Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Going to call to order our Town of Pittsburgh planning board regular meeting for Monday, April 20th, 2026. Um, go ahead and certify we do have a quorum. No, Miss Freda 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. Motion to approve the agenda.

Motion by Connie. Second by Allan. All in favor say I. I. I. All right. Agenda is approved. Now the minutes from our March meeting. Uh is anyone 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 pulling 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. Uh make a motion to approve the March 16th minutes uh with the spelling correction. So move. All right. Motion by Allen. Second 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 will get to our action items. I think we have four UDO text amendments and Miss May, I believe, is going to present them all for us. So, first item being uh 61 ZTA 2026 05. Good evening to the board and staff for

All right. The first section I just want to bring to your attention there is one um update from on the staff report. You'll see that on your desk for the number five, which is terms and uses defined. We added one definition and amended one of those in that list or a comment that came in this morning. Okay. So, the background on this section is we are 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 per 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 either it's continuous um continuous 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 going through the definitions themselves, all of the definitions listed are new

with the exception of very few. For example, the builtupon area. Last um update actually went to do just the impervious. This is the 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 conser um conservation subdivisions clustering and the other is non-conservation subdivisions clustering so that they have the ability to do both styles. They're not the exact same thing. Then all the definitions that we pull are items that are in the UDO that do not have an actual vocabulary, meaning they mean two or three different things, but we want to to refer to what's in the UDO specifically and give it an outline so that 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 plane or floodway not just encroachment because there are different types of encroachments and I just want to mention that it has to be explicit to the flood. Um, currently there is no level of service definitions and with the transportation section that will come and 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 private retain should be what NCDOT will allow as well because we already meet that standard in our specs to ensure that if

they need to be taken over it is done with a standard so we don't have 2 in of asphalt 2 inches of um gravel underneath instead of the actual full base. Um neck tract area has been updated in here and then we will have gross for the next one as well. It is not yet either that is to follow with the actually it isn't here. I'm sorry. We we already updated it. It was going to wait and 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 we have open space but we don't have one that specifically outlines conservation. So that is in here is what would be held from the state manage ordinary high water level that is part of how we do streams and what would also affect the wetlands. So it covers both. It is called out some of the sections and we need to make sure it's um the different the different uh transportation analysis are outlined in here. So there's a definition to what those look like as well as they will 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 a standpoint of how we look at it. And anything that had a state statute or in North Carolina from the NCAC, we have that in there as well. Anything that had any direct regulations, we added those in. um remove the third, share me and any highway, street, road, those pieces

updated for all the different definitions of different types of theirs because right now they're all vague and they overlap. So you have the aerial versus their fair. So that language has been cleaned up so it actually gives a full definition of which one is which. Um and then unconstrained lands. 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 will be something that will be seen in the future where the definition is already there and that's I'll have next session.

All right. All right. Does anybody have any questions over that one? Yes. All right. Okay. Um, we'll start f first. Thank you for doing this. I think this is very helpful to have actual definitions for a lot. We appreciate 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 reasonzoning. And so in the clustering conservation subdivision definition, what does significant portion mean?

It has to be the um it will be outlined in the UDO. We haven't gotten to that full outline, but that would refer to that section. It would have that significant section. Okay. In 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, I'll 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're only changing in one spot. This is just to the base and then you 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? does change as the tree grows. Okay? But it just gives 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 feet and it it changes as it grows. So every time they would go out there and do any kind of a survey, they were based 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 that's just the overall definition.

Okay. Um and I had 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 the 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 what we can and can't do. But it's not saying that the ETJ is part of the incorporated town. 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 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. still here. Are there additional items? That's all I have. I appreciate it greatly. Anybody else? Any else?

Yeah, just a few things. Uh question under access safety where it says where traffic from a proposed development will impact any location with 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? Uh that should say any location with we need like the we have a radius table, but it's not in this. So within the effect. 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 calls that 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,000 ft. depends on how big the development is and how many trips there are to figure out how far away it would go and actually do that. So, it should be within the zone of effect location with 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, right? 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 because there's no formal definition that would affect like how far is adjacent. So 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 because I would, like I said, I would prefer that you have enough information to actually say yes or no. Okay. So, I'll submit that one with the transportation section that comes in. And 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 because 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 at the max before we can trigger ours because 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 we don't have anything to base it on. So until we make that change and modify that, 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, we're taking care of number three on the wet ones. Yeah, that's all I Any other concerns, questions, comments? James, appreciate the red lining. It's nice to follow along as you go.

Yeah, I I tried to I don't want you guys to miss I want you to help because it's you hear a different perspective than just staff, just lawyers and just our development community. So, this gives an overall. We appreciate it. If uh there's nothing else and I'll accept a motion make a motion to approve with the adjustments.

Second.

All right. Motion by Connie, second by charity. Um all in favor I All right. Um, item 62, ZTA 2026 wetlands. And again um for the record you have an additional update as well for to make a modification trying to keep with the um farmers 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 added the definition so it can be done as part of the determinations is what they recommend now and that it meet all of those requirements accordingly. and then the 50 foot to follow the repairarian 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 sacket 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 for making sure that there's no change in elevation. So if it is not a vertical upland right directly beside the the stream and it has a flood plane and if it's all wet that and you can see it there's no change in that that is automatically a wetland according to that language. 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 because it can be considered an either or even if the state actually owns that property and that wetland in it own state maps. there's even the state has pulled back some of that. So, I'll go ahead and take that down because it's dependent on the situation. Um, and then the only other items is there's we included the language for that the overlap for the flood planes because you have to look at the soils in consideration of some of those wetlands during the time of the year. And we would do the same thing with the streams and the flood plane. So we made it across the board and that's another language item that's in that federal language. So everything follows federal and supplicant state and not to exceed the watersheds. So they should all line up with that 50 foot. 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 would be jurisdictional to determine if it is and usually 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 determined that way. There's I think there's like two or three here. That would be it. Are there any questions and concerns? Anyone else has anything? We'll accept a motion.

I'll move to approve um CTA 202606 as presented. All right. Motion by charity. Have a second. Second. Second by Allan. Uh, all in favor say I. I is approved. 63. Text amendment request for ZTA 20268.

This is a simple swap out. Right now it currently says annexation review procedures placeholder and we are just adding in the voluntary because allation 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. 4.18 that we do not have anything about vest rights in there and that will be added. So that will be defined at a later date. Similar municipalities Apex, Sanford, Lee County, Wake County. These are just examples. It's standard language across the board. Simple to follow state statutes. Any questions or concerns? We uh I know we talked about this a few weeks ago, but the voluntary annexation, can you just for the meeting explain what that is versus the um I guess involuntary or other

can't make someone actual 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 volunteers, they have to say they want to do it. can't go just grab land. Okay. Thank you. Right. But if they're talking about a say a a sub community or a subdivision that's not within town jurisdiction right now, uh would every land owner have to agree to that or is it Yes. But if the developer does it before it's built,

right? Oh yeah. Yeah, a new subdivision. Absolutely. I mean, they would always have to do that, right? I mean, you wouldn't pass this board, I would hope, or you or anybody else for a new subdivision, right? Well, they have to get water and Yeah. But if they want to use well on septic and then the ETJ, technically they can still do that. They have to have them in their 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 uh I'll accept a motion on that. Item 63. Motion to approve. Motion to approve. Uh attached consistency statement re sorry recommends approval and supports consideration of the Nope. Suggestion 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 Allen. Uh all in favor say I. I.

I. Motion passes and we'll go to 64 ZTA 20269. 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 NMU and CMU. So NMU is the neighborhood mixeduse center district which includes lands for low and moderate density. And then the CMU U is community mixeduse 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, multifamily and live work dwellings. So 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 group 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. that 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 a necessary dwelling unit. We have them in every other residential piece. If you're allowing residential, they should have the use of that because it's like having a space over their garage. That would be an example of it. or grandparents or someone that have multiple families on the property, they could do it and live and work. Some work above their garage or live over there and work in the garage. Different uses for that same structure.

So So this would allow those structures to be put say behind a duplex or townhouse. Yes. Because it's residential. In some some ways there's a way to kind of attach them through like a breezeway or like a garage if you had a garage that would be an example that had a usable space that they could live in or or can play in. Why is it not also permitted for R 12M?

Mobile home park district. Mobile home park. I don't I just Googled it. It's not a Pittsburgh Google. So not very trustworthy. residential medium density residential and mobile home park district. That's what that is. The technically that one should be added as well because one of the ways that they will upgrade from having the mobile 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. It's an ownable mobile home parks just rental and property with ownership of the actual. Okay. Just maybe check on that because it might have some conflict with the owner of the mobile home park land itself utilities typically just right. Correct. That's why I was saying check. Okay, that makes sense. I think maybe we wait to add that one until we add the definition where it has the little 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, we could improve this right here as in addy. Perfect. Does anybody else anything else? I just add just question that um the de 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 or what the actual definition of what unit accessory ADU is. It is actually already in the UDO. Okay. There's just two of them and this was the one that was

perfect. Okay. I just didn't see it in the other part. So, I just missed it. Next time I do that, I'll make sure I include the one that's already in there. So, this is what's already in there to make that easier to limit. Go find it if I need to. Just keep up the red lining. And I like that. Any addition questions or concerns? Now I have one more thing I want to note just so you're absolutely there is the the has the downtown advisory board called out in this section. It's supposed to have the planning board and all these statements.

So I I need to fix that and send consistency statement for everything updated. Yeah, we don't want to don't want you named but not that much. now. Okay. So, um add that to the motion to remove that.

That's just for a consistency statements anywhere at the top there. Okay. Thank you. Catching that. additional items. If you do not,

I will uh accept a motion then. I'll move to approve text amendment ZTA 20269.

Keep going. Yeah, I get. Well, so with section 3.3 modifications with modific with a consistency statement, but no modifications. Okay. To the table as is. Okay. All right. Perfect. Um motion by charity. Have a second on that. Second by James. Uh all in favor say I. I. I. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you so much for all the hard work and Lauren you guys

team. Thank you everyone. All right. Uh so um 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 lot of a lot of time put into all of this and it's, uh, 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, uh,

I have something I'd like to bring up. Yeah,

I was reading some news about um 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 I know Carrie 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 part of our concern. Let me ask this to the staff. I mean, since the county has a moratorum on data centers, I mean, would we if we wanted to do the same thing, would we have to have our own moratorum? Yeah, I think legally speaking, the board of the county did is not affecting this.

Okay, that's short. staff would have to look at tables to see if any of those discussions are in the table. If they are, they would be allowed. If they're not, then I think there's your first, but if they are, taking them out would probably be down, which would be

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 um strict

Yeah. proximity limits, buffer zones, high amount of water. So we have right now. So we have to qualify for the pering process allocated that not we have to have a conversation but status on the items we look at all the different perisol where exactly they're located start with that first take a look both I guess just I think I guess if uh who what was the m 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 uh I would hope so changing changing the uh 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 um a building that that they were interested ed 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 for it to they didn't remove it completely. I thought that was interesting and maybe a good thing to think about. Great. Um, but broadly speaking, even some places are more apt to do things and not be concerned of the legal issues. That's why I said I didn't 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.

We'll review it and see if we'll find the article and just an investigation on what they did see something that could we Yeah. Because didn't Tarboro do the same thing and now they're facing a lawsuit? data for data. That's right. Yeah. They lose the data locate and they win. Interesting. All right. Any more discussion? That was Thank you for bringing that up. That was

Mhm. Yeah. I have a second. Good to know. Yes. All right. Um then uh I'll take a motion to adjurnn. Move. Motion by Allan. Second. Second. Second by James. All in favor to adjurnn say I. I. I.