Reidsville work session advances UDO while council splits over downtown design standards

Reidsville — On Oct. 22, 2024, the Reidsville City Council held a special work session to review a draft Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), a comprehensive rewrite of local development rules intended to increase clarity, broaden housing options and guide future growth. Consultant Chad presented the draft's goals, schedule and specific proposals while council members probed costs, implementation and where to apply new design rules.

Chad, the consultant leading the drafting effort, said the UDO aims to make development rules more user-friendly and predictable while implementing adopted policy such as the comprehensive plan, greenways and technical plans. "This unified development ordinance is a major Leap Forward for Reidsville from a regulatory standpoint," he told council, adding the document is a tool that will not, by itself, overcome market forces or building-code costs.

Why it matters: The UDO will change how the city regulates building appearance, site layout, open space and permitted uses. It also affects the adoption process: Chad told council that, because some provisions in the draft carry criminal penalties under recent state law, the ordinance will require two readings at council. "When you adopt an ordinance that has criminal penalties in it in North Carolina you must have two readings," he said.

Design standards were the meeting's most contested item. The draft includes Chapter 3 design standards covering materials, building modulation, storefront fenestration, roof form and screening of mechanical equipment. Supporters said minimum standards will protect downtown character and property values and encourage investment in attractive downtown redevelopment. Opponents warned they would raise construction costs and could deter small-business owners and national retailers from investing in Reidsville.

"I'm totally against implementing anything like this — I think it's bad right now because we're not financially there," a councilmember said, arguing that added facade or material requirements could raise building costs substantially and price local entrepreneurs out of downtown. Chad and other staff urged the council to review the specific draft standards before deciding whether to apply them only downtown or citywide. Several councilmembers favored downtown-only application with staff and consultant returning the proposed language for review.

Housing and mixed-use rules: The draft would broaden allowable residential types in converted commercial districts but also suggested limiting lower-density residential (duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, single-family) as a by-right use in mixed-use districts and instead accommodate those forms through conditional rezoning. Chad said permitting multifamily by-right while using conditional procedures for lower-density types preserves commercial land for higher-intensity mixed uses but retains a path for context-appropriate projects.

Nonconforming sites and change-of-use triggers: Staff proposed a threshold approach for requiring full compliance with new site standards when existing properties change use or are substantially renovated. One suggested trigger was that projects exceeding 75% of assessed value would need to bring site features (parking, landscaping, lighting) into compliance; smaller changes would not automatically trigger full retrofitting. Council members raised concerns about fairness, administrative complexity and the need for clear, uniform rules.

Open space and greenways: The draft recommends mandatory open-space set-asides (example figures discussed in the meeting included 10% for many residential developments with a portion active for multifamily, 7% for mixed-use and 5% for other nonresidential) and a fee-in-lieu option when on-site provision is impractical. Chad also said the city could require developers to provide planned greenway segments shown on adopted maps or pay a fee to support future connections.

Operational changes and enforcement: Staff and the consultant proposed formalizing the Technical Review Committee with set meeting and submission days to make reviews predictable and suggested a voluntary expedited third-party review option for time-sensitive permits (fee-based). Council also debated code-enforcement and nuisance standards for inoperable vehicles (replacing the term "junk vehicle") and whether to allow one covered or improved-surface inoperable vehicle per lot while requiring screening for multiples.

Temporary uses and fees: The draft would create a temporary-use permit category (examples: portable storage containers/pods) with a typical duration of 90 days per lot per calendar year and a modest permit fee (staff cited $25 as an example). Some councilmembers questioned charging homeowners short-term fees for remodeling needs; staff said the permit helps track duration and allows enforcement against long-term misuse.

Next steps: Chad told council that staff review of remaining chapters should be complete in the coming weeks, the planning board would take up the draft in mid-December, and the council could begin readings early in 2025. He recommended allowing time for another council work session and for staff to circulate the full post-draft UDO for review before formal hearings. No final votes or formal actions on the ordinance were recorded in the session.

Council and staff agreed to return with the complete draft and suggested timing for hearings so council members can review details and provide direction before the planning-board hearing and subsequent council readings.