to know the Mayor or members of the Council.
Anything that serves to further segregate you from the community that elected you is detrimental to
your longevity in office. In small towns, fewer than 50 votes constitute the margin of victory in many
elections, and, unlike large towns, each of us has a tangible sense of your leadership and management
qualities. When we cast a vote, it is not based on partisan politics, campaign slogans, or unsupported
allegations against your opponents. Like Santa Claus, we know who's been naughty, and few votes are
made in ignorance. By offloading the building permit and approval process to staff, without retaining
some measure of oversight by the town strategic leadership, 2011-006 will go unnoticed only until the
first contentious NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) issue arises. You need only think back to the last time a
NIMBY issue arose and the frequency with which they arrive to calculate how long you have before
approving this measure becomes a nightmare.
During the budgeting process for the current fiscal year, I sent you an analysis of the town's budget, in
which I urged you to use a lesser revenue growth rate and predicted a capital shortfall for the town. I
was assured that my concerns were unlikely to materialize and that the town possessed sufficient
flexibility to accommodate my concerns. It turns out that my predictions have proven accurate to within
1/10 of 1% and, I am told, your flexibility is being tested and proving problematic. I mention this not as
an "I told you so." Instead, if I was right about something of significantly greater complexity, I hope my
concerns about 2011-006 now warrant some measure of credibility. 2011-006 is an avoidable error you
need not make.
Respectfully,
Robert Crawford
703 Willingham Rd.
Morrisville, North Carolina
919-469-0254
ATTH 04
§ 2.1.3
CARY LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
TABLE 2.1-1: SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE ADMINISTRATION AND REVIEW ROLES
NOTE: This table summarizes the general review and decision-making responsibilities for the procedures contained in
Chapter 3.
Exceptions to these general rules may apply; see Chapter 3 for complete details on each procedure.
Review = Responsible for Review and/or Recommendation Hearing = Public Hearing Required
Decision = Responsible for Final Decision to Approve or Deny Appeal = Authority to Hear and Decide Appeals
Procedure
Section
Town
Council
Planning
and
Zoning
Board
Zoning
Board of
Adjustment
Town Center
Review
Commission
PRCR
Advisory
Board
Staff
Departments
Notes
Amendment to 3.2.1
the Comprehensive Plan
(Cosmetic)
Decision
Review
-
-
Review
Review/
Decision
[1]
Amendment to 3.2.2
the Comprehensive Plan
(Substantive)
Hearing/
Decision
Hearing/
Review
-
-
Review
Review
[1]
Amendment to 3.3
LDO Text
Hearing/
Decision
Review
-
-
-
Review
Rezoning
3.4
Hearing/
Decision
Hearing/
Review
-
-
Review
Review
Accessory
Use Permit
3.5
-
-
Appeal
-
-
Review/
Decision
Permitted Use 3.6
-
-
-
-
-
Review
Temporary
Use
3.7
-
-
Appeal
-
-
Review/
Decision
Special Use
3.8
Hearing/
Decision
-
-
-
-
Review
Subdivision
Plan
3.9
Decision
(some)/
Appeal
-
Review (Town
Center only)
Review
Review/
Decision
(some)
[2][3][4][5]
Site Plan
3.9
Decision
(some)/
Appeal
-
Review (Town
Center only)
-
Review/
Decision
[6]
Minor
Alteration
3.10
-
-
-
-
-
Review/
Decision
Development
in Flood
Hazard Area
3.12
Appeal
-
-
-
-
Review/
Decision
Grading
Permit
3.13
Appeal
-
-
-
-
Review/
Decision
Building
Permit
3.14
Appeal
-
-
-
-
Review/
Decision
Certificate of
Occupancy
3.15
Appeal
-
-
-
-
Review/
Decision
Supp. No. 11
[5][8][10]
[9]
LDO 2-4
ATTH 04
REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING BODIES
§ 2.1.3
TABLE 2.1-1: SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE ADMINISTRATION AND REVIEW ROLES
NOTE: This table summarizes the general review and decision-making responsibilities for the procedures contained in
Chapter 3.
Exceptions to these general rules may apply; see Chapter 3 for complete details on each procedure.
Review = Responsible for Review and/or Recommendation Hearing = Public Hearing Required
Decision = Responsible for Final Decision to Approve or Deny Appeal = Authority to Hear and Decide Appeals
Procedure
Section
Town
Council
Sign Permit
3.16
-
Vested Rights
Certificate
3.17
Hearing/
Decision
Minor
Modification
3.19
-
Variance
3.20
Planning
and
Zoning
Board
Town Center
Review
Commission
PRCR
Advisory
Board
Staff
Departments
Notes
Appeal
-
-
Review/
Decision
-
-
-
Review
-
Appeal
-
-
Review/
Decision
-
-
Hearing/
Decision
Review (Town
Center only)
-
Review
[11]
Appeals from 3.21
and review of
any order,
requirement,
decision, or
determination
made by an
administrative
official
including fines
and penalties
Hearing/
Decision
(some)
-
Hearing/
Decision
-
-
Review
[12]
Tree Clearing
Certificate
3.22
-
-
Appeal
-
-
Review/
Decision
3.23
Adequate
Public
Facilities for
Roads and
Transportation
Development
Fees
-
-
Appeal
-
-
Review/
Decision
Mixed Use
4.4.2
Center Sketch
Plan
Decision
Review
-
-
-
Review/
Decision
Supp. No. 11
-
Zoning
Board of
Adjustment
[13]
LDO 2-5
ATTH 04
§ 2.1.3
CARY LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
NOTES to Table 2.1-1:
[1]
The Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Advisory Board reviews only those proposed amendments that
involve the parks/recreation element of the Comprehensive Plan.
[2]
Both the Town Council and the Planning Director have final decision-making authority on subdivision plans; see
Section 3.9.
[3]
The Town Council hears appeals of decisions of the Planning Director regarding subdivision plans that are
administratively approved by staff; see Section 3.9.
[4]
The Town Council hears appeals of decisions of the Planning Director regarding applications for changes to
approved subdivision plans; see Section 3.9.
[5]
The Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Advisory Board’s review of subdivision plans is limited to
proposed dedications of land or fees-in-lieu of dedication.
[6]
The Town Council hears appeals of decisions of the Planning Director regarding initial site plan applications that
are approved by staff, and also requests for changes to approved site plans; see Section 3.9.
[7]
(reserved)
[8]
Testimony during the public hearing for a rezoning before the Planning and Zoning Board is limited to aspects of
the rezoning which have changed since the public hearing before the Town Council.
[9]
Appeal of Building Permit related issues goes to the North Carolina Building Code Council.
[10]
The Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Advisory Board reviews the recreation land dedication proposals
associated with PDD rezonings.
[11]
Variance requests from the Downtown Signage provisions (Section 9.6) must be reviewed by the Town Center
Review Commission prior to review and decision by the Board of Adjustment.
[12]
The Town Council hears appeals related to development within the Flood Hazard Area and Grading Permits.
[13]
Mixed Use Center sketch plans may be reviewed by staff as defined in section 4.4.2.
2.1.4 Membership and Procedures
Detailed information on membership criteria and review body procedures for each of the review
bodies is located within Chapter 2 of the Town Code of Ordinances.
(Ord. No. 04-007, 7-15-04; Ord. No. 04-011, 9-9-04; Ord. No. 06-009, 4-27-06; Ord. No. 2011-LDO-01, 1-11-11)
2.2
TOWN COUNCIL
2.2.1 Review and Decision-Making Responsibilities
W ithout limiting any authority granted to the Town Council by State law or by other ordinances of
the Town, the Town Council shall, with respect to this Ordinance, have the powers and duties set
forth in Table 2.1-1, to be carried out in accordance with the terms of this Ordinance.
2.3
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
2.3.1 Review Responsibilities
The Planning and Zoning Board shall have the review responsibilities set forth in Table 2.1-1, to be
carried out in accordance with the terms of this Ordinance.
Supp. No. 11
LDO 2-6
ATTH 04
REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING BODIES
§ 2.5.1
2.3.2 Other Powers and Duties
In addition, the Planning and Zoning Board shall have the following powers and duties, to be
carried out in accordance with the terms of this Ordinance:
2.4
(A)
To perform studies and surveys of the present conditions and probable future development
of the Town and its environs, including, but not limited to, studies and surveys of land uses,
population, economic base, school needs, park and recreation needs, traffic, parking, and
redevelopment needs;
(B)
To formulate and recommend to the Town Council the adoption or amendment of a
Comprehensive Plan and other plans for the Town and its environs for the purpose of
achieving the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town, in accordance with
present and future needs;
(C)
To review the terms of this Ordinance from time to time, as it deems appropriate, and to
recommend to the Town Council any changes that the Board considers necessary to properly
regulate the development and use of land, buildings, and structures;
(D)
Such additional powers and duties as may be set forth for the Planning and Zoning Board
elsewhere in this Ordinance and other ordinances of the Town.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
2.4.1 Review and Decision-Making Responsibilities
The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall have the review and decision-making responsibilities set
forth in Table 2.1-1, to be carried out in accordance with the terms of this Ordinance.
2.4.2 Other Powers and Duties
The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall have the following additional powers and duties, to be
carried out in accordance with the terms of this Ordinance:
2.5
(A)
To interpret zoning maps, district boundary lines, and similar questions as they arise as
appeals from the Planning Director's interpretation of this Ordinance; and
(B)
Such additional powers and duties as may be set forth for the Zoning Board of Adjustment
elsewhere in this Ordinance and other ordinances of the Town.
TOWN CENTER REVIEW COMMISSION
2.5.1 Review and Decision-Making Responsibilities
The Town Center Review Commission shall have the review and decision-making responsibilities
set forth in Table 2.1-1, to be carried out in accordance with the terms of this Ordinance.
LDO 2-7
ATTH 04
§ 2.5.2
CARY LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
2.5.2 Other Powers and Duties
The Town Center Review Commission shall have the following additional powers and duties, to be
carried out in accordance with the terms of this Ordinance:
2.6
(A)
To review proposed plans for development approval within the boundaries of the Town
Center District;
(B)
To review proposed public enhancement projects like public art or streetscapes in the Town
Center; and
(C)
To administer the Downtown Design Guidelines; and
(D)
To make a recommendation on variance requests from the downtown sign regulations of
Section 9.6; and
(E)
Such additional powers and duties as may be set forth for the Town Center Review
Commission elsewhere in this Ordinance and other ordinances of the Town.
PARKS, RECREATION, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
2.6.1 Review and Decision-Making Responsibilities
The Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Advisory Board shall have the review and
decision-making responsibilities set forth in Table 2.1-1, to be carried out in accordance with the
terms of this Ordinance.
2.6.2 Other Powers and Duties
The Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Advisory Board shall have the following additional
powers and duties, to be carried out in accordance with the terms of this Ordinance:
(A)
To develop and implement the Parks, Greenways, and Bikeways Master Plan and other
park-related, plans, policies, and programs;
(B)
Upon request of the Town Council, Planning and Zoning Board, or a staff department, to
review proposed amendments to this Ordinance, proposed rezonings of property under this
Ordinance, proposed master land use plans for planned developments, proposed subdivision
plans, and proposed site plans, and to make recommendations to the Town Council and/or
Planning and Zoning Board for final action thereon;
(C)
To report to the Town Council the recommendations of its various committees as they relate
to Land Use and Development; additional powers and duties as may be set forth for the
Board elsewhere in this Ordinance and other ordinances of the Town.
LDO 2-8
ATTH 04
REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING BODIES
2.7
§ 2.8.2
PUBLIC ART ADVISORY BOARD
2.7.1 Review and Decision-Making Responsibilities
The Public Art Advisory Board shall advise the Town Council on all matters related to public art,
including the acquisition and placement of works of art as well as the maintenance, removal,
relocation, or alteration of existing works of art in the Town's possession and perform all duties with
respect to implementing a public art program in Cary, North Carolina.
2.7.2 Other Powers and Duties
The Public Art Advisory Board shall have the following additional powers and duties, to be carried
out in accordance with the terms of this Ordinance:
2.8
(A)
Review and make recommendations regarding proposed gifts of public art to the Town of
Cary, as well as loans and long term exhibitions of public art on Town-owned property;
(B)
Based on recommendations brought forward by the Program Staff, periodically review and
recommend changes to the Public Art Ordinance, guidelines, policies, and procedures.
STAFF DEPARTMENTS
2.8.1 Review and Decision-Making Responsibilities
Town staff departments shall have the review and decision-making responsibilities set forth in Table
2.1-1, to be carried out in accordance with the terms of this Ordinance. The departments and
agencies also shall have such additional powers and duties as may be set forth elsewhere in this
Ordinance and other ordinances of the Town.
2.8.2 Development Review Committee
The Development Review Committee is composed of multiple Town staff departments working
together to render decisions on applications as a single decision-making body. The Town staff
departments with review and decision-making responsibilities under this Ordinance include, but are
not necessarily limited to, the: Planning, Administration, Engineering, Inspections and Permits, Fire,
Parks Recreation and Cultural Resources, and Public Works & Utilities Departments.
LDO 2-9
ATTH 04
§ 3.9.2
CARY LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
(C)
Citizen-Initiated Annexation Petition Required
If the property within the proposed site and/or subdivision plan boundaries requires
annexation into the Town limits, then official approval of the plan connecting to Town utilities
is contingent on annexation into the Town. See Section 3.1.10.
(D)
Coordination of Site Plan Review with Special Use and/or Subdivision Plan Review
The review and approval of site plans should be coordinated with the review and approval
of both Special Uses (see Section 3.8) and/or Subdivision Plans (see Section 3.9.3) to the
maximum extent possible. An application for approval of a site plan may be submitted at the
same time as an application for approval of a special use or a subdivision plan for the same
development. However, the Development Review Committee and/or the Planning and Zoning
Board shall render separate recom mendations and the Town Council (if subject to its
approval) shall render a separate decision on each application, recognizing the applications
as distinct and subject to different standards for approval. However, the Council may choose
to approve both applications with one (1) vote.
(E)
Plans in Nonconforming Structures or Lots
If a proposed plan involves one (1) or more structures or lots that do not conform to the
regulations of the district in which the plan is located, then, this plan may be reviewed as a
Re-use/Redevelopment Plan provided that the proposal is consistent with the requirements
in Section 3.11.2. If the proposal is not consistent with Section 3.11.2, or includes an
expansion of the nonconforming use, structure, or site, beyond that allowed by Section 3.11.3
then such proposal shall be required to obtain special use approval (see Section 3.8) unless
the applicant has previously obtained the necessary variances from the Zoning Board of
Adjustment In cases where a variance has been granted, such plans would follow the normal
site plan process.
(F)
Approval Authority
(1)
Approval by Town Council
The Town Council shall have final decision-making authority on the following types of
site and/or subdivision plans, which shall be reviewed using the procedure set forth in
this Section:
Supp. No. 10
(a)
Plans that seek reductions or deviations from the buffering (see Section 7.2.3)
or parking requirements (see Section 7.8) of this Ordinance beyond the Minor
Modifications (see Section 3.19) allowed by staff; and
(b)
Plans for uses that require approval of a Special Use (see Section 3.8); and
(c)
Plans for parcels or sites within the Town Center (TC) District (See Section
4.2.2(N)); and
(d)
Plans that seek reductions or deviations from the minimum required setbacks
for telecommunications facilities (see Section 5.2.4(D)).
LDO 3-40
ATTH 04
REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES
(2)
§ 3.9.2
Approval by Planning Director
The Planning Director shall have final decision-m aking authority on all site and/or
subdivision plans not subject to review by the Town Council. Such plans shall be
reviewed for compliance with all requirements of this Ordinance and applicable Town
specifications.
(G)
(H)
Site/Subdivision Plans Approved By Planning Director
(1)
W ithin ninety (90) days from the submittal or any re-submittal of the application, the
Planning Director shall review the site and/or subdivision plan, and the comments and
recommendations of the Development Review Committee. The Director shall either
approve or deny the plan within this time period unless the applicant has caused
additional delay by failing to provide necessary or accurate information.
(2)
Alternatively, within ninety (90) days from the submittal or any re-submittal of the
application, the Planning Director may defer the decision on the plan to the Town
Council.
(3)
If the Planning Director denies the plan, then the reasons for the denial shall be stated
in the record of action on the plan.
(4)
In the event the Planning Director denies a plan, an appeal may be filed with the Town
Council within ten (10) days of denial. If an appeal is filed, the Town Council, after
conducting a quasi-judicial hearing, may affirm, reverse, or modify the Director's denial
based on the criteria of Section 3.9.2(I) of this Ordinance.
Town Council Review and Approval Process
(1)
Director Forwards Application
If the plan is for development or redevelopment on a parcel or site within the Town
Center (TC) District, the Planning Department shall forward the application and plan
to the Town Center Review Commission prior to a regularly scheduled meeting of the
Commission, along with the recommendations of the Development Review Committee,
any comments received from the other boards and commissions, and the applicant's
response.
Supp. No. 11
LDO 3-41