Planning board tables cottage-development UDO amendment after extended debate on ‘guardrails’

The Mooresville Planning Board on Tuesday discussed TA2024-10, a text amendment proposing multiple changes to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) cottage-development standards, and ultimately voted to table the item so staff and applicants can refine a narrower, conditional approach.

Planning staff member David Cole told the board TA2024-10 would amend several UDO sections, chiefly chapter 4.3.3.B.2 (use standards), the cottage definition, and a subdivision standard in chapter 6.2.1. He said the amendment arose from requests by the developer behind Cottages at Back Creek and noted the cottage provisions were adopted in February 2022 and had not been revised since.

Cole outlined the principal proposed changes: removal of the minimum 4,000-square-foot lot standard where lots are subdivided (staff said 4,000 sf is too large to preserve cottage orientation), a proposal that 50% of units be capped at 1,800 square feet while the other half would have no cap, shifting the fixed 3,000-square-foot common-open-space metric to an average-width requirement (50-foot average down to 30 feet in denser districts), and additional parking flexibility that would allow one of the two required parking spaces per unit to be on the unit’s lot rather than both being in a common surface lot. Cole said staff recommended approval of the amendment text overall but flagged the proposed increase in home size (the 1,800-sq-ft cap on half the units and no cap on the remainder) as the staff’s primary concern because it could run counter to the original intent of the cottage use to provide smaller, more-attainable housing.

Applicant Adam Hayes, representing Cottages at Back Creek, said the intent is to improve market feasibility for the cottage form. Hayes told the board that units at 1,100 square feet—the existing cap—were difficult to finance and sell in the current market and that removing the minimum-lot-size requirement, allowing greater unit-size variety, and permitting more flexible parking would improve financial feasibility and encourage additional cottage development. Hayes suggested 1,800 square feet as a comfortable upper size but said he was open to tiered size caps as an alternative.

Board members raised questions about maintaining the design “guardrails” that differentiate cottage neighborhoods from conventional subdivisions — courtyard orientation, common greens, pedestrian emphasis and limits on garage/driveway prominence. Some members expressed concern that the amendment, as drafted, could permit very large homes on very small lots and thereby permit development that would diverge from the cottage concept. Several board members suggested making the alternative form allowable only through conditional zoning (so each project would return to the board and Town Board for approval of a specific site plan and the particular modifications sought).

Resident Richard Beck spoke in public comment, urging additional detail on entries/exits, fire-safety implications and dimensional clarifications; Beck asked the board to consider a continuance if key safety or design details remained unsettled.

After extended discussion, Planning Board member Temple moved to table TA2024-10 and direct staff to return with a revised approach that could include creating a separate, conditional-use pathway (a second “type” of cottage/cluster development) limited to specific zoning districts (board members discussed limiting a new option to RLI) and clearer guardrails for lot size, unit size tiers, open-space dimensions and parking. Planning Board member Michael Hooper seconded the motion. The motion to table carried on a voice vote and staff said it will draft language and options for a future meeting.