Pittsboro planning commission backs package of UDO updates, debates pond-safety measures

The Pittsboro Plan Commission voted unanimously to recommend a package of amendments to the town's Unified Development Ordinance to the town council, after staff presented a task-force-driven reorganization of uses and a proposal to add missing landscape standards.

Cynthia, the town planner, told the commission the task force used the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) to reorganize Appendix A so uses are broader and more consistent, with new permitted, special and prohibited-use designations. She also outlined proposed new definitions in Chapter 13 and recommended creating use-specific conditions in Chapter 7 to standardize requirements for certain uses (the industrial-use example was provided as a template).

On the Jeff Gordon Boulevard overlay district, staff recommended a geographic extension south to Ward Street that would not change existing overlay standards but would expand the area subject to those standards.

The most substantive public response came during the landscape standards amendment (Section 8.5). Jesse Thompson, a resident who provided his address during public comment, asked whether the ordinance differentiates ornamental and shade trees and raised safety concerns about retention ponds, suggesting lifesaving rings and ropes. Cynthia said the town maintains a tree-list appendix that differentiates species and that local entities have generally installed pond-safety devices; she added the proposed 8.5 language is intended to provide predictable standards for subdivisions, commercial and industrial sites where those rules are currently missing from the UDO.

Commissioners pressed staff on maintenance and enforcement: Cynthia pointed to an existing maintenance section stating that property owners are responsible for upkeep and that dead plant material must be replaced within 30 days (with weather exceptions), and she said the landscape requirements would apply going forward rather than retroactively to previously approved subdivisions. Commissioners discussed how inspection and complaint processes typically trigger enforcement for older subdivisions.

The commission also approved a short-forms/housekeeping amendment to correct page and section numbering across the UDO so references remain current.

All of the UDO amendment motions on the agenda were seconded and passed by voice vote without recorded dissent; the meeting record shows these recommendations carried by unanimous votes (6–0) where noted.

The planning commission will forward the recommended ordinance amendments to the Pittsboro Town Council for consideration.