Clayton planning board unanimously recommends UDO text amendments to align town code with state law

The Clayton Planning Board voted unanimously on May 26 to recommend approval of Unified Development Ordinance text amendments 1-26, a package of nine changes staff says are intended to bring the town’s development code into alignment with recent North Carolina legislative changes.

Planning Director Conrad Omeo presented the package and described it as “the sixth round of the UDO text amendment since its adoption and an effective date of January 2nd, 2024,” saying the packet includes a redline summary and links to the relevant state statutes. He told the board staff intends to bring the package to the town council work session on June 1 and to a public hearing on June 15, with an anticipated effective date of June 15, 2026.

The amendment package covers nine subjects, according to Omeo: alignment on split-jurisdiction rules per Session Law 2026-94 (House Bill 926) and N.C. Gen. Stat. chapter 160D; special-use permit expirations; application resubmittal timing; clarifications for home-occupation and temporary uses; addition of off-site parking for construction offices; change-of-use rules for downtown zoning districts; clarification of street-light spacing measurement (on-center distances); reorganizing alternative-plan text into its own heading; and a correction to a figure for short-term signs.

Board members focused several questions on two implementation points. One concern was the street-lighting change that references a 250-foot on-center spacing: a member asked whether the amendment meets ASHTO and local photometric standards and whether side-of-street placement matters. Omeo said the street-light language was vetted with the town’s electric director, Matt Proctor, and that he would confirm compliance and provide that confirmation when the package goes before council: “I did work with Matt Proctor, our electrics director, and this language was vetted by him,” he said.

Members also raised questions about the split-jurisdiction language and how it would affect properties that straddle town, county or neighboring municipal lines. Omeo said state law (chapter 160D) generally governs and that majority-jurisdiction typically determines the permitting authority unless a mutual agreement between jurisdictions exists. He recommended staff coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions and consult town counsel if conflicts arise.

Board member Saraski moved and Board member Hall seconded a motion finding UDOTA1-26 consistent with the town’s adopted 2045 comprehensive growth plan and recommending approval to the town council. The motion passed unanimously with all board members present voting in favor.

Next steps: staff will provide the requested confirmations about street-lighting standards and split-jurisdiction implementation for the council work session scheduled June 1. The board’s recommendation will be forwarded to council ahead of the public hearing set for June 15, 2026.